Disproving Biblical Infallibility 101
- Thread starter DisciplePAG
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So, should we dispose of any scripture? I do not know the answer to that, but i suppose much of the repitition could be trimmed without adversely affecting it? The Romans saw fit to choose what to include and what to discredit....It has been plainly shown that political motivations are responsible for the appearance of some of the scriptures in the KJV bible, as they do not appear in old text? Who is to say the romans even got it right? I mean, we can plainly see they included writings that were contradictory, so...
Wrong. . .
Why don't you do your own research among those who have addressed these questions?
These are two separate events. What contradiction?
Mary Magdalene went by herself very early in the day on her first trip, where Jesus asked why she was crying.
Jesus told her "Do not hold on to me. . ."
There would be more opportunity to see Jesus before his ascension, and after his crucifixion she cannot keep him with her now except through the Holy Spirit.
Mary then went to the disciples with the news.
On another trip at dawn she went with company.
Jesus did not tell them not to hold on to him.
You will have to ask Jesus why his response was different to thwm than it was to Magdalene alone.
Perhaps John's intent in presenting the first visit of Mary alone was to show that woman was the first to believe the angel as she was the first to believe Satan in the garden.
Keep in mind that discrepancies only matter when they are material.
Immaterial discrepancies do not alter the divine truth of Scripture and are irrelevant to faith in revealed divine truth.
Why don't you do your own research among those who have addressed these questions?
These are two separate events. What contradiction?
Mary Magdalene went by herself very early in the day on her first trip, where Jesus asked why she was crying.
Jesus told her "Do not hold on to me. . ."
There would be more opportunity to see Jesus before his ascension, and after his crucifixion she cannot keep him with her now except through the Holy Spirit.
Mary then went to the disciples with the news.
On another trip at dawn she went with company.
Jesus did not tell them not to hold on to him.
You will have to ask Jesus why his response was different to thwm than it was to Magdalene alone.
Perhaps John's intent in presenting the first visit of Mary alone was to show that woman was the first to believe the angel as she was the first to believe Satan in the garden.
Keep in mind that discrepancies only matter when they are material.
Immaterial discrepancies do not alter the divine truth of Scripture and are irrelevant to faith in revealed divine truth.
All Scripture is God-breathed (2Tim 3:16).
The infallibility of the Bible is not provable to atheists.
The Bible can be proven to be neither true nor untrue.
Both are a matter of faith.
It is faith in God's providential preservation of his divine truth for his people.
And its non-provability is by God's design.
There will always be reasons not to trust and believe it for those who are looking for them.
The Bible is not about proof, it's about faith.
You can't prove it to anyone else, you can only believe it.
The infallibility of the Bible is not provable to atheists.
The Bible can be proven to be neither true nor untrue.
Both are a matter of faith.
It is faith in God's providential preservation of his divine truth for his people.
And its non-provability is by God's design.
There will always be reasons not to trust and believe it for those who are looking for them.
The Bible is not about proof, it's about faith.
You can't prove it to anyone else, you can only believe it.
And who pray tell, shall do the trimming? Some egghead university professors who have declared certain portions of Scripture to be untrue, only to find out that archeological finds have proven them liars? Or should it be a godless dictator declaring all Jews unfit to be humans and thus excising all references of Jewishness out of Scripture? Who?
