Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Authority of Scripture

* * * * * 1 votes

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
102 replies to this topic

#1
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
In this OP I wish to challenge an assumption.  In several threads I contended that much of the early chapters in Genesis were of mythic material and not to be taken as strict history—whether or not there was a massive flood in the remote past, a Christian is not obliged to assume that it was global, nor that a single vessel once carried two of every species (excluding fish) for nearly (or just over) a year.  To this contention I (and others) were met with the accusation that I have subjected Scripture to my own authority; the implication being that one can (and should) be wholly submitted to Scripture.  I have thought long about the accusation and have come to two conclusions:  yes, I do; and so do you.  I will take another controversial topic to make my point.

 

In Genesis 1 beasts are clearly created before man and woman on the sixth day.  But when we turn to chapter 2 it appears they (as well as birds) are created after man but before woman: that is, the Hebrew and the logical sequence of the narrative all suggest this—so much so that if all we had were chapter two, there would be no question as to the order in which beast, bird, and mankind were created.  Now, if one held Scripture as the sole authority for one’s beliefs, he would conclude that both were true.  I do not mean he would dismiss the two as contradictory accounts—I mean he would maintain that contradictions were completely reconcilable with his conviction that Scripture were inspired.  If such a person actually I exists, I have never met him; for one of the few philosophical maxims that remains today is the principle of non-contradiction—if the Bible is truly inerrant, then it must be free of contradiction: hence the several maneuvers made by pious Christians to reconcile the apparent discrepancy.  Some conclude that, despite the Hebrew and the narrative sequence, the beasts and birds mentioned in chapter 2 are referring to creatures already made.  Others, like myself, maintain that the two accounts are chiefly thematic, rather than historically chronological (obviously there is chronology involved: wherever there is a narrative there must be sequence.  But the point of Genesis 1 and two is not to give an historical account of creation).  Whichever is right (if either) is not the point of this OP.  The point is that both readers feel the need to reconcile the two chapters of Genesis with the principle of non-contradiction; but whence does this principle derive?  It cannot derive from Scripture.  Even if we found a Hebrew or Greek (or Aramaic) word corresponding to the English “contradiction” within a proposition condemning the concept, still this would merely be one more proposition at odds with certain other propositions.  The fact is that the principle is derived not from Scripture but from Reason. The shortest reflection on this discovery will show that very few Bible readers truly embrace Scripture as their sole or even highest authority.  Wherever there is a discrepancy in Scripture, it is reason which has exposed it; and wherever there is felt the need to resolve it, it is reason which issues this demand.  Wherever a solution is offered, it is reason which has discovered it.  Both the threatened principle, the need for a solution to the threat, and the solution itself all find their source in Reason, not Scripture.  But this is just another way of saying that Scripture is obligated to something other than reason.   If Scripture is truly inspired, it must meet certain criteria; criteria imposed upon it from without.

The practical result of this thesis is small but important.  The answer to such rhetorical outbursts as, “Who are you to determine which parts of Scripture are literal and which are not;” or “Who are you to question Scripture?!” is, “I am a thinking person, endowed by God with Reason.” But it would be better to drop these accusations altogether: for, as the old saying goes, wherever a finger is pointed at someone else, three are pointed at one’s self.  We are all demanding of Scripture certain characteristics to meet our own definition of “inspired”.  I do not require of it inerrancy; some do.  But the principle of non-contradiction is, to some degree, always operating.

 

clb



#2
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,892 posts

I would think that it would depend on the scripture you were commenting on......    we have thousands of manuscripts of parts of the bible and these manuscripts do not all agree on some of the wording....   then there is the translation problem from Hebrew and Greek to English...

 

If  the Bible is the totally inerrant word of God, I would think that it would be the original manuscript which unfortunately we do not have....

 

I can tell you that there are no English Bibles that would fit that description simply from the different Greek words that are translated "love" in English.    The story of Jesus asking Peter if he loved him three times would be an example.    While it really doesn't pertain to anything critical in any salvation way,it is an example of the problems we can have if we put total faith in what something means in English.

 

Oh, and btw,  Jesus asked Peter a different question the third time.....   and that question would hurt any of us.   It was not that he had asked the question for a third time, it was the question he asked.



#3
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,192 posts
Now, if one held Scripture as the sole authority for one’s beliefs, he would conclude that both were true.  I do not mean he would dismiss the two as contradictory accounts—I mean he would maintain that contradictions were completely reconcilable with his conviction that Scripture were inspired.  If such a person actually I exists, I have never met him; for one of the few philosophical maxims that remains today is the principle of non-contradiction—if the Bible is truly inerrant, then it must be free of contradiction: hence the several maneuvers made by pious Christians to reconcile the apparent discrepancy.

 

So is the Bible the sole authority for your beliefs, or do you have more than one authority upon which you base your faith?

 

Do you believe that the Bible has genuine contradictions that cannot be resolved?

 

I do not require of it inerrancy; some do.

 

 

Do you require inerrancy where your eternal salvation is concerned?   Is it okay with you if the Gospel is full of contradictions?



#4
Cletus

Cletus

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts
Something that helps me to understand the bible is I look at it like a big puzzle with lots of pieces. The bible says all scripture is God breathed, so I try to fit all the pieces/scriptures together to form one picture. By doing this I have been able to find some teachings out there to be false because certian pieces dont fit. And the more I do this I find all the pieces do fit together. Basicly i use scripture to interpret scripture.

just wondering connor, are you saved? I saw on your profile you had requested a status change. I only mention this because I have seen several people say they didnt understand the bible before they were saved, and after they had been saved the scriptures came to life for them. Your current (at the time I wrote this) status is seeker and I am not exactly certian what that means.

#5
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,907 posts

First of all, I believe the Bible is inerrant, and that the Genesis account of creation is a fact.  I also believe Noah's flood is exactly as recorded, and that it covered the entire earth.  There is no contradiction in Genesis with regard to God creating man.  In Genesis chapter one, it simply records the fact that God created man in his image.  This is interesting to me, because in a way, God did create Adam before Eve, but in another way, God created Adam and Eve at the same time.  In the mind of God, both Adam and Eve existed, just as in the mind of God, the prophet Jeremiah existed before he was created in the womb.  Eve is part of Adam.  She is bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh.  Before God placed Adam in a deep sleep, Eve was one of Adam's ribs.  In that sense, she already existed, and in the mind of God, she already existed.  I will also reveal to you another mystery.  The Bible says that when a man and woman get married, they become one flesh.  The carnal way to look at this is to say they become intimate and one that way, but spiritually, the rib that was taken from the man is restored, and he and the woman are one complete person.  Genesis chapter one is just speaking in general terms of the creation of mankind, and God mentions creating mankind male and female.  In Genesis chapter 2, we see the exact account of how the woman was formed, and the reason why she was formed.  There is no contradiction. 

 

The stories in Genesis are not mythology.  They are absolute facts, and I trust them above any science book when it comes to telling me about the creation and I trust it above any history book when it comes to the history of the world in it's infancy. 



#6
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

Something that helps me to understand the bible is I look at it like a big puzzle with lots of pieces. The bible says all scripture is God breathed, so I try to fit all the pieces/scriptures together to form one picture. By doing this I have been able to find some teachings out there to be false because certian pieces dont fit. And the more I do this I find all the pieces do fit together. Basicly i use scripture to interpret scripture.

just wondering connor, are you saved? I saw on your profile you had requested a status change. I only mention this because I have seen several people say they didnt understand the bible before they were saved, and after they had been saved the scriptures came to life for them. Your current (at the time I wrote this) status is seeker and I am not exactly certian what that means.

 

I am a believer.  When I joined this forum I do not recall being asked for my status; apparently the default was "non-believer".  At least that was how I was tagged.  I requested a status change but because of "questionable doctrine" I was "upgrated" to Seeker until "further notice".  I am fine with that.  We are all seeking, are we not?

 

clb



#7
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,487 posts

I am a believer.  When I joined this forum I do not recall being asked for my status; apparently the default was "non-believer".  At least that was how I was tagged.  I requested a status change but because of "questionable doctrine" I was "upgrated" to Seeker until "further notice".  I am fine with that.  We are all seeking, are we not?

 

clb

 

 

The default status is that of a member. An admin has to change the status of a member to Non-Believer or Seeker. That is most often due to a post that points to the person's belief regarding Jesus Christ.

God bless,

GE



#8
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

Now, if one held Scripture as the sole authority for one’s beliefs, he would conclude that both were true.  I do not mean he would dismiss the two as contradictory accounts—I mean he would maintain that contradictions were completely reconcilable with his conviction that Scripture were inspired.  If such a person actually I exists, I have never met him; for one of the few philosophical maxims that remains today is the principle of non-contradiction—if the Bible is truly inerrant, then it must be free of contradiction: hence the several maneuvers made by pious Christians to reconcile the apparent discrepancy.

So is the Bible the sole authority for your beliefs, or do you have more than one authority upon which you base your faith?

 

I have already stated no, and equally, neither do you.  Reason is an authority. If it were not, you would never set out to resolve apparent contradictions.


Do you believe that the Bible has genuine contradictions that cannot be resolved?

UP to date, yes.  There are apparent contradictions in the Bible to which I have found no convincing solution.  If I should find solutions to them, I would be happy.  But it does not keep me up at night.

 

 

I do not require of it inerrancy; some do.


Do you require inerrancy where your eternal salvation is concerned?   Is it okay with you if the Gospel is full of contradictions?

 

Behind this question lies the enormous difference between you and me.  I treat the Bible as if it were any historical document; only then do I discover that it is much more than that; and only  from this approach do I let Scripture tell me how it is inspired.  You (seem to) start with your own definition of inspiration, i.e. inerrancy; therefore you are forced to embrace what appears to me to be the most implausible solutions to apparent contradictions.  My faith is not in inerrancy.  My faith is in Jesus.  My examination of Scripture has led me to believe that He was raised from the dead.  The obvious retort is, “how can you trust those documents?”  Same way I trust any historical document.  The Christian answer to the Jesus puzzle is the BEST explanation.  I have looked at alternative explanations and found them weak; what’s more, they all have naturalistic/materialistic assumptions underpinning them, which are philosophical, not historical, positions—a philosophy which my own reasoning has found bogus.

 

There is something even intellectually perverse in the fiercest advocates for inerrancy.  Again, someone asks me “why do you trust the Bible if you don’t believe in inerrancy?”  As if simply saying it is inerrant suddenly solves the whole problem!  Inerrancy simply means completely trustworthy—so inerrantists are basically saying that they “know the Bible is trustworthy because it is completely trustworthy”. Viciously circular.  To the man who claims the Bible is inerrant because he has examined every one of its discrepancies and found them resolvable, I can respect.  But very few meet that description ( I have met none).  Most begin with the assumption that it is inerrant, and then proceed to prove it's inerrant!  And of course the imagination of the fanatic is inexhaustible--characteristic of the fanatic is unquestioned belief in the teeth of overwhelming, reliable adverse evidence.  I am not a fanatic.
 
Put another way,I see the doctrine of inerrancy as merely a safeguard against doubt: (most) inerrantists hail the Bible as inerrant because they do not like the implications of it containing errors: like a man who claims a ladder is safe because he can’t stand the thought of falling.  I think for some people, this is condonable, perhaps even advisable. There are certain minds or temperaments that are simply not equipped to meet head-on difficult theological questions. Let them remain under the comforting illusion of inerrancy.  If a placebo counters the symptoms, then take the placebo.  But they should not criticize people who want real medicine, no matter how bitter it tastes.  I seek truth, at any cost.
 
clb


#9
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

First of all, I believe the Bible is inerrant, and that the Genesis account of creation is a fact.  I also believe Noah's flood is exactly as recorded, and that it covered the entire earth.  There is no contradiction in Genesis with regard to God creating man.  In Genesis chapter one, it simply records the fact that God created man in his image.  This is interesting to me, because in a way, God did create Adam before Eve, but in another way, God created Adam and Eve at the same time.  In the mind of God, both Adam and Eve existed, just as in the mind of God, the prophet Jeremiah existed before he was created in the womb.  Eve is part of Adam.  She is bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh.  Before God placed Adam in a deep sleep, Eve was one of Adam's ribs.  In that sense, she already existed, and in the mind of God, she already existed.  I will also reveal to you another mystery.  The Bible says that when a man and woman get married, they become one flesh.  The carnal way to look at this is to say they become intimate and one that way, but spiritually, the rib that was taken from the man is restored, and he and the woman are one complete person.  Genesis chapter one is just speaking in general terms of the creation of mankind, and God mentions creating mankind male and female.  In Genesis chapter 2, we see the exact account of how the woman was formed, and the reason why she was formed.  There is no contradiction. 

 

The stories in Genesis are not mythology.  They are absolute facts, and I trust them above any science book when it comes to telling me about the creation and I trust it above any history book when it comes to the history of the world in it's infancy. 

 

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant because you have examined it impartially and found it contained no errors; or did you begin with inerrancy?

 

An analogy.  Someone I respect hands me a book of mathematical equations and tells me it is the work of the greatest mathematician ever.  Do I first open the book and examine it for myself to see if that is true, or do I assume it is true, open it, and allow even what seems like errors to alter my entire understanding of math?

 

clb



#10
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,487 posts

In this OP I wish to challenge an assumption.  In several threads I contended that much of the early chapters in Genesis were of mythic material and not to be taken as strict history—whether or not there was a massive flood in the remote past, a Christian is not obliged to assume that it was global, nor that a single vessel once carried two of every species (excluding fish) for nearly (or just over) a year.  To this contention I (and others) were met with the accusation that I have subjected Scripture to my own authority; the implication being that one can (and should) be wholly submitted to Scripture.  I have thought long about the accusation and have come to two conclusions:  yes, I do; and so do you.  I will take another controversial topic to make my point.

 

In Genesis 1 beasts are clearly created before man and woman on the sixth day.  But when we turn to chapter 2 it appears they (as well as birds) are created after man but before woman: that is, the Hebrew and the logical sequence of the narrative all suggest this—so much so that if all we had were chapter two, there would be no question as to the order in which beast, bird, and mankind were created.  Now, if one held Scripture as the sole authority for one’s beliefs, he would conclude that both were true.  I do not mean he would dismiss the two as contradictory accounts—I mean he would maintain that contradictions were completely reconcilable with his conviction that Scripture were inspired.  If such a person actually I exists, I have never met him; for one of the few philosophical maxims that remains today is the principle of non-contradiction—if the Bible is truly inerrant, then it must be free of contradiction: hence the several maneuvers made by pious Christians to reconcile the apparent discrepancy.  Some conclude that, despite the Hebrew and the narrative sequence, the beasts and birds mentioned in chapter 2 are referring to creatures already made.  Others, like myself, maintain that the two accounts are chiefly thematic, rather than historically chronological (obviously there is chronology involved: wherever there is a narrative there must be sequence.  But the point of Genesis 1 and two is not to give an historical account of creation).  Whichever is right (if either) is not the point of this OP.  The point is that both readers feel the need to reconcile the two chapters of Genesis with the principle of non-contradiction; but whence does this principle derive?  It cannot derive from Scripture.  Even if we found a Hebrew or Greek (or Aramaic) word corresponding to the English “contradiction” within a proposition condemning the concept, still this would merely be one more proposition at odds with certain other propositions.  The fact is that the principle is derived not from Scripture but from Reason. The shortest reflection on this discovery will show that very few Bible readers truly embrace Scripture as their sole or even highest authority.  Wherever there is a discrepancy in Scripture, it is reason which has exposed it; and wherever there is felt the need to resolve it, it is reason which issues this demand.  Wherever a solution is offered, it is reason which has discovered it.  Both the threatened principle, the need for a solution to the threat, and the solution itself all find their source in Reason, not Scripture.  But this is just another way of saying that Scripture is obligated to something other than reason.   If Scripture is truly inspired, it must meet certain criteria; criteria imposed upon it from without.

The practical result of this thesis is small but important.  The answer to such rhetorical outbursts as, “Who are you to determine which parts of Scripture are literal and which are not;” or “Who are you to question Scripture?!” is, “I am a thinking person, endowed by God with Reason.” But it would be better to drop these accusations altogether: for, as the old saying goes, wherever a finger is pointed at someone else, three are pointed at one’s self.  We are all demanding of Scripture certain characteristics to meet our own definition of “inspired”.  I do not require of it inerrancy; some do.  But the principle of non-contradiction is, to some degree, always operating.

 

clb

 

Are you speaking of Genesis 1:1–2:3, Genesis 2:4-22?

 

As I understand it among Christians there are 3 camps when it comes to the creation of the world:

A. YEC (Young Earth Creationists)

B. OEC (Old Earth Creationists)

C. Evolutionists


 

God bless,

GE

 



#11
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,192 posts
Behind this question lies the enormous difference between you and me.  I treat the Bible as if it were any historical document; only then do I discover that it is much more than that; and only  from this approach do I let Scripture tell me how it is inspired.

 

It already tells you how it is inspired II Tim. 3:16 and II Pet. 1:21

 

You (seem to) start with your own definition of inspiration, i.e. inerrancy; therefore you are forced to embrace what appears to me to be the most implausible solutions to apparent contradictions.

 

Well, no.  My definition of inspiration isn't inerrancy.   Inerrancy is an entirely different concept.  My definition of inspiration is based on the Scriptures being 100% God breathed.   Now inerrancy flows from that, in that an all knowing God cannot be in error on anything.   But to say that my definition of inspiration is inerrancy demonstrates that you don't really understand either concept.

 

My faith is not in inerrancy.  My faith is in Jesus.

 

My faith is not in inerrancy, either.   But it is my faith that allows to me understand that the Bible is 100% inerrant and 100% on everything it says.  If the Bible

 

Inerrancy simply means completely trustworthy—so inerrantists are basically saying that they “know the Bible is trustworthy because it is completely trustworthy”. Viciously circular.

 

that's not quite how it works.  Inerrancy simply means if the Bible says it happened, it happened.   Some people view the Bible as trustworthy despite the fact that they feel it has errors, and so I need to make the distinction between trustworthy and the actual definition of inerrancy.

 

To the man who claims the Bible is inerrant because he has examined every one of its discrepancies and found them resolvable, I can respect.  But very few meet that description ( I have met none).  Most begin with the assumption that it is inerrant, and then proceed to prove it's inerrant!  And of course the imagination of the fanatic is inexhaustible--characteristic of the fanatic is unquestioned belief in the teeth of overwhelming, reliable adverse evidence.  I am not a fanatic.

 

Inerrancy has nothing to with discrepancies.   Not all discrepancies are created equal.    There are for example, scribal errors in the Bible that have no effect on inerrancy whatsoever.  Spelling errors and errors in how many chariots or foot soldiers were in a particular battles have no effect on inerrancy.  The kind of contradiction that needs to occur for there to a genuine challenge inerrancy would be something on the level with a claim that Judas hung himself in one Gospel and another Gospel that claims that Judas was murdered by a Roman soldier.  
 
The problem is that none of the silly alleged contradictions really come up with that example.  Most of them are scribal errors that are offered have no effect on the substance of the text and have no effect on any doctrine taught in Scripture.  This view that "the Bible is full of contradictions"  is really just a  lot of nonsense.
 

Put another way,I see the doctrine of inerrancy as merely a safeguard against doubt: (most) inerrantists hail the Bible as inerrant because they do not like the implications of it containing errors: like a man who claims a ladder is safe because he can’t stand the thought of falling.

 

Yeah and you are wrong.   We don't impose inerrancy of the Bible because we are afraid to think of the Bible having errors.   We believe in the inerrancy of the Bible because the Bible purports and demonstrates its inerrancy and because both history and archeology also lend support to the Bible's claims.

 

Al Mohler, president of Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY observes:  “Without an inerrant, authoritative Bible, the minister has nothing to preach, because we depend upon an authority that is not our own, to declare to people.  And if we don’t have confidence in the absolute authority and perfection of the Word of God, your authority in preaching is completely compromised."

 

"Why did the people marvel at Jesus’ teachings?  Because he was funny?  Because He was clever or because he was up to date on Herodian politics?  No, they marveled because He spoke as one who had authority.  All we have to offer the world is mercy, truth and grace. And if you think you can maximize grace by minimizing truth you will have neitherYou cannot have an authoritative word with out an inerrant word. The bottom line is what is the preacher doing.  If the preacher isn’t preaching, 'thus saith the Lord,' he is only reflecting his own opinion. And the distinction between thus saith the Lord and 'here is my opinion' is an infinite distance.  The congregation needs the word of God and confidence in the Word of God is what the pastor must have and then share.  If it less than inerrant it is less than authoritative and it will show up in preaching

 

 

 I think for some people, this is condonable, perhaps even advisable. There are certain minds or temperaments that are simply not equipped to meet head-on difficult theological questions. Let them remain under the comforting illusion of inerrancy.

 

 

 

I would expect that kind of comment to come from Richard Dawkins.  It is disturbing when people who allege that they are Christians start sounding like atheists.  

 

If a placebo counters the symptoms, then take the placebo.  But they should not criticize people who want real medicine, no matter how bitter it tastes.  I seek truth, at any cost.

 

Inerrancy is a doctrine, an essential doctrine of the Christian faith, not a placebo.   No you are not seeking truth.  You are challenging the integrity of God's word and by extension you are challenging God's integrity.   Your posts demonstrate direct enmity with the truth.



#12
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,907 posts

Did I always believe in the inerrancy of scripture?  Yes.  At the same time, I have spent time reading the Bible repeatedly, and found that any so-called contradictions or errors and unfounded.  Take the example you gave in Genesis.  I don't see this as a contradiction at all.  I never have.  I could fully see what it meant, and that what you call an apparent contradictions is not a contradiction. 

 

You asked if I believed the Bible was inerrant before reading it, and my answer is yes.  How about you Conner?  Did you start out believing it was inerrant, and only after seeing things you can't understand, did you then change your mind, or did you already think there were issues with things like Genesis, and you jumped on anything you could find to show contradictions? 



#13
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,502 posts

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

~

 

In this OP I wish to challenge an assumption. 

 

In several threads I contended that much of the early chapters in Genesis were of mythic material and not to be taken as strict history—whether or not there was a massive flood in the remote past, a Christian is not obliged to assume that it was global, nor that a single vessel once carried two of every species (excluding fish) for nearly (or just over) a year. 

 

To this contention I (and others) were met with the accusation that I have subjected Scripture to my own authority; the implication being that one can (and should) be wholly submitted to Scripture. 

 

I have thought long about the accusation and have come to two conclusions:  yes, I do; and so do you....

 

~

 

Me, You And All Men

 

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Hebrews 11:3

 

Will Either Believe In The Jesus Of The Bible

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

Or The Bible Will Judge Them

 

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

 

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12:47-48

 

~

 

See Beloved It's Not About Your Philosophy

 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

Nor About Man's Speculations

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

But About Jesus

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

And His Blood

 

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, Revelation 1:5

 

Love, Joe

 

~

 

In Other Words

 

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

 

Keep The Faith

 

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

 

The Bible  contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers.

 

Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions immutable.

 

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy.

 

It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

 

It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's charter.

 

Here Paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed.

 

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end.

 

It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet.

 

Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.

 

It is a mine of wealth, a Paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

 

It is given to you in life, will be open in the judgment, and be remembered forever.

 

It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and condemns all who trifle with its holy precepts.

 

From The Front Of My Gideon New Testament

 

~

 

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

 

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

 

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Hebrews 11:7



#14
Sevenseas

Sevenseas

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,197 posts

I find the Bible becomes more inerrant about the nature of human kind the longer I know God.

 

And I don't mean this to you Connor, but some people look for what they perceive as errant because they see too much of themself the more they read.....in the Bible

 

However, I agree that responses such as 'who do you think you are' don't qualify as answers and certainly not discussion.  sometimes though, people will respond that

way because they don't have a clue about the ...often...honest questions...however, I find that engaging the brain usually works much better.....however, faith is a gift

and we are drawn by the Holy Spirit...sure...we all have questions



#15
OakWood

OakWood

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,985 posts

I can give a few examples of where I thought I had discovered an error in the Bible but later found out that there was no error, just my misunderstanding of it. The error didn't lie in the Bible, it lay in a man-made definition of something that had clouded my judgement.

 

The problem here is that if you think that the Bible contains even one error, then it must be possible for it to contain more errors. Once you believe that the Bible contains errors it becomes easy for you to convince yourself that you can reinterpret scripture to suit yourself rather than to suit God.

I don't believe that the Bible contains any errors but it does contain a few conundrums that sometimes look like errors when you first come across them.



#16
Tristen

Tristen

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts

Hi CLB,

 

I would suggest to you that we apply reason because the Biblical version of reality portrays a rational Creator. Not all faiths portray reality this way. For example, in much eastern thought, reality is a great mind that can be changed at any moment. Greek and Roman God’s are often portrayed as erratic, capricious and irrational.

 

Yet the Bible portrays the Creator as a rational God of order. Adherents to the Bible are admonished to "test all things", to think about (“meditate on”) why we believe what we do, to pursue knowledge and truth and wisdom, to question the validity of human claims and philosophies, to apply “reason” to the defence of our beliefs etc.

 

Therefore we apply reason in submission to the authority of scripture, not as an authority over scripture.



#17
Openly Curious

Openly Curious

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,299 posts


I would expect that kind of comment to come from Richard Dawkins.  It is disturbing when people who allege that they are Christians start sounding like atheists.



 
Inerrancy is a doctrine, an essential doctrine of the Christian faith, not a placebo.   No you are not seeking truth.  You are challenging the integrity of God's word and by extension you are challenging God's integrity.   Your posts demonstrate direct enmity with the truth.
 
 

 

 

 

 

I couldn't agree with you more Shiloh.  Either one believes the record we have been given or they don't.  You can't believe in the God of the Bible and then turn around and fight against the God of the Bible for that is the true character of the atheists.



#18
Cletus

Cletus

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts

Something that helps me to understand the bible is I look at it like a big puzzle with lots of pieces. The bible says all scripture is God breathed, so I try to fit all the pieces/scriptures together to form one picture. By doing this I have been able to find some teachings out there to be false because certian pieces dont fit. And the more I do this I find all the pieces do fit together. Basicly i use scripture to interpret scripture.
just wondering connor, are you saved? I saw on your profile you had requested a status change. I only mention this because I have seen several people say they didnt understand the bible before they were saved, and after they had been saved the scriptures came to life for them. Your current (at the time I wrote this) status is seeker and I am not exactly certian what that means.

 
I am a believer.  When I joined this forum I do not recall being asked for my status; apparently the default was "non-believer".  At least that was how I was tagged.  I requested a status change but because of "questionable doctrine" I was "upgrated" to Seeker until "further notice".  I am fine with that.  We are all seeking, are we not?
 
clb

Yes we are seeking something. Connor, do you believe the bible to be inspired of God, that is to say The Holy Spirit used people to write the bible? Because the bible does say all scripture is God breathed. And you either believe this or you dont. If you are having trouble believing this look into prophecys in the book. All the ones with historical value are accurate. Then there are others like say psalms 22. This psalm is accurate to the accounts in the new testament of when Jesus was being crucified. Even in verse one it starts out my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? This is what Jesus said on the cross, and King David wrote this psalm 2000 years before Christ came in the flesh. Even modern day physicians have said the statements in psalm 22 accuratly depict the symptoms one would have experienced if crucified. We are talking 2000 years span of time. Connor until you settle it in your heart that the bible is indeed written by The Almighty then you will continue to have these conundrums. This is really a faith issue, you believe or you dont.

#19
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,487 posts

Hopefully Connor will return to the discussion. :)



#20
faith pleases God

faith pleases God

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts

 

Behind this question lies the enormous difference between you and me.  I treat the Bible as if it were any historical document; only then do I discover that it is much more than that; and only  from this approach do I let Scripture tell me how it is inspired.

 

It already tells you how it is inspired II Tim. 3:16 and II Pet. 1:21

 

Amen!






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network