I debated with myself about whether or not I should start this thread. To a Christian strong in his faith questioning doctrine brings deeper understanding. For people who have not developed a relationship with the Almighty, it might cause doubts. I think for people to have a more vibrant faith it is good to question your beliefs because it is truth that sets us free. The question I pose is, what validation do we have that the Bible is 100% flawless? What proof is there that anything other than the prophetic books are written as fact based documentary? As well, why is every other ancient text, although similar, wrong? I have looked far and wide for knowledge and understanding. I have spent hours in prayer asking God Himself to explain things, and the answers I received do not match up perfectly with most people's accepted views. In most cases it's not that the text is wrong, it's the interpretation.
Why do we believe the Bible is inerrant?
- Thread starter Hungry
- 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.
I think you are taking too much into extreme. Similar to KJVO, a little.
Bibles we have today are not 100% flawless, they are only translations of Greek and Hebrew editions. Editions are also not flawless.
So we got imperfect translations of imperfect sources. Guess the result.
Also, nobody says that all other extrabiblical sources are wrong just because they are not in the Bible.
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (literally “is God-breathed”), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
Nothing more, nothing less.
Bibles we have today are not 100% flawless, they are only translations of Greek and Hebrew editions. Editions are also not flawless.
So we got imperfect translations of imperfect sources. Guess the result.
Also, nobody says that all other extrabiblical sources are wrong just because they are not in the Bible.
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (literally “is God-breathed”), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
Nothing more, nothing less.
Last edited:
This is one of the things that is misunderstood. What scripture was Paul referring to? He was talking about the Torah. How was he to know what letters were going around at the time, that would one day form our Bible? Also every Scipture that they studied from might have been explained differently based on their understanding passed down orally and in traditions.
Paul is talking about all Scriptures in his time, it means Pentateuch, Psalms, prophets etc. Also probably some already written NT books.
It is not important. I was not talking about the canon.
What I meant is what is the implication of the inspiration - that every letter is the same 21 centuries as was in the moment Paul or king David made the ending dot on their autographs? No.
That we still have very well preserved Scriptures profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction etc so that we may be complete and do good works? Yes.
It is not important. I was not talking about the canon.
What I meant is what is the implication of the inspiration - that every letter is the same 21 centuries as was in the moment Paul or king David made the ending dot on their autographs? No.
That we still have very well preserved Scriptures profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction etc so that we may be complete and do good works? Yes.
Let's just undermine the Bible then.
How do we know Adam wasn't made in God's image, but that's just allegorical language?
How do we know the Garden wasn't really a garden but a rocky hillside?
How do we know that Eve ate of the ToK and not have intercourse with Satan and Cain was their child(the serpent seed doctrine avers this thought btw)?
It appears you're trying to undermine the validity of the Bible.
How do we know Adam wasn't made in God's image, but that's just allegorical language?
How do we know the Garden wasn't really a garden but a rocky hillside?
How do we know that Eve ate of the ToK and not have intercourse with Satan and Cain was their child(the serpent seed doctrine avers this thought btw)?
It appears you're trying to undermine the validity of the Bible.
this is one of the things i dont overstand about christianity why do we care if its literal or not?????????? i see some fundamental people even saying that you cant be a christian if you don't think the earth is 6000 years old because "you dont believe God's word".................. i believe the earth is 6000 years old yes but im not gonna be dogmatic about it i just believe it because why not you see????????
There are many, first is our understanding of who the Bible says "God" is. The Bible isn't always referring to the Almighty when it says God. Usually it is when it says Lord (at least it might mean Yashua). That is the problem, why people can't understand. God is a Spirit here, but there He is a "man" eating with Abraham. Then He is born of a virgin. Then He is talking to Himself the Father, as the Son. Elohim does not mean Yahweh. It means gods or heavenly persons. Angel is a heavenly messenger. There is a Heavenly hierarchy with the Almighty as Supreme, His Son is like Him. We were created to serve a function on earth. We were created by Elohim, Heavenly people in their image, and likeness, humanoid.
The prophets were ordained messengers of God to bring His message to His people. There was signs for validation. Much of what Moses wrote appears to be a good construct for starting a God fearing civilization, out of a population of hard hearted refugees, but doesn't focus on spiritual maturity. I don't have a problem with the text, mostly the interpretation. It's like you can't explain what ice cream tastes like to people who have only eaten bugs their whole life. Much of what Jesus and the apostles said didn't make sense until my spiritual birth. I thought I understood. It's what everybody else understood, but it's incomplete until you experience it. My concern is that most people who are teaching from the Bible try to explain without ever experiencing the Holy Spirit. They just fill in the blanks, whatever seems right.
Words of Paul;
2 Timothy 3:15-17:
2 Timothy 3:16-17New King James Version (NKJV)
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I believe Paul was speaking of the Old Testament. No where does he ever claim that his words to be God Breathed or inerrant, nor any other NT writer (save John in the book of Revelations). I don't necessary believe or care if the NT is God breathed or not. Nor does it bother if others believe it is. However, I do believe the NT to be true. That said, I believe the words of Jesus to be God breathed of course.
2 Timothy 3:15-17:
2 Timothy 3:16-17New King James Version (NKJV)
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I believe Paul was speaking of the Old Testament. No where does he ever claim that his words to be God Breathed or inerrant, nor any other NT writer (save John in the book of Revelations). I don't necessary believe or care if the NT is God breathed or not. Nor does it bother if others believe it is. However, I do believe the NT to be true. That said, I believe the words of Jesus to be God breathed of course.
Most everything you've posted. You're no spiritual maverick, though you attempt to present yourself as such.
Those of the same ilk who make claims of special knowledge that differ with the faith found in orthodoxy are to be avoided. Most don't attend church due to a loathing for the bride of Christ and hold disdain for the individuals of local assemblies. These will say otherwise but it is apparent self-deception resides even there.
1 John has something to say to such.
One factor garnered from those of such ilk is that they really haven't believed the Gospel preached and have set out to make one of their own; a different god, a different christ, a different spirit, a different gospel, and a different faith. The only thing they generally exalt is man in the process. God gets a token of praise and becomes domesticated.
Those of the same ilk who make claims of special knowledge that differ with the faith found in orthodoxy are to be avoided. Most don't attend church due to a loathing for the bride of Christ and hold disdain for the individuals of local assemblies. These will say otherwise but it is apparent self-deception resides even there.
1 John has something to say to such.
One factor garnered from those of such ilk is that they really haven't believed the Gospel preached and have set out to make one of their own; a different god, a different christ, a different spirit, a different gospel, and a different faith. The only thing they generally exalt is man in the process. God gets a token of praise and becomes domesticated.
this is terribly dangerous dont fall for this bro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! go ask the jews who know hebrew they say elohim and YHWH is alll the same its just different titles of the same God................ He is also called El-Shaddai that doesn't mean its new or different deity what you are saying here is very close to gnosticism and its one of the earliest heresies you can read all church fathers down the line starting from st John were fighting against it read what Origen wrote and Irenaus etc..........
