Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Neon Genesis

Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

Recommended Posts

I have just one question for Christians to answer. Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an invalid question, it assumes that a falsehood is true.

 

The bible is the "word of truth".

 

The "sword of the spirit" is the word of God.

 

When you make a clear division (as a sword would) between right and wrong (good and evil) so that the change from right to wrong is clear and abrupt/sudden (none of this 'different levels' like 'naughty', 'sneaky', etc.) and there is no middle ground between the two ("no variation", James 1:17), that is the "sword" OF God's spirit (right is right and wrong is wrong, and never the twain shall meet).

 

The bible is the introductory doctrine of Jesus. It is good for the TRAINING of young Christians, but spiritual growth (knowing God better) requires maturity in the relationship with Him and letting God return the personal relationship (seldom ever done or even understood).

 

Hebrews 6:1

"Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity..."

 

 

Ephesians 1:13

"have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation"

 

Colossians 1:5

"in the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation"

 

2 Timothy 2:15

"rightly handling the word of truth".

 

James 1:18 "the word of truth"

 

John 14:6 "I am the way, the TRUTH..."

 

 

Ephesians 6:17

 

"the sword of the spirit (which is the word of God)"

 

The bible contains some of the words of God up until 2000/1900 years ago, but we should live by every word that presently proceedS from the mouth of God ("My sheep HEAR my voice", John 10:27).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an invalid question, it assumes that a falsehood is true.

 

Why is it an invalid question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an invalid question, it assumes that a falsehood is true.
Like what? What's the falsehood? All I asked is why do you need the bible to be the 100% word of god to find value in it? In other words, why do you need to defend biblical inerrancy to be a Christian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an invalid question, it assumes that a falsehood is true.

 

The bible is the "word of truth".

 

The "sword of the spirit" is the word of God.

OK so fine, the Bible is not all of the word of God. But that's not the question. Of this "word of truth", as you called it, as Neon asked, is it 100% necessary for it to be 100% literally factual for it to have value to Christians? In other words, if you found out that there never was a real Nicodemus who Jesus said you must be "born again" to, would the story cease to have value to you?

 

That's a pretty straight forward question. Any other Christians are also welcomed to offer their thoughts to this as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an invalid question, it assumes that a falsehood is true.

 

The bible is the "word of truth".

 

The "sword of the spirit" is the word of God.

...(etc)

Nothing you said really proved anything.

 

And I also wonder what the "falsehood" is? Here's the question again: "Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?"

 

Do you mean, the word "Bible" is a falsehood, or the usage of the word "literally", "true", "perfect", or "inerrant?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More bullshit!

 

I just had to see this thread because I saw your name in it... and I was not disappointed. At least you're consistent in your arrogance. You're also capable of utilizing your word specific search engine for the Bible.

 

I guess I'm willing to hear you spew if you at least make an attempt at actually answering a question from your own mind rather than going off on an off-beat tangent.

 

Example:

 

Q - "Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?"

 

A - "Because if it wasn't the literal, true, and perfect word of God, I feel I would be basing my life on a fallacy."

 

 

See how simple that was? Your answer can be quite different than the example provided, but please, for the love o' Pete, refrain from utlilizing snippets of scripture in conjunction with the oracle posturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an invalid question, it assumes that a falsehood is true.

 

It appears you are trying to use what we exchristians and evolutionists say about your kind in any odd debate. In those instances it is most definatly valid. You, on the other hand, merely put that up there to sound pretty and clever. Yet i don't believe it's possible that you could have failed on all fronts any more than you did.

 

gogglegooglebogglyduke

 

As for the rest of what you wrote, as Han said, you didn't really explain anything. You just typically quoted verses and called that an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just one question for Christians to answer. Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?

 

The Bible does not have to be believed as 100% inerrant by an individual to have value for that person - many Christians believe (unfortunately) that the Bible has inaccuracies or errors regarding history, science, geography, etc. But regarding faith & practice, they do consider the Bible as 'infallibale.' Therefore, they will believe in Jesus Christ aas Lord & Savior, and in Christian conduct as set forth in Scripture; thus deriving value in their own personal lives.

 

However, Biblical inerrerancy is defended by many Christians - laymen & scholars - based on its own claims and various lines of extra-Biblical data. First, the claim to be God's word, God's written revelation to Man >> if the Bible is God's word, then it cannot, by definition, have mistakes. God knows everything perfectly and cannot lie, so how could He have mistakes in His book. Several passages teach that the Bible was authored by God the Holy Spirit - and that God taught men spiritual words, that God guided the men as they wrote the Scriptures, that God commanded men to write down His words, and that all Scripture is "God-breathed", etc. SO - if God cannot guide men to write an inerrant document, that would indicate weakness in God, an inability to produce pure truth through men. If God cannot produce an inerrant book, can He save sinners?

 

In addition, Jesus believed the Bible was accurate. Jesus believed in Creation, Adam & Eve, the Flood, Moses using the serpent in the wilderness to cure snake bite, etc. SO, since as Christians we believe that Jesus is God Incarnate - and Jesus believed the Old Testament - then who are we to deny the veracity of those events? Even if they seem strange to us? And also, the Old Testament has been used by archeologists successfully for many years. And different theories that Old Testament people (2,000 BC) couldn't write or travel well has also been disproven from other historical writings.

 

Regarding the Life of Jesus; four Gospels were composed from eye-witness accounts. The Gosples were written by Apostles or close associates of Apostles. The thought that a bunch of fisherman from Galilee could pass off documents claiming Deity & Messiah status for a carpenter from Nazareth - which then went on to become a world religion - is simply not tenable. If there were serious contentions about New Testament in Israel - most of whom did not believe in Jesus - then the Bible would have been readily exposed and rejected by the unbelievers and Jews of that time.

 

But rather, the New Testament was not proven false then - or now. People claim the Bible is wrong - but there are no proofs that any statement in the Bible is false.

 

In summary - inerrancy hangs on the Bible defined as God's word - God cannot be mistaken; and historical/archeological evidence confirms Biblical accuracy.

 

Then without inerrancy, there's the issue of determining what is true or false in Scrupture. Who's qualified to determine that which is and that which is not God's word? Would mere humans seek to stand in judgment of God? Is that advisable? How do you guard againsrt human biases and weaknesses in this process? Inerrancy brings in rampant subjectivity.

 

Were you looking for anything else, or does any of this suffice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible does not have to be believed as 100% inerrant by an individual to have value for that person - many Christians believe (unfortunately) that the Bible has inaccuracies or errors regarding history, science, geography, etc. But regarding faith & practice, they do consider the Bible as 'infallibale.' Therefore, they will believe in Jesus Christ aas Lord & Savior, and in Christian conduct as set forth in Scripture; thus deriving value in their own personal lives.

 

I agree. I have seen that in practice.

 

As far as the rest, the Bible is true simply because it says it's true. There are far too many internal errors, conflicts, historical and factual errors to enumerate right now. I'm tired (and lazy) and just don't have the energy to go over this again.

 

But thanks for answering Neon's question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But rather, the New Testament was not proven false then - or now. People claim the Bible is wrong - but there are no proofs that any statement in the Bible is false.

 

In summary - inerrancy hangs on the Bible defined as God's word - God cannot be mistaken; and historical/archeological evidence confirms Biblical accuracy.

 

;) do you actually believe this? Have you read the bible? Carefully? Meticulously? I am doubtful, anyone who has done a comparative study of the gospels stories AND has a basic understanding of historiography would laugh at this claim.

 

If you are suggesting that there are no 100% proofs of historical inaccuracy then you are being stupid, because putting together ancient history is always a uncertain process.

 

However, there are passages that CLEARLY contradict one another. Compare the stories of Judas' death in Mathew and Acts, these two stories cannot be 100% reconciled no matter how much spin and metaphor people try to throw at it.

 

The majority of historians an archeologists treat the bible as they would ANY other ancient document. In other words, it has both good and bad information in it, and archeological finds contradict the bible as often as they support it. Inerrancy is a joke and the only people who take it seriously are either ignorant or deluding themselves. To claim that the studies of history or archeology support the claim, or that most archeologists would find in believable is just unsupportable nonsense.

 

Can you provide a link to ONE non-religious archeological peer-reviewed journal that has published works arguing that the bible is 100% historically accurate? If you can't put forth the proof don't make bald assertions.

 

Then without inerrancy, there's the issue of determining what is true or false in Scrupture. Who's qualified to determine that which is and that which is not God's word? Would mere humans seek to stand in judgment of God? Is that advisable? How do you guard againsrt human biases and weaknesses in this process? Inerrancy brings in rampant subjectivity.

 

Haha, how do you guard against human bias anyway? Even if you accept the bible as inerrant you still have to interpret it with your human mind. Even more so, because you must accept all of the bible many passages must be twisted and bent to the breaking point in order to make them acceptable, scientifically, historically, and even morally. How do you ensure you are interpreting things correctly? The answer is that you don't. There is no way to know, because god is strangely silent, and different groups of Christians have "interpreted" the bible in 20,000 different ways.

 

The fact that you think your interpretation is the correct one is entierly and accident of your birth place and family. I live in Japan now and I can tell you if you asked most of my students if they even knew what the bible was they wouldn't have a clue. So much for the "universal" word of god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thought that a bunch of fisherman from Galilee could pass off documents claiming Deity & Messiah status for a carpenter from Nazareth - which then went on to become a world religion - is simply not tenable.

 

Why on earth do you say this? Cults spring up all the freakin time by a whole lot more crazy men than fishermen from Galilee and followers join in like they always have.

 

but there are no proofs that any statement in the Bible is false.

 

Amongst the plethora of stupid and idioctic crap that is said on these boards by christians, i nominate this as the cake taker.

 

And also, the Old Testament has been used by archeologists successfully for many years.

 

Guess what chief, so has the Koran. Now what about it? That proves nothing.

 

And different theories that Old Testament people (2,000 BC) couldn't write or travel well has also been disproven from other historical writings.

 

Did you know that the domestic camels that Genesis talks about is scientificaly proven to a falshood of the Bible? Camels in that part of the world were not yet domesticated at that time. Also, the slaughter of the innocents by Herrod never happened, for there is jack crap in the archeological record to support it. So, if you can prove one thing false about the Bible, then there goes the whole shabang, right? Well, there's ya two.

 

Rayskidude, how bout this. Instead of going around saying the Bible is the pure, infalible word of god, prove this. Kind words put out for it is all fine and dandy but can't hold up to any scrutiny. Instead of believing what the preacher tells you, how bout doing some research yourself. Just read around on this site or any of the hundreds across the net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding the Life of Jesus; four Gospels were composed from eye-witness accounts. The Gosples were written by Apostles or close associates of Apostles. The thought that a bunch of fisherman from Galilee could pass off documents claiming Deity & Messiah status for a carpenter from Nazareth - which then went on to become a world religion - is simply not tenable.

 

Ha, I almost missed this. Are you really for real? You read like a Josh McDowell book.

This claim is just silly,

Mohammad was an illiterate trader who got lucky and married a rich woman.

Confucius was the son of a old Soldier who married a 20 year old woman when he was near 60, Confucius was a nobody from an unimportant Provence and by the time of his death he commanded so much respect that even the emperor of China would have been afraid to cross him.

Buddha was the son of a wealthy ruler who left everything behind and became penniless.

In any of these cases and more you could argue that it was not "tenable" for a world religion to be founded because of the acts of these men. But it happened.

 

 

If there were serious contentions about New Testament in Israel - most of whom did not believe in Jesus - then the Bible would have been readily exposed and rejected by the unbelievers and Jews of that time.

 

What like L. Ron Hubbard has been exposed for the fraud he is? Like UFO and Bigfoot nuts are all exposed? What about people who still think Elvis is alive? For the first 50 years or more, Christianity was likely no bigger than these groups...most people probably thought they were kooks, but hardly worth refuting. Even if they had would the Christians have listened? You can tell a Realian that his beliefs are non-sense all day but he will keep believing.

 

There were all sorts of kooky cults at that time, just as there are now, Christianity was just lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time to become dominant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You posted a good reply, Rayskidude, save for unsupported and non-factual assertions.

 

I was going to refer to a different contradiction than Kuro did (there are many to choose from), but since Kuro beat me to the punch, that one is perfectly good, and you only need one example to demonstrate that the bible is fallible, right? I'll post the text (although anyone could look it up):

 

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."

 

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

 

Like biblical contradictions, there are many biblical claims that do not mesh with what we have learned about history, geology, cosmology, etc. Many would require lengthy discussions to summarize science that not everyone might be familiar with or have background in, but since you yourself mentioned the flood... it's trivial to demonstrate that every species on the planet, specialized to their environments, could not fit on an ark of biblical dimensions, survive, repopulate the earth with only two specimens of each species, after journeying back and forth from around the globe, including places like Australia and remote oceanic islands. Then there is the problem of the mechanics of the flood itself. We have glacial rocks giving evidence of puny past ice ages, yet no such evidence for a 40 day flood that covered the highest mountain tops!!???

 

Oh, and for a more succinct one, do you maintain that all serious mathematicians generally agree that the value of pi is 3? Do you think that those who claim that it is 3.1415926535... are wrong? Mind you, a high school student can easily calculate this and understand how he gets his result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kcdad
'rayskidude' date='Jan 20 2009, 07:11 PM' post='425396']

 

 

In addition, Jesus believed the Bible was accurate. Jesus believed in Creation, Adam & Eve, the Flood, Moses using the serpent in the wilderness to cure snake bite, etc. SO, since as Christians we believe that Jesus is God Incarnate - and Jesus believed the Old Testament - then who are we to deny the veracity of those events? Even if they seem strange to us? And also, the Old Testament has been used by archeologists successfully for many years. And different theories that Old Testament people (2,000 BC) couldn't write or travel well has also been disproven from other historical writings.

 

You have no idea what Jesus believed... that he referred to a parable from The Old Testament is not even the slightest evidence of belief it was a historical event.

 

Regarding the Life of Jesus; four Gospels were composed from eye-witness accounts.

 

That statement is so deceptive it might as well be an outright lie. Luke didn't know ANYONE who walked with Jesus. He knew Paul. I doubt Luke was ever in Palestine, let alone Jerusalem or Galilee.

 

The Gosples were written by Apostles or close associates of Apostles.

 

Again, so deceptive it is the same as a lie. NOT ONE APOSTLE wrote a Gospel. No serious scholar thinks John wrote John, or Matthew wrote Matthew. Luke wa snot a an Apostle and Mark is never identified in the Gospel as an Apostle, an eyewitness or any one.

 

 

 

In summary - inerrancy hangs on the Bible defined as God's word - God cannot be mistaken; and historical/archeological evidence confirms Biblical accuracy.

 

 

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. (except for the archeology thing... certainly some things have been confirmed like the existence of Jericho. That archeological find does not prove everything in the Bible is accurate. Where is The Ark? Where is the Garden of Eden? Where is the tomb of Jesus? Where are Sodom and Gomorrah? Where are the stones Joshua placed as a perpetual memorial to Yahweh in the Jordan river? Where is Solomon's temple? Where is the evidence of the Earth coming to a dead stop for more than a day and then restarting on its 1000 mile per hour revolution?) BTW did you know that in the movie Independence Day there is a scene with the White House and The Capital Records building in LA being destroyed by the aliens? Just because a story refers to something that exists, does not make that story true or factual.

So, the truth is that it hangs on defining The Bible as God's word. Since nothing written COULD POSSIBLY be God's word... the prophets and Jesus always SPOKE God's word, and since they all said different things, it is safe to presume they were paraphrasing and putting the "word of God" into their own words, their own language, their own imagery... (GOD HAS NO LANGUAGE. Language is a human invention.)

 

God can not be mistaken... That is not what you mean, of course... we take God wrong all the time. God is nearly always mistaken. You mean that God can not make a mistake. I'll take that as axiomatic. Therefore, we MUST be both mistaken and mistaking, anytime we say anything about God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just one question for Christians to answer. Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?

 

The Bible does not have to be believed as 100% inerrant by an individual to have value for that person - many Christians believe (unfortunately) that the Bible has inaccuracies or errors regarding history, science, geography, etc. But regarding faith & practice, they do consider the Bible as 'infallibale.' Therefore, they will believe in Jesus Christ aas Lord & Savior, and in Christian conduct as set forth in Scripture; thus deriving value in their own personal lives.

 

 

From BibleGateway.com...Galatians 1:13-17

 

11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.

 

12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

 

13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

 

14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

 

15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased

 

16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,

 

17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

 

 

If your Precious Word, rayskidude, is inerrant and without flaw, then why is there an ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT allowing for one person to interpret Scripture in his own way as opposed to anoter way. Jesus revealed himself to Paul and he went on to preach his own version of Christianity seperate from Peter and the rest. If you claim that man is fallible and yet a man claims revelation from God or Jesus Christ, how is this possible? How do I know to trust it? What if two men interpret the same verse differently?

 

If anything cemented the nail in my belief coffin, it was that very passage written above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'rayskidude' date='Jan 20 2009, 07:11 PM' post='425396']

In addition, Jesus believed the Bible was accurate. Jesus believed in Creation, Adam & Eve, the Flood, Moses using the serpent in the wilderness to cure snake bite, etc. SO, since as Christians we believe that Jesus is God Incarnate - and Jesus believed the Old Testament - then who are we to deny the veracity of those events? Even if they seem strange to us? And also, the Old Testament has been used by archeologists successfully for many years. And different theories that Old Testament people (2,000 BC) couldn't write or travel well has also been disproven from other historical writings.

 

You have no idea what Jesus believed... that he referred to a parable from The Old Testament is not even the slightest evidence of belief it was a historical event.

I was thinking about that too when I read Rayskidude's post. How can he be sure Jesus believe the Bible to be accurate? Maybe it's from when Jesus supposedly said: till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law. That would indicate that Jesus claims the Word to be complete and without fault, right? But still it's kind of strange that Jesus would use a reference to a Greek letter, and not Hebrew, or Aramaic. It would suggest that Jesus believed the Greek translations are the accurate ones, and not the original Aramaic or Hebrew. But it's more likely the quote was just an addition to the story and not what Jesus really said, which leaves us even more in the dark of knowing Jesus' belief.

 

On another side note, Philo from Alexandria seemed to support the idea of more allegorical interpretation of the creation story, A&E, the ark, etc, and his writings (as I understand it) were preserved by the early Christians, which would be completely heretic literature if Jesus believed the Torah to be literally true. So either the early Christians were heretics, or Jesus wasn't as much literalistic as Ray thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kcdad
'rayskidude' date='Jan 20 2009, 07:11 PM' post='425396']

In addition, Jesus believed the Bible was accurate. Jesus believed in Creation, Adam & Eve, the Flood, Moses using the serpent in the wilderness to cure snake bite, etc. SO, since as Christians we believe that Jesus is God Incarnate - and Jesus believed the Old Testament - then who are we to deny the veracity of those events? Even if they seem strange to us? And also, the Old Testament has been used by archeologists successfully for many years. And different theories that Old Testament people (2,000 BC) couldn't write or travel well has also been disproven from other historical writings.

 

You have no idea what Jesus believed... that he referred to a parable from The Old Testament is not even the slightest evidence of belief it was a historical event.

I was thinking about that too when I read Rayskidude's post. How can he be sure Jesus believe the Bible to be accurate? Maybe it's from when Jesus supposedly said: till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law. That would indicate that Jesus claims the Word to be complete and without fault, right? But still it's kind of strange that Jesus would use a reference to a Greek letter, and not Hebrew, or Aramaic. It would suggest that Jesus believed the Greek translations are the accurate ones, and not the original Aramaic or Hebrew. But it's more likely the quote was just an addition to the story and not what Jesus really said, which leaves us even more in the dark of knowing Jesus' belief.

 

On another side note, Philo from Alexandria seemed to support the idea of more allegorical interpretation of the creation story, A&E, the ark, etc, and his writings (as I understand it) were preserved by the early Christians, which would be completely heretic literature if Jesus believed the Torah to be literally true. So either the early Christians were heretics, or Jesus wasn't as much literalistic as Ray thinks.

 

The Law does not mean The Old Testament. In general it can include the Levitical laws in Levitcus and Deuteronomy as well as what Moses gave the people at Mt Sinai. Jesus probably meant something much more abstract... more along the lines of love God and love your neighbor... that was the way he spoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Law does not mean The Old Testament. In general it can include the Levitical laws in Levitcus and Deuteronomy as well as what Moses gave the people at Mt Sinai. Jesus probably meant something much more abstract... more along the lines of love God and love your neighbor... that was the way he spoke.

True. Still, the reference to "iota" would have been an idiom lost to the uneducated Aramaic fishermen culture. How would the non-literal workers know "iota" meant the "smallest thing?" Seems like the audience was Greek, not Jewish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kcdad
The Law does not mean The Old Testament. In general it can include the Levitical laws in Levitcus and Deuteronomy as well as what Moses gave the people at Mt Sinai. Jesus probably meant something much more abstract... more along the lines of love God and love your neighbor... that was the way he spoke.

True. Still, the reference to "iota" would have been an idiom lost to the uneducated Aramaic fishermen culture. How would the non-literal workers know "iota" meant the "smallest thing?" Seems like the audience was Greek, not Jewish.

 

Perhaps. Or iota is simply the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "little thing" in its alphbet.

Perhap sit is just a translation thing. After all, none of the rest of that saying is in Hebrew or Aramaic either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps. Or iota is simply the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "little thing" in its alphbet.

Perhap sit is just a translation thing. After all, none of the rest of that saying is in Hebrew or Aramaic either.

That's a possibility...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, Biblical inerrerancy is defended by many Christians - laymen & scholars - based on its own claims and various lines of extra-Biblical data.
Which scholars? And fundamentalist Christians who couldn't defend their way out of a paper bag and actually believe in talking snakes don't count as "scholars."

 

First, the claim to be God's word, God's written revelation to Man >> if the Bible is God's word, then it cannot, by definition, have mistakes. God knows everything perfectly and cannot lie, so how could He have mistakes in His book. Several passages teach that the Bible was authored by God the Holy Spirit - and that God taught men spiritual words, that God guided the men as they wrote the Scriptures, that God commanded men to write down His words, and that all Scripture is "God-breathed", etc. SO - if God cannot guide men to write an inerrant document, that would indicate weakness in God, an inability to produce pure truth through men.
Even if God is perfect and can't have mistakes, the bible was written by humans, so wouldn't it obviously be open to human errors and inaccuracy? Furthermore, universal objective perfection does not exist because perfection is not an objective fact, it's a subjective opinion. You saying the bible is the perfect word of God would be like me saying Hawaii is the most perfect island ever and if you don't believe me, you just don't have enough faith. And why do you have to believe the bible is the inerrant word of God just because it says it was "God-breathed?' If everything in the bible must be taken as literal historical fact, then why don't you follow Luke 14:26 literally and hate yourself?
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

 

If God cannot produce an inerrant book, can He save sinners?
Speak English please, not Christianeze.

 

In addition, Jesus believed the Bible was accurate. Jesus believed in Creation, Adam & Eve, the Flood, Moses using the serpent in the wilderness to cure snake bite, etc. SO, since as Christians we believe that Jesus is God Incarnate - and Jesus believed the Old Testament - then who are we to deny the veracity of those events?
Where in the bible does Jesus say he believed these to be true events? Also, where in the bible does Jesus say he was God Incarnate? And if you believe that Jesus is God and don't question anything the bible claims Jesus said, then do you believe God approves of slavery as it says in Luke 12:48? Why don't you take this verse literally if you believe the bible to be the literal word of God?
But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

 

And also, the Old Testament has been used by archeologists successfully for many years. And different theories that Old Testament people (2,000 BC) couldn't write or travel well has also been disproven from other historical writings.
Like what? You mean like how the bible claims the Earth is flat? Be more specific please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding the Life of Jesus; four Gospels were composed from eye-witness accounts. The Gosples were written by Apostles or close associates of Apostles. The thought that a bunch of fisherman from Galilee could pass off documents claiming Deity & Messiah status for a carpenter from Nazareth - which then went on to become a world religion - is simply not tenable. If there were serious contentions about New Testament in Israel - most of whom did not believe in Jesus - then the Bible would have been readily exposed and rejected by the unbelievers and Jews of that time.
Since when does popularity = truth? That's like saying because most people in the world at one time believed that Earth was flat and the bible says Earth is flat, that must mean science is wrong about the Earth being round and the Earth is flat. If the gospels are historically accurate accounts of the apostles, then explain why do the accounts of the resurrection all have contradictions? Like in Mark's gospel it says that Mary Magdalene met Jesus at the tomb, but then in Luke's gospel it says she met two men at the tomb? Which one is it if the accounts are so accurate?

 

But rather, the New Testament was not proven false then - or now. People claim the Bible is wrong - but there are no proofs that any statement in the Bible is false.
So you since believe the bible is never false, do you admit that God loses to iron chariots like it says in Judges 1:19?
So the LORD was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

 

 

Then without inerrancy, there's the issue of determining what is true or false in Scrupture. Who's qualified to determine that which is and that which is not God's word? Would mere humans seek to stand in judgment of God? Is that advisable? How do you guard againsrt human biases and weaknesses in this process?
If simply believing the bible is the inerrant word of God, then why are there over 35,000 denominations of Christianity in existence with completely different interpretations? Why is it that even Christians who believe the bible is the inerrant word of God can't agree with each other on what the bible teaches? Like does the bible teach modern day Christians can speak in tongues or lay hands on others or does it say those gifts ended with the deaths of the apostles? Does it teach that Christians have to be baptized to be saved or do they just have to say the sinner's prayer? Does the bible say Christians have to be baptized submerged in water or does the bible teach you just have to be sprinkled? Why can't even bible-believing Christians agree with each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One needs only to find a single error in the Bible to prove that the book is NOT the infallible Word of God. That part is easy. The hard part is for believers to accept historical and scientific facts, and to resist the temptation to torturously twist verses to support the positions they have been told by their leaders to maintain at all cost. It is impossible for the true believer to agree that if God inspired the authors word by word, he could just as easily prevented translation errors - which often become an excuse for troublesome verses. Faith is indeed blind.

 

For a few examples of Biblical problems, this is a place to start: LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a pretty good site florduh. Thansk for posting the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.