To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

[av1611jim]

Dear Amen;
Your comment says it all for me. God's Book is true, no matter WHO thinks it is not. No matter what hair brained alledged error they may come up with.

Decades ago it was the Hittites. The "critics" had feathers in their mouths from the crow they had to eat. It will always be that way.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Matt Black]

Like Dave, I struggle deeply with the concept that God commanded genocide in the OT (you may recall that I started a thread on that subject here a few months ago); to me, this strikes me as fundamentally incompatible with the God of Love supremely revealed in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. I'm left with two options accordingly: either interpreting the genocide passages as primarily spiritual allegories of our need to purge ourselves of all that is sinful rather than literal historical narratives, or regard those passages as literal but errant. For me, the principle is one of interpreting Scripture through the lens of the Word, the Incarnate Christ as revealed in the Gospels. My reason? Quite simply, you remove the OT from me, and my salvation is unaffected. You take the Incarnation out, and my salvation goes with Him and I become at best a Jew.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Bluefalcon]

So the iniquity of the peoples who were wiped out by the Israelites should not have been punished? And the iniquity of the Israelites should not have been punished through the Babylonians? What kind of love puff of a God are you worshiping for Pete's sake?

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

[Matt Black]

The one revealed in Jesus Christ. Which one are you worshipping?

Please read my thread on genocide and then answer me this one question: is it OK for God to command the murder of the children in those pagan nations?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[HankD]

God does not murder when He destroys what or whom He Himself created.

Jesus verified this:
Luke 17
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

"All" men, women, children, babies.

Genesis 6
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Luke 17
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

Genesis 19
24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

HankD

 

[Matt Black]

1. Is God therefore subject to a lower moral and ethical standard than that to which He would hold us?

2. And when God allegedly commands men to kill other men, are those men guilty or not of murder? Think about this one very very carefully - down that road lies the "voices in my head told me to kill them" 'defence'

3. Children????!!!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[HankD]

1. Is God therefore subject to a lower moral and ethical standard than that to which He would hold us?

He is God, we are not. He sets the standards.

2. And when God allegedly commands men to kill other men, are those men guilty or not of murder? Think about this one very very carefully - down that road lies the "voices in my head told me to kill them" 'defence'

When God gave this command to kill other men, Israel was the one and only true theocratic nation on earth and He dwelt with them in the tabernacle, spoke to them through Moses and later the judges and prophets and empowered them to do His will which was to destroy the Canaanite nations.

Today we have no such theocractic nation on earth.

3. Children????!!!

Yes the children of Naoh's day and the children of Sodom and Gommorah. This is not my idea or a "private interpretation" Matt. It's in the OT Scripture which Jesus verified.

HankD

 

[Matt Black]

Sorry, can't buy any of that. Quite apart from the fact that I wouldn't let any man or woman holding that POV come anywhere near my almost-born child for obvious reasons, I can't imagine Jesus laying His hands on the little children, blessing them and then cutting their throats, saying "die, you unclean, sinful beings!"

I suppose it certainly gives a new interpretation to "suffer the little children"...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jim,

No matter what hair brained alledged error they may come up with.

There simply ARE small copyist errors and such in the Bible. Like I said God used HUMANS to generate the Bible.

Your answers may satisfy YOUR mind but they still are a bit of a stretch. Consider the college student who is told by his professor that the Bible is full of errors. He tells his pastor who says that he MUST believe there is no error anywhere, no questions asked. He then is told by a friend to read Josh McDowell, who provides the same kind of harmonized answers you gave. His professor then tells him, "Look - your pastor has no answer so he tells you to just believe. Your "scholar" Josh McDowell gives forced answers which are tenuous at best. Your Christianity is all a big lie!"

Then the student may say, "Well, maybe the professor is right - I guess Christianity is just another human "ism".

The student SHOULD have been told that it's OK to use the brain God gave hima and it's OK to ask questions.

We believe the Bible is true - but we must study to find out what some of the deep things really mean.

Let God be true and every man a liar - even if that means going against some of the traditional stances.

 

[Amen]

How do we know which part of the Bible is due to copyist errors and which are not?

 

[Amen]

You mean this is harmonized answer?

1Kings 4:26
And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2Chronicles 9:25
And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Its really quite plain isn't it? Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses but only had 4000 stalls that could accomodate both horses and chariots. Nothing to harmonize, its plain English. No?

 

[Amen]

The other passage about David and Goliath....

1 Samuel 17:50
So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

2 Samuel 21:19
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

My trusty old King James Bible say Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath. Plain simple English. Where is the contradiction?

 

[DavidFWhite3]

This is what happens when the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy and Infallablity becomes more important than the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The Bible is used to justify attitudes that are incompatable with God's revelation of Himself in Christ. Jesus clearly asserts His superiority over the Law of Moses and all scripture when he says,"You have heard it said ane eye for eye (Exodus)but I say..."

The supreme importance of the Bible is that it gives us the story of God's journey through history as told by the Hebrew people with whom He made that journey, culminating in the life, and death of Jesus, then beginning anew with His resurrection. The Bible is not the journey. The Bible is not the revelation. It is a faithful witness to the journey. It gives us a sufficient, but not perfect account. We know when the people of Isreal were properly understanding what God was doing, and we know when they did not, because we have Jesus as the definitive revelation by which all scripture is to be properly interpreted.

The historical fact is the Hebrews committed genocide on occasions. The particualr writers of the passages that deal with those accounts tell us it was their belief that God wanted them to slaughter the entire population of cities, including children. Because of Jesus I think they were attributing to God something he might not wanted to have been given credit for.

That is precisely why the Bible is sufficient only when studied in its entirety, and can lead us to doctrines and attitudes, even actions, that are contrary to God's will, if we do not. Without Jesus, the Bible is just another collection of Ancient Religious writings. With Jesus, it becomes our Scriptures. But those scriptures cannot be properly understood without Jesus, for He is the Word who lives and continues to work in the world, and I challenge any of you to say with any conviction, that Jesus would command any modern King, President, General, or whoever, to commit genocide today in order to punish iniquity. It is the radical Muslims who see God that way, not the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If you do believe that he would, you are not, in my opinion, anywhere close to Jesus.

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DavidFWhite3:
Marcia:

Either once again you have misunderstood me, or I did not make myself clear.

I mention the Levitical Legal Code, not ceremonial laws, to point out that you pick and choose as we all do which parts of the bible you will literally apply to modern life and which ones you will not. It was to point out the inconsistency of your position.

And you keep using the phrase, "Which parts are true and which are not." The historical narratives are historically accurate. But all biblical literature is not the same. Infallable religious truth can be conveyed through literature that is not meant to be taken literally.

You clearly said that you did not believe certain OT books where it is recorded that God had people wipe out cities. So I am trying to find out on what basis you choose not to believe this. This is a strikingly unusual thing to say. </font>[/QUOTE]I did not say this and now I am beginning to wonder if you can understand what you are reading.I have said these writers were wrong in attributing to God a desire to have whole cities, including children, wiped out. Sometimes the people of ancient Isreal did not properly understand God, and their misconceptions get recorded in their history just as their proper perceptions did. MY BASIS FOR CHOOSING THIS IS THE REVELATION OF GOD IN JESUS CHRIST.There is your answer once again so reread it and try your best to understand. He and He alone is the determining factor in knowing God and His perfect will. But don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself. Matthew chapter five has Jesus repeatedly quoting the OT with a preface, "You have heard it said, but I say.." He makes these statements after claiming to be the fullfillment of the Law and the Prophets. But he does so by asserting his superiority in interpretation, or even outright replacement of some of these OT passages with his own law, the law of love. Can you not understand that my position is based strictly upon the teachings of Jesus, the literal teachings of Jesus, the Lord, the Word, God Himself in the flesh.

Again, Merry Christmas.
Dave

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
1. Is God therefore subject to a lower moral and ethical standard than that to which He would hold us?

2. And when God allegedly commands men to kill other men, are those men guilty or not of murder? Think about this one very very carefully - down that road lies the "voices in my head told me to kill them" 'defence'

3. Children????!!!

Yours in Christ

Matt

Did Jesus say or not say this:

Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me. (KJV)

 

[Matt Black]

1. That was in a parable - are you saying that we should now interpret all parables literally?

2. Let me ask you a question: is it or is it not acceptable to murder children in the name of God?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[av1611jim]

Matt;
You have already been given passages where it is recorded that it was GOD who destroyed the pre-flood world and it was GOD who destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorah.
Yet you seem like a broken record with this stuff about "murder children in the name of God".
It was GOD Himself who did the destroying in Gen. 6 and Exo. 12 and Gen 19. You can re-interpret it all you want to, claiming that Jesus would not do these things. But you have painted yourself into a corner; for it was the pre-incarnate Lord of Hosts who did these very things to which you obeject.
Yessir, it was God who did it. It was God who commanded to destroy the peoples who inhabited Canaan. They were wicked folks who sacrificed their own babies to gods of stone. You somehow approve of this practice? You somehow would tolerate it in the name of the One who said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me?"
You ask; "2. Let me ask you a question: is it or is it not acceptable to murder children in the name of God?"
Your question is disingenuous at best, because you are discounting the fact that God is not establishing a nation anymore. It is finished. That economy was put away at the Cross of Calvary. So your very misleading question is not warranted the answer you seek. Is that a dodge? Nope! It is calling you on your motives for asking such a stupid thing. Actually my friend, your question is a fairly desperate attempt on your part to justify your very inaccurate view of our Holy God and our Holy Book.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[av1611jim]

BTW Matt;
Concerning parables. They are non-literal stories to illustrate a literal Truth.
Any 1st year Bible student knows that. Yes. They should be interpreted literally, else why would Jesus waste His time in the telling of them?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Matt;
You have already been given passages where it is recorded that it was GOD who destroyed the pre-flood world and it was GOD who destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorah.
Yet you seem like a broken record with this stuff about "murder children in the name of God".
It was GOD Himself who did the destroying in Gen. 6 and Exo. 12 and Gen 19. You can re-interpret it all you want to, claiming that Jesus would not do these things. But you have painted yourself into a corner; for it was the pre-incarnate Lord of Hosts who did these very things to which you obeject.
Yessir, it was God who did it. It was God who commanded to destroy the peoples who inhabited Canaan. They were wicked folks who sacrificed their own babies to gods of stone. You somehow approve of this practice? You somehow would tolerate it in the name of the One who said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me?"
You ask; "2. Let me ask you a question: is it or is it not acceptable to murder children in the name of God?"
Your question is disingenuous at best, because you are discounting the fact that God is not establishing a nation anymore. It is finished. That economy was put away at the Cross of Calvary. So your very misleading question is not warranted the answer you seek. Is that a dodge? Nope! It is calling you on your motives for asking such a stupid thing. Actually my friend, your question is a fairly desperate attempt on your part to justify your very inaccurate view of our Holy God and our Holy Book.

In HIS service;
Jim

Instead of name-calling, I'd be grateful if you'd answer my question with the respect it deserves.

I do know that it is recorded that God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah and indeed the whole world in the Flood. I am questioning the accuracy or the genre of those passages in the light of the Incarnation. Can you not see that?

So, on the one hand, you've got 'wicked folks who sacrificed their own babies to a god of stone'. Then, on the other hand, you have a God who commands other people - the Isrealites - to do the sacrificng for them. I see no moral difference there, do you?

I have already said that I greatly struggle with this issue. Your calling my question 'stupid' and questioning my faith are really really helping and edifying my own faith

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Charles Meadows]

Matt,

I have shared your struggle with these verses. It seems quite out of sync with the character of Christ to destroy entire cities and groups of people.

I'd suggest a book by J.C.L. Gibson, I think it's called "Language and Imagery in the OT" or something - you may have already read it! I think when we read OT verses we get God's word - but we get alot of ancient near eastern PERSPECTIVE with it.

Consider God's treatment of Job. Did Job mean so little that God would destroy Job's life just to prove a point? Is God really capricious? - or is this more of a reflection of how we can feel when it seems that God doesn't value our lives?

Yes God had a purpose in what He did to/for Job - and that purpose came out in the end - but the OT sometimes SEEMS to paint God as one who has alot of anger and capriciousness, even having to be "calmed down" by Moses or Abraham from time to time! This is just part of the OT revelation - a revelation that is given much more clearly by Christ!

I agree that those who only see and WILL only see a literal Bible have misread it and misapply it. It's no coincidence that they are often much more zealous to hurl insults at the "liberals" than they are to try to manifest Christ's love to others. Go figure.