It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Biblical Inerrancy

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
There seem to be an inordinate number of posters here who believe the Bible is the actual inerrant word of god.

Why do you believe that? Is it because of 2 Timothy 3:16?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

If so, what was the 'scripture' the author of 2 Timothy (Paul) was referring to? Was it not the Jewish scriptures (the OT)? If so, why then do inerrantists include the New Testament as inerrant as well? Surely Paul did not consider his own writings to be scripture, would he? Would he consider the gospels and other books of the New Testament to be scripture, considering they were not yet written at the time 2 Timothy was written?

Finally, if that is the only basis for Biblical inerrancy - the word of a single man made off handedly in a private letter, is there really any basis at all?




posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The evidence for the accuracy of the Holy Bible is manifold. I’ve personally read no less than twenty books covering this subject. This is a small question with a huge answer and no simple forum post would come close to doing it justice. If you’re truly interested in this subject I could recommend some reading for you.

I will take the time to mention what I consider to be the most important evidence for the accuracy of the Holy Bible. If you examine all the other major religious books out there you will find that none of them have the prophetic fulfillments that the Holy Bible has.

The Holy Bible has predicted hundreds of events in history that have come to pass exactly as predicted. Many of these predictions could not have been fulfilled by the desire of any man or group of men alone. The accuracy of the Holy Bibles predictions is an astounding 100%! This is the single greatest proof of the Bibles authenticity. It’s clear to me that something which exists outside of our time and space dimensions has had a hand in the Holy Bible’s construction.

Often times you hear people say that there is no scientific evidence to support the Bible. They are wrong and speak in ignorance. One of our fields of science is known as the science of probabilities. That science clearly shows that our Holy Bible and the prophecies that have been fulfilled in its pages bear undeniable evidence to the supreme authorship of the book.

You will not find this evidence anywhere else on the face of the earth.


In Christ,
Machine



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Ham, what is your agenda? Is there perhaps some entertainment value in all this for you? You post questions you believe you already have answers to, only to categorically shoot down all replies that differ from the answer you already have in your mind? (I've noticed, those replies which you don't attempt to shoot down, you simply ignore)

And for the rest of you, do you not see what he is doing? Do any of you think for even a moment that you will EVER provide a response to any of his posts that he will find satisfactory? Do you not see that the end result of each of his posts is that it turns into a game of "who can have the last word"

Ham, tell me, am I lying? Do you not already KNOW the answer you are willing to accept, as well as the many you are ready to outright reject? Am I wrong in assuming you have a number of arguments already prepared to address the responses you expect?

OR, is there ANY CHANCE WHATSOEVER that you ask these questions hoping, perhaps, to finally read a response that helps you to believe in what you find so hard to believe in? I mean, can it be you want to believe, but can't, because all that you understand of christianity sound so much like hypocrisy and mythology?

If your answer to the above question is an emphatic no, then WHAT'S THE POINT? This is all just a game for you, and these silly readers/posters are pawns providing you with entertainment. Or do you believe you will convert believers to become non-believers? If you do, you're not only arrogant, but also incredibly ignorant. Your words won't even convert a fly, and their words will certainly not convert you. Words alone have never convinced anyone to "switch sides". HOWEVER if your answer is "yes, I am actually looking for a reason to believe", then let me tell you now, you will NOT find that magical response within christendom.

Ok, enough of my ranting. On to the subject of your new question-of-the-day ...

When the Messiah walked the earth, what He referred to as Scripture was ONLY what christians today call the Old Testament. That said, at no time does the Messiah instruct us that the scripture contains no error, neither does any verse in scripture make such a claim.

Do you like that answer?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Machine
The evidence for the accuracy of the Holy Bible is manifold. I’ve personally read no less than twenty books covering this subject. This is a small question with a huge answer and no simple forum post would come close to doing it justice. If you’re truly interested in this subject I could recommend some reading for you.

I will take the time to mention what I consider to be the most important evidence for the accuracy of the Holy Bible. If you examine all the other major religious books out there you will find that none of them have the prophetic fulfillments that the Holy Bible has.

The Holy Bible has predicted hundreds of events in history that have come to pass exactly as predicted. Many of these predictions could not have been fulfilled by the desire of any man or group of men alone. The accuracy of the Holy Bibles predictions is an astounding 100%! This is the single greatest proof of the Bibles authenticity. It’s clear to me that something which exists outside of our time and space dimensions has had a hand in the Holy Bible’s construction.



One of many proofs ? I see no proof,opinion and speculation but no proof.You've read twenty books that you say prove the accuracy of the bible,who wrote these books? Man wrote those books to serve their own ends.
If the bible is 100% accurate and infallible who carried the cross ?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
if the bible really were the work of god, then there would be no 'need' to have so many prophecies fulfilled. the same goes for if jesus were the son of god, and again there would be no need for him to 'prove' using miracles that he was the son of god. the miracles and prophecies are there to try and sway people's beliefs. if it really were truely a work of god, rather than man's own imagination then there would not be a need for miracles or prophecies to sway people's beliefs.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Behold
Ham, what is your agenda?


To show how silly you are and annoy you personally. That's the only answer you're going to accept isn't it?


Originally posted by Behold
Ham, tell me, am I lying?


Yes.


Originally posted by Behold
Do you not already KNOW the answer you are willing to accept, as well as the many you are ready to outright reject?


I am looking for reasoned responses. It isn't my fault that you provide none. I have conceeded points with other posters on this board when a solid argument has been presented.


Originally posted by Behold
Am I wrong in assuming you have a number of arguments already prepared to address the responses you expect?


You are correct. I have arguments to address responses I have encountered in past debates/discussions/investigations, refined and modified as a result. This is the process by which truth is revealed - you chisel away the fallacies and refine the premises. This naturally results in strong arguments.


Originally posted by Behold
I mean, can it be you want to believe,


No. I'm seeking knowledge, not belief.


Originally posted by Behold
but can't, because all that you understand of christianity sound so much like hypocrisy and mythology?


It doesn't merely sound like hypocrisy and mythology, it is hypocrisy and mythology. Christianity is not unique in that regard.


Originally posted by Behold
Or do you believe you will convert believers to become non-believers?


I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone, I'm trying to learn and to get people to think. "Deny ignorance", remember? If you want to just discuss your faith with like-faithed people and don't want any skeptics interrupting the party, there are plenty of Christian-only forums for that kind of incestuous delusion reinforcement.


Originally posted by Behold
Your words won't even convert a fly, and their words will certainly not convert you. Words alone have never convinced anyone to "switch sides".


You accuse me of ignorance as you yourself speak arrogantly and authoritatively from ignorance. You know absolutely nothing about those who have rejected your mythology, yet you think you can peer into thier hearts and minds.


Originally posted by Behold
When the Messiah walked the earth, what He referred to as Scripture was ONLY what christians today call the Old Testament. That said, at no time does the Messiah instruct us that the scripture contains no error, neither does any verse in scripture make such a claim.

Do you like that answer?


Yes. I take it you are not a Biblical inerrantist then?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Behold
Ham, what is your agenda?


To show how silly you are and annoy you personally. That's the only answer you're going to accept isn't it?


Not at all. I'll accept whatever you tell me is your agenda, because only you know what that is. Fact One: There are people who do get their kicks from heckling christians. Fact Two: I KNOW fact one is a fact, I use to do it above three years ago, when I was an atheist. Fact Three: Without asking you, I could not know.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Behold
Ham, tell me, am I lying?


Yes.


Then I ask for your forgiveness.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Behold
Do you not already KNOW the answer you are willing to accept, as well as the many you are ready to outright reject?


I am looking for reasoned responses. It isn't my fault that you provide none. I have conceeded points with other posters on this board when a solid argument has been presented.


Not true. I've provided a response, AND, you understood it correctly. But I will reiterate; in answer to your question, "Why do you believe that [the Bible is inerrant]?" I do not.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Behold
I mean, can it be you want to believe,


No. I'm seeking knowledge, not belief.


Hmm, either I should rephrase the question, or, you should concede that in that past, what is first believed, is afterward confirmed, and therefore no longer called belief, but knowledge. Man believed the world was flat, until the knowledge came that it was not. Many believe in Extra Terrestrial life, until the time comes that they land in full view of the entire watching world, at which point it will become a point of knowledge.

You say you are seeking knowledge, I ask, knowledge of what? If you were seeking knowledge of dentistry, aeronautics, game programming, you would be posting your questions in a different forum. May I assume you are seeking knowledge in matters of faith, spirituality, and theology? If so, may I also know why? Again, if this were a forum on game programming, and I asked you "why do you want to know ___?", I'm pretty sure your answer would be, "because I want to create a game." Since such a question would not normally get a negative response on some other forum, I think it is fair to ask it here; why do you seek knowledge in matters of faith, spirituality, and theology?


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Behold
but can't, because all that you understand of christianity sound so much like hypocrisy and mythology?


It doesn't merely sound like hypocrisy and mythology, it is hypocrisy and mythology. Christianity is not unique in that regard.


No argument here. Unfortunately, many of the questions you ask target these same hypocrisies and mythologies, which leaves no room for you and I to engage in a serious conversation on God and the Messiah.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Behold
Or do you believe you will convert believers to become non-believers?


I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone, I'm trying to learn and to get people to think.


I have strong doubts that you or I can get them to think. But good look anyway.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Behold
Your words won't even convert a fly, and their words will certainly not convert you. Words alone have never convinced anyone to "switch sides".


You accuse me of ignorance as you yourself speak arrogantly and authoritatively from ignorance. You know absolutely nothing about those who have rejected your mythology, yet you think you can peer into thier hearts and minds.


With regard to your first charge, I plea guilty.
With regard to your second charge, not guilty. Having been a staunch atheist, AND, devout humanist, for several years, I do indeed know the minds and hearts of many (not all) atheists and humanists.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Behold
When the Messiah walked the earth, what He referred to as Scripture was ONLY what christians today call the Old Testament. That said, at no time does the Messiah instruct us that the scripture contains no error, neither does any verse in scripture make such a claim.

Do you like that answer?


Yes. I take it you are not a Biblical inerrantist then?


Correct.

One last thing I want to say here. I no longer am an atheist, but not because anyone convinced me that God exists. I do not attend any church, because their hypocrisy and ignorance vexes me. No man can say he persuaded me to believe there is a God, and there is no one that I call my Pastor, but the Messiah Himself. It was God who revealed Himself to me. No amount of words can ever convey the experience. Yet, what you have accused me of, I can rightfully accuse many others of, knowing absolutely nothing about me and my experience, yet thinking they can peer into my heart and mind, they quickly explain any experience as mere delusion. How does an atheist "switch sides". You may be inclined to think I had a near death experience, or a bad accident, or deadly sickness, or suffered loss, or was incarcerated, or any number of life-events that "usually does the tirck". Not So !!! I'm a software engineer. If I don't pay attention to the details, my children would not have food in their stomachs. All of my life I've been a math buff. My point; when the Highly Mathematically Improbable occurs once, most are inclined to say, "WOW", but, when many Highly Mathematically Improbable things occur, you tend to REDFINE YOUR WORLD!!! This is my life now for three years, now how do you suppose I convey that?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Behold
Not true. I've provided a response, AND, you understood it correctly.


I don't know what you're referring to. Be more specific.


Originally posted by Behold
But I will reiterate; in answer to your question, "Why do you believe that [the Bible is inerrant]?" I do not.


I appreciate your response then, but the question was really addressed to those that do take such a position.


Originally posted by Behold
Hmm, either I should rephrase the question, or, you should concede that in that past, what is first believed, is afterward confirmed, and therefore no longer called belief, but knowledge. Man believed the world was flat, until the knowledge came that it was not. Many believe in Extra Terrestrial life, until the time comes that they land in full view of the entire watching world, at which point it will become a point of knowledge.


From my perspective, belief flows from knowledge. What is the difference? Belief is an emotional position. Knowledge is that which is obtained through the emotionless process of reason. Can the two be confused? Yes. This is why it is important to use an impartial process (to the degree that is possible) to obtain knowledge. Am I hypocritical in this regard? Yes, but I do try my best not to be.


Originally posted by Behold
You say you are seeking knowledge, I ask, knowledge of what?


I am trying to ascertain whether or not there is any basis to metaphysical claims, or if they are simply a form of delusion/insanity. I have tentatively concluded the latter subject to new information.


Originally posted by Behold
No argument here. Unfortunately, many of the questions you ask target these same hypocrisies and mythologies, which leaves no room for you and I to engage in a serious conversation on God and the Messiah.


Of course there is room! You simply have to quit caring about what my current beliefs are and concentrate instead on your arguments. If your argument is "you simply have to have faith", then just admit it and either deal with or ignore my "faith is not a valid form of obtaining knowledge" attack. I enjoy these conversations with others who hold different positions because it allows me/forces me to refine my positions. Believe it or not, I will in fact perform a 180 if the evidence demands it.


Originally posted by Behold
I have strong doubts that you or I can get them to think. But good look anyway.


I've witnessed it numerous times in the past, both personally, and in others. Only fools pick a position and never change it. I agree there are plenty of fools in this world, but a good percentage are not.


Originally posted by Behold

Originally posted by spamandham
You accuse me of ignorance as you yourself speak arrogantly and authoritatively from ignorance. You know absolutely nothing about those who have rejected your mythology, yet you think you can peer into thier hearts and minds.


With regard to your first charge, I plea guilty.
With regard to your second charge, not guilty. Having been a staunch atheist, AND, devout humanist, for several years, I do indeed know the minds and hearts of many (not all) atheists and humanists.


...and I have been a staunch fundamentalist Christian. Shall I thus claim to know the hearts and minds of all Christians? No. I know only my own.


Originally posted by Behold
Yet, what you have accused me of, I can rightfully accuse many others of, knowing absolutely nothing about me and my experience, yet thinking they can peer into my heart and mind, they quickly explain any experience as mere delusion.


It is not necessary to know your heart or mind, or even to have ever have met you to conclude you are deluded. I can make such an assessment based on the evidence alone. Prove there is any substance to your claims, or prove why you should not have to prove this, and you have won the argument and I will be compelled to retract the conclusion of delusion/insanity.


Originally posted by Behold
Mathematically Improbable occurs once, most are inclined to say, "WOW", but, when many Highly Mathematically Improbable things occur, you tend to REDFINE YOUR WORLD!!! This is my life now for three years, now how do you suppose I convey that?


...those that win the lottery tend to look toward providence as well, but you and I understand probability, and understand that given enough trials, odds become small that you won't hit.

To be compelling, a statistical argument would have to defy the calculated odds across a population, not just for a given subset.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Excuse me for getting all technical, but since this thread was here, I thought, why not? I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just curious, because I've checked this up myself, and I've never had these questions answered.


Originally posted by babloyi
According to Genesis 16:16, Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born. Then in Genesis 21:5, Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born. So Ishmael would be 14 at the birth of Isaac. According to Genesis 21:8-14, Isaac had just been weaned when Hagar and Ishmael were sent away. Bible scholars say that a child should be weaned at the age of 3. That would make Ishmael 17 when he was sent away with Hagar. Now what follows seems very unlikely for a teenager at 17. According to Genesis 21:14, Ishmael is set on Hagars shoulders. Whaaaat? Why does a 17 year old need to be carried. Then in Genesis 21:15, when the water is gone, Hagar puts Ishmael under a bush. Again...a 17 year old? She then walks away because she "cannot watch the boy die". Huh? A 17 year old boy should be taking care of his mother, not the other way around. Why didn't Ishmael follow his mother? Then Ishmael starts crying. Very odd behaviour for a 17 year old. Then Hagar and Ishmael are saved, and Hagar is commanded to "lift the boy up". How is an old woman carrying a 17 year old? I thought that according to the Bible, at the age of 12, a male is considered an adult, not a boy.

What's with this little bit of confusion?

Also, what is this obsession with the King James Version of the Bible? I've heard lots of people talk about how the newer ones are distorted. How can you trust the KJV, but not later versions? How can you be sure that the writers of the KJV were "filled with the Holy Spirit", but writers of later versions were not?

[edit on 1-9-2005 by babloyi]




top topics



 
0

log in

join