How do Christians Know the Bible is Both Inspired by God and Inerrant?

[savagewind]

I think that it is funny impertinent that some of the loudest defenders of the notion that every word in the Bible is God's word don't even know what it means.

@omega2xx says, "the way of God is faith alone".

savagewind says that the way of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self-control and The Lord's will is that we be wise and that we keep ourselves like salt with its flavor, not without its flavor.

 

[columbus]

I in fact do know that.
Perhaps you should venture out of your box once in a while?

Well, really, you can't say that, for two reasons. For one, there is no objective meaning for the word Christian. You and I may have very broad meanings for the word. We agree that pretty much anybody who self-identifies as Christian qualifies. But lots of people have much more exclusive meanings for the word. @omega2xx has a rather exclusive one, but how many threads on RF revolve around some huge group of people who are fake Christians like the Catholics and Mormons? Or people who say "No Christians ever rape or murder, because those people aren't really Christian."? Or sects like JW who don't think anybody else is truely Christian?
Second, people commonly use the word "know" to mean anything they feel confident about. So when omega says "I know that all Christians agree with me about the Bible", he is correct. In a way.
Tom

 

[savagewind]

. So when omega says "I know that all Christians agree with me about the Bible", he is correct. In a way.
Tom

Is it because he believes a Christian is someone who believes the Bible his way?

 

[McBell]

Well, really, you can't say that, for two reasons. For one, there is no objective meaning for the word Christian. You and I may have very broad meanings for the word. We agree that pretty much anybody who self-identifies as Christian qualifies. But lots of people have much more exclusive meanings for the word. @omega2xx has a rather exclusive one, but how many threads on RF revolve around some huge group of people who are fake Christians like the Catholics and Mormons? Or people who say "No Christians ever rape or murder, because those people aren't really Christian."? Or sects like JW who don't think anybody else is truely Christian?
Second, people commonly use the word "know" to mean anything they feel confident about. So when omega says "I know that all Christians agree with me about the Bible", he is correct. In a way.
Tom

rotflmao
Who are you to claim that Mormons and Catholics are "fake" Christians?
In all honesty, this line of "reasoning" only makes it worse for Mr Omega, not better.
As appealing as the No True Scotsman is for theists like Mr Omega, it does not help their "arguments".
For as I have told many many a (what do you call a racist that is racist over religion instead of skin colour?), until you can show your interpretation is the "one true way", all you are doing is pointing out differences in beliefs.

I will be sure to tell those I know that they not only do not exist, but that they are also not Christians.

 

[David T]

Sorry but your run-on sentence isn't making sense.


.

Typos .lol

 

[McBell]

Can you prove what He is attributed to saying, He did not say?

Can you prove that it is?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

At that point there is nothing for Christians to rely on as truth.

Not so much of a problem if you know the Scientific Method can sort out quite a lot. You won't know everything there either, but you'll know more than reading a heavily biased text changed ad nauseum throughout the centuries.

God says so and He can't lie.

Bible wasn't technically written by God but by humans, who CAN lie.

God told me that humans wrote the bible, He never said a lot of things that are in there about Him, and to trust Him alone, and if that is not enough, all of reality will conform to God's will. So, say, if someone screams the world is going to end in the year 2000, if that were true, nature would be going nuts. Everyone acted pretty much the same as the previous day, so .... yep, sure enough, the year 2001 rolls in. God encourages me to know how the world works so that every stupid little storm or volcanic venting or space rock won't freak me out.

I have a written record of what He said. Can you prove what He is attributed to saying, He did not say?

You have a written record of what people have decided He said. It's not like reading the original Declaration of Independence or anything. You don't have a primary source, which is what you need to be "sure".

Anyway, ll Timothy 3:16 says it all for me. It is the inspired word of God and it is very suitable for training and teaching, and living our lives by!

Isn't 2 Timothy that book that scholars note can't have been written by Paul, is thus a forgery, and thus is lying to you?

Try this---Without faith it is impossible to please God---Heb 11:6

How does God show favor to non-Jewish people in the OT? Non-Christians in the NT?

Jesus gave the apostles he authority and today Jesus gives the pope and the bishops authority

Or at least that's what the people in authority say, as there is no way to ask Jesus in an objective manner.

Apparently God considered it to be a mistake because he chose to punish them for it. But I guess He could have been wrong.

But as God sees into mankind's hearts, He also knew it's like a child eating the snack you told them not to: they acted on impulse (there is no rational lecture from A&E about the ethics of obeying God or anything and Eve's first thought about the fruit was essentially "yummy"). Thus, they are not killed as God said He'd do, but essentially forced to grow up.

Is it because he believes a Christian is someone who believes the Bible his way?

And, ironically, has no bible verse that says that omega is right.

 

[omega2xx]

Actually no. I didn't disagree that faith is needed. I disagreed that ONLY faith is needed. Do you know what the word "alone" means?

I didn't say you didn't say faith is not needed. I said all you have done is disagree with me. Which is fine.


What else is needed. Please include any Scripture you think supports your view.

 

[savagewind]

I didn't say you didn't say faith is not needed. I said all you have done is disagree with me. Which is fine.


What else is needed. Please include any Scripture you think supports your view.

What we on the forum do is read other people's posts. Every time you say as the above, I think, 'he is not reading the other posts'. OK? It's there if your question is legitimate.

I could post it again, but what good would that do if you have read it already, but didn't understand it?

 

[omega2xx]

Well, really, you can't say that, for two reasons. For one, there is no objective meaning for the word Christian. You and I may have very broad meanings for the word. We agree that pretty much anybody who self-identifies as Christian qualifies. But lots of people have much more exclusive meanings for the word. @omega2xx has a rather exclusive one, but how many threads on RF revolve around some huge group of people who are fake Christians like the Catholics and Mormons? Or people who say "No Christians ever rape or murder, because those people aren't really Christian."? Or sects like JW who don't think anybody else is truely Christian?
Second, people commonly use the word "know" to mean anything they feel confident about. So when omega says "I know that all Christians agree with me about the Bible", he is correct. In a way.
Tom

I don't think I have ever said "all Christians agree with me." That they don' is evidenced by the number of denominations.

 

[savagewind]

I don't think I have ever said "all Christians agree with me." That they don' is evidenced by the number of denominations.

You said that all Christians should understand that the Bible is inspired by God and inerrant or something of that nature.

 

[omega2xx]

Can you prove that it is?

I ask you first.

 

[omega2xx]

Not so much of a problem if you know the Scientific Method can sort out quite a lot. You won't know everything there either, but you'll know more than reading a heavily biased text changed ad nauseum throughout the centuries.


Bible wasn't technically written by God but by humans, who CAN lie.

Technically humans wrote what God inspired them to write.

God told me that humans wrote the bible, He never said a lot of things that are in there about Him, and to trust Him alone, and if that is not enough, all of reality will conform to God's will. So, say, if someone screams the world is going to end in the year 2000, if that were true, nature would be going nuts. Everyone acted pretty much the same as the previous day, so .... yep, sure enough, the year 2001 rolls in. God encourages me to know how the world works so that every stupid little storm or volcanic venting or space rock won't freak me out.

You have a written record of what people have decided He said. It's not like reading the original Declaration of Independence or anything. You don't have a primary source, which is what you need to be "sure".

God can control His words to man. If not , he is not omnipotent.

Isn't 2 Timothy that book that scholars note can't have been written by Paul, is thus a forgery, and thus is lying to you?

Only be liberal so-scollars scholars.

How does God show favor to non-Jewish people in the OT? Non-Christians in the NT?

Grace.

Or at least that's what the people in authority say, as there is no way to ask Jesus in an objective manner.

Who do you consider who is in authority?

But as God sees into mankind's hearts, He also knew it's like a child eating the snack you told them not to: they acted on impulse (there is no rational lecture from A&E about the ethics of obeying God or anything and Eve's first thought about the fruit was essentially "yummy"). Thus, they are not killed as God said He'd do, but essentially forced to grow up.


And, ironically, has no bible verse that says that omega is right.

More ironic is that not Bible verse says I am wrong.

 

[omega2xx]

You said that all Christians should understand that the Bible is inspired by God and inerrant or something of that nature.

That's a far cry from says, "all Christians agree with me."

 

[savagewind]

That's a far cry from says, "all Christians agree with me."

Can you please see the title of the thread?

 

[savagewind]

God can control His words to man. If not , he is not omnipotent

Omnipotent means "able" . Are you going to disagree with me again?

Able does not mean willing. Or, according to you, is able and willing the same adjective?

This is not me disagreeing with you. This is me disagreeing with your faulty logic.
You say that God can control the men who write and I most certainly agree with you.
You say if God didn't control them it means that God is not omnipotent. That is just plain not right.
Does your god do everything he can do?

 

[omega2xx]

Omnipotent means "able" . Are you going to disagree with me again?

Able does not mean willing. Or, according to you, is able and willing the same adjective?

This is not me disagreeing with you. This is me disagreeing with your faulty logic.
You say that God can control the men who write and I most certainly agree with you.
You say if God didn't control them it means that God is not omnipotent. That is just plain not right.
Does your god do everything he can do?

Omnipotent means "able" . Are you going to disagree with me again?

Able does not mean willing. Or, according to you, is able and willing the same adjective?

This is not me disagreeing with you. This is me disagreeing with your faulty logic.
You say that God can control the men who write and I most certainly agree with you.
You say if God didn't control them it means that God is not omnipotent. That is just plain not right.
Does your god do everything he can do?

 

[savagewind]

@omega2xx I don't know why you are echoing my post.

I give you logic and you dismiss it out of hand every time. I show you where you are contradicting other things you believe in and you call it disagreeing with you.
I said it seems that you are here only to disagree with other posters and you say that I am disagreeing with you. I am telling you that YOU are disagreeing with you.

 

[james bond]

Clearly Adam and Eve were NOT created perfectly. By definition a PERFECT being is incapable of making mistakes, yet Adam and Eve made the mistake of eating from the tree of knowledge, so obviously they were flawed beings. You can't have it both ways.

Your definition of perfect means that they're robots and obey God because that is how they were created. There is no definition of perfect like that. To win, there has to be a lose. They had free will to choose and that was God's test. Adam and Eve were perfect with free will. With free will, He knew that angels like Lucifer would happen in heaven so he had to create a separate place for them. What you can't have both ways is free will versus programming.

 

[McBell]

I ask you first.

But you are the one making the claim, not me.
Simply being the first to ask does not shift the burden.

Nice try though.