Evidence for God from Science

I hear a lot of Christians say that the Bible is the infallible word of God and I really can't find any justification for it and in fact I find that there is evidence against it.
Yes the Bible says it is the divinely inspired word of God but I don't think that equals infallibility, it was still written by humans with human understandings, maybe they got details wrong, maybe they misunderstood God sometimes, maybe they changed and edited things over time.

There are two areas that I would like to hear your thoughts on.

Firstly is Jeremiah 8:8

“‘How can you say, “We are wise,
for we have the law of the Lord,”
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?

The text seems to indicate that the pen of the scribes changed God's law to suit their own purposes and this makes sense of the next verse.

Jesus in his famous sermon on the mount (I feel) rebuked the law in places and what was written in the OT. He didn't just change the understanding of it, he threw it out and replaced it with something totally different. My example is as below.

Mathhew 5:38-39

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Here he has directly quotes Exodus 21:22-24 which was a part of the Mosaic Law (I think it's the Mosaic, or was that just the 10 commandments? correct me if my terminology is wrong)

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Jesus also says Matthew 5:17

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Now if something needs fulfilling then that implies that it is not complete and is broken in some way and I believe it was corrupted by men who had their own agendas.

Now if God is unchanging then his law must be perfect and correct, so then why does Jesus change it completely by fulfilling it, well to me that screams that it wasn't God's law any more, it had been changed, added to and corrupted by evil men who wanted to oppress others.

Now please save the judgement and Satan has deceived you comments, I really don't want to hear them and I will discard your reply as a fruitcake, genuine comments only please!

What I would like to hear is your interpretation of these passages If you oppose my interpretation or If you agree with my interpretation I would like to hear any additional passages that make you think that the Bible is not infallible in it's recording of the text (just want to qualify I only think it is fallible in what may have been exactly written and not in the message it portrays, after all, all scripture is good for learning, rebuking etc...).

I would also like to say that when it comes to the Bible, I see different books as having different levels of authority, obviously Jesus' words hold the most authority and everything else I read is balanced against them, yes I do realise that Jesus' words were written by men but I feel the conviction by the holy spirit that they are authentic, I do not however get that same level conviction from the OT scriptures.

There is probably more that I could add but that will do for now and remember folks we don't have to be right in all our beliefs for God to forgive us.

Well I guess we no longer have people who believe the Bible is infallible...................................

And they all said

Well, infallible in what regard?

Infallible:
in·fal·li·ble
inˈfaləb(ə)l/
adjective
incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
"doctors are not infallible"
synonyms: unerring, unfailing, faultless, flawless, impeccable, perfect, precise, accurate, meticulous, scrupulous
"an infallible sense of timing"
never failing; always effective.

So, based on that, I can state that the bible is infallible in regards to God.

PaulSacramento wrote:Well, infallible in what regard?

Infallible:
in·fal·li·ble
inˈfaləb(ə)l/
adjective
incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
"doctors are not infallible"
synonyms: unerring, unfailing, faultless, flawless, impeccable, perfect, precise, accurate, meticulous, scrupulous
"an infallible sense of timing"
never failing; always effective.

So, based on that, I can state that the bible is infallible in regards to God.

Infallible that every thing written is the unaltered word of God (that is the common use as far as I can gather). I for instance do believe it is infallible in it's message of love and forgiveness and revealing who God is through Jesus Christ.

I just wanted to hear from anyone who thinks it is the unaltered direct word of God, I am interested in how they interpret those particular passage, just in case I have missed some contextual issue that could shed a different light.

Cheers

While I do NOT think the books and letters of the bible we have now are the UNALTERED direct word of God, I don't think that Jeremiah means what you may think it means.
I use Jeremiah a lot to prove that the scribes of the bible did not always pass on the direct and unaltered word of God BUT that does NOT mean that the bible is somehow contaminated or ALL passages to be called into question.
Note what He says:

4 “You shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord,

“Do men fall and not get up again?
Does one turn away and not repent?
5 “Why then has this people, Jerusalem,
Turned away in continual apostasy?
They hold fast to deceit,
They refuse to return.
6 “I have listened and heard,
They have spoken what is not right;
No man repented of his wickedness,
Saying, ‘What have I done?’
Everyone turned to his course,
Like a horse charging into the battle.
7 “Even the stork in the sky
Knows her seasons;
And the turtledove and the swift and the thrush
Observe the time of their migration;
But My people do not know
The ordinance of the Lord.
8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise,
And the law of the Lord is with us’?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
Has made it into a lie.
9 “The wise men are put to shame,
They are dismayed and caught;
Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord,
And what kind of wisdom do they have?

This is a comment on Israel turning away from God and an accusations that the scribes ( for one) are responsible because they have changed/altered/add to the LAW given By God.

The scribes not only passed on The Law BUT also interpreted it.

We do NOT know which Laws may have been altered, if any, or if it was just how it was being interpreted.

I thought there may have been more too it than a simple plain reading, thanks Paul.
What supporting evidence is there for this interpretation??

Personally however, I still feel that the 10 commandments are God's law and everything after is an addition of man, I am sure God didn't want adulterers and homosexuals stoned at the city gates or whatever else was written in there.

I have more to think about now...........................

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I hear a lot of Christians say that the Bible is the infallible word of God and I really can't find any justification for it and in fact I find that there is evidence against it.
Yes the Bible says it is the divinely inspired word of God but I don't think that equals infallibility, it was still written by humans with human understandings, maybe they got details wrong, maybe they misunderstood God sometimes, maybe they changed and edited things over time.

There are two areas that I would like to hear your thoughts on.

Firstly is Jeremiah 8:8

“‘How can you say, “We are wise,
for we have the law of the Lord,”
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?

The text seems to indicate that the pen of the scribes changed God's law to suit their own purposes and this makes sense of the next verse.

Jesus in his famous sermon on the mount (I feel) rebuked the law in places and what was written in the OT. He didn't just change the understanding of it, he threw it out and replaced it with something totally different. My example is as below.

Mathhew 5:38-39

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Here he has directly quotes Exodus 21:22-24 which was a part of the Mosaic Law (I think it's the Mosaic, or was that just the 10 commandments? correct me if my terminology is wrong)

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Jesus also says Matthew 5:17

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Now if something needs fulfilling then that implies that it is not complete and is broken in some way and I believe it was corrupted by men who had their own agendas.

Now if God is unchanging then his law must be perfect and correct, so then why does Jesus change it completely by fulfilling it, well to me that screams that it wasn't God's law any more, it had been changed, added to and corrupted by evil men who wanted to oppress others.

Now please save the judgement and Satan has deceived you comments, I really don't want to hear them and I will discard your reply as a fruitcake, genuine comments only please!

What I would like to hear is your interpretation of these passages If you oppose my interpretation or If you agree with my interpretation I would like to hear any additional passages that make you think that the Bible is not infallible in it's recording of the text (just want to qualify I only think it is fallible in what may have been exactly written and not in the message it portrays, after all, all scripture is good for learning, rebuking etc...).

I would also like to say that when it comes to the Bible, I see different books as having different levels of authority, obviously Jesus' words hold the most authority and everything else I read is balanced against them, yes I do realise that Jesus' words were written by men but I feel the conviction by the holy spirit that they are authentic, I do not however get that same level conviction from the OT scriptures.

There is probably more that I could add but that will do for now and remember folks we don't have to be right in all our beliefs for God to forgive us.

Wasn't the bible written by people? with perhaps the exception, of the ten commandments?

In answer to your question - Yes.

I think the Bible is infallible. Our interpretation of it is not.

Can I prove that. Not a chance. Sorry. Just that I have built up this trust in it as I have read it.

Is the Bible altered in meaning? Not the original, it has remained intact for thousands of years. Are there new and strange versions, even false versions? Yes, hundreds, ever since the Bible began to form. But that has not changed the original text or its spiritual intent.

Can the original Bible be proven infallible? Yes, absolutely.

Can the original Bible be proven infallible? Yes, absolutely.

How would you go about demonstrating this? Or, would you care to?

Silvertusk wrote:In answer to your question - Yes.

I think the Bible is infallible. Our interpretation of it is not.

Can I prove that. Not a chance. Sorry. Just that I have built up this trust in it as I have read it.

I trust the Gospels and the words of Christ. That's ok Silver, I am not asking you to prove it, I respect your position.

Can anyone shed more light on Jesus' words regarding the law, I mean seriously he didn't just give it new meaning, he changed it!! So it was either right or wrong it cannot be both can it?

I don't think Jesus changed the Law. I mean, just look at the passage for a second . . .

• 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. 21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. . . .

Are we really going to suggest that in vv 17-19 Jesus says that He is NOT going to change or abolish the Law and in fact derides anyone who would do so, that in the very next verse He would do the very thing He condemned?!?

Of course not. That's silly. The answer is in v. 20. The Pharisees were breaking the Law every day with their traditions, their oral fences around the Law. Their righteousness was inferior to the righteousness of the Law. And that idea doesn't stop in ch 5, btw. It continues right on into ch 6.

I'll illustrate with only one example, murder because it is the first one Jesus mentions. The Law says not to murder. Jesus doesn't change that at all. He affirms it. Don't murder. What He points out, though, is that the Jews had misunderstood what murder was, and that because they had misunderstood the nature of the commandment. Why did God not want them to murder? Not for modern American utilitarian reasons. The reason is that humans are the image of God, so to assault a human is to assault God. To murder a human is to hold God's highest creation in the deepest of contempt, which is to hold God in contempt. So that's most illustrated in murder, but murder does not exhaust that category of offenses. To be angry at someone without cause, to call them a fool, is a real sort of murder. It is to hold the person in contempt. Just because you don't act out the internal hatred doesn't mean that the internal hatred isn't real. It just means you thought you couldn't get away with it. But you still murdered them in your heart.

Proof of that? Look at Jesus' own application. He doesn't talk about murder. He talks about reconciliation before worship. If someone even has something against you, then go and be reconciled before trying to worship God. Why? Because how can you worship God on one hand while you relationship with His image is broken? In all of this, by the way, Jesus proves Himself to understand the Law as it was written. Deuteronomy 19-22 are a commentary on the sixth commandment. In that section, Moses talks about how if a person kills another without malice, that they are not to be killed if they are in a city of refuge. The qualifier is important, because it shows what God is really concerned about. Later in the same section, Moses says that if a witness falsely testifies about someone (in a capital trial) then they themselves are to be killed? The implication is that lying against the defendant is trying to murder them. That section also says that when Israel went to war, they were first to offer the people peace and reconciliation before executing judgment. Again, we see the same principles at play. A final example from that section (there are others) is the rebellious son. Such a man is to be stoned, because his rebellion has "murdered" his parents in dishonoring them!

You are free to say Moses (and Jesus) were wrong in their assessment of what constitutes murder in such examples, but my point is only to show that whatever YOU think of Moses' and Jesus' theology, the fact is that they were one on this matter. It was the Pharisees who had watered down what constitutes murder so that they could murder others every day in the heart and not be condemned for it. So we see that Jesus did not change the Law. He did exactly what He said He was going to do. He was fulfilling it--every jot and every tittle, nothing left out. He was destroying the oral law of the Pharisees and exposing the real Law for what it really meant. And the same case can be made for all the supposed "changes" Jesus made.

Thanks Jac, I want to respond but am unable at this time, going away for the weekend tonight but I will chew on what you have written in the mean time and respond when I get back.

Mallz wrote:

Can the original Bible be proven infallible? Yes, absolutely.

How would you go about demonstrating this? Or, would you care to?

One of the greatest proofs of the Bible would be prophecy.
We can do studies to show it has been true in the past, but that could be passed off as just somehow a copy of history.
However, if a prophecy of the future comes true, against all common sense, reasoning and human predictions, then it proves that God knows the future and He has placed the prophecy beforehand.

But I guess many could pass that off as just luck.

So there is really no proof for the skeptic, since there is always a hook to hang one's doubts on.

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.