Is the Bible really the infallible word of God?

[Danieltwotwenty]

Jac so we are not talking past each other, how do you define fulfilment? For me fulfill means to bring something to completion, which to me implies that something wasn't complete, missing bits or maybe not fully understood (maybe I just stumbled on my answer there with not fully understood!!!). Hmmmmm I think I can see where I might have been erring in my thoughts.

I need to think some more, I really have a hard time reconciling the OT laws with an all loving God, I mean if Jesus said to love your enemies and to turn the other cheek, forgive etc.. Etc.. Why is there such harsh laws and punishments, stoning an adulterer or whatever does not sound like the Jesus I know.

I think I might just have to fall back on faith and trust God because I just can't reconcile the dissonance within my brain.

How do you reconcile these OT laws, especially the Levitical law, with what Jesus said? I mean if Jesus upheld the law completely, why does the things he says go counter to the law??????????

I have read is God a moral monster, I might go read it again and see if I missed something.

[Mallz]

The point of the law is manifold. So I'm only going to focus on this point of it..
The law was revealed to humanity to show humanity could not be righteous by their merit. It points to show the destruction caused in reality of not living up to Elohims standards. Even those who could follow most of the law still fell short, and had to sacrifice innocent life to pay for their trespasses. But the innocence of an animal can't pay for the constant wages of sin, which is death. For to bring death upon others is to bring death upon oneself, even accidentally. This is the nature of sin that the law exposes. Showing that the only way to live, is with pitching our tent with Elohim and following Him and not us or any other created thing or being.

Yeshua conquered and fulfilled the law by living up to all of its expectations (not sinning) and then being the judicial sacrifice to cover the penalty for all sin for all eternity. The perfect sacrifice. Only Elohim can be the constant to never break any of the laws that cause destruction if broken. So He is the only sacrifice that could break the bondage humanity put itself in by rejecting Elohim, through death. Which is why no one can work to be saved. We have to accept the new covenant established by Yeshuas sacrifice to avoid destruction due to sin. He came and conquered death...

It might seem like He does things counter to the law, but He doesn't. He fulfills it with an all inclusive covenant based in the foundations of existence: love. The NT covenant is the completion of the OT law. Without love and mercy, justice cannot occur. If there is only justice, where is the love and mercy? The Hebrews of old made the law and idol, and there was only judgement and self-honor. No love, no mercy. The point of the law was completely missed. And in sense, was intended to be. Because it is incomplete without Yeshua.

If there are specific things that are bothering you, share them and we'll reason together.

To be perfectly honest I prefer to fall back onto Silvertusk's remark which is the way of inspiration and trust, so much better than anything else.

I agree. It was prophecy that started my trust in the Bible.

[Kurieuo]

I need to think some more, I really have a hard time reconciling the OT laws with an all loving God, I mean if Jesus said to love your enemies and to turn the other cheek, forgive etc.. Etc.. Why is there such harsh laws and punishments, stoning an adulterer or whatever does not sound like the Jesus I know.
...
How do you reconcile these OT laws, especially the Levitical law, with what Jesus said? I mean if Jesus upheld the law completely, why does the things he says go counter to the law??????????

Re: the OT laws, they were given to Israel.
Israel entered into a covenant with God.
They were to be set a part as God's people. And they agreed to keep God's commandments.
Covenant "to cut" / walk through a parted animal. Quite serious.

God's Righteousness demands sin be punished = Wrath.
God's Love desires forgiveness of sin = Grace.

In a manner of speaking, the Old Covenant, given to Israel could only incur wrath if broken since there was no Christ.
The Levitical law of animal sacrifice instituted was intended to bring awareness to sin while at the same time pointing to Christ.
All are now forgiven on account of Christ who was yet to come and be perfect the sacrifice. (Hebrews 10 goes into this a little)

The sacrificial system was also meant to illustrate how bad sin is -- the wages of sin is death.
We read in Hosea 6:6 and Isaiah 1 that God didn't much like it at all, since people would go through the ritual without really loving God.

I don't think anything Christ says does counter to the Law?
Things are just different when Jesus enters the picture.
Grace abounds where only Wrath was deserved.
Love wins over Righteousness.

It also shouldn't go unnoticed that the Law was added to.
Pharisees were abusing it, boasting in it, and taking advantage of others.
God was long fed up with it as Isaiah 1:10+ shows.

Jesus looked after the weak like God desired.
Showed mercy rather than judgement.
Wanted to save rather than condemn.

There's so much more that could be said.
But really, the key is understanding the old and new covenants.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Thanks K, I don't really have anything to say about it all, I still find it all very confusing for the moment.

[Jac3510]

Jac so we are not talking past each other, how do you define fulfilment? For me fulfill means to bring something to completion, which to me implies that something wasn't complete, missing bits or maybe not fully understood (maybe I just stumbled on my answer there with not fully understood!!!). Hmmmmm I think I can see where I might have been erring in my thoughts.

I need to think some more, I really have a hard time reconciling the OT laws with an all loving God, I mean if Jesus said to love your enemies and to turn the other cheek, forgive etc.. Etc.. Why is there such harsh laws and punishments, stoning an adulterer or whatever does not sound like the Jesus I know.

I think I might just have to fall back on faith and trust God because I just can't reconcile the dissonance within my brain.

How do you reconcile these OT laws, especially the Levitical law, with what Jesus said? I mean if Jesus upheld the law completely, why does the things he says go counter to the law??????????

I have read is God a moral monster, I might go read it again and see if I missed something.

I don't know if you still wanted a response to this, Daniel, so I'll keep my comments brief.

1. On fulfillment, I would agree with what you are saying. I would only add what fulfillment does not mean. If something is fulfilled, it does not necessarily mean that it passes away. If I fill a cup, then the cup isn't gone, is it? On the contrary, it is then that perhaps it becomes useful. If I fulfill the requirements for a job, then that might mean on one hand that I am qualified to do that job (that now it can be started) or that the job has been completed (such that it no longer needs to be done). The context would determine what we are talking about here. If the Law is fulfilled, then I would say that its requirements have fully been met. That's why love fulfills the law, why Christ fulfill the Law, etc. I would submit to you that both sides of "fulfillment" works in Christ. It can now do what it was supposed to do--it can start doing its job-but having been fulfilled, it now no longer needs to be done. The Law is satisfied in Christ, and now we receive from Him His righteousness. That's why He was born under the Law. Whether or not the Law is abolished is another question entirely. Related, sure, but distinct all the same.

2. As to reconciling OT laws, it's very easy to me. I mean, just take the Flood as one example. I don't care if you are OEC or YEC or if you adhere to a local or global flood. Frankly, I don't care if you think it was a mythical event. For our purposes, the only point is that God is taking responsibility for the deaths of only He knows how many people. Sure, they sinned, blah blah blah. The fact is He killed a bunch of folks. And the same thing happened in the Ten Plagues. And in the destruction of Egypt's army at the Red Sea. And in the destruction of Sodom. And so on. Now, if God can do all those things, then what's the problem with "bloody" laws in Leviticus? Such "problems" are straining out gnats while swallowing camels.

Now, if you think God didn't have the right to allow or bring about such mass judgments, then that's another matter. I would submit to you that your problem has nothing to do with "harsh" OT laws and everything to do with being uncomfortable with God's wrath. And, sure, you like Jesus' line about turning the other cheek. But what about in the same context where says that if you call your brother a fool is in danger of Hell? Or what about the fact that when He returns, it will be a return of judgment in which He will slay His enemies and sentence countless--perhaps billions--to an eternal Hell? That doesn't jive with the modern notion of Jesus as a peacenik flower child. You can only get that picture by cherry picking the verses you like and ignoring those you don't.

Anyway, I said I'd keep my comments short, which I've already failed at, so I won't say more. I would just encourage you to look back at the notion of the wrath of God and its philosophical and moral justification.

[Kurieuo]

There was a really good book on Leviticus I read ages ago that I thought would be as boring as heck.
Mainly because Leviticus was where I'd on numerous occasions stop reading the Bible when reading it from start to finish.
It was actually one of the best books I've read. Shame I don't have it / recall the author, but I'm sure there are equally good commentaries.

For me, many things not only were an eye-opener as to how it all foreshadowed God's plan in Christ to redeem us.
BUT, it really drilled home just how horrible sin is especially when face-to-face with an all-righteous God.
How absolutely holy God is and His standards are.

Personally, my issue is kind of the reverse at times to what you are perhaps confused over.
My issue is more that God didn't wipe humanity out completely. That He instead created our way for His love to win out via grace.
God's Grace is more puzzling to me than God's Righteousness given all the horribleness that exists in humanity.

Kind of works both ways I suppose, but it's my way of related to your current dilemma.
It left me confused for quite a while why God bothered to reach out and save any of us.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I don't know if you still wanted a response to this, Daniel, so I'll keep my comments brief.

Absolutely Jac, I really appreciate your input, yours is a opinion I highly value even though we may not agree on certain issues.

1. On fulfillment, I would agree with what you are saying. I would only add what fulfillment does not mean. If something is fulfilled, it does not necessarily mean that it passes away. If I fill a cup, then the cup isn't gone, is it? On the contrary, it is then that perhaps it becomes useful. If I fulfill the requirements for a job, then that might mean on one hand that I am qualified to do that job (that now it can be started) or that the job has been completed (such that it no longer needs to be done). The context would determine what we are talking about here. If the Law is fulfilled, then I would say that its requirements have fully been met. That's why love fulfills the law, why Christ fulfill the Law, etc. I would submit to you that both sides of "fulfillment" works in Christ. It can now do what it was supposed to do--it can start doing its job-but having been fulfilled, it now no longer needs to be done. The Law is satisfied in Christ, and now we receive from Him His righteousness. That's why He was born under the Law. Whether or not the Law is abolished is another question entirely. Related, sure, but distinct all the same.

Yes I was removing the cup or replacing it rather than just filling it. This all makes much more sense now.

2. As to reconciling OT laws, it's very easy to me. I mean, just take the Flood as one example. I don't care if you are OEC or YEC or if you adhere to a local or global flood. Frankly, I don't care if you think it was a mythical event. For our purposes, the only point is that God is taking responsibility for the deaths of only He knows how many people. Sure, they sinned, blah blah blah. The fact is He killed a bunch of folks. And the same thing happened in the Ten Plagues. And in the destruction of Egypt's army at the Red Sea. And in the destruction of Sodom. And so on. Now, if God can do all those things, then what's the problem with "bloody" laws in Leviticus? Such "problems" are straining out gnats while swallowing camels.

I see what you are saying, to add to that really death is not a bad thing, it is just a change of state of being.

Now, if you think God didn't have the right to allow or bring about such mass judgments, then that's another matter. I would submit to you that your problem has nothing to do with "harsh" OT laws and everything to do with being uncomfortable with God's wrath. And, sure, you like Jesus' line about turning the other cheek. But what about in the same context where says that if you call your brother a fool is in danger of Hell? Or what about the fact that when He returns, it will be a return of judgment in which He will slay His enemies and sentence countless--perhaps billions--to an eternal Hell? That doesn't jive with the modern notion of Jesus as a peacenik flower child. You can only get that picture by cherry picking the verses you like and ignoring those you don't.

I think this is an emotional problem for me and not an intellectual one, I understand intellectually but I guess emotionally I want everyone to be forgiven and saved, I literally feel the pain and sorrow of everyone, I guess it's a part of my condition..............................
The thing is Jac, I don't think Jesus is a peacenik, I have no problem with judgement coming from God, but I do have a problem with judgement coming from man, I think Jesus wanted us to be peaceful and turn the other cheek etc.. and leave the judging up to him, because he is the only one who can make a perfect judgement.

Anyway, I said I'd keep my comments short, which I've already failed at, so I won't say more. I would just encourage you to look back at the notion of the wrath of God and its philosophical and moral justification.

I thought the length was perfect, you do have a habit of overwhelming people with information and for the uneducated like myself it can be information overload, but this time you have outdone yourself.

[Danieltwotwenty]

There was a really good book on Leviticus I read ages ago that I thought would be as boring as heck.
Mainly because Leviticus was where I'd on numerous occasions stop reading the Bible when reading it from start to finish.
It was actually one of the best books I've read. Shame I don't have it / recall the author, but I'm sure there are equally good commentaries.

For me, many things not only were an eye-opener as to how it all foreshadowed God's plan in Christ to redeem us.
BUT, it really drilled home just how horrible sin is especially when face-to-face with an all-righteous God.
How absolutely holy God is and His standards are.

Personally, my issue is kind of the reverse at times to what you are perhaps confused over.
My issue is more that God didn't wipe humanity out completely. That He instead created our way for His love to win out via grace.
God's Grace is more puzzling to me than God's Righteousness given all the horribleness that exists in humanity.

Kind of works both ways I suppose, but it's my way of related to your current dilemma.
It left me confused for quite a while why God bothered to reach out and save any of us.

Thanks K for reminding me of the flip side, this has been very useful and I know what you are saying about wondering why God is so graceful and loving and that he should have just wiped us out, I kind of flip-flop between how I am feeling now about God's wrath and what you are saying, depending on what state of mind I am in.

With all the wars and evil in this world, why does God let it continue, what needs to happen before all this passes away and we can finally rest.................

[1over137]

I think this is an emotional problem for me and not an intellectual one, I understand intellectually but I guess emotionally I want everyone to be forgiven and saved, I literally feel the pain and sorrow of everyone, I guess it's a part of my condition

I understand this very well. I once was very troubled by it and then made a resolution that I am going to trust God in this.
See what Neo has in signature.

[rain]

I like what you have shared, Danieltwotwenty. In particular the placement of authority on Jesus' teachings as being more important than anything else. After all, Jesus said that HE was the cornerstone from which our house should line up. In response to the thought about whether the bible is the word of God, the bible (I feel) answers this itself. In John 1 and in Revelation 19, it says that Jesus is the Word of God. That seems pretty clear. The bible (as Paul said) is inspired, but as you (and others have said), inspired doesn't mean infallible.

I think the main reason that people hold to the doctrine of the whole bible being the infallible word of God, and more or less all scripture being on an equal playing field in terms of authority, is because people WANT to be able to pick and choose the parts they follow, and this doctrine is a convenient one for doing just that. As Jesus said, ''The stone which the builders rejected the same is become the head of the corner''.

[melanie]

Nice post Rain
And welcome

[PaulSacramento]

We need to remember what infallible means:
Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true. It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose.

Note that this doesn't mean that it is with any error whatsoever, it simply means that for it's intended purpose ( guide TO salvation, not the insrument of salvation, which is Christ) that the bible does not "fail".

[RickD]

Maybe we need to discuss infallibility vs inerrancy.

One can certainly hold to infallibility, without holding to the inerrancy of scripture. But, I don't think one can hold to the inerrancy of scripture, without holding to its infallibility.

[PaulSacramento]

Maybe we need to discuss infallibility vs inerrancy.

One can certainly hold to infallibility, without holding to the inerrancy of scripture. But, I don't think one can hold to the inerrancy of scripture, without holding to its infallibility.

Indeed, but even inerrancy is subject to interpretation.
Do we mean that ONLY the original writings are inerrant or ALL translations and editions are?
And what does inerrant mean?
No errors what so ever ( not even spelling and translation errors) or simply no theological errors ?

[RickD]

Maybe we need to discuss infallibility vs inerrancy.

One can certainly hold to infallibility, without holding to the inerrancy of scripture. But, I don't think one can hold to the inerrancy of scripture, without holding to its infallibility.

Indeed, but even inerrancy is subject to interpretation.
Do we mean that ONLY the original writings are inerrant or ALL translations and editions are?
And what does inerrant mean?
No errors what so ever ( not even spelling and translation errors) or simply no theological errors ?

When people talk about inerrancy, they usually mean in the original texts. Not in the translations.

I think this, from Wikipedia, is a pretty good definition of biblical inerrancy:

"Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".