Authority of Scripture

[another_poster]

Another poster, if you are going to claim the bible has errors please list one. So far there is not one "error of the bible" in this entire thread.

 Which is simply not true. So my argument does still stand, although it may not matter because i think there is a miscommumication which i will address at the end of this post. And I cant address options until you give one.  And I did address how we find out the truth to translational errors. I said study, really study, and prayerfully study. 

A claim of an error has been made in this thread and not one person has addressed it. One person (Butero) addressed a different claim but that is the closest anyone has gone to addressing it. Talking about all posts up to and including this one (#30)

 

As far as why i brought up people being infallible, I brought it up because you brought it up saying in order for God to use people they had to be infallible. 

 

I never said any such thing. That is the way you have chosen to read it.

 

 

Put yourself in my shoes and go re read your original post to me, it sounds like you are saying the bible is not Gods word. After reading your second post to me it seems there has been a miscommunication/understanding.

 

I'm not surprised as that is the normal conclusion people leap to. It is always based on assumptions though as opposed to what is written. 

 

You have not listed an error or a scripture where opinion of a person Is present.

 

Didn't think I would need to as it is clearly stated. Paul even says it is not from God. It is only a small bit however the fact that it is there shows that God did not say write exactly this. If he did then Paul chose to ignore God and put his personal opinion in anyway in which case then Paul's writings would have to be viewed with a lot of doubt. Note I am not saying we should doubt the inspiration of Paul's writings.

[another_poster]

I am talking about your posts in this thread, starting with the OP.  There is a selectivity in your approach to the Bible, as if the Bible is true when you need for it to be true, but you appear to reserve the right to reject biblical claims. It's like the Bible is a smorgasbord to you.   It's appears that you seem to think that as long as you believe the right things about Jesus,  it doesn't matter what you believe about the rest of the Bible.

Since the bible actually allows for differences in beliefs on some topics then anything non-essential is open to have different beliefs without it being a problem. If you disagree then you are questioning the integrity of the bible and therefore questioning God's integrity!

 

 

It is a selective approach to the Bible and to its internal claims to be the inerrant Word of God.  You are not "testing" the Scriptures as we are commanded to do.  You are challenging the integrity of the Scriptures and by extension, you are challenging God's integrity as its author.

 

No you need to accept he has answered and outlined the consistent way he approaches scripture. 

 

The only thing mundane here is yoiur sloppy approach to the Bible. Again, none of that has anything to do with inerrancy.  If the Bible isn't inerrant, then which parts of the Bible do you put your ultimate faith in? Which parts of the Bible can you trust 100%?

 

If you care to read he explains his approach. It is a very consistent approach. It is just an approach different to yours but that is no reason to respond the way you have. 

 

You say it doesn't matter, but you are the one who brought it up originally as a challenge to our claims that the Bible is 100% inerrant.  

 

anyone who cares to actually read what is written can see that it is part of an answer to a question Connor was asked. 

[Openly Curious]

Hobbes, on 18 Aug 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

 

but at the same time, his resolution to not see the correction is something only Jesus can overcome as it is a war of principality wherein he needs our prayers.

 

 

I would agree with you about this.

[Guest shiloh357]

Since the bible actually allows for differences in beliefs on some topics then anything non-essential is open to have different beliefs without it being a problem. If you disagree then you are questioning the integrity of the bible and therefore questioning God's integrity!

 

But we are not talking about non-essential doctrines.   We are talking about the the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the biblical record and that is not a non-essential issue.  If the Bible is just true when I need for it to be true, I am defying the Bible's own claims to inerrancy and challenging its integrity and thus by extension, God's integrity, since He si the one who inspired it.

 

No you need to accept he has answered and outlined the consistent way he approaches scripture.

 

It is consistently inconsistent.   The Bible is true with regard to Jesus' resurrection, but can't seem to get its story straight in other places, evidently.   Yet it is completely reliable even thought it cant be trusted to be 100% accurate.  That is inconsistent.

 

If you care to read he explains his approach. It is a very consistent approach. It is just an approach different to yours but that is no reason to respond the way you have.

 

No, it is inconsistent in that it treats the Bible's claims as basically expendable.  The Bible, again, is true when it needs to be true, but if it says things one feels either doesn't make sense or is simply considered believable,  those claims can be discarded.

 

anyone who cares to actually read what is written can see that it is part of an answer to a question Connor was asked.

 

Yes, I know that.  But the point is that I am just working off of the example HE gave in his response.

[Hobbes]

John 10:35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

 

Setting aside the point of inerrancy, and the point of inspired, does anybody wish to argue against how Jesus validated the authority of the scripture?

[a-seeker]

As for your disagreement over the scripture in still seeing comtradictions or inconsistencies, I have to point out that if your faith does not matter one way or another, then why the thread?

 

 

 

Excellent question.  A few reasons:

 

1) People assume on this forum that unless I embrace inerrancy then I am either a bad Christian, or not a Christian at all.

 

2) inerrancy has shipwrecked many peoples' faith because they were raised on the kind of logic exhibited on this thread: if it isn't inerrant, then none of it is true. That is nonsense.  I would protect any that I can from that damage.

 

3) The logic behind inerrancy is terrible.  I am a fan of good thinking.  Thus I create threads that promote good thinking.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

 

 

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.

 

That is an empirical claim.  For it to be true then I would have to be lying when I said the Bible contains errors but Jesus is the risen Lord.  I am not lying.  I believe both.  Empirically you are wrong.

 

Atheists do not believe in God yet oppose the Bible.  They simply do not believe in God.

 

Well you can meditate all day long on the "origins" of donuts too. 

But until you visit the donut bakery you'll lack "empirical knowledge" of donut "creation". 

You either believe in the "evidence" of the Creation itself or you don't.

 

 

That makes no sense to me.  You made a claim that "either one believes in the record or they don't".  Now I assume you meant "all of the record...".  To refute that I would need to show only one person who didn't believe in inerrancy, but still believed in Christ.  There is me, and all those who acknowledge the infallibility of the Bible, which is different.  Ergo your claim is proven false.  Had nothing to do with doughnuts or origins.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

No.  That is completely wrong.  Show me the posts.  I don't deny that there may be posts that can be read in that way, but then this is a forum and whimsical writing will occur; but I am skeptical of your claim.  Now....

I am talking about your posts in this thread, starting with the OP.  There is a selectivity in your approach to the Bible, as if the Bible is true when you need for it to be true, but you appear to reserve the right to reject biblical claims. It's like the Bible is a smorgasbord to you.   It's appears that you seem to think that as long as you believe the right things about Jesus,  it doesn't matter what you believe about the rest of the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never once have I said that Jesus was raised “because I need Him to be raised to feel better about the world.”  That is a need based conclusion.

 

Do you believe everything in Josephus?  Do believe nothing in it?  Or do you believe some of it?  By what criterion?

Do you believe everything of every historian that ever wrote?  Do you believe nothing of every author that ever wrote? on what grounds?  Do you believe that Galileo published papers insisting on a heliocentric universe (there is strong evidence for this)?  Do you believe that he whispered at his trial "yet it moves...." (there is weak evidence for this)?  Do you believe it all or none of it?  Do you believe there was a Galileo?  Do you  believe there was a trial?  Do you believe he was persecuted (weak evidence)?

 

 

 

That's irrelevant.  We are not talking about human historical documents/historical claims.  We are talking about the Word of God.

 

 Yes, and whether it is inerrant. Now obviously if I began with the doctrine of inerrancy...well then, I will believe it is inerrant.  But if I don't begin there, then I examine it.  Lo and behold it shows things that seem to be incompatible.  I look around for explanations:  every single explanation is weak....so weak that I would not embrace them UNLESS I ALREADY BELIEVED IN INERRANCY.  But I don't.  Yet one of the claims in the Bible that meets the standards of reasonable thinking is that Jesus was raised.  Now, it just so happens that this is a very significant event, cosmic even.  Thus, I have very good grounds for believing I am saved.  This is not a need-based equation.

 

There are numerous examples of people who begin reading the Bible to refute it, then start realizing that very alarming things in it are actually true; they come to faith in Jesus yet do not believe in inerrancy.  They are still saved.  You cannot say they put their faith in Jesus because they emotionally need Him to have been raised; they approached the Bible initially with the exact opposite desire.

It's not a selective approach to inerrancy.  It's a selective approach to documents.  I test the examine the Scriptures, as i am commanded to do

It is a selective approach to the Bible and to its internal claims to be the inerrant Word of God.  You are not "testing" the Scriptures as we are commanded to do.  You are challenging the integrity of the Scriptures and by extension, you are challenging God's integrity as its author.

 

 

 

Yes.  It is a selective approach; but not a selective approach based on "need"; or, if there is a need, it is the need that claims be true, that they be backed by evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

And I find certain things unlikely, and certain things certain...so certain that only a bias in favor of other assumptions would lead me to reject.  And the reasoning that would like behind it I have seen to be wrong (i.e. responsible historical methods reveal that the best explanation for the puzzle of Jesus is that he was in fact raised; materialist explanations of reality say this is impossible; responsible philosophy proves that materialism is wrong.  Therefore, the best explanation of the gospels is that Jesus was raised.  That is good history in practice.

 

 

Like I said, you are able to have perfect faith in the Bible when it is dealing with something you NEED to true. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I’ve said, there is nothing in the above quotation that demonstrates a need-based conclusion.  Point to one sentence that says I believe Jesus was raised because I need him to be.  One sentence.  Everything above is about the evidence.  Logically materialism falls apart.  When we apply  responsible historical methodology to the gospels (i.e. Reason, not emotional needs) then the best EXPLANATI0N (not the best what-makes-me-feel-better assumption) is that he was raised. 

 

Now, having isolated the core of the gospel, I turn to the mundane issue of inerrancy.  If an author says one angel was present at the tomb, and another that two were at the tomb, I have the intellectual obligation to determine which is right, or both.

The only thing mundane here is yoiur sloppy approach to the Bible. Again, none of that has anything to do with inerrancy.  If the Bible isn't inerrant, then which parts of the Bible do you put your ultimate faith in? Which parts of the Bible can you trust 100%?

 

 

 

 

 

How does the number of angels not affect inerrancy?  The gospels do not agree; nor does any explanation satisfy. 

 

AGain, the parts I trust are the parts that are verifiable by responsible historical methods; you place the same expectations on the sciences, do you not?  You won’t believe a claim until it has been tested in the laboratory manner. NOw if what you are asking is how do I have the kind of conviction in Christ that we have in, say, mathematics.  I don't.  It's called faith.  Faith is a kind of knowledge; but it is not the same knowledge given by math or by logical deductions.  There are times when I doubt; when I wonder if I have looked at the facts right, or whether some atheistic explanation is better than the one that underpins Christianity.  And then what do I do?  Do reject Christianity?  No!  I go back to the evidence; lo and behold, the best explanation for Christianity remains to be that Christ was raised.

 

 I see no reason why one would leave out an angel, and another would leave out both.  Reason tells me that the authors have reasons other than pure history to present what they have presented.  Essentially, it matters not, because reason also tells me that the best explanation for the phenomenon of Jesus is that he was raised.

You say it doesn't matter, but you are the one who brought it up originally as a challenge to our claims that the Bible is 100% inerrant.  

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I don’t buy inerrancy at the moment.  It is inerrancy that I challenge, not belief in the Resurrection.  The resurrection does not sink or swim with inerrancy.  Either Jesus is God/man and was raised or he isn’t and wasn’t.  Either there were two angels, or one, or none, but there can be no combination of the three.  Now these are completely isolated historical issues.  To say that there was only one angel when other authors thought there two has no impact on whether Jesus was raised.  It is like saying that because Ptolemy got his facts wrong about the solar system he got his facts wrong about everything.I am very willing to do embrace inerrancy when good solutions are offered for the discrepancies in the Bible.  AS is, I have not met them.

[a-seeker]

We have enough copies to compare that we can deduce what was contained in the originals.   Even if the originals had spelling errors, that does not affect inerrancy in any way.   What effects inerrancy are errors of substance.

 

 

 

So, God can't spell?  And the bold face is a man-made criteria.  You have selected what errors the Bible can and cannot contain.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

Has it ever occurred to you that there was more than one visit to the tomb and thus different incidents with the angels?

 

 

 

That is exactly the kind of desperate maneuver which bewilders me and will only shipwreck an honest man’s faith who was fostered on inerrancy and then discovered errors.

 

Mark has MaryM and Mary J and Salome come and find the stone already rolled away; Matthew has only MM and MJ and they witness the rolling.  Mark has a man inside the tomb; Matthew has the angel sit on the stone.  In the Synoptics the angels tell them the good news and they go and tell the disciples; in John only MM is present, the stone already rolled away, does NOT meet angels, goes back under the assumption that someone stole Jesus’ dead body.

 

I mean, come on.  Did MM go to the tomb, find it already rolled, then leave, come back, find it back in place, then witness it rolled once more? Only desperation would make me find a way to harmonize that.  If the Koran attempted to harmonize a parallel puzzle about Mohammed you would cite that as proof that it isn’t inspired.  You are asking me to commit intellectual suicide.

 

 

 

Once more, I want to understand what you are saying first, for it is interesting.  You are saying that one genealogy REALLY goes through Mary, though it appears to go through Joseph, and the other really and clearly goes through Joseph, right, and so both were descendants of David?  Assuming a yes, did Luke know that the genealogy REALLY went through Mary?

No I didn't say that one genealogical record when through Mary.  Rather it went through her family's lineage and from her father to Joseph who for intents and purposes became the son of Mary's father, since Mary cannot own property.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, bear with me; I am sincerely interested in this solution, but I need clarifying points.

 

In Matthew, is Jacob Joseph's biological father, or Mary's?

 

In Luke, was Heli the biological father of Joseph, or of Mary?

 

 

 

And I find certain things unlikely, and certain things certain...so certain that only a bias in favor of other assumptions would lead me to reject.  And the reasoning that would like behind it I have seen to be wrong (i.e. responsible historical methods reveal that the best explanation for the puzzle of Jesus is that he was in fact raised; materialist explanations of reality say this is impossible; responsible philosophy proves that materialism is wrong.  Therefore, the best explanation of the gospels is that Jesus was raised.  That is good history in practice.

Like I said, you are able to have perfect faith in the Bible when it is dealing with something you NEED to true. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I’ve said, there is nothing in the above quotation that demonstrates a need-based conclusion.  Point to one sentence that says I believe Jesus was raised because I need him to be.  One sentence.  Everything above is about the evidence.  Logically materialism falls apart.  When we apply  responsible historical methodology to the gospels (i.e. Reason, not emotional needs) then the best EXPLANATI0N (not the best what-makes-me-feel-better assumption) is that he was raised.  If I said "All men are rational beings; Socrates is a rational being; therefore Socrates is a man" do I affirm this deduction because I need it to be true?  Or because I perceive that it is true?

 

 

 I see no reason why one would leave out an angel, and another would leave out both.  Reason tells me that the authors have reasons other than pure history to present what they have presented.  Essentially, it matters not.

 

 

You say it doesn't matter, but you are the one who brought it up originally as a challenge to our claims that the Bible is 100% inerrant.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I don’t buy inerrancy at the moment.  It is inerrancy that I challenge, not belief in the Resurrection.  The resurrection does not sink or swim with inerrancy.  Either Jesus is God/man and was raised or he isn’t and wasn’t.  Either there were two angels, or one, or none, but there can be no combination of the three.  Now these are completely isolated historical issues.  To say that there was only one angel when other authors thought there two has no impact on whether Jesus was raised.  It is like saying that because Ptolemy got his facts wrong about the solar system he got his facts wrong about everything.I am very willing to do embrace inerrancy when good solutions are offered for the discrepancies in the Bible.  AS is, I have not met them.