• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Is the Bible inerrantly true?

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
***ADVISORY POST***

Please be reminded that this is a Same Faith forum and only reserved for those who are spelled out in the thread title. In this case, only Christians are allowed to debate here.

Thank you.
 
Like I said.... begin with evolution. Tell me how the creation story is right, and evolution is wrong. I would have utmost respect for you if you could.


The Anthropic Principle, again supported by 10,000 Ph.D.s explains that evolution is basically little more than the blatant and obvious HAND OF GOD at work. Nothing, certainly not random mutation and CERTAINLY NOT Natural Selection, can explain how evolution actually achieves the highly improbable.

That being said:

The Bible IS inerrantly true.

Its prophecies come true, it makes sense, it doesn't contradict itself...so where is it NOT true?

And the argument of this thread is do we need sacred traditions? Like those of the Orthodox Church or the Holy Catholic Church? No...not really.

While every Protestant yearns to return to the "Holy Catholic Church" in one body instead of many bodies of Christ; it cannot be done until the Holy Catholic Church recognizes that it has NO AUTHORITY beyond what the Bible gives. PERIOD. "Sacred Traditions" is another word for "tyranny".
 
It seems the thread has maintained rather consistency during the play of it - sticking to the argument of Sola Scriptura.

So here's the gist of it.

Nothing in the Bible says we have to rely upon sacred traditions for understanding the Bible, in fact, the Apostolic church before the rise of the Roman Catholic Church looked most like Protestant Churches do today.

They were organized more like a Lutheran Church, or Presbyterian church actually.

The sacred traditions are easily classifiable as "new Gospels" - or additions to the Bible, unless you of course admit that they are not equal to the Bible, which you don't, because if they are not equal to the Bible then why should we care about the poppycock someone says unless it makes sense in regards to the Bible?

The Bible is easy to read, straight-forward.

It's only by elitism that someone can argue you need a Saint, or a Priest to interpret the Bible for you.

Faith in God, the holy spirit and our salvation through Christ does not require a priest or 2,000 years of sacred traditions to explain.

And sorry, but you are saved through faith alone, the Bible says it...

All your good works are a blessed thing, but through faith alone you are saved. And I don't need a Pope to save me...just Christ.
 

roli

Born Again,Spirit Filled
If it's inerrantly true, there are a lot of things that need some sort of explaning. First off I'd like somebody to adequately debate evolution. I don't particularly like to agree with evolution, and I was raised not too, but 10,000 PhD's make a rather strong case for it.
3 tings I suggest:
1) read more of the word, over these types of articles.
2)start reading articles from christian theologians who debunk evolution through the word and spirit of God.
3)Look into some of these professionals who question the evolutionary theory from what they have been experiencing in their research and also PhD's who are creationists.
 
The absense of proof does not mean there is proof of absense. Just because you don't want to see something does not mean it is not there . These are very simple truths, and obvious ones.
 

zenzero

Its only a Label
Friend ThuggishSplicer,
Welcome to RF!
Yes, Truth was there even before anyone came.
If someone cannot see, does not mean it [truth] is not there.
Love & rgds
 
The fact of the matter is that there ar so many inconsistencies and contradictions with the bible that I only have a select fiew for a special list used in debates. I will not give any in this post but I am shure to later.
Mister Emu: The absence of proof does not always mean there is proof of absense.
I am not going to be harsh but , I have been an evangelical for almost my entire life (until now).
What I have seen in everyone that believes that the bible is inerrant does not want there to be contradictions in their book. It is a sphychological barrier that filters any logic in the discussion of the bible. I had it so I would know. I don't want to try to change any person's views.
Let's just show a little logic.
If any man shall want to debate me, than i am ready.
 
Now, I have studied the ancient Greek, latin and Coptic manuscripts that the bible books and letters were written in(though Jesus and his disciples would have spoken Aramaic and the disciples would have written in Aramaic)I have studied much of the theological and historical backgroung for the bible, and the people that wrote the books, letters, and gospels.
I am so tired of people saying that God is powerful enough to keep the scripture inerrant.
First , there is the mistake that "scripture claims that the book you have is all infallible because I choose to distort wordings to fit my belief", and you assume that there is a verse in the Old or New Testement that states clearly that your bible is the INFALLIBLE(never seen in the bible) inerrant word of God. The funny thing is is that I don't need to use inconsistencies to disprove that is the"word of God".
There are a myriad of instences in the bible were it uses the term "word of God", especially in the Acts. For instance, in chapter 14 verses: 5, 7, 44, 46, and 49. But there is a problem for many of you that wish to look these up. The translational issues(I can discuss later) in which the original text(this phrase is a misnomer. we have no original text for any) clearly states "the word of God", but due to other translations, many people's bibles have changed this to "the good news", or "the gospel". Anyways, in these select few verses, it states "the word of God" but (if you read it) is obviously not speaking about the bible. It is speaking about the fact that Jesus died on the cross for your sins to save us from what we all deserved. It is talking about ,... THE GOOD NEWS! There must be two word's of God then. No! People have assumed for too long that the bible must be the word of God and it is the only thing they can recall to say that is God's word. It is very simple, the bible is helpful somewhat for theological purposes, but is not Inerrant or infallible. Once you cross the border of unlearning what you learned about the bible, and starting anew, understanding things of this subject become easier.

I am a Christian(Catholic)
 

Jordan St. Francis

Well-Known Member
I think it is important to remember that the Bible is God's Word in human words. That is to say it is a significant gift of his self-communication to us, appealing to us in that distinctive human feature of language, reaching us through the intelligible word.

It is not, however, a straightforward procession from his "mouth" as it were, and this is in significant contrast to how Islam understands revelation and its holy scripture the Qu'ran (and a core reason for the subliminal superiority of the Christian faith, IMO). The great prayer of the Church, the Psalms, are revered as Scripture, but they are hymns to God, songs of praise, longing, despair, hope and repentance all coming from the mouths of men. What does it mean to say then that the Psalms are Scripture? It is to say that the Bible represents the rising up of man to God after he has been first lifted up by his Spirit (so there is a dynamic of descending and ascending) - that it is, importantly, a dialogue of man with his Creator. The Word of God in Scripture is not the text itself but rather the very thing that the text records. It is, as it were, the elongated version of Abraham's debate with God over Sodom, of Jacob's wrestle with the angel, of Job's agony, of Israel's pleading with Moses to return to Egypt- conversely, all the promises and great victories that are wtinessed to. It is a conversation rather than a strict dictation, it is the story of Israel that is, at the same time, the story of the whole world. All narratives throughout all the different cultures and religions find their perfection, fulfillment and purification in this story of the one nation that was elected to stand before God, represent humankind to him and, conversely, represent in himself [Israel], in his obedience and trials, God to the world. This vocation reaches its climax when the One emerges who really represents in himself all of humankind to the Father and at the same time reveals to that same humankind the Father himself.

I suppose what I am saying is that Israel is a type of Christ, that it and the bible from it, pre-figure the hypostatic union and that many of the major biblical figures function in that same way.

The Bible, we must affirm, is not that Word itself which mingles among man and God and, in fact, is the in-person dialogue of the human and divine life. Rather the Bible bears witness to the unfolding of that Word in history. But, and for that reason, it can not err on those matters pertinent to its only objective; the salvation of souls, the drawing in of people to God. But we need to rid ourselves of the illussion that this text stands alone, and rather allow it to do its work- to let its words lead us and open us up to the Word Himself.
 
Last edited:

danny vee

Member
The Bible is written by humans, with human minds. God is not human. We are His creation whom He gladly watches grow and learn. So humans have written the Bible. Meaning that the Bible is subject to human error in some places, and is thus not completely and unerringly correct. However, the most important thing is to gather the main message that is throughout the Bible, and is love. God's great gift. The Bible is just another way of God, reminding us of His love. Writers who have personally felt this love of God, write to tell others of its greatness.
 
The Bible is written by humans, with human minds. God is not human. We are His creation whom He gladly watches grow and learn. So humans have written the Bible. Meaning that the Bible is subject to human error in some places, and is thus not completely and unerringly correct. However, the most important thing is to gather the main message that is throughout the Bible, and is love. God's great gift. The Bible is just another way of God, reminding us of His love. Writers who have personally felt this love of God, write to tell others of its greatness.
There is no proof(histoically) for this. How can people say God meant the bible ... anything!
 

danny vee

Member
There is no proof(histoically) for this. How can people say God meant the bible ... anything!

It's just an opinion. I believe in God, thus I believe that He would want us to know of the single most important thing which is love. And even to someone who doesn't believe in God, don't you think that love is the most important thing? So does it matter where you find true love from, as long as you find it?
 
It's just an opinion. I believe in God, thus I believe that He would want us to know of the single most important thing which is love. And even to someone who doesn't believe in God, don't you think that love is the most important thing? So does it matter where you find true love from, as long as you find it?
We don't need the bible to see God's love!!!!
Too many assumptions lead to a worse understanding of things.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Th When you divorce the Holy Tradition of the Church from the Scripture you by default have to come to the logical end of either throwing the Scripture aside (because it isn't without error) or blindly believing that you have to overlook what errors with the rational that it isn't error I am looking at, it is a problem in my understanding.
I reject this premise. There is no need for "perfect" scriptures, if we can accept that God has always worked through the imperfect to do his will. Why? So that he alone gets the glory.

The problem with "Holy Traditions", is that we end up with the very same legalism that Jesus came to destroy. You end up with a few in power telling the rest of us HOW we should worship God, and what is true and what is false. Forget that.

Christianity is a REVEALED faith. Only God can guide you into the truth. You can't rely on anything else but your relationship to God.
 
I reject this premise. There is no need for "perfect" scriptures, if we can accept that God has always worked through the imperfect to do his will. Why? So that he alone gets the glory.

The problem with "Holy Traditions", is that we end up with the very same legalism that Jesus came to destroy. You end up with a few in power telling the rest of us HOW we should worship God, and what is true and what is false. Forget that.

Christianity is a REVEALED faith. Only God can guide you into the truth. You can't rely on anything else but your relationship to God.
HA!!!!!
Your logic fails due to the fact that you assume that God wants to use the scripture.
And, that he ordainded it at all!!!!!!!
Historians can't use information that is inconsistent with itself, thus the bible is not the greatest source of historical information(I would know,I'm a historian).
In fact, with all of the inconsitencies and contradictions, historians would be baffled that someone would use it for a source of good information!(Which we are).
Not only is it inconsistent historically, It is even inconsitent theologically!!
 
Last edited:

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
HA!!!!!
Your logic fails due to the fact that you assume that God wants to use the scripture.
God uses EVERYTHING to bring people to loving others. Why would he exempt scripture from this?
And, that he ordainded it at all!!!!!!!
I said this where?
Historians can't use information that is inconsistent with itself, thus the bible is not the greatest source of historical information(I would know,I'm a historian).
The Bible never claims to be a history book, or a science text for that matter. You miss the point of scriptures by assuming so much.
In fact, with all of the inconsitencies and contradictions, historians would be baffled that someone would use it for a source of good information!(Which we are).
The Bible is a blog of man's search for God. It is incredibly invaluable as a tool to peek into the psyche of ancient philosophy and religion.
Not only is it inconsistent historically, It is even inconsitent theologically!!
Which is consistent with it being a blog.

You have based your apparent animosity towards the scriptures on a host of assumptions that the scriptures never support. Rather than participate in a sophomoric game of "Aha! I got you here...", try and discern what I am actually telling you.
 

Delamere

Member
I can believe the Bible to the inspired Word of God without having to accept that all interpretations of the Bible are equally inspired. Some such interpretations are just plain silly. I do not believe the 40 plus authors of the Bible were treated as if they were typewriters by an authoritarian God. God inspired the men (and women?) who wrote the Bible and their personal characteristics, perspectives and limitations can often be found in the text. Nevertheless, the Spirit of God draws us to truth about divine reality as with no other writings - if we are willing.
 
God uses EVERYTHING to bring people to loving others. Why would he exempt scripture from this? I said this where? The Bible never claims to be a history book, or a science text for that matter. You miss the point of scriptures by assuming so much. The Bible is a blog of man's search for God. It is incredibly invaluable as a tool to peek into the psyche of ancient philosophy and religion. Which is consistent with it being a blog.

You have based your apparent animosity towards the scriptures on a host of assumptions that the scriptures never support. Rather than participate in a sophomoric game of "Aha! I got you here...", try and discern what I am actually telling you.
People tell me after I disprove the bible's infallibility to them, "Can't you still use the bible if it has flaws? Don't you use a book that isn't infallible?"
Yes, and yes, BUT it just means that you don't have to now.
You see, God can use the bible, but, I will not stand for someone stating that it is a,
"Blog of man searching for God", and that God uses everything to bring people to love eachother!
Why treat the bible differently from any other holy books???!!!
 
I can believe the Bible to the inspired Word of God without having to accept that all interpretations of the Bible are equally inspired. Some such interpretations are just plain silly. I do not believe the 40 plus authors of the Bible were treated as if they were typewriters by an authoritarian God. God inspired the men (and women?) who wrote the Bible and their personal characteristics, perspectives and limitations can often be found in the text. Nevertheless, the Spirit of God draws us to truth about divine reality as with no other writings - if we are willing.
1. No women wrote the bible , only men. Women were a minority back then and put to shame.

"1 Timothy 2:12- But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man , but to be in silence."

2. God doesn't contradict himself...:shrug:
 
Top