Is the Bible perfect?

[Grink]

I have always been told and believed that the Bible is perfect. However a couple of days ago I saw a website called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and it points out hundreds of inconsitancies and other bad things about the Bible. I had never read much of the Bible, so I was surprised when I did check and found that the website seems to be right. Has anyone else seen that website and if so, what do you think about it?

[RajunCajun86]

God is perfect

the Bible is God's Word

therefore the Bible is perfect

[Saeph]

God is perfect

the Bible is God's Word

therefore the Bible is perfect

I don't think that's actually true.

God is perfect.

But the bible is written by human beings, and not every word comes out of god's mouth. So I personally think it may be possible that the bible is not "perfect" - especially the Old Testament.

[arunma]

I have always been told and believed that the Bible is perfect. However a couple of days ago I saw a website called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and it points out hundreds of inconsitancies and other bad things about the Bible. I had never read much of the Bible, so I was surprised when I did check and found that the website seems to be right. Has anyone else seen that website and if so, what do you think about it?

Let me preface this by making one important comment: don't trust the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Don't trust infidels.org. Don't trust any atheist literature claiming that the Bible contradicts itself. The problem with atheist literature is that the authors almost always make false assumptions about Scripture, and often times they deliberately pervert the Scriptures to their own demise. Heck, I'll even go so far as to tell you not to trust anything that atheists say about the Quran. If you'd like to post an example of an atheist claim about the Bible, I'm sure that one of us here can demonstrate the lack of logic in atheist arguments.

Now as to your question, "is the Bible perfect?" First we need to understand what it means to be perfect. Sometimes people who say that the Bible is perfect believe that it contains the sum of all human knowledge, and that it can answer any question that man could possibly ask. This of course isn't true. For example, the Bible is not a science book; you can't learn scientific information from the Bible. Nor is it a compendium of all historical knowledge. While the Bible contains the history of the nation of Israel, many important religious figures, Christ, and the first century church, it still does not tell you very much about the ancient world outside of the Middle East. For example, you won't learn anything about ancient China from reading the Bible.

It's important to note that the Bible is a library of religious Scripture, and it can answer questions about the Christian religion. As has already been stated, the Bible is the written word of God. As such, it is perfect in the sense that it teaches true doctrine, true morality and ethics, and true history. In essence, everything that the Bible teaches us is true when interpreted properly. Furthermore, the Scriptures of the Bible are useful for preaching, teaching, and correction (among other things).

Does this help?

[Andyman_1970]

Where does the Bible say that it is perfect?

[Andyman_1970]

Also it's important to understand that in Jesus day the whole purpose of the rabbi's (which Jesus was) was to interpret the Scripture esspecially when two commands came into conflict with one another.....we might use the term "contradict". Typically a rabbi would judge which command was "heavier" and thus should be fulfilled and which one was "lighter" and could be superceeded by the "heavier" command.

This process of determinig which commands are "heavier" and which are "lighter" is a process called "binding and loosing"........Jesus gives His disciples authority to "bind" (prohibit aspects of Torah) and "loose" (permit aspects of Torah) in Matthew 16. We see them use this authority in Acts 15 with respect to Gentiles entering into the faith.

Anyway............just my 2 shekels worth...........

[RajunCajun86]

I don't think that's actually true.

God is perfect.

But the bible is written by human beings, and not every word comes out of god's mouth. So I personally think it may be possible that the bible is not "perfect" - especially the Old Testament.if you believe the Bible to be THE Word of God (which i do) then it HAS to be perfect as He is perfect
if the Bible is not perfect than you are accepting universalism, everyone makes up their own ideas, the Bible isn't true so we have to decide what God reveals to us as truth
the Bible is the foundation of our faith, establishing the need for salvation and how THE way was provided for us
without the Bible we don't even know that God is perfect
with your reasoning we shouldn't listen to sermons, read books or take advice from brothers and sisters because we can't decide what they are saying is true by matching it up with scripture because we aren't sure if scipture is true

[Andyman_1970]

if you believe the Bible to be THE Word of God (which i do) then it HAS to be perfect as He is perfect

Chapter and verse please?

if the Bible is not perfect than you are accepting universalism,................

Chapter and verse please............

I'm not trying to incite a dog fight here, I'm just curious as to your Scriptural substantiation for these ideas.

[RajunCajun86]

Chapter and verse please?

Chapter and verse please............

I'm not trying to incite a dog fight here, I'm just curious as to your Scriptural substantiation for these ideas.i will have to deny you your request at this time, the reasoning provided is sufficient for the case at the time being

[Andyman_1970]

i will have to deny you your request at this time, the reasoning provided is sufficient for the case at the time being

Ok.....................

Is this because there is no Scriptural substantiation for those comments? That's fine if there is none, it's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it..........I was just curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

[GordonSlocum]

I have always been told and believed that the Bible is perfect. However a couple of days ago I saw a website called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and it points out hundreds of inconsitancies and other bad things about the Bible. I had never read much of the Bible, so I was surprised when I did check and found that the website seems to be right. Has anyone else seen that website and if so, what do you think about it?

(1) Let me challenge you to get your hands on Books and literature that explains the transmission of the Bible.


(2) Once you study the history of the transmission and all that is involved you will appreciate the uniqueness of its existence.

(3) To date not one historical fact in the Bible has been disproved. Alleged but not disproved. Actually many over the years have said this and that about the Bible only to be proven wrong in the long run.

(4) Science can't disprove the Bible either.

(6) As far as the original manuscripts that each author started with they don't exist. The original manuscripts are the ones that are Inspired - God Breathed OK.

(7) We have copies of the inspired text, but do not have one shred of a piece of any original text to anyone's knowledge.

(8) The Bible was completely written over a period of around 1500 years, by some 40 plus human authors as they were born along by the Holy Spirit to record exactly what God wanted to tell us.

(9) The Bible when compared to any other existing ancient writing is overwhelmingly in tack and "perfect" in comparison. The current existing Copies are estimated to be 97 percent pure if not more.

(10) This phenomena is unparalleled in History. Nothing even comes close to this miraculous preservation of the Word of God.

(11) There are minor differences between this copy and that copy. They in no way compromise the Bible and they don't have any effect on doctrine.

(12) If you will be intellectually honest and read and study Conservative Scholarly Books on this subject you will be convinced that the Bible as we have it is reliable. It is not inspired, but is a copy of the inspired Word and is completely reliable. So the copies are not inspired but the original manuscripts are. The copies are almost 100 percent pure and that makes them reliable and true to the inspired copies. They are trustworthy.

I hope this helps.

Get in touch with a ministry like John Ancherburg, or Norman Giesler, or Liberty University, Friends or Israel, and others these people will refer you to literature that will convince you that the Bible is real and reliable.

God Bless - I will publish a few books hopefully today for your consideration and there may be others her that can also.

[RajunCajun86]

Ok.....................

Is this because there is no Scriptural substantiation for those comments? That's fine if there is none, it's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it..........I was just curious as to how you came to that conclusion.no, just not using any right now


God is perfect

the Bible is God's Word

therefore the Bible is perfect

[eldermike]

I have always been told and believed that the Bible is perfect. However a couple of days ago I saw a website called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and it points out hundreds of inconsitancies and other bad things about the Bible. I had never read much of the Bible, so I was surprised when I did check and found that the website seems to be right. Has anyone else seen that website and if so, what do you think about it?

There are some great answers posted on your question, there is not much to add here.

You will place your trust somewhere, there is no escape from that condition. If you trust Skeptic's annotated Bible then you are trusting in those that have no idea what truth is. In fact, Skeptics by nature only focus on what they believe to be un-true; they are in fact, not experts on what is true. If a Skeptic states that something is true they cease to be a skeptic.

It's a waste land, leave it as fast as you can run.

The bible claims it's "God breathed". Jesus said "By your faith you are healed".

Put these tow together and you will find that the road to Spirtual wellness is named; the name is FAITH.

[mont974x4]

2 Tim 3:16,17 Pretty well covers the origin and authority of Scripture.

[Project 86]

:scratch:
I find it ironic you want him to give you scripture to backup the idea that the scripture is perfect when you say it isn't perfect to begin with.
:doh:

Ok.....................

Is this because there is no Scriptural substantiation for those comments? That's fine if there is none, it's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it..........I was just curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

[tulc]

God is perfect
:amen:
the Bible is God's Word
uhmmm the Bible says Jesus is the Word. :sorry:
therefore the Bible is perfect
Actually if by perfect you mean none of the things in it are wrong I can agree with that. If you mean it alone is necessary then no, it isn't, it also needs the Holy Spirit to bring out the truth. Otherwise it's just words, good words, but just words none the less. (IMHO)
tulc(just finishing the last cup of coffee for the night) ;)

[Kristi1]

God is perfect

the Bible is God's Word

therefore the Bible is perfect



AMEN :amen: I 110% agree with you! Gods Living Word is Alive and 100% Correct in my KJV 1611 AV Bible! ;)

[arunma]

While I believe that the Bible is perfect (given the provisions I outlined in my previous post), I think that Andy is doing us a great service by causing us to question our belief in Biblical inerrency. "Why?" is both a valid and important question in Christianity, especially in Protestant Christianity. Catholics have the benefit of a magesterium and a Pope, who supposedly speak on behalf of God. If this were true, then how easy life would be, because there would always be living and accessible witnesses to testify to the will of God, so that we could blindly listen and obey.

The challenge of sola scriptura is that we are constantly required to check our beliefs against the Bible. The fact that our pastors (including my own pastor) preach Biblical inerrency does not necessarily make it so. We must constantly ask ourselves, "is this Biblical?" Otherwise we risk replacing the words of God with the traditions of man. So while I am not denying the doctrine of Biblical infallibility (I believe that the Bible is infallible), I would challenge everyone here to consider Andy's questions. I would also wish to point out that sola scriptura and Biblical infallibility are not quite the same thing. Sola scriptura is the belief that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the Christian church. Biblical infallibility is the belief that there are no errors in the Bible. One doctrine can potentially be true without the other. For example, if a person believed that the Bible contained some scientific or historical error, this would have no impact on the doctrines that it teaches, and therefore we could still believe that the Bible is the sole source for doctrine. From a technical viewpoint, it's important for us to keep these differences in mind.

[trinityisunity]

AMEN :amen: I 110% agree with you! Gods Living Word is Alive and 100% Correct in my KJV 1611 AV Bible! ;)




God's living word is also alive and correct in my NKJV, NASB, NIV, NLT and RSV, NRSV, AMPLIFIED and Good News Bibles. AMEN.:thumbsup: :P

[Kristi1]

God's living word is also alive and correct in my NKJV, NASB, NIV, NLT and RSV, NRSV, AMPLIFIED and Good News Bibles. AMEN.:thumbsup: :P


Be Very Careful hon.... the NIV OMITTING a lot Jesus Christ Blood!

[Andyman_1970]

:scratch:
I find it ironic you want him to give you scripture to backup the idea that the scripture is perfect when you say it isn't perfect to begin with.
:doh:

I've never made a characterization either way as to how I view the Scriptures on this thread, so that's a bit of an assumption on your part.

[Andyman_1970]

I would also wish to point out that sola scriptura and Biblical infallibility are not quite the same thing. Sola scriptura is the belief that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the Christian church. Biblical infallibility is the belief that there are no errors in the Bible. One doctrine can potentially be true without the other. For example, if a person believed that the Bible contained some scientific or historical error, this would have no impact on the doctrines that it teaches, and therefore we could still believe that the Bible is the sole source for doctrine. From a technical viewpoint, it's important for us to keep these differences in mind.

Well said................brother........

[Andyman_1970]

2 Tim 3:16,17 Pretty well covers the origin and authority of Scripture.

So if all Scripture is "God Breathed" (to include the NT, which may or may not be what Paul was referring to when he used the term "Scripture" in the passage you cite) what about 1 Corinthians 7:12:

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any
brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is
willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

Paul specifically says he is saying this and not the Lord.

Just curious how you reconcile this...........

[mont974x4]

Ask why Paul said that? Look at other Scripture dealing with divorce (or the subject of any verse in question). Does it line up with the other texts? Does it line up with the character of God? This is actually a simplified explanation of how we got the Bible as we have it today. For example, this is why the gnostic "gospels" were not included.

I believe what we have as the Bible today is what God intended us to have and He is responsible for all it says. I am not free to pick and choose what I want out of it. I am to be conformed to Him and His Word...not the other way around.

[Andyman_1970]

Ask why Paul said that? Look at other Scripture dealing with divorce (or the subject of any verse in question). Does it line up with the other texts? Does it line up with the character of God? This is actually a simplified explanation of how we got the Bible as we have it today. For example, this is why the gnostic "gospels" were not included.

I believe what we have as the Bible today is what God intended us to have and He is responsible for all it says. I am not free to pick and choose what I want out of it. I am to be conformed to Him and His Word...not the other way around.

I think you misunderstood my question, please know I'm not here baiting either with this.

Paul specifically says that those words in 1 Corinthians 7:12 are from him and not from God. So how does one reconcile the understanding that the Bible as we have it today is the "Word of God" and yet we have a part where the author specifically states those words are from him and not from God.

Anyway I was just curious as to how people reconcile that.

[eldermike]

Ask why Paul said that? Look at other Scripture dealing with divorce (or the subject of any verse in question). Does it line up with the other texts? Does it line up with the character of God? This is actually a simplified explanation of how we got the Bible as we have it today. For example, this is why the gnostic "gospels" were not included.

I believe what we have as the Bible today is what God intended us to have and He is responsible for all it says. I am not free to pick and choose what I want out of it. I am to be conformed to Him and His Word...not the other way around.

Amen. :clap:

[Andyman_1970]

I am not free to pick and choose what I want out of it.

But we do........

Did you greet your brothers in the faith with a "holy kiss" this past Sunday at church? That is a specific command to NT believers and yet we don't follow it. Being a part of a denomination means that we "agree" with the "picking and choosing" a group of people have already done ahead of us.

[eldermike]

But we do........

Did you greet your brothers in the faith with a "holy kiss" this past Sunday at church? That is a specific command to NT believers and yet we don't follow it. Being a part of a denomination means that we "agree" with the "picking and choosing" a group of people have already done ahead of us.

Yes we do. A hand shake is our tradition, but it perfectly follows this command.

[Andyman_1970]

Yes we do. A hand shake is our tradition, but it perfectly follows this command.

It follows the "spirit" of the command for sure, but we don't literally practice it.....at one time a group of people decided not to practice literally giving each other holy kisses. So in a way we do carefully "pick and choose" from the Text.

Please know I'm not arguing this to diminish the Text, I just want to be clear that in a way we do practice this with the Scriptures. Personally I believe Jesus gives us the authority to do this (all be it carefully, with guidance from the Holy Spirit and communally) in Matthew 16.

[eldermike]

It follows the "spirit" of the command for sure, but we don't literally practice it.....at one time a group of people decided not to practice literally giving each other holy kisses. So in a way we do carefully "pick and choose" from the Text.

Please know I'm not arguing this to diminish the Text, I just want to be clear that in a way we do practice this with the Scriptures. Personally I believe Jesus gives us the authority to do this (all be it carefully, with guidance from the Holy Spirit and communally) in Matthew 16.

It would be a great day when all Christians decided to follow the spirit of the teachings in the NT.
In fact Jesus many times described the spirit of a law, and it was in fact a higher standard than the literal.

[wmc1982]

Yes

[Andyman_1970]

It would be a great day when all Christians decided to follow the spirit of the teachings in the NT.
In fact Jesus many times described the spirit of a law, and it was in fact a higher standard than the literal.

Jesus was specifically referring to the Torah and it's application, not specific commands from NT authors some 10-20 years after Him.

The comment I was specifically addressing was:

I am not free to pick and choose what I want out of it [the Bible].

The problem is if we are part of a denomination we are entering into a system that has done some "picking and choosing".......otherwise there wouldn't be denominations.......LOL

I know what you're trying to say Mike, and I'm not arguing against it.......I'm just trying to show that there is some "picking and choosing" that takes place.

[eldermike]

Jesus was specifically referring to the Torah and it's application, not specific commands from NT authors some 10-20 years after Him.

The comment I was specifically addressing was:



The problem is if we are part of a denomination we are entering into a system that has done some "picking and choosing".......otherwise there wouldn't be denominations.......LOL

I know what you're trying to say Mike, and I'm not arguing against it.......I'm just trying to show that there is some "picking and choosing" that takes place.

I also know what you are trying to get across and I agree that this picking and choosing has taken place.

The true examples of it, if posted would get us in trouble, so I'l leave it there.:wave:

[Andyman_1970]

The true examples of it, if posted would get us in trouble, so I'l leave it there.:wave:

Agreed and understood brother.............;)

[Pepperoni]

I have always been told and believed that the Bible is perfect. However a couple of days ago I saw a website called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and it points out hundreds of inconsitancies and other bad things about the Bible. I had never read much of the Bible, so I was surprised when I did check and found that the website seems to be right. Has anyone else seen that website and if so, what do you think about it?
The problem with the "perfectness" of the Bible lies in the translation. I believe the Bible was perfect in it's original language but don't forget that MAN has translated it. Add to that the fact that some words in the original language represent entire ideas and have no one-word English equivalent--therefore presenting a problem.

[arunma]

So if all Scripture is "God Breathed" (to include the NT, which may or may not be what Paul was referring to when he used the term "Scripture" in the passage you cite) what about 1 Corinthians 7:12:

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any
brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is
willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

Paul specifically says he is saying this and not the Lord.

Just curious how you reconcile this...........

I have a response to this, Andy. Consider the Old Testament prophets. One could potentially say that every statement not preceded by "this is what the LORD says:" is the opinion of the author and not the word of God. Indeed in Romans 10, every time Paul quotes Isaiah, he tells us that he is quoting the words of Isaiah rather than the words of God. Yet the New Testament authors considered all of these words to be inspired by God, though they were not the exact words of God. Now based on Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 7:12, one can conclude that everything else the Apostle has said comes by direct revelation from God. One could very well compare it to a "thus says the LORD" statement from the Old Testament prophets. So although 1 Corinthians 7:12 may not be based on the direct words of God to the Apostle, they are nonetheless to be regarded as inspired by God. Or as Peter said at the end of his second letter, these words are written by means of the wisdom that God gave Paul.

[mont974x4]

Arunma, thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say.

[Isaac1970]

To open a whole new can of worms whose canon is inspired by God? Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestant.

We tend to grossly oversimplify and become dogmatic about everything. We forget that we are part of a much larger, diverse and ancient community than American Evangelicalism.

[tulc]

We forget that we are part of a much larger, diverse and ancient community than American Evangelicalism.

:amen:
tulc(well said!) ;)

[SomeHearts]

God wouldn't let HIS HOLY WORD be wrong. He wouldn't let a human to write something in there he didn't wamnt. God is might and powerful, and it is through him through those people, that the Bible was written. So YES it IS perfect :)

[arunma]

To open a whole new can of worms whose canon is inspired by God? Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestant.

We tend to grossly oversimplify and become dogmatic about everything. We forget that we are part of a much larger, diverse and ancient community than American Evangelicalism.

Most of those canons are almost the same. The Catholic and EO canons do not differ significantly. EOs sometimes include Old Testament apocryphal books such as 3 Maccabees. As far as I know, the Coptic and Oriental Orthodox canons are the same as the Catholic canon (but please correct me if I'm wrong). I've talked to a couple of Christians from the Orthodox Church of India, and the fact that they used Western Bible translations when reading the Scriptures in English suggests to me that they have no problem with our canon. The Protestant canon seems to be the most restrictive canon, so if any of the canons you described above are accurate, then so is the Protestant canon. The major dispute is over the seven books of the Apocrypha, and the 27 New Testament Scriptures are almost universally accepted. Of course there is the oddity of the Ethiopian Broader Canon...

In any case, it certainly is important to note that Christianity exists outside and independent of of America.

[jcright]

I sure hope the bible is perfect. Otherwise it brings my entire foundation to scrap. If I can't trust the greatest history book ever written, then what am I to trust? Especially when you consider IITim 3:16. If one thing in the bible is false, then that verse is false which means the bible as a whole cannot be trusted. Which means that the bible holds no proof for us to believe in Christ.

[RajunCajun86]

I sure hope the bible is perfect. Otherwise it brings my entire foundation to scrap. If I can't trust the greatest history book ever written, then what am I to trust? Especially when you consider IITim 3:16. If one thing in the bible is false, then that verse is false which means the bible as a whole cannot be trusted. Which means that the bible holds no proof for us to believe in Christ.you are correct

[eldermike]

I sure hope the bible is perfect. Otherwise it brings my entire foundation to scrap. If I can't trust the greatest history book ever written, then what am I to trust? Especially when you consider IITim 3:16. If one thing in the bible is false, then that verse is false which means the bible as a whole cannot be trusted. Which means that the bible holds no proof for us to believe in Christ.

I wish more people knew in their hearts the truth of what you say here.
I teach it this way:
First we agree that we learn scripture through a process called illumination. The bible supports this.
If Illumination works for you, then why not accept the bibles claim that it worked for the writers?. It's not some method that only worked once. It's not outside what we already know about how the Holy Spirit works.
You can believe it simply because you can understand it.

[Isaac1970]

arunma, vbmenu_register("postmenu_26201635", true);

My point about the different canons was merely to emphasize another area where there is no historical or universal consensus about bible.

The bible is an essential part of my christian life. Is the book itself perfect, no. Can the Holy Spirit use it to instill divine revelation into the hearts of men, yes. In many ways I think we have opened our intellects to the bible and closed our hearts to the Spirit.

Many ascribe to the bible the attributes of God... Holy, Perfect, Divine, Infallible, Inerrant... This is idolatry.

Christ sent us His Spirit to lead us into all truth, not a book.

I am not a liberal down on the bible for the usual reasons. I am jealous for God and covet His glory for Himself alone.

[Isaac1970]

vbmenu_register("postmenu_26201635", true);

I have no idea what that is or where it came from :scratch: ?

[RajunCajun86]

I am jealous for God and covet His glory for Himself alone.what God, what Holy Spirit, what glory, why should you give this God glory?

the only way to answer these questions is with the Bible

your "experiential" revelation of truth offers no standard by which we are to abide by

watch this:
"well the Holy Spirit revealed to me that Jesus wasn't really bodily raised from the dead"
but according to the Bible we know that He was and because the Bible is inerrant we know that the above statement is incorrect

making the false statement that the Bible is errant allows each of us to set up our own set of "rules" as the "Holy Spirit reveals them to us" with no way to "check" it for any truth

this makes for really ugly Christians who make up their own religion based on personal revelation
kinda like david koresh, joseph smith and muhammad

[Isaac1970]

RajunCajun86,


I was not advocating personal experiential revelation. Something more along the lines of scripture, tradition and reason.


And it is laughable to conclude that the bible definitively settles theological disputes. Just look around these boards. Everyone is bashing everyone else over the head with the bible. My three scriptures trump your two... my verses are in context yours are not... well I go back to the original Greek... well the earliest and best manuscripts don't contain those verses... blah, blah, blah... It all comes back to the Spirit.


The only video footage I've ever seen of David Koresh was with a bible in his hand. I believe he was deciphering the seven seals when the place came burning down.

Belief in a complete, infallible, inerrant, perfect bible does not guarantee untarnished understanding of objective truth.

[RajunCajun86]

And it is laughable to conclude that the bible definitively settles theological disputes. true
Belief in a complete, infallible, inerrant, perfect bible does not guarantee untarnished understanding of objective truth.
but an inerrant Bible gives as an inerrant standard for truth

which is preferable to an errant and fallible standard for truth (not sure how that works)

[Andyman_1970]

Many ascribe to the bible the attributes of God... Holy, Perfect, Divine, Infallible, Inerrant... This is idolatry.

I tend to agree with this........I do however hold the Bible as God's revealed Word for us and is ultimately reliable.

[tulc]

I sure hope the bible is perfect. Otherwise it brings my entire foundation to scrap. If I can't trust the greatest history book ever written, then what am I to trust? Especially when you consider IITim 3:16. If one thing in the bible is false, then that verse is false which means the bible as a whole cannot be trusted. Which means that the bible holds no proof for us to believe in Christ.

But then we are left with a couple of other problems. 400 years without a compleat bible. the fact that Christians can disagree (and on some pretty important issues! :eek: ) and all still be Christians, and several other things. And in the last case they ALL appeal to scripture to prove they are right! :sorry: Now don't get me wrong I read my bible every day, but I have a relationship with Jesus that wholly apart from it, as friend of mine once told me over 20 years ago:
"Dude, you can throw your Bible in a ditch and Jesus will STILL real!"
What he ment was Jesus was bigger then a book (no matter how good) and we should keep our eyes peeled to see Him in the world and people around us, and I've tried to keep that idea alive in my mind since. It's not as easy as "If it's not in there, it's the DEVIL!" but I find it interesting! ;)
tulc(that guy was pretty cool!) :)

[Razorbuck]

God wouldn't let HIS HOLY WORD be wrong. He wouldn't let a human to write something in there he didn't wamnt. God is might and powerful, and it is through him through those people, that the Bible was written. So YES it IS perfect :)

The faith of a child...:thumbsup:

God bless you, little sister in Christ.

God's Word is perfect.

[RajunCajun86]

Dude, you can throw your Bible in a ditch and Jesus will STILL real!"gonna disagree with this and say that without the Bible we don't have the "right" Jesus

no Genesis no perfect creation
no creation no original sin
no original no need for reconciliation
no OT no prophecies concerning Jesus
no Gospel no way of reconciliation
no Revelations no hope of His return

[eldermike]

gonna disagree with this and say that without the Bible we don't have the "right" Jesus

no Genesis no perfect creation
no creation no original sin
no original no need for reconciliation
no OT no prophecies concerning Jesus
no Gospel no way of reconciliation
no Revelations no hope of His return

Another Amen!

[tulc]

gonna disagree with this and say that without the Bible we don't have the "right" Jesus

LOL! wouldn't the right one be the one you asked into your heart? Doesn't the rest of that follow AFTER the right one comes in? Because long before we understand:
no Genesis no perfect creation
no creation no original sin
no original no need for reconciliation
no OT no prophecies concerning Jesus
no Gospel no way of reconciliation
no Revelations no hope of His return
Jesus should be making His dwelling within our hearts. I'm pretty sure those things aren't where our salvation lies. :)
tulc(just a thought) ;)

[Isaac1970]

I tend to agree with this........I do however hold the Bible as God's revealed Word for us and is ultimately reliable.

Likewise, I agree with you.

[RajunCajun86]

I'm pretty sure those things aren't where our salvation lies.but it is the basis of salvation, if those things aren't true then neither is our salvation

[RajunCajun86]

then the foundation of you salvation is not absolute and it is fallible

[jcright]

But then we are left with a couple of other problems. 400 years without a compleat bible. the fact that Christians can disagree (and on some pretty important issues! :eek: ) and all still be Christians, and several other things. And in the last case they ALL appeal to scripture to prove they are right! :sorry: Now don't get me wrong I read my bible every day, but I have a relationship with Jesus that wholly apart from it, as friend of mine once told me over 20 years ago:

I'd disagree. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. Not everyone properly references the Word of God. I subscribe to the idea that there is only one truth...and we need to get that right. Not everyone can be right and we don't have to please everyone....a fact that many forget. I have referenced Matt 10:34 many times on CF and have yet to be challenged on this (feel free to challenge me). I can't help but to see that as proof that there is only one way, God's way, and that we need to be adhering to the right way instead of the way we were brain-washed into thinking is correct. Of course, I also can't help but to see that as proof that we will be divided either...some of us will have the truth, others won't.

I would also say that they don't all appeal to scripture to prove their point, some appeal to tradition, some appeal to another human leader who "has the authority". I came from a cult (Christian Science), so I know what that's all about.

I'd also stick this in: if they were appealing only to scripture, then they should be willing to claim that only the Bible is our guide (as opposed to another human leader or book), anything outside of it is extra-biblical. I have no problems claiming Sola-Scriptora. I don't have problems with other history books, I just don't consider them to be equal to the Bible. Otherwise these great nuggets of knowledge should be added to the bible...and they curiously aren't. That should be a tip off right there on the validity.

Now don't get me wrong, the bible is our instruction manual. I don't pray to it or anything like that, I know it is God's Word, but the paper itself is not God. I simply recognize it as my foundation on how my walk with the Lord should be. Of course, that isn't to say that I won't listen for the Lord as well...but it does help me to differentiate between what the Lord wants and what the devil wants. Do I have a thought that is in contrast with the bible? Must be from the devil.

[RajunCajun86]

Not necesarily. We know that Jesus used parables to illustrate points, without them being "literally true" stories. Why could this not be true of the greater work in the Bible? It doesn't remove from the fundamental message if some of the specifics are allegorical rather than historicalthen how are we to decipher what is parable and historical

how do we know the cross wasn't a parable and we should still be looking for the Messiah

[arunma]

Technically, Tulc's friend's comment is correct. The facts of the Gospel, such as the teachings of Christ, his passion, crucifixion, and resurrection, are all historical facts. And these facts are true regardless of the existence of the Bible. I think that may be what Tulc meant to say.

That said, remember that the Bible is where the bulk of our knowledge about Christ comes from. Without it, we would have no way of knowing about the good news of salvation.

[jcright]

Technically, Tulc's friend's comment is correct. The facts of the Gospel, such as the teachings of Christ, his passion, crucifixion, and resurrection, are all historical facts. And these facts are true regardless of the existence of the Bible. I think that may be what Tulc meant to say.

That said, remember that the Bible is where the bulk of our knowledge about Christ comes from. Without it, we would have no way of knowing about the good news of salvation.

I don't know..I think God would find a way to reveal the good news to us. I've heard stories of Muslims who convert to Christianity because of a dream they had about Jesus...and I'm assuming that's before they read the Bible. After all, the thief on the cross didn't read the bible before he died...of course, he was also in the presence of Jesus, so perhaps that doesn't count.

[arunma]

I don't know..I think God would find a way to reveal the good news to us. I've heard stories of Muslims who convert to Christianity because of a dream they had about Jesus...and I'm assuming that's before they read the Bible. After all, the thief on the cross didn't read the bible before he died...of course, he was also in the presence of Jesus, so perhaps that doesn't count.

True. Perhaps it would have been more apt for me to say that the Bible is the primary means by which God has ultimately chosen to reveal himself.

[tulc]

I have referenced Matt 10:34 many times on CF and have yet to be challenged on this (feel free to challenge me). I can't help but to see that as proof that there is only one way,

...perhaps...but what is your guarantee that the truth you hold is the sole truth? :scratch: Because that's where I see a lot of trouble coming in. For instance: you said:
I'd also stick this in: if they were appealing only to scripture, then they should be willing to claim that only the Bible is our guide (as opposed to another human leader or book), anything outside of it is extra-biblical. I have no problems claiming Sola-Scriptora. I don't have problems with other history books, I just don't consider them to be equal to the Bible. Otherwise these great nuggets of knowledge should be added to the bible...and they curiously aren't. That should be a tip off right there on the validity.
Yet unless you're reading the actual manuscripts you're trusting someone else's idea of what the Bible is saying, aren't you?
Also when you come to a scripture you have a hard time with don't you ask a friend to help? Or look it up in a commentary? or several? Then you pray and decide which one seems the most accurate? I know I do! But again it's YOU, which one YOU feel is right or wrong, right? Because I have to be honest here: there are a lot of smart people in the Church who know a LOT more then I do or can see things in a way I'd NEVER see because I haven't had the same experiences as they have. I don't see getting help as a bad thing, and that's how I see tradition in a lot of ways. (now remember I'm coming at this from a pretty odd angle because of the things I've experianced in my life also) :) It's the smart people of 2000 years of the Church speaking to us today. And I for one think it would be a little rude to not at least listen to them some. Maybe not EQUAL to the Bible but worth paying attention too. :sorry:
tulc(needs some coffee!) :(

[tulc]

After all, the thief on the cross didn't read the bible before he died...of course, he was also in the presence of Jesus, so perhaps that doesn't count.

...another good point! ;)
tulc(also thank you for being gracious in your posts, sometimes it gets a little...cranky? on these threads) :sorry:

[jcright]

...perhaps...but what is your guarantee that the truth you hold is the sole truth? :scratch: Because that's where I see a lot of trouble coming in. For instance: you said:

Yet unless you're reading the actual manuscripts you're trusting someone else's idea of what the Bible is saying, aren't you?
Also when you come to a scripture you have a hard time with don't you ask a friend to help? Or look it up in a commentary? or several? Then you pray and decide which one seems the most accurate? I know I do! But again it's YOU, which one YOU feel is right or wrong, right? Because I have to be honest here: there are a lot of smart people in the Church who know a LOT more then I do or can see things in a way I'd NEVER see because I haven't had the same experiences as they have. I don't see getting help as a bad thing, and that's how I see tradition in a lot of ways. (now remember I'm coming at this from a pretty odd angle because of the things I've experianced in my life also) :) It's the smart people of 2000 years of the Church speaking to us today. And I for one think it would be a little rude to not at least listen to them some. Maybe not EQUAL to the Bible but worth paying attention too. :sorry:
tulc(needs some coffee!) :(

You have an excellent point. Unless I learn the original language, then I have to rely on the experts to translate the bible properly. So how do I know they have? I'm assuming they have. That assumption is based on the people I know and their educational background. I think I've got a good pool talent to draw from:). They are all men who rely on the scriptures alone (in regards to our "instruction manual").

I don't think that's what is happening with "Christians'. I think they rely on the false teachings of others...obviously teachings that are not supported by the Bible.

[tulc]

You have an excellent point. Unless I learn the original language, then I have to rely on the experts to translate the bible properly. So how do I know they have? I'm assuming they have. That assumption is based on the people I know and their educational background. I think I've got a good pool talent to draw from:). They are all men who rely on the scriptures alone (in regards to our "instruction manual").

...also an excellent point! ;)
tulc(ready for some excellent coffee)

[eldermike]

True. Perhaps it would have been more apt for me to say that the Bible is the primary means by which God has ultimately chosen to reveal himself.

Which goes right with this:¶ For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
Eph 3:2
If you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you:
Eph 3:3
How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote before in few words,
Eph 3:4
By which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

So they wrote it down by the Spirit of God and today we know.

There is no other plan, no other possibility, no need to search, we have what was written for the purpose of knowing God and His plan.

[JPPT1974]

Absolutely 100% true!

[Katakalupto]

Yes it is God's written word, and nothing that comes from God can be anything but perfect. Our limited knowledge and understanding as humans may not allow us to understand its perfection. But that doesn't change that it is perfect.

[arunma]

A thought occured to me today. Here we are, living in this amazingly complex and beautiful universe, which allows God to display his craftsmanship in amazing detail, over truly Godlike timescales (in the billions of years) and yet here are all these young Earth Creationists, insisting that the world is only 6000 years old, because the Bible says so. They ignore the clear evidence that is available for any critical thinker to see, and elevate the Bible, a man made book, to the position of infallible Deity.

God is there in every aspect of His creation, but doesn't it say more for his ability as creator to imagine him as able to design the entire universe and set it in motion, with Galactic expansion, elemental fushion, natural selection and so on all in built to acheive what he wanted it to turn out like, rather than insist that he must oversee every tiny little detail of the whole thing?

6000 years and creationist design of biology are applicable in HUMAN terms, and are easy for humans to understand. But where is it written that God has to play by human rules? Insisting that God couldn't have created the universe in a way that you can't understand, is a weakness in YOUR faith, not a weakness in God's ability.

Just a thought really. Perhaps you biblical literalists might like to think about the wonders all around you, which are actually part of what God has created, rather than your understanding of a book. Putting your faith in any object, in this case, a book, rather than in God himself, is idolatry, just like it says in the 10 commandments.

*sigh* The really disapointing bit is that I'm sure not one single bible literalist will read this post and think about it, but will just shoot off a string of bible quotes trying to prove that "the bible is infalible, because the bible says that the Bible is infallible".

Only GOD can be infallible. Therefore the Bible isn't, QED.

Well here's one "literalist" who does take your statement seriously, even if I ultimately disagree. Although I am not a six-day, young earth creationist, I do believe that God created the world as described in the account of Moses. But let me address the point that you raised.

The issue of creation vs. naturalistic evolution is not about pitting a micromanaging God against a God who allows the creation to unfold on its own. I'll admit that there is a certain theodicy about a God who is present and active in ever aspect of his creation. For example, when I look at the religion of Deism, I see nothing but an abysmal meaninglessness, because a god who winds up a watch and watches it unwind is nothing like the Lord, who makes and keeps covenants with men. But ultimately, theodicy isn't the issue. The issue is one of how we view God's written word. Infallible or not, all Christians agree that the Scriptures are the words of the Lord.

Now as to the charge of idolatry, the fact that we hold the written word of God to be powerful and infallible is not to say that we hold it to be the same as God (unless of course one refers to Jesus Christ himself, who is also called the Word of God). For example, we do not believe that the Bible has the power to create or to make moral judgments. We do not even believe that the Bible has a mind of its own. But we do believe that the Bible is supernatural. I know you did not wish for a Biblical literalist to throw many Bible quotes at you, but I hope that you won't mind just one:
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. (Hebrews 4:12)
Therefore, it surely would not be idolatry to believe this about the Bible. And this is what we believe: that the written word of God is living and active. Because God's words are powerful, we naturally hold them to be true. This is why many of us do not believe in naturalistic evolution.

Incidentally, I do not personally consider creationism of any kind to be a fundamental doctrine, nor do I consider evolutionists to be heretics. This is only a personal belief of mine, and I wouldn't draw away from Christians who disagree.

[WhereHeLeadsMe]

Worknprogress, but it comes through humans, who are flawed. If it was perfect, people wouldn't misunderstand it so much


1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
2 Corinthians 3:14-16 "But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."
2 Corinthians 4:3-4 "But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them."
2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

[WhereHeLeadsMe]

Actually its quite clear to me. :) And thats my point exactly.

[arunma]

May I ask what those flaws are?

[Katakalupto]

Why not? If we as people were perfect we wouldn't misunderstand it so much. Just because we as humans don't understand it completely, it doesn't mean that it is flawed. It simply means that we are flawed.

[angela 2]

May I ask what those flaws are?
Get yourself a parellel bible that shows the 3 synoptic gospels side by side. You'll notice they are not the same.

[arunma]

Get yourself a parellel bible that shows the 3 synoptic gospels side by side. You'll notice they are not the same.

I've studied the differences between the synoptic Gospels to some extent. Mostly, these are differences in the order in which certain accounts are told. But since the Gospels do not say that accounts such as the parables are ordered chronologically, this doesn't seem to me to be a flaw of any kind.

[tulc]

Just because we as humans don't understand it completely, it doesn't mean that it is flawed. It simply means that we are flawed.

Always something good to remember when we're posting! ;)
tulc(raising flawed to an art form since 1955!) :)

[RaginCajun88]

the Bible claims to be inspired by God or "God-breathed" and if its from God then we can logically assume its without error.

"Inspiration can be defined as the mysterious process by which God worked through human writers, employing their individual personalities and styles to produce divinely authoritative and inerrant writings."
-Geisler, GIB The New Evidence Josh McDowell

I believe that God is a big enough God to use imperfect humans to produce a perfect work such as the Bible. If I can believe that God's words could create the entire universe in six days then its not too much of a stretch for me to believe that through men God wrote an inerrent Bible.

[angela 2]

the Bible claims to be inspired by God or "God-breathed" and if its from God then we can logically assume its without error.
Why is that? I don't follow your logic. What God can do and what God did do can logically be two different things. Starting with the Garden. God could have kept Adam and Eve from sinning but chose not to.

"Inspiration can be defined as the mysterious process by which God worked through human writers, employing their individual personalities and styles to produce divinely authoritative and inerrant writings."
-Geisler, GIB The New Evidence Josh McDowell

Again I don't understand the logic. The Bible can be authoritative and still not be inerrant.
I believe that God is a big enough God to use imperfect humans to produce a perfect work
Granted. But once again, that doesn't prove that he did.

[RaginCajun88]

Why is that? I don't follow your logic. What God can do and what God did do can logically be two different things. Starting with the Garden. God could have kept Adam and Eve from sinning but chose not to.

I don’t believe that God created a book called it His Word and then allowed it to be filled with error. If you know the character of God ( which is laid out in the pages of the Bible ) you would know that He can not be associated with imperfection. Even we as Christians are made perfect through Christ so that we are acceptable in His sight. The logic is if it has to do with God its perfect.

[mesue]

Mod Hat On

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:qj6vmUbgHKJc5M:http://www.hatsinthebelfry.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/bobby-350.JPG (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hatsinthebelfry.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/bobby-350.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.hatsinthebelfry.com/hatstore/prods/British_Bobby_Hat.html&h=392&w=350&sz=67&hl=en&start=15&tbnid=qj6vmUbgHKJc5M:&tbnh=123&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3DHat%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2006-27,GGLG:en%26sa%3DN)

This is the Baptist Forum, therefore only Baptists may debate here.
1.4 Congregational Areas

You may post in any of the Congregational Forums if you agree with the contents of the Nicene Creed and the Trinitarian nature of God, but you may not argue or debate with members of particular denominations and groups in their congregational areas unless you are a member of that particular denomination or group.

Non-Baptists please refrain from debating. Or start a thread in GT
http://www.christianforums.com/f80-general-theology.html

Mod Hat Off

[RichardT]

The Bible is absolutely Perfect and God breathed!

[RajunCajun86]

The Bible can be authoritative and still not be inerrant.we question errant authority
we are not to question to the Bible and leave it to "interpretation"

truth by definition is fact
fact is not errant
if the Bible is errant
then it ceases to be truth

[Isaac1970]

To preface, sorry about the length of this post. Also, I pray that the love of Christ remains between us all, for it is in His love we primarily maintain our unity as Christians. If, to our shame, we cannot be of one-mind, let us endeavor all the more to be of one-heart.

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. (Hebrews 4:12)

I have no doubt that the bible contains within it the word of God, but how do you make the leap from this verse that the protestant bible here on my desk is absolute manifestation of the word of God mentioned in Hebrews 4:12 ? No New Testament canon was even established yet?

Yes, God inspired men to write the "word" of God, but by whom and by what means did man decide what writings were the word of God? Verse 12 says that the Word discerns (judges) the thoughts and intentions of the heart. In an odd twist by dogmatically authoritatively taking upon ourselves to codify a singular collection of writings we have in turn become judges of the word of God?

Jesus, the WORD himself, did not give us a bible. Though some of the apostles gave us writings, not even they left us with a "bible."

Please, know that I am not anti-bible. It is the singular most important piece of literature for the Church and the world. It is the most authoritative and comprehensive conveyance the word of God, short of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of men.

The bible is a means to enlighten and prepare us to receive, it is not the substantial reality of the Word Himself, whom we receive by the Spirit.

A word is a sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning. Words are metaphors, representations. They are not the reality of what they represent. This is what the bible is.

In contrast, Logos, personified in Christ, in my limited and poor understanding of it, is a greek philosophical term used by the Apostle John which denotes something much more than our understand of the word "word." It was the principle of order, divine fire, divine reason, the principle that formed the basis for reality -- it permeated all things. This understanding of Logos brings to mind a number of scriptures about Jesus (the Logos).

John 1:3,4
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

Colossians 2:9-10
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

Colossians 1:16,17
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

This is the word of God of Hebrews 4:12 !

[arunma]

To preface, sorry about the length of this post. Also, I pray that the love of Christ remains between us all, for it is in His love we primarily maintain our unity as Christians. If, to our shame, we cannot be of one-mind, let us endeavor all the more to be of one-heart.

Of course. I join your prayer that the love of God in Christ would remain here.

I have no doubt that the bible contains within it the word of God, but how do you make the leap from this verse that the protestant bible here on my desk is absolute manifestation of the word of God mentioned in Hebrews 4:12 ? No New Testament canon was even established yet?

Well as I mentioned before, if we can agree that any Biblical canon contains all of the written words of God, then surely the Protestant canon contains the written words of God, for the simple fact that our canon is the most restrictive. I'll grant that this argument is rather pedantic, but it is one benefit of having fewer books rather than more.

Personally I have my a few small doubts about the Protestant canon, and I wonder if perhaps we ought to regard the Apocryphal books as canonical also. But whatever one's opinion, the fact remains that the New Testament canon is the same almost everywhere. To my knowledge, a Bible in the indiginous churches of Egypt or India (or even China, if the Nestorian church still existed) would contain the same 27 books. As far as I know, only Ethiopia has a slightly different New Testament canon, because their broader canon includes texts such as the Shepherd of Hermas. It is curious that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (the church of the first several hundred years of Christianity) never convened an ecumenical council to decide on the canon. Rather, only the smaller councils of Hippo and Carthage confirmed that canon that Bishop Saint Athanasius had recorded in 367. It seems that the canon was never an issue of serious debate.

Yes, God inspired men to write the "word" of God, but by whom and by what means did man decide what writings were the word of God? Verse 12 says that the Word discerns (judges) the thoughts and intentions of the heart. In an odd twist by dogmatically authoritatively taking upon ourselves to codify a singular collection of writings we have in turn become judges of the word of God?

It may seem that way at first glance. But remember that the Bible itself (which we both agree is authoritative to some degree) speaks about the importance of Scriptures. The famous text of 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that the Scriptures are breathed by God. While this may not imply inerrency, the certainly imply that the Scriptures are the word of God in written form. Now both the Old and New Testaments were codified by men, so this implies that the works of men can be recognized as authoritative by God. We believe that the Apostles are truthful. And they refer to much of the New Testament as Scripture (for example, Peter referred to Paul's epistles as Scripture, and Paul referred to the Gospel of Luke as Scripture). Ultimately, Scripture must be defined by men, since it would make little sense if Scripture depended on its own authority. After all, anyone can add the phrase "thus says the Lord" to his writings.

Jesus, the WORD himself, did not give us a bible. Though some of the apostles gave us writings, not even they left us with a "bible."

Please, know that I am not anti-bible. It is the singular most important piece of literature for the Church and the world. It is the most authoritative and comprehensive conveyance the word of God, short of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of men.

The bible is a means to enlighten and prepare us to receive, it is not the substantial reality of the Word Himself, whom we receive by the Spirit.

A word is a sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning. Words are metaphors, representations. They are not the reality of what they represent. This is what the bible is.

In contrast, Logos, personified in Christ, in my limited and poor understanding of it, is a greek philosophical term used by the Apostle John which denotes something much more than our understand of the word "word." It was the principle of order, divine fire, divine reason, the principle that formed the basis for reality -- it permeated all things. This understanding of Logos brings to mind a number of scriptures about Jesus (the Logos).

You'll get no argument from me that Jesus is the Word of God, and that he is superior to the Scriptures. All I mean to say is that God has also left us with written witness. Without it, we would not know very much about the Word of God.

[JacobHall86]

Yes, it is.

[Sammael]

There is a reason the journalistic and scientific communities use a primary source whenever possible… this has proven to be the most reliable way to properly covey the implications of the initial idea.

So why is it when we turn our attentions to the Scripture, sources fourth, fifth, and sixth, (sometimes more) times removed from the initial Revelations are readily acceptable?


The inerrancy argument at it's most basic form must include at least the three following points:
1. Elohim is perfect
2. The Word is from Elohim
3. therefore, the Word is perfect
This is a logical argument form. This structure in argument form is called an Appeal to Authority, and is a logical fallacy.

To come to a definitive scientific conclusion regarding the accuracy of the Bible relies on too many variables that are of a religious nature. Not the least of these variables is scientific irrefutability of Elohim’s existence conclusively. The above is simply to show why the available evidence relative to the perfection of the Scripture is not authoritative to the scientific community. The conclusion of the argument must be that the inerrancy of the Bible cannot be established logically when referring to ‘logic’ as a factual discipline. It is a resort to the abstract nature of Elohim that must be employed to encompass the position and provide the basis for the premise of a pure Scripture.

One cannot logically ‘believe’ that the Bible is inerrant; one must have ‘faith’ that the Bible is inerrant.

[tulc]

Welcome to CF Sammael!! ;)
tulc(hope you enjoy your time here!) :wave:

[angela 2]

Ah, here we have the root of the problem. You think fact is truth.

[JacobHall86]

Ah, here we have the root of the problem. You think fact is truth.

What?

What fact is not truth?

[angela 2]

truth by definition is fact
fact is not errant

Sorry forgot to cite the poster.

[Sammael]

Ah, here we have the root of the problem. You think fact is truth.

No I think fact is verifiable, testable, and just that.... fact.

Truth (as you refer to it, in a religous construct) is morally subjectable and therefore scientifically ambiguous by it's very nature.

Morality is contextual and nonlinear, fact is not.

Problem? What problem?

[angela 2]

What?

What fact is not truth?
A fact is just that, a fact. Truth is wider and deeper than what is usually identified as fact. Lots of things which are rightly believed are not fact. I believe my pastor loves Jesus Christ. Can I prove that? If I can't prove it, it can't be a fact. Nonetheless it is most probably true.

[Silent Enigma]

If one thing in the bible is false, then that verse is false which means the bible as a whole cannot be trusted. Which means that the bible holds no proof for us to believe in Christ.

So let me get this straight....

Let's say there's one little error in a geneaology in the OT, so then we should all just throw our hands up and be like,

AAAAAAAAAAAAA! I MAY AS WELL REJECT JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY! IT'S AAAALLLL WROOOONG!

Am I getting this right?

[Joykins]

gonna disagree with this and say that without the Bible we don't have the "right" Jesus

no Genesis no perfect creation
no creation no original sin
no original no need for reconciliation
no OT no prophecies concerning Jesus
no Gospel no way of reconciliation
no Revelations no hope of His return

I'm pretty sure those things aren't where our salvation lies.

but it is the basis of salvation, if those things aren't true then neither is our salvation

Paul thought the Resurrection of Christ played that particular role.

1 Corinthians 15:12-20

[angela 2]

[/font]
Paul thought the Resurrection of Christ played that particular role.

1 Corinthians 15:12-20
Thanks, joy.

She's right. Jesus Christ is our salvation not something written on a piece of paper.

[RaginCajun88]

Thanks, joy.

She's right. Jesus Christ is our salvation not something written on a piece of paper.

If it wasnt for that "piece of paper" Christianity could be whatever you wanted it to be.

The physical Bible that we hold in our hands is not what we hold value in. Its the Holy Spirit speaking through the pages of the Bible.

[angela 2]

If it wasnt for that "piece of paper" Christianity could be whatever you wanted it to be.
I don't think that's right. When was NT written? From 50-150 AD? Waddid they do before that? How was the church established among people, many of whom were illiterate? Oral tradition?

Tradition still plays a large role in what Christianity is today. The worshipping church, the community of the faithful, still initiates people into Christianity and helps them understand the faith.

The physical Bible that we hold in our hands is not what we hold value in. Its the Holy Spirit speaking through the pages of the Bible.
I can agree with that. But then why would it be so important for the bible to be inerrant. Don't you think the Holy Spirit can work with something less than perfect?

[RaginCajun88]

I don't think that's right. When was NT written? From 50-150 AD? Waddid they do before that? How was the church established among people, many of whom were illiterate? Oral tradition?

I dont think there was an oral tradition but I do believe that the disciples taught the Word of God after His death. God also used Paul when the church was first being established. I'm not sure where your getting this illiteracy thing from because Paul wrote many letters to the early church to instruct and guide them.

Tradition still plays a large role in what Christianity is today. The worshipping church, the community of the faithful, still initiates people into Christianity and helps them understand the faith.

I agree. Its been tradition that we accept the Word of God as inerrant because God IS inerrant.

I can agree with that. But then why would it be so important for the bible to be inerrant. Don't you think the Holy Spirit can work with something less than perfect?

I do believe that God can use imperfect beings such as humans to produce a perfect work. But the issue with the Bible is if you say the Word of God is not perfect then your saying that God is not perfect. If thats true then there is no substance behind our faith.

Thats the bottom line when it comes down to it. Faith. I cant prove to you with tangible evidence that God exists and I can only go so far in proving to you intellectually that the Bible is perfect but I'd rather accept that to be true then to say that the foundation of what I believe in is imperfect

[Silent Enigma]

At any rate, I'm just pleased as a pink plum that the Ragin' Cajun is using punctuation and capital letters in the right places now!!!

[aReformedPatriot]

But then why would it be so important for the bible to be inerrant. Don't you think the Holy Spirit can work with something less than perfect?

"There is little worth in speaking of the sufficiency of a non-inspired, errant collection of ancient works, which is why the denial of the inspired nature of Scripture inevitably leads to a denial of its ability to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church." - James White, Scripture Alone.

I don't think when God breathes out his word that it includes errors.

[RaginCajun88]

At any rate, I'm just pleased as a pink plum that the Ragin' Cajun is using punctuation and capital letters in the right places now!!!

I'm not going to lie I'm horrible when it comes to grammar and all that jazz. I'm still in high school so I figure I can get by with that for a little while longer but I may run into some trouble in college.

[RaginCajun88]

"There is little worth in speaking of the sufficiency of a non-inspired, errant collection of ancient works, which is why the denial of the inspired nature of Scripture inevitably leads to a denial of its ability to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church." - James White, Scripture Alone.

I don't think when God breathes out his word that it includes errors.

:amen:

[mont974x4]

:amen:

I second :amen:

[JacobHall86]

At any rate, I'm just pleased as a pink plum that the Ragin' Cajun is using punctuation and capital letters in the right places now!!!


Grammer Police. Very nice, correcting someones grammer is usually a sign that you cant really refute a point, so instead attack something else. I beleive it falls under the Red Herring rule, although Im not positive.

[RajunCajun86]

At any rate, I'm just pleased as a pink plum that the Ragin' Cajun is using punctuation and capital letters in the right places now!!!:scratch:
not really sure what this has to do with anything?

[tulc]

Grammer Police. Very nice, correcting someones grammer is usually a sign that you cant really refute a point, so instead attack something else. I beleive it falls under the Red Herring rule, although Im not positive.
...or he was teasing him a little? :)
tulc(I don't think he ment anything bad) ;)

[JacobHall86]

...or he was teasing him a little? :)
tulc(I don't think he ment anything bad) ;)


Cajun 88 is like my little bro, So i am protective.

Either way it had no place in the discussion.

[angela 2]

I dont think there was an oral tradition but I do believe that the disciples taught the Word of God after His death. God also used Paul when the church was first being established. I'm not sure where your getting this illiteracy thing from because Paul wrote many letters to the early church to instruct and guide them.
Proving only that the people he wrote to were literate.
I agree. Its been tradition that we accept the Word of God as inerrant because God IS inerrant.
No it has not been a tradition. Inerrancy is a modern though. No modernity, no inerrancy.
I do believe that God can use imperfect beings such as humans to produce a perfect work. But the issue with the Bible is if you say the Word of God is not perfect then your saying that God is not perfect. If thats true then there is no substance behind our faith.
There is no logical connection between the perfection of God and the inerrancy of scripture.
Thats the bottom line when it comes down to it. Faith. I cant prove to you with tangible evidence that Gad exists and I can only go so far in proving to you intellectually that the Bible is perfect but I'd rather accept that to be true then to say that the foundation of what I believe in is imperfect
As you wish, but so far no one has 'proved' anything.

[Sammael]

As you wish, but so far no one has 'proved' anything.

....

The inerrancy argument at it's most basic form must include at least the three following points:
1. Elohim is perfect
2. The Word is from Elohim
3. therefore, the Word is perfect
This is a logical argument form. This structure in argument form is called an Appeal to Authority, and is a logical fallacy.

....

There is not much farther you can go with it than that.

[cynthiamarie]

i believe the bible isn't perfect, because the bible is God's word through man, man is not perfect. the bible is not perfect, although the bible is the closest thing to being perfect possible.

[angela 2]

"There is little worth in speaking of the sufficiency of a non-inspired, errant collection of ancient works, which is why the denial of the inspired nature of Scripture inevitably leads to a denial of its ability to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church." - James White, Scripture Alone.

I don't think when God breathes out his word that it includes errors.
Well, I don't think of scripture as an "infallible rule." That sounds too much like legalism to me. My faith is not based on a rule but in Jesus Christ. Scripture is the witness to God/Jesus Christ and as such is authoritative for his church. As a member of his church, I recognize its authority. Someone said, Authority can be questioned. Yes, of course. And people who are not Christians do question it.
My understanding of "God-breathed" is "inspired." I do believe scripture writers to have been inspired by God. What I don't believe is that God dictated the words they wrote. If he had, he would have been establishing scripture as an object of worship. Sometimes I get the impression that that's what some people believe.

[cynthiamarie]

^^ agreed for the most part.

[RajunCajun86]

Proving only that the people he wrote to were literate.those are the same people we are talking about
Inerrancy is a modern though.how do you support this, please show some proof, i would like to see that

[quote]
There is no logical connection between the perfection of God and the inerrancy of scripture.show me a logical connection that says it isn't
it is fun to sit and poke at someone else's reasoning but let's see yours

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1

so far no one has 'proved' anything.
1. God doesn't have to prove that His Word is perfect
2. no one has disproved anything

[Andyman_1970]

understanding of "God-breathed" is "inspired." I do believe scripture writers to have been inspired by God. What I don't believe is that God dictated the words they wrote. If he had, he would have been establishing scripture as an object of worship. Sometimes I get the impression that that's what some people believe.


Well said sister. While I hold the inspiration of Scripture, I do not hold that the authors were secretaries taking dication from God............the Scriptures are from real people in real places in a real time documenting their encounter with the real Creator God of Israel.

[GreatBigAl]

Well Consider this:
The Bible was written by men, and men are not perfect, so therefore, what men write will not be perfect.
(Not counting some of Keats poetry)
Second, what is the Bible? The Bible was the result of a process of authentication, whereby the Church leaders met in ROme to vote on which of the hundreds or maybe thousands of manuscripts floating around in teh world at that time were authentic and accurate and which were probably not....
The Roam leadership, and even the educated Roman people liked CONSISTANCY, and so a written consistent book would be most popular amongs the Roman converts. Keep in mind most slaves, Jews Included were illiterate. The stories of Jesus, the Gospels were written based on an oral tradition and in the case of John, were not only written by multiple people BUT written long after Jesus ' death. And we all know that in the oral tradition of storytelling, things can change from one person to another, hence some of the inconsistancy. Remember, Jesus did not record or write His own teachings , nor does scripture refer to Jesus telling anyone to write anything down. case in point, many of His follwers couldn't read anyway. Hence again the Oral tradition.
The Bible was meant only to be a reference for early Christians. It was meant to show a consistant story from one end of the empire to another. It was not meant to be perfect, and it was not meant to be the "complete and Final Word of God", which, if you believe God to be alive still, then I guess there can be no completion nor finality as God is still alive and working today.
So don't worry about the innacuracies of the Bible. Worry about the main message of Love and Faith, and be an example of Love and faith to your community. Don't waste your time on the contradictions of the Bible, yes there are many, because people don't agree with everything.
You might be reading this and not want to agree even though everything I have written is true and provable.
But that is not important.
What is important is the love YOU bring to the community of believers, and the example YOU show that will bring peace and happiness to the lives of others.

[eldermike]

We have been given grace. It's enough. We don't need justification when you consider grace. The bible does not need to pass any test, it's where I understood grace in the first place. Because it gave me an understanding of grace I will trust it, even when it convicts me of something. I can't imagine the breath of God causing me to act in a manner that justifies me, my circumstances or condition in any way. So, I am happy understanding God breaths perfect words.

[RajunCajun86]

The bible does not need to pass any test
amen
it's where I understood grace in the first place.
amen
God breaths perfect words.
AMEN

[jcright]

I find it interesting that no one has considered the idea that even though an errant person was writing the scriptures, they had an inerrant God watching over their writting. I don't know about you, but my English teacher corrected me when I made a mistake, and yet the work was still mine, in my thoughts, my point of view, etc. Why are you willing to disclude the idea that God didn't guide in the same manner?

[mont974x4]

I find it interesting that no one has considered the idea that even though an errant person was writing the scriptures, they had an inerrant God watching over their writting. I don't know about you, but my English teacher corrected me when I made a mistake, and yet the work was still mine, in my thoughts, my point of view, etc. Why are you willing to disclude the idea that God didn't guide in the same manner?


Good point. :amen:

[Grink]

Much has been said since I asked if the Bible was perfect, however little has been said about all the imperfections of the Bible that are pointed out at the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible and other websites. It seems that almost everyone has their head buried in the sand in that regard.

The only reasonable answer to the question is that the bible is both perfect and imperfect. If you wonder how that can be, consider this: The Bible was handed down orally and in writing by imperfect men many years ago who were obviously not guided in every detail by God, and therefore it contains many imperfections. However it is those imperfections that make the Bible “perfect”… perfect for reasonable people, that is. That is because reasonable people will see both the imperfections and the wisdom of the Bible and decided that it is a book not to be believed in its details, but to be followed in its general principles.

In that way it is like a map of wagon trails to California that was put together by many different people many years ago. While simple minded people going to California will try to find and hike every overgrown trail, reasonable people who have no other map, will merely drive their cars in the same general direction that the trails head.

As for the main principle of the Bible, it is obviously The Golden Rule.

[RajunCajun86]

However it is those imperfections that make the Bible “perfect”…:scratch:

[JacobHall86]

As for the main principle of the Bible, it is obviously The Golden Rule.

Wrong. It is obviously the Cross. The only thing that can save men is the Cross and what happened on it, Not the Golden Rule.

It all points to Jesus Christ on the Cross for our sins.

Without the cross there is no forgiveness, without the cross there is no death of Christ, without the Cross there is no Resurrection from the Dead. Without the Cross, there is no forgiveness for sins.

[mont974x4]

Wrong. It is obviously the Cross. The only thing that can save men is the Cross and what happened on it, Not the Golden Rule.

It all points to Jesus Christ on the Cross for our sins.

Without the cross there is no forgiveness, without the cross there is no death of Christ, without the Cross there is no Resurrection from the Dead. Without the Cross, there is no forgiveness for sins.

:amen:

I would also add that to start saying there is imperfections in the Bible takes away from the authority of it as God's Word. While the Bible does not need to be tested, it has been tested and has passed where no other text has.

[RajunCajun86]

imperfections in the Bible takes away from the authority of it as God's Word.i would go so far as to say that imperfections cause it to cease to be God's Word, God's Word cannot have imperfections
While the Bible does not need to be tested,
true
it has been tested and has passed where no other text has.amen

[mont974x4]

Yes, I agree. To claim imperfections would basically deny it to be God's holy and complete word.

[cynthiamarie]

^^ i don't agree with that so much.

men aren't perfect and the bible has been translated how many times?? who's to say something didn't get lost in translation. or who's to say that something was written in the wrong context. i don't believe the bible is perfect, but i think the bible is the closest thing in the world to perfect.

[RaginCajun88]

There is no logical connection between the perfection of God and the inerrancy of scripture.

In my opinion by you stating this your trying to make God/The Bible what ever you want It to be. If the Scripture is not perfect then It can not be God. If the Scripture is not God then you don't have to follow It.

Proving only that the people he wrote to were literate.

Thats what we were talking about right? The church? remember you gave me the dates when the NT was written?

No it has not been a tradition. Inerrancy is a modern though. No modernity, no inerrancy.

Again I don't know where your getting this information from because teachings of Biblical inerrancy go all the way back to Martin Luther.

[mont974x4]

^^ i don't agree with that so much.

men aren't perfect and the bible has been translated how many times?? who's to say something didn't get lost in translation. or who's to say that something was written in the wrong context. i don't believe the bible is perfect, but i think the bible is the closest thing in the world to perfect.


Translations are an issue..some are very dangerous (The Message) while others are just easier to read for some (NASB). The key is to dig in and look at the original meaning of the keywords. If you don't have the money to buy a Strong's Concordance or a good word study dictionary then check out the free e-Sword download. It comes with a KJV and Strongs concordance plus you can download other versions for free and others are not free. Plus other study tools.

Gotta get past the traditions of man and get at the original text and meaning.

[RaginCajun88]

^^ i don't agree with that so much.

men aren't perfect and the bible has been translated how many times?? who's to say something didn't get lost in translation. or who's to say that something was written in the wrong context. i don't believe the bible is perfect, but i think the bible is the closest thing in the world to perfect.

The book that you hold in your hands that has the words "Holy Bible" written on it very well may have some "errors" in it. In fact, like you stated, there maybe some translation errors. In my family's library we have a Greek NT. It also has through out that Bible notes referring to all the inconsistencies between the copies of the NT that were used to form the NT that we read today. The biggest of the inconsistencies has to do with grammar. Those "errors", as people have been calling them, do not change the message that the Word of God brings or its perfection.

[mont974x4]

The book that you hold in your hands that has the words "Holy Bible" written on it very well may have some "errors" in it. In fact, like you stated, there maybe some translation errors. In my family's library we have a Greek NT. It also has through out that Bible notes referring to all the inconsistencies between the copies of the NT that were used to form the NT that we read today. The biggest of the inconsistencies has to do with grammar. Those "errors", as people have been calling them, do not change the message that the Word of God brings or its perfection.




:thumbsup: nicely put

[Andyman_1970]

The book that you hold in your hands that has the words "Holy Bible" written on it very well may have some "errors" in it. In fact, like you stated, there maybe some translation errors. In my family's library we have a Greek NT. It also has through out that Bible notes referring to all the inconsistencies between the copies of the NT that were used to form the NT that we read today. The biggest of the inconsistencies has to do with grammar. Those "errors", as people have been calling them, do not change the message that the Word of God brings or its perfection.



I'm certainly not one to argue "perfection" with respect to anything but God Himself, and I would substute "ultimately reliable" for perfection (semantics I know), but that was well put :thumbsup: .......of the several thousand NT manuscripts we have I'm sure very few are totally identical although the message is identical, and ultimately reliable and authoritative.

[Gerry_NY]

I just have one question...why is this even a discussable question> We as Christians MUST believe that the Bible is 100% true and accurate. Any "inconsistencies" are easily made consistant in other parts of the Bible. The Gospels aren't truly consistant with each other, but if they were exactly verbatim...would n't you then think it wasn't true? Different perspectives (all of the Scriptures was written through the eyes of MANY different people) is what it all boils down to.
Just my two pennies.

[arunma]

^^ i don't agree with that so much.

men aren't perfect and the bible has been translated how many times?? who's to say something didn't get lost in translation. or who's to say that something was written in the wrong context. i don't believe the bible is perfect, but i think the bible is the closest thing in the world to perfect.

Actually, the number of times that the Bible has been translated is not of any concern to us. Modern scholars possess very early Greek manuscripts of the Bible. So no matter how many times the Bible is translated, one can always refer to the original. Also, virtually all modern Bible translations are translated from the original Greek. This nullifies the claim of many that "the Bible has been translated and re-translated."

[Project 86]

Very well put. I would imagine most of use are saying the originals are perfect, translations can have and some certianly do have their errors. We have enough manuscript evidence to know what the originals state. Once you take the absolute authority of the Bible away you can make up any religion you please and still try to claim it is Christian.

Actually, the number of times that the Bible has been translated is not of any concern to us. Modern scholars possess very early Greek manuscripts of the Bible. So no matter how many times the Bible is translated, one can always refer to the original. Also, virtually all modern Bible translations are translated from the original Greek. This nullifies the claim of many that "the Bible has been translated and re-translated."

[JacobHall86]

^^ i don't agree with that so much.

men aren't perfect and the bible has been translated how many times?? who's to say something didn't get lost in translation. or who's to say that something was written in the wrong context. i don't believe the bible is perfect, but i think the bible is the closest thing in the world to perfect.

Man is not Perfect, God and his word are perfect. Its that simple.

BTW, unless your Baptist you arent to be debating in this forum.

[tfontana33]

Yes, it's a pretty simple matter in my opinion. Lots of folks have attempted to prove that the Bible is imperfect, but no one has even come close. That's simply because its the perfect word of God! ;-)

[MbiaJc]

I have always been told and believed that the Bible is perfect. However a couple of days ago I saw a website called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and it points out hundreds of inconsitancies and other bad things about the Bible. I had never read much of the Bible, so I was surprised when I did check and found that the website seems to be right. Has anyone else seen that website and if so, what do you think about it?

God's Word is perfect; the Bible which is God's written word is perfect in what it teaches. However the Bible which is God's Written Word was penned by man. It may have typographical errors, may have some errors caused by the slip of the hand of the scribe that copied from the original manuscript. Does that make the Bible untruth worthy? No! Does that cause the Bible to have errors? No! Because what it teaches is God's Word, which is error free. There is no where in the Bible where God says, I made a mistake, in say Genesis, and in Mathew He is correcting the mistake.

[Seeker of the Truth]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." John 1:1-2

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14

That's what God has to say...

[angela 2]

In my opinion by you stating this your trying to make God/The Bible what ever you want It to be.
How so?
If the Scripture is not perfect then It can not be God. If the Scripture is not God then you don't have to follow It.
You can't literally mean that scripture is God? Following scripture is a matter of choice. One chooses to be a Christian and accepts the bible as authoritative because it is the sacred text of Christians.

One more time. You must learn to distinguish between scripture and God. Christians want to do God's will; they want to follow Jesus Christ ... not words on a page.
Thats what we were talking about right? The church? remember you gave me the dates when the NT was written?
We're talking individuals who received the letters not entire churches. You don't get that much literacy until after the invention of the printing press. And even then you don't get that much literacy among the poor, the outcasts, the lost sheep Jesus came for.
Again I don't know where your getting this information from because teachings of Biblical inerrancy go all the way back to Martin Luther.
Inerrancy is dependent upon the concept of scientific rationalism. That concept was unknown until the Enlightenment. Basically the idea that something is without error could not be thought until people began to think in scientific terms.

Nobody even looked for errors before the advent of modern biblical criticism. So how could someone say it had none? Inerrancy is a reaction to that criticism. No criticism, no inerrancy. Regardless of what anyone wrote in the past, they didn't/couldn't mean what you mean.

Somebody has been lying to you. Don't believe them.

[angela 2]

I just have one question...why is this even a discussable question> We as Christians MUST believe that the Bible is 100% true and accurate.
How did you get that idea?

[angela 2]

Everybody who disagrees with me. Get yourselves a reasonably unbiased book on recent Church history. How about Mark Noll. He's an evangelical.

Find out for yourselves. And when you do, remember it's okay because God is still God.

[Atlantians]

I don't think that's actually true.

God is perfect.

But the bible is written by human beings, and not every word comes out of god's mouth. So I personally think it may be possible that the bible is not "perfect" - especially the Old Testament.
False beacuse if God us perfect he would not allow the inspiration of scripture through men to be corrupted by the means of writting that scripture, IE: human beings.

[arunma]

Everybody who disagrees with me. Get yourselves a reasonably unbiased book on recent Church history. How about Mark Noll. He's an evangelical.

Find out for yourselves. And when you do, remember it's okay because God is still God.

Believe it or not, I can see your point, even if I ultimately disagree with you. One thing I've learned from reading the ante-Nicene church fathers is that they didn't talk about the Bible as much as we do. Rather, they saw the Scriptures as historical texts about relatively recent events, in much the same way that we might read the letters of Thomas Jefferson or the autobiography of Frederick Douglass. I'm not quite sure how to phrase this, but men like Paul, Barnabas, Mark, and Peter were real persons to them, rather than "characters from the Bible." And whereas we modern people say "the Bible says..." they would have used the phrase "Christ said..."

I think what I am trying to say is that whereas we see the Bible as having intrinsic value, the early church saw the Scriptures has having value only insofar as they teach us about Christ. And I freely confess that perhaps it is time for us to recapture the spirit of the early church with respect to our view of Christ and Scripture. Now as to Scriptural inerrency, once the focus is removed from the Bible and replaced upon Christ, it is easier to deemphasize the perfection of the Scriptures themselves. After all, the fact that historical records exaggerate the physical abilities and strength of George Washington does not alter the fact that he was highly influencial on the American nation. By the same token, flaws in Scripture do not alter the work of Christ.

But alas, I did preface this by indicating that I ultimately believe in the inerrency of the Scriptures. As you said before, the claim of inerrency might perhaps be a response to the enlightenment. Before the age of scientific reasoning, humans did not have the ability to comprehend the idea of inerrency. As such, the question of inerrency was neither raised nor settled in the early church. That it was not an issue for the first few generations of Christians means, by definition, that the question is not settled in modern times. Now that we are aware of the idea of inerrency, we are able to make such a judgment about the Scriptures. So what shall we say about the written words of God? That they contain flaws? I do not believe that anything which proceeds from the breath of God is flawed (and I admit that this is an opinion that comes from outside of the Scriptures). This is one major reason that I believe in Biblical inerrency.

[RajunCajun86]

they would have used the phrase "Christ said..."but if we don't accept it as inerrant than can we really say "Christ said..."

[JacobHall86]

Everybody who disagrees with me. Get yourselves a reasonably unbiased book on recent Church history. How about Mark Noll. He's an evangelical.

Find out for yourselves. And when you do, remember it's okay because God is still God.

Yes, because if anyone disagrees with you they must be uneducated. Of Course.

[mont974x4]

How so?

You can't literally mean that scripture is God? Following scripture is a matter of choice. One chooses to be a Christian and accepts the bible as authoritative because it is the sacred text of Christians.

One more time. You must learn to distinguish between scripture and God. Christians want to do God's will; they want to follow Jesus Christ ... not words on a page.

We're talking individuals who received the letters not entire churches. You don't get that much literacy until after the invention of the printing press. And even then you don't get that much literacy among the poor, the outcasts, the lost sheep Jesus came for.

Inerrancy is dependent upon the concept of scientific rationalism. That concept was unknown until the Enlightenment. Basically the idea that something is without error could not be thought until people began to think in scientific terms.

Nobody even looked for errors before the advent of modern biblical criticism. So how could someone say it had none? Inerrancy is a reaction to that criticism. No criticism, no inerrancy. Regardless of what anyone wrote in the past, they didn't/couldn't mean what you mean.

Somebody has been lying to you. Don't believe them.

These questions have been raised since man started thinking about God and His Word, it is not a modern phenomenon. It is human (sin?) nature to fight against God.

[eldermike]

These questions have been raised since man started thinking about God and His Word, it is not a modern phenomenon. It is human (sin?) nature to fight against God.

Amen! There are plenty of good books on this subject.

[RajunCajun86]

You can't literally mean that scripture is God?
how about this...
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1