Is the bible word perfect? (infaliable? is that the right word?)

[kmkemp]

That doesn't quite work. It doesn't say "the anger of the Lord" incited David, it says He (the Lord) actually did;

Samuel 24:1 ...the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them..."

Chronicles 21:1 "Then Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David..."

It's not identifying Satan with "the anger of the Lord", it's identifying Satan with the Lord Himself.

But God can still use Satan as a tool just as he has used many throughout history as long as you can agree that Satan can do nothing apart from the will of God. One possible example is God using Satan to tempt Job.

 

[Quagmire]

To say that God contradicts Himself in the Bible is to imply God is evil.

Noone's saying God contridicts Himself. The question is; does the Bible contridict itself. And if so, how can it be the "infallible word of God".

 

[Truth_Faith13]

To say that God contradicts Himself in the Bible is to imply God is evil. God is the only perfect being, who has no darkness at all. He cannot be tempted by evil, nor is He capable to do evil. It is impossible for God to lie. The author of the Bible (God) is infinite with wisdom that no human being can completely understand. Therefore, the Bible is infinite too. Since we are finite fallen human beings, we are not capable to understand all of the Bible. The Apostle Paul states that he knows in part. If someone believes the Bible to be Holy... we should always approach it with humility and state things to be apparent contradictions. A high view of Scripture is a mark of a converted Christian. A low view of Scripture is not a good thing; it may even be evidences that somone is not truly in the faith. God the Holy Spirit illuminates the essential truth to His elect that the Bible is the Word of God. The carnal man will always undermine and attack the sufficiency of Scripture, because it is in His nature to rebel against God and His ways.

Please tell me you dont believe that God actually wrote the bible? The bible was inspired by God - it was written by Men.

 

[Special Revelation]

Noone's saying God contridicts Himself. The question is; does the Bible contridict itself. And if so, how can it be the "infallible word of God".

Are you trying to determine if the Bible is the Word of God?

 

[kmkemp]

I dont know the criteria! I just know that gospels that were written were left out! So you agree that the bible was put together by man then - which would contradict your belief that it was written by Go as you stated before and therefore cannot be infaliable.

You seem to rely 100% on the bible. As you said earlier if the bible is fiction, then there is no basis for christiantiy - what would you have done in the years with Jesus or after Jesus? when the bible didnt exist. It was written a couple of hundred years AFTER Jesus Christ.

I hope that I do not offend you by this, but from reading your posts, it appears that you have only been exposed to one side of the story. If you don't know how the Bible was put together, then you can't really know if it was correct or not. It seems that you have placed your faith in men that have told you one story without experiencing the other side of the coin.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I hope that I do not offend you by this, but from reading your posts, it appears that you have only been exposed to one side of the story. If you don't know how the Bible was put together, then you can't really know if it was correct or not. It seems that you have placed your faith in men that have told you one story without experiencing the other side of the coin.

Hmmm... Do you know my religious background then... please do tell me about it?

 

[Special Revelation]

Please tell me you dont believe that God actually wrote the bible? The bible was inspired by God - it was written by Men.

I'm not sure if that statement actually lines up with official LDS theology. Are there any LDS members who can comment on the statement above with official LDS theology? God is the author who used His servants to pen His Word. The Apostle Paul was God's instrument to write almost half of the books of the New Testament. It is still the Word of God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To say that God contradicts Himself in the Bible is to imply God is evil. God is the only perfect being, who has no darkness at all. He cannot be tempted by evil, nor is He capable to do evil. It is impossible for God to lie. The author of the Bible (God) is infinite with wisdom that no human being can completely understand. Therefore, the Bible is infinite too. Since we are finite fallen human beings, we are not capable to understand all of the Bible. The Apostle Paul states that he knows in part. If someone believes the Bible to be Holy... we should always approach it with humility and state things to be apparent contradictions. A high view of Scripture is a mark of a converted Christian. A low view of Scripture is not a good thing; it may even be evidences that somone is not truly in the faith. God the Holy Spirit illuminates the essential truth to His elect that the Bible is the Word of God. The carnal man will always undermine and attack the sufficiency of Scripture, because it is in His nature to rebel against God and His ways.

Ha! It implies no such thing. If God can work through people who contradict themselves and are imperfect (a perfect person is a rarity), then God most certainly can tolerate a Bible which is imperfect, with every kind of scribal error. It's more than abundantly clear that the Bible is imperfect in a variety of ways, and folks who fantasize about its perfection have to come up with a host of extreme statements like this to justify themselves, along with complex explanations of the obvious errors.

These people also have to conclude that God no longer works the way that God did with the creation of Scripture, which is a complex theological problem that is exclusive to the message of Scripture: that God never changes.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I hope that I do not offend you by this, but from reading your posts, it appears that you have only been exposed to one side of the story. If you don't know how the Bible was put together, then you can't really know if it was correct or not. It seems that you have placed your faith in men that have told you one story without experiencing the other side of the coin.

Now this is ironic. :cover:

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I'm not sure if that statement actually lines up with official LDS theology. Are there any LDS members who can comment on the statement above with official LDS theology?

Whats LDS doctrine got to do with this?

But just to clarify I am not saying the bible isnt the word of God - hence I say it was inspired by God... but it wasnt physically written by God - it cant have been, there are too many times when someone has written a story and it has differed from anothers perspective.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now this is ironic. :cover:

Do you think that he's referring to Ellis (The Making of the NT Documents) or Ehrman (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture)? :biglaugh: :slap:

 

[sojourner]

The books that were left out were left out because they were contradictory and thus, not God-breathed. They were not of apostolic origin.

It is just as likely that Thomas and the Didache were apostolic in origin as it is that Luke and John were apostolic in origin.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Now this is ironic. :cover:

Whats funny, is he is the one who has had a christian upbringing and therefore likely to have only heard one side of the story!

 

[Quagmire]

But God can still use Satan as a tool just as he has used many throughout history as long as you can agree that Satan can do nothing apart from the will of God. One possible example is God using Satan to tempt Job.

Yes but that isn't what it says. The important difference between the two accounts is that the first attributes the act entirely to God, the second attributes it to Satan.

It's an issue of who the instigator was, not the mechanics involved.

Btw God didn't use Satan to tempt Job, He allowed Satan to tempt Job (it was Satan's idea remember).

 

[Special Revelation]

Ha! It implies no such thing. If God can work through people who contradict themselves and are imperfect (a perfect person is a rarity), then God most certainly can tolerate a Bible which is imperfect, with every kind of scribal error. It's more than abundantly clear that the Bible is imperfect in a variety of ways, and folks who fantasize about its perfection have to come up with a host of extreme statements like this to justify themselves, along with complex explanations of the obvious errors.

These people also have to conclude that God no longer works the way that God did with the creation of Scripture, which is a complex theological problem that is exclusive to the message of Scripture: that God never changes.

According to Biblical revelation, faith pleases God. If we walk by faith and not by sight, we walk by faith by trusting in the promises of God. If you are not able to trust the copies of the Bible that you own, how can you trust God? Do you have another source of authority above the Scriptures? Do you lean on your own understanding, or believe in some type of magisterum, or a modern apostolic authority that you submit to? Have you rejected the doctrine of the immutability of God?

 

[Quagmire]

Are you trying to determine if the Bible is the Word of God?

that is the topic of this thread.

 

[sojourner]

If they contradict themselves, how do you know that the whole Bible wasn't written as a hoax? Even if only part of it was inserted by man (apart from God's will), how do you know that the important pieces like your salvation were not those very pieces? It seems counterproductive to believe one part and not others. What criteria are you using to decide which pieces to trust?

It was far more imortant to the Biblical authors to preserve the various traditions than it was to make everything reconcile. We should be reading the Bible as the witness of the Church, and not as the literal, infallible, or inerrant word of God. It means accepting that all knowledge of God is historical, human and fallible.

 

[sojourner]

According to Biblical revelation, faith pleases God. If we walk by faith and not by sight, we walk by faith by trusting in the promises of God. If you are not able to trust the copies of the Bible that you own, how can you trust God? Do you have another source of authority above the Scriptures? Do you lean on your own understanding, or believe in some type of magisterum, or a modern apostolic authority that you submit to? Have you rejected the doctrine of the immutability of God?

But we have to trust the Bible for what it is, not for what we wish it to be. With that in mind, our faith can lead us to accept the things that different people had to say from different perspectives as inspired. We can glean truth without picking the fly crap out of the pepper.

 

[Wandered Off]

All Bible that we have are copies of different manuscripts. Since mankind is not perfect, all translations have human error. Look at the preface in your Bibles and they all claim to be subject to error. The originals are completely perfect!

That is of no consequence if they longer exist.

Assuming omnipotence, why would the 'protection from error' end with the originals? That is, why wouldn't the same power that supposedly allowed Moses and the gang to get it perfectly right work on the translators too? Not extending the same protection has only downside risk and no advantage whatsoever.

I like A_E's analogy calling it a human blog.

 

[Special Revelation]

It was far more imortant to the Biblical authors to preserve the various traditions than it was to make everything reconcile. We should be reading the Bible as the witness of the Church, and not as the literal, infallible, or inerrant word of God. It means accepting that all knowledge of God is historical, human and fallible.

I have to be honest my friend; I have struggled with much of your postings on theological positions. It appears that you have a low view of Scripture. How do you determine if something is true or false? It appears some of your postings are very humanistic, or at least I have interpreted them to be. Do you believe in a literal account of the Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind? Do you consider yourself a liberal Christian? How much of the historical Christian faith do you embrace and reject?