Yeah, the reason I put the word infallible in quotes was because, at least according to Church Tradition, “infallibility” doesn’t necessarily equate “impeccability”. The discussion I had on another thread about the OT being infallible but not impeccable revolved around this point. The person I was discussing with insisted that if there were physical errors from transcription, for example, then that meant the Bible couldn’t be infallible. So, this person insisted that the OT had no physical transcriptional errors, in order to maintain a belief of infallibility in the OT.
Personally, I agree with kosta and others that say that while the Bible may be physically altered and/or contain transcriptional error, that doesn’t mean it’s not infallible. It just means it’s not impeccable. But I was wondering what kosta’s take was on the OT when compared to the NT. Does he think there are more alterations in the NT? Does he believe there are any alterations in the OT at all? etc. Just a point of curiosity; I have no argument ready to spring.
Why, sure it has been altered. They added vowells to it, didn't they? In Hebrew/Aramaic, such a change can change words' menaings drastically. It's like using shp as a word; obviously it can mean anytyhinhg foms hip to shop to shape! The Masoretic text, also doesn't agree 100% with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and then there is the whole issue of the Septuagint.
Christian sources and the Septuagint show a lot more variation (corruption) than the OT copies, although they are not variation-free either, as the DSS show.
As far as the Septuagint is concerned, at least two copies were written by Jews at a later date in an attempt to birng it closer to the Masoretic (Hebrew) Text. The problem with it is that some DSS also agree with the Septuagint on some things. Samaritans also use their own version of the Torah. And lastly, most of the OT was tramsitted by the word of mouth; the oldest copies of OT verses go back to thast time, but not much beyond (there are some claims of silver scrolls dating back to the 7th cen BC but I don't see anyone buying that). We simp-ly have no evidence that as much corruption entered the Ot as the New.
Well, I believe I understand what you're trying to say. However the term "impeccable" means "flawless", "irreproachable", "perfect". Based on these synonyms, I would have to say scriptures is impeccable.
What is not impeccable is our capability to understand the scriptures. The scriptures were given to us with one purpose in mind, so that we may believe in the Lord Jesus. That being said, it is a very focused book that excludes other things about God that will be revealed when we are glorified. Some of the mysteries that exists are mysteries that simply touch these other areas. But I would say there are really few mysteries in the scriptures.
Some feel that a word here has been changed or a phrased has been added. I think these are silly arguments made by those who would like to cast doubt on God's word. God is the revealer of His word and for those who truly seek, they will truly find if God so grants His grace.