On the Bible being inerrant.

[nobspeople]

I came across a post the other day as follows:
"My argument doesn’t rely on the Bible being inerrant."
It has meaning in the context of that discussion, of which I wasn't privy. But it got me thinking:

Does (or should, if you wish) a christian believe the bible is inerrant?

There seems to be a couple camps on the subject:
1) A christian should believe the bible is 100% true and accurate in every way
1a) This seems to indicate the bible was 'god written' (by whatever means you think necessary)
2) A christian should believe the bible is capable of being wrong or inaccurate
2a) This seems to indicate the bible may or may not have been 'god inspired'
2a1) To what extent is it god inspired and when do you know it is and when it isn't?
2b) To what percentage is the bible capable of being wrong or inaccurate?
3) A christian should be able to pick-n-choose their beliefs when they fit their chosen lifestyle agenda (this seems to be a popular choice for obvious reasons)

For discussion:
Do you believe the bible is infallible or not?
Why or why not?
How did you come to this belief?

NOTE: This should be about one's belief and why, not taken as a challenge to 'prove' the bible is or isn't correct and or devoid of errors, contradictions, lies or ½ truths.

[TRANSPONDER]

… There was no Eden or Flood.

Why should I believe that?

… God did not smite the Assyrians; Hezekiah gave in and paid tribute.

Why should I believe you in this?

Tyre was not forever destroyed (2) and

It is still in ruins, as you can see here:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tyre+ruins&t= ... iax=images

Babylon wasn't destroyed at all.

Please show the scripture that says it should be? And why do you think it is not destroyed?

…(so historical record and archaeology indicates) …

Why believe they are correct?

Jeremiah on Babylon
2 “But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt,” declares the Lord, “and will make it desolate forever.

It never became desolate forever. The Persians simply took it over and made it a provincial capital which it remained under the Greeks, Romans and the Persians again until it was moved to Ctesiphon. True it then decayed, and in the crafty way of Christian apologetics,that what you asked 'Isn't it desolate now?' when it should be 'Did it become desolate then?'No, it never did. That's what history proves to us and that is why you should believe history even if it makes the Bible wrong.

Similarly crafty apologetics for Tyre. There are ruins, but just on the seashore, the modern city is just behind the ruins and covers all the old Tyre. All of it, Island, mainland and causeway. The ruins of the Necropolis that are also shown are of a later date than the siege of Tyre and built north of the causeway after it silted up.

It was rebuilt very soon after it fell and was a thriving city in Jesus' day and Paul's; and if new houses were built on top and it even got a changed name, ('Sur') it was rebuilt and the old Tyre is underneath the New. That's what the archaeology says and that's why you should believe it rather than the Bible.

That's really why I argue that Eden and the Exodus didn't happen. I just find the Eden scenario absurd and mythological, contrary to science and reason, though I can't present History as I can for Babylon. Unless one rejects Geology there was no Global Flood. There may have been local Floods, but not a Biblical one, based on an old Babylonian tale, anyway.

I at one time was willing to credit the Exodus, but now I think history is against it, though I can't present archaeology as I can with Tyre.

I probably can't convince you, but I can convince me that the Assyrian and Biblical record says that Assyria attacked Judea and accepted tribute and submission from Hezekiah, lifted the siege and marched off With an army to deal with Babylon so far as I can make out, which is why he offered terms at all.

The Bible and the Assyrian record agree on this. But the Bible differs in that it absurdly puts the tribute and submission at the start of the campaign and after accepting the terms, went ahead with the siege anyway.

You may (probably will) dismiss what makes sense and prefer what doesn't - that God smote the Assyrians. But that's why I say Hezekiah paid up and submitted and the Assyrian army was not smit. It is just another Biblical lie.

Maybe I can't convince you, but I see no way that you can convince me.

[1213]

Jeremiah on Babylon
2 “But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt,” declares the Lord, “and will make it desolate forever.

It never became desolate forever...

It seems to be desolate, if we look the images of it. I think you are wrong in this, sorry.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ruins+of+baby ... &ia=images

Similarly crafty apologetics for Tyre. There are ruins, but just on the seashore, the modern city is just behind the ruins and covers all the old Tyre...
...

If people build a new city next to old city and call it old city, it doesn't mean the new city is now miraculously the old city. I think the whole idea is silly and Bible is correct in this case. And it is weird why do you have the need to twist the truth in so simple issue that can easily be seen not true.

[TRANSPONDER]

Wrong, both times. Babylon is desolate now but was a thriving capital city until the late Roman empire and the Sassanids.

That means in any reasonable way, the desolation of Babylon within a few decades or even hundred years of the exile did not happen and the prophecy was wrong.

And New Tyre was not 'built next to' Old Tyre but on top of ALL of it.Which means that (in any reasonable sense) it was rebuilt. Old Tyre was Rebuilt - no two ways around it, and that also means the Prophecy fails.

Sorry

[tam]

Peace to you,

Sorry, I've been off for a few days, and this thread got bumped, and I noticed that I never answered this question.

Peace to you,

[Replying to otseng in post #112]

... Christians want to see the Bible as perfect, inerrant, and without contradictions. And the reason is the assumption that the authority of the Bible hinges on inerrancy.

It is a lack of faith.
It does not matter if the bible has errors, if one can turn and listen to Christ - the true Word of God - to know what is or is not true; to know what may have been mistranslated or copied wrong in what is written. But this requires faith - faith in Christ and so also in His promises, that He truly is alive, that He truly does speak and call His sheep by name, that He truly does lead us (to life, yes, and into all truth). He, Himself, the Word of God who is alive and active. If one is lacking in this faith, and if one WANTS this faith, then one can always ASK for that faith, and keep asking, keep knocking, having faith in the promise (and the One who made the promise) that the door WILL be opened.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

What evidence would demonstrate to your satisfaction that faith is an unreliable method for distinguishing true claims from false claims?

Just to be clear, I spoke of faith in a very specific person (not just random faith in whatever/whomever, including religion/religious leaders, other people, the bible, even science/scientists). I spoke of faith in Christ. It is HE - Christ Jaheshua - who does not fail, who does not lie, who does not break His word.

I don't know how to answer your question in that regard, or even if you wish to rephrase it. I mean, there is always the human element for error in anything (in faith, that might include not listening and/or sharing 'just so', perhaps due to misunderstanding something... but that is why it is important to be careful, as is the case in any other arena as well).

My Lord has never led me wrong.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Avoice]

[Replying to tam in post #134]

The root of Christianity is the Hebrew Scriptures. And you are to test any new doctrine put before you scripture says.

Accepting mistranslation? Of course. Christians accept them because they uphold church doctrine. But to accept God's words mistranslated does not honor him. It's NOT OKAY nor acceptable to let people do that.

And you say Jesus lives. You sure about that?
Then you have a HUGE problem:

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

NOTICE IT SAYS TRANSGRESSIONS UNDER THE FIRST TESTAMENT. YOU HAVENT GOT AWAY WITH ANYTHING. FINE, YOU DONT THINK THE LAWS GOD GAVE AT SINAI APPLY TO YOU. YOU CHOSE CHRISTIANITY. MAKE SURE YOU OBEY EVERYTHING JESUS SAID. BECAUSE HIS DEATH DOESNT REDEEM YOUR DISOBEDIENCE TO HIM.

1) resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
2) if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
3)whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
4)Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
5) Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
6)whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.

Christians think they got a sweet deal. Well, if one actually believes in Christianity then they better understand exactly what they've done. They severed themselves from the laws God gave at Sinai and attached themselves to a new set if laws. Laws that are rediculous. Ones that are virtually impossible to keep. At least the laws of Moses are doable. Christians have to love their enemies. Can't look at anyone with lust. Give to those that ask. Just a bunch of commands from Jesus that Christians are certain to fail. But Jesus won't save you from disobeying him. So Make sure you do all the above. Jesus can't save you from those sins.

Besides he can't help you at all. The NT goes out if it's way to tell you that for him to be your mediator it REQUIRES HIM TO BE DEAD. OTHERWISE HE CAN'T DO A THING.

For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. [/b][/color]

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #134]

The root of Christianity is the Hebrew Scriptures.

The root of Christianity (the faith, not the institutionalized religion) is Christ. Christ came before the Hebrew scriptures as well.

And you are to test any new doctrine put before you scripture says.

Indeed.

Accepting mistranslation? Of course. Christians accept them because they uphold church doctrine. But to accept God's words mistranslated does not honor him. It's NOT OKAY nor acceptable to let people do that.

The scriptures are themselves subject to the 'lying pen of the scribes' (from Jeremiah 8:8).

And you say Jesus lives. You sure about that?

Jaheshua, yes. I am sure that He lives.

Then you have a HUGE problem:

I think the following will show that I have no problem. That you have misunderstanding and/or misrepresented what is written.

From your example:

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

NOTICE IT SAYS TRANSGRESSIONS UNDER THE FIRST TESTAMENT.

1 - Please notice that this letter you are quoting from was written TO THE HEBREWS.

2 - Christ died. But then LIVED. He was resurrected, and lives eternally, and so He can be an ETERNAL priest and mediator between men (any man - Jew or Gentile) and God.

YOU HAVENT GOT AWAY WITH ANYTHING. FINE, YOU DONT THINK THE LAWS GOD GAVE AT SINAI APPLY TO YOU.

The first covenant was between God and Israel. Those were the two parties to the covenant. The conditions of that covenant cannot be applied to someone who was not a part of that covenant.

If a person is grafted in after the new covenant with Christ came into effect, then that person is under that covenant - the law of that covenant (the law that is from God, from the beginning, is love - from which also comes mercy and forgiveness). That person is also under grace - which comes from God through His Son (who is an eternal priest, king, mediator) - that person has been bought by His blood (which institutes the new covenant).

YOU CHOSE CHRISTIANITY.

Christ chose me.

MAKE SURE YOU OBEY EVERYTHING JESUS SAID. BECAUSE HIS DEATH DOESNT REDEEM YOUR DISOBEDIENCE TO HIM.

Of course, if we love Him we will keep His commands and remain in His word (as He said), but if/when we do sin (and we all fail at some point)... His blood does cover us. That forgiveness is just that: FORE-given. Something given beforehand. But as Christ said, He who has been forgiven much, loves much. And because He lives forever, He is able to always mediate for us.

1) resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
2) if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
3)whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
4)Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
5) Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
6)whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.

Christians think they got a sweet deal.

We do have a sweet deal. That doesn't mean the path is easy. But the covenant that we have been invited into is a gift, a blessing, it inspires love without fear or judgment... something to be immensely grateful for, something that inspires much love (which in turn inspires us to obey the one we love and to serve Him).

Well, if one actually believes in Christianity then they better understand exactly what they've done.

My faith is in Christ (and so also in His Father, the One who Christ represents). A person. Not a religion.

But yes, Christ did tell us that it would not be a bed of roses. That there would be hardship, persecution. And we are also in training (to be king-priest), and that training and discipline is not supposed to be easy. Plus of course there is the Adversary who wants to trip us up, make it harder for us, attempt to get us to deny our faith, turn away, 'curse God and die'.

But that is where faith comes in knowing that Christ has us, knowing that He has already defeated the world (and the Adversary)... though we can ask and receive whatever fruit of the spirit that we need in order to endure, and of course we have our peace from Christ, that He gives us, true peace.

They severed themselves from the laws God gave at Sinai and attached themselves to a new set if laws.

You cannot sever yourself from something you were never a party TO. That is like accusing "Peggy" from severing herself from the marriage covenant between "Bob" and "Sue". Peggy was never part of that covenant/contract.

That being said, LOVE is the law - the law that is from God, from the beginning. Love covers over a multitude of sins and there is no law against love. This makes sense considering that God IS love - and therefore the law that comes from Him would also be love. That is the law that Abraham would have known (that he would have taught his sons), and Noah, and Abel. From love comes also mercy and forgiveness.

Someone who is acting from love has fulfilled the law. Someone could also SURPASS the (written) law with LOVE. So that if the law said (or gave permission) to stone someone, one could surpass that law by showing love and mercy and forgiving the person instead of stoning (or shunning or excommunicating or disfellowshipping) them.

Laws that are rediculous. Ones that are virtually impossible to keep. At least the laws of Moses are doable. Christians have to love their enemies.

A - you claim the laws of Moses were doable and yet Israel continued NOT to do them (therefore, requiring sacrifices and priests).

B - There is no command to hate one's enemies in the OT. Israel was supposed to have loved their enemies as well.

"If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink." Proverbs 25:21

"You are more righteous than I, for you have rewarded me with good, though I have rewarded you with evil. 1Samuel 24:17

“If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey wandering away, you shall surely return it to him. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying helpless under its load, you shall refrain from leaving it to him, you shall surely release it with him,” Exodus 23:4-5


Contrary to popular belief, my Lord teaches that Abel did not cry out for his brother to be punished for murdering him. Abel's blood cried out from the ground for mercy for his brother. We can know this because a) Abel is righteous and that is what the righteous do (good instead of evil); and b) because God did indeed show Cain mercy.

**

Regardless, if a person wants to be a son of our Father in heaven, then as Christ has said, one must love one's enemies as well.

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.



So I guess it depends upon what we want more: to hate our enemies and curse those who persecute us... or to be sons of our Father in heaven.

I know what I want. My flesh wants the opposite at times (the flesh wants vengeance). But me - the person I am inside - I want to do as my Lord says, and to be a son of my Father in heaven. (well, a daughter)

Loving one's enemies and doing good to those who persecute us might not be easy (at least not at first) - but that love and forgiveness is freeing, and I, for one, am thankful for it, and the peace that comes with it, peace from the action and peace from my Lord.

Can't look at anyone with lust.

That verse has to do with adultery. It does not mean you cannot be attracted to another person or have desire for them. It is more of a coveting after, lusting after... and since it does have to do with adultery it would mean that either you, or the person you are lusting after, are married (to someone else). So you would be coveting someone else's spouse (or coveting someone other than your own spouse). I'm pretty sure there are commands against that in the OT as well.

Give to those that ask.

Would not love do that? As long as you are able and have something to give, would not love give to the one who asks? Isn't there also a command in the OT for a person who owns a field not to go over it more than once at harvest, but to leave what got missed for widows and orphans, for the poor, to take?

Just a bunch of commands from Jesus that Christians are certain to fail. But Jesus won't save you from disobeying him. So Make sure you do all the above. Jesus can't save you from those sins.

See earlier response above about fore-giveness, His blood, His mediating as High Priest for us.

Besides he can't help you at all. The NT goes out if it's way to tell you that for him to be your mediator it REQUIRES HIM TO BE DEAD. OTHERWISE HE CAN'T DO A THING.

The NT says exactly the opposite. That He is our mediator because He is ALIVE. He died, yes... putting an end to the law covenant/contract; but then He LIVED - and the new covenant (the law of which is love and is written upon the heart) was instituted through Him (by HIS blood), and is eternal.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[1213]

Wrong, both times. Babylon is desolate now but was a thriving capital city until the late Roman empire and the Sassanids.
...

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is a matter of historical record, You can Google it yourself. I you want to deny reality because you prefer Bibleclaims to facts, that is your affair.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll be fair about this. I Googled it myself (as I doubt that you will) and the city of Babylon continued as part of Babylonia even after the Persians established their own capital; Babylon was a provincial capital.

However I read that under the successors of Alexander, the city was virtually depopulated, though sacrifices continued on the old temple, and you may argue that it was then rather than 226, when the Sassanids moved the capital to Ctesiphon, that Babylon became 'desolate'.

I leave it to you to argue that a 'desolation' of populace a couple of hundred years after the time the prophecy relates to is soon enough to fulfil the prophecy. After all the (failed) prophecy of Tyre clearly dates to the years after Alexander's conquest when it was destroyed and the causeway was indeed a place for spreading nets and it looked like the city was destroyed forever.

[Mae von H]

Why does the Bible need to be inerrant? If I write, “Washington is the capital of the USA, is it less true because of a spelling error? Is there any book from which we require 100% error free or it’s all bunk (nothing can be trusted?)

Why not take the description the Bible writers said of scripture? It’s “USEFUL for teaching, correcting, and training in righteousness.”

(I know why this view is unpopular. It’s much more pleasant to disparage the teachings of the Bible than do them. The standard of “inerrant or else ignore” is an easy way out.)