Bible Contradiction?

[SDAinFLA]

The Process (mind if I call you TP?)

Thank you for you response. Let me try to answer the questions and comments you have given:

What exactly is intended when Christians claim that the Bible is the "word of God"?

You have to understand that I cannot speak for every Christian on what their intentions are when it comes to defining certain Biblical concepts. Some believe that the Bible is God's Word given to man word for word. Kinda like the person in the court room that types everything that is said during a case.

I believe that God's Word was inspired through thought inspiration, which means that God inspired a thought and man was given the ability to express this thought in his own way as long as the thought had not been altered.

Simply put the Word of God - is the teachings of God. (This is my interpretation)

Also, when it mentions "all scripture", which books exactly are being referred to? If you think this means precisely those books included in the Protestant Bible, well how do we know this?

TP, my Mother used to have this saying and it would go like this: "When in doubt, do without."

In other words, we know there are other scrolls not included in the "Bible" that might even be inspired by God.

However we also must understand God permitted 66 books to be utilized in our current Bibles which let's me know that I can still receive salvation from the 66 books. This is the most important thing. So evn though it is debated in some circles whether these other books are inspired by God....I don't know. However what I do know is that the road to salvation is mapped out in the current 66 books of the Bible and that is most important thing to me.

How do we know whether 2 Timothy is itself scripture? It is a suspected forgery I believe.

When Timothy said "Scripture" he most likely referred to the Old Testament scriptures, however the New Testament gives the New Testament Church instructions. It shows how the sacrifices in the OT pointed to Christ in the NT. So even though Paul most likely referred to the OT, it is also true of the NT as the scriptures written there are also profitable for doctrine, they are also for reproof, they are also for corection, and they are also for instruction in righteousness.

So the Bible isn't necessarily true as strict history. Is it necessarily true when it comes to doctrine? If you want to say that we can trust the Bible on the subject of doctrine, but not history, what justification do you have for this?

I'm not sure of your question...are you asking me - Can the Bible historically tell us details of certain things? For instance the color of Jesus robe...are you asking me if we can utilize the Bible to tell us the color of Jesus robe? I would say no.

But we can't use this model for everything however, the Bible does give historical accounts that were prophecies when written that now are historical facts.

Daniel 2, talks about the 4 kingdoms (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome)

Revelation 11 (Talks about the the persecution of the Bible ie. 2 prophets)

The reason why we can trust the Bible on doctrine and not necessarily on historical details (like the color of Jesus' robe) is because the doctrines are more important to God. The Bible is not given to man to show the history of the world, that's why we have history books. However, the main focus of the Bible is for salvation and so I believe that God would make sure that it is profitable for doctrine.

You seem to suggest that God would have a problem communicating his message through "sinful human beings". And God wouldn't worry too much about historical inconsistencies. God wouldn't be bothered to make sure that it came out correct.

TP, I did suggest this, but this was far from what I meant as I probably didn't communicate this properly to you.

God wouldn't have a problem communicating his message to us, however we have problems in receiving the messages he gives us. But is there anything to hard for God? Couldn't God just force man to understand and write exactly what He was thinking? Coudn't he put man in a trance and just sorta posses him while he writes? Even better...God doesn't even need man to write the Bible...He could've just wrote the whole thing himself and then given it to us.

However, God uses human agencies to work with divinity in the salvation of mankind.

So if God asked 4 different men to write about the salvation that Christ brought to the world, but all 4 of them mistakenly wrote the wrong color of Jesus robe, does this have a bearing on salvation?

Now if one of them wrote that Jesus did not die on the cross....God is now responsible for the thought and would have to makes sure that the writer has the correct view of salvation. But our salvation is not stringent upon the color of Jesus robe, how many demonicas there were or did Jesus heal someone before or after they died.

Is this really plausible? Why wouldn't God be careful to make the Bible accurate as strict history? God couldn't do so? I don't think you can say that. God didn't want to? Why?

God could do anything He wants to.

TP, sometimes God doesn't interfere in certain aspects...for instance Abraham took another wife, but we never find God actually correcting him on this matter.

Moses got drunk...we never read that God punished him for that.

Sometimes God allows for man to make mistakes...that's because we are human. I cannot answer the question of why God does this...but I have to always remember that His ways are not like my ways and His thoughts are not like my thoughts.

God bless.