Authority of Scripture

[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.

 

 

 

 

You are the only one with a Need-based belief.  You accuse me of believing only certain doctrines which I need to be true.  I have refuted that claim, 100%, hands down.  I have cited numerous examples of how my convictions are based on evidence, not needs, and numerous examples of how your belief in inerrancy is based on need, not evidence.

 

No, you have provided enough examples to show that you don't know beans about the doctrine of inerrancy and that you have nothing meaningful, substantive or important to offer in refutation of actual doctrine.  Given that you operate from a flawed understanding of the doctrine, you are not, at this point, intellectually qualified to even have this debate on the issue.

 

You need the Bible to be 100% true. You have said it; said that if the Bible is not 100% true then how can we be sure about any of it--how is that not a screaming example of a need-based conviction!?!  Let me put it this way, suppose I am a Muslim and you point out an error in the Koran and I say, "well, that can't be an error".  You say, "why not?"  I say, "because if that is an error, how do I that Allah is one is not an error?"  Would you say, "Good point"? Or would you scorn the operating logic which is emotional not rational?

 

We all need for the Bible to be true.  Our salvation depends on what the Bible says about salvation to be true.   Do you want what you are putting your ultimate salvation to be wrong?    You have as much need as I do for the text of Scripture to be true.   If the Bible is getting its facts wrong, if the Bible's historical record is flawed then it poses a real problem because the Bible consistently points to the historical record as evidence of God's faithfulness to His Word.  If the Bible isn't as true as it claims to be, then God isn't as faithful as the Bible claims.  And if it turns out that God wasn't as faithful as we were led to believe, then it raises a question about how faithful He will be to us.  I mean, we are supposed to believe that God will be to us what He has been to others, but if the Bible's record isn't inerrant, if what is purported to have done and said isn't true, then it gives wide latitude to doubt.

 

The entire Christian faith rests on the historicity of the resurrection and since no human being actually witnessed the resurrection, since there are no human eyewitnesses to Jesus actually coming out of the tomb, then we need an inerrant record from God telling us what happened.

 

You point to the Bible's own (supposed claim) to be 100% true; of course, you simply accept that claim which is one of the claims that should be tested if inerrancy is to remain standing at the end of the day.

 

I point to more than the Bible's claim to be true.  I point to the fact that the Bible has been vindicated over and over by historians and archeologists alike with regard to its impeccable accuracy in its historical and geographical claims.

[OakWood]

 

An example of a Biblical error that is not actually an error

 

²¹ Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; ²² even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. ²³ But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

 

Leviticus 11

 

At first glance these verses suggest that insects have four legs when any biologist will tell you that insects have six legs. This in itself is not a problem because only in modern times have we declared that insects must have six legs.

However the real problem lies in the counting of the legs. Do grasshoppers, locusts and beetles really have only four legs? We know that they have six (or so we think). Yet God here appears to have made a mistake (as any mocker or Atheist will point out). In fact, I've heard these same verses used by Atheists to discredit the Bible.

 

What we are really dealing with here is a matter of semantics and how we define what a leg is. Many species of insects do indeed only walk on four legs. In the case of grasshoppers two of their six limbs are used for chirping and not for walking on or sitting on. So if they are not used for walking on - should we really be calling them legs?

The Jews were not stupid. If they had never seen a grasshopper before then God would  have no need to mention them? So if the Jews knew what a grasshopper looked like they would have probably known how many legs it had. In their minds it had four so they would have had no confusion with understanding  what Leviticus 11 was telling them.

Only today do we think of all six appendages on a grasshopper as being called legs because that is how scientists have defined them for us.

 

 

Forgive me, I didn't read your explanation of the problem...I will later.  I've emboldened what interests me at this moment.

 

I would say "No".  They don't point to this to discredit the Bible; rather, the teaching of Inerrancy has provided the room to discredit the Bible.  If we dropped inerrancy and approached the Bible simply as an historical document, employing responsible historical methodology, we would do a much better job of defending certain tenets of the faith--as it turns out, the facts of the Bible that pass muster happen to be the MOST impacting.

 

clb

 

 

Why should we lie?

The main problem with your suggestion is that the Atheists would take the Bible to task even more viciously, not only that but it would give massive credence to the teaching of false Christianity. If we started to say that the Bible was not inerrant and accepted there are mistakes in it, not only would we be doubting God's world but the false teachers would come out in their droves to twist scripture to the point of strangulation. They could point out that passages in the Bible referring to homosexuality were in error and that the true meaning has been distorted. They could claim that the Jews are no longer God's chosen and that the prophecies relating to Israel are all in error. Who knows where it would end?

I've already destroyed the 'Leviticus 11 error' argument by pointing out that there is no error, so why do we need to appease Atheists by claiming errancy? We don't. They can attack the Bible as much as they like for all I care. The truth destroys their arguments. There are no errors in the Bible - period. To suggest that we drop the doctrine of inerrancy to defend the faith is a ridiculous claim as well as being a complete lie and an insult to God.

[Guest shiloh357]

Why should we lie?

The main problem with your suggestion is that the Atheists would take the Bible to task even more viciously, not only that but it would give massive credence to the teaching of false Christianity. If we started to say that the Bible was not inerrant and accepted there are mistakes in it, not only would we be doubting God's world but the false teachers would come out in their droves to twist scripture to the point of strangulation. They could point out that passages in the Bible referring to homosexuality were in error and that the true meaning has been distorted. They could claim that the Jews are no longer God's chosen and that the prophecies relating to Israel are all in error. Who knows where it would end?

I've already destroyed the 'Leviticus 11 error' argument by pointing out that there is no error, so why do we need to appease Atheists by claiming errancy? We don't. They can attack the Bible as much as they like for all I care. The truth destroys their arguments. There are no errors in the Bible - period. To suggest that we drop the doctrine of inerrancy to defend the faith is a ridiculous claim as well as being a complete lie and an insult to God.

 

Precisely.  When we cave into the notion that the Bible isn't inerrant,  it is open season on the Bible from the atheist community.  When they come to the realization that not even Christians believe the Bible, then we only harden them in their unbelief.  We give them the alibi they need to remain atheists and to continue doubting the veracity of Scripture.  

[OneLight]

Conner, it is evident that you are trying to prove your doubt in scripture is substantial and that you have the right to question, which you do.  It is also evident that many have argued as to why this is a very dangerous position to be in, yet you reject their warnings. 

 

In all this, and past threads, you question why people see you as a seeker and not a solid Christian.    If scripture has errors, how can you believe what is written about salvation?  If you say that it is because you have the witness of the Holy Spirit that it is true, why do you reject the same Spirit when it comes to the rest of scripture?  I would accept that you do not understand certain parts of scripture, yet your campaign to spread doubt over rides this possibility.  You have taken a stance against scripture and ceased to question the meaning of certain scripture. 

 

Do you believe these scriptures?

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Luke 6:43-45

For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart[g] brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

Continuing to sow doubt in others by the defense of your person right to doubt comes from your heart. Even if you do not believe all of scripture to be true, do you believe Jesus' own words?

Matthew 12:30

He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

I suggest that if you have trouble understanding why scripture is indifferent in certain areas, look into how it was written. The apostles wrote what they witnessed. Not everyone at the same incident will see the exact same thing. They recorded what they experienced. Also, if you have a hard time understanding a word, dig deeper, seek help, and don't become so closed minded.

[Guest Jesse]

No one can come to the Father but by(me) the living Word of God (Bible).

The Word of God is coming with a sword in his mouth. rev19.

 

jesse.

[OneLight]

No one can come to the Father but by(me) the living Word of God (Bible).

The Word of God is coming with a sword in his mouth. rev19.

 

jesse.

Jesse, Jesus is called the Word of God, which He is the only way to the Father, not the bible.  The bible is not Jesus.

[Guest Butero]

Connor, I have been unable to get on-line till tonight, so I just came across your latest post to me.  The problem with what you said is that we don't just have Genesis chapter 2 as our starting point.  We also have Genesis chapter one, so I read both chapters in order, and saw no contradiction.  I could clearly see what it means.  That is like coming in late for a movie, and having only part of the picture, which causes confusion, or having pages missing out of a novel, and missing a key part.  It makes no sense to intentionally look at it like that.  That is a good way to create false doctrines. 

 

You are claiming the Genesis account of creation is a myth.  I would ask, based on what?  Just because you see a contradiction in your mind between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, a contradiction most of us don't see, doesn't mean you are right about that or your belief that Noah's flood was a myth.  Again, you are starting from the place of unbelief.  I fully acknowledge I am starting from the place of belief.  Why is it so hard for you to believe in the Genesis account of creation and Noah's flood?  What is so incredible about either of those things?  I certainly don't see them as any more strange than a belief in evolution, a completely unproven theory.  Many seem to have a problem with those things based on claims of science about the age of the earth, but that can easily be explained by either a pre-Adamite race, which is what I believe, or that changes took place in the evidence scientists use to determine age of the earth as a result of Noah's worldwide flood.  Either of those things are plausible explanations.  How is it you can believe other things in scripture, but not those things? 

[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

 

Complete nonsense.    When I speak of scribal errors like spelling errors, I am referring to the errors made by copyists, scribes who are working from copies.  Inerrancy only speaks to errors of substance.  It is clear that you don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy.   You are reaching for anything you can to paint the Bible as document full of contradictions that are irreconcilable and full of errors and in doing so you you diminish the Word of God.

 

 

 

Sir, please explain to me how else I am supposed to interpret the following:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I mean, if by original you mean the original first copy, and not the actual paper that Paul's pen touched, you need to be clearer.  No one would read that any other way than to suppose you thought Paul could've misspelled something.  Good grief.  You just said it was fine if Paul misspelled a word.  You believe that every jot and tittle is inspired, which I think would include spelling.  So naturally I asked whether God can spell.

 

clb

 

I am sorry.  I forgot.   You have abandoned all commonsense and rational thinking in order to mount your little campaign to destroy faith in God's Word. I said "original."  I didn't say original first copy.   "Original copy" would be as nonsensical as referring to something as a "genuine replica."  Honestly, I think I was pretty clear about what I meant. 

 

Inerrancy speaks to the Bible's accuracy in its historical record.   Inerrancy doesn't speak to the human element involved in the writing of Scripture.   So spelling errors are inconsequential.  You are trying to applying a standard of spotless perfection of the physical text to inerrancy, which has nothing to do with what the doctrine entails. 

 

You don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy and so it really makes it impossible to have a decent discussion about it. It would be one thing if you had a handle on the concept and were arguing against inerrancy for what it really is, but you are arguing against what you THINK inerrancy is, and not the actual doctrine.   So really, before you can argue against it, you need to learn what the doctrine really entails.

 

 

The bold might be a good point; however, you were inconsistent above.  You said that it mattered not if Paul made a spelling error (i.e. original).  I then asked if God can't spell (Scripture is inspired, but not its spelling).  You then said you were talking about spelling errors by the copyists, not the original.  Therefore I thought by original you really meant copies, which made no sense to me.  Read your posts; my conclusion is very logical.

 

Now, if you are admitting that there could be spelling errors in the originals, but no errors regarding matters of substance, obviously the question arises, what are "matters of substance?"  It is a highly subjective criterion.  For instance, obviously I do not think it a substantial matter that Genesis 1 and 2 do not align sequentially. You obviously say it is.  Who is to arbitrate between the two of us?  Again, I don't think it matters much if there are geographical errors, you do.  Where is the objective standard by which we decide this? Are only those things substantial which, without the security of inerrancy, our faith in Christ would crumble.  For instance, in one one persons mind the notion that the Bible contains geographical errors makes them cast doubt on the Resurrection; therefore, for him, it is essential that the Bible is inerrant on all geographical issues.  Perhaps for another, the thought that the original manuscripts might have spelling or grammatical errors, that would be psychologically unbearable; therefore for him inerrancy must also include grammar and spelling.

 

clb

Edited August 20, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[a-seeker]

Connor, I have been unable to get on-line till tonight, so I just came across your latest post to me.  The problem with what you said is that we don't just have Genesis chapter 2 as our starting point.  We also have Genesis chapter one, so I read both chapters in order, and saw no contradiction.  I could clearly see what it means.  That is like coming in late for a movie, and having only part of the picture, which causes confusion, or having pages missing out of a novel, and missing a key part.  It makes no sense to intentionally look at it like that.  That is a good way to create false doctrines. 

 

You are claiming the Genesis account of creation is a myth.  I would ask, based on what?  Just because you see a contradiction in your mind between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, a contradiction most of us don't see, doesn't mean you are right about that or your belief that Noah's flood was a myth.  Again, you are starting from the place of unbelief.  I fully acknowledge I am starting from the place of belief.  Why is it so hard for you to believe in the Genesis account of creation and Noah's flood?  What is so incredible about either of those things?  I certainly don't see them as any more strange than a belief in evolution, a completely unproven theory.  Many seem to have a problem with those things based on claims of science about the age of the earth, but that can easily be explained by either a pre-Adamite race, which is what I believe, or that changes took place in the evidence scientists use to determine age of the earth as a result of Noah's worldwide flood.  Either of those things are plausible explanations.  How is it you can believe other things in scripture, but not those things? 

 

Hi Butero,

 

Starting from a place of unbelief....?  that is rather vague.  unbelief in Christ?  No, that is not my starting place.  Unbelief in creation by God?  Nope.  Unbelief that Genesis is inspired?  Nope.    My starting place is careful and honest thinking. Thus it is hasty to say "I don't believe in the Genesis account of creation and the flood".

 

I should make it clear that I don't think Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other; they can only contradict each other if the author intended them to be sequentially congruent. It is obvious to me that he didn't.

 

One of the reasons I do not take the first 12 chapters as straight forward history is that they don't bear the signs of straight forward history.  There is much in them that is what we would call miraculous; can God produce miracles.  Of course.  But I study the Bible and see certain characteristics of the miraculous that do not appear in Genesis.  The author does not acknowledge the isolation of light from the sun (cf. Revelation where the author makes it explicit).  The author does not say, "back then, snakes could talk" (that would be an historical comment) nor does he indicate any supernatural agency (cf. Balaam's donkey).  Characteristic of myths is the complete lack of explanation of the uncanny and preternatural.  The Noah story has 2 of every species enter a boat and survive for over a year:  thus the boat must have room for enough food to sustain them; enough room for offspring (a dog's gestation period is like 9 weeks) enough room for Elephants; remember that lions are predators, what are they going to eat?  Then there is the enormous and insuperable journey which penguins and kangaroos must make to get to that boat in time. 

 

The ancients were not idiots, they would have recognized that all of this requires miracle.  Can God do miracles?  Yes.  But there is no explanation or indication that the miraculous was occurring here.  But another genre allows for impossible events without need of explanation: myth.

 

As for the two accounts, I don't think you are being entirely honest.  Immediately in 2.4 we are told that God made the earth and heavens in a day.  At first blush that should give one a start...was it one day or 7?  Now, there are solutions to this.  Great.  Every single one that I've met is weak.

 

Again, we are told that on day 3 we have plants obviously not contingent upon cultivation; in 2.4 we are told that they are contingent upon cultivation.

 

Again, the sequence leading up to Adam looks like this:

 

Adam is alone.

 

God recognizes this is not good and says LET US MAKE A HELPER SUITABLE FOR HIM.  Now, having read that, what is the next thing you would expect God to do?  MAKE A HELPER.

 

What is the next thing we read?  God forms (NOT HAD FORMED) beasts and birds.

 

He presents them to Adam.

 

It explicitly says no helper was found.  

 

Your theory is to have me believe that God declares the need for a helper, postpones that by presenting beasts and birds to Adam, discovers, lo and behold, they won't do, and then gets to the business of creating Eve...?

 

The obvious interpretation is, God declares the need for a helper, makes the birds and beasts, Adam names them (naming and function were tied in the ancient near east) discovers none will do, so God creates Eve, Adam names her showing that she indeed is suitable.

 

It is not obstinacy that prevents me from accepting your interpretation.  Its reason.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

Conner, it is evident that you are trying to prove your doubt in scripture is substantial and that you have the right to question, which you do.  It is also evident that many have argued as to why this is a very dangerous position to be in, yet you reject their warnings. 

 

In all this, and past threads, you question why people see you as a seeker and not a solid Christian.    If scripture has errors, how can you believe what is written about salvation?  If you say that it is because you have the witness of the Holy Spirit that it is true, why do you reject the same Spirit when it comes to the rest of scripture?  I would accept that you do not understand certain parts of scripture, yet your campaign to spread doubt over rides this possibility.  You have taken a stance against scripture and ceased to question the meaning of certain scripture. 

 

Do you believe these scriptures?

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Luke 6:43-45

For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart[g] brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

Continuing to sow doubt in others by the defense of your person right to doubt comes from your heart. Even if you do not believe all of scripture to be true, do you believe Jesus' own words?

Matthew 12:30

He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

I suggest that if you have trouble understanding why scripture is indifferent in certain areas, look into how it was written. The apostles wrote what they witnessed. Not everyone at the same incident will see the exact same thing. They recorded what they experienced. Also, if you have a hard time understanding a word, dig deeper, seek help, and don't become so closed minded.

 

 

Hi OneLight.

 

The most important part of this is that you accuse me of trying to get people to doubt Scripture.  That is not true; I am not hoping people will doubt Scripture.  And the street goes both ways here; many have said that I and others like me are against God.  I have been called a wolf in sheep's clothing.  I have been told that I am not intellectually capable of discussing this, all this by Christians.  People on this thread and forum, it seems, are allowed to be rude and demeaning; but if I push back, then I am rebuked.

 

I reject the warnings posed to me because I think they are chimerical, illusory, more like a phobia.  There is no danger in my approach to Scripture.  My approach to Scripture has given me firm, unshakable conviction in Christ as Lord.

 

clb