Inerrancy vs. Infallibility

[Sheniy]

Wow, this thread is getting entertaining.  I'm gonna go get some popcorn.  Anyone want popcorn?
 
@inchrist
  Shiloh and others have already argued this topic into the ground in the Faith vs Science part of the forums, including the arguments you gave.  It's nothing really new.  Probably why Shiloh doesn't want to get into it with you here.  That, and the fact that your wording probably came across as a bit insulting to some people.  I agree with some of your points, but I was  cringing a bit at the way you presented them.  Telling someone their ideas are unreasonable isn't a good way to convince them to consider your side.
 
Also, it's not the topic of the original post.  Anyone remember what that was...?
 
*munches popcorn*

[Sheniy]

So I was doing some bible study and research for the Open Theism thread when I came across this post on Greg Boyd's blog.  I thought it was relevant to this thread regarding the inerrancy of Scripture and our foundation in Christ.

 

I thought it raised some good points.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Boyd's analogy of a house of cards it is just a tad oversimplifying the issue of inerrancy.   As an open theist, Boyd like his predecessors in open theism hold to the notion that it is possible for God to make mistakes because God doesn't and can't know the future.  So, in that vein of thinking, the Bible doesn't have to be inerrant because God isn't necessarily inerrant.  In truth, Boyd's views border on heresy, as he limits God's inerrancy only to what He can know, thus leaving all Bible prophecies that have not yet come to pass, up in the air.

 

The problem is that the Bible offers itself up as something we can put our ultimate faith in, particularly for salvation.  The Bible says in Rom. 10:17 that faith comes from hearing (or reading) the Word of God.   But how can one put their faith in something when it is not really clear when what we are reading is accurate or not?

 

Since we are putting our ultimate faith in the Bible for salvation, because we have forsaken all other faiths and are exclusively committed to the Bible isn't it reasonable that we would want what we are putting all of our faith in to be something we can trust 100% of the time???  When it is okay for the Bible to wrong about something, when we are depending on every word to be true, particularly where eternal salvation is at stake???

 

On purely natural level, would anyone ride in a car if they knew that the brakes only work ninety-nine times out of a hundred?

 

Boyd appears to be arguing that the Bible is true even if it isn't accurate, but when you examine the Bible, it doesn't offer us that option.  The Bible does give us the option of accepting as true spiritually, but inaccurate in matters of fact, history, etc.   The problem with Boyd's view is that it really isn't based on the clear revelation of Scripture but is rooted in philosophy, namely a philosophical position that finds its origin with Clark Pinnock back 1980.

 

Here is another point relevant to inerrancy:   Bible prophecy.   So far, Jesus has fulfilled all 300+ prophecies relative to his first coming and they were fulfilled to the letter.   How can a God who doesn't know the future and can't know the future offer up such a stunning and spotless record of prophetic accuracy?    These were not vague prophecies that could have meant anything.  They were all detailed prophecies.

 

If as Boyd argues that God can't know the future, how was God able to predict the crucifixion of Jesus over 500 years before crucifixion even existed?  This is an argument for inerrancy that goes beyond just knowing facts.   God inerrantly predicted Jesus birth and all of the circumstances surrounding it.  He predicted that Jesus would be rejected and beaten beyond recognition, that he would die as a result of crucifixion and rise again in the Old Testament hundreds of years into the future.  Again, there over 300 OT prophecies inerrantly prophesied and each one fulfilled precisely proving their inerrancy.

 

I would also point to the fact that we don't hold to inerrancy because we are afraid our little house of cards is going to collapse.  We hold to inerrancy because God presents us with no other option with regard to how we are to accept His word.   The Bible judges US .  We do not sit in judgment on it.   We don't get the option of treating the Bible like an all you can eat buffet where we can just pick what we want and leave the other stuff.    It is presented to us as one inspired, 100% inerrant word of God.  If we reject God's word on the basis of how God has presented to us, we are in rebellion against God.

[a-seeker]

 

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

                                                                                    

@ shiloh357

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it

How can one present the truth when you yourself has misinterpret the scriptures, esp gen 1?

Your teachings are false and will not entertain your responses.  I have nothing to say to you, and you have nothing to say to me that I have any intention of entertaining. As such, all of your posts will be ignored by me.

 

 

Shiloh, don't you think that was a little harsh?  Or was that aimed at me?  AFter all, you have denounced me as a false teacher but continue to correspond.

 

clb 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

                                                                                    

@ shiloh357

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it

How can one present the truth when you yourself has misinterpret the scriptures, esp gen 1?

Your teachings are false and will not entertain your responses.  I have nothing to say to you, and you have nothing to say to me that I have any intention of entertaining. As such, all of your posts will be ignored by me.

 

 

Shiloh, don't you think that was a little harsh?  Or was that aimed at me?  AFter all, you have denounced me as a false teacher but continue to correspond.

 

clb 

 

His errors are worse than yours in another thread and have nothing to do with what he presented in this thread. 

[a-seeker]

ConnorLiamBrown

I am rather interested to further discuss this debate with you, I notice your not overly sensitive so I believe we can discover the truth. 

 

I've given my "literal reading of the text." for you to consider

 

 

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

 

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would be more hestitant with these sentences:

 

when you havnt explored all options 

 

 

 

How could you possibly know what options I have and have not explored?

 

And a view becomes only unreasonable when an alternative is demonstrated to be the ONLY reasonable view.  And there is no way you can prove Genesis to be historical in genre: we are not dealing with a math or logic problem.  In this science, there is only probability.  You can show that by certain literary signs the probability of Genesis belonging to the historical genre is very high; that is not proof.

 

As to your reading: I have heard it before, and obviously am not convinced by the arguments.  Pick up any 10 commentaries and you will find numerous renderings of the Hebrew.  If the literal reading of the Hebrew were so obvious as you present it, we would have to assume that myriad scholars are idiots.  That is improbable to me. 

                                                                                    

Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text – Lets start deconstructing the confusion

The Bible itself does not say that YEHOVAH God created the universe about the time He created man and the plants and animals described in Genesis 1.

 

Genesis 1:2: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Compare this with Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it NOT in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

 

The Hebrew words for "without form and void" in Genesis 1:2 are tohu and bohu. They have the English meaning of "waste, empty, confusion, and chaos." The Hebrew word translated "in vain" in Isaiah 45:18 is also tohu, the very same word used in Genesis 1:2

 

So we see that YEHOVAH God did not create the earth in a state of tohu, but rather it had become that way. In the beginning the earth was not created in chaos. Something happened, however, that made it a chaos. Genesis 1, verse 2, reveals what both of you do not understand, the earth was no longer in a state of order. It was (or had become) in a state of utter confusion and waste.

So the Bible does tell us that in the beginning YEHOVAH God did not create the earth in tohu, but that it was now, as a result of some catastrophic event, in a state of tohu and bohu – confusion

 

 

 

That is an enormous leap to take from two different Biblcal contexts.  Isaiah is not giving a commentary on Genesis 1:1-3.  He is talking about the entire creation process: the goal of creation was to be inhabited; as eventually it was: this does not mean that it could not have proceeded from a state of chaos to a state of habitable order.  And in fact, that is just what we see.

 

 

 

In Genesis 1:2 we find that YEHOVAH's spirit moved above the face of the waters. The earth was already in existence, but its surface and atmosphere were in confusion.

 

Moving quickly to the fourth day of Genesis 1:14-19. Many people have read these verses -- along with Genesis 1:3-5 -- and, as a result, have come to the conclusion that the Bible  contradicts itself and is therefore an unreliable guide for human behavior. Genesis 1:14-19 reads as follows:

 

"And God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and rule over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

 

 

People look at these verses and say -- "this is referring to the creation of the sun, moon and stars!" But then some go back to Genesis 1:3-5 and read --

 

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

 

Now we seemingly have a problem: The fact that verse 3 says, "Let there be light: and there was light" indicates that the sun must be in existence to produce that light! Right here people start to think that these verses in Genesis are contradictory and, therefore, the Bible is unreliable. Let's, however, study this question in more detail.

 

Hence why your statement below

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  

 

You havnt been looking at scripture correctly,

 

 

Shiloh’s and my debate were not primarily on the reading of Genesis 1.  It was a philosophical topic on the criterion of error; ultimately what it would mean if the Bible contained certain errors—historical and geographical specifically.  Shiloh consistently accused me of attributing error to the author of Genesis 1.  I was insisting that I wasn’t.  There is a thread already established on the “literal reading” of Genesis.  That might be a better place to take this up…?

 

Genesis 1:1-2 refers to a time BEFORE the six days of creation. When these days commenced in Genesis 1:3, the sun, moon and stars were already in existence, their creation being referred to at Genesis 1:1. However, just prior to these six days of re-creation  "the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was a darkness upon the surface of the watery deep" (Genesis 1:2). Apparently, a swaddling band of cloud layers still enveloped the earth -- preventing light from reaching its surface. (Job 38:9: "When I made the clouds its [the earth's] garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band.)

 

 

 

APPARENTLY?  I have looked at the text a million times and that is still not apparent.  It is eisogesis.  Once more, all I see is a false connection from two different biblical texts.

 

What your witnessing is the 6 days of re-creation

 

When God said, Let there be light: and there was light." This statement refers to the light that came from the sun illuminating around the earth but not reaching the earth.

 

The sun was created long before the earth became a form, because the sun is the center of attraction of the solar system. Light from the sun was shining through space, but had not yet shined upon the earth because of the "swaddling band" that surrounded it.

 

The Bible does not reveal the exact age of the earth, but the Bible does tell us that man has been on the earth almost 6,000 years. Much unnecessary confusion has arisen because creationists generally have not understood that the earth was created -- along with the sun, moon and stars -- at some unrevealed length of time before man's creatiton.

 

 

 

Ah.  So this interpretation was constructed to accommodate science…?  That is not the purpose of exegesis.

 

I have given my own reading elsewhere: in short, I subscribe to the framework theory.  The 6 days are a literary device, with days 1-3 corresponding to days 4-6.  Light to luminaries, sky/sea to birds/fish, land with vegetation to beasts/man.  It was a way of telling the story of creation, moving along the theme of habitable places (days 1-3) to inhabitants (days3-6).  That theme is introduced by your two words tohu and bohu which should be translated "uninhabitable and uninhabited".  Thus God first makes it habitable, then inhabited.

 

 

clb

[Sheniy]

Boyd's analogy of a house of cards it is just a tad oversimplifying the issue of inerrancy.   As an open theist, Boyd...

(snip)

I know you're itching to debate the open theism topic. Believe me, I am, too. I'm sorry I'm not more equipped to discuss that topic, yet, and I appreciate your patience.

But can we keep that topic in that thread? This one has been derailed often enough, already.  

On the topic of inerrancy of scripture:

“Have you ever seen a really intricate house of cards? They are structures that are erected by leaning playing cards against one another. … The house as a whole depends on each and every card staying in place. If any card is removed, the whole thing collapses.

This is quite a bit like the way my early faith was held together, and I’ve found that it’s more or less the way most evangelicals embrace faith. … If any [beliefs] were removed, the whole edifice of our theology flattened out like a pancake.

The same thing can be applied to Scripture. … I was taught that if the earth was not created in six literal days and if Adam and Eve were not literal, historical people, then the whole Bible may as well be a book of lies. Flick this one card out, and the whole structure of faith collapses. When I began to question how old the earth was and how humans came into being, I may as well have been calling into question the historical evidence of Jesus.

 

And the same thing applied to every single passage of Scripture. Since we were taught that it had to be absolutely “inerrant” to be God’s Word, our faith in it could be destroyed by one verse being proved to contain a mistake. The Bible was itself a house of cards. …” (157-158)

 

  I posted the link to this because it resonated with my own testimony (my shattered shield analogy). During some severe testing of my own faith, I realized this exact thing.  How was my faith so weak that a little pressure could shake it so bad?!  I realized that I had put my faith in the wrong thing.

 

  Years ago, I read this interview of a man who used to be an powerhouse evangelist and a close friend of Billy Graham, but had since become an agnostic.  In his case, the thing that toppled his faith "house of cards" wasn't necessarily the inerrancy of Scripture, but the problem of evil. He adamantly declared that a loving God cannot exist.  He was then asked about the person of Jesus, and the answer he gave really stuck with me over the years.

 

  Templeton's body language softened.  It was as if he suddenly felt relaxed and comfortable in talking about an old and dear friend.  His voice, which at times had displayed such a sharp and insistent edge, now took on a melancholy and reflective tone.  His guard seemingly down, he spoke in an unhurried pace, almost nostalgically, carefully choosing his words as he talked about Jesus.

  "He was," Templeton began, "the greatest human being who has ever lived.  He was a moral genius.  His ethical sense was unique.  He was the intrinsically wisest person that I've ever encountered in my life or in my readings.  His commitment was total and led to his own death, much to the detriment of the world.  What could one say about him except that this was a form of greatness?"

  I was taken aback.  "You sound like you really care about him," I said.

  "Well, yes, he's the most important thing in my life," came his reply.  "I...I...I," he stuttered, searching for the right word, "I know it may sound strange, but I have to say...I adore him!"

  I wasn't sure how to respond.  "You say that with some emotion," I said. 

  "Well, yes.  Everything good I know, everything decent I know, everything pure I know, I learned from Jesus.  Yes...yes.  And tough!  Just look at Jesus.  He castigated people. He was angry. People don't think of him that way, but they don't read the Bible.  He had a righteous anger.  He cared for the oppressed and exploited.   There's no question that he had the highest moral standard, the least duplicity, the greatest compassion, of any human being in history.  There have been many other wonderful people, but Jesus is Jesus."

  "And so the world would do well to emulate him?"

  "Oh, my goodness, yes!  I have tried-- and try is as far as I can go--to act as I have believed he would act.  That doesn't mean I could read his mind, because one of the most fascinating things about him was that he often did the opposite thing you'd expect--"

  Abruptly, Templeton cut short his thoughts.  There was a brief pause, almost as if he was uncertain whether he should continue.

  "Uh...but...no," he said slowly, "he's the most..."  He stopped, then started again.  "In my view," he declared, "he is the most important human being who has ever existed."

  That's when Templeton uttered the words I never expected to hear from him. "And if I may put it this way," he said as his voice began to crack, "I...miss...him!"

  With that, tears flooded his eyes.  He turned his head and looked downward, raising his left hand to shield his face from me.  His shoulders sobbed as he wept...

  (Taken from the introduction to Lee Strobel's A Case for Faith)

 

  I remember after reading this and recognizing some of the same struggles that Templeton had in my own faith, I was afraid that I would end up the same way.  I didn't want to miss Jesus.  I prayed at that moment that no matter what happened, He wouldn't let me let Him go.  Years later, when my crisis of faith eventually did shatter my shield (or topple my house of cards), I was left with just a single shred that I clung to desperately.  It was my love and adoration of the person of Jesus.   Everything else was stripped away, but I couldn't let Him go.

  Rebuilding my faith has been a slow process, and one of the big questions I've had to ask myself is exactly how much emphasis on the literalness of Scripture was actually intended by God?  I couldn't put it back on the same level it was since it was the thing that toppled my faith to begin with.  I realized that questioning the literalness of parts of Scripture isn't the same thing as denying its accuracy, fallibility, or inspiration.  I now look at the bible as HIS story, like an autobiography, which is actually comprised of a number of smaller stories.  Many of the stories in the bible are historically accurate, many are complete fiction.  In most cases, that distinction isn't relevant, because all of the stories were intended to draw us to Him.

 

   While I don't put as much emphasis on the importance of the inerrancy of scripture, I don't actually believe it contains any errors.  But the reason I believe in Jesus isn't because I trust the inaccuracy of the bible.  The opposite is true, actually.  I believe the truths of the bible because I know and trust Jesus.  He is my foundation, the Cornerstone of my faith, not a need for the bible to be factually accurate in every detail.  All truths that matter are found in Him because He is the Truth, and the whole of Scripture is merely His testimony.

 

 

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Boyd's analogy of a house of cards it is just a tad oversimplifying the issue of inerrancy.   As an open theist, Boyd...

(snip)

I know you're itching to debate the open theism topic. Believe me, I am, too. I'm sorry I'm not more equipped to discuss that topic, yet, and I appreciate your patience.

But can we keep that topic in that thread? This one has been derailed often enough, already.  

 

 

 

 

I addressed inerrancy all over the place.  I dealt with inerrancy more than I did Open Theism.  Boyd's view of inerrancy is tied to his openness views.  The two are inseparable. It is impossible to address his views on inerrancy without recognizing and addressing that his views of inerrancy are for the most part informed by his open theistic posture. I understand him and I see where he is coming from because I understand Open Theism.   So when you post Boyd's blog about inerrancy, you can't really expect someone who understands his views to not at least address that to some extent

 

 

I posted the link to this because it resonated with my own testimony (my shattered shield analogy). During some severe testing of my own faith, I realized this exact thing.  How was my faith so weak that a little pressure could shake it so bad?!  I realized that I had put my faith in the wrong thing.

 

It's more likely that your faith wasn't strong enough in the right thing.  Lot's of people have the right beliefs but they were never really taught how to answer challenges to their faith.   Many former Christians can also testify to the shattered shield analogy.  There are many atheists who used to be Christians, on fire for God and their faith was shattered by questions put to them that they could not answer, they didn't have the critical thinking skills available to them to defend what they believed.  They believed the right thing, but in the end, the Evolutionists, the skeptics, the atheists finally made more sense to them and they discarded their faith.   Having your shield shattered and assuming that your inability to defend what you believe must be evidence that you were putting faith in the wrong thing is not necessarily an indicator that your faith is misplaced. It may be that you believe the right things but needed help defending what you believed.

 

The problem here is that you and Greg Boyd seem to be saying that the Bible doesn't need to be inerrant in every detail.   Yes it does.  Again, you are putting your ultimate faith in a book that purports to be God's  Word.  The Bible doesn't give you the option of saying, "it doesn't need to be inerrant on every detail."   The Bible claims to be inspired by a God who is inerrant in every detail  So for the the Bible to be inspired by an inerrant God, it needs to be inerrant in order to be internally consistent.  You don't want what you are putting your ultimate faith in to be wrong.   You don't want a Bible that can be wrong on the details because one of those "details" it is wrong about may a detail you need to be true in your life.

 

Furthermore, you seem to be diminishing the Bible by saying it is just His testimony and that the truth that matters is in Jesus, as if one is more important than the other.  What you again fail to realize is that the Bible doesn't give you the option of believing that about it.  The Bible says that God magnifies His Word above His own Name.   Given that He has the Name above all Names and that one's Name is connected to one's integrity and character in the Bible, for God to say He exalts it above His Name, means that He holds the Bible as more important than His own Name.  He is pouring all of His integrity into the Bible.  That level of importance defies God not caring about the details and getting the details right. 

 

You failed to address the fact that Bible prophecy proves the need for the Bible to be inerrant in every detail.  Prophecies in the Bible are not vague are fulfilled down to the last detail.  It is those little details that prove the Bible's divine origin and detailed inerrancy.

 

Jesus said that God's Word is truth and the Scripture says that God watches over His word to perform it.  God's integrity is intricately linked to the integrity and truthfulness of His word.  There is no error in God and thus God cannot inspire error.  

 

We need to have a Scripture-driven approach to God's word, and not a view that is informed by someone's blog.   The Bible judges the Church; the Church does not sit in judgment on the Bible. ~ John Wesley

[Sheniy]

 

 

Boyd's analogy of a house of cards it is just a tad oversimplifying the issue of inerrancy.   As an open theist, Boyd...

(snip)

I know you're itching to debate the open theism topic. Believe me, I am, too. I'm sorry I'm not more equipped to discuss that topic, yet, and I appreciate your patience.

But can we keep that topic in that thread? This one has been derailed often enough, already.

 

I addressed inerrancy all over the place.  I dealt with inerrancy more than I did Open Theism.  Boyd's view of inerrancy is tied to his openness views.  The two are inseparable. It is impossible to address his views on inerrancy without recognizing and addressing that his views of inerrancy are for the most part informed by his open theistic posture. I understand him and I see where he is coming from because I understand Open Theism.   So when you post Boyd's blog about inerrancy, you can't really expect someone who understands his views to not at least address that to some extent

 

I wasn't dismissing your points on inerrancy, but the ones on open theism for a few reasons.

1) You were misrepresenting a few things about open theism to some extent, and I was trying really hard not to counter them. The reminder to stay on topic was just as much for me as it was for you.

2) Boyd's views on inerrancy are not tied to his view on open theism. Open theism is actually very biblical, which I will show in the other thread if I can manage to keep myself from getting distracted by this one...lol

 

 

I posted the link to this because it resonated with my own testimony (my shattered shield analogy). During some severe testing of my own faith, I realized this exact thing.  How was my faith so weak that a little pressure could shake it so bad?!  I realized that I had put my faith in the wrong thing.

It's more likely that your faith wasn't strong enough in the right thing.  Lot's of people have the right beliefs but they were never really taught how to answer challenges to their faith.   Many former Christians can also testify to the shattered shield analogy.  There are many atheists who used to be Christians, on fire for God and their faith was shattered by questions put to them that they could not answer, they didn't have the critical thinking skills available to them to defend what they believed.  They believed the right thing, but in the end, the Evolutionists, the skeptics, the atheists finally made more sense to them and they discarded their faith.   Having your shield shattered and assuming that your inability to defend what you believe must be evidence that you were putting faith in the wrong thing is not necessarily an indicator that your faith is misplaced. It may be that you believe the right things but needed help defending what you believed.

 

 

I do agree that many people aren't theologically equipped to deal with the doubts and questions that arise concerning faith and the bible. Discipleship is one of the biggest deficiencies in the Church today, and probably her greatest failing.

However, I have yet to hear any argument or logic that would have prevented my "house of cards" from toppling. There was no defense that could have saved it as it was. I am perfectly fine with that. My understanding and love for Jesus has increased exponentially since I let the other stuff go, and I wouldn't go back to the way it was before for anything.

 

Furthermore, you seem to be diminishing the Bible by saying it is just His testimony and that the truth that matters is in Jesus, as if one is more important than the other.  What you again fail to realize is that the Bible doesn't give you the option of believing that about it.  The Bible says that God magnifies His Word above His own Name.   Given that He has the Name above all Names and that one's Name is connected to one's integrity and character in the Bible, for God to say He exalts it above His Name, means that He holds the Bible as more important than His own Name.  He is pouring all of His integrity into the Bible.  That level of importance defies God not caring about the details and getting the details right.

  I'm really sorry if this seems a bit harsh, but this smacks of borderline idolatry in my honest opinion.

 

  The bible is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, etc.   It is a true and accurate testimony of His Word, but the Word is Jesus.  

 

"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.  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.  In him was life; and the life was the light of men..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...For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." - John 1:1-4; 14; 17

 

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.   His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.  And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." - Revelation 19:11-13

 

 

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;  And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father." - Philippians 2:9-11 KJV

 

  The purpose of Scripture has always been to lead us to Jesus, who is the full revelation of God.

 

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Jn 5:39

 

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

 

"Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.  See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.  For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form," - Colossians 2:6-9 

[example of "tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world"] 

 

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." - 1 Corinthians 3:11

 

  In light of this, can you please show me where what I said is unbiblical?

 

   "While I don't put as much emphasis on the importance of the inerrancy of scripture, I don't actually believe it contains any errors.  But the reason I believe in Jesus isn't because I trust the inaccuracy of the bible.  The opposite is true, actually.  I believe the truths of the bible because I know and trust Jesus.  He is my foundation, the Cornerstone of my faith, not a need for the bible to be factually accurate in every detail.  All truths that matter are found in Him because He is the Truth, and the whole of Scripture is merely His testimony."

[Guest shiloh357]

I do agree that many people aren't theologically equipped to deal with the doubts and questions that arise concerning faith and the bible. Discipleship is one of the biggest deficiencies in the Church today, and probably her greatest failing.

However, I have yet to hear any argument or logic that would have prevented my "house of cards" from toppling.

 

Which is again, what every atheist I have ever encountered who claimed to believe the Bible has attested to.   A person unwilling to be convinced will not be convinced.  Even Jesus could not convince some people of the truth.  To be honest, and I am not trying to be mean here but you have some theology that is incoherent and that contributes to the problem of you not being convinced when shown the truth. 

 

There was no defense that could have saved it as it was. I am perfectly fine with that. My understanding and love for Jesus has increased exponentially since I let the other stuff go, and I wouldn't go back to the way it was before for anything.

 

Ah yes, that postmodern mindset where feelings override facts. 

 

 

Furthermore, you seem to be diminishing the Bible by saying it is just His testimony and that the truth that matters is in Jesus, as if one is more important than the other.  What you again fail to realize is that the Bible doesn't give you the option of believing that about it.  The Bible says that God magnifies His Word above His own Name.   Given that He has the Name above all Names and that one's Name is connected to one's integrity and character in the Bible, for God to say He exalts it above His Name, means that He holds the Bible as more important than His own Name.  He is pouring all of His integrity into the Bible.  That level of importance defies God not caring about the details and getting the details right.

  I'm really sorry if this seems a bit harsh, but this smacks of borderline idolatry in my honest opinion.

 

It doesn't seem harsh at all.  But what you're doing is accusing God of making an idol out of His own word.   Here is what the Bible says.

 

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

(Psa 138:2)

 

That's what it says.  It is not idolatry and it shows a lack of discernment to accuse God of committing idolatry.   What this shows is that God puts far more importance on the Bible than you think it deserves and it demonstrates that your perspective on the Bible is skewed.

 

Secondly you said this:

 

The bible is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, etc.   It is a true and accurate testimony of His Word, but the Word is Jesus.

 

Here again, you diminish the value of the Bible by implying that it is not the Word of God.   Jesus is the Word of God in the sense that Jesus is the personification of all of the prophecies and foreshadowing and allusions made about Him in the Old Testament.  All of the promises and prophecies of the coming Redeemer were met in Jesus Christ. 

 

The Bible is the Word of God and it claims to contain the very words of God.   You are trying to draw a false dichotomy where the Bible is a testimony of the Word and that is false teaching.   The Bible is God's written Word that testifies of the One who is the living Word of God. 

 

The problem with your view is that if the Bible isn't really "the Word of God" then it can be subject to error.  You made a qualified statement claiming that it is a true and accurate testimony of Jesus, leaving to question whether or not it is a true and accurate testimony of everything it addresses or simply what it says about Jesus.  In my previous discussions with you, you have made it clear that you don't believe the Bible needs to be accurate in everything in order to be true (which is an incoherent approach that would never work in any other context of life).  It stems from your rather low view of the Bible as not being the Word of God.   If we call it the Word of God, then it places an expectation of accuracy that you are not willing accept because that level of absolute accuracy doesn't fit well with theology you adopted after your "shield" was shattered and returning to the place where God's word can be trusted in all matters is something you say you are not interested in.

 

The purpose of Scripture has always been to lead us to Jesus, who is the full revelation of God.

 

That is ONE purpose of Scripture.  You're trying to limit the scope of Scripture and its purposes in order to avoid some of the glaring problems that stick out in your theology.

 

In light of this, can you please show me where what I said is unbiblical?

 

 

 

A low view of Scripture will produce an inaccurate definition of what being "biblical" means.  When we talk about something being biblical, we mean that it is in line with all of the doctrines of Scripture, that there are no doctrines that a particular teaching is in contradiction with.

 

Your position denies the authority and inerrancy/accuracy of the Bible and denies that the Bible is God's word.  You seem to stand in opposition to God's view that His Word is exalted above His own Name. 

 

Simply using Scripture to back up a skewed view of Scripture is not biblical.  Anyone can slant the Bible a certain way to make it appear to say what you want it to say.  Cults do that all of the time.   False teachings like the "Word of faith" movement, Open Theism, Christian Universalism, etc. are all based on a mishandling of Scripture and they all claim to be "biblical."