Bible 100% True

[Athlon4all]

The Bible is 100% accurate, any "mistakes" were breathed in by God.

 

[Blessed-one]

hey Josh, u just cleared everything up for us, thanks for the link.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by Blessed-one
for Jesus came to fulfill the law, and by law, it means the ten commandments, not the tradition hundreds of tedious laws kept by the Jews.

From the Quest: Study bible,
Christ's death and resurrection removed the law as a mean of coming to God, replacing it with salvation by faith in Christ's finished work.

Look at those passages in context, it's obvious that Jesus is speaking about the Law of Moses. Jesus said that the Law will remain until heaven and earth disappear, and the last time I checked, the earth was still here.

Even if he were only speaking about the 10 commandments, there are two different sets of '10 commandments', which one would he be talking about?

 

[LouisBooth]

neo, the point is that Christ fufilled the law, so we don't have to. That scripture applies perfectly, but it doesn't say Christians are bound to the law, which is sin and death. Read romans 6 and 7.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Mandy

Why do you think that the Bible isn't 100% true?

Look at Matthew 19, where Jesus is asked about marriage before he talks to some little children. Now look at Mark 10, where Jesus is asked about marriage before he talks to some little children.

These clearly both describe the same exact event. Which of the two accounts describes, 100% accurately, what Jesus said? If the one in Matthew is correct, the one in Mark is incorrect. If the one in Mark is correct, the one in Matthew is not correct.

There are other examples to be had.

 

[MissytheButterfly]

Seebs,
You made a good point. I always took that, the slight variations in the bible like you describe in Matt and Mark as being that they both are different people so they wrote what they remembered. Or one could have just thought certain points were more important than others...

 

[LouisBooth]

"These clearly both describe the same exact event. Which of the two accounts describes, 100% accurately, what Jesus said? If the one in Matthew is correct, the one in Mark is incorrect. If the one in Mark is correct, the one in Matthew is not correct. "

Seebs, study Jewish oral tradition, it works out just fine. They don't prove each other wrong at all.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"These clearly both describe the same exact event. Which of the two accounts describes, 100% accurately, what Jesus said? If the one in Matthew is correct, the one in Mark is incorrect. If the one in Mark is correct, the one in Matthew is not correct. "

Seebs, study Jewish oral tradition, it works out just fine. They don't prove each other wrong at all.

So, Jewish oral tradition would say that it's perfectly correct to omit words and call something an exact, literal, precise quote?

The claim I'm making is that it can't be *exact, literal, and precise*. There must be some omissions or errors, because otherwise, one of those descriptions is simply false. If Christ did, indeed, make an exemption for adultery, then the account that omits that exemption is incomplete in a way that changes the message - thus, in error. If He *didn't* make that exemption, then the account listing it is false.

 

[VOW]

To Louis:

Seebs, study Jewish oral tradition, it works out just fine. They don't prove each other wrong at all.

I find that to be a strange remark from someone who doesn't accept CATHOLIC Sacred Tradition.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Jephunneh]

Originally posted by Mandy


Why do you think that the Bible isn't 100% true?

That is a good question Mandy!

I believe it is 100% true from cover to cover including the covers.

 

[Matthew]

The claim I'm making is that it can't be *exact, literal, and precise*. There must be some omissions or errors, because otherwise, one of those descriptions is simply false.

The gospels do not claim to record "exact, precise, and literal" quotes. Neither does the language require it. Second, omissions to change the emphasis of the passage do not mean that the account is in error. By "inerrant" we mean that the Bible does not assert propositions that are false, or deny propositions that are true. We mean that, and that alone.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Matthew
The gospels do not claim to record "exact, precise, and literal" quotes. Neither does the language require it. Second, omissions to change the emphasis of the passage do not mean that the account is in error. By "inerrant" we mean that the Bible does not assert propositions that are false, or deny propositions that are true. We mean that, and that alone.

But at this point, we have migrated into the realm of interpretation; as soon as we say that something may be inexact, or may have been omitted, we have reached a point where a passage taken at face value may yield false beliefs, because we are unaware of the inexactness or omissions.

In other words, if you read the version where Jesus says there is no reason to divorce, then you have been told a false thing, because the Bible clearly says adultery is grounds for divorce.

Similarly, God is claimed to have said He repented of something; how can this be?

Enough interpretation is required to not run into contradictions or errors that I see no way to be certain that any interpretation is "correct"; in the end, you have to pray for guidance and trust God.

It seems to me that excessive certainty about interpretation is a barrier to faith.

 

[Matthew]

In other words, if you read the version where Jesus says there is no reason to divorce, then you have been told a false thing, because the Bible clearly says adultery is grounds for divorce.

In Mark 10 (which I am assuming that you are referring to) Jesus is, when his words are taken in context, saying that divorce is not allowed whenever the husband desires. (Also, adultery divides what God has joined together, and falls under "man dividing what God has joined together".)

Similarly, God is claimed to have said He repented of something; how can this be?

Repented only means "changed his mind" if one is unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that "strongly grieved" is also an acceptable translation.

It seems to me that excessive certainty about interpretation is a barrier to faith.

I define faith as "trust in the facts". So how would excessive certainty hinder that?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Matthew
In Mark 10 (which I am assuming that you are referring to) Jesus is, when his words are taken in context, saying that divorce is not allowed whenever the husband desires. (Also, adultery divides what God has joined together, and falls under "man dividing what God has joined together".)

Yeah, "when taken in context". Meaning, when the exact series of words doesn't match our understanding, we look at context until we get the right result.

Repented only means "changed his mind" if one is unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that "strongly grieved" is also an acceptable translation.

It doesn't mean changing your mind - but it does mean *regret*, and I don't think God can "regret" anything He does - that would imply that He could err.

I define faith as "trust in the facts". So how would excessive certainty hinder that?

Your definition of faith is not a very useful one. Facts don't need trust; they're nicely verifiable.

If I am certain I have the truth, how can God correct me? My certainty may deafen me to His voice.

Humility requires us to remember that we may yet be led to better understanding than we have now, and yet again after that.

 

[Outspoken]

"Yeah, "when taken in context". Meaning, when the exact series of words doesn't match our understanding, we look at context until we get the right result."

No seebs, thats what you do its called taking it out of context.

 

[Matthew]

Yeah, "when taken in context". Meaning, when the exact series of words doesn't match our understanding, we look at context until we get the right result.

I maintain that I was putting it the correct context.

It doesn't mean changing your mind - but it does mean *regret*, and I don't think God can "regret" anything He does - that would imply that He could err.

I still think that "strongly grieved" is the best understanding of that passage. Although one could put "regret" if it was understood in that manner.

Your definition of faith is not a very useful one. Facts don't need trust; they're nicely verifiable.

You may not think it is useful, but what matters to me is whether it is Biblical. And it is. (Faith in the Bible either refers the content of belief, or to trust in that content, and I maintain that our beliefs are true.)

If I am certain I have the truth, how can God correct me? My certainty may deafen me to His voice.

By suggesting that the reason for which I am certain should not make me certain, and convince me of this in a "certain" manner.

Humility requires us to remember that we may yet be led to better understanding than we have now, and yet again after that.

I don't claim to know everything or to be certain about everything that I do know.

 

[Jephunneh]

The Bible is 100% accurate and has no mistakes, errors or contradictions.

It's Gods words, what else would you expect?