In your opinion is the entire Bible "inerrant" or "infallible" as it relates to scripture?

[BartholomewB]

• The word of Good is completely Inerrancy /Inerrant: free from error. The Bible is without error in what it teaches and absolutely trustworthy. IN the truth claims it makes. Some hold to a "limited inerrancy." Scriptures themselves make no such limitation.

• The word of God is infallibility/Infallible: Incapable of error. These terms are near synonyms to the previous pair above. However, some have redefined infallibility in applying it to the Scriptures. They take the meaning that Scriptures in incapable of failing in its ordained purpose of revealing God and his plan of salvation. This is true. However, it seems to avoid the debate about inerrancy by importing meaning that is not there in the words themselves.

I agree with the term : Plenary Inspiration. This term refers to the divine inspiration of the entire content of the bible. 2Tim 3:16

" All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in rigorousness."

Famously, there’s that apparent discrepancy or “tension” between John and the Synoptics on the date of the Last Supper and whether or not it was a Passover meal.

Is that a question of inerrancy or of infallibility?

Or both at once?

 

[GWH]

You’re just giving us more information about yourself: you’re telling us what subjects you find interesting and what subjects you don’t find interesting. You’re not making any contribution to the discussion about Daniel.

Okay, here are four kerygmatic/key teachings I discern in Daniel:

Dan. 7:13-14. “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was let into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” In Matt. 16:27-17:22 Jesus referred to himself five times as the “Son of Man”.

This title is employed by Ezekiel to refer to the himself (Ezek. 2:1-3, 3:1, etc.) who was made a watchman for the house of Israel. The phrase was used in Num. 23:19 to refer to humanness and in Psa. 8:4-6 to compare humanity with angels.

Dan. 9:25-27. This says a decree was issued to restore Jerusalem (presumably by Cyrus of Persia in 538 B.C.), but a ruler’s people (army in Dan. 11:31) will destroy the city, put an end to sacrifice and offering, and “the one who causes desolation will place abominations on a wing of the temple until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” Jesus cited this passage in Matt. 24:15.

Dan. 11:31b (=12:11b). The army of the king of the North per v. 28 & 31a will set up “the abomination that causes desolation.” Jesus also included this phrase in Matt. 24:15.

Dan. 12:1-9. This describes a final judgment. The end will come for each person when they die. Thus, we should pay attention to the words of Jesus in Matt. 24:36-44 and be ready.

 

[biblestudent78]

Leon J. Wood
Credentials: Ph.D. from Michigan State University; Professor of Old Testament at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary.
Key Contribution: Authored A Commentary on Daniel, providing clear historical harmonization for complex figures like Belshazzar and Darius the Mede.

Bryan Beyer
Credentials: Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion; Professor of Old Testament at Columbia International University.
Key Contribution: Co-authored Encountering the Book of Daniel and Encountering the Old Testament, mapping out clear evangelical responses to standard higher-critical claims.

J. Barton Payne
Credentials: Th.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary; Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Key Contribution: Wrote The Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, constructing strong textual defenses for supernatural prediction in Daniel versus post-event writing (vaticinium ex eventu).

David E. Conklin
Credentials: Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary; independent historical-linguistic researcher.
Key Contribution: Authored highly regarded monograph-length papers systematically dismantling the linguistic claims of late-date proponents concerning Greek musical instruments.

Peter J. Gentry
Credentials: Ph.D. from the University of Toronto; Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Key Contribution: Specialized in Semitic linguistics and textual criticism; has frequently published technical data supporting the archaic structural nature of exilic biblical texts.

Robert McCabe
Credentials: Th.D. from Grace Theological Seminary; Professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.
Key Contribution: Published highly specific academic journal articles targeting and disproving the standard late-date literary assumptions of modern source criticism.

William H. Shea
Credentials: Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies from the University of Michigan; Old Testament Professor at Andrews University.
Key Contribution: Extensively published historical and chronological studies on the Neo-Babylonian to Persian transition, arguing that Darius the Mede is to be identified as Gubaru (the governor of Babylon).

Merrill F. Unger
Credentials: Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University; Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary; Professor of Old Testament.
Key Contribution: Maintained the 6th-century setting throughout Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testament, linking Daniel's details directly with discoveries like the Nabonidus Chronicle.

C. Hassell Bullock
Credentials: Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion; Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College.
Key Contribution: Defended the early date in An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books, emphasizing the canonical placement and the theological trajectory of the exilic period.

David M. Fouts
Credentials: Th.D. in Old Testament and Hebrew from Dallas Theological Seminary; Professor of Bible at Bryan College.
Key Contribution: Contributed critical research examining large numbers used in ancient Near Eastern census and military reports, removing perceived historical hyperbole from Daniel's early date.

Bruce Waltke
Credentials: Ph.D. from Harvard University; Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary; Professor of Old Testament at Regent College and Reformed Theological Seminary.
Key Contribution: While focusing heavily on Old Testament theology, Waltke has consistently affirmed the structural integrity of conservative dating for the core exilic prophets.

Eugene H. Merrill
Credentials: Ph.D. from Columbia University; Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Key Contribution: In his Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, he treats the timelines and accounts in the book of Daniel as concrete historical bedrock for 6th-century Israelite history.

Charles Dyer
Credentials: Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary; Professor and Provost at Moody Bible Institute.
Key Contribution: Contributed conservative analysis for the Bible Knowledge Commentary on Daniel, utilizing structural geography to confirm Babylon's layout as described in the text.

John C. Whitcomb
Credentials: Th.D. from Grace Theological Seminary; Professor of Old Testament and Theology.
Key Contribution: Authored Darius the Mede, a highly focused historical study offering a viable chronological framework for Daniel 6 under Cyrus the Great's early rule.

James B. Jordan
Credentials: D.Litt. from the Central School of Religion; Director of Biblical Horizons.
Key Contribution: Published The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on Daniel, providing a highly specialized preterist-historical integration that explicitly depends on the 530 BC timeline to hold structural cohesion.

Let's start with a basis for understanding biblical hermeneutics. There are those that start from a predetermined perspective, such as a number of those you listed that start with belief (dogma) that every word of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are literally true thus their entire work is base on justifying that precondition. Woods is a good example, his book published in 1973 takes that posture. However the current expert on the book of Daniel at the same seminary Dr Wendy L. Litter sees more options for understanding Daniel.

It is important to note that "scholars" associated with church sponsored seminaries sign a contract that says they will never teach anything contrary to the written statement of faith. Thus their "scholarship" is constrained by and directed by their Churches statement of faith. To teach or believe otherwise will terminate their employment. Covenant Theological Seminary is a PCA supported institution and does not allow deviation from Church doctrine to be taught. Moody Bible Institute self-identifies it as non-charismatic, dispensational, and generally Calvinistic, thus restricting teaching to only those dogmas supported by this historic community. RTS strictly trains pastors in conservative, Reformed theology. There are no references in you list of independent biblical scholars who are free of denominational doctrinal control. They are all told to teach the Book of Daniel as the expression of the dogmas specific to their founding and supporting churches. It then is not a surprise that they all agreed exactly with each other. To believe otherwise would terminate their employment.

 

[GWH]

Let's start with a basis for understanding biblical hermeneutics. There are those that start from a predetermined perspective, such as a number of those you listed that start with belief (dogma) that every word of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are literally true thus their entire work is base on justifying that precondition. Woods is a good example, his book published in 1973 takes that posture. However the current expert on the book of Daniel at the same seminary Dr Wendy L. Litter sees more options for understanding Daniel.

It is important to note that "scholars" associated with church sponsored seminaries sign a contract that says they will never teach anything contrary to the written statement of faith. Thus their "scholarship" is constrained by and directed by their Churches statement of faith. To teach or believe otherwise will terminate their employment. Covenant Theological Seminary is a PCA supported institution and does not allow deviation from Church doctrine to be taught. Moody Bible Institute self-identifies it as non-charismatic, dispensational, and generally Calvinistic, thus restricting teaching to only those dogmas supported by this historic community. RTS strictly trains pastors in conservative, Reformed theology. There are no references in you list of independent biblical scholars who are free of denominational doctrinal control. They are all told to teach the Book of Daniel as the expression of the dogmas specific to their founding and supporting churches. It then is not a surprise that they all agreed exactly with each other. To believe otherwise would terminate their employment.

Good point. Good hermeneutics begins with desire/hunger/love for truth (2Thes. 2:10),
which is manifested by willingness to amend previous beliefs discovered to be wrong,
which is why I started the thread about What folks have learned via CC discussions,
why I adopted the thread Searching for Truth Seekers!, and why I have called my beliefs "truthseeking" for many years.

I amended my wrong Baptist belief in OSAS after learning that Scripture taught the need for perseverance,
which meant I needed to fly below the radar/keep it to myself while serving Baptist churches so as not to offend.

 

[biblestudent78]

Famously, there’s that apparent discrepancy or “tension” between John and the Synoptics on the date of the Last Supper and whether or not it was a Passover meal.

Is that a question of inerrancy or of infallibility?

Or both at once?

BartholomewB
There at least two ways to read the bible. One is to confirm what you already have been taught to believe along with that are some presuppositions that must be rigidly enforced. 1. The Bible is Univocal. Everything agrees with everything else. 2. The bible is inerrant meaning it is spiritually, factually, historically, biologically and archaeologically faultless and where science conflicts with our take on the bible, the science is wrong 100% of the time. You know, the work of satan and all that..

Thus when Joseph and Mary had to got to Bethlehem as required by Rome to be counted for taxes (an all others had to return to their 1000 yr old ancestral home?) and when there is no known event like that in Roman history or the history of the many Roman conquered countries including Judea, one must accept the biblical story over the direct evidence that it could not happen and did not happen.

As none of the gospel writers were personal followers of Jesus ministry they all relied on information they gathered. (the names of these books were much much later attributed to Matthew and Mark but they are not named in the bible. Their names were used to validate their authenticity.) Some believe that "inspiration" means they were not using their own life experiences, orally transmitted stories or the witness of some eyewitnesses, but on a form of divine dictation in which their writing hand and pen was held by the Holy Spirit and operated without their control or even knowledge. At least the writer of Luke and Acts explained to his benefactor that what he was writing was based on his person research, not on the movement of his pen by unknown forces. Bottom line. We see the bible through the lenses given to us by those whose judgement we trust. We do not examine those lenses. The lens we were given determines how we read the Bible.

You have already noted the "abbvorant" story in John that Jesus was crucified before the passover meal or that in the Gospel of Mark nobody except the women at the tomb knew about the resurrection because they were afraid and "told nobody." Did Paul go right to Jerusalem after his conversion as is told in Acts or did he free to Egypt immediately after his conversion as Paul himself testifies. There are many of these unique takes on the story of Jesus and launch of Christianity. On one hand we can stay true to the writers of the New Testament and take them at their word or we can pretend that there is some "metanarrative" vastly more important than their actual words because it supports the hundreds or thousands of unique dogmas that have arisen each demanding what we are allowed and not allowed to see or perceive by what we read in the Bible.

I find the variations of details comforting. People telling about an historic event from their unique perspectives will not harmonize totally with others honestly doing the same thing. The variety of details and more importantly the conflict in minor details demonstrates to me this was not a man made up story or there would be no conflicts.

If, as may believe, there is no difference in any of the details because differences are not allowed by our dogmas, then we are attempting to find comfort in one unified non-conflicted story. The sign in any anthology such as the bible that demands all words thoughts and interpretations must harmonize demonstrates a fear of the authenticity of the story. Dogmas demand the we alone have God in our Box.

When we see perspectives we feel a threat to our dogmas we are confronted by the fact that there are hundreds or thousand of competing dogmas believed fervently by bible readers just like ourselves.

This forum, for the most part, is a sandbox for competing dogmas. Doctrinal purity is the test of biblical interpretation. Protecting our dogmas offers us scant opportunity to expand our understanding of theology and perspectives from different faith traditions.

 

[Delvianna]

There are the direct words of God which are infallible and then there's others teachings and writings between prophets and disciples that are fallible.

 

[biblestudent78]

There are the direct words of God which are infallible and then there's others teachings and writings between prophets and disciples that are fallible.

Interesting. Can you give a few examples of the direct words of God?

 

[CS1]

Famously, there’s that apparent discrepancy or “tension” between John and the Synoptics on the date of the Last Supper and whether or not it was a Passover meal.

Is that a question of inerrancy or of infallibility?

Or both at once?

It is an eyewitness as they saw in the context of the Last Supper. That is not a discrepancy, it is a personal eyewitness of and event they were at as they saw and heard it. John is speaking before the meal was served and during the preparation which led into the Passover meal. The grammatical- historical method we can pay close attention to both the language the text was written in and the cultural -historical setting or occasion that produced it. The Gospel of John also great emphases Jesus as the Lamb of God which is the Passover meal or feast. Also, gospel say Jesus ate this meal before he went to the cross. John’s account is not biblically wrong. It simply uses different terminology and focuses on the broader Passover festival rather than the single evening meal. The Last Supper in John is still the Passover meal, just described in the context of the festival’s timing rather than the meal’s specific date.

 

[BartholomewB]

One is to confirm what you already have been taught to believe along with that are some presuppositions that must be rigidly enforced. 1. The Bible is Univocal. Everything agrees with everything else. 2. The bible is inerrant meaning it is spiritually, factually, historically, biologically and archaeologically faultless and where science conflicts with our take on the bible, the science is wrong 100% of the time. nderstanding of theology and perspectives from different faith traditions.

Thank you, @biblestudent78, for your long and carefully reasoned reply to my question. There are just two further points that I would like to hear your opinion on, if you don't mind.

First, I was never taught to believe in either inerrancy or infallibility, and that has made no detectable impact on my faith. The idea that either John or the Synoptics may possibly have made a mistake about the date causes me no concern at all. Similarly, the suggestion that James and Paul may perhaps have disagreed about faith and works isn't going to undermine my Christian faith in the slightest degree. This thread interests me simply because I have an open mind on the subject and I want to learn more about it.

The other thing is this. Going back to the John/ Synoptics/ Last Supper question: Which of the two headings would that fall under, inerrancy or infallibility?

Thanks again for your help.
Regards
Bart

 

[Delvianna]

Interesting. Can you give a few examples of the direct words of God?

Everything God told Abraham, or Moses or prophets. There's tons of "thus sayeth the Lord" in scripture. And Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers for example, is primarily God talking. Then you have Jesus's direct quotes in the new Testament as well. All of those direct quotes would be infallible.

Paul's teachings and Hebrews are good examples what I mean by teachings that are fallible. Not that they're automatically wrong, but they're prone to misunderstandings or not saying something 100% correctly because they're teachings and not direct quotes from God. It's a human trying to relay information and understanding which can be prone to errors, even extremely small ones. I would equate it to listening to your standard Pastor. You aren't supposed to automatically accept what they said. Even Paul said to check what he says. That proves fallibility.

 

[GWH]

BartholomewB
There at least two ways to read the bible. One is to confirm what you already have been taught to believe along with that are some presuppositions that must be rigidly enforced. 1. The Bible is Univocal. Everything agrees with everything else. 2. The bible is inerrant meaning it is spiritually, factually, historically, biologically and archaeologically faultless and where science conflicts with our take on the bible, the science is wrong 100% of the time. You know, the work of satan and all that..

Thus when Joseph and Mary had to got to Bethlehem as required by Rome to be counted for taxes (an all others had to return to their 1000 yr old ancestral home?) and when there is no known event like that in Roman history or the history of the many Roman conquered countries including Judea, one must accept the biblical story over the direct evidence that it could not happen and did not happen.

As none of the gospel writers were personal followers of Jesus ministry they all relied on information they gathered. (the names of these books were much much later attributed to Matthew and Mark but they are not named in the bible. Their names were used to validate their authenticity.) Some believe that "inspiration" means they were not using their own life experiences, orally transmitted stories or the witness of some eyewitnesses, but on a form of divine dictation in which their writing hand and pen was held by the Holy Spirit and operated without their control or even knowledge. At least the writer of Luke and Acts explained to his benefactor that what he was writing was based on his person research, not on the movement of his pen by unknown forces. Bottom line. We see the bible through the lenses given to us by those whose judgement we trust. We do not examine those lenses. The lens we were given determines how we read the Bible.

You have already noted the "abbvorant" story in John that Jesus was crucified before the passover meal or that in the Gospel of Mark nobody except the women at the tomb knew about the resurrection because they were afraid and "told nobody." Did Paul go right to Jerusalem after his conversion as is told in Acts or did he free to Egypt immediately after his conversion as Paul himself testifies. There are many of these unique takes on the story of Jesus and launch of Christianity. On one hand we can stay true to the writers of the New Testament and take them at their word or we can pretend that there is some "metanarrative" vastly more important than their actual words because it supports the hundreds or thousands of unique dogmas that have arisen each demanding what we are allowed and not allowed to see or perceive by what we read in the Bible.

I find the variations of details comforting. People telling about an historic event from their unique perspectives will not harmonize totally with others honestly doing the same thing. The variety of details and more importantly the conflict in minor details demonstrates to me this was not a man made up story or there would be no conflicts.

If, as may believe, there is no difference in any of the details because differences are not allowed by our dogmas, then we are attempting to find comfort in one unified non-conflicted story. The sign in any anthology such as the bible that demands all words thoughts and interpretations must harmonize demonstrates a fear of the authenticity of the story. Dogmas demand the we alone have God in our Box.

When we see perspectives we feel a threat to our dogmas we are confronted by the fact that there are hundreds or thousand of competing dogmas believed fervently by bible readers just like ourselves.

This forum, for the most part, is a sandbox for competing dogmas. Doctrinal purity is the test of biblical interpretation. Protecting our dogmas offers us scant opportunity to expand our understanding of theology and perspectives from different faith traditions.

Re competing dogmas: Yes, I encourage folks not to want to win a proof-texting ping pong game,
but rather to work together to defeat the enemy of ignorance of GW via kerygmatic unity while harmonizing if possible.

 

[GWH]

Everything God told Abraham, or Moses or prophets. There's tons of "thus sayeth the Lord" in scripture. And Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers for example, is primarily God talking. Then you have Jesus's direct quotes in the new Testament as well. All of those direct quotes would be infallible.

Paul's teachings and Hebrews are good examples what I mean by teachings that are fallible. Not that they're automatically wrong, but they're prone to misunderstandings or not saying something 100% correctly because they're teachings and not direct quotes from God. It's a human trying to relay information and understanding which can be prone to errors, even extremely small ones. I would equate it to listening to your standard Pastor. You aren't supposed to automatically accept what they said. Even Paul said to check what he says. That proves fallibility.

Whoa there! Just because something said in the OT is preceded by "thus saith the Lord" does not mean the sayer is less fallible than Paul and the rest of the NT.

We should not automatically accept our own understanding but rather test it to discern whether it is good/GW.

 

[BartholomewB]

Re competing dogmas: Yes, I encourage folks not to want to win a proof-texting ping pong game,
but rather to work together to defeat the enemy of ignorance of GW via kerygmatic unity while harmonizing if possible.

We're in full agreement on both points. No doubt about it.

 

[rewriter]

You know then how hard it is to find what they wanted to hide. I’m assuming you also understand the overwhelming implications that a single twist like Mother being erased can have. This essentially makes Yahway nor male or female or makes him female to the reader. I know that’s a stretch but if there is no mother than the feminine things were done by God. I am just thinking out loud.. I have been alone in this for over two years and I start studying and I’ll read for 6-8-12 hrs sometimes.

I am sorry that I missed this earlier. The feminine is present if God. In Hebrew, "spirit" carries a feminine implication, and Wisdom is clearly feminine. But even more important is that there are hints that gender is meaningless in the spiritual realm, it only has meaning in the physical.

If you push me very far on theology or understanding the Bible, I sound very different than one is used to. However, I have devoted over 50 years to the study and have learned that there is a lot of ignored evidence, including hard evidence supported by repeated scientific experiments, that makes the most sense if the NT history works, the gospels and Acts, were written as we have them today specifically to absolve Rome from any blame with regards to Jesus and the early church. It also removes most of the "difficult" passages in the NT.

 

[biblestudent78]

I always wonder how much biblical knowledge people have when they make dogmatic statements of 'biblical truths." First, what bible?
Depending on your connection to ancient traditions there are either 66 books, 73 or 81 books. If "inspired" New Testament writers quote from what we consider "uninspired" books, does that make the "uninspired books we reject as " "inspired" as the ones we do? The American Bible Society says there are about 900 English versions of the Bible. If they conflict with our dogmas which one is correct?

Who is the "son of man" in the bible. God calls Ezekiel "Son of Man" over 90 times. In Daniel the "Son of Man" is a heavenly figure. Jesus is called or calls Himself "Son of Man" 80 times. So, what does the term "Son of Man" mean?

Who is the US in the two creations stories in Genesis and why do you believe your insight is correct?

If evil entered the Garden, where did it come from? God+ made everything in the garden. Either God+ put evil there or God+ was incapable or unwilling to maintaining a sin free world.

Do you believe there are sexually mature totally evil human male angels?

These are just a few questions without obvious answers in the Bible. However, the basis you use to answer them indicates how far down the dogma coal mine you may be.

On all our best days, the Bible is a voyage of discovery or it is just a pretext flowing from someone's else's theology. Once we find ourselves in a posture of "defending" the bible we intuitively know we are only defending our inherited dogmas about the bible.

 

[rewriter]

That is actually a pretty vague and speculative "proof".
No known archeological evidence available to a group of modern experts?
8th century BC was a long time ago and ANY writings found from that time are very rare and precious.

Such writings are indeed rare, but they do exist. They often appear on pottery shards or fragments of clay tablets. But they do exist in an ancient form of Hebrew. And among these rare examples, any direct reference to what we call scripture are even more rare, more often they are random scraps, often seemingly lists of supplies or indications of ownership of something.

 

[rewriter]

I always wonder how much biblical knowledge people have when they make dogmatic statements of 'biblical truths." First, what bible?
Depending on your connection to ancient traditions there are either 66 books, 73 or 81 books. If "inspired" New Testament writers quote from what we consider "uninspired" books, does that make the "uninspired books we reject as " "inspired" as the ones we do? The American Bible Society says there are about 900 English versions of the Bible. If they conflict with our dogmas which one is correct?

Who is the "son of man" in the bible. God calls Ezekiel "Son of Man" over 90 times. In Daniel the "Son of Man" is a heavenly figure. Jesus is called or calls Himself "Son of Man" 80 times. So, what does the term "Son of Man" mean?

Who is the US in the two creations stories in Genesis and why do you believe your insight is correct?

If evil entered the Garden, where did it come from? God+ made everything in the garden. Either God+ put evil there or God+ was incapable or unwilling to maintaining a sin free world.

Do you believe there are sexually mature totally evil human male angels?

These are just a few questions without obvious answers in the Bible. However, the basis you use to answer them indicates how far down the dogma coal mine you may be.

On all our best days, the Bible is a voyage of discovery or it is just a pretext flowing from someone's else's theology. Once we find ourselves in a posture of "defending" the bible we intuitively know we are only defending our inherited dogmas about the bible.

There are also three generally accepted versions of the OT, the official Masoretic Text, which has the least support in the NT with no clear citations, the Sead Sea Scrolls text, which is clearly cited in the NT in places in the gospels and the Septuagint which is the most cited with clear references in both Acts and Paul's writings.

But how does one decide which version to follow when the different texts record clearly different words? In Isaiah 19 for example there is a passage in which the DSS and the MT agree but the LXX differs noticeably. And even worse, Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest complete manuscripts, has a third version of the passage and the Isaiah Targum an Aramaic translation, has a fourth.

 

[GWH]

I always wonder how much biblical knowledge people have when they make dogmatic statements of 'biblical truths." First, what bible?
Depending on your connection to ancient traditions there are either 66 books, 73 or 81 books. If "inspired" New Testament writers quote from what we consider "uninspired" books, does that make the "uninspired books we reject as " "inspired" as the ones we do? The American Bible Society says there are about 900 English versions of the Bible. If they conflict with our dogmas which one is correct?

Who is the "son of man" in the bible. God calls Ezekiel "Son of Man" over 90 times. In Daniel the "Son of Man" is a heavenly figure. Jesus is called or calls Himself "Son of Man" 80 times. So, what does the term "Son of Man" mean?

Who is the US in the two creations stories in Genesis and why do you believe your insight is correct?

If evil entered the Garden, where did it come from? God+ made everything in the garden. Either God+ put evil there or God+ was incapable or unwilling to maintaining a sin free world.

Do you believe there are sexually mature totally evil human male angels?

These are just a few questions without obvious answers in the Bible. However, the basis you use to answer them indicates how far down the dogma coal mine you may be.

On all our best days, the Bible is a voyage of discovery or it is just a pretext flowing from someone's else's theology. Once we find ourselves in a posture of "defending" the bible we intuitively know we are only defending our inherited dogmas about the bible.

Now you are delving into epistemology. Both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH/struggle will end. At that time NT theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. Matt. 7:24-27).

The choices involved in making the second watershed decision (the ground of meaning/morality) correspond to the following questions: For a humanist, “Is there any reason I should not be selfish?” [No/Yes, depending on how you feel or what the rulers decree or how the majority votes.] For a karmaist, “Does how I live ultimately matter?” [Not unless you can remember previous lives.] For a naturalist, “Does instinct negate volition? [If not, then why is evil/hatred not equally right or existentially lawful?] And for a theist, “What does God desire?” [That depends upon what message or revelation is from God.]

Which option and opinion is best or most true? Answering this question involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20) and that conscience indicates “the requirements of the law” (Rom. 2:15).

A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in John 14:9-11), Paul (in Gal. 1:11-12 & Tit. 1:1-3). Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory. In my opinion humanism provides no hope for ultimate “oughtness”, because there is no logical way to avoid moral relativism without a superhuman Judge. Karmaism offers a rationale for reincarnation, but I have explained why I view it as incredible. Naturalism does not even provide a rationale for morality/the UMI, but rather it implies that what is, is right. However, I do find reasons to believe NT theism is true.

While conducting a comprehensive comparison of theistic religions is not my desire, I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including Isa. 53 and Psa. 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).

Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (descendants of Abraham, cf. TULIP), with a UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile) and even including one’s enemies (per Matt. 22:37-39 & 5:44). The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham (Rom. 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).

 

[Delvianna]

Whoa there! Just because something said in the OT is preceded by "thus saith the Lord" does not mean the sayer is less fallible than Paul and the rest of the NT.

We should not automatically accept our own understanding but rather test it to discern whether it is good/GW.

And how do you discern what is good if you can't take the Lord's quote as good? God is the standard for what is "good", so what other standard are you then applying to it to discern what is "good"? Is there a better standard than God's? Because you have to compare what God is saying, to then... what? A humans? That's pretty backwards.

 

[Beekeeper]

Such writings are indeed rare, but they do exist. They often appear on pottery shards or fragments of clay tablets. But they do exist in an ancient form of Hebrew. And among these rare examples, any direct reference to what we call scripture are even more rare, more often they are random scraps, often seemingly lists of supplies or indications of ownership of something.

If even a single verse of the Hebrew scriptures still exists in Hebrew writing from before 800BC, that puts the conversation in a different light.