Bible as God's word

[dorkmaster]

I was debating an atheist friend of mine, and in an attempt to disprove God, he tried to argue about the Bible's authenticity. When I admitted that I personally believe that some parts of the Bible were not recorded the way God intended, he tried to say, what if all of it was " made up". I was stuck after this. Does anyone have an answer or opinion?

[jlay]

have you reviewed the articles about this on the board's main page?

When I admitted that I personally believe that some parts of the Bible were not recorded the way God intended,.....

What do you mean by this?

[dorkmaster]

What I meant is that I think it is possible that maybe the people who were writing the Bible did not understand what it was God was trying to say, and, as a result, there may be some misconceptions or inaccuracies in scripture. Of course, I don't think we'd ever find out. That was a loooong time ago.

[jlay]

What I meant is that I think it is possible that maybe the people who were writing the Bible did not understand what it was God was trying to say, and, as a result, there may be some misconceptions or inaccuracies in scripture. Of course, I don't think we'd ever find out. That was a loooong time ago.

Honestly, if that is your worldview, you don't need to be attempting to defend the Bible. If you doubt that the scriptures are God breathed, (2 Tim 3:15-16) then how can you TRUST that the bible correctly reveals Christ as the savior? If you can't trust that, then how can you trust John 5:24, John 3:16, or any other verse? And thus, how can you be a 'believer?' We are apologists because we seek to 'give a reason for the hope we have.' (1 Pet. 3:15) We seek to show ourselves approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of truth." (2 Tim 2:15) Why would you defend something you don't really trust is accurate?
I am genuinely interested to know what kind of study have you given to this matter.

[Proinsias]

how can you be a 'believer?

Could one not believe in one's heart of the one true God, that Christ is our saviour and died on the cross for our sins whilst at the same time holding the opinion that the bible may not be entirely accurate? Is believing in Jesus the same as believing in the bible as the word of God?

[dorkmaster]

Perhaps I did not word this correctly, or maybe the first time I was actually stumped by an atheist in debate freaked me out a little. Then again, as has been pointed out, I don't know why it affected me so much. I guess philosophy, which is what that debate turned into, is not a strong suit of mine, although I believe I corrected him on the "Bible contradictions."

[Telstra Robs]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rigin.html

Very interesting article you should find useful regarding the authenticity of the Bible and textual criticism.

[jlay]

Pro,
One can certainly do that. But, this is a deeper issue than that. dork is questioning the reliability of the original writings. Which is fine. You most certainly can do that. But I don't see how one can, and be consistent. Since the Bible is today's authority and revelation about the very facts you are saying one is to believe. It's a contradiction.

As I said, they certainly shouldn't be trying to defend the faith. They need to get to cracking the books and answer that question for themselves.

Dork, Please don't take my challenges personally or as an attack. There are probably a lot of folks just like you. I ask again, what kind of serious study have you given the matter?
Are the scriptures reliable? Can we trust them? If yes, why. If no, why not?

[dorkmaster]

This is to jlay, my study has probably not been that productive, I've read a number of articles by theists and atheists alike. Based on these articles, of which I cannot remember many, my faith has been strengthened, but I would say I succumb to peer pressure, if someone attacks my beliefs indirectly or even directly, I like to challenge them.

But to answer your question in short, I have not studied too much. I have learned many of the finer points of both sides of this argument, but I could only be classified as an amateur in terms of information.

[Hyperdrive]

When I admitted that I personally believe that some parts of the Bible were not recorded the way God intended

God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc etc... He can't write the Bible in a way other than He intended.

What I meant is that I think it is possible that maybe the people who were writing the Bible did not understand what it was God was trying to say, and, as a result, there may be some misconceptions or inaccuracies in scripture.

When God speaks, his followers listen.
John 18:37 Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.
If they didn't understand what He was saying, then they weren't writing the Bible.
If there are misconceptions or inaccuracies, then it isn't Scripture.

the scriptures are God breathed, (2 Tim 3:15-16)

w00t.
It says "All Scripture is inspired by God", therefore none of the human authors miswrote the Word.

Could one not believe in one's heart of the one true God, that Christ is our saviour and died on the cross for our sins whilst at the same time holding the opinion that the bible may not be entirely accurate?

No.
God doesn't lie. The Bible must be 100% correct for this to be true.

Is believing in Jesus the same as believing in the bible as the word of God?

Yes.
Believing what Jesus said is a major part of believing in Jesus. The Bible, aka Word of God, is what Jesus said.

[Maytan]

No.
God doesn't lie. The Bible must be 100% correct for this to be true.

I have to disagree here. I don't think believing in Bible Inerrancy is absolutely essential to being a Christian, though it certainly is a big part of it.

[Hyperdrive]

I have to disagree here. I don't think believing in Bible Inerrancy is absolutely essential to being a Christian, though it certainly is a big part of it.

Matthew 4:4
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Seems pretty clear to me.
Are there parts of the Bible not from God? Give me an argument for that.

[Maytan]

I have to disagree here. I don't think believing in Bible Inerrancy is absolutely essential to being a Christian, though it certainly is a big part of it.

Matthew 4:4
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Seems pretty clear to me.
Are there parts of the Bible not from God? Give me an argument for that.

I'm not trying to claim that it's not inerrant, on all accounts I think it is. However, being a Christian simply doesn't require one to absolutely accept the inerrancy of the Bible. Belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior is the only real requirement.

Dr. Craig has a nice talk on this subject: http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/R ... rancy_.mp3

[jlay]

Hyper,

w00t.
It says "All Scripture is inspired by God", therefore none of the human authors miswrote the Word.

I don't know what w00t means????
But this brings up a good point. The King James says, all scripture is given by inspiration. The NIV says, 'God breathed.' Based on your pointing this out, I take you are offended?? Are you advocating the perfection of one English translation? I do prefer the KJV personally, but quoted the NIV here because it was the one i memorized growing up.
If you are a dogmatic KJV only, then I'll let you know, I respect that, but I don't think you are going to find much agreement here. It will go over like a turd in the punch bowl. I understand the arguments, have walked through all that. I do have a lot of concern about many of the modern translations, some more than others.

Regardless I do believe the scriptures are God breathed/ Inspired. And I believe the original authors wrote as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. I do trust the the original works are infallible and accurate. But even the best English translations we have, have been revised and continue to be. Can you be more specific as to what you are claiming?

But I am curious. How do you defend that Jesus in Matt 4:4 was referencing the actual document we call the Holy Bible?
Is every Word that proceeds from God's mouth the identical meaning to 'inspired' as used in 2 tim.? If so, what is your exegesis and arguments for that position?

Are there parts of the Bible not from God? Give me an argument for that.

I believe that every word is inspired and filtered perfectly through God.
But, i also believe that God allowed inspired people like Solomon the liberty to write from their own heart. Such as in Ecclesiastes and Lamentations. There are things there that are clearly the thoughts of Solomon and not the "thus sayeth the Lord' words of God. There are parts of the bible that are "thus sayeth the Lord," which I would say proceed directly from the mouth of the Lord. And then there are parts that are men, inspired by God. All scripture is inspired. All is not, "thus sayeth the Lord."

[Canuckster1127]

Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture are not necessarily the same thing. The scriptures are inspired. Not everything that people think about the scriptures is.

In terms of "inerrant", most people by that mean the original manuscripts. We don't have them. So, inerrant in that regard is a moot point, unless or until we have those original manuscripts. However, what we have is remarkably in agreement internally, and where transciption errors and even intentional scribal changes come in to play, it's not very difficult in about 98% of the instances to figure out what has happened and what the orginals most likely said.

What many people as well mean, but inerrant is that the message or the truth conveyed by the Bible is completely reliable and in that regard, the words themselves are important only to the extent that they accurately convey and are accurately received and understood by those reading or hearing it.

That said, not all the words in the Bible are God's words. Satan, demons, people, and even a donkey speak and while inspiration leads us to believe that these events are accurately recorded, it doesn't mean that God endorses as true the words and thoughts that are conveyed. Job is an excellent example of this. Most of the book is Job and Job's friends speaking about what they think about why Job is suffering. It isn't until the end in a relatively short and small portion of the entire book that we get what God thinks and says. The other material is important. But it isn't by itself giving God's truth. It's giving a dialogue that leads up to what is really true.

Many people take passages from the psalms and use them as proof-texts about the attributes of God. Most of the words of the Psalms, are not the "words of God" but are rather the words of the psalmist (David or whomever else) using poetry and song to praise and worship God. That doesn't mean they aren't true or can't reveal God to us, but many people just look at them and then believe that these are God's words Himself spoken about Himself and they quite simply are not, unless you rationalize that God willed that they be placed in the Bible so we'd have them to do that with. Maybe, but then that's not consistent with how we treat the words of Satan preserved in the Bible.

I think there's plenty of room for humility and honesty even before atheists that the Bible is not always easy to understand and interpret. There are indeed elements that when juxtaposed appear to contradict themselves. However, usually those are reconcilable when the context is examined and the intended message and audience are factored in.

As Jlay said, all of scripture is inspired. I heard a pastor say this weekend that "all of scripture is inspired but not all of scripture is equally inspiring", meaning that it's all there for a purpose but it's not all intended to speak directly to us as if God were speaking the words directly to us.