If the Bible contains much that is unreliable, what should we do about it?

[GBTWC]

sorry if I offended any one the word that was edited was taken from the K.J. O.T. english

1Sa 25:22 So3541 and more3254 also3541 do6213 God430 unto the enemies341 of David,1732 if518 I leave7604 of all4480, 3605 that834 pertain to him by5704 the morning light1242 any that [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]eth8366 against the wall.7023

I wasnt sure but I figured its in the Bible

sorry again

 

[TimRout]

Modern scholarship also shows that Peter may not have been written by Peter.

I don't want to reproduce your whole essay, beamish. I just want to point out a frequent difficulty with your rhetoric.

For example, if I compare the above statement with the actuality of contemporary theological thought, your use of "modern scholarship" can only refer to the most liberal scholars in the field. The vast majority of conservative theologians -- like ME -- have no problem affirming Petrine authorship.

And incidentally, unless you're talking about the out-to-lunch-Jesus-Seminar-freaks who stand somewhere off the left edge of the theological map, only 2 Peter has been seriously challenged by serious scholars.

So then, you might consider qualifying your statements with a solid dose of "In my opinion", "Some scholars believe", "From a less conservative point of view", and the like.

 

[beamishboy]

And they were declared noncanonical

I know who wrote Hebrews but I'm not gonna tell you cuz you wouldnt believe me if I did


I thought you said you didn't know who wrote. you gotta get your story straight
Thanks for your compliment you saying I'm ignorant shows that you definitely have the fruits of the spirit

First, let me apologise for the tone I used earlier. I really got a little confused. I'm so used to arguing in the Teen section and I forgot that you're really three times older. I will be more respectful.

Your Lord ? how can you say anything in the bible is accurate? how do you even know he claimed to be God? why arn't the Gnostic gospels just as reliable ?

I hear Thomas or Judas had good writing on what Jesus was about.
or hears a link that could help youhttp://www2.oprah.com/index.jhtml

Yes, Jesus is my Lord. My church which incidentally is the oldest Protestant church since it is the original Catholic church with all the errors purged has prelates who hold exactly the same view as mine (or rather, it should be the other way round or I'd be perceived as arrogant; hehe).

We discount the Gnostic texts because we have to go along with Apostolic teachings. Jesus' teachings are carried on by the Apostles by the power of the Holy Spirit.

no really O.M.G. you mean God is able to make the first letter of Corinthians disappear so it wouldnt be included in the cannon. Boy This God must be powerful

I don't know what you mean by this but perhaps you're referring to the real First Epistle to the Corinthians. It's true that that first letter is missing. First and Second Corinthians should really be renamed Second and Third Corinthians or even Third and Fourth Corinthians because at least one earlier letter is missing, from the text of our 1 Corinthians alone. But I don't think God made it disappear. It's just one of those things.

Now that we are on the subject of disappearing epistles, in Colossians, Paul asks us to read the epistle to the Laodicians. He also commands that the Laodecians read Colossians. But as you know, the epistle also disappeared.

Many early writings were lost.

But that aside, let's take the Gospel of Matthew. Papias in the 1st century wrote that HE HEARD that Matthew wrote a gospel IN THE HEBREW TONGUE. He said further that there were many translations by different people into Greek and he indicated that the translations were uncertain. (By the way, Josh McDowell did not tell this bit about Papias and only used Papias because he's from the 1st century to say he referred to a few biblical texts. I think I can tear McDowell to shreds rather than the other way round if I can meet him in a debate. hehe)

the arguments you are making would be challenged by some of my first year ministry students you might wanna do better than that if you wanna challenge someone like McDowell

I respectfully submit that you cannot make a statement like that. If you have a good counter-argument, you should put it down. You cannot say your student would be able to challenge a certain argument just as it would be wrong if I were to say that my little cousin could counter what you've said. Arguments must be stated.

so let me get this straight theres controversy surrounding different texts of the cannon?

this destroys my faith that God could maintain His inspired word
you know what your right I'm gonna be Muslim now

you know you never answered my original questions

No, you don't have to be a Muslim. In fact, I think they have more thorny problems that we have. It be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. No, that's a bad anaolgy. It'd be like jumping from a lake with murky but safe water into a dangerous waterfall.

Here's one more can you prove Jesus is God?

No, I can't. Anything to do with the faith can't be proved. It can only be believed in faith. After you have believed, God somehow reveals himself to the believer and it accords with the teachings of the Apostles. The teachings of the Apostles can be gleaned from the NT even though I don't accept inerrancy. I think the NT is not inerrant but it sure is reasonably reliable at least for the purpose of understanding the teachings of our Lord and the Apostles.

Once again, I apologise for treating you in the same manner as I did my peers in the Teen section. I really should check the person's age. I was just arguing with this other boy on his view on masturbation and naturally I used the language common to me when I'm addressing someone around my age. I sometimes forget which forum I'm in since I write in so many. Sorry.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamish,

I suspect most of us understand why you get a little heated at times; it is a hard place to be for you.

Perhaps one place to go is to think about why the Gospels and the epistles have the names they have, and why those books are canonical and other books were rejected. Liberal scholarship often performs an odd trick without seeming to realise it in that it rejects the best testimony we have for the authorship of these canonical texts - the Church itself. It seems to assume that unless we can prove by modern standards that the Apostles wrote the texts then they probably did not; that is the same scholarly method which produces the 'who wrote Shakespeare?' industry. Well, Shakespeare did. We know that how? Because there is much evidence from tradition that he did. Can we prove that? No we can't, any more than we can prove that Julius Caesar wrote The Gallic Wars or that Aristotle wrote The Politics.

Our evidence that the Gospels were written by whom they were written comes from the Church which received those books in the first place. Liberal scholars like to make a fetish about differences in verses or wordings here and there, and since most of them come from Protestant traditions this matters to them because the coconut shy they are taking aim at is the Protestant view that the Bible in the inerrant word of God - hence, one word out of place and the whole thing collapses. That is only one understanding - and not one the Church has ever proclaimed.

In all the varying translations the message of God is the same; that is inerrancy for you. There is plenty of scholarship on this. Read some of the books by Michael Green from your own Church, or those by the late Carsten Theide. It was the Church which received the books of the Bible, and it did so by relying upon unbroken local tradition that these books were the product of those whose names they bore. Those said to have been written by St. Thomas and St. Peter were rejected - not because the Church carried out a rigorous textual analysis, but because the Gospel they preached was not that of Christ.

If one does not trust the Church on this, then one abandons the firm ground for the swamp. The unbroken tradition of the Church received the books of the Bible even as it declared the truth of the Trinity. We have better warrant from this source than we have for much of the history of the first century A.D. - but we also have the evidence from that history.

Try reading some of Canon Green's writings - they'll be a breath of fresh air to you.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[TimRout]

No, I can't (prove that Jesus is God). Anything to do with the faith can't be proved. It can only be believed in faith. After you have believed, God somehow reveals himself to the believer and it accords with the teachings of the Apostles. The teachings of the Apostles can be gleaned from the NT even though I don't accept inerrancy. I think the NT is not inerrant but it sure is reasonably reliable at least for the purpose of understanding the teachings of our Lord and the Apostles.

Now hold on a minute, my friend. If Christian doctrine has no foundation in evidential truth, then on what basis does a Christian believe anything? For example, the Bible makes it explicitly clear that Jesus rose from the dead, and that if this event did not in fact take place, our faith is utterly worthless [1 Corinthians 15:14]. You have stated your belief in the resurrection on previous occasions, so how do you intend to defend this assertion as Scripture requires [1 Peter 3:15]?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No you have to be careful. your question would be worded better like this " Which books do you think God was referring to? 2pet 1:20

Are you aware that γραφια which all Bibles have translated "Scripture" means merely "writing"?
​

and what is the difference between the words writings and scripture?

Sounds like it could be simply semantics.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

2Peter 3:16 As also in all the letters, speaking in them about these-things; in which are ill-minded any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting/streblousin <4761> (5719) as also the rest of Writings/grafaV <1124>, toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>. [reve 17:8, 11]

Luke 24:44 He said yet toward them "these the words of Me which I speak toward ye still being together ye, that is binding to be filled all the having been Written/gegrammena <1125> (5772) in the Law of Moses, and the prophets and psalms about Me".

 

[beamishboy]

Now hold on a minute, my friend. If Christian doctrine has no foundation in evidential truth, then on what basis does a Christian believe anything? For example, the Bible makes it explicitly clear that Jesus rose from the dead, and that if this event did not in fact take place, our faith is utterly worthless [1 Corinthians 15:14]. You have stated your belief in the resurrection on previous occasions, so how do you intend to defend this assertion as Scripture requires [1 Peter 3:15]?

The basis for a Christian is nothing more or less than faith. I'm not the only one who can't prove the resurrection. All Christians can't. What is there to substantiate the truth of the resurrection?

The Apostles were witnesses to the resurrection. The early church heard it from the apostles and it went on. The NT testifies to the resurrection. But the NT doesn't have to be inerrant in order to be reliable. I believe that notwithstanding the problems we have over the canon, the NT books are perhaps the best record we have of what happened then.

 

[TimRout]

The basis for a Christian is nothing more or less than faith.

Indeed. The gospel is by faith from first to last. Faith is the only vehicle by which a person can be saved. But this does not address the issue at hand. Faith in what? In a mythical resurrection we dearly hope may have happened 2000 years ago? No. The born again Christian is dependent on the actuality of the resurrection. If the resurrection is not demonstrably historical in every respect, then our faith is based on little more than wishful thinking.

I'm not the only one who can't prove the resurrection. All Christians can't. What is there to substantiate the truth of the resurrection?

Metzger would FLIP if he heard you say that.

The Apostles were witnesses to the resurrection. The early church heard it from the apostles and it went on. The NT testifies to the resurrection. But the NT doesn't have to be inerrant in order to be reliable. I believe that notwithstanding the problems we have over the canon, the NT books are perhaps the best record we have of what happened then.

And therein lies the rub, my friend. It is logically impossible to defend infallibility if one rejects inerrancy. While I realize a great many theolgians (neo-orthodoxians?) have tried, I have yet to see a logical, systematic case formulated. Ultimately, your position seems to come down to wishful-thinking-faith, as opposed to confidence-in-God's-Word-faith.

 

[GBTWC]

Beamishboy I was on a retreat this weekend at a place called forest homes conference center and when I was reminded of its history your debate came to mind I believe God wants to use you mightily but till you trust Him fully and trust that He is powerful enough to keep His inspired word intact you will be Hindered.
that's all Check out this link http://www.ccel.us/billy.ch3.html

With love in Christ

 

[artybloke]

And therein lies the rub, my friend. It is logically impossible to defend infallibility if one rejects inerrancy.

Considering they are basically the same thing, that would be true...

But then neither inerrancy or infallibility are necessary to have faith; so why bother with either?

 

[beamishboy]

Considering they are basically the same thing, that would be true...

But then neither inerrancy or infallibility are necessary to have faith; so why bother with either?

Hi,

I think theologically, there is a difference. Many believe in infallibility without believing in inerrancy.

Those who believe in inerrancy believe that when the Bible talks about science and history, it's inerrant. Those who believe in infallibility but not inerrancy say that the Bible may be wrong on science and history but it's correct on faith.

I'm could be wrong on the precise definition but from what I've read so far, that would broadly be how inerrancy is distinguished from infallibility.

 

[artybloke]

I think theologically, there is a difference.

Yes, it's one of those nice little semantic niceties theologians (especially of the amatuer variety) love to use to get them out of scrapes.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Hi,

I think theologically, there is a difference. Many believe in infallibility without believing in inerrancy.

Those who believe in inerrancy believe that when the Bible talks about science and history, it's inerrant. Those who believe in infallibility but not inerrancy say that the Bible may be wrong on science and history but it's correct on faith.

I'm could be wrong on the precise definition but from what I've read so far, that would broadly be how inerrancy is distinguished from infallibility.

Mmm... No, I don't think that's quite it.

Probably the most widely agreed upon definition of "inerrancy" is the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy." (Also of interest, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.)

IMO, that long Statement on "Inerrancy" boils down to, "Every word of the original documents is exactly the word God wanted the writers to use, but the writers still wrote within the styles and methods of their time and culture."

My understanding of "Infallibility" is basically "God assures the essential *message* is preserved in all translations, regardless of 'errors' of fact, spelling, grammar, etc."

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I always associate baptism with babies. Very few adults are baptised unless they converted from another religion, eg. the recent convert from Islam who was baptised by the Pope and has caused so much publicity. Shops sell clothes for baptism and they're all for babies.

My baptism clothes are more than 100 years old. It's been worn by the male babies of many generations and it looks terribly Victorian. My Grandpa wore them too, as did my Dad.

When I was baptized, at the age of 21 (nothing special about that age, it's just when it happened), I wore (IIRC) jeans and a t-shirt, and I was dunked in a pond in a park. The church wasn't one any of my ancestors had gone to. But it was a joyous occasion!

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

If God answers prayers, presumably, it should only be prayers of Christians because only our God is true. If that is so, there should be a statistical significance in hospitals of Christians' recoveries. Even if God answers "Yes" only 10% of the time, there should be a 10% recovery rate among Christians above all others. But all Christians (myself included) do not believe there is a statistical difference between recovery patterns of Christians and non-believers. Medical Journals don't report that either. I certainly can't believe it even if I try to convince myself.

I have asked this question before and someone said that I can't be sure God doesn't answer the prayers of people of other religions. But if that is so, there should be a statistical difference in the healing of theists (never mind which religion) and atheists. But again, I believe there is none.

I'm only picking health as an indicator but I believe there is no statistical difference in all areas of life. This leads me to conclude that God is non-intervening.

The statistics are wrong, or at least very incomplete. God doesn't hear the prayers only of Christians -- sometimes He will answer a non-Christian in order to reveal Himself to them. Nor does He answer only prayers made on behalf of Christians. No one keeps statistical records of who prays for who, or what the results were. But this I know: ordinary Christians of my acquaintance have prayed for people at hospital bedsides and seen some miraculous recoveries, sometimes of people who weren't expected to recover at all. It doesn't happen every time, but it happens. There are no statistics on that - there's no one to report them to, and no one who keeps them.

 

[NorrinRadd]

When I was baptized, at the age of 21 (nothing special about that age, it's just when it happened), I wore (IIRC) jeans and a t-shirt, and I was dunked in a pond in a park. The church wasn't one any of my ancestors had gone to. But it was a joyous occasion!

I was baptized -- "sprinkled," or however it was done -- as a little baby Lutheran, then "believer-baptized" (dunked) probably around age 21 (I got saved a few months before turning 20) in a baptismal tub at the CMA church at State College, PA. That was around 25 years ago, and I don't remember what I was wearing.

Edit to add: I think that general pattern is fairly common around here (small town, western Pennsylvania), at least among Evangelicals of my generation. Many of us were baptized as babies in what we sort of regard as a Scripturally-dubious formality in "traditional" churches, then re-baptized years or decades later, after making a conscious volitional commitment to Christ.

 

[TimRout]

Considering they are basically the same thing, that would be true...

I agree that inerrancy and infallibility ought to be synonymous, but in fact, many theologians distinguish between them. "Inerrancy" is an affirmation that the whole Bible is autographically perfect, while "infallibility" is an affirmation that the message of the Bible is perfect only insofar as it relates to spiritual subjects (but not history, science, etc).

But then neither inerrancy or infallibility are necessary to have faith; so why bother with either?

I'm sorry my friend, but this statement is grossly inconsistent with Scripture. "So then, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. [NKJV]" or "...Word of Christ [NASB]" if you prefer the alternative reading [Romans 10:17]. Those who claim to believe in Jesus, while rejecting the very Scriptures that testify to Him [Luke 24:27; John 5:39] are kidding themselves. Either they don't really believe in the Jesus of the Bible, or they have come to genuine faith through believing the gospel as it was verbally preached to them -- which, by extension, requires them to be closet Bible believers.