Can a Christian question the authority and infallability of the Bible?

[dannheim]

Sorry, Satan and Demons did not believe in the gospel of Jesus.

Trying to weave the Old Testament in with the religion of Jesus has contaminated and compromised that religion. If fact the Jews have scripture based reasons for rejecting Jesus because they also have been taught that the books that their ancestors wrote were actually written by God.

I can see by your reply that you have been seriously misinformed or you are just making up stuff as you go along. Tell me what scriptures you are referring to?

As far as I know the only actual scriptures written by the hand of God were the Ten Commandments which were handed to Moses.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Ummm, no.

I agree, but why not if that's what the Bible commands and it's infallible?

 

[dannheim]

We believe in God, and we generally believe His Words are truth, righteous.

The bible is a collection of course of inspired writings, generally inspired by God, and a diverse collection also. For instance, Luke was a physician who did not meet Christ, but seems to have carefully gathered testimony. That's very helpful for some people, to know this is like detective work of gathered testimonies. The bible has songs, poems, figurative writings, metaphors, accounts of events, and uses many literary devices even at times mixing the figurative and concrete together in one account. In other words, it's 'well written'. So, interpretation is therefore always a big question -- is the understanding of the pastor or some other commentator correct? For these bibles we have in hand at the moment, all sorts of reasonable questions come up --
is this translation accurate to it's own sources?
is another translation more accurate in certain places?
is this particular collection of books, this bible, as good as a broader collection, like the Catholic bible?
God's Word is perfect, but is this bible I have a perfect transcription of His Word?
etc.

(One notable fact of great import about the last is how the Dead Sea Scrolls include a highly complete scroll of the crucial and long book of Isaiah, with all the many references to Christ, the scroll older than the time of Christ by a hundred or more years, confirming dramatically our own bible's version of Isaiah is accurate! That was a very big deal for some people.)

But these particular questions I point out don't say God's Word is ever less than perfect. These questions are only about the particular bibles we happen to have in hand at the moment.

I like this analogy -- if you have side by side 2 stained glass windows, magnificent. One is new and perfect, and the other is very old, in places imperfect, even with a broken part or two replaced.....

....then, is the sun light coming through one window better than the other?

No -- the light is real through both, and illuminates us.

The Light shines through the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it!

Excellent points brother

 

[Monk Brendan]

Yes, the Catholic and Orthodox Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches would say that the Bible is not the "only source available through which God would speak." They also use Church Tradition. They would not, however, deny that the Bible IS God's word given to us.

And you don't use tradition? You have told me several times about the history of Christianity in England, going back to the 1st century, as I recall. And you have defended the Apostolic origin of the Church of England based on that. Really? You don't believe in tradition at all, now?

Okay Catholic and Orthodox Christians do have Church Tradition. We believe, for instance, that the (at least) first seven of the Ecumenical Councils were a work of God. We do NOT give them the same precedence of place as the Bible. However, the same Pre-Reformation Churches are the ones that GAVE you the Bible in the first place.

 

[SeventyOne]

I agree, but why not if that's what the Bible commands and its infallible?

Because they aren't commands to the Church.

 

[dannheim]

And you don't use tradition? You have told me several times about the history of Christianity in England, going back to the 1st century, as I recall. And you have defended the Apostolic origin of the Church of England based on that. Really? You don't believe in tradition at all, now?

Okay Catholic and Orthodox Christians do have Church Tradition. We believe, for instance, that the (at least) first seven of the Ecumenical Councils were a work of God. We do NOT give them the same precedence of place as the Bible. However, the same Pre-Reformation Churches are the ones that GAVE you the Bible in the first place.

I agree with everything you're saying since the Church did come before the New Testament scriptures and their incorporation into what we now know as our Holy Bible. To dispute the church's Authority is to dispute the actual content of the New Testament.

 

[Silmarien]

I never know if I'm posting in the correct place....that's my disclaimer and I'm sticking to it.

Say one believes in One God, One Creator and also Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God and even uses and reads the Bible but sees the Bible as a useful tool as well as other ancient writings without giving it a place of uncontested infallibility.

Understanding that man has a sin nature and throughout history has exhibited the ability to manipulate, maim, murder and steal in order to procure what he wants, how do we know the Bible is really the only source available through which God would speak?

Is a Christian who doesn't hold to the infallibility of the Bible still considered a Christian?

I don't think being Christian has anything to do with your biblical hermeneutics, but I'd like to point out that questioning the Bible's authority and questioning its infallibility are two different things.

I have questions about the accuracy of the Gospel accounts, but I accept their authority and am not inclined to start picking and choosing which parts I think happened and which parts I think were poetic license. I very much doubt that everything happened exactly as transcribed, but if you're willing to accept the big claims, I don't think there's much of a point in fighting over the details.

I think we've gotten too caught up in the idea of historical accuracy these days. Do the Old Testament accounts need to be factual to be meaningful? Should the fact that Jesus's ministry largely took the form of parables not shape how we view Scripture as a whole? I do think that the whole Bible is profitable for instruction, but I also think that at the end of the day, it can be made to mean whatever you want it to mean, and when you're no longer willing to even question your own interpretation because you think it's God given, inerrancy has become a very dangerous doctrine.

 

[friend of]

how do we know the Bible is really the only source available through which God would speak

The Bible was written over a span of 1600 years by different people from each generation and Jesus fulfilled 350+ prophecies in the span of a a 3 year Ministry. As a Christian, this is proof that God inspired the Bible and that there would be no need for other holy books.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The Bible was written over a span of 1600 years by different people from each generation and Jesus fulfilled 350+ prophecies in the span of a a 3 year Ministry. As a Christian, this is proof that God inspired the Bible and that there would be no need for other holy books.

Yeah, either that or the authors created a story of Jesus constructed around prophecies rather than real history about him.

 

[CrystalDragon]

The Bible was written over a span of 1600 years by different people from each generation and Jesus fulfilled 350+ prophecies in the span of a a 3 year Ministry. As a Christian, this is proof that God inspired the Bible and that there would be no need for other holy books.

Which prophecies, out of curiosity?

I'm asking, because a lot of people cite the "the woman shall conceive and bear a son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel" prophecy, but if you actually read the prophecy in context it doesn't apply to Jesus at all.

 

[SPF]

Crystal, who does that prophecy apply to?

 

[friend of]

Yeah, either that or the authors created a story of Jesus constructed around prophecies rather than real history about him.

I'd have to disagree because this would suggest Jesus was never on the earth. Why would so many scattered people spontaneously decide to make the story of the messiah at that particular time in history? It would need to be a concerted effort, but why would they all be so dedicated to the point of martyrdom if there was no physical proof of the messiah?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Which prophecies, out of curiosity?

I'm asking, because a lot of people cite the "the woman shall conceive and bear a son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel" prophecy, but if you actually read the prophecy in context it doesn't apply to Jesus at all.

The NT authors, whoever they may be, approach the rest of the Bible midrashically. They make a connection that is derived in a way that is not apparent to people unfamiliar with Jewish biblical hermeneutics.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I'd have to disagree because this would suggest Jesus was never on the earth.

I did not suggest that.

Why would so many scattered people spontaneously decide to make the story of the messiah at that particular time in history? It would need to be a concerted effort, but why would they all be so dedicated to the point of martyrdom if there was no physical proof of the messiah?

You could pose the same questions to Muslims. Is their religion true then?

 

[dannheim]

Which prophecies, out of curiosity?

I'm asking, because a lot of people cite the "the woman shall conceive and bear a son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel" prophecy, but if you actually read the prophecy in context it doesn't apply to Jesus at all.

Psalm 22 my God my God why has Thou forsaken me
Isaiha 53 we like sheep have gone astray... snd the lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all.

 

[friend of]

Is their religion true then?

I haven't read the Quran but I do know it reads like a war manual in some instances and that the promotion of war is not in alliance with the true nature of God.

 

[Halbhh]

The Bible was written over a span of 1600 years by different people from each generation and Jesus fulfilled 350+ prophecies in the span of a a 3 year Ministry. As a Christian, this is proof that God inspired the Bible and that there would be no need for other holy books.

Yes, good point. I'd say even that if a person merely had a single gospel (and I am glad there are 4!), even then, with only 1 gospel, if that person chose to read it with openness to learn from Him, this is enough to bring them to Him, and thus become His.

It's good and helpful to have all of the Bible for me, but even just the gospel of Luke or that of John, alone, either, would bring me to Him.

 

[friend of]

I did not suggest that.

Can you explain what you meant by:

Yeah, either that or the authors created a story of Jesus constructed around prophecies rather than real history about him.

Also, what does midrashically mean? I tried to look it up but it seems like a very obscure term.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Bible itself makes no attempt to teach all that there is to know of God. We couldn't even comprehend such things. What it does give us is all that God intends for us to know about his will and intentions for us here and now. Much more will be revealed to the soul after death.

As for God being "silent" since the canon was closed, therefore, the question has to be "is there more that he needs to add?" not "how can it be that he isn't adding to it?" And he hasn't been silent, anyway, since Scripture is a timeless revelation to men of all generations and places.

I consider that there was no counsel to Adam and Eve and their children as to how to deal with strangers because they didn't know any. By the time of Noah there was community. By the time of Abraham and Lot and the progeny of Isaac and Jacob, there were whole civilizations.

Think of how different life is for people now than it was in Old Testament times or in the First and Second centuries A.D. We have things to deal with and problems to solve that people back then would never have encountered no matter how far and wide they wandered, which wasn't all that far and wide in Biblical times.

The Bible has evolved along with the people of the Bible and addresses those issues the people faced in their own time.

I have to believe the Holy Spirit is still in the business of revelation and imparting gifts of the Spirit to help us cope with our lives now.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Crystal, who does that prophecy apply to?

The prophecy refers to a boy named Immanuel who will not reach the age of knowing right from wrong before the land of the two dreaded kings of that age would be gone.

Don't believe me? Let's look at Isaiah 7, shall we?

7 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.

2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

3 Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field.4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘It will not take place,
it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.’”

10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my Godalso? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

Immanuel wasn't the important one, merely a sign that soon the kings that Ahaz and the house of David feared would soon be rid of, and after that the king of Assyria would help the house of David.

Nothing related to Jesus, only cherry-picking verse 14 to make it seem that way.