Which Old testament events are historically accurate?

[Johnv]

Again I ask- If the Bible is with error where do we go for truth?

The Bible is not in error when it comes to truth. No one here denies that. What's in dispute is whether or not the Bible is factual in every detail. It's not. Some accounts are factual, some are allegorical, some are inspirational. I contend that the Bible wasn't written to be an almanac, so whether or not it's all factual is irrelevent.

Now, some book were meant to make a historical account (the Gospels, the story of Exodus, etc). Others were to give specific instruction (most of Paul's writings). Others were written for the purpose of the author expressing his emotions (Psalms, Song of Solomon). If you try to use Song of Solomon as a historical litmus, you are misusing his writings in a manner for which the writings were not intended. We'd be walking around saying "excuse me ma'am, but I couldn't help but notice that your breasts are like pomegranites".

[ July 25, 2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

[David Cooke Jr]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
How can anyone really trust Jesus if they don't trust that He knows how to tell what happened?

Helen, I don't think that's the issue here at all. Jesus' teachings were recorded with considerable unity by His followers (although - interestingly - not by anyone else). We can get a farily clear picture of the teachings, ministry, and life of Jesus from the Scriptures without believing them to be inerrant.

Joshua</font>[/QUOTE]I agree. And the miracle stories about Jesus, while not 100% in agreement in the Gospels, nonetheless point to only one rational conclusion: he did them. Just because the eyewitnesses remembered things differently or they were recorded differently does not mean they are not true. They are not in my opinion inerrant, though.

[ July 26, 2002, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

[Robert J Hutton]

Warm Christian greetings!

When "christians" say that the Bible is not inerrant they are cutting away the ground from beneath their feet. It is hoped that those who deny God's word will repent before they meet the One whose word they have sought to undermine.

Kind regards

Robert J Hutton

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Robert,

Your rather insulting post is at the heart of the inerrancy debate. The quotation marks you used imply that those of us who don't believe in inerrancy aren't real Christians.

In effect you are saying that, even though we believe that Jesus Christ is the holy, perfect Son of God who died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day; we aren't Christians unless we also believe that the writings which attest to this truth are also perfect and divine.

This strikes me as adding additional requirements to the gospel, something baptists generally abhor.

Joshua

 

[Robert J Hutton]

Warm Christian greetings!

I stand by every word in my last post. The Gospel is an offence, I cannot apologise for that.
Or, as the apostle Paul put it "..if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ" Galatians 1 v 10.

I pray for liberal theologians, that God in His mercy would grant them repentance unto life.

Kind regards

Robert J Hutton

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Robert,

My point is that you are not being offensive for the sake of the gospel. I believe in the gospel. You are being offensive because of human-constructed doctrine that isn't satisfied with the perfection of Jesus and also needs the perfection of the biblical writings.

Joshua

 

[Robert J Hutton]

Warm Christian greetings!

Reply to Mr Villines:

How can you say the Gospel is true, if you don't believe in the book that teaches that Gospel. That seems to me rather inconsistent.

Kind regards

Robert J Hutton

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Robert,

I can say the gospel is true, and that the Bible is true, without claiming that it is a "perfect" book spit from the mouth of God.

Joshua

 

[Pastor Larry]

Joshua, the point that has been made many times before (for which you have yet to give a reasonable answer) is that you cannot know anything about the life of Jesus apart from the book whose inerrancy you deny. If you accept errors in the book, you must accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus might contain those errors. In fact, the preponderance of the evidence should probably lead one to conclude that the accounts of the life of Jesus do indeed contain error since they are the most outrageous stories in the whole book. After all, who will really believe that this guy rose from teh dead, much less healed the sick, made the blind to see, the lame to walk, fed 5000 men with five loaves and two fish, etc. These stories are most outrageous and lend themselves very easily to "recollection expansion." Why do you believe that the life of Jesus is what the book says it is? You have no rational basis for your belief if you admit errors in it.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Larry, I cannot know anything about anything historical apart from books whose inerrancy I deny. That includes the Revolutionary War, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, the Pax Romana, and Jesus.

Regarding the miracles of Jesus, the most unbelievable of these is the resurrection. We have credible evidence that those who met with the risen Christ were willing to die for their belief in Him. That lends considerable additional credibility to the gospel accounts. (It doesn't do much for the virgin birth story - but as we've discussed here before I'm open to debate on the topic of the virgin birth.)

Joshua

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
Regarding the miracles of Jesus, the most unbelievable of these is the resurrection. We have credible evidence that those who met with the risen Christ were willing to die for their belief in Him.

From the book whose inerrancy you deny. The stories of the revolution, etc do not involve the realities of eternity, God, life, and death. They are but trivial matters that can be backed up from numerous independent sources. The life of Jesus cannot. And you well know that sources are biased according to their author's commitment to a particular position. Since the NT was written by men who were willing to give their lives, in your position, that would lend even more doubt to the veracity of their stories it would seem. These men were trying to justify their radical lifestyles. Do you not think they would take the opportunity to embellish the stories? How do you know they would not apart from the inspiration and inerrancy of the written text?

As for the virgin birth, the fact that you are open to debate on that is amazing to me. I had not read you say that previously. There is no Christ without the virgin birth. That is a fundamental doctrine on which true Christianity rises or falls. If it be not true, then there is no Christianity. A religion without the virgin birth is simply a religion. It is part of the sine qua non.

However, I should not be surprised to hear you say that. I should have expected as much .

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Larry, I have a feeling that this discussion of the necessity of inerrancy is going to go around in circles. The bottom line is that I don't need the Bible to be inerrant to be convinced that Jesus is the Son of God who died for my sins and to be convinced that he was resurrected. That is the gospel.

If inerrancy is one of the steps that some peopel need to take to get to the gospel, then fine; but that does not make the two inseparable. The gospel stands on its own.

(As for how essential the virgin birth is to the gospel - I'm not aware of a single time when Paul mentions it in his understanding of the gospel or salvation. I know how important it was to Augustine, but he had issues.)

Joshua

 

[Ruht]

Joshua, perhaps you can list those portions of the Bible which you feel are inaccurate, and explain to us your position as to why you feel they are inaccurate.

I happen to believe that every verse in the Bible was inspired by God, but that some translations of the Bible may not be as good as they could be. Therefore are you claiming that there are some verses in the Bible that are not inspired by God? and if so, which ones?

I am not trying to speak for others, but what I believe to be disturbing to some Christians are those who conveniently claim that some parts of the Bible are not from God, in order for the person claiming such a thing to further an agenda not supported by those parts of the Bible. This creates the obvious contention that the person claiming such a thing has turned the Bible into his/her own arbitrary use to suit their own personal beliefs, not surrendering their own rebellions and sins unto the will of God as revealed within scripture.

If you truly feel that not everything in the Bible is from God, then why not form a council with others who feel the same way as you, to remove those parts within the Bible which those like you claim are not from God, so as not to create further contention and confusion, if you are sincere in your assertion. For to use a book as your basis for absolute truth, but to then state that not everything in the book is absolute truth, creates a sort of paradox.


God bless.

[ July 27, 2002, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Ruht ]

 

[David Cooke Jr]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

As for the virgin birth, the fact that you are open to debate on that is amazing to me. I had not read you say that previously. There is no Christ without the virgin birth. That is a fundamental doctrine on which true Christianity rises or falls. If it be not true, then there is no Christianity. A religion without the virgin birth is simply a religion. It is part of the sine qua non.

However, I should not be surprised to hear you say that. I should have expected as much .

The virgin birth is so essential to the gospel that the Gospel of Mark never mentions it (Now that I think about it, I cannot recall its mention in the Gospel of John).
It appears that some authors of scripture side with Joshua about the necessity of virgin birth to the Gospel story. By the way, before the angry rants come my way, I think Jesus was born of a virgin, but I think you folks who are giving Joshua a hard time about this have replied more with emotion than logic.

[ July 28, 2002, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

[ July 28, 2002, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

The virgin birth is a theological necessity because of the preexistence of Jesus. If there is no virgin birth, then we have either a Jesus who came into existence at conception, or a shizophrenic ... two personalities in one body. As for whether Mark or John mention it, Mark doesn't even mention the birth ... does that mean Christ wasn't born??? Of course not. John doesn't mention it either. In fact, John portrays Christ as God, eternally existent. Besides, how many times does a doctrine have to be mentioned in Scripture to be true??

Those are not the arguments of emotion in anyway. They are the arguments of Scripture.

 

[swaimj]

In response to Joshua Villenes, Pastor Larry said:

You have no rational basis for your belief if you admit errors in it.

Yes, Joshua, it seems that your faith is more in the nature of a leap of faith rather than a faith that is based upon reasonable evidence. Given your testimony, I have no reason to doubt your salvation (though some hear that you deny inerrancy and make a leap in logic to conclude that you are not saved--isn't that ironic). I do think that your position is illogical and, when your liberal theology is propogated, ultimately will lead people away from Christ rather than to him. If unbelievers examine your position closely they will realize that it is illogical and they will reject it.

 

[John3v36]

Rev. Joshua Villines said:

One does not have to consider these writings inerrant or of divine authorship (or even, technically, inspired) to learn about the human condition, God's love for us, Jesus' teachings-life-sacrifice-resurrection, and the life in the early church.
---------------------------------------

Which part of the Bible is not "inerrant or of divine authorship". How can you tell?
How would you know if "Jesus' teachings-life-sacrifice-resurrection, and the life in the early church." is "inerrant or of divine authorship"?

The Bible is like a steeple if you stand in the center of it you will be rock steady but move to one side or the other and you start to slide and it hard to recover.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Jeremiah 23:29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

[ July 29, 2002, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: John3v36 ]

 

[w_fortenberry]

Mr. Joshua Villines, you appear to be the primary proponent of the errancy of Scripture in this particular discussion. I am of the contrary opinion and thus would like to challenge you to defend your statements.

Can you, sir, present me with one passage of Scripture which you can prove is errant?

If so, please do; and we will put that Scripture to the test of Isaiah 28:9-10, setting precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little, that we may learn knowledge and be made to understand doctrine and that we may be weaned from milk and able to digest the strong meat of Hebrews 5:14.

 

[Mark-in-Tx]

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
The Bible contains exactly what God wants us to know. If not then where else can we go to find out about God? </font>[*]

I cannot agree with you more Ernie I believe you are correct and yet I don't read everything as I would a historical record. It is possible for the Bible to speak to our hearts in way besides literal history. ie. parables.

Mark In Tx