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

[Katzpur]

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.

According to LDS theology, the Bible was perfect as it was penned by the original authors. It was God's word as revealed to His prophets, and it was infallible. Unfortunately, we don't have one single solitary one of the original texts. Consequently, we have no way of knowing exactly what changes -- inadvertent or intentional -- may have crept into the various transcriptions over the years. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. Why anyone would believe that any errors in the translation are the word of God is beyond me. Incidentally, it has been described as "foremost among the Standard Works" accepted as doctrinal by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

It's fairly obvious that the Bible as we have it today does contain some errors.

This is why many Christian groups now either omit the end of the Book of Mark entirely (as a later interpolation), or relegate it to a footnote!

Fortunately, these errors have so far not damaged its spiritual message, which remains clear!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Scuba Pete]

Hey Scuba,

I think you misrepresented all Christians who embrace Scripture as final authority

Not nearly as much as they misrepresent the scriptures. Where in the Scriptures do they claim to be:

1. In totality the "Word of God"?
2. The "Final Authority"?
3. Perfect?
4. WRITTEN by God?

Most who believe what you do have deified the Scriptures to a position God never intended them to take. When challenged, they can NEVER provide Scripture to support their views. But they buy into this human tradition SO DEEPLY that they just can't see their error. They try to push and shove the existing scriptures to "infer" some of this, but it's JUST NOT THERE.
Now scripturally, I can prove that the scriptures are

1. Useful
2. Sufficient
3. INSPIRED (not written) by the Spirit of God

That's all I really need. I don't need to make them out to be more than they make themselves out to be. Do you?

 

[Wandered Off]

Hey, the Blog concept WAS mine!

My apologies, SP. I like the way you put it. Thanks, A_E for correcting me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hey, the Blog concept WAS mine! Thanks for setting the story straight there, AE.

Here is the real issue.

The scriptures NEVER EVER claim to be the word of God or to be perfect. It never even implies such blasphemy.

They do claim to be "sufficient" and I think that this is a GREAT description of them. If they are sufficient, then why do so many INSIST that they are perfect. Don't you think God would have MADE IT CLEAR if that's what he wanted us to believe?

What about the record of the prophets being told to write down what the Lord says? Both the OT prophets and the NT writers understood themselves to be writing down the words and characteristics of God, thus enabling us to view the Scriptures as God's word but not God's actual words. I agree that if we view Scripture as God's words, it's heresy, because God's words would most certainly be an idol and worthy of worship. Also, it's a mistake to confuse the word with the Word.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What about the record of the prophets being told to write down what the Lord says?

I think I covered that in subsequent posts. Those "Thus saith the Lord..." are few and far between. It was supposed to really MEAN something. In reality when it was Important enough and God did not want man to screw with it, he had his secretary write a memo on STONE TABLETS. God is not a fool. He knows how to get his point across. Now look at the first words in the book of Hebrews

Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. -NIV

It is my opinion that in reality, only his words really count. Everyone else (including Hebrews) are trying to interpret what Jesus was telling us.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think I covered that in subsequent posts. Those "Thus saith the Lord..." are few and far between. It was supposed to really MEAN something. In reality when it was Important enough and God did not want man to screw with it, he had his secretary write a memo on STONE TABLETS. God is not a fool. He knows how to get his point across. Now look at the first words in the book of Hebrews

Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. -NIV

It is my opinion that in reality, only his words really count. Everyone else (including Hebrews) are trying to interpret what Jesus was telling us.

It would be interesting to find out how often this phrase occurs. In my opinion, most - if not the entire - NT and much of the OT is written with the understanding that it falls under the auspices of "thus saith the Lord."

 

[Scuba Pete]

And yet, I see it as mostly a blog. Man searching for God and recording his inner most feelings about the process. I don't think God changed from a heinous, blood thirsty and vengeful being into the God of Love sometime after Micah. God has spoken to us in MANY and VARIOUS ways, as the writer of Hebrews points out. BUT NOW, he has made it rather plain with his Son that he is the author of Peace and not war. He is Love and that Satan is the Father of hate.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And yet, I see it as mostly a blog. Man searching for God and recording his inner most feelings about the process. I don't think God changed from a heinous, blood thirsty and vengeful being into the God of Love sometime after Micah. God has spoken to us in MANY and VARIOUS ways, as the writer of Hebrews points out. BUT NOW, he has made it rather plain with his Son that he is the author of Peace and not war. He is Love and that Satan is the Father of hate.

Niether do I... but I think that you've seriously misunderstood the God of the OT. As it stands I think that we are dealing with the same God...

 

[Special Revelation]

Not nearly as much as they misrepresent the scriptures. Where in the Scriptures do they claim to be:

1. In totality the "Word of God"?
2. The "Final Authority"?
3. Perfect?
4. WRITTEN by God?

Most who believe what you do have deified the Scriptures to a position God never intended them to take. When challenged, they can NEVER provide Scripture to support their views. But they buy into this human tradition SO DEEPLY that they just can't see their error. They try to push and shove the existing scriptures to "infer" some of this, but it's JUST NOT THERE.
Now scripturally, I can prove that the scriptures are

1. Useful
2. Sufficient
3. INSPIRED (not written) by the Spirit of God

That's all I really need. I don't need to make them out to be more than they make themselves out to be. Do you?

We all have different views of Scripture. I take the high road view of Scripture as described by Jesus is the wilderness (while Satan tempted Him). I suggest that you heed the wisdom of Christ and not be deceived by the father of lies.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Niether do I... but I think that you've seriously misunderstood the God of the OT. As it stands I think that we are dealing with the same God...

He was the same back then as he is now. HOWEVER, we don't have an entire nation justifying their blood thirstyness or their defeats as the result of God's favor or disfavor. Well, I guess we have Shrub doing that now, but the only thing that changed was our perception of God.

 

[Scuba Pete]

We all have different views of Scripture. I take the high road view of Scripture as described by Jesus is the wilderness (while Satan tempted Him).

I suggest you take the beam out of your eye before you try to besmirch my character! Show me where Jesus claimed or even suggested anything other than what I have written. Now, show me where the Lord claims that the Scriptures are perfect or infallible. I would HUMBLY suggest that I am taking an even higher road by not adding or taking away from the scriptures. Something I thought you literalists fully believed in.

I suggest that you heed the wisdom of Christ and not be deceived by the father of lies.

You mean listen to the wisdom of men and act as if their pious claims are those of the Spirit? No, not today. But thanks for the offer.

 

[Special Revelation]

I suggest you take the beam out of your eye before you try to besmirch my character! Show me where Jesus claimed or even suggested anything other than what I have written. Now, show me where the Lord claims that the Scriptures are perfect or infallible. I would HUMBLY suggest that I am taking an even higher road by not adding or taking away from the scriptures. Something I thought you literalists fully believed in. You mean listen to the wisdom of men and act as if their pious claims are those of the Spirit? No, not today. But thanks for the offer.

Wow, so who do you consider to be your brother and sister in Christ?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well SR,

I consider YOU to be a brother. Does that help? I don't know that the converse is true.

But really, I laid out some things that I said you couldn't prove scripturally. Why don't you at least address ONE of them? Instead of showing me how I am wrong, you impugn my Christianity. How about some supporting scripture(s) for your position instead?

 

[Special Revelation]

Well SR,

I consider YOU to be a brother. Does that help? I don't know that the converse is true.

But really, I laid out some things that I said you couldn't prove scripturally. Why don't you at least address ONE of them? Instead of showing me how I am wrong, you impugn my Christianity. How about some supporting scripture(s) for your position instead?

Thanks for the conversation and offer my friend. Let's just pray for each other instead.

 

[kmkemp]

To get back on topic, I ran across an interesting proof that all scripture is God's word. Actually, I should rephrase. I don't think that this, by itself, is enough to say that the entirety of scripture is straight out of the mouth of God, but it is enough to say that it does not need a "Thus sayeth the LORD" stamp on it to be from God. Combined with the common scriptures, I find it more than sufficient.

Matthew 19:4-5
"And He [Jesus] answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He [the Father] who 'made them at the beginning made them male and female', and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

The important thing to note here is that it is attributing the divorce law set out in Genesis to the words of the Father. We can find this particular law in chapter 2, verse 24. You will find no "Thus sayeth the LORD" here. The verse was written by the author of Genesis.

Thoughts?

 

[Scuba Pete]

That's a stretch. A really long stretch. Keep trying. It's not even that strong of an inference, but it's an inference at best.

It appears that SR has given up, probably because he knows that I am right about this.

 

[kmkemp]

I don't consider it a stretch at all. Just because it is not a black and white verse that says "all scripture came straight from the mouth of God himself" does not mean that it is any less valid. Only someone trying to defend a position that is hard to defend needs to so easily dismiss evidence.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Of course you don't consider it a stretch: you are trying to prove an indefensible tradition.

But you are putting words into Jesus' mouth here. Jesus is talking in a casual style here, using "He" instead of God. Big whoop.

Saying that he thinks that ALL of Scripture to be the word of God is indeed a stretch. Obviously, God does not give your pet doctrine/tradition a lot of merit or he WOULD have been more explicit.

Why do you have a problem with accepting the scriptures JUST AS the scriptures accept themselves? Why do you want to ADD to them? Just accept them as they are!

 

[kmkemp]

Of course you don't consider it a stretch: you are trying to prove an indefensible tradition.

But you are putting words into Jesus' mouth here. Jesus is talking in a casual style here, using "He" instead of God. Big whoop.

I don't really know what you are trying to say here. I am not claiming that Jesus didn't mean God when he said "He". In fact, that is exactly what I am saying.

Saying that he thinks that ALL of Scripture to be the word of God is indeed a stretch. Obviously, God does not give your pet doctrine/tradition a lot of merit or he WOULD have been more explicit.

I didn't say that this alone proves that. What it does prove is that, just because there was no "Thus sayeth the LORD" before it doesn't mean that God did not indeed say it. Either that or Jesus is a liar?

I don't know why you got the idea that Jesus would have to say explicitly that the whole of scripture came directly from God. It seems that the Jews already believed that and he didn't feel the need to correct them. I would make the reverse argument. He didn't make it explicit because the Jews already had it right.

Why do you have a problem with accepting the scriptures JUST AS the scriptures accept themselves? Why do you want to ADD to them? Just accept them as they are!

It should be noted that this is only one of many examples where the NT attributes something in the OT to God's words when the OT doesn't explicitly state that it is God doing the talking.