The literal & infallible word of God

[kadzbiz]

On the contrary, the part of Exodus 20 referred to as the Ten Commandments (and Deuteronomy 5 for that matter) are not merely an account but actual copies in ink and parchment of what God wrote on the stone. The Hebrews were meticulous people, and Moses would not have been content to paraphrase what God wrote. And it wouldn't sit well with the Author either.

Francine, firstly, why the need to paraphrase what God wrote? Secondly, why the need to copy the words? Surely, like me, people of the time wouldn't believe what men have written down perporting to be God's words. Even a (oh what do you call it when you put a sheet of paper on a gravestone and rub charcoal or pencil to capture what was written on the stone onto the paper?) rubbing of the stone tablets would've had more credibility. I go back to what I was saying previously, that I give little credance to what people in the Bible have written to be God's words and actions.

 

[Francine]

I go back to what I was saying previously, that I give little credance to what people in the Bible have written to be God's words and actions.

That's your prerogative, but I believe that Christ's empty tomb proves that he was who he said he was ("Before Abraham was, I AM"), and God the Son did not indicate that the scribes were in error pertaining to the text of the law, only pertaining to the additional traditions that were added to the law as a burden on the people.

 

[sojourner]

On the contrary, the part of Exodus 20 referred to as the Ten Commandments (and Deuteronomy 5 for that matter) are not merely an account but actual copies in ink and parchment of what God wrote on the stone. The Hebrews were meticulous people, and Moses would not have been content to paraphrase what God wrote. And it wouldn't sit well with the Author either.

That's fine and all, but Moses didn't write Exodus...or deuteronomy. These were not written down until about 650 b.c.e. Moses was not alive then.

 

[kadzbiz]

That's your prerogative, but I believe that Christ's empty tomb proves that he was who he said he was ("Before Abraham was, I AM"), and God the Son did not indicate that the scribes were in error pertaining to the text of the law, only pertaining to the additional traditions that were added to the law as a burden on the people.

Hmm, Christ's empty tomb, now there's a whole new thread. Anyway, I don't disbelieve that a man called Jesus lived way back then, but I'm not discussing Jesus here.

By the way - love your avatar Francine.

 

[Gaddock]

Hi all,

As a new arrival on this board (and I have to admit I haven't read all 11 previous pages of this thread) isn't the idea of the Bible as an infallible word of God just a rather silly one? You may want to argue that it is inspired by God (with cultural influences of the time, etc) but we know that the Bible contains contradictions and inaccuracies. Various attempts have been made by appologetics to expalin some of these away but these are often very poor and lack credability for anyone who isn't determined to beleive them regardless, and some have simply failed.

Most sensible Christian theologians recognise this and see the Bible as a starting point for a discourse about (and with) God rather than the end of the matter. Fundamentalists don't like this because it means we have to think about what it means to follow God (sometimes with no easy answer) rather than simply quote by rote.

Regards

Gaddock

 

[kadzbiz]

....As a new arrival on this board isn't the idea of the Bible as an infallible word of God just a rather silly one?

Firstly welcome to the forum Gaddock. Secondly, yes, that's the whole point of the OP. It's such a shame that the one thing that God was supposed to have actually written isn't available for us to view. Even that one thing is so hard for so many Christians to not only follow, but to agree upon its true meaning. That's why in this day and age lawyers are making big bucks.

 

[sojourner]

Don't kid yourself. The lawyers made big bucks back then, too.

 

[kadzbiz]

Don't kid yourself. The lawyers made big bucks back then, too.

Probably did. My point being that laws, rules and regulations have become so complicated these days, courts even argue over definitions.

 

[sojourner]

Probably did. My point being that laws, rules and regulations have become so complicated these days, courts even argue over definitions.

Nothing ever changes. The religious Law became extremely convoluted back then, too. That's why the gospel message was good news.
We have to remember that God is not the Law. God was revealed through the Law.

 

[w00t]

I read the Bible daily even though I am an agnostic, and don't see anything infallible about the writings of mere mortals. It seems absolutely crazy to take the documents, especially those in the OT, seriously!

 

[kadzbiz]

I read the Bible daily even though I am an agnostic, and don't see anything infallible about the writings of mere mortals. It seems absolutely crazy to take the documents, especially those in the OT, seriously!

Pray tell, why do you read the Bible daily?

 

[crystalonyx]

I keep reading in posts that the Bible, by some peoples' thinking, is the literal and infallible word of God. How can this possibly be if the different books were written by men telling of stories that had allegedly happened? There isn't one single book in the Bible that is God's telling of a story, only books of men that tell of stories of God's actions and comments. God is simply a character in the Bible used to influence the actions of other characters. I'm sure if God could create the 10 commandments on stone tablets, twice, then He could easily compile at least a little pamphlet about Himself.

Isn't the best interpretation of god whatever I say it is?

 

[sojourner]

Isn't the best interpretation of god whatever I say it is?

Not necessarily.

 

[kadzbiz]

Isn't the best interpretation of god whatever I say it is?

It's an interpretation. That's all. Only the author knows the true meaning, and I don't mean God. It's like any work of art (like somebody already mentioned), the only one who knows the true meaning is the artist who created it.

 

[crystalonyx]

It's an interpretation. That's all. Only the author knows the true meaning, and I don't mean God. It's like any work of art (like somebody already mentioned), the only one who knows the true meaning is the artist who created it.

That's the point I was trying to make, currently I am an atheist, however, if I was a god-believer, I think whatever one's private interpretation of what god is, is your god, and is what you will put your faith on.

 

[Smoke]

That's your prerogative, but I believe that Christ's empty tomb proves that he was who he said he was ("Before Abraham was, I AM")

Cool. I believe that Kadzbiz's ability to bilocate proves that he's the authority.

God the Son did not indicate that the scribes were in error pertaining to the text of the law, only pertaining to the additional traditions that were added to the law as a burden on the people.

However, the Tanakh itself indicates that there are problems with the text:

How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us?
Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood.​

 

[jcmasters]

Hi everyone, I'm also new to these forums. I have read the previous 11 pages of posts (ugh) and would like to make a comment about Kadzbiz's observations of eye-witnesses from 12 years in law enforcement.

I agree that you can get 4 people who observed an event, who come up with different perspectives, sometimes even contradictory, on what transpired.

Once I was involved in an accident where a bus ran a red light and struck a girl riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, whom I nearly ran over, as I was driving the lead car parallel to the girl and my light was green.
Bus Driver's Perspective: Girl hit the side of the bus, and my light was green.
Girl's perspective: I was crossing the side street and the bus broadsided me on purpose, and I landed in the main thoroughfare.
My perspective: My light was green, girl crossed the street and the bus hit her, sending her into the street and I almost ran her over.
Other witnesses' perspectives: The bus hit the girl.

Who did the cops believe? The girl and I.
Whose testimony was most credible? Mine. Why? Because I had no reason to make it up, and I was closest to the event while not being personally affected.
Were all of our testimonies the same? Nope. The other witnesses had less information about what happened. The girl claimed the bus driver hit her on purpose, having clearly seen her. The bus driver claimed her light was green.

Did we all observe the same event. Absolutely.
But our testimonies reflected our own perspectives of the event.

During trials, attorneys frequently are suspicious of eye-witness accounts that are identical, rather than different. Why? Because identical testimonies imply collusion or conspiricy, and those types of testimonies belie some sort of self-interest on behalf of those giving the testimonies.

So, as far as the 4 gospels are concerned (as well as some of the other books of the bible), differing testimonies are actually a good thing, which leads to more credibility rather than less.

Thank you for letting me participate, and I look forward to the back and forth.

JC Masters

 

[tomspug]

Excellent point.

My problem with this thread is that a lot of people are arguing about the infallibility of a book that they barely know anything about. If you have a problem with certain parts of the Bible, do some research about the historical context and exactly who the audience of the book is. There are plenty of bibles that include this kind of information. If you read the passage, understand the context, and STILL disagree with it, THEN you can argue its infallibility.

Just arguing what you THINK rather than what you KNOW is merely that: arguing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just arguing what you THINK rather than what you KNOW is merely that: arguing.

Is there anything that we know that we don't think that we know?

 

[Willamena]

It's an interpretation. That's all. Only the author knows the true meaning, and I don't mean God. It's like any work of art (like somebody already mentioned), the only one who knows the true meaning is the artist who created it.

And those who read it.