Why is the Bible true?

How to know:

The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit.

All of 1 Corinthians 2.

The absolute literal fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy about the earthly events of Jesus, and the absolute fulfillment of the prophecies in our lifetimes, especially since 1948.

God Bless!

Alliswell

[ January 12, 2003, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Alliswell ]

 

I didn't respond at first b/c I knew what can of worms I was opening. God is infallible. The Bible is our best guidebook (other than Jesus) as to who God is and what God does. But as the product of a number of human hands, it is not infallible.

 

I don't see how this is so Jason. If the Bible is true it should be verifiable in areas of applied science, logic etc. Other books of antiquity, such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Hindu Vedas etc., fail on this count. The fact that the Bible was accurate in its detail at a time when men had no access to the knowledge revealed, confirms the veracity of Scripture. It places Scripture above science, since the Bible records the facts ever before man can confirm them.

 

Historically, relying on the inerrancy of the Bible led people to oppose advances in science. We all know of the trial of Gallileo who was forced to recant his view that the earth moves. We all know the mistake made by Martin Luthor, when he depended on the inerrancy of scripture to declare that Copernicus was wrong.

When a preacher in the pulpit declares the word of God, we know what he says is usually good stuff but none of us assume he speaks inerrantly, even when we assume he has a God given message.

When a translator does his best to render God's word into english, we know their work has been used of God, and we know God was behind men like Tyndale and Coverdale and Wycliffe and their literary descendants in translating scriptures. But we do not feel their work was inerrant.

When the faithful copiests did their best to preserve God's word by transcribing and copying the texts they inherited from their predecessors, they were doing the task of God, and they did it well, but the variations we percieve between the manuscripts indicate they were not granted inerrancy as they did this task.

Why is it so inconceivable that the originals might have also been blessed, inspired, used of God, and also not inerrant? For in fact, no original survives, anyway!

 

Don't confuse the interpretation of people with the accuracy of God.

 

I've been mulling your answer over in my mind for the last several days. This is a great response.

Thanks,

Jason

 

I was going to make the point that science being used to verify Biblical evidence does not cheapen the principle in the least. It just shows that God knew that some would need empirical evidence before they would be able to put their entire faith into the Bible. In working with youth, I have seen that if I could provide scientific evidence that a small detail was true, then logic would bear that the rest is true also. It was enough to kindle faith in a generation that has been taught to question everything.

 

Well, that easier said than done!

Consideration of the actual evidence would have done Luthor a great deal of good in that line, wouldn't it? But he clung to his opinion, because he THOUGHT he really was depending on the Word of God and that would infallibly lead him correctly. And it didn't, because he misinterpreted somehow.

Today, we can avoid wrong interpretations by taking the step he failed at - check the evidence where we can! Sometimes there is evidence and sometimes there is not.

 

Don't confuse the interpretation of people with the accuracy of God.

I agree wholeheartedly. We still face that same problem today. Arminiism vs Calvinism, literal vs allegorical creation, abortion, death penalty, cloning, keeping the sabbath, these are all issues which we has hotly debating due to interpretation. In the past, it's been flat earth vs round earth, the allowance or forbiding of slavery, the rights of women, etc etc etc. In the future, it will some other issues.