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

James 1

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

----

23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:

24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't know why anyone would argue the inerrancy of scripture with unsaved people. The only subject related to this subject that I would speak to an unsaved person about is whether a bible version is false or true, since you can't get saved by an NIV. Saved people should know the voice of the Shepherd, so why give them the voice of a bible with a sodomite on the editors board of the publisher,  which lies like a devil and sounds stupid and uninspired?

I would ask Thomas the following before answering him:

Do you have to turn from your sins to be saved?

Do you have to be baptized in water to be saved?

Do you have to make Jesus the lord of your life to be saved?

Do you have to invite Jesus into your heart to be saved?

If he says yes to any of these questions, it is a waste of time to expound any bible truth with him, save salvation. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 10/21/2019 at 12:57 PM, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

This is really, really messing me up inside, and I am very close to losing my faith all together, because I have no idea at all what to believe; if we can't trust Mathew and Luke to record accurately or even agree with each other, how do we even know what Jesus said and what he didn't? What if the whole truth really has been lost, or worse yet none of it was ever true at all? I'm pleading with you, please, does anybody have an answer?!?!?

Mr. Thomas:

This will be my last post on this thread, as I have come to the conclusion that you are not here seeking what you originally posted. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and was moved by your seemingly heartfelt plea for help. Yet, at every turn you continue to reject bible scripture, AS IT IS WRITTEN, and would rather hold on to your opinion of how YOU think the scripture SHOULD have been written.  

If the answers that I have given you, using the scripture AS IT READS, does not satisfy your logic, and you choose it is not the answer you are seeking….then…you already have your answer. That answer being “I see what the scripture says, BUT it is not what or how I would say it.” You have rejected plain, simple, easy to read, English found in the scripture, for your own opinionated idea of logical thinking. You have set yourself up as the foundation, you have set yourself up as the authority as to what or how the scripture SHOULD read if you had written it, because then it would fit your logical outcome. And since you have set yourself and your logical thinking as the foundation and authority…I say, go build upon it. Clutch onto your logic and let it carry you to safety. I can no longer help you, as I do not have the things you desire…“Silver and gold, have I none (Logical things to give a man asking for them); but such as I have give I thee…” (All I have are the words of God written in the KJV) I ask, are you the beggar or Peter in this story? If you see yourself as the beggar, then why do you not receive the help that I have given thus far? You refuse the scripture plainly revealed, yet, have not given one rebuttal, other than your opinion of how you THINK the scripture would read. If you see yourself as Peter, then what are you doing on here at all? Shouldn't you be out offering your hand in help to those seeking "alms"?

As for me, I have no fear, I have no doubt, and I have no questions on my foundation and my authority. I have a solid Rock foundation (Jesus Christ), and have used the scripture as my authority to BUILD my faith. I am grounded, sure and secure in my foundation and the authority of the scriptures, and have complete faith in them that I will stand the winds and rain when they come…Can you say the same?

I am sorry to say Mr. Thomas, but you will not find logic in the scriptures (seriously…look it up. Logic is nowhere in the scriptures). So, since there is no logic in the scriptures, and only logic will suffice to convince you to believe, then your only other recourse would be for you to go back to CS Lewis, Aquinas, and Plato, these great godly men you claim were full of logic, and receive your peace, answers and security from them.

But I am afraid you will find no peace, security or help from these men. You have allowed yourself to be deceived by these men, especially, by your beloved CS Lewis. (And this will be the point you shut your ears, close your eyes, and harden your heart.) Because, how dare I speak evil of this great man of God. I speak evil of him, because he has a “form of godliness, but denies the power thereof”. He is worse than the worst murder this world has known. WHY? Because at least you knew the murder wanted to kill you, but CS Lewis, just like Satan, pretends to be an angel of light, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, sending men and women to hell by LYING to them. HOW? CS Lewis is damning others to hell with his allegorical teachings of salvation by works, and “becoming” saved, rather than what the bible says in Eph. 2:8-9. His teaching is that faith in Christ is what gives man a “second chance” at salvation. In other words that his faith opens the door for him to make the necessary steps to attain eternal life. How is this any different than the Catholic teaching? And then there is the false hope he gives for those that may have had the faith, but did not quite make the necessary steps on earth. That hell is locked from the inside, and that man can choose not to remain there. Hell is NOT locked from the inside. Man cannot choose to leave hell and make a long upward journey to gain eternal life as taught in “The Great Divorce”. Christ is the one with the keys of death and hell. He has control over death and hell. If a man does not want to be trapped in hell, then he MUST receive eternal life through Christ by faith, and FAITH ALONE, to save him from death and hell. No Grey Town, no bus trip to the valley, no upward climb to God, no chance of ever getting out. The rich man in Luke 16 was damned and there was no escape from his ETERNAL burning and torment in the F-L-A-M-E of hell.

I will leave you with these final scriptures, which I am sure you have read and know. These 2 verses are completely illogical when read by a man devoid of faith, yet, for those THAT BELIEVE they are turned into Niagara size waterfalls of living water that bring comfort and security. But sir, IF you have not come to Christ and asked him to save you, and put “illogical” faith in a man you have never met, nor heard to save your sinful lost soul from a burning lake of fire, these verses will pour on you as gasoline while you burn for eternity.

For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I KNOW whom I have BELIEVED, and am PERSUADED that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

These things have I WRITTEN unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To all: I'm sorry for the long delay; things have gotten unusually busy at work. I'm running on nearly 70 hours without sleep right now, but I had to make some time to answer a few more of Mr. Allen's questions before turning in. I plan to answer each of your responses as soon as I can, but after his because I've been keeping him waiting

To Mr. Allen: I'm especially sorry to you sir, but thank you so much for waiting! I really appreciate it! I'm sorry I only got these two more typed, but the rest are coming ASAP (hopefully tomorrow, if I wake up by then.)

8. I think so. It certainly does have many different literary styles; Paul's stuff is written in a very different style than say Proverbs. Also, some authors were certainly less righteous than others. The author of Psalms 137:9 for instance, in the song professes a blessing on any man who would seize a Babylonian baby and bash its brains out on a rock. But I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing; I think some books weren't made for teaching. I think Psalms is like that; it is meant to be poetry, records of the joys and sorrows of God's people in that past, but not a theological dissertation. If that's the case, then it's ok for there to be mismatches in places like that, because maybe the 137th Psalm wasn't meant to teach you something, just to be a song about a man that really felt that way. Maybe God just likes poetry, even when there is not a lesson involved, and just decided to put some in the Bible. My point is that there are cases in which the Bible could have those kind of inconsistencies and still be inerrant.

9. I'm not seeing a question in this one either, but I'll give you my two cents. Maybe so, but maybe its possible that denominations would still exists because of cultural reasons. For instance I think Chinese Christians would always want more strict, hierarchical church structures and laws than American Christians would. And it seems like Russia would want to worship in a manner very different than the Congo would. Perhaps denominational distinctions have as much to do with those differences as Biblical disagreements.

To No Nicolaitions: I really hate to put another response ahead of Mr. Allen, but I felt like this was particularly important. I figured something like that might jump out at people reading that post, so I would like to clarify. I've never posted on any forum other than this one, but when I argue with atheists in person I don't plead with them in the way I have done here. I'm being entirely honest that this is something that bothers me, and that I really would rather be convinced of Inerrancy, but can't see how. I think it's important to know that I'm really here in good faith, with my intentions just as I described them.

And also, I would like to genuinely thank everyone who has taken time to help, it really does mean alot to me!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mr. Thomas,

Thank you for your reply. I will continue to wait to reply until you have the time to finish the questions as you indicated you would.

Brethren,

As I wrote above, I will wait to reply until Mr. Thomas finishes the last 9 questions that we are referring too. This in no way is meant to hinder any of you addressing Mr. Thomas's questions as you are inclined to do so.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To Mr. Alan: Ok, to finish up:

10. Well, some people do just like to rebel, but the question is whether the Bible is the written word of God or if it has been tampered with in such a way that also leads to discord inherrently. I agree that if God wrote it then it must be inerrant because God inerrant. I also think Paul, Peter and such were also great trustworthy men, but not inerrant themselves, so if their book were written without God's direct intervention to the contrary, then their words would also be, strictly speaking not inerrant. And even if God did directly ensure inerrancy for these writers in this special case (and remember, none of the apostles knew that the Bible was going to exist, they didn't have that goal in mind), and produced an inerrant set on manuscripts, if any edits were made since the original letters, then the edited versions would errant even if the originals weren't, again unless God directly influenced the edits in such a way as to still reflect his will. At the very least some wording changes were made when they were translated (The greek 'logos' doesn't carry exactly the same meaning as the English word 'truth', but it is most often translated that way), and God would have had to influence all of the translators in such a way that the new meaning of the words would still reflect his will (even though it wouldn't be exactly the same meaning as before anymore). I really would like to believe that the Bible is an inerrant manual to God's will, but God himself didn't directly tell me it was, and I think there should be a heavy burden of proof when you say something speaks for God.

11. I think it is true for some people, but not everyone.

12. No, I don't remember ever coming across one.

13. I don't understand the question, but that is my understanding of how Darwin's theory works.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

To Mr. Alan: Ok, to finish up:

10. Well, some people do just like to rebel, but the question is whether the Bible is the written word of God or if it has been tampered with in such a way that also leads to discord inherrently. I agree that if God wrote it then it must be inerrant because God inerrant. I also think Paul, Peter and such were also great trustworthy men, but not inerrant themselves, so if their book were written without God's direct intervention to the contrary, then their words would also be, strictly speaking not inerrant. And even if God did directly ensure inerrancy for these writers in this special case (and remember, none of the apostles knew that the Bible was going to exist, they didn't have that goal in mind), and produced an inerrant set on manuscripts, if any edits were made since the original letters, then the edited versions would errant even if the originals weren't, again unless God directly influenced the edits in such a way as to still reflect his will. At the very least some wording changes were made when they were translated (The greek 'logos' doesn't carry exactly the same meaning as the English word 'truth', but it is most often translated that way), and God would have had to influence all of the translators in such a way that the new meaning of the words would still reflect his will (even though it wouldn't be exactly the same meaning as before anymore). I really would like to believe that the Bible is an inerrant manual to God's will, but God himself didn't directly tell me it was, and I think there should be a heavy burden of proof when you say something speaks for God.

Mr. Thomas,

Although you presented the above answer to Brother Alan, I wish to make comment on it.  I believe that the above answer reveals the real reason that you are struggling with assurance of faith in the Bible (God's Holy Word).  In your present system of belief, you do NOT fully believe that the Bible is wholly God's Holy Word.  You appear to have a low view of Biblical inspiration, a low view of Biblical preservation, and a low view of providential translation.  As such, you seem to have a system of belief wherein whole portions (and maybe even many portions) of the Bible are simply the thoughts and interpretations of men, not the very (jot and tittle) words of God.  I can agree that IF I viewed the Bible (or at least portions of the Bible) as being simply sourced in men, I would also question its errancy (at least in those portions); for it is a certain fact that men are errant.  On the other hand, since I believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16), and that no portion of Scripture originated out of "any private interpretation" of men or "by the will of man," but that "holy men of God spake [communicated] as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (See 2 Peter 1:20-21), thus I believe that all Scripture is "true and righteous altogether" (See Psalm 19:9).  Even so, accepting the sincerity of your plea and truly seeking to help you, I would contend that your real problem and struggle is NOT with the errancy or inerrancy of the Bible, but is with the doctrines of inspiration and preservation.  I would contend that until you come unto full assurance of faith in the Biblical doctrines of inspiration and preservation, you will ALWAYS struggle with the question of errancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To Pastor Scott Markle: I don't see your distinction between the two. How could you believe in one but not the other? But if neither Jesus nor any of the saints endorsed the Bible (it hadn't been compiled yet), then how do you know it inerrant? As far as I can tell, the Catholics were the ones to compile it and then claim inerrancy, but they also claimed other doctrines that we don't agree with. If the unwavering belief in inerrancy can be traced back to 'a pope told us so, so we believe it', then why do we believe this thing a pope told us but disdain other things popes have told us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
34 minutes ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

To Pastor Scott Markle: I don't see your distinction between the two. How could you believe in one but not the other? 

Mr. Thomas,

I am not quite certain that I am understanding "the two" that you are intending to reference.

IF by "the two" you mean (1) inspiration and (2) inerrancy, then I would express the following:

1.  Divine inspiration is the foundation for Biblical inerrancy.
2.  Divine inspiration is the source and origin for God's Holy Word, whereas Biblical inerrancy is the result of that divine inspiration.  (That is -- IF Scripture is inspired of God, THEN it follows that Scripture is inerrant, since God Himself is inerrant.)

That ALL Scripture is inspired of God as per 2 Timothy 3:16, such that God the Holy Spirit specifically and precisely moved the human penmen of Scripture to communicate God's Holy Word with "jot and tittle" accuracy as per 2 Peter 1:20-21, is my personal belief system.  As such, since I would hold that God the Holy Spirit Himself is perfectly inerrant, I would further hold that the product of His personally inspired Scriptures are also inerrant ("true and righteous altogether").  Even so, in ALL Bible study I begin with these premises, such that in Bible study I do NOT set up myself as a judge over the possible errancy of God's Holy Word, but I set up God's Holy Word as a judge over my own errancy.

(Note: All genuine logical processes begin with at least one or more premise.  In your own earlier postings, you claim to approach the inerrancy or errancy of any portion in Scripture with neutrality, claiming this as the best approach and claiming that your own logic is the means by which you make your judgment thereof.  In this manner, you have taken up some premises, such as:

1.  Human logic is an accurate tool by which to examine the truthfulness of Scripture.
2.  You yourself have a sufficient grasp of the "logic-tool" to employ its process accurately in general.
3.  You yourself have a sufficient grasp of the "logic-tool" to employ its process accurately over the content of Scripture.

I wonder if you first approached these premises with neutrality BEFORE you began to engage in your "logical" examinations of Scripture.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mr. Thomas,

Thank you for your replies to my set of questions on the two paragraphs that I quoted from Dan Barker's book, "godless." I could not open the pdf text file that you uploaded, but, the previous answers were sufficient in my quest to know you and your beliefs better. I am not going to debate any of the questions or answers.

As with DaveW, I also think that your miss-quoting me, and twisting my post, was not good. For the records sake, I meant what I said and will make sure that everyone knows exactly what I meant.

On 10/29/2019 at 12:58 PM, Alan said:

Mr. Thomas,

God does not write the scriptures for your, or any man's, private thoughts on how, or what, or what dates, or times of reigns, should be mentioned. What you think and what I think should b e mentioned is immaterial. As I clearly brought out, the scriptures are very clear that King Jeroiachim had two reigns.  Therefore, it is abundantly clear that there is no contradiction between

2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9.

Alan

 

After studying your answers I have come to the conclusion that you are an atheist at heart and came here on Online Baptist to cast doubt on the inerrancy of the scriptures, promote atheism, and create an atmosphere of debate and quarrels among the brethren.

If you are truly seeking the truth concerning the supposed contradiction of the three passages of scripture previously discussed, than you will accept the fact that neither one of the three passages discussed do not contradict one another.

As a personal testimony. I was raised by a father that was a hard-core atheist and agnostic and I believed every word he said concerning the contradictions in the Bible, all religions were fraudulent, evolution was a scientific fact, all ministers were in the ministry for wealth, all ministers were hypocrites, and that the Bible was full of fables, legends, not logical, hell was not real and neither was heaven, and only deluded fools believed in Christ. My father's hatred for God, the Bible, the church (any church), and ministers of the gospel, was intense.  As my father believed, so did I. My father simply believed that when you died you went back to the dust of the earth and that was the end of it all. While in High School I had read, and accepted as fact, the writings of Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason," I still have a copy of "Age of Reason" in my library.

At 19 years old, looking at my possible death in the face while in the Vietnam War, I decided to read the little New Testament that was given to me in my induction in the military. Long story short, after reading the New Testament, hearing a message on the reality of hell, and a gospel tract,  I came to the logical, and correct, conclusion that the scriptures were true and everything that my father believed, and that I accepted as factual, was not true, but was fraudulent, man's philosophy, and a monstrous lie of immense magnitude.

I have seriously studied every, and I mean every, supposed contradiction written by Thomas Paine, Dan Barker, Vincent Bugliosi, and some other recent atheists, and have come to the conclusion that their supposed biblical contradictions are not contradictions. In fact, after studying the above books, and other atheist material, with your postings, I have come to the conclusion that you are an atheist.

If you are really seeking truth, you need to accept the answers to the previous three passages discussed as truth and seriously consider the previous posts of the brethren here on Online Baptist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Alan
deleted a phrase
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To Alan: You're testimony is moving. Also, you are wrong about my intentions.

To All: I think this might be my last post as well. I came here looking for help, and I am grateful to those of you who tried. However, I don't find answers that boil down to "I believe because I want to" to be particularly helpful, although at least they are honest. Even if that's all you contributed to this thread, I am grateful for your time and moved by your care. The reason why I'm considering quitting are the discouraging aspirations being thrown onto my character and my motives.

You shouldn't treat me like I'm stupid or evil for asking questions that should have already occurred to you. Maybe if our pastors and parents had asked these types of questions, we would have answers by now that would help people like me who are struggling and help convert people who are now out of our reach. Maybe if we as a culture did this now we could have the way prepared for our children. But as long as we continue to fight against the practice of logic with concern to Christianity, we will continue to hemorrhage out of our churches all of our scientists, then other professionals, then the nation at large. Remember, God created logic, and at one point all of the great Scientists (Newton, Mendel, ect.) were Christians and fought with us to convert people instead of against us, and that's why whole nations were predominately Christian. God made the study of logic, and so when we kicked it out of the church we kicked out his blessings too and lost whole nations to the dark as a result. It's our fault that our scientists and leaders are atheist, we made them that way by bullying them out the church for doing what God made them to do. And now, thoroughly blinded and lobotomized, we won''t listen to the great Christian logicians of the past either; and call honest, good men like Thomas Aquinas evil because we would rather have abortions and gay marriage than to have to think hard in a church.

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...