If A Holy Scripture Is Wrong About One Thing, Is It Wrong About Everything? (Jesus, rejecting)

[Sunstone]

I often hear people say that if one part of the Bible (or one part of some other holy scripture) is wrong, then all of the Bible (or some other holy scripture) must be wrong too.

But is that true?

If some part of the Bible (or any other holy scripture) is wrong, does that mean tht all of the Bible (or any other holy scripture) is wrong?

If Jones is wrong about one thing, does that mean Jones is wrong about everything?

Is there some special rule or reason that makes it true to say that if one part of a holy scripture is wrong, all of the holy scripture must be wrong too?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I often hear people say that if one part of the Bible (or one part of some other holy scripture) is wrong, then all of the Bible (or some other holy scripture) must be wrong too.

But is that true?

From certain perspectives it is true. If one's faith is constructed around an appeal to authority then questioning the authority in any regard throws doubt on the reasonableness of relying on that authority solely on the basis of its authority.

Challenging anything in orthodox authority is a very, very serious matter to those whose certainty in their faith is grounded on unquestioning trust in that authority.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

From certain perspectives it is true. If one's faith is constructed around an appeal to authority then questioning the authority in any regard throws doubt on the reasonableness of relying on that authority solely on the basis of its authority.

Challenging anything in orthodox authority is a very, very serious matter to those whose certainty in their faith is grounded on unquestioning trust in that authority.

I could not believe any religion that could not keep an open mind, and an avenue open for accepting further revelation.

God is not Dead he is a living God.

what he chose to reveal yesterday, which now seems incomplete because of our lack of understanding at the time, he can Add to or change tomorrow, as our knowledge and understanding grows.

This does not make God or a Church any the less; on the contrary it recognises our capacity to grow, and shows the means by which God continues to teach and lead us.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I often hear people say that if one part of the Bible (or one part of some other holy scripture) is wrong, then all of the Bible (or some other holy scripture) must be wrong too.

But is that true?

If some part of the Bible (or any other holy scripture) is wrong, does that mean tht all of the Bible (or any other holy scripture) is wrong?

If Jones is wrong about one thing, does that mean Jones is wrong about everything?

Is there some special rule or reason that makes it true to say that if one part of a holy scripture is wrong, all of the holy scripture must be wrong too?

If you practically deify Scripture (as some are want to do), then yes. If Scripture is the infallible Word of God then it should be free of error. If, on the other hand, your view is that Scripture is the work of men inspired by God and you accept that no man is perfect, then there is no reason why one error in Scripture ought to throw anything else into doubt.

James

[MaddLlama]

Only if you believe that every word in the Bible must read literally. Which is precisely why such a view absolutely falls apart when scrutinized.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

From certain perspectives it is true. If one's faith is constructed around an appeal to authority then questioning the authority in any regard throws doubt on the reasonableness of relying on that authority solely on the basis of its authority.

Challenging anything in orthodox authority is a very, very serious matter to those whose certainty in their faith is grounded on unquestioning trust in that authority.

I agree, but not every word of Scripture is essential to orthodoxy or incorporated into orthodox traditions. Only some highly radicalized Protestant fundamentalists insist that every word of the Bible must be true in order for all of it to be true. Every other strain of Christianity has Holy Tradition alongside Scripture, and Tradition constantly revises Scripture where it is ineffective.

So rejecting some words/concepts in Scripture would not amount to a challenge of orthodoxy in many Christian contexts.

[lillitruthseeker]

there wouldnt be different "versions" if the real true original bible existed

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

So rejecting some words/concepts in Scripture would not amount to a challenge of orthodoxy in many Christian contexts.

Agreed. I limited my observation to only certain ways of approaching the Bible. If all one has is the appeal to the inerrant literal authority of a text, then questioning the authority is a real problem, even if it pertains to a relatively insignificant matter. Fortunately, many Christians don't take that approach. Though certainly some appear to. Not surprisingly, those who depend on the inerrant authority for their faith get very defensive and construct elaborate and frequently illogical scenarios to explain away apparent contradictions and inconsistencies.

[ChristineES]

For one thing, the bible has 66 books, think of it as a volume and not just one book.
2. I also believe that some of the stories in the OT are parables, such as Adam and Eve in Genesis, Job, and so forth. Jesus spoke in parables to His disiples so I think God used parables earlier too.

[Darkness]

I respect Christians who don't believe the Bible is inerrant, and merely believe it to be very wise.