Does the Holy Bible claim it is a perfect, infallible book?

The word that makes more sense here is "inerrant." Infallibility is typically used when talking about councils.

where do we get off claiming the Bible's "infallibility?"

Well, the Catholics believe certain councils are infallible, and those councils said that the original written versions of certain books are inerrant, so they would say that everything in the Bible is true minus potential translation errors.

Paul wrote that all scripture is "god-breathed," so a lot of Protestants take that to mean the original meaning of the Bible is inerrant. However, there are technically a range of views on this: (a) traditional belief in biblical inerrancy, (b) "god-breathed" does not mean inerrant, (b) Paul was wrong on that specific point, (c) not everything in the New Testament is scripture in the sense that Paul meant, since he was referring to the OT, or (d) inerrancy only applies to faith and morals but not historical accuracy.

I don't think anyone is really arguing that the translators necessarily did a perfect job. But some would say that the original writings were inerrant when written.

Well stated, like a bible scholar

At one point jesus in debate said if scripture cant be 'set aside' then a point he was debating must have been true. I dont know if he was being hypothetical or stating factually that scripture cant be set aside. Of course then its a matter of what is scripture and what about scripture.

I personally believe scripture is inerrant on essential faith and morals. Msybe not all points concerning faith and morals but the essentials. Of course then it becomes figuring out what's essential.

This infallibility stuff is often applied by catholic and orthodox to their authority structure and they are the most credible sources of telling what official scripture even is

Bibles are inanimate bundles of paper, and as such make no claims and are neither infallible or fallible.

Unless they are recycled or burnt of course, though such a demise would be wholly human inspired rather than self sacrifice.

As it is the bible is largely a European readapted collection of old Judeo-Arabic folk tales and is what it is...Though some people like to read more into it.

Which isn't to suggest that the basic GOD principle isn't analogically reasonable.

Also it should be explicitly stated. The bible doesnt clearly state that the bible is true and even if it did itd be a circular argument needing outside support. That is, the bible is true because the bible says that its true

I don't think anyone is really arguing that the translators necessarily did a perfect job.

Well, people have to understand that translation errors are very common. tho in case of Bible, all versions say more or less same thing. You are really not going to find Bible which says something significantly different than other Bible. For example, some versions get certain numbers of soldiers differently, but that isnt really much relevant to message of Bible.

Now, what is very different, are parts which were left out of Bible, which is why they were left out.

You see, Bible wasnt written during Jesus's life, nor in any time near that. Bible is actually a sum of gathered documents, which was made after excluding all the undesirable documents.

Apocryphon of John is something you wont find in Bible or even on many Christian sites, and yes, it is very different from Bible, even tho it appeared at similar time and claims one of authors.

Apocryphon of John claims God of old testament is demiurge, which is actually a lot different from Bible, and once you realize that at the time Bible was written, there also existed many documents which claimed same authors but literally said entirely different things, then you see that some documents had to be excluded. And the total sum of documents is not even close to perfect. "Bible" is just name for documents which were left after all the "undesirable" documents were left out.

The Apocryphon of John (also called the Secret Book of John) is a key Gnostic Christian text from the 2nd century CE, preserved in the Nag Hammadi library. It presents a radically different creation story from orthodox Christianity.

Concise Summary

After Jesus’ resurrection, John the Apostle is troubled by doubts. Christ appears to him and reveals the hidden truth about God, creation, and salvation.

1. The True God and the Pleroma

1. The supreme God is an unknowable, perfect Monad (often called the Invisible Spirit).
2. From this God emanate divine beings called Aeons, forming the Pleroma (fullness of divine reality).
3. The first emanation is Barbelo, a divine feminine principle of thought and wisdom.

2. The Fall of Sophia and the Demiurge

1. One Aeon, Sophia, attempts to create without divine consent.
2. Her flawed act produces Yaldabaoth, an ignorant and arrogant being.
3. Yaldabaoth falsely believes he is the only god and creates the material universe with the help of lesser rulers (Archons).

3. Creation of Humanity

1. The Archons create Adam’s body, but it is lifeless.
2. Divine light from the higher realm enters Adam, giving him life and intelligence—more than his creators intended.
3. Eve is sent as a spiritual helper to awaken Adam, not as a source of sin.

4. Enslavement and Ignorance

1. The Archons trap humanity in material bodies, desire, and ignorance.
2. Traditional biblical figures (like the serpent) are reinterpreted as agents of knowledge, not evil.

5. Salvation Through Gnosis

1. Christ is sent from the higher God to restore knowledge (gnosis).
2. Salvation comes not through faith alone, but through awakening to one’s divine origin.
3. Those who gain gnosis return to the Pleroma; those who do not remain bound to material existence.

Core Themes

1. Radical dualism: spirit is good, matter is flawed
2. Salvation through knowledge, not obedience
3. Reinterpretation of Genesis
4. Critique of the creator god of the Hebrew Bible as the Demiurge

If you want, I can also provide:

1. a very short summary (3–4 sentences)
2. a comparison with Genesis or orthodox Christianity
3. or a timeline/diagram-style explanation

Gnostic beliefs did not gain long-term, widespread popularity primarily because they were viewed as a dangerous, elitist heresy by the rapidly organizing Christian Church, which possessed a more cohesive structure and universal appeal

. While Gnostic ideas were influential in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, they ultimately declined due to lack of organization, intense persecution by the Roman state and Orthodox Church, and demanding ascetic practices that were less attractive to the general public. 

Key reasons for Gnosticism's failure to gain long-term popularity include:

1. Suppression and Persecution: Early Church leaders, such as Irenaeus of Lyons, actively denounced Gnostic ideas as heresy. Later, Roman Emperors Constantine and Theodosius banned Gnostic sects, and the medieval Church conducted crusades and inquisitions against groups with Gnostic tendencies, such as the Cathars.
2. Lack of Organization: Unlike the early Catholic/Orthodox Church, which developed a hierarchical structure, Gnostic groups were often disjointed, fragmented, and lacked centralized authority.
3. Elitist Nature: Gnosticism often focused on "secret knowledge" (gnosis) for a select few rather than a universal message of salvation accessible to all, making it less appealing to a mass audience.
4. Extreme Asceticism: Many Gnostic groups advocated for strict celibacy and shunned procreation, material wealth, and the physical world, which was seen as evil. This was less attractive to the average person compared to the message of Christianity.
5. Theological Differences: Gnostic beliefs directly contradicted core Christian doctrines. They generally believed the material world was created by an evil or flawed deity (the Demiurge) and viewed the physical body as a prison for the divine spark. They also denied the physical resurrection of Jesus and the importance of the material world.
6. Lack of Eyewitness Tradition: Gnostic writings (like the Gospel of Thomas) were often produced later than the canonical Gospels and lacked the direct, historical eyewitness testimony that gave the Orthodox Gospels authority. 

While Gnosticism had some popularity in specific areas during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, it was effectively stamped out, and its texts were largely destroyed, only to be rediscovered in the 1940s at Nag Hammadi. 

Gnostic beliefs directly contradicted core Christian doctrines. They generally believed the material world was created by an evil or flawed deity (the Demiurge) and viewed the physical body as a prison for the divine spark.

this is actually what Bible itself gets wrong and contradicts itself. Jesus even in Bible says this world is controlled by the evil one (read demiurge), meaning God of Old testament who ruled the world couldnt possibly be actual God but evil one.

Gnosticism is correct logically. Bible makes zero sense and will give opposite instructions, and will teach obedience to authority saying all authority is from God while at the same time claiming evil one rules all authority of this world and that Jesus's kingdom isnt of this world.

Gnostic beliefs did not gain long-term, widespread popularity primarily because they were viewed as a dangerous, elitist heresy by the rapidly organizing Christian Church, which possessed a more cohesive structure and universal appeal

. While Gnostic ideas were influential in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, they ultimately declined due to lack of organization, intense persecution by the Roman state and Orthodox Church, and demanding ascetic practices that were less attractive to the general public. 

Key reasons for Gnosticism's failure to gain long-term popularity include:

1. Suppression and Persecution: Early Church leaders, such as Irenaeus of Lyons, actively denounced Gnostic ideas as heresy. Later, Roman Emperors Constantine and Theodosius banned Gnostic sects, and the medieval Church conducted crusades and inquisitions against groups with Gnostic tendencies, such as the Cathars.
2. Lack of Organization: Unlike the early Catholic/Orthodox Church, which developed a hierarchical structure, Gnostic groups were often disjointed, fragmented, and lacked centralized authority.
3. Elitist Nature: Gnosticism often focused on "secret knowledge" (gnosis) for a select few rather than a universal message of salvation accessible to all, making it less appealing to a mass audience.
4. Extreme Asceticism: Many Gnostic groups advocated for strict celibacy and shunned procreation, material wealth, and the physical world, which was seen as evil. This was less attractive to the average person compared to the message of Christianity.
5. Theological Differences: Gnostic beliefs directly contradicted core Christian doctrines. They generally believed the material world was created by an evil or flawed deity (the Demiurge) and viewed the physical body as a prison for the divine spark. They also denied the physical resurrection of Jesus and the importance of the material world.
6. Lack of Eyewitness Tradition: Gnostic writings (like the Gospel of Thomas) were often produced later than the canonical Gospels and lacked the direct, historical eyewitness testimony that gave the Orthodox Gospels authority. 

While Gnosticism had some popularity in specific areas during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, it was effectively stamped out, and its texts were largely destroyed, only to be rediscovered in the 1940s at Nag Hammadi. 

Sorry, but my copy of the Catholic Catechism declares that the Bible is "the infallible Word of God." That's very explicit, not subject to interpretation. It also declares God as its "author," which, itself, is a poorly used word because that implies he more than "inspired," but actually penned the scriptures. He did not. That was the work of ordinary mortal men and women.

As I advised Savant, you'd best read the Catholics Catechism, which declares the Bible as "the infallible Word of God." No, I don't thin that is so since it is a product of ordinary men and women who were "inspired." But inspiration is not the same as authorship.

Do you think Bible is supreme authority regarding God of the Bible? Because from what I understand, Bible is the only source on God of the Bible. If you believe in God not as described in Bible, but differently, then you are not believing in God of the Bible. While Bible itself is just an unfortunate gathering of documents which was done using bias, you cannot logically believe in God of Bible and then say God isnt as described in Bible. So either Bible is considered true in description of God, or you dont believe in God of Bible. Now, other words in Bible could be considered fallible, but words on description of God cannot be considered fallible without doubting God as described in Bible.

The Bible, itself, does not declare its alleged infallibility, so, all your repetitive questions are the wrong questions. And the Bible, alone, is not the only scripture in which I have personal assurance of the existence of, and supreme authority of God. And, even the Earth, herself, and the universe beyond it, testify to the existence and glory of God; we do not even need to limit that assurance to a document such as the Bible.

the problem, as I said, lies in simple fact that if you believe in God as described in Bible with certainty, you cannot at the same time consider that description fallible (uncertain). So while other parts of Bible can be fallible, any part of Bible which includes God, is considered infallible if you believe in God as described in Bible with certainty. So for person who believes in God described in Bible with certainty, person cannot at same time claim uncertainty in God as described in Bible. So if you are a Bible God believer, you cannot at the same time not believe in God of Bible. So for you, those descriptions are indeed logically infallible unless you are not certain believer in God as described in Bible. And if you doubt Bible, then Bible claiming Bible is infallible (which isnt even a logically possible statement), even if such claim was found in Bible, you would doubt it. So Bible claiming Bible is infallible would be just a pointless claim, because you either doubt or dont doubt Bible. If you doubt, then such claim is literally pointless and plays no role in scripture. If you dont doubt, claim is unnecessary. So if you are wondering why Bible didnt include obviously pointless or unnecessary claim, well, you have your answer.

But if you really want Bible verses which point to God's words (which if you dont consider God liar, are infallible) speaking through people:

"For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me; his word is on my tongue.

But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/god_speaking_to_us_through_other_people

this isnt to say all Bible is infallible, but if you assume Bible God cannot lie, then any time Bible says that God speaks through people, I am sure that is infallible, because Bible says God isnt a liar (which is a form of infallible).

But, the question you propose is not posed to a single person, is it? It is posed to a variety of persons with a variety of beliefs relative to God; therefore, variant answers. Therefore, the answer is inconsistent.

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2023%3A19%2CTitus%201%3A2%2CHebrews%206%3A18&version=KJV

So yes, Bible says God's word isnt a lie, and that means it is infallible.

"For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

And still, you must conclude that even inspired, as prophets were, how they interpret "inspiration" varies widely from what may have actually been inspired. Hence, differing interpretations from those inspired. Then, camp on top of that the variable translations that have occurred to different languages than that spoken/written by those who were inspired. Who is infallibility derived fr4om that confusion?

I am not saying Bible is infallible. No. I consider Bible very fallible.

However, Bible clearly says God's word is infallible (cannot be lie), and God's word is contained in Bible, so that part of Bible is infallible (cannot be lie) as stated in Bible itself.

Now, just because Bible is fallible, and even a claim of being infallible would still be fallible, doesnt mean that Bible doesnt obviously claim two things:

1. Bible claims to contain word of God
2. Bible claims word of God cannot be lie (infallible)

The logic applies to both.

If the Bible is the word of God. The Bible cannot be falliable.

The words of the Bible were meant to resonate on many different levels to bring about a synthesis of mind, heart, and soul, they were meant to be listened to with the heart and responded to with the heart in order to give expression to the soul that is within the words and events that they expressed. The original words surely revealed dimensions that go beyond the surface understanding of any written translation, they were designed to integrate the listener's reality with God's reality and show how they are one. You simply cannot confuse a literal translation of the words with the experience of Truth that they attempted to impart.

Jesus invited His listeners to “seek the Kingdom within” (Luke 17:21), and it is the truth that "is within" that the Bible speaks of and to. If we listen to that "voice within" we will know how to interpret it and we will be able to distinguish between what is permanent truth and what is cultural bias. Consequently, when I read the Bible, I try to read it with my heart rather than my intellect and to do so I change my focus from actively pondering the external events to passively opening to the internal, transcendent knowledge within.

We cannot confuse the words and the language with the reality and truth that they attempt to represent symbolically. Language is no more than a very limited symbol of the reality experienced and then expressed, changing in time and place, and meaning different things to different people of different points of view, in different contexts.

Biblical literalism creates a blindness that flows from thinking spiritual reality is as we have labeled it with words; we miss out on the depth and wonder of spiritual reality if we limit it to the words we use to describe it Literalism attempts to make faith stagnant, it doesn’t allow doctrine to change and adapt to circumstances in order to have contemporary meaning, and that is tragic because Scripture is referential to much more than some strange events that happened a long time ago, as Huston Smith said, "It is about religion alive".

Isaiah 55:8-9

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Spirituality is an electrochemical response to a stimulus and the heart is an integral body pump.

Why these things should be, is undeniably a source of wonder, and remains so.

The Christian magic man GOD is a relative explanatory concept...One amongst many.

More or less fanciful but inconclusive books have been written on these subjects.

Isaiah was an Israelite and supposedly had a pre-Christian stab at writing a book...But it is more likely that more modern scriptures attributed to Isaiah were compiled after his death...Just as most modern Christian scriptures and bibles were later interpretations, translations, compilations and modified theo-political propaganda.

Isaiah prophesied in Jerusalem during the 8th century BCE, serving the Kingdom of Judah from roughly 740 to 686 BC, ministering under kings like Uzziah, Jotham,Ahaz, and Hezekiah, during the rising threat of the Assyrian Empire, warning of judgment but also promising restoration. The Book of Isaiah itself is complex, with sections often dated to later periods like the Babylonian Exile (6th century BC) and the post-exilic era, suggesting multiple authors or editors over time.  

Key Time Periods:

1. The Prophet Isaiah's Life (c. 740-686 BC): 
2. He was active during a turbulent time when the Assyrian Empire threatened Israel and Judah, delivering messages of impending judgment and hope for a faithful remnant. 
3. 
   
4. First Isaiah (Chapters 1-39): 
5. Reflects Isaiah's time in Jerusalem, focusing on the Assyrian threat and God's judgment on Judah's rebellion. 
6. 
   
7. Second Isaiah (Chapters 40-55): 
8. Set during the Babylonian Exile (500s BC), offering comfort and hope for God's people.
9. 
   
10. Third Isaiah (Chapters 56-66): 
11. Addresses the post-exilic community, calling them to justice and righteousness as they prepare for future salvation.
12. 
    

In Summary: The prophet Isaiah lived in the 8th century BCE, but the book bearing his name contains prophecies from several centuries, reflecting different historical crises for Israel and Judah

DM me if youre open to deconvert from LDS to Catholicism.

I will evangelise privately to you.

Your profile disqualifies you.

It reads, “I worship Lord Yeshua, King of Kings. A Jew. I venerate his mother Miriam and adoptive father Yosef. Both are Jews. I would rather live in Israel than Syria or Pakistan.”

Thanks for your ditzy AI response

Sorry, ain't going to happen. Many have tried, including a Junior-year undergrad philosophy professor who promised me the same thing, only he was an atheist, and swore he world convert me. I nearly converted him, by his own end-of-year admission. He had no idea what I had as firm, historic knowledge in his own topic, let alone religion, and as personal witness to sufficient experiences ion. my life by keen observation of use of personal revelation to prove to me without doubt that I am on firm ground. You effort will not succeed, either. Sorry, but, go ahead if that is your schtick.

Jews haven't "stopped" converting to Christianity

, but conversions have significantly declined and are often viewed negatively within Jewish communities; many historical conversions were driven by antisemitism, social pressure, or integration into secular society (especially in Europe), while modern Jewish views emphasize Judaism as a covenant and discourage proselytizing, seeing a Jew becoming Christian as leaving the Jewish people, though some "Jewish Christians" believe Jesus fulfills prophecy. 

Historical Context & Reasons for Conversion

1. Early Christianity: Early followers of Jesus were a Jewish sect; the split became clearer as Christianity grew, especially with Gentile inclusion and Roman Empire adoption.
2. Forced & Social Conversion (Europe): Major conversion waves occurred in 19th-century Germany and Britain, often to escape antisemitism, gain social standing, or integrate into wider society, with prominent figures like Benjamin Disraeli converting.
3. Holocaust Era: Some Jews converted for refuge, though many such conversions were complex and debated, notes Loyola Marymount University. 

Modern Jewish Perspectives

1. Judaism vs. Christianity: Judaism emphasizes the covenant with God and Torah observance, viewing it as a distinct path, not needing conversion to another faith for salvation, unlike traditional Christian views.
2. No Proselytizing: Judaism does not actively seek converts; the focus is on maintaining the covenant for the Jewish people.
3. "Jewish Christians": Those Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah often see it as fulfilling Jewish prophecy, not abandoning Judaism, but the wider Jewish community usually sees them as no longer Jewish. 

Modern Christian Perspectives

1. Shifting Views: Some denominations (like some Progressive Christians) have stopped targeting Jews for conversion, acknowledging God's plan for Israel, while others continue evangelizing efforts, according to this Wikipedia article.
2. Focus on God's Will: Pope Benedict XVI suggested that Israel's salvation is in God's hands, influencing some Catholic views, notes this Wikipedia article.