The Authority Of Scripture

[MarkyMark7]

My youth pastor talked about this tonight and I thought I'd elaborate on the subject and put it up for discussion. Do you recognize the Bible as the authoritative, flawless (in original manuscripts) Word of God? As for me, yes I do. It is a group books having been finished almost 2,000 years ago, although having many books of it written several centuries before that. It has lasted through time, has transpired into almost every known language & culture, and it's truths grab ahold of & change people daily. It accurately predicts the fall of and rise of nations, the entire life of Jesus Christ, and many more events held within prophecy. What is says is backed by archcaeology evidence and to this day no one has been able to prove that what it says is historically inaccurate. The Bible also declares itself to be from God-
2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
So, do you believe the Bible to be truth. Also, if you don't, what do you base your Christian faith on?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I agree entirely with your description of the Bible as inerrant and being the very word of God, MM7.

FL

[zoegirl]

yes, I agree

[Byblos]

yes, I agree

Me too. I may have an issue with flawless but it's only a small, insignificant one.

[obsolete]

yes, I agree

Me too. I may have an issue with flawless but it's only a small, insignificant one.

Why do you have an issue with it being flawless?
When the NT was believed to be written, and it has been proven when it was by dating the papary it was written on, there were more than enough eye witnesses to discredit anything that was written. I'm also pretty sure that God is flawless and believe that the word came directly from Him. So I would also have to say it is flawless in it's original manuscripts.

Now if you were reffering to translations, I would say that there may be a possibility that, because of human imperfections, that someone could have mis-translated something here and there.

But the Bible still, in whole, supports itself in every aspect. It still points to Jesus. And if you think you found something that contradicts itself within the Bible, than you just found something interesting to study.

[Byblos]

yes, I agree

Me too. I may have an issue with flawless but it's only a small, insignificant one.

Why do you have an issue with it being flawless?
When the NT was believed to be written, and it has been proven when it was by dating the papary it was written on, there were more than enough eye witnesses to discredit anything that was written. I'm also pretty sure that God is flawless and believe that the word came directly from Him. So I would also have to say it is flawless in it's original manuscripts.

Now if you were reffering to translations, I would say that there may be a possibility that, because of human imperfections, that someone could have mis-translated something here and there.

But the Bible still, in whole, supports itself in every aspect. It still points to Jesus. And if you think you found something that contradicts itself within the Bible, than you just found something interesting to study.

Obsolete,

What I meant was that even though we believe scripture is the Word of God and, therefore, is inerrant, sometimes we also tend to forget that God did not write scripture Himself. He inspired ordinary human beings to do so and since ordinary human beings are by their very nature good but not flawless, that reflection is carried into the text. That is all. I see no contradictions in scripture, just different nuances due to human nature.

[Jac3510]

But where is it possible for there to be a flaw without there also being an error? Could you give me an example of a flaw in the text?

[Byblos]

But where is it possible for there to be a flaw without there also being an error? Could you give me an example of a flaw in the text?

I don't know if what I'm trying to convey can be characterized by the use of the words flaw or flawless but for example, in another thread (not sure where) there was a discussion on the difference between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, one having mentioned only one animal upon which Jesus rode into Jerusalem, and the other mentioned 2 animals, a donkey and a colt. There was a question as to whether or not this was a contradiction or even that the prophesy was somehow misunderstood. I don't believe it is either. But to me at least, since the 2 accounts are not completely superposable is an indication of the influence of human nature on scripture. Is that a flaw? Perhaps, but I don't see it as material enough to affect inerrancy in any way. Where am I wrong in my line of thinking?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

yes, I agree

Me too. I may have an issue with flawless but it's only a small, insignificant one.

Notice this part of what Byblos said:

but it's only a small, insignificant one.

I choose to not stare at the speck in Byblos' eye.

FL

[obsolete]

yes, I agree

Me too. I may have an issue with flawless but it's only a small, insignificant one.

Notice this part of what Byblos said:

but it's only a small, insignificant one.

I choose to not stare at the speck in Byblos' eye.

FL

I wasn't trying to point out a speck in his eye, I have a big enough plank in my own. I just wanted to know in better detail what he meant. For discussion purposes. After all, this is a forum for discussion.

But where is it possible for there to be a flaw without there also being an error? Could you give me an example of a flaw in the text?

I don't know if what I'm trying to convey can be characterized by the use of the words flaw or flawless but for example, in another thread (not sure where) there was a discussion on the difference between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, one having mentioned only one animal upon which Jesus rode into Jerusalem, and the other mentioned 2 animals, a donkey and a colt. There was a question as to whether or not this was a contradiction or even that the prophesy was somehow misunderstood. I don't believe it is either. But to me at least, since the 2 accounts are not completely superposable is an indication of the influence of human nature on scripture. Is that a flaw? Perhaps, but I don't see it as material enough to affect inerrancy in any way. Where am I wrong in my line of thinking?

I can also see your point with the donkey and colt from the two seperate gospels. But what if it weren't human error in translation, but in there understanding of the prophecy itself?
You have to realize that, although they were His deciples, they were not within Jesus' inner circle like Peter and John. So, I would have to say with that instance you would have to go to the root, the original prophecy, and do a word study of the entire passage of scripture.

[Jac3510]

Zech. doesn't say there is ONLY one animal, so I'm not sure how there is any kind of flaw in that passage. Zech just says that the Messiah will come in on a donkey/colt. Mark and Luke say that. Matthew adds that its mother came along. I don't see the problem?

But more basically, if that was a flaw, then that would be an ERROR, because one part of the text wouldn't line up with another. How, then, would we understand the Bible to be inerrant?

[obsolete]

Zech. doesn't say there is ONLY one animal, so I'm not sure how there is any kind of flaw in that passage. Zech just says that the Messiah will come in on a donkey/colt. Mark and Luke say that. Matthew adds that its mother came along. I don't see the problem?

But more basically, if that was a flaw, then that would be an ERROR, because one part of the text wouldn't line up with another. How, then, would we understand the Bible to be inerrant?

I understand what you're saying. I don't see the problem either. But a non-believer would bring that to question and thus try to prove the inconsistency within scripture.
I know this, that no matter what Zech said or Mark or even Matthew, the prophecy was fullfilled. PM me that part of Zech. (I'm at work at the moment and don't have access to my Bible at the moment.)

[Jac3510]

Meh, that'd be a very, very weak argument on their part. Since Zech does NOT say there is only one donkey, then there is NO contradiction when Matthew points out that the donkey that Jesus rode on (as predicted) was accompanied by its mother. PM on the way.

[obsolete]

Meh, that'd be a very, very weak argument on their part. Since Zech does NOT say there is only one donkey, then there is NO contradiction when Matthew points out that the donkey that Jesus rode on (as predicted) was accompanied by its mother. PM on the way.

I agree with you after further looking into the text. See my PM response.

[Byblos]

Zech. doesn't say there is ONLY one animal, so I'm not sure how there is any kind of flaw in that passage. Zech just says that the Messiah will come in on a donkey/colt. Mark and Luke say that. Matthew adds that its mother came along. I don't see the problem?

But more basically, if that was a flaw, then that would be an ERROR, because one part of the text wouldn't line up with another. How, then, would we understand the Bible to be inerrant?

Jac, let's step away from the word 'flaw' for a moment or even any specific instances. It is my general understanding that scripture is God-inspired but written with human hands and influenced by human experiences. Given that, does this mean scripture must be perfect in all aspects and facets? Does it necessarily follow that if scripture is inerrant then it must also be perfect (not only in the message it conveys, but also in content, grammar, composition, punctuation, etc.etc.)?