Evidence for God from Science

I have reviewed the majority of previous threads regarding the issue of an infallible Bible, and it looked like most Christians believed pretty strongly that the Bible contains no errors. I am just curious to see where people tend to draw the line in this belief. And if your belief is not accurately described in the poll options I offered, please tell me what you believe!

More importantly, why do you believe what you believe? Is it mostly faith? Is it the geographical/historical accuracy of the stories? The consistently fulfilled prophecies? Are there any people who believe in salvation through Christ, but believe that the Bible is merely an historical account of events rather than the Word of God?

Thank you in advance for any responses!

Clicked on the second on. I veer towards errors being down to mainly our interpretations of what was written - rather than anything wrong with what was written itself.

I don't think that the poll can actually benefit you with any useful insight. It is inadequate to cover the topic in my opinion.

Eureka wrote:More importantly, why do you believe what you believe? Is it mostly faith? Is it the geographical/historical accuracy of the stories? The consistently fulfilled prophecies?

All of the above.

Eureka wrote:Are there any people who believe in salvation through Christ, but believe that the Bible is merely an historical account of events rather than the Word of God?

I'm sure there are but it doesn't mean they're consistent with their theology.

P.S. I know some will disagree (and it might very well a semantic point) but the Bible is not infallible, it is inerrant, i.e. does not contain material errors (immaterial errors due to translations that is).

I voted 2 as well. If you ever read the preface to the original 1611 KJV which has never been reprinted, #2 pretty much sums up what the scribes and priests King James asked to translate/transliterate said.

Original KJV Preface

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

I think one needs to define what "inerrant" and "infaillable" means.
Is it fair to apply the criteria of "inerrant = no errors whatsoever" to a book like Job, which was NOT written that way but was basically a huge parable?
Is it fair to apply that criteria or pslams? or the various parables of Jesus for example?
Historical and biblical criticisim has raised many questions about bible inerrancy and, depending on the person, these have been dealt with in various degrees of efficacy, but that these issues exist is something that no one can turn a blind eye to.

I only avoided the word "inerrant" because my spell-check kept rejecting it. If there is confusion, I guess I'm really asking about the words that the authors of the Bible say were said by God/Jesus. We dissect these verses with attention to every single letter!

I guess I won't gain much insight from the poll, but hopefully I can get some insight from those who will tell me WHY they believe what they believe about these books.

This has been a HUGE struggle for me...I feel like there isn't any reason to accept the Word as flawless except through faith.

Thanks, E

Eureka wrote:This has been a HUGE struggle for me...I feel like there isn't any reason to accept the Word as flawless except through faith.

You've got it backwards. You accept Jesus as Lord first, then the Bible will be revealed as inerrant to you by the Spirit of God.

For now, all you can do is read it and complain...been there, done that.

FL (Former atheist )

Bible is correct, our interpretation is the only thing in question.


Dan

I started going to church (with my cousins) when I was around 13 or so, and I accepted Christ as an early teen. I was an active member of the church through high school and college, and bible study and prayer were a huge part of my life. It wasn't until after college that I started realizing that the only real reason I believed in salvation through Christ and an inerrant Bible was because I wanted to believe those things and I wanted those things to be true.

I am still drawn to Christianity, but I really think that if the Bible were the Word of God, it would be protected throughout time and translation, etc...which doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Maybe I can harvest faith in a petri dish or something, and there will be hope for me yet

Eureka wrote:I started going to church (with my cousins) when I was around 13 or so, and I accepted Christ as an early teen. I was an active member of the church through high school and college, and bible study and prayer were a huge part of my life. It wasn't until after college that I started realizing that the only real reason I believed in salvation through Christ and an inerrant Bible was because I wanted to believe those things and I wanted those things to be true.

I am still drawn to Christianity, but I really think that if the Bible were the Word of God, it would be protected throughout time and translation, etc...which doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Maybe I can harvest faith in a petri dish or something, and there will be hope for me yet

Eureka, maybe you're still a Christian, and God is calling you back. Have you ever thought of that possibility? Maybe there's a reason why you found this forum.

Eureka wrote:I started going to church (with my cousins) when I was around 13 or so, and I accepted Christ as an early teen. I was an active member of the church through high school and college, and bible study and prayer were a huge part of my life. It wasn't until after college that I started realizing that the only real reason I believed in salvation through Christ and an inerrant Bible was because I wanted to believe those things and I wanted those things to be true.

I am still drawn to Christianity, but I really think that if the Bible were the Word of God, it would be protected throughout time and translation, etc...which doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Maybe I can harvest faith in a petri dish or something, and there will be hope for me yet

There's nothing wrong with wanting something to be true. Anyone who says that their desires don't enter the picture is just lying to you and possibly even themselves. The problem is when you conclude something is true based on your desire for it to be true. That doesn't work. Wanting something to be true can lead you to give assent when the evidence suggests that there is good reason. It can lead you to maintain assent in the face of opposing evidence while you research the problem (this is known colloquially as giving something the benefit of the doubt). Desiring something not be true has the same impacts on the reverse side.

So why should you believe the Bible? Well, that's a different question then what leads a person to believe! You should believe it because it's true. How you know that is quite another matter. As Byblos hinted at, everything comes to bear on this question. Fulfilled prophecies are telling. The fact that archaeology has been a huge friend of the Bible is another. The fact that (despite claims to the contrary) it fits well with our moral intuitions works in its favor. The fact that it has a coherent worldview helps. The fact that it is just the type of revelation we might expect of a God giving us a "true religion" is worth considering. In the end, what does it for me is the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection. I can't get around that, which means that I have to believe that Jesus is who He said He is, and if that is true, then what He believed about Scripture matters a lot. And He believed that Scripture was inspired. Therefore, on His authority, I believe the same. So then, along with FL, I'd point out that it's faith in Christ that really seals the deal--that by believing in Jesus, it becomes easy to accept the authority of Scripture and seeing it for what it is. Trying to see the Bible as the Word of God apart from faith in Christ seems rather backwards, to me. I would suggest it would have been backwards to all of the biblical writers, too. Every single book of the Bible was written to believers (whether Jewish or Gentile). All of them. So all of them presuppose that their readers already believe in YHWH and/or Jesus.

So I'd suggest the bottom line for you ought to be, "Are the claims Jesus made about Himself reliable?" Or, more basically, "Is Jesus who He said He was? Is He who the Bible presents Him to be?" If you say yes to that, then the questions of biblical authority and inerrancy take on a very different meaning. If you say no, then what's the point of discussing the nature of Scripture, anyway?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Bible is correct, our interpretation is the only thing in question.


Dan

I agree, we tend to look at the bible with 21st century glasses on, not a good thing since the bible, which it has MANY timeless truths, was written by ancient man FOR ancient man and we can never discount that fact when we try to interpret it.
Failed and flawed Humans trying to make sense of the WORD of God and believing they can do that WITHOUT error is far more arrogant than anything other than believing that we can have a better world without God.