Authority of Scripture

[Guest shiloh357]

Merely stating that I am wrong doesn’t make me wrong.  Read the passage.  The context is about prophecies, not geography or science.  Only an inerrantists, convinced of inerrancy on other grounds, would make this passage about inerrancy.

 

The topic in the passage is irrelevant to the point I was making.  The passage speak of how Scripture was inspired.  An inerrant God doesn't inspire error.   What this passage does provide us  is a paradigm for understanding how Scripture is transmitted.  All of Scripture is the result of the Holy Spirit moving upon the human writers.  I would also add that  the Bible often employs a broader use of the word "prophecy" to include more than eschatological/future events.  Prophecy is also defined as forthtelling of truth, not merely foretelling the future.

 

Yes, the teaching is about doctrine, a theme of the letter.  Inerrancy in the finest details like geography was not one of the doctrines.  It is inconceivable to think that Paul’s faith in Scripture (OT) would be shaken if he learned that it contained geographical errors, or historical errors, or that the Sun did not revolve around the earth but the prophets thought it did.

 

It doesn't contain geographical errors or historical errors.  In fact, one thing that sets the Bible apart is its impeccable track record in that area.  As for the notion that they believed the sun revolved around the earth....  The Bible makes NO geocentric claims.  So that is a nonstarter as well.

 

As regards to spelling errors in our most reliable manuscripts….how do you know that they were not accurately copying Scripture?  WE don’t have the original manuscripts.  If you say, because the Bible is inerrant, well, that merely supports my case: that you begin with inerrancy, and then find ways to make it inerrant.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

Perhaps I don’t understand inerrancy afterall!!  For I absolutely agree that all four agree that Jesus was raised, and that that is the important point.  Now, are you saying that there were in fact two angels at the tomb, and Matthew and Mark know this, but leave out one, or are you saying that we cannot know how many were at the tomb because the gospels disagree on that, but it hardly matters for inerrancy?

 

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

 

The implied answer is, we don't, which inerrantists don't like...........therefore we say it is inerrant.  How is that not pure subjectivity?  How is that not need-based.  What if you asked a Muslim why he believes in the Koran and he says because it is inerrant?  Every single one of your responses could easily come from his mouth.

 

The real answer is, use your brain.  We have good, reason based, tools for doing good history.

 

Inerrancy is objective not subjective.   As I stated, there are parts of the Bible that are important to you that you have no problem accepting as inerrant.   Your approach to the issue of inerrancy is really based on what claims the Bible makes that you think are believable, judging from your posts.  You have a selective approach to the issue of inerrancy and frankly, it is lacks any real credibility.

[Openly Curious]

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.

 

 

Probably should hold off on making that kind of judgment.  Just because a believer is not rooted in the word, that it means they are really athiests.

 

Mark 4:¹⁶ And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; ¹⁷ And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

 

This is why it is the job of His disciples to teach new believers in the word.

 

Matthew 18:¹⁰ Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. ¹¹ For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. ¹² How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? ¹³ And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. ¹⁴ Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. ¹⁵ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

 

Colossians 2:⁵ For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. ⁶ As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: ⁷ Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. ⁸ 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. ⁹ For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. ¹⁰ And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Perhaps you may have noticed by now that they are very well versed in what the Bible has in it and yet don't believe it.

[a-seeker]

 

Merely stating that I am wrong doesn’t make me wrong.  Read the passage.  The context is about prophecies, not geography or science.  Only an inerrantists, convinced of inerrancy on other grounds, would make this passage about inerrancy.

 

The topic in the passage is irrelevant to the point I was making.  The passage speak of how Scripture was inspired.  An inerrant God doesn't inspire error.   What this passage does provide us  is a paradigm for understanding how Scripture is transmitted.  All of Scripture is the result of the Holy Spirit moving upon the human writers.  I would also add that  the Bible often employs a broader use of the word "prophecy" to include more than eschatological/future events.  Prophecy is also defined as forthtelling of truth, not merely foretelling the future.

 

Yes, the teaching is about doctrine, a theme of the letter.  Inerrancy in the finest details like geography was not one of the doctrines.  It is inconceivable to think that Paul’s faith in Scripture (OT) would be shaken if he learned that it contained geographical errors, or historical errors, or that the Sun did not revolve around the earth but the prophets thought it did.

 

It doesn't contain geographical errors or historical errors.  In fact, one thing that sets the Bible apart is its impeccable track record in that area.  As for the notion that they believed the sun revolved around the earth....  The Bible makes NO geocentric claims.  So that is a nonstarter as well.

 

As regards to spelling errors in our most reliable manuscripts….how do you know that they were not accurately copying Scripture?  WE don’t have the original manuscripts.  If you say, because the Bible is inerrant, well, that merely supports my case: that you begin with inerrancy, and then find ways to make it inerrant.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

Perhaps I don’t understand inerrancy afterall!!  For I absolutely agree that all four agree that Jesus was raised, and that that is the important point.  Now, are you saying that there were in fact two angels at the tomb, and Matthew and Mark know this, but leave out one, or are you saying that we cannot know how many were at the tomb because the gospels disagree on that, but it hardly matters for inerrancy?

 

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

 

The implied answer is, we don't, which inerrantists don't like...........therefore we say it is inerrant.  How is that not pure subjectivity?  How is that not need-based.  What if you asked a Muslim why he believes in the Koran and he says because it is inerrant?  Every single one of your responses could easily come from his mouth.

 

The real answer is, use your brain.  We have good, reason based, tools for doing good history.

 

Inerrancy is objective not subjective.   As I stated, there are parts of the Bible that are important to you that you have no problem accepting as inerrant.   Your approach to the issue of inerrancy is really based on what claims the Bible makes that you think are believable, judging from your posts.  You have a selective approach to the issue of inerrancy and frankly, it is lacks any real credibility.

 

 

 

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....

 

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)?

 

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.  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.

 

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.  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.  When I examine the gospels, I find it as difficult to conclude that Jesus was not raised; just as difficult as to believe that George Washington was not an historical figure who first governed our nation.  Whether he cut down a cherry tree...? Whether there were two or one or no angels...?  Non-essential.

 

clb

[Guest Butero]

I want to deal with the OP and what was stated about a supposed contradiction in Genesis.  No contradiction exists.  There was nothing desperate in what I said.  I never saw a contradiction the first time I read that when I was 18 years old reading through the Bible for the first time.  I never once got the impression that the events took place the way Connor claims it appears from chapter 2.  I read the book through in order, and there is no way a mistake like that could have been made.  Chapter one tells us about how long the creation took and the order of creation, and mentions that God created mankind male and female.  In chapter 2, he gives the details of the creation of woman.  The idea this is even debated as a contradiction is ludicrous to me.  The Genesis account of creation is a historic fact, not a myth, as is the story of Noah's ark.  Yes, there was a literal worldwide flood.  I also disagree concerning the genealogies in the New Testament.  Both of them do serve a different purpose, and that is why they aren't identical.  There is no contradiction there. 

 

You claim that I am going to find a solution to contradictions because I hold to inerrancy of scripture.  I would counter that by saying you are making up contradictions that don't exist because you are trying to prove there are errors.  See how this works.  I do start out with a belief in the inerrancy of scripture, but you start out believing there are contradictions.  We are both going to show why the other person is wrong, because there is nothing you can come up with that I can't give an explanation for, and that you won't claim is a desperate attempt to show there is no errors because I believe in the inerrancy of scripture.  It basically comes down to whether you believe in inerrancy or not.  I do and you don't.  I will always hold to inerrancy of scripture, and you likely won't.  I will always see the Genesis account of creation and Noah's flood as historic facts, and you won't.  That is just the way it is.  I really don't see what you hope to accomplish here.  Do you really think I am going to suddenly see this glaring contradiction and say within myself, "Conner is right, there are mistakes," or isn't it much more likely I will say Conner doesn't know what he is talking about, as the things he claims are errors aren't errors at all?  I know the answer to those questions without waiting on a reply. 

[Guest Butero]

Connor, where were you commanded to test the scriptures?  It wasn't in the Bible was it?  Why should you follow the Bible when you don't believe it is fully trustworthy?  Perhaps that command is a mistake.  Did you ever think of that? 

 

Concerning the angels, in Matthew's gospel, it only mentions the angel that actually spoke to the women.  In Luke's gospel, it is more detailed and mentions there were actually two angels present.  Again, this is not a contradiction.  It is two accounts of the same story, and neither one actually contradicts the other.  I don't care what so-called contradiction you claim exists.  I can refute any of them, and you will call it a desperate act on the part of someone who holds to inerrancy of scripture.  You don't want to believe and I do.  Good luck proving you are right and I am wrong.  The best you can do is show that since we both have different motivations, we will have different outcomes. 

[Openly Curious]

 

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.

[a-seeker]

I want to deal with the OP and what was stated about a supposed contradiction in Genesis.  No contradiction exists.  There was nothing desperate in what I said.  I never saw a contradiction the first time I read that when I was 18 years old reading through the Bible for the first time.  I never once got the impression that the events took place the way Connor claims it appears from chapter 2.  I read the book through in order, and there is no way a mistake like that could have been made.  Chapter one tells us about how long the creation took and the order of creation, and mentions that God created mankind male and female.  In chapter 2, he gives the details of the creation of woman.  The idea this is even debated as a contradiction is ludicrous to me.  The Genesis account of creation is a historic fact, not a myth, as is the story of Noah's ark.  Yes, there was a literal worldwide flood.  I also disagree concerning the genealogies in the New Testament.  Both of them do serve a different purpose, and that is why they aren't identical.  There is no contradiction there. 

 

You claim that I am going to find a solution to contradictions because I hold to inerrancy of scripture.  I would counter that by saying you are making up contradictions that don't exist because you are trying to prove there are errors.  See how this works.  I do start out with a belief in the inerrancy of scripture, but you start out believing there are contradictions.  We are both going to show why the other person is wrong, because there is nothing you can come up with that I can't give an explanation for, and that you won't claim is a desperate attempt to show there is no errors because I believe in the inerrancy of scripture.  It basically comes down to whether you believe in inerrancy or not.  I do and you don't.  I will always hold to inerrancy of scripture, and you likely won't.  I will always see the Genesis account of creation and Noah's flood as historic facts, and you won't.  That is just the way it is.  I really don't see what you hope to accomplish here.  Do you really think I am going to suddenly see this glaring contradiction and say within myself, "Conner is right, there are mistakes," or isn't it much more likely I will say Conner doesn't know what he is talking about, as the things he claims are errors aren't errors at all?  I know the answer to those questions without waiting on a reply. 

 

I've emboldened what I think an excellent question.  If I were an atheist or otherwise, the goal would certainly be to get you to question Scripture, and ultimately to reject Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

 

But I am a Christian.  I want you to continue to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.  I work to get everyone to accept Jesus as the Son of God and our Savior.

 

I am, at the moment, too tired to address the other questions posed.  And that is okay by me, since I think what I have said is really all that matters and all that should matter amongst us believers.

 

clb

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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. 

 

 

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%?

 

 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.  

[Hobbes]

 

 

Perhaps you may have noticed by now that they are very well versed in what the Bible has in it and yet don't believe it.

 

 

That can happen even with church teachings and long staqnding traditions getting in the way of believers reading His words in the scripture.  They would take John 6th chapter to believe it was about communion when all along Jesus was talking about how to be saved by coming to and believing in Him as per John 6:33-35 which Jesus pointed out that they did not believe Him in verse 36 as to why they had not received that bread of life yet.  Their mentality was actually eating this bread which Jesus then went into in a parabolic sense for not believing how to receive that actual bread of life, not by eating, but by coming to & believing in Him.

 

And churches do that by ignoring the rest of scripture in that chapter as well as the rest of the Bible in how to receive life in favour of His parabolic answer to the unbelieving Jews from which erroneously the church doctrine of "holy" communion is based on.

 

I believe the poster in question has been misled into believing in the evolution theory as fact and cannot see beyond that to see the truths in His words.  His claim of unwavering faith in Jesus can only be if Jesus is keeping him in spite of the evolution theory whereas others would have abandoned that faith because of the evolution theory.  I give Jesus thanks for that, 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.

[another_poster]

As for inerrancy, yes, God did dictate the words, and men put them down on paper.  He did allow their personalities to come through in the writing, as God created them the way they are.  He used them to write down what he wanted them to say, exactly the way he wanted them to say it.  There is not a single word in the entire 66 books of the Bible that is not perfect.  None.  And I disagree with you Another Poster, that because God let their personalities come out in the writing, that means there must be errors.  God created them as they are.  He just took over when they were writing scripture.  There is actually a thing in the occult called psychic writing, where a person allows their hand to sit on a piece of paper and it mysteriously writes things.  I have heard stories of people writing entire books in such a way.  It was like something took over and wrote for them.  I have no problem believing that God took over as Paul was addressing a church and wrote Ephesians or Galatians, word for word.  He gave prophecies to people, and they were clearly not the words of the author.  They would say thing they didn't understand under the inspiration of God.  Inerrancy means every word in scripture is God's words, period.  If you deny that, you simply don't believe in Biblical inerrancy.  If that is the case, so be it, but to claim you do while attacking the trustworthiness of scripture is to be in denial of the position you are taking. 

Once again you only talk about personalities when I specified it was not just personality. It is an actual personal opinion. Your theory that perhaps God took over them so they did not know they were writing or what they were writing just makes no sense. Or are you claiming God suddenly said Oh I'm a bit tired right now so I 'll take a break long enough so they can put their personal opinion in and then I'll continue after that! Your theory also means that God is forgetful. He wrote something and then goes oh yeah I forgot this Oops and adds it in. These examples are all found in Paul's letters.

 

Once again inerrency and inspired are not the same thing. I said the scriptures were inspired by God.

 

Sorry I accidently deleted the other part of your post. However I would say if you think one needs to suspend logic to see a contradiction then you should read more carefully. It says 'I WILL make' followed by and out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field. I really don't understand how one has to suspend logic to see the word WILL as in future tense and then assume what the OP has assumed. I would suggest because you have your view already when you read the passage you have your view in mind and that is why you can not see it. You are not reading the passage as if you don't know what it means. I can easily see how the OP came to that conclusion. However I happily acknowledge that someone has finally addressed that claim which is great. I no longer feel the need to call people out for saying there are no contradictions when nobody had addressed the claim made. As it does not affect my beliefs one way or the other I won't be defending that view. I just wanted someone to address it for the sake of integrity.