Why do you think the Bible is the complete and inerrant word of God?

[yguy]

It does not represent itself as such, essentially being a collection of works by dozens of authors.

There is at least one apparent factual contradiction. ("No sign shall be given to this wicked and adulterous generation but the sign of the prophet Jonah..." in one gospel vs. "No sign shall be given to this wicked and adulterous generation." in another.)

There is the sacrifice of the daughter of Jepthah, apparently with God's approval.

And since you who respond presumably believe Jesus is God, do you believe everything He said during His earthly ministry is recorded in the Gospels? And if not, how can the Bible be the complete word of God?

ETA: The rules of this forum include the following:

No more than one non-Christian (the OP) may post in a thread.​

This being the case, I will report the next non-Christian who does so.

 

[arunma]

Hello Yguy, I'll attempt to address your points.

It does not represent itself as such, essentially being a collection of works by dozens of authors.

Actually the fact that dozens of authors who wrote at different periods in history nonetheless present a consistent message speaks in favor of the Bible's authority, not against it.

There is at least one apparent factual contradiction. ("No sign shall be given to this wicked and adulterous generation but the sign of the prophet Jonah..." in one gospel vs. "No sign shall be given to this wicked and adulterous generation." in another.)

If you want to point to differences in the Gospels' records of Jesus' words, there are plenty of better examples than this. The problem is that you're reading ancient Near Eastern literature like a Western newspaper. The Hebrews used words much more loosely than we do, and such ancient literature shouldn't be read as an exact word-for-word court transcript.

There is the sacrifice of the daughter of Jepthah, apparently with God's approval.

I believe you're grossly misinterpreting this passage. No offense intended, but are these "errors" things that you've found in your study of the Bible, or stuff you took from infidels.org?

And since you who respond presumably believe Jesus is God, do you believe everything He said during His earthly ministry is recorded in the Gospels? And if not, how can the Bible be the complete word of God?

Not everything he said is recorded in the Gospels. No one has said that the Bible is the sum total of everything God has ever said. It is sufficient for salvation, and it is inerrent in the original manuscripts. But there is truth that God reveals outside of the Bible as well.

 

[70x7]

Many times Jesus reffered to events and people in the Old Testament as they were fact. If they are good enough for Him, they are good enough for us!

Jesus was also a firsthand witness to these events and says this also. If the only one who actually saw these things gives us His words about them, it would have to be true.

 

[1985Bears]

Many times Jesus reffered to events and people in the Old Testament as they were fact. If they are good enough for Him, they are good enough for us!

Even though both Testaments constantly contradict each other?

 

[70x7]

Even though both Testaments constantly contradict each other?

Oh really?

 

[Maranatha27]

Originally Posted by 1985Bears Even though both Testaments constantly contradict each other?
​

Oh really?

I'll be intrested to hear this explaination as well...lol

 

[AV1611VET]

And since you who respond presumably believe Jesus is God, do you believe everything He said during His earthly ministry is recorded in the Gospels?

No.

And if not, how can the Bible be the complete word of God?

It is complete insofar as we have what God wants us to have --- in Writing.

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[Quaero]

It does not represent itself as such, essentially being a collection of works by dozens of authors.

There is at least one apparent factual contradiction. ("No sign shall be given to this wicked and adulterous generation but the sign of the prophet Jonah..." in one gospel vs. "No sign shall be given to this wicked and adulterous generation." in another.)

There is the sacrifice of the daughter of Jepthah, apparently with God's approval.

And since you who respond presumably believe Jesus is God, do you believe everything He said during His earthly ministry is recorded in the Gospels? And if not, how can the Bible be the complete word of God?

I don't, its not. There is no way that a book containing manuscripts dating back 2000 years and relayed through 4 languages can be inerrant. Nor can anything compiled by man be perfect. I do believe however that it contains the truth, albeit not in bullet point notes - you do actually have to read it!

It does not represent itself as such, essentially being a collection of works by dozens of authors.

Yep thats why it is superior (IMHO) to many other divine books. It offers not just one interpretation of Jesus life (don't forget the main Gospel writers didn't know Jesus as a man), but as a reflection of the beliefs prevalent in their community.

There is at least one apparent factual contradiction.

Read the dead sea scroll, there are thousands of contradictions! Religion is not a science, but a guide to spirituality. If you base you beliefs solely off the written word of the bible, then you place your faith in the Bishops of the Third Council of Carthage.

 

[arunma]

Even though both Testaments constantly contradict each other?

I'll bite, but only if you promise not to link to some ridiculous website like "1001 Bible contradictions." If you reject the Word of God and claim that the Bible contradicts itself, then may I ask why you have a Christian icon? What does the label of "Christian" mean to you if not obedience to Christ and what he taught (which is recorded almost exclusively in the Bible)?

 

[314159]

Here's an example of the book of Exodus contradicting itself.

20:13 "Thou shalt not kill"

32:27 Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, "Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour".

 

[yguy]

Actually the fact that dozens of authors who wrote at different periods in history nonetheless present a consistent message speaks in favor of the Bible's authority, not against it.

Authority implies intent. The Constitution also had "many authors", but they all agreed on the final product, which clearly indicates unity of intent among the delegates who voted to ratify. Not so with the Bible.

If you want to point to differences in the Gospels' records of Jesus' words, there are plenty of better examples than this.

Maybe, but I'm asking about this one in particular.

I believe you're grossly misinterpreting this passage.

I don't see how. I've even had nominal Christians tell me Jepthah had no choice but to fulfill that vow.

No offense intended, but are these "errors" things that you've found in your study of the Bible, or stuff you took from infidels.org?

That's pretty funny considering how much time I spent defending the Judaeo-Christian ethic over there before I got banned.

Not everything he said is recorded in the Gospels. No one has said that the Bible is the sum total of everything God has ever said.

Then it's not the complete word of God?

It is sufficient for salvation,

Is it also necessary?

 

[1985Bears]

Originally Posted by 1985Bears Even though both Testaments constantly contradict each other?
​

Oh really?

I'll be intrested to hear this explaination as well...lol

There are over 200 fatal contradictions in the bible, this is a fact. For starters, not only do the genealogies of Christ in Matt and Luke contradict each other, but they both contradict the requirements set out in the OT for the messiah.

Matt's genealogy traces Jesus back to Jeconiah (whom god said a son of his could not sit on David's throne), and Luke traces Jesus back to Nathan instead of Solomon.

 

[arunma]

There are over 200 fatal contradictions in the bible, this is a fact.

Appending the phrase "this is a fact" to a statement does not make it so. The so-called "1001 Bible contradiction" websites are ubiquitous on the Internet, and are very foolishly conceived. Often times people make parodies of Bible-believing Christians which rely on rhetoric rather than fact. This is how we view the so-called Bible contradictions as well.

For starters, not only do the genealogies of Christ in Matt and Luke contradict each other, but they both contradict the requirements set out in the OT for the messiah.

Non-Christians often make the claim that there are supposedly hundreds of gospels that were written after the earthly ministry of Christ, and that the church fathers rejected most of them because of some evil intention to use the orthodox doctrines of Christianity to control the masses (I don't know how this works, but then, I didn't invent this argument). Be rational and ask yourself: if the early church got together one day and decided to put together a Bible, why would they choose two Gospels that have supposedly contradictory geneologies? Why not omit one? Or, why not maliciously edit one of the geneologies? After all, non-Christians also claim that the church edited the Bible so as to alter the teachings of Christ. If you believe that Matthew's and Luke's geneologies contradict one another, then you're forced to conclude that the church was either inept in this regard, or that it was faithful in its transmission of the Bible into modern times.

Clearly, the reason you think the geneologies contradict one another is because you expect them to have identical wordings. But Biblical geneologies often skip generations, so there's no reason for us to assume that Matthew and Luke ought to have identical geneologies. This is a rather poor argument againstthe authority of the Bible.

Matt's genealogy traces Jesus back to Jeconiah (whom god said a son of his could not sit on David's throne), and Luke traces Jesus back to Nathan instead of Solomon.

Herein lies the problem with copying and pasting off of infidels.org (or other random atheist website) without knowing the Scriptures. It says,

"As I live, declares the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off...Thus says the LORD: "Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:24,30)
​

It also says,

"On that day, declares the LORD of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, declares the LORD, and make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you, declares the LORD of hosts." (Haggai 2:23)
​

Again, it's important to think before you paste Bible contradictions from a random atheist website. If King Jeconiah's line were forbidden from taking David's throne forever, then God's promise to send the Christ, descended from David would be void. This is why Haggai the prophet proclaimed the restoration of the Davidic line. Once again, a foolish contradiction.

 

[Maranatha27]

There are over 200 fatal contradictions in the bible, this is a fact. For starters, not only do the genealogies of Christ in Matt and Luke contradict each other, but they both contradict the requirements set out in the OT for the messiah.

Matt's genealogy traces Jesus back to Jeconiah (whom god said a son of his could not sit on David's throne), and Luke traces Jesus back to Nathan instead of Solomon.

Luckly I have my exposition of Luke by H. A. Ironside at work with me, though I could never meet your gross unbelief with authority, this beloved man in Christ can.

I'm not going to type the whole chapter, but in the begining he states that in the Jewish Talmud, written just a few year after the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are told that Jesus was the illegitamate son of Mary of Bethlehem, the daughter of Heli.

pg 105 of Lukes Exposition

The reason for the two genealogies is this: in the first chapter of Matthew, we have the geneology of the King. Matthew deals particularly with the Messiahship of Jesus. It was written to prove that he was the promised King of Israel. Joseph who married Mary before the actual birth of Jesus and took her under his protective care, was himself a lineally decended from David, through King Soloman; and had conditions been right in Israel, Joseph possibly would have sat on Davids throne.... Nevertheless, the royal line ran on as God saw it, and Josheph was the last of the royal line of David, and by marrying Mary, her son Jesus, being born after wedlock, became the legal heir to the throne of David. Thats why we have the geneology in Matthew- to prove that Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of David.

The blood of Joseph did not run in the veins of Jesus, and according to the prophets, the Messiah Himself is to actually come through Davids line. He is to be the Son of the house of David. He is called Davids Son. Luke shows this was fulfilled too, for we find as we go down through this geneology that Heli, the father of Mary, came from a Davidic line, but the line through which she came was from another son of David. Heli was a lineal decendant of Davids son Nathan. So the blood of David flowed in Marys veins. Therefore, when the Lord Jesus Christ was concieved by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary and born of her, he was actually a son of David. Do I say son of David? He was the Son of David, the One who transends every other, the One who is to confirm the sure mercies of David, and bring in everlasting blessing for the world - "Great Davids greater Son!"

 

[Maranatha27]

double post

 

[1985Bears]

Thanks Maranatha and Arunma for making hasty generalizations about the way I think and where I get my information, much appreciated, its obvious the Holy Spirit is truly at work in you =)

That said, when I have a bit more time I'll dig through what you posted above and clearly illustrate how these explanations are incorrect.

 

[Maranatha27]

Hi bear,

I didn't mean to be off putting, but I believe this is a crucial mater for the body of Christ. Is the Bible the word of God or should I as a christian look outside the Bible to know Gods will for my life. Can I trust the words that descibe who the Lord Jesus Christ is? If I can't go to the Bible for cleansing from the filth of this world and to keep my vain imagination in check, where can I go?

After the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, Jews and christians have evidence of the acuracy and carefulness with which Gods words were faithfully maintained.

I understand there were slight variations in spelling and gramatical structure, but never has a doctrine been in question. Is God so small that He can not perserve His Word for His people at the most crucial time in history?

That is why I hold the opinion, that the Bible that I hold in my hand is authoritative. When the Bible says fornication is a sin, I say yes Lord fornication is a sin. When the word of God says homosexuality is a sin, I say yes Lord homosexuality is a sin. The world wants to tell me people are born that way, I cant disagree, though I believe Gods record, and take the testimony of man as a lie.

 

[arunma]

Thanks Maranatha and Arunma for making hasty generalizations about the way I think and where I get my information, much appreciated, its obvious the Holy Spirit is truly at work in you =)

I urge you to reconsider what you've just said. Both Maranatha and myself believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that Jesus Christ is Lord, and you charge us with not having the Spirit of God. You deny the authority of the very Scriptures that are breathed out by the Holy Spirit, and you claim to have the Spirit of God. This makes no sense. I mean no offense, but you seem to equate the work of the Holy Spirit with whatever doctrines you happen to find appealing.

That said, when I have a bit more time I'll dig through what you posted above and clearly illustrate how these explanations are incorrect.

If anything I've said is incorrect, please tell me. It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. If you counted 200 "fatal" Bible contradictions on your own without Googling, then I stand corrected.

 

[yguy]

If I can't go to the Bible for cleansing from the filth of this world and to keep my vain imagination in check, where can I go?

Where did the OT prophets go when there was no OT? Where did the Apostles go when there was no NT?

Is God so small that He can not perserve His Word for His people at the most crucial time in history?

Again, "[M]an shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Surely every one of His words can't be found in the Bible, or in all the books ever written.

 

[arunma]

Where did the OT prophets go when there was no OT? Where did the Apostles go when there was no NT?

These people went to the revelation that was available at the time. This current generation is blessed to have knowledge of the whole of God's redemptive plan, and we are at an advantage to people who came before Christ. This is a truly great condemnation against anyone in the present day who chooses another religion over the Gospel of Jesus. In Christ's day the Pharisees asked him to perform a sign. His response was,

The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (Matthew 12:41)
​

Nineveh was the wicked city to which the prophet Jonah reluctantly preached. His message was simply "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" At this the people repented of their sins and believed in the God of Israel. Today we are given not only greater revelation from the prophets, but the Gospel and the testimony of the apostles. If in the face of this light people do not give up their false religions and turn to Christ alone for salvation, then God will condemn them to hell. The Ninevites were given only a minimal revelation, and they repented of their deeds. We in modern times are left without excuse.

Again, "[M]an shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Surely every one of His words can't be found in the Bible, or in all the books ever written.

I think that if you applied the same type of literalism to common speech in everyday life, you would not be able to function. Calling an area of town the "town square" doesn't mean that it has the geometry of a square. That is foolishness, not literalism. I am not saying that you are a fool, because I know that you don't really believe in the type of literalism that you are purporting here. The point of Biblical literalism is to obey the author's original intent. And it's not too hard to figure out what Matthew the evangelist meant when he wrote this.