Infallibility of Scripture?

[ListenerFriendly]

Hello brothers and sisters.

Some background--I grew up in a moderate Seventh Day Adventist home; yet as an adult there are some things I've been questioning with the Bible, SDA, and especially Christianity as a movement.

I am not going to go deeply into any of these issues--they are broad and would encompass more space than I intend to take.

One issue I have spent a good amount of time and research struggling with is at the base of Christianity--scripture as the Word of God.

My first issue is the contradictions--major and minor--that plague the Bible. The first are those not created by translation. The idea of God ordering genocide in the OT and then serving as a peacemaker and a nonviolent activist in the NT.
The idea of the Trinity--in the OT, God is a singular being. Yet in the new, monotheism takes a backseat to a three-in-one entity. Yet whether the Trinity is a biblical idea is another question.
The contradictions among the Gospels.
While I believe the OT to be a trusted and reliable source, the NT is another story. It was compiled under Rome's version of Christianity. Did God have anything to do with who put what in? Man chose which books went where. There were many other christian gospels and letters that were spreading about that didn't make it in because they didn't agree with the church's views in that period of time. Again, we also do not have any of the original manuscripts. Or even nearly close to the original. Some of the books don't appear in surviving manuscripts until hundreds of years later. Also, different things have been "added" to the NT--the last 14 versus of Mark among other things. It makes one wonder about the validity of some of our doctrinal beliefs that are based on particular versions of certain texts. There are, actually over 200,000 inconsistencies among the different manuscripts of the NT--more than the words in the entire anthology. While many of these are small changes, some affect the text in different ways.

I bring this up not to cause doubt; I bring this up to fellow brothers and sisters because I am struggling and questioning and on a quest for the truth of God. I bring this up on this forum because it is from the background I have grown up in.

My current views are leaning towards this: That the Bible is a wonderful collection of writings, biographies, letters, stories, and prophecies that are humanity's words of their connection with the divine. That perhaps the Bible is not the Word of God, but man's reflection on God. A fallible way man attempts to communicate his experiences with the Absolute. That God is revealed in the text, but not in perfection. That only through prayer and actual experience with the Divine is the complete infallible truth revealed.

What say you?

 

[StormyOne]

Welcome and glad you chose to hang out with us.... you will find varied answers to your question so I'll give mine... To me the bible is the written word of inspired men as they understood God at that time..... It is my belief that God did not write the bible, nor did he dictate it, so its not his word... It is not infallible nor inerrant, though the bible can be useful if used appropriately... but that is my belief...

 

[AzA]

My current views are leaning towards this: That the Bible is a wonderful collection of writings, biographies, letters, stories, and prophecies that are humanity's words of their connection with the divine. That perhaps the Bible is not the Word of God, but man's reflection on God. A fallible way man attempts to communicate his experiences with the Absolute. That God is revealed in the text, but not in perfection. That only through prayer and actual experience with the Divine is the complete infallible truth revealed.

That was well-expressed, LF.

Paul taught that all scripture was profitable in some way. Acknowledging the enduring value of scripture is one way to keep holding a full-of-faith/faithful orientation of it.

While I believe the OT to be a trusted and reliable source, the NT is another story. It was compiled under Rome's version of Christianity. Did God have anything to do with who put what in? Man chose which books went where.

This was curious for me.
The same process of compilation gave us the Tanakh. So why the distrust of the first church and no distrust for the Pharisees who codified our current "OT" table of contents?

 

[AzA]

Oh, and welcome back.

 

[ListenerFriendly]

Hi AzA... yes. It has been awhile!

Paul taught that all scripture was profitable in some way. Acknowledging the enduring value of scripture is one way to keep holding a full-of-faith/faithful orientation of it.

I like this idea a lot--that scripture is just a guide, an assistant in one's path to the Divine.

Right, right--it was the same process for the Tanakh. Why I question, however, the construction of the NT is its time period. I think historically there was seen a corruption of the message of Jesus before the NT was compiled. If the First Church had truly constructed the NT, then I might be less apt to question it. But timing, historically, is what makes me wonder. I'll give an example--the Sabbath ceased to be universally practiced under Constantine during the first century. But it wasn't until several hundred years later that the process of compiling the works culminated.

I don't outright discredit it any way. I just wonder what the original texts might have been like in comparison to the texts we hold in our hands.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

One issue I have spent a good amount of time and research struggling with is at the base of Christianity--scripture as the Word of God.

Hi LF. I'm not here to take issue with your exploration and the things that you're learning. I think it is valuable to explore your assumptions and beliefs from all angles. I'm doing that too. That's why I'd like to better understand what you're finding, in the hope that I too can consider the issues you're grappling with.

My first issue is the contradictions--major and minor--that plague the Bible. The first are those not created by translation. The idea of God ordering genocide in the OT and then serving as a peacemaker and a nonviolent activist in the NT.

When you think about "genocide," what do you have in mind?

The idea of the Trinity--in the OT, God is a singular being. Yet in the new, monotheism takes a backseat to a three-in-one entity. Yet whether the Trinity is a biblical idea is another question.

I don't see this contradiction. I find all three beings in the Old Testament, and they all seem to make up a singular entity, even without the New Testament. However, you may be finding something I haven't really explored.

While I believe the OT to be a trusted and reliable source, the NT is another story. It was compiled under Rome's version of Christianity. Did God have anything to do with who put what in? Man chose which books went where. There were many other christian gospels and letters that were spreading about that didn't make it in because they didn't agree with the church's views in that period of time. Again, we also do not have any of the original manuscripts. Or even nearly close to the original. Some of the books don't appear in surviving manuscripts until hundreds of years later.

Generally, I'm not seeing the distinction between the Old Testament and the New here. Most of the concepts you've mentioned above seem to apply to both.

Also, different things have been "added" to the NT--the last 14 versus of Mark among other things. It makes one wonder about the validity of some of our doctrinal beliefs that are based on particular versions of certain texts. There are, actually over 200,000 inconsistencies among the different manuscripts of the NT--more than the words in the entire anthology. While many of these are small changes, some affect the text in different ways.

200,000 inconsistencies? Is that something that you've found in your own study of the text or something that someone has told you? What are these 200,000 inconsistencies? I'd just like to see for myself what the issues are so I can explore it further.

I bring this up not to cause doubt; I bring this up to fellow brothers and sisters because I am struggling and questioning and on a quest for the truth of God. I bring this up on this forum because it is from the background I have grown up in.

Fair enough. I definitely read your comments in this light. And I'm not trying to tell you're wrong to struggle and question. Rather, I'm just trying to better understand what you're wrestling with.

My current views are leaning towards this: That the Bible is a wonderful collection of writings, biographies, letters, stories, and prophecies that are humanity's words of their connection with the divine. That perhaps the Bible is not the Word of God, but man's reflection on God. A fallible way man attempts to communicate his experiences with the Absolute. That God is revealed in the text, but not in perfection. That only through prayer and actual experience with the Divine is the complete infallible truth revealed.

This isn't where I've landed, but I'm still exploring.

BFA

 

[AzA]

Right, right--it was the same process for the Tanakh. Why I question, however, the construction of the NT is its time period. I think historically there was seen a corruption of the message of Jesus before the NT was compiled. If the First Church had truly constructed the NT, then I might be less apt to question it. But timing, historically, is what makes me wonder. I'll give an example--the Sabbath ceased to be universally practiced under Constantine during the first century. But it wasn't until several hundred years later that the process of compiling the works culminated.

You mean the fourth century, right? Because Constantine was end of 3rd century, beginning of 4th century. And the big councils, from Nicea forward, started happening around that time as well.

And if you are more skeptical about the Christian text than the Jewish text, on what basis would you privilege the God described in the Christian text over the God described in the Jewish text? You mentioned that you see differences between them.

Lots of questions.

After all... contemporary writers tend to say that the Tanakh canon was completed by the 2nd century (200 BCE- 200 ACE). And the years after the Temple fell were pretty shaky years for the Jewish religion. Down with the priests and up with the rabbis. See what I mean?

 

[Soon144k]

The Council of Nicea in c.325 established the church doctrine of the Trinity. The Council of Leodicea in c.364-5 established the canon of the Church (operating rules) and the Christian Scripture commonly termed the New Testament. This was done for purely political reason, for the purpose of holding the empire of Rome together. Very disparate religious view points were included that they (the Roman Church Clergy) hoped would appeal to a wide variety of religions within the Empire; Jews, Christians, Pagans. This actually worked, for a while, giving Emperor Constantine time to solidify his rule.

There is a good book that is helpful in dealing with this and other touchy subjects of the influence of the early church on the modern church; "The Spirit of the Church" by Dennis Neufeld and Rick Sterling (Tate Pub. 2007).

 

[Sophia7]

The Council of Nicea in c.325 established the church doctrine of the Trinity.

Do you disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity?

The Council of Leodicea in c.364-5 established the canon of the Church (operating rules) and the Christian Scripture commonly termed the New Testament. This was done for purely political reason, for the purpose of holding the empire of Rome together. Very disparate religious view points were included that they (the Roman Church Clergy) hoped would appeal to a wide variety of religions within the Empire; Jews, Christians, Pagans. This actually worked, for a while, giving Emperor Constantine time to solidify his rule.

The "council" at Laodicea was actually a regional synod, not an ecumenical council. Only about 30 bishops from Asia Minor participated in it, and the Bishop of Rome (the pope) was not present. Constantine had died in 337, so obviously he wasn't involved in that gathering either, and it couldn't have been used to solidify his rule.

Also, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the canon of the Church." If you mean disciplinary decrees established by church councils, those began at Nicea, not Laodicea. However, the term canon was used even before that in reference to rules of faith:

Ecclesiastical Canons are certain rules or norms of conduct or belief prescribed by the Church. The name is derived from the Greek kanon, the instrument used by architects and artificers for making straight lines. Some writers think that the Church preferred the word canon to law, as the latter had a harsh meaning for the faithful in the times of persecution. The early Fathers use canon as equivalent to the rule of faith, or for some formula expressing a binding obligation on Christians (Irenæus, Adv. Hær., I, ix; Tertullian, De Præscr., 13). Bickell declares that for the first three hundred years, canon is scarcely ever found for a separate and special decree of the Church; rather does it designate the rule of faith in general. He appeals to the fact that the plural form of the word is seldom used in the earliest Christian writers (Bickell, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, I, 8). With the fourth century began the use of canon for a disciplinary decree, owing to its employment in this sense by the First Council of Nice (325). The Cassinese editors of Ferraris (s.v. Canones) say that in the first ages of the Church many disciplinary regulations were not required, and hence it was scarcely necessary to discriminate decrees into dogmatic and disciplinary, as the faithful classed both under the obligation to observe the general rule of faith. From the fourth century onward, canon signified almost universally a disciplinary decree of a council or of the Roman pontiffs. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ecclesiastical Canons)​

Laodicea did not establish the canon of Scripture either. I would recommend this chapter on the formation of the biblical canon from a book by F. F. Bruce (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?). Here are a few relevant portions (emphasis added):

The first steps in the formation of a canon of authoritative Christian books, worthy to stand beside the Old Testament canon, which was the Bible of our Lord and His apostles, appear to have been taken about the beginning of the second century, when there is evidence for the circulation of two collections of Christian writings in the Church.

At a very early date it appears that the four Gospels were united in one collection. They must have been brought together very soon after the writing of the Gospel according to John. This fourfold collection was known originally as 'The Gospel' in the singular, not 'The Gospels' in the plural; there was only one Gospel, narrated in four records, distinguished as 'according to Matthew,' 'according to Mark,' and so on. About AD 115 Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, refers to 'The Gospel' as an authoritative writing, and as he knew more than one of the four 'Gospels' it may well be that by 'The Gospel' he means the fourfold collection which went by that name. . . .

The corpus Paulinum, or collection of Paul's writings, was brought together about the same time as the collecting of the fourfold Gospel. As the Gospel collection was designated by the Greek word Euangelion, so the Pauline collection was designated by the one word Apostolos, each letter being distinguished as 'To the Romans,' 'First to the Corinthians,' and so on. Before long, the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews was bound up with the Pauline writings. Acts, as a matter of convenience, came to be bound up with the 'General Epistles' (those of Peter, James, John and Jude).

The only books about which there was any substantial doubt after the middle of the second century were some of those which come at the end of our New Testament. Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Paulines, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation as acknowledged by all; he says that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, with the 'Epistle of Barnabas,' the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' were disputed by some. Eusebius (c. 265-340) mentions as generally acknowledged all the books of our New Testament except James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, which were disputed by some, but recognised by the majority. Athanasius in 367 lays down the twenty-seven books of our New Testament as alone canonical; shortly afterwards Jerome and Augustine followed his example in the West. The process farther east took a little longer; it was not until c. 508 that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation were included in a version of the Syriac Bible in addition to the other twenty two books. . . .

It was specially important to determine which books might be used for the establishment of Christian doctrine, and which might most confidently be appealed to in disputes with heretics. In particular, when Marcion drew up his canon about AD 140, it was necessary for the orthodox churches to know exactly what the true canon was, and this helped to speed up a process which had already begun. It is wrong, however, to talk or write as if the Church first began to draw up a canon after Marcion had published his. . . .

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.​

 

[Joe67]

History is good and useful and gives us an elementary beginning with the bond woman.

The Voice of Jesus, speaking through his blood, from the new Jerusalem which is above, is better and brings us the victory over the dragon.

The Voice of Jesus does not despise the history of the work of the Father among his disciples.

Eph 2:9-10
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. KJV

John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. KJV

Joe

 

[Soon144k]

If ALL Scripture is infallible then what do you do with the contradictions between Paul and Jesus Christ, specifically in Matthew and John?

 

[Sophia7]

If ALL Scripture is infallible then what do you do with the contradictions between Paul and Jesus Christ, specifically in Matthew and John?

Where does Paul contradict Jesus? Please provide evidence for that claim.

 

[radennis0]

If you cannot accept, through faith, that all of the Bible is the inspired word of God, then there is no way to accept the teachings of Jesus, because they could be written wrong. Also, the OT prophecies are needed in order to prove that Jesus is the promised one. If any one part of the Bible is questioned then all of it becomes a historically-based book of wives' tales.

 

[Soon144k]

If you cannot accept, through faith, that all of the Bible is the inspired word of God, then there is no way to accept the teachings of Jesus, because they could be written wrong. Also, the OT prophecies are needed in order to prove that Jesus is the promised one. If any one part of the Bible is questioned then all of it becomes a historically-based book of wives' tales.

Oh, but I do accept the teachings of Jesus Christ, as given by His own eyewitness disciples (Matthew, Peter (gospel of Mark) and John). And, yes, I do accept the entire OT because it was the OT that Jesus taught from, and used to defeat the Pharisees at their own game. If the OT is good enough for Jesus then it is good enough for me.

The teachings of Jesus (given to His eyewitness disciples) are NOT wrong because Jesus told His disciples that THEY would remember everything He told them so that they could pass it along to His other bondservants that would learn of Him through them.

“These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. John 14:25-26.

Luke was a convert of Paul and NEVER met Jesus. Saul NEVER met Jesus face to face while HE was alive on earth and I cannot be sure that what Paul wrote was, in fact, the truth. I DO KNOW that what Matthew, Mark writing for Peter, and John wrote IS the truth because I trust the words of Jesus.

Please let me know where I am wrong in this belief.

 

[Laodicean]

Oh, but I do accept the teachings of Jesus Christ, as given by His own eyewitness disciples (Matthew, Peter (gospel of Mark) and John). And, yes, I do accept the entire OT because it was the OT that Jesus taught from, and used to defeat the Pharisees at their own game. If the OT is good enough for Jesus then it is good enough for me.

The teachings of Jesus (given to His eyewitness disciples) are NOT wrong because Jesus told His disciples that THEY would remember everything He told them so that they could pass it along to His other bondservants that would learn of Him through them.

“These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. John 14:25-26.

Luke was a convert of Paul and NEVER met Jesus. Saul NEVER met Jesus face to face while HE was alive on earth and I cannot be sure that what Paul wrote was, in fact, the truth. I DO KNOW that what Matthew, Mark writing for Peter, and John wrote IS the truth because I trust the words of Jesus.

Please let me know where I am wrong in this belief.

Soon, why do you believe the disciples when they said they met Jesus, but you don't believe Paul when he said he met Jesus? Paul met Jesus face to face on the road to Damascus. Jesus spoke to him personally and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

It is not consistent for you to believe one set of disciples and not another.

 

[Soon144k]

Soon, why do you believe the disciples when they said they met Jesus, but you don't believe Paul when he said he met Jesus? Paul met Jesus face to face on the road to Damascus. Jesus spoke to him personally and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

It is not consistent for you to believe one set of disciples and not another.

Fair question. Please prove to me that the 'Jesus' that Saul met on the road to Damascus was the real Jesus. Who saw this 'Jesus', and who heard him?

All of the 12 disciples saw and heard the real Jesus because He was physically there with them. NO ONE saw the 'Jesus' that accosted Paul on the road to Damascus, and ONLY Saul heard him. This being blinded Saul, so Saul did not see him. None of Saul's companions saw this being, and they only heard noise not words; this according to Saul's own testimony. We have only Saul's word as to who this being was, and Saul believed this being only because the being identified himself as 'Jesus'. You know as well as I do that Satan is the great deceiver, and can and does use the name 'Jesus' where ever and when ever he needs to in order to convince sincere believers that what they are seeing is real, when it is not.

If you were to present this case in court today no jury would convict on the basis of this evidence.

Therefore, for me I KNOW the Jesus the disciples saw was the real deal because their testimony matches who Jesus is. And based on significant other evidence the being that Saul saw WAS NOT the Jesus that the eyewitness disciples knew as their Lord and Savior.

 

[Kira Light]

Fair question. Please prove to me that the 'Jesus' that Saul met on the road to Damascus was the real Jesus. Who saw this 'Jesus', and who heard him?

All of the 12 disciples saw and heard the real Jesus because He was physically there with them. NO ONE saw the 'Jesus' that accosted Paul on the road to Damascus, and ONLY Saul heard him. This being blinded Saul, so Saul did not see him. None of Saul's companions saw this being, and they only heard noise not words; this according to Saul's own testimony. We have only Saul's word as to who this being was, and Saul believed this being only because the being identified himself as 'Jesus'. You know as well as I do that Satan is the great deceiver, and can and does use the name 'Jesus' where ever and when ever he needs to in order to convince sincere believers that what they are seeing is real, when it is not.

If you were to present this case in court today no jury would convict on the basis of this evidence.

Therefore, for me I KNOW the Jesus the disciples saw was the real deal because their testimony matches who Jesus is. And based on significant other evidence the being that Saul saw WAS NOT the Jesus that the eyewitness disciples knew as their Lord and Savior.

This is some wild stuff!

Saul actually talked to Satan? So everything he wrote was a lie and a deception? Is this an SDA belief? It isn't one I ever came across.

If this is true, why didn't Ellen White teach it? She had many visions and encounters with angels, too. How do we know those weren't Satan?

 

[Soon144k]

This is some wild stuff!

Saul actually talked to Satan? So everything he wrote was a lie and a deception? Is this an SDA belief? It isn't one I ever came across.

If this is true, why didn't Ellen White teach it? She had many visions and encounters with angels, too. How do we know those weren't Satan?

This is not a commonly held belief in the SDA church, but it is gaining some traction with Christians that have changed their identities to "Followers of Jesus Christ". If you do a direct comparison between what Paul wrote in his 'gospels' and what Jesus told His eyewitness disciples you will see amazing differences. There is a book that gives details on these issues; The Spirit of the Church by Dennis Neufeld and Rick Sterling. Take a look at the book and see if it doesn't make sense.

Paul actually didn't believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God at His birth, but was 'declared' to be the Son of God at the Resurrection (Rom.1:4). Paul didn't believe that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) but of 'natural means' just like the rest of us. Paul also said that God gave him a demon (a messenger of Satan) to keep him from boasting (2Cor.12:7-8). This does not seem at all reasonable because God would NEVER use Satan to keep someone from sinning. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Ellen White did not teach this because she called Paul 'the Greatest Apostle' and was firmly in his camp.

Look at this carefully, please don't believe what I say just because I say it. Investigate and dig deep, don't accept what you have always believed just because someone you trust told you. Look at this independently and make your own decisions.

 

[Sophia7]

Where does Paul contradict Jesus? Please provide evidence for that claim.

And based on significant other evidence the being that Saul saw WAS NOT the Jesus that the eyewitness disciples knew as their Lord and Savior.

Again, please provide evidence for your claims. Where does Paul contradict Jesus? And what "significant other evidence" do you have to support your argument that "the being that Saul saw" was not Jesus?

 

[Soon144k]

Again, please provide evidence for your claims. Where does Paul contradict Jesus? And what "significant other evidence" do you have to support your argument that "the being that Saul saw" was not Jesus?

Please see my previous post. I answered your questions before I even knew you asked them.