Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

PROVEN: Biblical Inerrancy


Guest Mr. Thomas

Recommended Posts

  • Members

To Mr. DaveW: I think you might have understood my position a little bit better if you did read the 'humour you' part. Look, I can't help it if your answers don't make sense. They're no good to me if they're no good. I do appreciate your effort, and I'm sorry you're heading out, but all I can do is point out the errors and hope for an explanation that does pass muster. Sincere thanks for your effort though.

To John Young: If I had to make a decision right this minute with the best information available to me, it would be that the Bible is errant and therefore can't be relied on. Is that the decision you recommend to me? If the Lord be God, follow him. Well the Lord be God, and God commands us to follow truth. The doctrine of inerrancy seems untrue, so to follow God I must abandon the doctrine of inerrancy.

To All: I would like to believe in inerrancy, but the Bible seems errant.If you can prove inerrancy, please do, but don't get mad at me if you cannot. From Job (which John Young also has as his signature): "Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred."

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To Mr. SAB76: I wrote a reply to you earlier today, but I guess it didn't go through. It was similar in tone and context to my earlier reply to Mr. DaveW. First, I am extremely grateful for your effort and long reply, so thank you! However, a lot of these explanations seem pretty contrived. True, you might be able to work out a way where technically the explanations you provided could work. Yeah, Luke could have been describing Judas' body falling from a noose, but it really seems like he was talking about him walking around then tripping or something. When was the last time you heard someone say something like 'Oh he fell head-over-heels and broke his tailbone' about a dead body? If that's what he meant wouldn't he say 'the body fell down and burst' or something like that? Why would he use the word 'he' instead of 'it', or use the word 'headlong' instead of just 'down'? It seems to me that these words indicate the lateral motion of a man walking or running in a field, not a body in a tree. But anyways, even if the specific wording isn't inescapable, it is still very disquieting, because it definitely doesn't live up to the kind of clarity and precision you would expect from God. I don't find those explanations satisfying or relieving at all, but like I said, I do really appreciate the effort, and would appreciate any more comments or references you can provide!
1. Ok, I now believe in inerrancy
2. Oh wait, here are some passages that contradict, does this mean the Bible is errant?
3. Let's pray, study, and ask some people for help:
4. Ok, I hear some kinda-sorta explanations, but they all rely on the authors suddenly talking in weird, unnatural ways or having strange secret meanings that mean the opposite of what words used in that combination usually mean. Either way, these explanations clearly don't jive with the author's obvious meanings.
5. Huh, well that was no help, I wish somebody had a real explanation that didn't involve grammatical gymnastics, or failing that, could prove that faith is valid even without the Bible, because I'm feeling pretty lost
6. Oh, well here we are in the exact same place as before 


Mr. Thomas,
I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt concerning your truthfulness in your desire to be shown the bible is truth. I am not sure I will help, as it really does seem that you have made up your mind on this subject, and are now desiring proof, and dismiss “technically true” explanations. 
Let me begin with the assumption that, due to your knowledge of the scriptures, and fretting over their inaccuracy, you are a saved, born again, Christian believing in Paul’s gospel. I am assuming you realized that you were a sinner, that Christ died for your sins, and that he rose again the 3rd day to offer all that believe on him eternal life. I am assuming you have received Christ as your savior, and believe on him to save you from hell.
If this is the case, how did you come to this faith? That a resurrected man could forgive your sin, and save you from hell. You received it from the scripture, correct? How do you know the Lord be God? From the scripture, correct? So, how are you choosing which scriptures are true, and which are not? Maybe I am off on this assumption, but you seem to be double minded, and unstable. It seems you have been drawn away from the faith you once had, when you believed the scriptures at salvation, and have been listening to the Devil, as Eve, “Yea, hath God said?” The Devil has not changed his tactics since then, and why should he? They still work. May I suggest (James 1:5-8 & 2 Peter 3:16) as exhortation to what I said in my previous post about how to approach the scriptures. I’m not sure you realize what you, or many others, are holding in your hands. The bible is not just a book. It is a living book (Heb. 4:12) and discerns a man’s heart (Heb. 4:12) before that man ever reads the first verse, and will answer that man, according to the idols in his heart. (Eze. 14:4) This is why I tried to exhort you previously, and now admonish you…If you are saved, and are truly serious, and truthful about your desire for truth, then I strongly suggest you approach the scriptures with a clean, pure intentioned heart, and seek the truth by prayer, study, and preachers & teachers that believe that book AS IT READS, preachers and teachers that don’t dismiss “insignificant” words as not being an issue. Or try to take you back to some dead  language that God does not use any longer. The word of God is preserved, and perfect in the KJV. The “originals" do not exist any where on this earth. Besides the “originals" being dead and gone, they have been TRANSLATED (See Col. 1:13 & Heb. 11:5 for the biblical definition of TRANSLATED…it is always BETTER than the original) into a better and more accurate language.


I chose this name ironically because I predicted that accusation would come out at one point or another. The truth is that I'm not like doubting Thomas, who saw Jesus perform miracles on countless occasions, and personally heard his sermons and speech 24/7 (including the parts where Jesus said he would die and be resurrected) only to abandon his faith the week things looked bad. Doubting Thomas did have proof of the things he believed, then turned away out of fear. The difference is that I have no such proof. I desperately want to believe in biblical inerrancy; my fear is pushing me towards blind acceptance, not away like Thomas. 

So, let me first address the above quote, and perhaps shed some light on what faith is and how it works. And then I will address your latest questions on the Judas “death" issue. You said that you don’t have the miracles that Thomas saw, and have nothing but the word and you are leaning to blind acceptance. But what you call blind acceptance , Peter called…
2 Peter 1:16-19 
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:


The bible says that “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1)  I do not ascribe to “blind” faith, nor do I expect anyone to “just believe”. BUT...faith is just that, faith. Faith is not in things, or your understanding or reasoning. Faith is in...people, and what they say…A very simple example, you go to the doctor, and he says you have cancer. He says you must take chemotherapy in order to survive. You say yes, and begin treatments. Why? Because you believe the doctor. Your faith is not in the chemotherapy, it is just the medicine. You believe the doctor has told you the truth, and therefore put your faith in HIM to know what he is talking about, and how to apply the medicine. And since the bible is the word of God, and the Word is God (Jn. 1:1 & 1 Jn. 1:1), then “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom 10:17)
God always tells us what the end is, BUT he does not tell us every detail up to it…This is what makes it faith, and also tests our obedience. For example: (1 Kings 17:1-16) The widow of Zarephath and her son were starving and on their last meal when up pops the preacher Elijah, he was very healthy and had been fed and watered by God for 3 years without missing a single meal. He was fat compared to the widow and her son. So the Lord puts her to the test and show a great example of faith. How? He told the preacher to tell her (How would you like to be put in that position?) to give him the last biscuit, and that if she did that God would supply her with an endless supply of meal until the drought was over. So while it was not blind faith, it was no doubt a hard pill to swallow, when this fat preacher shows up and promises a blessing if you feed him before you feed your starving son. And this is why she is known for her GREAT faith. But her faith was not in the biscuit, oor even in her own reasoning, for surely any mother would feed her starving child before feeding a fat preacher, but her faith was in the preacher, and because she believed him to be the man of God and that he spoke the truth when he made the promise of never ending food IF she trusted the words he spoke. She believed what she was told, and the blessing came afterward…not before. And so, it seems to me, that you are asking for the blessing, before you put faith in the wword.If this is the case, you unfortunately have it backwards.

Now, onto the further information on Judas' death to help clarify your latest questions...
You make suggestion that all 3 explanations were contrived, yet you only gave a few examples of wording you disagree with in the one about Judas. So I will address the Judas issue, as I assume you are still searching for error on the other 2. I believe I showed very clearly in the 2nd and 3rd examples without any funny math or changing words or their definitions to show the scripture may LOOK contradicted, but is in almost every case of these supposed contradictions or funny math situations, the real problem is the scriptures are just not read correctly.


Firstly, you say technically my explanations could work, yet you believe Peter (Peter said this by the way, not Luke - Acts 1:15) would have said “it” or “body” instead of “he”. But you make this claim by assuming that either… 
1) Judas was dead when he fell, (Remember, Matt. says he went and hanged himself…you assume death, but it is not confirmed) (2 Sam. 17:23 speaks of a hanging and confirms death) 
or 
2) that his body cannot be referred to as he, if he were dead when he fell. Although, it is perfectly acceptable in common everyday conversation for people to use this terminology when speaking of dead men. “HE looks so natural”; “HE is buried in Arlington cemetery”; “I want to bury HIM in his favorite suit”. Even scripture uses this terminology…(Josh. 10:26 says “they” when speaking of dead men) (2 Sam. 4:12 says “them” when speaking of dead men) (2 Sam. 18:17 says “Absalom” when speaking of the body of Absalom) 


Another point is that the bible is written in common everyday language. It is not a legal document, nor is it a stenographer’s record. It was the intent of the translators to make it that way…“If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives a plough to know more of the scriptures than you do.” William Tyndale when speaking to an educated clergyman. It is a book that gives its own details and lack of details as it sees fit. 


Secondly, what definition are you ascribing to HEADLONG? The word shows up 3 times in scripture and the other 2 times, it does not mean “head first" it means…1. Rashly; precipitately; without deliberation. 2. Hastily; without delay or respite. How would a body fall headfirst from hanging? 


Thirdly, just because something is NOT in the scriptures doesn’t mean that it isn’t or couldn’t be there. Such as, what caused his bowels to gush out? Well scripture doesn’t say exactly,  but gives enough information to come to a LOGICAL conclusion. He must have fallen from pretty high up in order to gush out OR he must have been hanging dead for a few days, maybe 3, and then a great earthquake so strong that it rent rocks (Matt. 27:51) was strong enough to break the tree he was hanging from, and his decomposing body burst when it hit the ground.


As I said before the bible is full of “evidence" that tells the MAIN story. It is up to the detective (you) to search for it (a little here and a little there, line upon line, precept upon precept) piece it together and come up with the truth. 
Lastly, IF you are really sincere, then I suggest you turn off CS Lewis and Jordan Peterson, and give Dr. Peter S. Ruckman a try. Turn off the influence that questions what God says (Gen 3), and have faith in what you already understand, and allow God the TIME to teach you the rest, as he sees fit, so that you are established and grounded in the milk of the word, and eventually be able to digest the meat and strong meat of the word.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

First, thank you for reading my post with such detail! I really appreciate it!

Taking things in order and starting first with your first (and incidentally also your last) stanza: I'm not really sure why I became a Christian; I grew up in a good Baptist household, and I was baptized when I was very young. However, I can tell you why I stayed in: exposure to the works of CS Lewis. I know he's just a man, but he was probably the most good, wholesome, and honest Christian from whom I have ever read, excepting of course the apostles and Paul. He, like the great St. Thomas Aquinas and Plato the ancient Athenian, believed that not only nature and the moral laws contained evidence of Christ, but logic itself too. He was a great boon to my Christian life, because he provided such compelling logical arguments that I became totally convinced of the validity of God's word in my mind as well as in my heart. He was wrong about some things no doubt, but he was undoubtedly a great man of God; I would stake my life on that. If you ask why I still manage to cling to God even as I doubt the Bible (and the earth might as well have collapsed for how stressful that is) it is because of the straightforward and Godly logic and teachings of CS Lewis. I'll try anybody you think will help, including Dr. Peter Ruckman, but CS Lewis is the one man I most hold responsible my salvation. He's not a source of doubt Jordan Peterson I can take or leave, I just mentioned him because he seemed relevant.

As to your second set of paragraphs, the one that references 2nd Peter: I don't really doubt God, I just doubt that the Bible is his word. You don't really need to talk about proof of God, I'm already there.

As to the set that referenced 1 Kings: Yes, the widow might have doubted that the command "give your last biscuit" was really from God, but she had the prophet Elijah there, who she did know spoke on behalf of God, to verify and back the claim up. She didn't take it as blind faith either; she had a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. I, in perhaps a similar situation, might (reasonably I think) doubt that the Bible is really from God, so like the widow, I think I should have a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. Now, I don't know anyone God has trusted enough to perform miracles and speak for him like he did Elijah, so I have to resort to other verified mouthpieces of God to confirm the Bible. The only other mouthpiece I know of is truth, which God confirms to us by way of logic. If you (or anyone) can logically prove to me that the Bible is inerrant, then I will accept that as Godly verification. I want that proof, so that's why I'm out searching for it, but if I can't tell if God wants me to give away my starving son's last biscuit to a fat man, then I think I should feed my son.

As to the part about Judas: Yes, we do use "he" in that manner, but we still don't say 'he broke his arm' or 'he fell down on his face' about cadavers, and I think this usage of "he" falls closer to that usage. As to the use of "headlong", yes I agree, just like you said, how could a hanged body fall headfirst? Well this is the definition of headlong:

Capture.PNG.c8192b261ad008b5787590cb97e86cef.PNG

And that makes it seem like he wasn't hanging. I'm think it's pretty clear the author here meant "headfirst" because saying a body fell "in an impetuous manner", "rashly", "without deliberation" or "without respite" makes even less sense than the other meaning.

Finally, to touch back on your last paragraph: Piecing the truth together from the Bible is exactly what I am trying to do, with your (plural) help. The problem is that the closer you look, the more disjoints you find between the pieces.

Also, as a mostly irrelevant aside; even if you believe the Bible is inerrant, there's still lots of passages that you can't believe in literally. The Catholics loved to use the passage from Psalms 19:6 about the sun: "It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth." as supposed "proof" that the sun revolved around the earth, and there's plenty of other, darker passages like Psalms 137:9, which gives a blessing to any man who would snatch a Babylonian baby from its mother and bashes it's brains out on the ground. That clearly don't align with God's will. Those passages don't necessarily mean the Bible is errant, it just means that some books (like Psalms) are meant as just holy poetry and not serious theological teachings. In those cases, it would be just as wrong to take them literally as it would to take some other passages symbolically, because it's wrong to use parts of the Bible outside their intended purposes, and the intended purpose of those passages is only related to music and worship. CS Lewis didn't think Genesis and Job were symbolic/fictional because he believed they were in error, he just thought they were meant to be passages like Psalms and taken symbolically, not literally. As far as I know he still believed in biblical inerrancy, that part is my own 'discovery', not his. I think Jordan Peterson does think the Bible is all a myth though, (in a way that is less reverent towards the Bible than me). In that way Peterson is pretty sacreligious, but he seems to be an admirer nonetheless, and he has studied the Bible so thoroughly that sometimes he extracts lessons that you probably would have otherwise missed, and he still sometimes (inadvertently) provides teachings genuinely useful to a Christian life. Like I said, I don't approve of his attitude though, so I wouldn't call myself a fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We are told to study God's word...not C. S. Lewis. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God...not the word of C. S. Lewis.

Your issues with doubt are easily explained, yet you are looking through secular eyes instead of the eyes of faith. Your faith is in C. S. Lewis and your own secular reasoning.

Israel had personally experienced great signs, wonders, and miracles, yet despite that, God asked...

And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?

"Physical" proof won't convince you. 

...and as for "dead languages"...the King James was translated from them.

Some English words have changed meanings since 1611...

What did "headlong" mean in the 1600's?

Was George Washington a real person? If so, why do you believe that? You never experienced him in life...all you have are the things written about him. How do you know it's true? You have no proof other than to accept what history tells you. For all you know, everything written and painted about him could have been one great big lie...unless you can go back in time and verify its authenticity.

Can you do that...or do you accept what you know about him...because it's written down in a history book?

We also have a history book.

You have been given the answers to your questions, yet you shrug them off.

Judas purchased a field (at some point) with the money he gained through sin; after all, he was a thief. He hanged himself somewhere in that field. At some point thereafter, the rope broke, and his body fell (for whatever reason) headlong and burst...not that hard to understand...it snaps, his feet hit the ground first, and he falls forward...headlong. It's not a discrepancy; it's just more information as to what all happened.

If you are sincere in your endeavor to know the truth, then study God's word. The Holy Spirit is the one who will illuminate you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To No Nicolaitans: I don't think you have read my posts through.

1. There's no need to put the phrase 'dead languages' in quotes, I've never made that argument or even used the phrase in any of my posts. in fact, I don't think I've even used the word 'language' at all, but you acted so confidentially that I went back and checked my own posts. If you had read the thead you would have seen that the dead language thing Mr. SAB76 kinda randomly interjected on his own, but I never made or even thought about that point, and I don't contest it.

2. I also have never contended that the authors of the New Testament didn't exist, or even cast aspirations on their motives. I believe like you do that they both existed and tried their best to give an honest, godly account. There's no need for the George Washington bit, I already agree with you there.

3. As I've discussed before, I think it's pretty clear that's not what Luke was trying to say about Judas, but even if you waive that potential error, there are plenty more that I have referenced in earlier passages, and plenty more that I didn't reference yet at all.

4. It's kinda difficult to study God's word if you're not sure what God's word is, don't you think? The question here is whether or not the Bible is God's infallible word or not. If the question is "are these God's words", then I don't think it's valid to say "these words say they are God's words", because that's not exactly a robust proof. However, I am extremely open (and a little desperate at this point) to be convinced in any manner, so I'm willing to go along with you if you try.

5. CS Lewis is not really relevant to my argument, I just felt like defending him because I think he was a good guy. I think it's clear that I don't hold holy 'the word of CS Lewis', I just think he was a good christian who was helpful in my spiritual life.

It seems like for the most part you have responded to questions and challenges that I never posed, which is not super helpful.

I'm grateful for you taking the time to post, but it's pretty clear that you don't understand the exact nature of my question. I know it's long, but if you don't read through all the posts, you won't know what has been said before or understand the position and trajectory of the conversation now. If don't have time for that, if you would at least read my first post through I think you would understand my position alot better. Again, sincere thanks for your attempt, but if you're going to take the time to respond I think we should make sure the time is productive and well-spent.

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To  No Nicolaitians: Well, you've proven me wrong about the read through part; thanks alot for doing so!

For the 'dead languages' thing: Oh, ok then.

For the 'believe the same as you' part: Well, I know it's splitting hairs, but we do both believe that they tried their best, but you just believe they succeeded and I am in doubt. I did have that in mind when I claimed we did, but I understand your objection.

For the 'debate' part: Well, I think the King James uses 'debate' here to mean 'quarrel', not what is going on here, but I understand your point. I also understand how you could think (despite my best efforts) that I'm trolling or just looking for a fun debate; but I'm not, I truly am looking to be convinced, on peril of my very soul.

On the 'study the Bible' part: I do study the Bible, and I have all my life, which is why the inerrancy question disturbs me so. But I don think regardless that God loves truth and knowledge, and that reason is something holy designed by him for that purpose, so I do read as much as I can on my own so I can try to find the truth, for the same reason I'm writing to you.

In conclusion: I don't believe that true logic or debate can lead you away from God. The truth is God's domain, and reason is his creation. If something is truly logical, then it is truly godly. Emotions on the other hand, do often lead people astray. Remember Jeremiah's warning: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?". If you allow your emotions to determine your decisions, you are leading an ungodly life. The bible often reprimands those without self-control, and that is exactly what that is: self control is your minds ability to prevail over your emotions. Your emotions are meant for pleasure, not to rule you.

Thank you for your time!
 

Pot- Script Edit:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Matthew 19 3-8 says: "The Pharisees also came unto him [Jesus], tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Here we have a situation where God gave a commandment in the Bible that was not a real commandment; it was only the approximation or dialing back of a real, greater commandment. In the old testament passage it says that divorced people can remarry (as long as it is not to each other), but Jesus says you cannot remarry at all (unless your wife cheated on you). Was the Mosaic text in error? It certainly did not tell the truth; the truth was nearly the opposite in fact. If God sometimes presents semi-true or semi-accurate commandments, only to retract them later, then how do you know if any of the passages in the current Bible are not also semi-true or semi-accurate? How do you know that when Paul says women shouldn't be preachers, God isn't giving us a bad commandment "because of the hardness of [our] hearts"? How do we know anything is the real, true, inerrant commandment when God sometimes puts untrue ones in the Bible?

 

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

First, thank you for reading my post with such detail! I really appreciate it!

Taking things in order and starting first with your first (and incidentally also your last) stanza: I'm not really sure why I became a Christian; I grew up in a good Baptist household, and I was baptized when I was very young.

So you have realized that you were a sinner, in need of the Savior, and have asked Christ to save you from hell? Is this what you mean by “became a Christian”? Or are you depending on your good upbringing and baptism?

However, I can tell you why I stayed in: exposure to the works of CS Lewis. I know he's just a man, but he was probably the most good, wholesome, and honest Christian from whom I have ever read, excepting of course the apostles and Paul. He, like the great St. Thomas Aquinas and Plato the ancient Athenian, believed that not only nature and the moral laws contained evidence of Christ, but logic itself too. He was a great boon to my Christian life, because he provided such compelling logical arguments that I became totally convinced of the validity of God's word in my mind as well as in my heart. He was wrong about some things no doubt, but he was undoubtedly a great man of God; I would stake my life on that. If you ask why I still manage to cling to God even as I doubt the Bible (and the earth might as well have collapsed for how stressful that is) it is because of the straightforward and Godly logic and teachings of CS Lewis. I'll try anybody you think will help, including Dr. Peter Ruckman, but CS Lewis is the one man I most hold responsible my salvation. He's not a source of doubt Jordan Peterson I can take or leave, I just mentioned him because he seemed relevant.

As to your second set of paragraphs, the one that references 2nd Peter: I don't really doubt God, I just doubt that the Bible is his word. You don't really need to talk about proof of God, I'm already there.

You must not have understood the passage in 2nd Peter, which is part of the problem you are having. The passage quoted in 2nd Peter was not a proof of God, but a proof of the word of God, and how great it is.

Please read the passage carefully:

2 Peter 1:16-19

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” – Firstly, he starts out describing that he was an eyewitness to the evidence to the truth of the scriptures when he SAW the glory of the second coming of the Lord upon the Mount of Transfiguration. He is stating that he has SEEN a great wondrous sight with his own eyes.

Also, a side note….notice that Peter is stating that we are NOT following fables (I believe this to be the opposite as what CS Lewis teaches, correct? That Genesis and Job are fables?)

“For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

“And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.” – Secondly, he goes on to say that we have also HEARD the evidence of God’s voice confirming the truth about the Messiah on the Mount of Transfiguration.

So the set up for the next verse, is “I am telling you that I and a few others have seen the GLORIFIED transformation of Jesus, and heard the very AUDIBLE voice of God himself, and these great signs are less SURE than the very scriptures that you hold in your own hands.”

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:”  - I have enlarged it, bolded it, underlined it, and italicized it for you to READ, SEE, and HEAR. This is the context of the passage in 2nd Peter. The written word of God is MORE SURE than the SEEING, and HEARING God himself.

The Lord holds his word in such high esteem that he said the following: “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Ps. 138:2)

As to the set that referenced 1 Kings: Yes, the widow might have doubted that the command "give your last biscuit" was really from God, but she had the prophet Elijah there, who she did know spoke on behalf of God, to verify and back the claim up. She didn't take it as blind faith either; she had a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. I, in perhaps a similar situation, might (reasonably I think) doubt that the Bible is really from God, so like the widow, I think I should have a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. Now, I don't know anyone God has trusted enough to perform miracles and speak for him like he did Elijah, so I have to resort to other verified mouthpieces of God to confirm the Bible. The only other mouthpiece I know of is truth, which God confirms to us by way of logic. If you (or anyone) can logically prove to me that the Bible is inerrant, then I will accept that as Godly verification. I want that proof, so that's why I'm out searching for it, but if I can't tell if God wants me to give away my starving son's last biscuit to a fat man, then I think I should feed my son.

Please show me where she knew who Elijah even was when he showed up? The widow was a Gentile woman that lived in Zidon. She never heard Elijah preach or seen him perform one miracle her entire life. The miracle came AFTER she believed him, and the word he preached to her. Again the blessing and miracle comes after faith.

This is the point I was trying to make….Until you receive the word of God to be the word of God, the word of God cannot work effectually in you. For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13) The blessing and miracles come AFTER the faith in the word.

You have been corrupted by Thomas Aquinas, Plato, and even CS Lewis to think it is received any other way. These men did not receive nor believe the word of God, and have instead instilled in you and countless others a doubt just as the Devil put into the ears and heart of Eve when he asked just one question…”Yea, HATH GOD SAID…????” This has been the tool of the Devil from the beginning and continues to this day.

As to the part about Judas: Yes, we do use "he" in that manner, but we still don't say 'he broke his arm' or 'he fell down on his face' about cadavers, and I think this usage of "he" falls closer to that usage.

I have shown you from scripture that this statement is not true. 

And ten young men that bare Joab's armour compassed about and smote Absalom, and slew him.

And Joab blew the trumpet, and the people returned from pursuing after Israel: for Joab held back the people.

And they took Absalom, and cast him into a great pit in the wood, and laid a very great heap of stones upon him: and all Israel fled every one to his tent.

You have chosen to ignore the scripture, and set yourself as the authority to determine what words God should have used. 

As to the use of "headlong", yes I agree, just like you said, how could a hanged body fall headfirst? Well this is the definition of headlong:

And that makes it seem like he wasn't hanging. I'm think it's pretty clear the author here meant "headfirst" because saying a body fell "in an impetuous manner", "rashly", "without deliberation" or "without respite" makes even less sense than the other meaning.

I did give the wrong definition of the word headlong, and I apologize for that. I should have kept reading and would have seen the correct definition. (HEADLONG, adjective Steep; precipitousWebsters 1828 dictionary) (PRECIPITOUS, adjective Headlong; directly or rapidly descending; as a precipitous fall Websters 1828 dictionary) Again, I apologize for giving the wrong definition in the first post, but it was this definition that I was trying to convey.

So, I have done all that I can to show you the truth of this supposed discrepancy...I still hold to what I originally said: Judas hung himself, and either died from hanging, and then hung for 3 days till the great earthquake caused his fall, or hung himself, and something broke immediately and he fell to his death. Either way it happened….Judas died, just as scripture says he did.

 

Finally, to touch back on your last paragraph: Piecing the truth together from the Bible is exactly what I am trying to do, with your (plural) help. The problem is that the closer you look, the more disjoints you find between the pieces.

What disjoints are you speaking of? I have shown you the supposed disjoints of the last 2 examples you gave. The first I showed was due to a simple skimming over words (Man shall live by EVERY word of God) that added more detail to the numbering of the army. You saw them being in error because you wanted to believe the scripture was in error. If you truly wanted to believe the word, you would have studied EVERY word and compared EVERY word, and would have saw the DIFFERENCES in the scripture not as error, but as more detail. And then the second example was in 2 parts: 1) You assumed the 2 scriptures were the same event, even though there was clearly a difference in the two scriptures with one being him at the age of 8 and the other at 18, and if that wasn’t enough to show you that they were different events the scripture gave you further proof they were not the same event with one saying 3 months and 10 days and the other being just 3 months. And 2) You failed to perform simple arithmetic which would have led you to the same conclusion that the two verses were not the same event. You saw them being in error because you wanted to believe the scripture was in error. If you truly wanted to believe the word, you would have studied EVERY word and compared EVERY word, and would have saw the DIFFERENCES in the scripture not as error, but as more detail.

I say again…Heb. 4:12 & Ezek. 14:4 – The scripture read your heart and answered you according to your idols (CS Lewis, Aquinas, and Plato)

Also, as a mostly irrelevant aside; even if you believe the Bible is inerrant, there's still lots of passages that you can't believe in literally.

You have already determined in your heart that the scripture is wrong and that you are right.

You can’t believe the Lord….I can believe, I can believe every passage as literal, unless the scripture says otherwise. If the scripture said the sky was orange, I would believe the scripture no matter what my eyes, or science, or any other outside source told me. Because scripture is from God’s point of view NOT mine. This is not blind faith, this is believing in the written word, that I can see, hold, hear, and read. I believe God to be true and EVERY MAN a LIAR…including my own self.

The Catholics loved to use the passage from Psalms 19:6 about the sun: "It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth." as supposed "proof" that the sun revolved around the earth, and there's plenty of other, darker passages like Psalms 137:9, which gives a blessing to any man who would snatch a Babylonian baby from its mother and bashes it's brains out on the ground. That clearly don't align with God's will. Those passages don't necessarily mean the Bible is errant, it just means that some books (like Psalms) are meant as just holy poetry and not serious theological teachings. In those cases, it would be just as wrong to take them literally as it would to take some other passages symbolically, because it's wrong to use parts of the Bible outside their intended purposes, and the intended purpose of those passages is only related to music and worship.

As to Ps. 19:6, I will admit that I am not 100% sure what this verse implies. I see what it says, I don't fully understand it, but just because I do not understand it, doesn’t make it untrue or not literal. I point back to my prior statement. If God said the sky was orange then I would believe it was orange, because that is the way he sees it. Whether I believe it or not does not change what God said. I would pray over it, study it, and seek teaching. And even IF I never know for sure what it is saying, I would not question God’s view on the matter. BECAUSE does it really amount to a hill of beans if I know whether the sun is still or moves? What does that have to do with me living an everyday life that he is pleased with, or how will knowing this make me a better preacher of the gospel to lead sinners from hell to the Savior, or how will having this knowledge gain me any mercy at my eventual giving account for what I did in the body at the Judgment seat of Christ? God is interested in how big my heart is, not how big my head is.

As to the Ps. 137:9, I’m not sure where you see that God blesses a man for dashing babies. That is not what I read. I read a sad song of when Israel was carried away to Babylon, and the Psalmist prophesying against Babylon that when they get destroyed they will be done as they did to the Israelites. The Babylonians came in to Israel and were happy to dash the Israelite’s babies against the rocks. So when Babylon’s time was come to be destroyed, then the Meads and the Persians would be happy to dash the Babylonian babies against the rocks.

But I suppose this is what happens when you go back to the “original” language to get a “better” definition of an already translated and PLAIN English word. You end up turning “happy” into “blessed”. The KJV translators had enough sense to know that God wouldn’t bless any man that dashed babies to death, and therefore did not translate that word into “blessed”. But you better believe that man can become so depraved, and cruel that he would get some sick twisted enjoyment from dashing babies. So they translated it “Happy shall he be”.

So, I would once again suggest that you start reading EVERY word AS IT IS WRITTEN, and quit CHANGING what the scripture actually says to thereby further yourself in your unbelief.

CS Lewis didn't think Genesis and Job were symbolic/fictional because he believed they were in error, he just thought they were meant to be passages like Psalms and taken symbolically, not literally. As far as I know he still believed in biblical inerrancy, that part is my own 'discovery', not his. I think Jordan Peterson does think the Bible is all a myth though, (in a way that is less reverent towards the Bible than me). In that way Peterson is pretty sacreligious, but he seems to be an admirer nonetheless, and he has studied the Bible so thoroughly that sometimes he extracts lessons that you probably would have otherwise missed, and he still sometimes (inadvertently) provides teachings genuinely useful to a Christian life. Like I said, I don't approve of his attitude though, so I wouldn't call myself a fan.

 

As I said before…Cut off CS Lewis, Peterson, Aquinas, and definitely that putrefying, unsaved, wicked reprobate Plato, and turn your heart to God. If you continue to reject the truth you have been given, you will find yourself exactly where Herod found himself in Luke 23:9. God will completely ignore you. Herod had chance after chance, and the last thing he heard from the Lord before his terrible, and excruciating death (Acts 12:23) was silence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To SAB76: I think 'reprobate' is a little harsh for poor Plato, he advocated for the existence of One God even though he grew up in a pagan country and never heard of Christ or Judaism, and he was a big scholar of justice. In fact once, he described what society would do if a truly perfect and just man appeared like this: "our just man must have the worst of reputations even though he has done no wrong. So we shall be able to test his justice and see if it can stand up to unpopularity and all that goes with it; we shall give him an undeserved and lifelong reputation for wickedness, and make him stick to his chosen course until death … The just man, then, as we have pictured him, will be scourged, tortured, and imprisoned, his eyes will be put out, and after enduring every humiliation he will be crucified." That's pretty close to what actually happened when Christ appeared, which I think is pretty neat. Also, my understanding is that he was beaten and sold into slavery himself (and his friend Socrates was executed) for fighting corruption and paganism in Greece. Sure, he was not a Christian, but he also died 300 years before Christ was born and never met an Israelite so I think we ought to give him a pass on that one.

Also, to say CS Lewis taught that Genesis and Job were fables is a little strong, I think it might be more accurate to say that he tried to logically prove the existence of God and some other primary Christian principles, like the existence of miracles and the trinity, but didn't think he could prove Genesis or Job. And some of his more famous quotes include things like "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.", and " Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe in nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything. ". I think those are pretty cool sayings, and his books often had subjects like how to overcome temptations and such. He wrote a lot of christian stuff in a manner specifically to bring stubborn highbrows like me to Christ, which I think is pretty commendable.

And I think Aquinas probably would have agreed with everything you have said, I only mentioned him because he also thought Biblical principals could also be affirmed logically (that a logical person would have to eventually believe in God, because God's word is the only thing that is logical).

I'm don't think you can take any of these guy's word without question, but I think they might have been better men than you think. I think you'll definitely see Lewis and Aquinas in Heaven though, so you probably shouldn't talk so bad about them. I think Peterson is the only one you wouldn't like if you met him, but I think he might be a better man than you think too (he became famous for refusing to obey Canada's new "gender pronoun" law, and he tours around the world promoting truth and a return to traditional values). I get that I might be irritating (though I swear I don't mean to be), but I don't think any of those guys deserved to be talked down to.

But that's not really relevant to my questions, I just thought I ought to not give them a bad name.

So what's your opinion on the divorce law thing I mentioned in my last post?

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

To me this is a classic case of majoring in the minors. I do not mean this sarcastically or to insult, it is just how this all appears in this thread. It is all very reminiscent of encounters Christians have when witnessing door to door. Of course, this is only my personal assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 hours ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

To SAB76: I think 'reprobate' is a little harsh for poor Plato, he advocated for the existence of One God even though he grew up in a pagan country and never heard of Christ or Judaism, and he was a big scholar of justice. In fact once, he described what society would do if a truly perfect and just man appeared like this: "our just man must have the worst of reputations even though he has done no wrong. So we shall be able to test his justice and see if it can stand up to unpopularity and all that goes with it; we shall give him an undeserved and lifelong reputation for wickedness, and make him stick to his chosen course until death … The just man, then, as we have pictured him, will be scourged, tortured, and imprisoned, his eyes will be put out, and after enduring every humiliation he will be crucified." That's pretty close to what actually happened when Christ appeared, which I think is pretty neat. Also, my understanding is that he was beaten and sold into slavery himself (and his friend Socrates was executed) for fighting corruption and paganism in Greece. Sure, he was not a Christian, but he also died 300 years before Christ was born and never met an Israelite so I think we ought to give him a pass on that one.

Also, to say CS Lewis taught that Genesis and Job were fables is a little strong, I think it might be more accurate to say that he tried to logically prove the existence of God and some other primary Christian principles, like the existence of miracles and the trinity, but didn't think he could prove Genesis or Job. And some of his more famous quotes include things like "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.", and " Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe in nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything. ". I think those are pretty cool sayings, and his books often had subjects like how to overcome temptations and such. He wrote a lot of christian stuff in a manner specifically to bring stubborn highbrows like me to Christ, which I think is pretty commendable.

And I think Aquinas probably would have agreed with everything you have said, I only mentioned him because he also thought Biblical principals could also be affirmed logically (that a logical person would have to eventually believe in God, because God's word is the only thing that is logical).

I'm don't think you can take any of these guy's word without question, but I think they might have been better men than you think. I think you'll definitely see Lewis and Aquinas in Heaven though, so you probably shouldn't talk so bad about them. I think Peterson is the only one you wouldn't like if you met him, but I think he might be a better man than you think too (he became famous for refusing to obey Canada's new "gender pronoun" law, and he tours around the world promoting truth and a return to traditional values). I get that I might be irritating (though I swear I don't mean to be), but I don't think any of those guys deserved to be talked down to.

But that's not really relevant to my questions, I just thought I ought to not give them a bad name.

So what's your opinion on the divorce law thing I mentioned in my last post?

So what's your opinion on the salvation thing I mentioned in my last post? 

Maybe instead of worrying about divorce law issues, you should be more concerned with the "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?" issue.

What have you done with Jesus? I am beginning to question your salvation. Why do you keep avoiding that question? This may explain why you have a lot of head knowledge, yet the Holy Ghost doesn't speak to you and confirm the word of God in your heart. 

If you believe Lewis and Aquinas are in heaven, then I would suggest you need to really self evaluate your own salvation. Lewis's salvation is extremely questionable...I see no testimony of him admitting that he was a sinner, and heading to hell, and ASKED Christ to save him. His testimony, was that he was riding shotgun in a sidecar, and went from believing in God to believing that Jesus was the Son of God. THAT IS NOT SALVATION. The bible says that the devils believe also (James 2:19). Believing that Jesus was the Son of God is not the gospel. Thomas Aquinas's salvation is even more in doubt. He believed and practiced, and taught the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church....works for salvation. THAT IS NOT SALVATION. The bible says that it is by grace through faith plus NOTHING. (Eph. 2:8-9)

Sir, until this issue is resolved, I'm afraid there is no hope of you ever believing the bible is the word of God...."He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (Jn. 8:47)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To Mr. Jim_Alaska: So then, do you argue, like the Methodists, that disbelief in the doctrine of Bible inerrancy doesn't preclude someone from being saved?

To SAB76 on Inerrancy: Well, whether I'm saved or not seems to depend on whether or not it's possible to be saved and not believe in Bible Inerrancy. I would say that I am, I suspect that you would say I'm not.

To SAB76 on Lewis and Aquinas: Also, (and I don't mean this as an insult, but reading that part in your post did make me chuckle a little), you have nooooooooooooooooooooooooo idea what you're talking about with Lewis. He literally wrote two whole books (The Great Divorce and The Pilgrim's Regress) that were about his salvation and begin with him going to hell. There may even be a third (The Screwtape Letters), but I think the person in there is not meant to be him. All three of those are excellent books, and 'The Screwtape Letters' is particularly well loved. You can find copies of it in every Christian bookstore. And what on earth could you have against Aquinas? Seriously man, shouldn't you get to know someone before you hate them? I challenge you man, read 'Mere Christianity' by Lewis or 'The Screwtape Letters' (I think the forward is important on that one though) and then tell me you still think he was bad.

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Never happier than when defending fallible men, never sadder than when denying the truth of the Word of God.

There's your problem right there - 

You put more store in the words of men than in the Word of God.

How quickly you come to the defense of men, and how quickly you dismiss the Word of God.

STOP READING WHAT MEN SAY AND START READING THE WORD OF GOD.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To Mr. DaveW: Do you think that men should value truth or not? Do you think truth is worth pursuing?

On Lewis et al: I don't understand what you think God would disprove of when I stand up for great men of the faith. I don't get the impression that you or SAB76 have read much of the authors I have so far mentioned. Why then do you act like you know more about them than me? All I've done is mention people when they seem relevant to my argument, and it seems like you automatically hate them just because it was me who mentioned them. You can take a stand against my argument without trash-talking them, and I think you should; even on the off-chance that one or more of them are your brothers in the faith. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make everything I mention evil.

On Inerrancy: I don't know how you expect to get anywhere with anybody (me or God) with these arguments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you've decided on an answer, and try to support it after the fact by any means necessary. Is that how pursuing truth is supposed to work? Why are you so afraid of building logically and finding where you end up step-by-step? If you really believe you are right, won't you end up at the same conclusion, just this time with the proper knowledge and support? I think you react so aggressively to challenges to your beliefs because deep down you know that you have no foundation at all; you're afraid that you are floating alone in empty space, so you hate anybody who tells you to anchor yourself because it would require you to look down and see that there is nothing beneath you. In a sense I think I am more faithful to the Bible than you; because deep down I believe that I can find the logical bulwark underneath the Bible and God's teachings, and so I look for them. I don't think you believe that, which is why you're afraid: you're afraid that when you go looking you'll find that there is no truth to it. Anyhow, I hope that you'll find some way to help me out and I hope that I'll find some way to help you out too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...