• 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!

Biblical Scripture, a Hard Look

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What you have posted looks like hermeneutics. I think that is a worthy profession.

Theology is the study of GOD.

Look and see what other things people study. We study what is beneath and around us. We study little things and dumb things. We study sick things.

To study GOD might be akin to making an image of God. A sin? I hear that to make an image of God is a sin.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
I have to leave soon so this one I can respond to.
You might understand more if you took the time to read and consider before firing off responses.

I say the study of God and you say the study of scripture. I think you should know God and scripture are not the same.
....
Theology is the study of GOD.

Look and see what other things people study. We study what is beneath and around us. We study little things and dumb things. We study sick things.

To study GOD might be akin to making an image of God. A sin? I hear that to make an image of God is a sin.

God wants people to know His name.
Jeremiah 16:21

To not know God is to be foolish:
Jeremiah 4:22

Benefits come from knowing God:
Daniel 11:32

Eternal life is knowing God:
John 17:3

God can be known:
Galatians 4:8-9

Paul prayed they would know God:
Ephesians 1:17

Paul says He hopes in knowing God.
Philippians 3:10

More
1 John 4:8
Colossians 1:10
Colossians 2:2
2 Corinthians 10:5
Romans 16:25-26
Philippians 1:9-11
John 14:21
2 Thessalonians 1:8
Romans 1:18-19

What you see reflected in the Hebrew and Greek words, is that the "name" of someone is synonymous with their character and nature, which is also linked with their actions. In other words, what God does is synonymous with who He is.
Therefore, when you read all those verses about studying and walking in God's ways, they are talking about knowing God's character and acting like Him. Which the Bible, especially the psalms, are full of. I gave you some of those verses already.


In contrast to all that Scripture which explicitly says we should aim to know God (which entails knowing His character, His ways, His thoughts/intentions, etc), what Scripture can you point to that would lead us to believe it's bad to want to know God?
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
@Rise nevermind. To know (a gift from God and free) and to study (which is theocracy) are not the same thing. So, I guess we are done here because you say I am firing off responses, but really it is you who are doing that.

Thank you for talking to me.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
You jumped on my use of the word theology, but regardless of how you want to define that word it's still irrelevant to the point you were responding to: which is that you have no evidence the verses in question were ever changed in order to fit man's idea of what God's character and nature should be like (which, since you never asked, I can point out is a common use of the word theology. To refer to one's view of God is and what He's like).

I just thought I'd also point out for you that your attacks against the idea of considering and understanding the nature/character God, as somehow inherently evil, are actually in direct opposition to what the Bible admonishes us to do. Which makes it all the more interesting why you are so against the idea.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You jumped on my use of the word theology, but regardless of how you want to define that word it's still irrelevant to the point you were responding to: which is that you have no evidence the verses in question were ever changed in order to fit man's idea of what God's character and nature should be like (which, since you never asked, I can point out is a common use of the word theology. To refer to one's view of God is and what He's like).

I just thought I'd also point out for you that your attacks against the idea of considering and understanding the nature/character God, as somehow inherently evil, are actually in direct opposition to what the Bible admonishes us to do. Which makes it all the more interesting why you are so against the idea.
Like I said, nevermind. I am not against knowing God and you would know that if you were able to pay attention. I am against studying God. If there is any studying to do it would be God studying us.
John 5:39

I understand that what other people have witnessed and wrote help a person in his or her search for God, but scripture is not for knowing God. God visiting you is for knowing God.

The writers of scripture did not have scripture for which to know God so they know God like I am telling you. Not by the study of scripture.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Is this a picture of the Bible knocking or of the person knocking?
572000.gif
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Does anyone think it is fair that to know God a person just needs to know what the Bible says about God? I am aware that before the internet and free Bible study, to know what the Bible really teaches was impossible for most people. You all have most people with no way to know God because they do not have the means, the freedom and the time to know.

My way of knowing God is for anyone.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
The Word Infallible Means Trustworthy

When referring to Scripture, the term infallible is usually used to mean reliable and trustworthy. It refers to something that is without any type of defect whatsoever. Those who trust its infallible teachings will never be lead astray.
I will respond only to this one point. But to my mind, when I look at the history of Christianity, it is a (as DJ Trump might say) "yuuuge" point.

Christianity is splintered into five main groups: the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestant. And there are subdivision in each of those major groups -- especially among the Protestants. How do you compare Quakers to Mormons, Shakers to Jesuits? I've seen estimates of up to 38,000 named denominations and sects that all call themselves, ultimately, "Christian."

And throughout the history of Christianity, wars (some decades long), local fights, minor skirmishes, national adoption of one view or another leading to painful death or excommunication of "heretics" have been the most important result of all that schismatic foofarall.

The point is, all of these 38,000 different kinds of Christians follow the same book, this same "infallible, trustworthy" book that can never, as Skwim suggests "lead them astray." If that book cannot have led them astray, why are all those millions dead, and so many fundamentally opposed Christian groupings still extant?

And the only possible answer to that last question is this: the Bible is certainly not "infallible" or "trustworthy."
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Like I said, nevermind. I am not against knowing God and you would know that if you were able to pay attention. I am against studying God. If there is any studying to do it would be God studying us.

You seem to have your own definition of study if you think it's inherently a bad thing.
Study: look at closely in order to observe or read.

That definition covers everything the Bible tells you to do concerning the things of God. Look at closely, observe, read.

I understand that what other people have witnessed and wrote help a person in his or her search for God, but scripture is not for knowing God. God visiting you is for knowing God.

The writers of scripture did not have scripture for which to know God so they know God like I am telling you. Not by the study of scripture.

That's only partially true.
The scriptures are for knowing God in the sense of knowing who He is, what His ways are, and how to have relationship with Him.
2 Timothy 3:15
Joshua 1:8
Romans 15:4
Acts of the Apostles 17:11

In the John 17:3 sense of the word know, we see that knowing God is where we find eternal life. So you can't be said to know God unless you've fulfilled the requirements for eternal life as found in the Scriptures.

To have eternal life you must love, obey, and abide in Christ, which is a fruit of those who have truly put their faith/trust in Christ and what He has provided for them. John 15.

John 5:39

If you think that means studying the Bible to know more about God is wrong, it's because you've taking it out of context.
I gave you many verses where it's a good thing to get to know more about God and his ways through the Scripture, so we already know that isn't what Jesus is saying here.

Jesus wasn't rebuking them because they studied the Scripture, or because they wanted to know more about God and His ways through the Scripture. He was rebuking them because they thought they were saved by academic knowledge alone ("you think you have eternal life in them").

Jesus also qualifies that the Scripture speaks of Him. Had they been reading the Scripture to know God more, they would have recognized Him, and they would not have needed to be rebuked - because the whole point of them is to know God more. The problem was they didn't know God, which as John 17:3 shows us, is the only way to have eternal life. Knowing about God isn't eternal life, but knowing God is.

It's important not to take that and believe that your personal experiences alone count for knowing God; because the scriptures outline for us the circumstances under which we truly know God.
You don't want to end up like those in Matthew 7:21-23, who thought they knew God but they proved they never actually did because they never obeyed Christ (ie. calling them workers of iniquity).
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
A lot of different claims are made about Biblical scripture: It's the word of god, it's infallible, it's inerrant, its words are the exact words of god, its words are those of its writers.

In light of the fact that the Bible does have errors in it (Ezra 2:15 The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four. Vs. Nehemiah 7:20 The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five.) I took a look into the nature of the claims made for it:
(All emphases mine)

I've presented the following claims to show that they are, in fact, current beliefs. I don't expect all Christians to agree with all of them.

CLAIMS THAT THE BIBLE IS THE "WORD OF GOD"


All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

There are also external evidences that indicate the Bible is truly the Word of God. One is the historicity of the Bible.

Another external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the integrity of its human authors.

A final external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible.
source
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to give you five reasons to affirm the Bible is the Word of God.

First Peter 1:25 says: “But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”
source
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, God has spoken, and He has not stuttered. The God of truth has given us the Word of Truth, and it does not contain any untruth in it. The Bible is the unerring Word of God.
source
______________________________________________


CLAIMS THAT EVERY WORD IN THE BIBLE CAME FROM GOD


When people speak of the Bible as inspired, they are referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

While there are different views as to the extent to which the Bible is inspired, there can be no doubt that the Bible itself claims that every word in every part of the Bible comes from God
source
______________________Vs_____________________


CLAIMS THAT EVERY WORD IN THE BIBLE DID NOT COME FROM GOD


. . .most Christians conclude that God provided the precise thought to the human author, and he then wrote it down in terms of his own vocabulary, culture, education, and writing style. So we have here no wooden, single-colored document, but a many-faceted and dynamic book.

. . .many Christians believe that inspiration should be described as thought-for-thought rather than word-for-word. The human writers provide God’s message in terms of their own personalities and historical circumstances, and yet they transmit the message fully and exactly as God desired.
source
_____________________________________________

INFALLIBLE Vs INERRANT, an explanation

There are two theological terms that are often used to explain the nature of the Bible - inerrancy and infallibility. They are used to point out how the Bible is different from all other books that have ever been written.

The Word Infallible Means Trustworthy

When referring to Scripture, the term infallible is usually used to mean reliable and trustworthy. It refers to something that is without any type of defect whatsoever. Those who trust its infallible teachings will never be lead astray.

Inerrancy Means There Are No Errors Whatsoever

Inerrancy contends that the Bible does not have any errors of fact or any statements that contradict.
source

_____________________________________________

CLAIMS THAT THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE

A second important characteristic of Scripture is its infallibility.
source

---------------------------------------

We also believe that there is sufficient evidence that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. The Scriptures themselves testify, “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16). If they contain error, then one must call it God-inspired error.
source

-------------------------------------------

May all who read this adopt Jesus” attitude and become subject both to Him as Living Word (living Torah) and to the Bible as the infallible, written Word of God.
source
______________________________________________


CLAIMS THAT THE BIBLE IS INERRANT

A Definition of Inerrancy
The word inerrancy means “freedom from error or untruths.” Synonyms inlcude “certainty, assuredness, objective certainty, infallibility.”​
It is important to bear in mind that belief in inerrancy is in keeping with the character of God. If God is true and He is (Rom. 3:4), and if God breathed out the Scripture, then the Scripture, being the product of God, must also be true. This is why the Psalmist affirms, “All your words are true” (Ps. 119:160a).

Inerrancy demands the account does not teach error or contradiction. In the statements of Scripture, whatever is written is in accord with things as they are.
source

------------------------------------------

And just as Jesus was human but did not sin, even so the Bible is a human book but does not err.
source

------------------------------------------

Finally, there is the inerrancy of Scripture. Inerrancy is a natural outflow of infallibility in the traditional, orthodox sense. Since the authors could not err when writing Scripture, the bible contains no affirmations of anything that is contrary to fact.
source
So, from this we could conclude that the Bible is the word of god, all of which came directly from god or was at least inspired by him, and that these words are infallible if not inerrant.

But what does one do with the errors in the Bible's as pointed out above? Adin certainly couldn't have four hundred fifty and four children and also have six hundred fifty and five. One of the statements has to be false! Of course one could claim that through the years translators screwed up and misinterpreted one of the two figures, or perhaps even both. But what does this do to the claim of the Bible's infallibility and inerrancy? It pretty much does away with it. Considering the Bible is capable of passing along bogus information it's certainly a less than trustworthy book, which prompts one has to ask what other statements might be false; perhaps very crucial statements at that. Moreover, it's quite obvious the Bible isn't inerrant. The contradiction regarding the number of Adin's children being a blatant example.

And this takes us to the claim that the Bible is "the word of god"---typically taken as "His word" to be followed for generations to come. Granting that way back when, when god dictated each word or inspired them, the Bible was truly infallible and inerrant, and could legitimately said to be "His Word." But what can be said of it now? Errors have crept into his word that not only sow doubt as to the veracity of what is said, but have divided Christianity into thousands of individual denominations and sects. And all without a peep of correction from god himself. It's as if he really doesn't care. "Do with My Word what you will, and believe what you want. It isn't important." So, what's to be done with this exposé?

I didn't create this post to denigrate Christian belief, but to put some of it into perspective. I posted the terms above with their explanations to show just how badly Christians seem to be fooling themselves by accepting them without question. Now, if any Christian is comfortable with this, then fine. Go right ahead, but I believe a lot of Christians prefer their religious beliefs to be coherent and rational. If you truly want to spread Christianity then do it with an honest and clean presentation. Not one encumbered with embarrassing contradictions and complications. As I've tried to show, the Bible does have contradictions, which means it isn't infallible and inerrant, and that it may no no longer be the true Word of God, so don't try to sell it as if it is. Be honest with yourself and others. Take the good stuff and leave the rest behind.




.

Even if you are given an exlpanation, you would not believe it, so what's the point?
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Geez, that the Bible merely contains a self-consistent “message” isn't at all my impression of what people mean when they claim that the Bible is literally inerrant. But if that were what people mean by the claim of the literal inerrancy of the Bible, then how do they explain all of these passages that literally contradict each other?

Take number 92, for example:

92. Does God change his mind?

Yes. The word of the Lord came to Samuel: I repent that I have made Saul King... (I Samuel 15:10 to 11)

No. God will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent (I Samuel 15:29)

Yes. And the Lord repented that he had made Saul King over Israel (I Samuel 15:35). Notice that the above three quotes are all from the same chapter of the same book! In addition, the Bible shows that God repented on several other occasions:

i. The Lord was sorry that he made man (Genesis 6:6)

I am sorry that I have made them (Genesis 6:7)

ii. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people (Exodus 32:14).

iii. (Lots of other such references).​


What exactly is the “message” of I Samuel 15:29 that isn't contradicted by I Samuel 15:10-11? And by Genesis 6:6-7?

What is it about being sorry and not changing the mind being different that you don't understand?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What is it about being sorry and not changing the mind being different that you don't understand?
Nothing. I also understand perfectly well that the two quoted passages in Samuel contradict each other in the most literal way.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If you understood perfectly will, you would not have made such a statement.
If there is any rational reason by which to conclude that the following two sentences do not contradict each other, then give it:

"The word of the Lord came to Samuel: I repent that I have made Saul King... " (I Samuel 15:10 to 11)

"God will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent" (I Samuel 15:29)
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
If there is any rational reason by which to conclude that the following two sentences do not contradict each other, then give it:

"The word of the Lord came to Samuel: I repent that I have made Saul King... " (I Samuel 15:10 to 11)

"God will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent" (I Samuel 15:29)

You need a better translation.

I Sam 15:10-11 - then the word of the Lord came to Samuel saying, "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands...

I Sam 15:29 - Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.

New American Standard Bible.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You need a better translation.

I Sam 15:10-11 - then the word of the Lord came to Samuel saying, "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands...

I Sam 15:29 - Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.

New American Standard Bible.
Those sentences are still directly contradictory. To do something that that one considers a good and worthy act, then subsequently regret it indicates a change of mind.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Those sentences are still directly contradictory. To do something that that one considers a good and worthy act, then subsequently regret it indicates a change of mind.

You can regret something and not change you mind.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You can regret something and not change you mind.
One cannot regret having done something that one considered to be a good and worthy act except by changing one's mind about it being a good and worthy act.
 
Top