The Inerrancy of the Bible

[None]

I'm not sure I'll have time for all of these, nor even if I should take the time for all of them, but the person was correct who said that it helps to look at context.

1. Psalm 145 was a psalm of praise from David. David is emotional. Verse 8 says, "The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. This means that God is gracious -- slow to anger -- He'll put up with a LOT but there IS a limit. Verse 9: The Lord is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works. All they works shall praise thee, O Lord; and they saints shall bless Thee. They shall speak of the glory of Thy kingdom, and talk of Thy power..." This goes through verse 11. So, it is possible that the "all" is not really "all" -- but all the SAINTS, given the next few verses. And, remember that God is slow to anger -- not exempt from anger, but slow to anger? By the time of Jeremiah, His anger was used up. The people disobeyed while wandering through the desert. They disobeyed as judges. In fact the last several chapters of Judges tell the delightful story of a priest's concubine who gets gang raped and dies. Her suitor tears her asunder and gives different parts of her to all the tribes. They go to war against the tribe (Benjamin) who raped her, and kill off most of the men. Fearing the tribe of Benjamin will be lost forever, yet having sworn they would do nothing to help it re-populate, they hold a party, invite the Benjamites, the Benjamites take their virgins captive (thus they don't willingly "give" them away) and the tribe of Benjamin continues. Along comes David, who commits adultery and murder, and it takes a prophet to point this out to him a year later. Solomon, his son, is traditionally known as the Father of Satanism. The country is split in two. Most kings are evil. Slow to anger? The Exodus traditionally came around 1415 BC and the time of Jeremiah, when Judah was taken captive by the Babylonians is 605 BC -- that's 800 years later. Yes God is compassionate and slow to anger with His saints, and He is good to all, but even Psalm 145 hints at limits. So, I don't find this to be a contradiction.

2. It is passible for a man of peace to go to war for the right cause. It is possible for a nation of peace to go to war for the right cause. It is possible that God in the Old Testament was trying to get lans for the Israelites, but after Jesus' death and resurrection, God was at peace with man -- and man was at peace with God. This peace with God is explained in Romans 5, so it is not a contradiction to say that the God of war in the Old Testament becomes the God of Peace after Jesus' death and Resurrection.

3. According to John MacArthur's note in his study Bible: "Luke's genealogy moves backward from Jesus to Adam, Matthew's moves forward from Abraham to Joseph. Luke's entire section from Joseph to David differs starkly from that given by Matthew. The two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke's is seen as Mary's genealogy and Matthew's version represents Joseph's. Thus the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage. Luke, unlike Matthew, includes no women in his genealogy -- even Mary's herself. Joseph was "the son of Heli" by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own), and this is named here as the representative of Mary's genration. Moses himself established precedent for this sort of substitution in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-2.

4. While on earth, Jesus is both God and man, and as man, was submissive to His Father. Though Jesus had all the power of heaven, He chose to use it only under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In this aspect of His being, God was greater, because He chose to let God, the Father be greater. Yet, through most of time, and when He went back to heaven, then He and the Father are one -- equal to each other. Philippians 2:5-8 says, Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." On earth, Jesus chose to treat God as greater (though He wasn't greater), in heaven, it's a different story.

I could go on, but I think you get what we are trying to say when we are speaking of context.

It might help to look for some truths in the Bible rather than falsehoods, since you state that you are a believer. I do not practice Mormonism, with their book, Jehovah's Witness with their book, Islamic with the Koran, but I've heard most all of the people from these faiths and religions accept their holy book at face value, and look for what it is trying to tell them. Would your impression of the Bible change if you accepted it at face value? I'm not trying to be unkind here, I'm just wondering. One of the things which convinced me that the Bible was genuine was to see how well over 40 authors from every area of life over a 1500 year period authored a book in which so much AGREES with each other.

Rhonda Lou

Excellent post.

[Rhonda Lou]

I'm not sure I'll have time for all of these, nor even if I should take the time for all of them, but the person was correct who said that it helps to look at context.

1. Psalm 145 was a psalm of praise from David. David is emotional. Verse 8 says, "The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. This means that God is gracious -- slow to anger -- He'll put up with a LOT but there IS a limit. Verse 9: The Lord is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works. All they works shall praise thee, O Lord; and they saints shall bless Thee. They shall speak of the glory of Thy kingdom, and talk of Thy power..." This goes through verse 11. So, it is possible that the "all" is not really "all" -- but all the SAINTS, given the next few verses. And, remember that God is slow to anger -- not exempt from anger, but slow to anger? By the time of Jeremiah, His anger was used up. The people disobeyed while wandering through the desert. They disobeyed as judges. In fact the last several chapters of Judges tell the delightful story of a priest's concubine who gets gang raped and dies. Her suitor tears her asunder and gives different parts of her to all the tribes. They go to war against the tribe (Benjamin) who raped her, and kill off most of the men. Fearing the tribe of Benjamin will be lost forever, yet having sworn they would do nothing to help it re-populate, they hold a party, invite the Benjamites, the Benjamites take their virgins captive (thus they don't willingly "give" them away) and the tribe of Benjamin continues. Along comes David, who commits adultery and murder, and it takes a prophet to point this out to him a year later. Solomon, his son, is traditionally known as the Father of Satanism. The country is split in two. Most kings are evil. Slow to anger? The Exodus traditionally came around 1415 BC and the time of Jeremiah, when Judah was taken captive by the Babylonians is 605 BC -- that's 800 years later. Yes God is compassionate and slow to anger with His saints, and He is good to all, but even Psalm 145 hints at limits. So, I don't find this to be a contradiction.

2. It is passible for a man of peace to go to war for the right cause. It is possible for a nation of peace to go to war for the right cause. It is possible that God in the Old Testament was trying to get lans for the Israelites, but after Jesus' death and resurrection, God was at peace with man -- and man was at peace with God. This peace with God is explained in Romans 5, so it is not a contradiction to say that the God of war in the Old Testament becomes the God of Peace after Jesus' death and Resurrection.

3. According to John MacArthur's note in his study Bible: "Luke's genealogy moves backward from Jesus to Adam, Matthew's moves forward from Abraham to Joseph. Luke's entire section from Joseph to David differs starkly from that given by Matthew. The two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke's is seen as Mary's genealogy and Matthew's version represents Joseph's. Thus the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage. Luke, unlike Matthew, includes no women in his genealogy -- even Mary's herself. Joseph was "the son of Heli" by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own), and this is named here as the representative of Mary's genration. Moses himself established precedent for this sort of substitution in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-2.

4. While on earth, Jesus is both God and man, and as man, was submissive to His Father. Though Jesus had all the power of heaven, He chose to use it only under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In this aspect of His being, God was greater, because He chose to let God, the Father be greater. Yet, through most of time, and when He went back to heaven, then He and the Father are one -- equal to each other. Philippians 2:5-8 says, Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." On earth, Jesus chose to treat God as greater (though He wasn't greater), in heaven, it's a different story.

I could go on, but I think you get what we are trying to say when we are speaking of context.

It might help to look for some truths in the Bible rather than falsehoods, since you state that you are a believer. I do not practice Mormonism, with their book, Jehovah's Witness with their book, Islamic with the Koran, but I've heard most all of the people from these faiths and religions accept their holy book at face value, and look for what it is trying to tell them. Would your impression of the Bible change if you accepted it at face value? I'm not trying to be unkind here, I'm just wondering. One of the things which convinced me that the Bible was genuine was to see how well over 40 authors from every area of life over a 1500 year period authored a book in which so much AGREES with each other.

Rhonda Lou

Excellent post.

Thank God. I've never been so fearful of saying the wrong thing as I've been in this past week and a half since starting here. I PRAY, OH, how I PRAY, that what I say is HIS Spirit speaking through me. God's word is powerful. Mine isn't.

Thank you for the encouragement!!

Rhonda Lou

[the_interactionist]

the_interactionist, why are you labled a non-believer? From your signature it looks like you're a christian. By the way, good questions.

It depends on what you mean by "beleiver." I'm not in total (or even major) agreement with most Christian ideas and paradigms. But I do believe there is wisdom to be found by the teachings of Christ and many of his predecessors.

And thanks for the comment.

What are your beliefs? Atheist? Agnostic? Somethin' else?

[MeCajunboy]

This seems to be a recurring issue that is never settled. Likewise, I'm sure it won't be settled here either.

A while back, on one of my previous posts, I was asked to provide examples of Biblical and scriptural contradictions. I failed to do so then. Sorry I'm so late with these. It takes a lot of time and research, but it cane be done.

Here

[None]

I'm not sure I'll have time for all of these, nor even if I should take the time for all of them, but the person was correct who said that it helps to look at context.

1. Psalm 145 was a psalm of praise from David. David is emotional. Verse 8 says, "The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. This means that God is gracious -- slow to anger -- He'll put up with a LOT but there IS a limit. Verse 9: The Lord is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works. All they works shall praise thee, O Lord; and they saints shall bless Thee. They shall speak of the glory of Thy kingdom, and talk of Thy power..." This goes through verse 11. So, it is possible that the "all" is not really "all" -- but all the SAINTS, given the next few verses. And, remember that God is slow to anger -- not exempt from anger, but slow to anger? By the time of Jeremiah, His anger was used up. The people disobeyed while wandering through the desert. They disobeyed as judges. In fact the last several chapters of Judges tell the delightful story of a priest's concubine who gets gang raped and dies. Her suitor tears her asunder and gives different parts of her to all the tribes. They go to war against the tribe (Benjamin) who raped her, and kill off most of the men. Fearing the tribe of Benjamin will be lost forever, yet having sworn they would do nothing to help it re-populate, they hold a party, invite the Benjamites, the Benjamites take their virgins captive (thus they don't willingly "give" them away) and the tribe of Benjamin continues. Along comes David, who commits adultery and murder, and it takes a prophet to point this out to him a year later. Solomon, his son, is traditionally known as the Father of Satanism. The country is split in two. Most kings are evil. Slow to anger? The Exodus traditionally came around 1415 BC and the time of Jeremiah, when Judah was taken captive by the Babylonians is 605 BC -- that's 800 years later. Yes God is compassionate and slow to anger with His saints, and He is good to all, but even Psalm 145 hints at limits. So, I don't find this to be a contradiction.

2. It is passible for a man of peace to go to war for the right cause. It is possible for a nation of peace to go to war for the right cause. It is possible that God in the Old Testament was trying to get lans for the Israelites, but after Jesus' death and resurrection, God was at peace with man -- and man was at peace with God. This peace with God is explained in Romans 5, so it is not a contradiction to say that the God of war in the Old Testament becomes the God of Peace after Jesus' death and Resurrection.

3. According to John MacArthur's note in his study Bible: "Luke's genealogy moves backward from Jesus to Adam, Matthew's moves forward from Abraham to Joseph. Luke's entire section from Joseph to David differs starkly from that given by Matthew. The two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke's is seen as Mary's genealogy and Matthew's version represents Joseph's. Thus the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage. Luke, unlike Matthew, includes no women in his genealogy -- even Mary's herself. Joseph was "the son of Heli" by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own), and this is named here as the representative of Mary's genration. Moses himself established precedent for this sort of substitution in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-2.

4. While on earth, Jesus is both God and man, and as man, was submissive to His Father. Though Jesus had all the power of heaven, He chose to use it only under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In this aspect of His being, God was greater, because He chose to let God, the Father be greater. Yet, through most of time, and when He went back to heaven, then He and the Father are one -- equal to each other. Philippians 2:5-8 says, Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." On earth, Jesus chose to treat God as greater (though He wasn't greater), in heaven, it's a different story.

I could go on, but I think you get what we are trying to say when we are speaking of context.

It might help to look for some truths in the Bible rather than falsehoods, since you state that you are a believer. I do not practice Mormonism, with their book, Jehovah's Witness with their book, Islamic with the Koran, but I've heard most all of the people from these faiths and religions accept their holy book at face value, and look for what it is trying to tell them. Would your impression of the Bible change if you accepted it at face value? I'm not trying to be unkind here, I'm just wondering. One of the things which convinced me that the Bible was genuine was to see how well over 40 authors from every area of life over a 1500 year period authored a book in which so much AGREES with each other.

Rhonda Lou

Excellent post.

Thank God. I've never been so fearful of saying the wrong thing as I've been in this past week and a half since starting here. I PRAY, OH, how I PRAY, that what I say is HIS Spirit speaking through me. God's word is powerful. Mine isn't.

Thank you for the encouragement!!

Rhonda Lou

God's Word is powerful because His Word is Truth.

[thesorgo]

the_interactionist, why are you labled a non-believer? From your signature it looks like you're a christian. By the way, good questions.

It depends on what you mean by "beleiver." I'm not in total (or even major) agreement with most Christian ideas and paradigms. But I do believe there is wisdom to be found by the teachings of Christ and many of his predecessors.

And thanks for the comment.

What are your beliefs? Atheist? Agnostic? Somethin' else?

I am an atheist to all of the established religions but in the issues of the beginning of the Earth and the Universe, I'm agnostic.

[the_interactionist]

the_interactionist, why are you labled a non-believer? From your signature it looks like you're a christian. By the way, good questions.

It depends on what you mean by "beleiver." I'm not in total (or even major) agreement with most Christian ideas and paradigms. But I do believe there is wisdom to be found by the teachings of Christ and many of his predecessors.

And thanks for the comment.

What are your beliefs? Atheist? Agnostic? Somethin' else?

I am an atheist to all of the established religions but in the issues of the beginning of the Earth and the Universe, I'm agnostic.

So what's your take on the philosophy of life? Darwinisim? Neo-Darwinism? What system of theology do you embrace regarding evolution?

[thesorgo]

the_interactionist, why are you labled a non-believer? From your signature it looks like you're a christian. By the way, good questions.

It depends on what you mean by "beleiver." I'm not in total (or even major) agreement with most Christian ideas and paradigms. But I do believe there is wisdom to be found by the teachings of Christ and many of his predecessors.

And thanks for the comment.

What are your beliefs? Atheist? Agnostic? Somethin' else?

I am an atheist to all of the established religions but in the issues of the beginning of the Earth and the Universe, I'm agnostic.

So what's your take on the philosophy of life? Darwinisim? Neo-Darwinism? What system of theology do you embrace regarding evolution?

I am a neo-darwinist. I accept that mutations and selection cause the change in species over time. I do not believe that the world is 6,000 years old or that we lived with dinosaurs

[TheWarOnError]

Sorry to jump in on this deep topic with such a small opinion, but I think it is important as it is my belief that my viewpoint is Holy Spirit inspired.

Believe it or not, some believers do not concern themselves with the inerrancy of the bible. I happen to be one of them. The thing that concerns me is if I am able hear and understand the voice of my King speaking through my sin and pride filter.

TWOE

[Guest lovinghim4ever]

I've heard this so many times from your typical conservative Christian. Listen, as much as you want it too, reading these verses "in context" will not solve your problems.

The originals very well could have been inerrant (although most likely not), but we do not have the originals. We have copies of copies of copies, so on and so forth. Or there is another explanation as to the contradictions, these human writers simply messed up. It's just a mistake, and by understanding the rest of the Bible, we have the ability to decide what is meant in each passage. And with many of the above contradictions, I think the mood and situation would probably have alot to do with what the author wrote down.

But, like I said, the authors were human, and many things could have affected their writings. Also, in the early centuries of Christianity, the people who copied the Gospels and letters were NOT proffesional scribes. Usually, it was merely someone who was able to write (and sometimes they could barely do that!). These copies were made by people with their own theological agendas, people who were tired, people who had a hard time paying attention.

What it comes down to is your trust in God. If you believe God kept the Bible free from mistakes when dealing with important doctrines or important historical events, then why can't we trust the Bible? We do have the ability to analyze the Scripture, to look into it and figure out where mistakes are and where there are no mistakes. It is possible! We are smart people, and God knew that!

Well, that's my two cents. I'm sure this won't go over very well, but these "mistakes" don't affect my relationship with God and His Son. He is still there, and He is still God.

Sorry to jump in on this deep topic with such a small opinion, but I think it is important as it is my belief that my viewpoint is Holy Spirit inspired.

Believe it or not, some believers do not concern themselves with the inerrancy of the bible. I happen to be one of them. The thing that concerns me is if I am able hear and understand the voice of my King speaking through my sin and pride filter.

TWOE

Don't be sorry! It is NOT a small opinion.

My viewpoint is also Holy Spirit inspired; as I believe all Christian viewpoints should be.

The Holy Spirit speaks to me through God's Word, and I do my best to let HIM choose which words are most important for my life.

I do believe God inspired humans to write the Bible, but I don't believe the writers got it 100% right 100% of the time. Why? Because they are human. Where humans are involved emotions are involved, and emotions can cloud someone's interpretation and judgment.

As has already been said, throughout time, as we know it, man has been translating the Word of God into easier reading material. Yes, I do believe it was originally written by men as they were inspired by God, but they were still humans who were capable of making mistakes. And, the Bible has been translated so many times that I just can't believe there are no translation errors. It has been translated into other languages, and it has been paraphrased so many times that I am very thankful for the Holy Spirit who witnesses to my spirit as to what God wants for my life.