An Infallible Bible?

[EricH]

It is also the final source of inspired revelation.

What is the basis for this claim?

The sufficiency of scripture (That scriptures contain all of the words God intended His people to have at each stage in redemptive history) is a doctrine that is developed from a multitude of verses. To begin with, there is a stiff penalty assigned by scripture itself for adding to or taking away from what God Himself has revealed. (Revelation 22:18-19). In addition, scripture attests its sufficiency for providing all the information we need to accomplish the works that God intends for us to do

(2 Timothy 3:16-17). In addition, scripture claims to contain all the information people need to get into right relationship with God (James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23).

Lastly, the scriptures indicate that the time of prophetic utterance is over (Hebrews 1:1), that God now speaks to the world regarding His will for it through the person of His Son. All of the information we have regarding Jesus is contained in scripture. Scripture also claims inerrancy and inspiriation only for itself. It does not seem to allow for additional sources of inspiration.

[EricH]

No, according to scripture, God worked through humans to write scripture. They were secondary agents/ Scripture is the basis for this claim. That is what it claims for itself. It is up to an individual if they want to accept what scripture claims for itself.

Where does the Bible refer to itself (as a compiled canon)? And where in that does it say that it is the final revelation?

See above post. I would ask you, where you see that there will be continuing revelation from God on equal footing with scripture

[EricH]

Your implied contradiction between God's commands for Israel to destroy its enemies in the OT and God's command for us to love others fails to take into account the context in which each was written. God promised Israel the land. They were a theocracy with laws by which they were governed and the authority to exact captial punishment and wage war. Individual believers are never given any of those rights in the Bible. The church is God's the agency through which God is accomplishing His purposes on earth today. The Great commission given by Jesus is clear. The church is to spread the kingdom not by establishing a physical nation, but by establishing a spiritual nation. Thus no contradiction exists in scripture. Your attempt to "stretch the issue" by asking what if someone comes along and asks people to kill in the name of God, is really a diversion from the original question. It is a separate question regarding whether or not God will add to what has already been revealed. It does not speak to the issue of whether or not contradictions exist in the current cannon. Why don't we finish with that discussion before going onto the issue of the extent of the canon. They are 2 separate issues

[Copper Scroll]

The sufficiency of scripture (That scriptures contain all of the words God intended His people to have at each stage in redemptive history) is a doctrine that is developed from a multitude of verses. To begin with, there is a stiff penalty assigned by scripture itself for adding to or taking away from what God Himself has revealed. (Revelation 22:18-19).

Why do you assume this verse refers to the whole Bible (which had not been compiled when it was written) and not just the book of Revelations?

In addition, scripture attests its sufficiency for providing all the information we need to accomplish the works that God intends for us to do

(2 Timothy 3:16-17). In addition, scripture claims to contain all the information people need to get into right relationship with God (James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23).

There were a lot of JudeoChristian scriptures floating around when these texts were written. Are the ones that did not make it into the canon also the works of God?

Lastly, the scriptures indicate that the time of prophetic utterance is over (Hebrews 1:1), that God now speaks to the world regarding His will for it through the person of His Son.

So then God is not speaking through the prophet who wrote Revelations or the writers of the epistles?

[EricH]

The sufficiency of scripture (That scriptures contain all of the words God intended His people to have at each stage in redemptive history) is a doctrine that is developed from a multitude of verses. To begin with, there is a stiff penalty assigned by scripture itself for adding to or taking away from what God Himself has revealed. (Revelation 22:18-19).

Why do you assume this verse refers to the whole Bible (which had not been compiled when it was written) and not just the book of Revelations?

In addition, scripture attests its sufficiency for providing all the information we need to accomplish the works that God intends for us to do

(2 Timothy 3:16-17). In addition, scripture claims to contain all the information people need to get into right relationship with God (James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23).

There were a lot of JudeoChristian scriptures floating around when these texts were written. Are the ones that did not make it into the canon also the works of God?

Lastly, the scriptures indicate that the time of prophetic utterance is over (Hebrews 1:1), that God now speaks to the world regarding His will for it through the person of His Son.

So then God is not speaking through the prophet who wrote Revelations or the writers of the epistles?

Lets finish the discussion regarding internal contradictions in existing canon before diverting to this. See my post above. Do you take any exceptions with my explanations of the contradictions you posited?

[Copper Scroll]

Your implied contradiction between God's commands for Israel to destroy its enemies in the OT and God's command for us to love others fails to take into account the context in which each was written.

Agreed, but I have trouble understanding much of anything you write below:

God promised Israel the land. They were a theocracy with laws by which they were governed and the authority to exact captial punishment and wage war. Individual believers are never given any of those rights in the Bible. The church is God's the agency through which God is accomplishing His purposes on earth today. The Great commission given by Jesus is clear. The church is to spread the kingdom not by establishing a physical nation, but by establishing a spiritual nation. Thus no contradiction exists in scripture.

I understand the first and last sentences, but don't really get anything in between. Could you explain this again, if it's not too much trouble? I have a feeling there's something of value in there.

Your attempt to "stretch the issue" by asking what if someone comes along and asks people to kill in the name of God, is really a diversion from the original question.

Not really, because in the scripture we are talking about God asks people to kill. I'm just asking what your reaction would be if that happened today? How does that "stretch the issue"?

[Openly Curious]

Thank you all for your responses.

In this case it means both. The Word mentioned is clearly Jesus. At the same time it is also the written word. Throughout the pages of the Bible, we see the nature and character of Christ. We may not be walking and talking with him as the disciples did, but we know him from the Bible. In that way Jesus and the written word are one.

I'm sorry, but I have yet to see the equation between Jesus/WORD and scroll/word (as referred to in Hebrews 10). Perhaps you could bring out other scriptures that make this equation more obvious. Even then, however, I wouldn't see an equation between the scroll referred to in Hebrews and the Bible we read today. The Bible we read today existed then only in fragments. If anything, that scripture refers to one of those fragments--documents--a prophetic one. I am not disputing that Jesus is written about in the Prophets, but I don't think that means that Jesus is the Prophets (text). Also, I don't think that all of the Bible is Prophetic or that Jesus/WORD is the same as the Bible/word.

Also, there are some things in the Old Testament which are glaringly unChrist-like--at least at face value. The biggest example of this is the extreme nationalism expressed throughout much of it. I think we can all agree that Jesus is not a nationalist. Nationalism is a part of the character of the Old Testament, but it is not a part of Jesus' character--as far as I can tell.

As far as the question of infallibility, I believe it all. If I can't believe in the virgin birth or the parting of the red sea, I cannot believe John 3:16. Either I can trust it in it's entirety or I cannot trust it at all.

I disagree. The Bible is not a monolith to me. It cannot fully appreciated viewed only as a single whole. It is first a compilation of various documents with various origins.

It makes no logical sense to believe one can pick and choose portions to believe.

We now reject much of what the Old Testament tells us. How is this different?

And those who compiled the Bible, rejected many traditionally JudeoChristian texts. How is that different?

Hello again Copper Scroll,

Been out of town for a while so I'm having to catch up.

The scroll/word (as referred to in Hebrews 10) is the old covenant that was given unto the children of Israel as you well know.

The old covenant was a covenant that the children of Israel had agreed to enter into with God himself.

The covenant that then was in effect had been sealed with the blood of the animal sacrifices as Moses sprinkled the blood of those sacrifices on the book (scroll/word) and also on the people you can read this in the scroll/word in Exodus chapter 24. The blood that was shed brought the covenant into affect as both parties had came into agreement with one another to abide by it.

Now the scroll/word is in fact the Old Testament law or the penetuch which consists of the first 5 books in the Old Testament being Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

This is the Old Letter of the Law, the old covenant written in tablets of stone, this old covenant with all of it sacrifices, rules of seperation and the what not could never take away their guilt ridden conscience the blood of bulls and goats could never purge their conscience.

However, one time a year they would have the knowledge that they had been forgiven of their sins because of the conditions of the old covenant had been met as they agreed to when they entered into the covenant with God.

But that knowledge they had of obeying God's law well it still could not purge (make clean their conscience) they still were condemned or guilty in their minds of sins.

Now there was more that was written in the scroll/word than just sacrifices and laws and punishment but their were blessings for the future, there were promises made as well.

It is having knowledge of these things that will reveal Jesus/Word to you.

For example, even before the law was given to Moses a promise had already been given to Abraham that his seed would be as the dust of the earth (Genesis 13:12-17) and would inherit the land of Canaan.

It was promised also to Abraham that before the law was given by Moses that his seed would be in bondage for a period of 400 years and then God would at that time judge Egypt and bring his people out (Exodus 15:6,13-14) see also (Galatians 3:16-18).

The story of Joseph who was a descendant of Abraham tells the story of how the children of Israel came to be in the land of Egypt to start with you can read of all the blood kin of Joseph in Genesis 46 who came to Egypt being 70 souls in all.

Among those seventy are the 11 brothers of Joseph.

The 12 sons of Jacob including Joseph are the 12 patriarchs or heads of the 12 tribes of Israel.

It was here in the land of Egypt that God began to multiply the seed of Abraham as they began to grow and multiply exceedingly Genesis 47:28.

It was after the death of Joseph and the death of the king of Egypt that had been good to Joseph and to his kin people that things changed.

In Exodus 1:8-14 you'll read where the new Pharoah or king of Egypt didn't know who Joseph was and he got concerned about the children of Israel because they kept on increasing in numbers.

The king of Egypt was worried they would join with his enemies and overthrow him so he decides to stop this from ever happening and he takes the children of Israel captive and made slaves out of them.

Now the children of Israel stayed in slavery in bondage in the land of Egypt for 430 years as it was told or promised to Abraham and it was at the end of those 430 years God remembers as he hears the sighs and groanings and cries of the children of Israel as they come up before Him and God has respect unto them Exodus 2:23-25.

At this point God raises up Moses to lead his chosen people out of Egyptian bondage and at the end of those 430 years they came out and was delivered out of bondage Exodus 12:40-42.

Moses then leads them to the Land of Canaan the land of promise and it was along this journey to Canaan where the law was given 430 years later to the children of Israel.

The old covenant was given by promise (scroll/word) not only was the law given by promise but also a promise was given in Exodus 12:3 to Abraham that "in thee" meaning his seed that all the families or nations of the earth would be blessed.

Well it is this understanding that will bring light on the subject of Jesus/Word as the promise of the "Promised Seed" is given to us written in a promise in the old letter of the law.

Jesus Christ was a descendant of Abraham and it is through "his seed" Galatians 3:16-18 that salvation came by promise to all the families of the earth.

It was foretold by all the prophets that the Promised One was going to come and suffer many things as he would be the spotless sacrifice once and for all.

The prophets foretold that Jesus would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that he would come low and riding on a colt of an ass.

Isaiah prophesies very in depth Isaiah 52:13-15 ; 53:1-12 about the suffering that Jesus would suffer when he would come to this earth in the form of man as Isaih foretells that Christ visage would be so marred more than any man on earth 52:14-15 and that Christ blood would sprinkle many nations for atonement of sins.

So it was in the old letter of the law scroll/word that these promises were given and written to us and it was foretold to us by the prophets in their writings about Christ's coming.

These promises were to both the Jews and the Gentile nations these promises were given unto all the families of the earth.

Jesus Christ did come into this world as the prophets foretold and according to the promise of the law and so Christ fulfilled the law when he came and died on the cross shedding his own blood for the remission of sins bringing in a new and better covenant as was promised in the old law.

So when Christ came and was the sacrifice himself He was the promised "Word" (scroll/word)

fulfilled for he was the "Promise" given.

Jesus was the word fulfilled hence the Jesus/Word as you describe it.

Openly Curious

[Copper Scroll]

In saying that Jesus is the Word, and that means he is the written word, I am not basing that on a definition. I am basing that on what the text says. Why would John refer to Jesus as the Word? This is the only place I know of that gives him this title, yet it clearly was done for a reason. That reason is because Jesus is the author of all scripture, both in the Old and New Testament.

I think "Jesus is the Word" means that he personifies absolute truth. He is the standard for what is valid and what is real. My problem lies in the equation between this concept and the written word (in general)--the Bible (in particular). I am not denying that the Bible is a book of truths and a book of wisdom that can be learned from and provide guidance and inspire. But I doubt its Absolute Truth because some things change in it. The Absolute Truth doesn't change any more than God changes. (The Word was God.) Jesus (WORD) was pure and righteous from his conception to his death and resurrection. He developed like a human develops, but the paradigm for his actions and thoughts and teachings never changed. In the Bible, however, there does occur at least one paradigm shift. Below you seem to acknowledge this shift:

In the Old Testament, God did promote nationalism, and today, he promotes the Christian Church, that happens to be made up of people throughout the world.

The OT promotes nationalism. Jesus invalidates nationalism. I would say that nationalism is unChristlike. I would go further to say that (because the Absolute Truth/WORD doesn't change) nationalism was always unChristlike.

The Bible can be appreciated by viewing it as a single whole. The reason we have 66 books that make up the text of the Bible is because that is what God intended us to have. Just as he moved upon men to write his words down, he also moved upon others to create the cannon. They were inspired by God to reject certain books and accept others. You can challenge my belief on that, but you cannot prove I am wrong. That is what I believe by faith.

This faith in the divinity of the canon, I would argue, came to you from what other people told you. I agree that the Bible can be appreciated as a single whole. It is an artful and sensible compilation. But in order to get a full appreciation of it, we must be cognizant that it is a compilation and the individual documents span many years and many authors.

I also noticed that you said we reject portions of the Old Testament today. I disagree with that statement as well. I reject none of the Bible.

You agreed that the OT is nationalistic, and we reject nationalism.

By saying that, I am not rejecting God's laws, I just understand that these particular ordinances served a purpose for a time, but don't apply today. The reason being, when we reject certain foods as unclean, we are denying the gentiles entrance into God's family. We are claiming through this word picture we are unclean, and God says we are not common or unclean after we come to Jesus.

This may be just a matter of semantics--that you are slow to use the word "reject" or any of its connotations. I presume we are mostly on the same page with regards to this issue. I'm just have trouble saying that genocide was okay for anybody at any time. I will agree that those stories convey certain truths--mainly that God is holy and pure. But we know a story does not have to be literally, factually true in order to convey truth. The literal truth of God ordering genocide is a difficult pill for me to swallow in light of what Jesus shows us in the Gospel.

When it comes to this argument over infallibility of the Word, you either believe it or you don't. It is a matter of faith. If you don't believe, there is no amount of arguments that will change your mind. In the same way, if I do believe by faith, no amount of arguments will take away my belief in the Bible, that it is the infallible Word of God.

I disagree. Minds and hearts are changed all of the time. But I agree this doesn't warrant unproductive bickering. I'd also like the point out (perhaps it is an argument) that faith in Jesus as a redemptive event for all of world does not necessitate the Absolute Truth of the Bible.

Thank you for your well-thought out comments.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Copper Scroll

[Copper Scroll]

...The scroll/word (as referred to in Hebrews 10) is the old covenant that was given unto the children of Israel as you well know.

The old covenant was a covenant that the children of Israel had agreed to enter into with God himself. ...

Thank you for this summary.

I see from your summary that "word" has many different, usually overlapping meanings. "Word" is the Pentateuch, is the Bible, is God/Jesus, is Truth, is the Covenant... none of these are absolute synonyms, but I do recognize that they overlap. God is Truth, but God is more than that--God is also Love and God is also an agent. So there is not a complete and perfect alignment there between those two concepts, God and Truth--but a significant overlap (The Word was with God and the Word was God). God's Truth is also in the Covenant, because God keeps God's promises--truly. But again, there is not a complete and perfect alignment between those two concepts, because the Truth extends beyond the Covenant. The Truth is also revealed to prophets after the Covenant. Now, the Covenant is contained in the Pentateuch, but again--no complete and perfect alignment because the Pentateuch contains more than just the Covenant. Also, we are supposed to view the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. We say that the Old Testament is not Truth/Word alone. Why do we expect both the Old and New to frame Truth/Word by themselves--especially in light of Jesus' critique of the Law. He indicates that there is a spirit within, intent behind, principle underlying the Law the Jews of his time we missing because they were concentrating too much on the superficial features of the Law itself. I worry whether the Church is concentrating too much on the literal factuality of the superficial features of the Bible.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Copper Scroll

[Openly Curious]

...The scroll/word (as referred to in Hebrews 10) is the old covenant that was given unto the children of Israel as you well know.

The old covenant was a covenant that the children of Israel had agreed to enter into with God himself. ...

Thank you for this summary.

I see from your summary that "word" has many different, usually overlapping meanings. "Word" is the Pentateuch, is the Bible, is God/Jesus, is Truth, is the Covenant... none of these are absolute synonyms, but I do recognize that they overlap. God is Truth, but God is more than that--God is also Love and God is also an agent. So there is not a complete and perfect alignment there between those two concepts, God and Truth--but a significant overlap (The Word was with God and the Word was God). God's Truth is also in the Covenant, because God keeps God's promises--truly. But again, there is not a complete and perfect alignment between those two concepts, because the Truth extends beyond the Covenant. The Truth is also revealed to prophets after the Covenant. Now, the Covenant is contained in the Pentateuch, but again--no complete and perfect alignment because the Pentateuch contains more than just the Covenant. Also, we are supposed to view the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. We say that the Old Testament is not Truth/Word alone. Why do we expect both the Old and New to frame Truth/Word by themselves--especially in light of Jesus' critique of the Law. He indicates that there is a spirit within, intent behind, principle underlying the Law the Jews of his time we missing because they were concentrating too much on the superficial features of the Law itself. I worry whether the Church is concentrating too much on the literal factuality of the superficial features of the Bible.

So basically you are a non-believer and are trying to convince everyone else around you to become one also. Basically everyone should be convinced by you that God did not give to mankind any knowledge of himself that we can trust. But that our faith as Christians (not new age thinking) but as Christians should be a blind faith. Well that will never wash here at all. I also notice you have no real basic understanding of the old testament contents at all because if ye did then you would know the flow and contents of it which I have yet to detect in any of your post. The knowledge in which you keep throwing out is not scripture based but muddled new age thinking that will always under mind the things of God. So I worry whether you are concentrating to much on the superficial features and factuality of you own new age thinking above having the mind of Christ.

Praying for you

Openly Curious