Is the bible word perfect? (infaliable? is that the right word?) (gospel, incarnation)

[kmkemp]

The apparent contradiction can be explained thus:

The noun of 2 Samuel 24:1 is the "anger of the Lord", not the "Lord". If we can agree that Satan can do nothing apart from the will of God, then the third explanation is that God used (or allowed) Satan to incite David.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

The best answer I know of to the supposed infallability of the Bible is to point out the inconsistantcies and contradictions.

The best example I can think of concerns an event during the reign of King David which is documented twice in the Bible, first in Samuel and later in Chronicles, in which David brought a curse upon Israel by taking a census;

In 2 Samuel 24:1 it says "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Isreal, and incited David against them and said to him, 'Go, number Isreal and Judah'".

But in 1 Chronicles 21:1, a later retelling of the same incident we read, "And then Satan stood up against Isreal and provoked David to number Isreal"

So in other words, according to this, either the Bible is fallable, or God and Satan are the same person.

Unless someone has a viable third explanation...

Yes, this is an excellent example. The only reason why we would try to reconcile the two is if we already assumed that Scripture could not contradict itself.

[kmkemp]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Which translation is infallible then? And is your Bible complete? What about the Apocrapha?

A translation is a translation. No one claims perfect translations. The books that were left out were left out because they were contradictory and thus, not God-breathed. They were not of apostolic origin. I am aware that everyone here probably knows the criteria that the Council used, so please clarify what you are talking about.

[FatMan]

Originally Posted by kmkemp

The apparent contradiction can be explained thus:

The noun of 2 Samuel 24:1 is the "anger of the Lord", not the "Lord". If we can agree that Satan can do nothing apart from the will of God, then the third explanation is that God used (or allowed) Satan to incite David.

Huh?

The fact that even referenced above, some translations aren't even universally agreed upon should automatically prevent the Bible from being "word perfect".

Does this really need debate?

[kmkemp]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Yes, this is an excellent example. The only reason why we would try to reconcile the two is if we already assumed that Scripture could not contradict itself.

If they contradict themselves, how do you know that the whole Bible wasn't written as a hoax? Even if only part of it was inserted by man (apart from God's will), how do you know that the important pieces like your salvation were not those very pieces? It seems counterproductive to believe one part and not others. What criteria are you using to decide which pieces to trust?

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by kmkemp

The apparent contradiction can be explained thus:

The noun of 2 Samuel 24:1 is the "anger of the Lord", not the "Lord". If we can agree that Satan can do nothing apart from the will of God, then the third explanation is that God used (or allowed) Satan to incite David.

That doesn't quite work. It doesn't say "the anger of the Lord" incited David, it says He (the Lord) actually did;

Samuel 24:1 ...the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them..."

Chronicles 21:1 "Then Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David..."

It's not identifying Satan with "the anger of the Lord", it's identifying Satan with the Lord Himself.

[Special Revelation]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Yes, this is an excellent example. The only reason why we would try to reconcile the two is if we already assumed that Scripture could not contradict itself.

To say that God contradicts Himself in the Bible is to imply God is evil. God is the only perfect being, who has no darkness at all. He cannot be tempted by evil, nor is He capable to do evil. It is impossible for God to lie. The author of the Bible (God) is infinite with wisdom that no human being can completely understand. Therefore, the Bible is infinite too. Since we are finite fallen human beings, we are not capable to understand all of the Bible. The Apostle Paul states that he knows in part. If someone believes the Bible to be Holy... we should always approach it with humility and state things to be apparent contradictions. A high view of Scripture is a mark of a converted Christian. A low view of Scripture is not a good thing; it may even be evidences that somone is not truly in the faith. God the Holy Spirit illuminates the essential truth to His elect that the Bible is the Word of God. The carnal man will always undermine and attack the sufficiency of Scripture, because it is in His nature to rebel against God and His ways.

[Dream Angel]

Originally Posted by kmkemp

A translation is a translation. No one claims perfect translations. The books that were left out were left out because they were contradictory and thus, not God-breathed. They were not of apostolic origin. I am aware that everyone here probably knows the criteria that the Council used, so please clarify what you are talking about.

I dont know the criteria! I just know that gospels that were written were left out! So you agree that the bible was put together by man then - which would contradict your belief that it was written by Go as you stated before and therefore cannot be infaliable.

You seem to rely 100% on the bible. As you said earlier if the bible is fiction, then there is no basis for christiantiy - what would you have done in the years with Jesus or after Jesus? when the bible didnt exist. It was written a couple of hundred years AFTER Jesus Christ.