Shelbi’s thoughts on the infallibility of the Bible


From the time I became a Christian, I heard from my fellow protestants that Roman Catholics were weird, and very likely wrong about a lot of things.

I heard about how the Catholics were in cahoots with various kings, and that many of the popes were depraved, evil men.  I heard about the “Apocrypha,” [that’s Maccabees and all those other books at the end of the old testament that you find in the Catholic bible, but not the protestant version] that the Catholics added to the Bible [turns out the protestants took it out, but that’s semantics, right?] and the protestants believed that the Catholics used the apocrypha to justify things like paying alms for the dead, purgatory, and various other things that protestants don’t believe in.

So here’s my beef.  Regardless of who’s right, either way, we have a real historical documentation of someone adding to, or taking away from, the holy scriptures.  If we have one such case of distortion/altering of the Bible, how can we know for sure that it’s the only one?

We can’t.  Which puts the veracity, the infallibility, of the whole thing in question.  Which parts were changed to suit the religious leaders of the day, and which were there in the first place?

Knowing that the Bible very likely has additions or subtractions that did not come from God is a whole helluva lot more difficult to deal with than blind faith in the Bible’s infallibility, but given that one ‘for sure’ instance of distortion, how can anyone seriously believe that it is infallible?

God gave us free will, so you can’t use the whole, “Well, because God wouldn’t allow it to be changed” argument.  If someone wanted to, he would allow it.  Besides the fact that we already know that he did allow it at least once…


About Shelbi

Work-at-home wife, mom of three kids, and caregiver for my brother, who has Cerebral Palsy. Never a dull moment, in other words. No idea how much I'll post, since I'm super busy these days, but maybe I'll get over here once in a while.

One response »

  1. I stumble. By the simplicity of this question. You take a dogma about so-called “infallibility” of the Bible out of nowhere, and then you ask why that dogma fails.
    Well, i understand, of course, that this is a protestant teaching, and that you get it for granted, but this is a good example how there are different faiths. One faith is to look for God, like Deuteronomy asks, and another thing to just take it for granted, the second being a meaningless and useless thing. Why create a man with a free heart and a mind and ask to take it something for granted? You ought to understand things you believe. Or otherwise don’t blame them when they fail you because you haven’t sought enough to understand them.

    Well, to the subject of bible substractions. It seems you haven’t read or understood anything that was sayd about Hermeneutics from the link I gave you. Like “It was written by the Church, in the Church and for the Church”. Why Bible is “infallible”? Simply because the Church accepted its canon, because the Church said: “these are the text that I recognize as inspired by my God”. What’s the problem if the canon was extended by the same Church? There is no problem. Bible is a only a part of Holy Tradition. To deny further works of Holy Spirit within the Church is to deny the Church (which might be the case for Protestants, BTW).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s