Is the Bible the inerrent word of God?

[Czernobog]

And love? Put the scientific method to literature, declare there is none, or....admit error.

The problem with your argument is that you put the question of God squarely in the same arena as music, literature, or art appreciation - in other words, a matter of choice, personal opinion, and subjectivity. That means that God is subjectively "real" to you. But, your personal observations have no actual relativity to anyone else. Unfortunately, very few Theists, and no Christians, in my experience, describe God in this way. In fact, they describe God, Jesus, heaven, and Hell as all objective realities, and insist that Christianity is the only way to avoid the latter.

You can't argue against objective criticism of theology with subjective concepts, and then expect to be able to present that theology as an objective reality. Logic just doesn't work that way.

 

[RodISHI]

Interestingly, God also gives that Holy Spirit inconsistently. After all, when one gets away from accepting the Bible literally, one is left with an interpretive understanding of the Bible.There are currently about 33,000 different denominations in the world - this does not include the cults, and minor sects. And every one of them has a different "interpretation" of the text. Now, it is easy to gloss over this with, "But, they all believe that Jesus is Lord, so that is all that matters,"

Except that it isn't. There can only be one "true" interpretation. After all there is only one God. Thus the question remains who is the arbiter of which interpretation is the "correct" one. "To to understand the Bible, you need the Holy Spirit," is an insufficient answer. Because every one of those denominational adherents would insist that they arrived at their interpretation by "the Holy Spirit". This is why interpretation is an insufficient response to the question of reconciling the uncomfortable parts of the Bible. Either The Bible is what it is - an accurate, perfect record of God through ancient times - or it isn't. There is no room for any interpretive middle ground.

Now that statement brings up some points that have been and shall remain a mystery to many. Why do you think that is? (even take a wild guess as you do seem to try to think things through

The only rational explanation is that the Bible is nothing more than a very human attempt to create an ethical code, wrapped in superstition, and religious trappings to make it seem more valid. By abandoning the literal approach to the bible, this allows anyone with an agenda, or an axe to grind to claim divine counselling, and interpret Bible in whatever way fits their agenda, or goal.

On an interesting side note about the Hebrew language from my experience of searching trying to understand the meanings to all the names and such. I found ancient Hebrew is written with words inside of words. One could spend a lifetime even if taught the Hebrew language as a child learning even a small portion of all of that and many through the centuries have and still there is so much more to be discovered in the ancient things.

Not entirely accurate. More accurately, ancient Hebrew built on itself. primitive root words were used as templates in creating the more complex language, and a great deal of the language was contextual, with very similar words having very different meanings, depending on just how the word fit into the sentence structure.

It is a rather complicated, and complex language. I much prefer translating the new Testament. While a bit complex, Greek is a thousand times easier to deal with than Hebrew.

Do children and adults all have the same levels of maturity in this world?

 

[Lysistrata]

Is the bible the inerrant word of the Supreme Being? Not likely by a long shot. This is a claim, not a conclusion. Its twin, infallibility, is equally stupid. What Constantine's committee men did has no meaning, and they elevated Saul/Paul to be the spokesman for a man he never met. These claims are nothing more than the garbage coming forth after the protestant reformation. I'm no fan of the Roman Catholic Church, by the way. But the protestants who embrace these idiotic concepts just showed that, post-reformation, they did no better.

 

[jillian]

I have noticed that in several discussions I have with Christians, the point of contention seems to be in attempting to separate the Bible into two parts - the part that must be accepted as accurate (The New Testament), and the part that doesn't (The Old Testament).

So, I have a question. The creation Truth Foundation, in their statement of faith, claims, “The unique divine inspiration of all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, so that they are infallibly and uniquely authoritative and free from error of any sort, in all matters with which they deal, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.”

I would ask the Christians on this forum if they agree with that statement, bearing in mind:

First, they make no distinction between the Old, and the New Testament, and
Second, paying particular attention to the highlighted portion.

whose bible?

why only christians, dearie? our bible was first. no?

 

[Windparadox]

Is the Bible the inerrent word of God?
`
`
In my opinion, No.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have noticed that in several discussions I have with Christians, the point of contention seems to be in attempting to separate the Bible into two parts - the part that must be accepted as accurate (The New Testament), and the part that doesn't (The Old Testament).

So, I have a question. The creation Truth Foundation, in their statement of faith, claims, “The unique divine inspiration of all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, so that they are infallibly and uniquely authoritative and free from error of any sort, in all matters with which they deal, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.”

I would ask the Christians on this forum if they agree with that statement, bearing in mind:

First, they make no distinction between the Old, and the New Testament, and
Second, paying particular attention to the highlighted portion.

Dear Czernobog
I don't find that either OT or NT can be taken 100% literally.
Anything that is supposed to represent God's universal truth
is going to require symbolism to capture the otherwise "infinite".
The most we can capture is the MEANING and SPIRIT but not all the exact details of anything that vast and beyond human scope of understanding and limited "finite" perception.

The best explanation of the Bible I ever read was from
a Buddhist monk living on an island. He said the
OT was about living by the LETTER of the law
and the NT was about living by the SPIRIT of the law.

What true Christians and believers will tell you is the point is to
live by the SPIRIT first, in order for the Letter to follow as a consequence.
Not the other way around.

Jesus in the Bible even refers to creating New Wineskins
first, to pour in the new wine, lest the old wineskins burst.

So our old way of interpreting and understanding the laws
can't even contain the spirit of fulfilling these laws in the future.

The meaning and message I get that is contained in the Bible
is the story of humanity reaching and achieving Peace and Justice,
which is Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Through establishing agreement
and understanding of Truth and Wisdom which is the Kingdom of God.

This is very generalized. And everyone's path to receiving
and establishing Truth Justice and Peace is unique to them.

So it can't be taken too literally or you lose the universal message
that applies to all people, of all walks all nations, beliefs cultures and traditions.

The Buddhists call the core principles Wisdom and Compassion.
The secular humanists call it Truth Justice and Peace for all humanity.
The Christians call it loving God and loving our Neighbors (as Jesus Christ loves us).

The message and meaning is universal
but the languages we use, whether secular or Biblical,
vary per person and tribe, and we do better interpreting
these openly by the concepts and principles
and not haggling over the letter of the law
as in the OT that brought death and destruction.

The history there is both a mix of literal and figurative/symbolic,
so the point is NOT to repeat the tragic history of political
wars for greed, but to live by the spirit of the laws of
charity, good will, and restorative justice that brings
peace and harmony to all humanity reunited as one.

The process of overcoming injustice and war from the past
and to establish Justice with Mercy is what it means to
have faith in Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit to come
and restore all humanity with peace on earth or the Kingdom of God.

The process collectively is universal and includes all humanity,
but each person's path is different. So that's why we have both
secular gentiles under natural laws of science and civil laws of the state
while the believers under Biblical scriptural laws and authority take that path.

And both are supposed to live in harmony under universal
laws of Truth and Justice to bring lasting Peace.

 

[Peach]

And love? Put the scientific method to literature, declare there is none, or....admit error.

The problem with your argument is that you put the question of God squarely in the same arena as music, literature, or art appreciation - in other words, a matter of choice, personal opinion, and subjectivity. That means that God is subjectively "real" to you. But, your personal observations have no actual relativity to anyone else. Unfortunately, very few Theists, and no Christians, in my experience, describe God in this way. In fact, they describe God, Jesus, heaven, and Hell as all objective realities, and insist that Christianity is the only way to avoid the latter.

You can't argue against objective criticism of theology with subjective concepts, and then expect to be able to present that theology as an objective reality. Logic just doesn't work that way.

Skipped "love" I see. Complexity surrounds us.

 

[Meriweather]

Why say something out loud if no one is there? Unless you're a little bit

And was he talking English? Hebrew? ...

How do you know God said it aloud? Consider: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, will there be a sound?

 

[Czernobog]

Interestingly, God also gives that Holy Spirit inconsistently. After all, when one gets away from accepting the Bible literally, one is left with an interpretive understanding of the Bible.There are currently about 33,000 different denominations in the world - this does not include the cults, and minor sects. And every one of them has a different "interpretation" of the text. Now, it is easy to gloss over this with, "But, they all believe that Jesus is Lord, so that is all that matters,"

Except that it isn't. There can only be one "true" interpretation. After all there is only one God. Thus the question remains who is the arbiter of which interpretation is the "correct" one. "To to understand the Bible, you need the Holy Spirit," is an insufficient answer. Because every one of those denominational adherents would insist that they arrived at their interpretation by "the Holy Spirit". This is why interpretation is an insufficient response to the question of reconciling the uncomfortable parts of the Bible. Either The Bible is what it is - an accurate, perfect record of God through ancient times - or it isn't. There is no room for any interpretive middle ground.

Now that statement brings up some points that have been and shall remain a mystery to many. Why do you think that is? (even take a wild guess as you do seem to try to think things through

The only rational explanation is that the Bible is nothing more than a very human attempt to create an ethical code, wrapped in superstition, and religious trappings to make it seem more valid. By abandoning the literal approach to the bible, this allows anyone with an agenda, or an axe to grind to claim divine counselling, and interpret Bible in whatever way fits their agenda, or goal.

On an interesting side note about the Hebrew language from my experience of searching trying to understand the meanings to all the names and such. I found ancient Hebrew is written with words inside of words. One could spend a lifetime even if taught the Hebrew language as a child learning even a small portion of all of that and many through the centuries have and still there is so much more to be discovered in the ancient things.

Not entirely accurate. More accurately, ancient Hebrew built on itself. primitive root words were used as templates in creating the more complex language, and a great deal of the language was contextual, with very similar words having very different meanings, depending on just how the word fit into the sentence structure.

It is a rather complicated, and complex language. I much prefer translating the new Testament. While a bit complex, Greek is a thousand times easier to deal with than Hebrew.

Do children and adults all have the same levels of maturity in this world?

What a silly question. You are obviously suggesting, "When I was a child, I thought like a child..." blah, blah, blah. The problem is that, were this an adequate response to my observation, the number of denominations would be dwindling, as man mature, and came to see "the true way". Except that isn't what is happening. If anything the Christian sects are becoming more fractured as more, and more different interpretations of the bible come to light.

 

[Czernobog]

I have noticed that in several discussions I have with Christians, the point of contention seems to be in attempting to separate the Bible into two parts - the part that must be accepted as accurate (The New Testament), and the part that doesn't (The Old Testament).

So, I have a question. The creation Truth Foundation, in their statement of faith, claims, “The unique divine inspiration of all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, so that they are infallibly and uniquely authoritative and free from error of any sort, in all matters with which they deal, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.”

I would ask the Christians on this forum if they agree with that statement, bearing in mind:

First, they make no distinction between the Old, and the New Testament, and
Second, paying particular attention to the highlighted portion.

whose bible?

why only christians, dearie? our bible was first. no?

"Our Bible"? And who would "We" be?

 

[RodISHI]

Interestingly, God also gives that Holy Spirit inconsistently. After all, when one gets away from accepting the Bible literally, one is left with an interpretive understanding of the Bible.There are currently about 33,000 different denominations in the world - this does not include the cults, and minor sects. And every one of them has a different "interpretation" of the text. Now, it is easy to gloss over this with, "But, they all believe that Jesus is Lord, so that is all that matters,"

Except that it isn't. There can only be one "true" interpretation. After all there is only one God. Thus the question remains who is the arbiter of which interpretation is the "correct" one. "To to understand the Bible, you need the Holy Spirit," is an insufficient answer. Because every one of those denominational adherents would insist that they arrived at their interpretation by "the Holy Spirit". This is why interpretation is an insufficient response to the question of reconciling the uncomfortable parts of the Bible. Either The Bible is what it is - an accurate, perfect record of God through ancient times - or it isn't. There is no room for any interpretive middle ground.

Now that statement brings up some points that have been and shall remain a mystery to many. Why do you think that is? (even take a wild guess as you do seem to try to think things through

The only rational explanation is that the Bible is nothing more than a very human attempt to create an ethical code, wrapped in superstition, and religious trappings to make it seem more valid. By abandoning the literal approach to the bible, this allows anyone with an agenda, or an axe to grind to claim divine counselling, and interpret Bible in whatever way fits their agenda, or goal.

On an interesting side note about the Hebrew language from my experience of searching trying to understand the meanings to all the names and such. I found ancient Hebrew is written with words inside of words. One could spend a lifetime even if taught the Hebrew language as a child learning even a small portion of all of that and many through the centuries have and still there is so much more to be discovered in the ancient things.

Not entirely accurate. More accurately, ancient Hebrew built on itself. primitive root words were used as templates in creating the more complex language, and a great deal of the language was contextual, with very similar words having very different meanings, depending on just how the word fit into the sentence structure.

It is a rather complicated, and complex language. I much prefer translating the new Testament. While a bit complex, Greek is a thousand times easier to deal with than Hebrew.

Do children and adults all have the same levels of maturity in this world?

What a silly question. You are obviously suggesting, "When I was a child, I thought like a child..." blah, blah, blah. The problem is that, were this an adequate response to my observation, the number of denominations would be dwindling, as man mature, and came to see "the true way". Except that isn't what is happening. If anything the Christian sects are becoming more fractured as more, and more different interpretations of the bible come to light.

Eternity isn't over yet now is it?

 

[Meriweather]

Any holy book that contains instructions on the ownership, treatment, and disposal of slaves...

Slaves can be bought sold and inherited	Leviticus 25:44-46
You can sell your daughter into slavery	Exodus 21:7
You can buy a female sex slave for yourself, or your son. If you don't like her, you can sell her again, but not to foreigners	Exodus 21:8
You can rape captive women, but you resell them as slaves	Deuteronomy 21:10-14
You cannot be punished for killing your slaves, so long as they do not die immediately	Exodus 21: 20-21
Slaves must submit to their masters even if their masers are harsh	Pauline Epistles & Peter 2:18
Slaves must accept their position with humility	Ephesians 5:6-8
Slaves must please their masters in everything	Titus 2:9, c.f. & Colossians 3:22

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

...then you do not get to claim that holy book as a valuable source for morality.

This is the source inspired by your God, demonstrating your God's goodness, justice, and love...

Have you studied the culture of the times? There were three ways a conquered people could be dealt with: 1. They were immediately killed. (You already said you disapprove of that.) 2. They could be driven away and left to starvation and death by the elements. (Since that also involves death, although at a much slower pace, I'm guessing you wouldn't approve of that either.) 3. They were enslaved.

It appears even in ruthless times, humans often searched for a better alternative. Which would you choose? Death or slavery? I also note that you left out the master's duties towards his slave.

Anyway, your point is....? As harsh as these rules seem to us, they seemed fair to the people and culture of hand-to-mouth existence in those days. How do you think those people would view today's culture of human trafficking, abortion and killing of viable infants, millions of children abandoned by their fathers, etc. All of this is what seems fair to today's culture. Are you proposing we are that much better today?

 

[Czernobog]

And love? Put the scientific method to literature, declare there is none, or....admit error.

The problem with your argument is that you put the question of God squarely in the same arena as music, literature, or art appreciation - in other words, a matter of choice, personal opinion, and subjectivity. That means that God is subjectively "real" to you. But, your personal observations have no actual relativity to anyone else. Unfortunately, very few Theists, and no Christians, in my experience, describe God in this way. In fact, they describe God, Jesus, heaven, and Hell as all objective realities, and insist that Christianity is the only way to avoid the latter.

You can't argue against objective criticism of theology with subjective concepts, and then expect to be able to present that theology as an objective reality. Logic just doesn't work that way.

Skipped "love" I see. Complexity surrounds us.

I presumed the "love" part would have been self-evident. Yes, love like appreciation, is a matter of subjective, personal choice. You still don't get to use a subjective concept - like love - to counter objective criticism of theology, and then expect that theology to be accepted as objective reality.

 

[hobelim]

To to understand the Bible, you need the Holy Spirit," is an insufficient answer. Because every one of those denominational adherents would insist that they arrived at their interpretation by "the Holy Spirit". This is why interpretation is an insufficient response to the question of reconciling the uncomfortable parts of the Bible. Either The Bible is what it is - an accurate, perfect record of God through ancient times - or it isn't. There is no room for any interpretive middle ground.

There is no room for a middle ground except if what the church teaches is the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit of truth, Paraclete, Comforter, or Advocate, (depending on the translation) that Jesus predicted would be sent by God to do some very specific things, John 16:7-15, that to this day have not yet been done.

That creates a firmament that has never been stood on before.

The whole mighty wind blowing the doors open and tongues of fire appearing at Pentecost that settled like a flame - above each of their heads - sounds more like a whoosh event more than the fulfillment of what Jesus foretold, aside from the fact that it is a violation of divine law to seek the guidance of a ghost which a Jewish Messiah would never advise his followers to do....

 

[Peach]

I have not asked Atheists to alter their beliefs. No movement even to agnostic..Why expect answers to questions; so one can shoot them down.....eh? Take care.

 

[Czernobog]

Interestingly, God also gives that Holy Spirit inconsistently. After all, when one gets away from accepting the Bible literally, one is left with an interpretive understanding of the Bible.There are currently about 33,000 different denominations in the world - this does not include the cults, and minor sects. And every one of them has a different "interpretation" of the text. Now, it is easy to gloss over this with, "But, they all believe that Jesus is Lord, so that is all that matters,"

Except that it isn't. There can only be one "true" interpretation. After all there is only one God. Thus the question remains who is the arbiter of which interpretation is the "correct" one. "To to understand the Bible, you need the Holy Spirit," is an insufficient answer. Because every one of those denominational adherents would insist that they arrived at their interpretation by "the Holy Spirit". This is why interpretation is an insufficient response to the question of reconciling the uncomfortable parts of the Bible. Either The Bible is what it is - an accurate, perfect record of God through ancient times - or it isn't. There is no room for any interpretive middle ground.

Now that statement brings up some points that have been and shall remain a mystery to many. Why do you think that is? (even take a wild guess as you do seem to try to think things through

The only rational explanation is that the Bible is nothing more than a very human attempt to create an ethical code, wrapped in superstition, and religious trappings to make it seem more valid. By abandoning the literal approach to the bible, this allows anyone with an agenda, or an axe to grind to claim divine counselling, and interpret Bible in whatever way fits their agenda, or goal.

On an interesting side note about the Hebrew language from my experience of searching trying to understand the meanings to all the names and such. I found ancient Hebrew is written with words inside of words. One could spend a lifetime even if taught the Hebrew language as a child learning even a small portion of all of that and many through the centuries have and still there is so much more to be discovered in the ancient things.

Not entirely accurate. More accurately, ancient Hebrew built on itself. primitive root words were used as templates in creating the more complex language, and a great deal of the language was contextual, with very similar words having very different meanings, depending on just how the word fit into the sentence structure.

It is a rather complicated, and complex language. I much prefer translating the new Testament. While a bit complex, Greek is a thousand times easier to deal with than Hebrew.

Do children and adults all have the same levels of maturity in this world?

What a silly question. You are obviously suggesting, "When I was a child, I thought like a child..." blah, blah, blah. The problem is that, were this an adequate response to my observation, the number of denominations would be dwindling, as man mature, and came to see "the true way". Except that isn't what is happening. If anything the Christian sects are becoming more fractured as more, and more different interpretations of the bible come to light.

Eternity isn't over yet now is it?

That's a cop out, and you know it. Your response doesn't even come close to explaining away the reality that the interpretive approach to the Bible only serves to obscure, and confuse, and complicate the Bible. Ockhham's Razor - the simplest solution. Well, the simplest solution is that the only correct way to approach the Bible is literally. It says what it says, and it means what it means. Otherwise, all you get is the confused, complicated clusterfuck that you Christians have created surrounding the Bible.

 

[Czernobog]

Any holy book that contains instructions on the ownership, treatment, and disposal of slaves...

Slaves can be bought sold and inherited	Leviticus 25:44-46
You can sell your daughter into slavery	Exodus 21:7
You can buy a female sex slave for yourself, or your son. If you don't like her, you can sell her again, but not to foreigners	Exodus 21:8
You can rape captive women, but you resell them as slaves	Deuteronomy 21:10-14
You cannot be punished for killing your slaves, so long as they do not die immediately	Exodus 21: 20-21
Slaves must submit to their masters even if their masers are harsh	Pauline Epistles & Peter 2:18
Slaves must accept their position with humility	Ephesians 5:6-8
Slaves must please their masters in everything	Titus 2:9, c.f. & Colossians 3:22

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

...then you do not get to claim that holy book as a valuable source for morality.

This is the source inspired by your God, demonstrating your God's goodness, justice, and love...

Have you studied the culture of the times?

Nope. Insufficient response. Either the morality of God is timeless, and just as valid today, or it couldn't have come from God. Since Christians believe that God is the “Alpha and Omega”, the God who never changes, then the morality and examples shown in the early Bible would still hold true for us today. You don't get to just discard those moral principles that have become uncomfortable. Not without negating the Bible as a "Divine" source for morality.

 

[Mudda]

Why say something out loud if no one is there? Unless you're a little bit

And was he talking English? Hebrew? ...

How do you know God said it aloud? Consider: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, will there be a sound?

It says on page fuckng ONE of the bible, god said "let there be light". When Superman wants to fly, he doesnt say out loud "let me fly", he just flies. See what I'm saying?

 

[Czernobog]

To to understand the Bible, you need the Holy Spirit," is an insufficient answer. Because every one of those denominational adherents would insist that they arrived at their interpretation by "the Holy Spirit". This is why interpretation is an insufficient response to the question of reconciling the uncomfortable parts of the Bible. Either The Bible is what it is - an accurate, perfect record of God through ancient times - or it isn't. There is no room for any interpretive middle ground.

There is no room for a middle ground except if what the church teaches is the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit of truth, Paraclete, Comforter, or Advocate, (depending on the translation) that Jesus predicted would be sent by God to do some very specific things, John 16:7-15, that to this day have not yet been done.

That creates a firmament that has never been stood on before.

The whole mighty wind blowing the doors open and tongues of fire appearing at Pentecost that settled like a flame - above each of their heads - sounds more like a whoosh event more than the fulfillment of what Jesus foretold, aside from the fact that it is a violation of divine law to seek the guidance of a ghost which a Jewish Messiah would never advise his followers to do....

And who, other than you, claims to have had this miraculous event to open their eyes? Or are you saying that you are different from everyone else, and your version is the only "true version"?

 

[hobelim]

To to understand the Bible, you need the Holy Spirit," is an insufficient answer. Because every one of those denominational adherents would insist that they arrived at their interpretation by "the Holy Spirit". This is why interpretation is an insufficient response to the question of reconciling the uncomfortable parts of the Bible. Either The Bible is what it is - an accurate, perfect record of God through ancient times - or it isn't. There is no room for any interpretive middle ground.

There is no room for a middle ground except if what the church teaches is the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit of truth, Paraclete, Comforter, or Advocate, (depending on the translation) that Jesus predicted would be sent by God to do some very specific things, John 16:7-15, that to this day have not yet been done.

That creates a firmament that has never been stood on before.

The whole mighty wind blowing the doors open and tongues of fire appearing at Pentecost that settled like a flame - above each of their heads - sounds more like a whoosh event more than the fulfillment of what Jesus foretold, aside from the fact that it is a violation of divine law to seek the guidance of a ghost which a Jewish Messiah would never advise his followers to do....

And who, other than you, claims to have had this miraculous event to open their eyes? Or are you saying that you are different from everyone else, and your version is the only "true version"?

lol..

You have a touch of a napoleon complex do you..

You misunderstood. The whoosh event during Pentecost was about something being said, by tongues of fire, that went over the apostles heads.

Nothing miraculous about that at all.

They didn't understand a word of what Jesus said when he was alive explaining himself till he was blue in the face... They still didn't understand a few weeks later. How hard is that to believe?