In your opinion is the entire Bible "inerrant" or "infallible" as it relates to scripture?
- Thread starter biblestudent78
- 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.
If the Word of God is "infallible" how do you explain There are over 45,000 distinct Christian denominations worldwide. Each claims to be the "real church" totally aligned with the will of God as expressed in the bible. You seem to have a huge category of those who believe other dogmas than you. You have convenient labels, convenient outs for all who oppose your personal dogmas. Liberal! LGBTQ+ perversion, secular, humanistic, post modern, no absolute truth....but to defend those statements you must contend with the 45,00 other sects each with their own dogma = my distinct, unique and personal interpretation of all 700,000 plus words in the bible. What about baptism of the Holy Spirit? Salvation free of baptism? Letting the government take care of those in need Jesus pointed you toward? What about your compliance with 1 Corinthians 13 or Matthew 25? How are you measuring up. Apparently so much purity in your life you not get to disparage all others. Kind like the old story of the crabs in the pot pulling potential escapees back into the boil. What about the millions of converted Christians who see the New Testament = 66 for Protestants, 73 for Catholics and 81 for the very ancient Ethiopians differently. What if the heart of the bible is not a test of dogmas but a test of life. A person can claim to believe the bible is both authoritative and inerrant but their life is neither. Their conversion is only 100% mental and their lives not different than any pagan walking around. Do their "opinion" count? Do highly crafted ancient theologies replace conversion and rebirth to a new life? Not just a life of secure dogmas, but a life of 1 Corinthians 13 and Matthew 25.
But we all know that is not how it works. You were handed your dogmas in your youth, or by lay preachers or by bible studies with people who never ever read all the bible. Is your Christianity on auto-confirm? Is the bible just snippets of proof texts showing you are "right" about everything? Is your opinion equal to the Word of God? Is yours a commitment to love all the people God loves or do you mix your politics and cultural anxieties into the brew you call Christianity.?
Foundational truth that are in the word of God that are paramount of the Christian faith that Orthodox Christianity holds to. You have a false Narrative and ill-informed. There are not 45,000 Christian denominations were each claim to be the real church. The Church is collectively everywhere and is the body of Christ. You keep bring up dogma which you say I have. I do not.
The supreme authority on which all scripture is built on is the person of Christ. I am not catholic nor protestants. I am a Christian which is follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.
"my distinct, unique and personal interpretation of all 700,000 plus words in the bible."
This is error. there is no personal interpretation.
"You were handed your dogmas in your youth, or by lay preachers or by bible studies with people who never ever read all the bible. Is your Christianity on auto-confirm"
Then this is true for you also. Yet you do not know me. To say such things is absurd.
"Is your opinion equal to the Word of God?"
No ones opinion is the authoritative word of God. The word of God is providing us with enough for righteous living and appropriate worship. What you call cultural anxieties are known as Sin in the word of God. Politics came into the church I did not go in to them. So liberal theology revised morality. And attacked the person of Christ. We are to speak the truth in love. Telling people the truth is love.
Good discussion. Few have put the crux of the issue so succinctly. How does one hold two opposing positions in mind at the same time? Nobody gets to interpret the bible while concurrently believing you personally can and do. The equally problematic perspective is that my interaction with all 700,000 words speaks truth to me without my intellect, my past indoctrinations, my fears, or my expectations etc. One does not read the bible. The bible speaks to one.
I think it is especially interesting to take the position there is no personal interpretation of the bible while fully realizing that in the translations of texts over the past 2,000 years everything you call the bible was translated by people you do not know. Thus you are already reading already interpreted texts when you read it. Cultural anxieties are not always sins. For two thousand years God allowed men to marry as many wives as they could afford and visit as many prostitutes as they wanted. But if a woman committed adultery she must be put death. Is that still your position? Do you follow the biblical command to kill witches? Do you understand if you are rich you will not enter the kingdom of Heaven? Do you recognize that if you don't love your neighbor you cannot love God? Can you speak in tongues? If not, why not? If you get sick do you go to a potentially pagan doctor instead of calling for the elders of the church to pray you well? Are you willing to leave your wife, children and family to follow Jesus? If not you are not worthy to be called a Christian.
I am interested in your non-interpretation answers to things that seem to call for insight i.e. interpretation.
CS1 Dogmas are belief by default. Your claim that the Bible is "inerrant" is a dogma as there is no evidence within the bible itself that makes that claim. Dogmas are the collections of core beliefs held within a given community. They are used for boundary maintenance (who is in and who is out) for virtue signalling (reaffirming my right to be in the group) and as an identifier of a brand of thought or belief. i.e. "premilleniest, TULIP, charismatic, conservative, coventry, creedal, speaking where the bible speaks and being silent where it is silent, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian ect. Each is defined by their unique creeds/dogmas.
Psalm 12
What "words" was the writer of these Psalm verses referring to? An which words are preserved from generation to generation? Would it surprise you to learn that a vast amount of what became known as "God's Words" were the result of textural research by OT writers using other human written resources to pen "God's Words."
Some of the authors of the Hebrew bible used other, non-biblical books as references for what they wrote. Few of any of these external sources exist today. As mentioned in the Hebrew bible, this includes the Book of Jasher, Book of the Wars of the Lord, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, (both mentioned over 30 times), Book of Shemaiah, Story of the Prophet Iddo, Book of Statutes, Acts of Solomon, Annals of King David, Book of Samuel the Seer, Book of Nathan the Prophet, Book of Gad the Seer, Book of Anijah, Book of Jehu, Acts of Uzziah, Vision of Isiah, Sayings of the Seers, Laments of Josiah and Chronicles of King Ahasuerus.
"translations of texts over the past 2,000 years everything you call the bible was translated by people you do not know."
this is also an ridicules statement. I don't know the writers of the US Constitution either yet we know who signed it. You speak about intellect, which one's had to be formed in the world system.
The human mind must be renewed by the word of God.
But for the sake of argument lets leave the spiritual application of the bible for a moment. And ask how can the bible be trusted. Or is it a blind faith?
We have in the bible of the 66 books a historical narrative that can be analyzed, studied, and data collected to substantiate what we read in the 66 books.
What do we have?
We have geographical locations, archeological findings , 56 thousands manuscripts, eye witnesses and other eye witnesses. The great philosopher Socrates himself did not write any texts(zero manuscripts) yet no one doubts his existence because of the dialogues of his student Plato and other contemporaries like Xenophon.
The Bible has far more to measure from than most historical figures.
Liberal Theology will even deny the person of Jesus and have denied King David for decades until, in Israel proof was dug up that proved King David was a real person.
This will not matter to those who as Romans chapter 1:19-20 says in the NLT:
19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
In this text we have what is known as General Revelation, that every person will know that God is alive and not dead. By what we see in creation. It testifies to Gods existence. To the unbeliever and to the believer.
Special Revelation: word of God is also a strong proof of the God we speak about from the eye witnesses recorded in it that have been substantiated.
Finally relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ through salvation and the sanctification process of the believer.
the word of God has stood longer than you have been alive and it will continue to do so.
This is untrue statement.
Only a person who doesn't read the God of the bible would say such a things.
1. 2Pet 1: 21
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Do you doubt the Holy Spirit is God? If not Is God without error? If so that means HIS word are too. pretty simple.
Again you have allowed "premilleniest, TULIP, charismatic, conservative, coventry, creedal, speaking where the bible speaks and being silent where it is silent, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian ect. Each is defined by their unique creeds/dogmas."
TO do to you what Jesus said not to do. Take your eyes off Him. The foundation all truth ON which all scriptures are built is on solely the Person of Christ. He is the Chief Corner Stone. He is Lord. The Supreme Authority. Even if I hold to some of the things on your list not one of them you listed are supreme to Christ and His teachings.
Not Pentecostal's, not TULIP, not premillennialist or any other creed. IT is Christ and Him alone.
And 450 thousand Christian denominations claim only they correctly understand the Word of God but each differs and some quite vociferously. It seems arrogant to me to claim to "know God's Word" as that Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Why is it so difficult to see understanding God's Word and God's Will as a lifelong quest. If one claims to fully know God's Word and God's Will perhaps your God is too small. Besides all who claim they do know God's Word and God's Will find others making the same claim with vastly different results.
This is true, and for roughly the past 2000 years people have been seeing the signs of His eminent return. To date, no one has been correct. I see no reason to believe that this record will be broken soon.
You deviate from the normal "proofs" of God, none of which actually prove anything, but they bear the title. The "Big Bang"/thermodynamic end of the universe is clearly one. Attempts to refute it with an infinite series of universes fail as if there are an infinite number of universes there is always at least one more prior to the one we exist in, thus our existence never occurs. The second addresses the "fine tuning" of the universe, so many values that must fall within a exceedingly narrow range in order for a stable universe like ours to exist. And the third is Godel's, basically a modern version of Anselm's, "God is that of which nothing greater can be imagined".
Now your "existential reality" argument fails as homo sapiens, or modern humanity, carries traces of at least two other homo species, possibly three. That pushes any common ancestor back prior to the evolution of modern man. I would have to study to see if homo erectus is a common ancestor to homo sapiens, homo neanderthal and homo denisovan.
Moral conscience is likewise a very weak proof. Gaming theory can likewise explain the basis for moral consciousness, it is merely the best survival system.
Apparently you have not discerned that I am content to walk by reasonable faith, not proof. Yes, this evidence is not proof, but because this hope and belief are based on evidence and logic, it is rational rather than “blind”, and it is made even more intellectually reasonable or defensible by acknowledging ways God would be disproved, which include the following:
1. If atheists or anti-Christians created eternal life, because the Bible teaches that eternal life is God’s gift only to believers in Him (John 3:16).
2. If the body of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered in a tomb, because Paul stated that if Christ is not resurrected, then faith is useless (1Cor. 15:14).
3. If it were proven that moral free will (MFW) is an illusion, because the premise of biblical morality is that human souls are accountable (Deut. 30:19-20).
4. If human-like beings on another planet had no salvation history involving God and Christ, because the Bible teaches that God is Lord of all (Phil. 2:9-11). (Caveat: If they are included in the Great Commission, their history would be like the OT.)
5. If God could prove His existence to people without abrogating free will (cf. 2Cor. 5:7), but apparently God performs miracles only as necessary to accomplish His plan of salvation.
6. If it were proved that the universe is not created, because resurrection or re-creation presupposes creation and thus a Creator (Acts 17:24-31).
Well with regards to point 1), numerous atheists have come to the conclusion that eternal life is real without having become Christian believers, just accepting that there is an ultimate being, as have numerous members of other belief systems, without necessarily abandoning their beliefs.
Point 2), you are assuming that Paul was supporting a physical resurrection which is not necessarily true. Resurrection was widely accepted at the time with numerous people believed to have been resurrected. Finding their physical remains was not an issue.
Point 3) moral free will might well be at least partially an illusion. Morality can be supported by games theory as the winning approach without regards to any divine being. Further, the scriptures can be understood without reference to morality but rather in terms of relationships.
Point 4) if these humanoid type creatures were to recognize that being created in physical form reenforced the likelihood of relational issues and that a return to a spiritual existence could resolve the issue then they would have no need for a salvific history.
Point 5) God is quite capable of doing so and has done it with select people. Why He does it with only certain people and not everyone is not totally clear, but a plausible case can be made for not such a reveal, the bigger question is why the occasional one.
Point 6) is a theoretical possibility, but depending on how it was accomplished, might fail anyway.
You will note that I am not interested in blind faith or a lucky guess. I have analyzed the various atheist beliefs into these four:
1. Humanism has three denominations including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?)
The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?). The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist). And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right). In short, selfish people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.
2. Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality (a UMI), but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).
3. The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. Matt. 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH.
4. Pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods envision a vitiated or diminished divinity and thus are tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in Matt. 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 28:5-7) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.
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).
CS1 - So who "signed" the texts of the Bible? Exactly how is "one's mind renewed by the Word of God given that almost no two Christian groups agree on what that means? Why do you say 66 books. 1.5 billion Christians believe there are 73 books and a smaller but much older group of Christians say there are 83 books. Please suggest who is "right and who is wrong." Archeological findings indicate that the Book of Joshua is virtually all fiction. There is no evidence of massive invasion or massive destruction of Jericho as it was destroyed by earthquakes long before any potential attack. Archeology and paleography demonstrate there was no ability to write literary Hebrew until the 8th century. Thus this is long after these people could have "written" anything "biblical" Those who lived long before any Hebrew literary writing could have happened include:
Only a few other proto-Hebrew inscriptions have been found, and they date from around 1,100 BC. However, there is no archeological evidence that the those living in Canaan had the ability to write literary Hebrew. Textural experts see archaic spellings and letter types indicating there is reason to believe that by 780 BC or so, literary writing was a possibility. This was about 200 years or more after the life and times of important characters. The Kings, Prophets and Judges that lived before the invention of literary writing include:
Patriarchs & Leaders
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua
Kings of Judah - Southern
Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoash
Kings of Israel – Northern
Jeroboam I (founder), Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Joram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash (Joash)
Prophets – North and South
Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Jonah, Hosea, Joel, Isiah & Mica lived on the cusp of literary Hebrew
Judges (saviors)
Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Samson, Eli, Samuel, Joel, Abiah, Amariah and Zebadiah, Abimelech
Additionally, from an archeological perspective Egypt ruled Canaan from about 1,500 BC until abou 1,200 BC when the great Bronze Age collapse happened and Egypt retreated Canaan to fight the sea people. By 1100 BC Egypt was back in control of Canaan. The Egyptians put a group of Sea People on their northern coast around 1150 BD they became known as the Philistines. Detailed archeological studies have demonstrated there was a large migration into the highlands of Israel of several thousands of people. There were a few hundred new villages of about 600 people per village. Thus there no evidence of millions of Israelites invading during this period. Egypt quickly regained control of Canaan by 1,100. In Genesis 13:17-18 “When Pharaoh released the people, God did not lead them by the way to the land of the Philistines, although that was nearby, for God said, “Lest the people change their minds and return to Egypt when they experience war.” So God brought the people around by the way of the desert to the Red" The Philistines did not arrive in Canaan until 1150 at the earliest yet God is warning the fleeing Israelites to avoid the Philistines. Using this clue, there is no archeological, paleontological or epigraphical evidence for Moses and his millions.
