Is The Bible Inerrant?

[no_one]

And before there was the letterpress, everything was copied in writing. And faults can have happened there as well at the translations.

but human mistakes, human mistranslations, and human faults are found in the bible.

Sorry but I find to be strange that some people post in a thread without actually reading its content.

Satan isn't in the bible

Let’s see – for example Job 1:7 (KJV):

“And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.”

How shall we read and understand the Bible?

Like it’s the Word of God, Your Maker.

The Bible which had inspired God was written by people.

Sorry but God wasn’t inspired by anything or anyone.

It was written at a time and for a particular time.

How about the prophecies about millennia later, who exactly were they for?

For example, that the Jews would return to their land? Which by the way happened exactly when prophesized. For example see this:
http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/mathprophecy2.html

 

[no_one]

Why should disobedient children be killed?

http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

 

[KingJ]

Why should disobedient children be killed? Which fears had God, priests and parents? Do you understand what I mean?

That link No_one provided is good for the NT explanation of it. But I am sure you will find it interesting to do a proper study on the actual OT teaching and how Jews actually implemented the laws. It is important to remember for example that a panel of well respected and qualified elders would judge each issue harshly before any sentence was passsed.

 

[RiverJordan]

There is only one Bible. To find out if yours qualifies as a copy of it, compare it online with the text in the original language (Hebrew for the Old Testament, Greek for the New Testament). But I think I already said this. Even in this thread, if I’m not mistaking.

No, there are literally thousands of different Bibles. And even when the same ones get translated into a different language, some meanings are lost and/or changed, simply out of differences in languages.

I have several different Bibles.

However, there is something even more important in what you said: where exactly would one draw the line? Where would one stop liberally interpreting the Bible? Where exactly would one stop reading what he or she wants to read, and instead start to actually read the Bible?

That's where context and study are helpful.

And why would they draw the line there (wherever that is), and not either earlier or later? In my view a position compromised from the start (let’s interpret the Bible) can only compromise one’s all following positions (positions on all topic).

IOW, for you this is an all or none situation? Either it's all 100% true, or it's all 100% false?

I think your trouble comes from the fact that you’re cherry picking, instead of fully embracing. Ironically, not only the Bible, but also the formal paradigms. For example, you believe in God, while the formal paradigms are entirely naturalistic (thus excluding God).

Unlike you, I don’t have problems with people keeping the Bible as the Word of God. On the contrary, I have trouble with people who while reading Genesis they somehow think they’re reading the big bang theory. Or Darwin’s theory.

Given the above, I can see how that is problematic for you.

 

[no_one]

No, there are literally thousands of different Bibles.

I have several different Bibles.

Once again, there is only one Bible. And I cannot be clearer in support of that then I already was – sorry.

That's where context and study are helpful.

Helpful how? Bringing external authority to liberally interpret the Bible?

To show that God Himself didn’t know how He created (Genesis), but instead of Him we know how He did it (formal paradigms)?

Not only that’s absurd, but there’s even more absurdity to that. For example, “God” doesn’t even appear in the formal paradigms. Not a single time…

IOW, for you this is an all or none situation? Either it's all 100% true, or it's all 100% false?

Obviously: if it’s the Word of God, then it can’t wrong - at all.

If it’s wrong (even once), then it can’t be the Word of God. It’s that simple.

But I understand why you disagree with that: because you already decided that Genesis is wrong (based on formal paradigms). Well, the Bible says that one can’t have 2 masters…

Given the above, I can see how that is problematic for you.

But can you see how problematic is to you? Because it’s not me having problems with differences between formal paradigms and the Bible. It’s instead you who have those problems.

 

[RiverJordan]

Once again, there is only one Bible. And I cannot be clearer in support of that then I already was – sorry.

I'm not sure what else to say, other than that's just wrong. On my desk, I have the New International Version, New American Standard, King James Version, New King James Version, and an old Eastern Orthodox Bible that is fairly different than the above.

I take it you're either not familiar with all the different versions of the Bible that have existed throughout history, or you're about to invoke the No True Scotsman Fallacy and claim there's only one true "Bible" and everything else is not "the Bible".

Helpful how? Bringing external authority to liberally interpret the Bible?

We all have to interpret what we read. Obviously you do it through a very strict, black/white absolutist lens. I like to look at the history of the text, the context in which it was written, and the history of the people who wrote it.

To show that God Himself didn’t know how He created (Genesis), but instead of Him we know how He did it (formal paradigms)?

Not only that’s absurd, but there’s even more absurdity to that. For example, “God” doesn’t even appear in the formal paradigms. Not a single time…

Except Genesis isn't written in the first person; it's written in the third person. IOW, it doesn't start off with "In the beginning I created...", it starts off with "In the beginning God created...", which by necessity means that a person is writing about God (not God writing about Himself).

Obviously: if it’s the Word of God, then it can’t wrong - at all.

If it’s wrong (even once), then it can’t be the Word of God. It’s that simple.

As I said, I understand that folks like you have trouble thinking in anything other than a black/white, all-or-none manner.

But can you see how problematic is to you? Because it’s not me having problems with differences between formal paradigms and the Bible. It’s instead you who have those problems.

Not at all. You have chosen to ignore pretty much all of the history and context of the texts and instead are only capable of thinking about them as a zero sum game. OTOH, folks like me are incorporating as much information as we can into our thinking.

Those are two very different ways of thinking, and are why you and I will likely not be able to see eye to eye.

 

[th1bill]

This conversation has, certainly, move in meaningful way but the fact is that there is only one Bible! Many object that God used men to record it because in doing so, their personalities are evident but I tell you the truth when I say that when I read any translation of the Bible, the Holy Spirit that dwells in me leads me to see only what God has for me to understand.

I have said many times that there are no contradictions in the scriptures and I still hold fast to that position. It is recorded that the scriptures, the Holy Word of the only God, are a mystery to the unsaved man. I've even had one gentleman inquire as to my education on teaching the Bible and in his inquiry, he told me not to give him that Holy Spirit s__t. The gentleman had been a Pastor for more than thirty years and was retired from a Professor's position where he taught Biblical Understanding for about fifty years.

I often advise folks to do a Spiritual Inventory because it is important enough that every one of us, including myself, should do one, no less that once a month. If any man or woman does not feel the leading of the Spirit, they are, possibly, in danger of spending eternity in Hell and I pray that none here want that end. I felt the Holy Spirit over come me as I was singing the last number I ever sang for the world and He has led me, ever since, as long as I do not quench His leading.

When this took place, the Holy Spirit had been tugging hard at my heart for better than two months, causing me to break out in tears every time Dolly Parton would sing He's Alive. Will I tell you that "The Evidence" of His presence is the gift of Speaking in Tongues? Nope! I will not devalue speaking in tongues, when it is done scripturally, but it is not the only evidence.

Now that you think I've lost my point, let's get to it. The night before and the day of my last performance, I was busy reading the KJV Bible I had purchased, seeking after God and it was gibberish, it made no sense to me at all. After I was cursed out and threatened for walking out in the middle of the gig, I put my equipment away, for the last time, sat on my bed and picked my Bible up and every word made perfect sense to me. The Holy Spirit had opened my eyes to Spiritual matters. The first item of Spiritual Inventory should be, "Are my spiritual eyes open?" When you read the scriptures, does it make sense to you? If you read through the Bible the second, third and even the fourth time, do you get another, clear, lesson from the same passage?

 

[RiverJordan]

How in the world can people say with a straight face, "There is only one Bible"?

What are all these different versions on my desk then?

 

[no_one]

I take it you're either not familiar with all the different versions of the Bible that have existed throughout history, or you're about to invoke the No True Scotsman Fallacy and claim there's only one true "Bible" and everything else is not "the Bible".

When you’re willing to read what I actually write, please tell me.

I like to look at the history of the text, the context in which it was written, and the history of the people who wrote it.

OK: what would be the context of Genesis? I think you have 2 options:
- people (or only one: Moses) writing Genesis were pretty close to us, or perhaps even better than us (in knowledge and not only)
or:
- they were (much) worse than us.

If you take option 1, please remember that the Old Testament was written in front of God.

And please answer this: why exactly would you believe in a God that can have it wrong (Genesis)? Or that isn’t capable of preserving his own word (“all the different versions of the Bible that have existed throughout history”)? What’s the reason in such a belief?

Except Genesis isn't written in the first person; it's written in the third person.

1. How exactly does that matter in any amount? Have you even read Malachi? Malachi 3, more specifically?

2. If it would have been written in the first person, would that have made any difference? Would you have not still believed in evolution instead of a literal Bible?

As I said, I understand that folks like you have trouble thinking in anything other than a black/white, all-or-none manner.

I think God Himself thinks like that. What do you think?

For example, the immense majority of people will go to hell. It’s not me saying that, it’s the Bible saying that.

The Bible also tells us to speak clearly, in ‘yes’ or ‘no’, not in an endless series of shades between those. Those shades come from the devil - again, it’s the Bible saying that, not me.

So, if I ask you if you believe in the Bible, what would your answer be?

You have chosen to ignore pretty much all of the history and context of the texts and instead are only capable of thinking about them as a zero sum game.

How exactly have I ignored “pretty much all of the history and context of the texts”?

And how is that a zero sum game?

OTOH, folks like me are incorporating as much information as we can into our thinking..

Actually, I’m pretty sure I have “incorporated” more information than you. Ironically, even concerning formal paradigms that you, not me, believe in.

But that’s my point, I guess: informing you about both sides, not reading exclusively the materials of one side, and then claim that’s how things are. That would be opposed to actual science.

Those are two very different ways of thinking, and are why you and I will likely not be able to see eye to eye.

It’s your choice. I’m only reminding you about the Bible. And about the God of the Bible. Who is how He is, not how we want Him to be.

 

[RiverJordan]

When you’re willing to read what I actually write, please tell me.

I did. You claimed "there is only one Bible". That's simply not true. I showed you all the different Bibles that have existed throughout history, many of them differing extensively from each other. If they are not Bibles, what are they?

OK: what would be the context of Genesis? I think you have 2 options:

Of course you do, because that's your mode of thinking. You seem to boil everything down to A or B, black or white, all or none.

As I said, that's a way of thinking that I cannot relate to.

And please answer this: why exactly would you believe in a God that can have it wrong (Genesis)? Or that isn’t capable of preserving his own word (“all the different versions of the Bible that have existed throughout history”)? What’s the reason in such a belief?

God didn't write Genesis. If He did, why would He write in the third person? And of course God can "preserve His own word", but that doesn't mean He has. If you believe He has, which Bible do you believe is it?

1. How exactly does that matter in any amount? Have you even read Malachi? Malachi 3, more specifically?

It matters because it makes it obvious that Genesis was written by a person, not God. And what exactly does Malachi 3 have to do with this?

2. If it would have been written in the first person, would that have made any difference? Would you have not still believed in evolution instead of a literal Bible?

Given that 1) there is nothing in Genesis that says "Evolution doesn't happen", and 2) we see evolution happen with our own eyes, I see no reason to deny reality.

I think God Himself thinks like that. What do you think?

Of course you do. I however don't presume to know the mind of God.

The Bible also tells us to speak clearly, in ‘yes’ or ‘no’, not in an endless series of shades between those. Those shades come from the devil - again, it’s the Bible saying that, not me.

LOL! Nuanced thinking is from the devil....hilarious.

How exactly have I ignored “pretty much all of the history and context of the texts”? And how is that a zero sum game?

You haven't shown any appreciation of it so far. You've made your approach abundantly clear. It's all 100% true in a strict literal sense, and if it's off in even the slightest way, then it's all 100% false. That's your interpretative lens.

But that’s my point, I guess: informing you about both sides, not reading exclusively the materials of one side, and then claim that’s how things are. That would be opposed to actual science.

Trust me, I'm extremely versed in the arguments and approaches of fundamentalist Christianity.

 

[th1bill]

RJ,
Saying that there is only one Bible is very simple and believing it is even simpler if you are led by the Holy Spirit. God had the Bible written in Ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek and a little of it in Aramaic. Any translation is from the Original Texts. Your best, but still ineffective, argument would be which of the Scripts are the original? The problem with that argument is that when any of the Original Scripts are translated by God inspired men they find the same context.

We reside in the midst of a, truly, lost generation that no longer is educated in how to learn but are instead fed Rote Memory and as a result, many of your generation have been fed fodder... sad. When any Spirit led person reads any translation, from either end of the scale, the same message is there, clear as a bell. As I suggested, not being able to see this should throw Red Alarm Flags sky high for you, causing you to do a Spiritual Inventory.

The Scale I speak of runs from Idea for Idea translations to Word for Word. My daughter studies and teaches children from the New Living Translation, that is about as far one can go on the scale towards an Idea for Idea Translation. I, on the other hand study and teach from the KJV and ASV that are just off the middle but are Idea for Idea also and the NASB, which is as close as is possible to a Word For Word translation. But, in the end of the matter, the context of all the translations of the original scripts is the same, leaving us with one Bible. It's all in the context and you will never see that without the indwelling and leadership of the Holy Spirit.

 

[RiverJordan]

th1bill,

So when you say "Bible", what exactly are you referring to? You do realize that not all Bibles (the book kind) have the same books in them, don't you?

And I get the impression that by claiming to be "led by the Holy Spirit", you feel no one can ever disagree with you or hold a different viewpoint, because doing so would be by extension, disagreeing with God.

That seems both convenient and contrived to me.

 

[th1bill]

th1bill,

So when you say "Bible", what exactly are you referring to? You do realize that not all Bibles (the book kind) have the same books in them, don't you?

And I get the impression that by claiming to be "led by the Holy Spirit", you feel no one can ever disagree with you or hold a different viewpoint, because doing so would be by extension, disagreeing with God.

That seems both convenient and contrived to me.

Sorry RJ,
I'll not be intimidated. I have never stated that there are not incorrect interpretations and assemblages of the Bible but I will note that, including, the Catholic assemblage, none of the incorrect works carry the lessing of God, the Father. This is demonstrated by the lack of general acceptance of these translations. The only error I am aware of in the Catholic book is the inclusion of the uncanonized works between the testaments and I'll step out on my own and guess that the reason God has not thrown it into, such, disfavor as He has the NWT is that the 66 canonized works have been undisturbed, they remain true.

You have every right to disagree with me, I, like you are not God. Your failure to accept and then follow the Holy Spirit is also your right. That right, however, if exercised will condemn you to an eternal destination you will not enjoy, at all, but it is your right, given by God to do so. So tell me, RJ, why did you choose this site to stir up discontent?

 

[RiverJordan]

Bill,

Intimidated? Why would you think I'm trying to intimidate you? You're the one claiming the Holy Spirit is all on your side, citing my "failure to accept the Holy Spirit", and who seems to have trouble handling someone having a different opinion than you. I think you're projecting a bit.

As to the Bible, you advocate a majority rule? So what about the fact that what the majority believes changes over time?

 

[Panda]

This is a stupid game, please stop playing it. Seriously. It's insulting to ALL Christians to say that the only Christians that are led by the Holy Spirit are those that follow your exact and specific understanding of the Scriptures. It is borderline Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. If this continues, I will intervene.

EDIT : On second thought, no. I cannot allow this to continue at all. This is not only coming dangerously close to violating site policy by the letter of the law, it wildly violates the spirit of the site, and insults the Spirit of God in a way I'm absolutely not comfortable with and cannot tolerate.