Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Guest Mr. Thomas

PROVEN: Biblical Inerrancy

Recommended Posts

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9, “The Two Reigns of King Jehoiachim”

Other Kings with Two Reigns in the Bible

1. King David was anointed king over Judah and reigned for seven years and six months (2 Samuel 2:11). “And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabeshgilead were they that buried Saul.” 2 Samuel 2:4

King David then was anointed King over all Israel, which included Judah, and reigned for another 33 years, “So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the LORD: and they anointed David king over Israel.” 2 Samuel 5:3

As with King Jehoiachim, King David has two different times listed in scripture as reigning as king.

“Thus David the son of Jesse reigned over all Israel. And the time that he reigned over Israel was forty years; seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.” 1 Chronicles 29:26-27

2. King David and King Solomon. In 1 Kings 1:1-40 we have the story where King David anointed his son Solomon as King.

As we read further, in 1 Kings 2:10-11, after Solomon was crowned as King, we read that David is acting as a co-regent with King Solomon until the day of his death. And in 1 Kings 2:10-11 we read, “So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David. And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.”

And, it was not until after the death of King David, that the scriptures state, “Then [after the death of King David in 1 Kings 2:11] sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly.” 1 Kings 2:12

"And did eat and drink before the LORD on that day with great gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto the LORD to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest." 1 Chronicles 29:22

3. The two reigns of King Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon as written in the book of Daniel. “And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.” Daniel 2:1

Even though King Nebuchadnezzar was warned by Daniel to have a humble spirit, because of his sinful pride, God took away the kingdom from Nebuchadnezzar until he humbled himself and knew that God, from His throne in heaven, reigned, as King, over the affairs of men on the earth. In Daniel 4:1-5:36 we have the recorded historical account of this true event.

After King Nebuchadnezzar humbled himself before God in heaven, his kingdom was restored to him. “At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.” Daniel 4:36

So, King Nebuchadnezzar, as King Jehoiachim, had two reigns.

Conclusion

After a careful study of the Bible, the two accounts, 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9, are both correct as written in Authorized Version, or commonly called, the King James Version of 1611, King Jehoiachim had two reigns as other kings in the Bible has two reigns. For a person to say that these two passages of scripture, 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9, are contradictory, and therefore the Bible is not inerrant, is a false teaching.

 

 

Edited by Alan
deleted doubled phrase added 1 Ch. 29:22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John 8

31  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

 32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Alan: If Jeroiachim had two reigns, don't you think both passages would have mentioned both reigns; instead of one mentioning one and the other supposedly referring to a second? As you demonstrated, other passages are very specific and do mention and distinguish when there are more than one reign or co-reigns. The same goes for Judas' death: if he both hanged himself and fell over in a field.If you hadn't already decided on the answer, that would have never been the interpretation you read into it. But worse than these inconsistencies comes from the gospels again when Matthew says Judas threw the 30 pieces of silver away, but Luke says he used it to purchase land and 'burst open' in it. That looks like a flat contradiction to me. Also, thanks for the response! I appreciate your time and you're laying your argument coherently and point-by-point.

To DaveW: Ok.

To Pastor Scott Markle: What's your opinion on the Mosaic vs Christian divorce laws I mentioned earlier? As a recap, Moses declared a set of divorce laws similar to what we have in law today. If a married couple wanted to split, they could so long as they signed a legally binding document to the effect, and they were free to remarry others afterwards. Jesus said something along the lines of 'Well, God told Moses give those laws because your ancestors couldn't handle the real law; which is that divorce is not to happen except for in cases of marital infidelity, and remarrying after a divorce is adultery." I think Jesus's law is better of course, and I think it's also more consistent with God's attitude towards marriage, even in the Old Testament. Now, suppose that a Jewish man in say 300 BC, read the Old Testament and logically concluded that Moses' divorce laws were not the true laws, and he derived the same laws Jesus later gave. Did our man do an ungodly thing by using his knowledge of God's character, his logic, and presumably the writings of contemporary scholars, to contradict the Bible as available to him at the time? Is is always wrong in any circumstances to contradict the Bible when God has a track record of reforming/changing laws as we grow 'less hard' than our ancestors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

To Alan: If Jeroiachim had two reigns, don't you think both passages would have mentioned both reigns; instead of one mentioning one and the other supposedly referring to a second? As you demonstrated, other passages are very specific and do mention and distinguish when there are more than one reign or co-reigns.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Mr. Thomas,

In the book, "godless" by Dan Barker, quoted below, he has a before and after statement when he discussed the preconceived discrepancy of 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9, “The Two Reigns of King Jehoiachim.” I have listed the individual points that he mentioned in the before (10 points), and after statements ( 8points), below my signature in this post.

Can you please, by a clear yes or no statement, answer these before and after statements? The statements that do not require a yes or no answer can be answered by your own opinion. 

Thank you.

Alan

Dan Barker & King Jehoiachim. 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9

Dan Barker, a renowned artiest, states out his chapter on, ‘Bible Contradictions,’ with this statement, “Paul said that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33), yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible. … The problem is not with human limitations. The problem is the bible itself. People who are free of theological bias notice that the bible contains hundreds of discrepancies. Should it surprise us when such a literary and moral mishmash, taken seriously, causes so much discord! Here is a brief sampling of biblical contradictions.” 1

Please note that Barker does not believe that the Bible is worthy of any respect, is written by man, is a fraud, full of myths, legends, mistakes, full of contradictions, and is inerrant. So, he does not capitalizes the word “bible,” unless it is a specific version of the Bible.

1. Is Barker correct when he, presupposes, that the Bible has contradictions?

2. Is Barker correct when he states that it is the Bible itself that causes confusion? Or is it man that causes the confusion?

3. Is Barker correct when he states that the problem is not with man but with God?

4. If the atheist is correct in their belief that there is no God; then how can God be the problem? or the cause of confusion?

5. Barker already stated that the problem is not with human limitations, but, in a glaring contradiction, he states that the Bible, written by man, is the problem.

6. ‘Hundreds of discrepancies?’ Not so. With a careful study of each supposed discrepancy, within the direct context of each verse in question, using correct logic and correct reasoning prowess, and a careful ‘rightly dividing the scriptures,’ the discrepancies are not discrepancies.

7. Barker assumes that all religious people have ‘theological bias.’ That is quite an assumption.

8. Is the Bible really a literary and moral mishmash?

9. If the Bible was taken seriously the moral, the confusion of the different denominations, would diminish.

10. It is man, and his rebellion against the written word of God that is causing discord; it is not the Bible.

In his list of supposed ‘contradictions,’ Barker does not list any possible answers to the supposed contradictions that have been set forth by men of faith. Nor does Barker quote the full scriptural passage of the supposed ‘contradictions. Nor, does Barker give the context of the supposed ‘contradictions.’ Nor does Barker give the Bible “the benefit of doubt” when the verse is taken in its historical setting, and not in our modern time setting.

After listing various supposed ‘contradictions,’ including “How old was Jehoiachim when he became King?”, Barker does not examine other stories in the Bible, nor history, when there was a father as King, and his son as King, in a co-regent status. Or, if King Jehoiachim actually had two reigns separate from one another.

Dan Barker, without even suggesting that there might have been a logical answer, such as a co-reign with his father at the time, or that in the scriptures a king can have two reigns, makes this conclusion, “Human beings make mistakes. The bible does contain some truth, but no honest person can pretend it is a perfect book. Combined with the exaggerations, scientific inaccuracies, borrowing from pagan sources, evidence of tampering and clearly irrelevant passages aimed at bygone, primitive, superstitious people, the contradictions underscore the fact that, on balance, the bible is not a reliable source of truth?”2

1. Barker presupposes that people who believe the Bible is perfect are not honest and are pretending it is true. Is this true?

2. Is the Bible full of exaggerations? If so, give us examples.

3. The ‘scientific inaccuracies that Barker is mentioning is the Darwinian theory of evolution. Barker stated, “Darwinism shows us that all living organisms are the result of a natural evolutionary process. We have been fashioned by the laws of nature.”3

4. Is Darwin’s theory of evolution true?

5. Is Barker correct when he said that the Bible is borrowed from pagan sources?

6. Is the Bible full of tampering and irrelevant passages?

7. Is the Bible still aimed at only bygone, primitive and superstitious people?

8. Is Barker correct in the assumption that the Bible is not a reliable source of truth?

 

1Barker, Dan godless, Ulysses Press: Berkeley, CA, 2008, p.222.

2Ibid, p. 242.

3Ibid. p. 219.

 

 

Edited by Alan
grammar added the 'opinion' statement spelling numbering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Allen on "God does not write the scriptures for your...: This is not totally relevant to my point, but oh yes, he absolutely does write based on his audience. Who do you think is reading this? Angels? Lizards? And you don't have to take my word, take Jesus' on the divorce law stuff I mentioned in my last post. He explicitly said that God gave a different divorce law to a different people in the past on the basis of their specific inclinations. Also, why do you think that there are so many genealogies in the Bible, especially leading to Jesus? Most modern people don't really care one way or the other (how many times do you 'skim' or skip past the genealogies in your readings?), and God certainly doesn't need to prove it too himself. Presumably he included it because there existed certain past and perhaps future cultures that really buy into the 'sins of the father' type of worldview, where the children of bad people are thought less of even before they've done wrong themselves, so he established a longstanding genealogy of good men and women (Ruth).

On Dan Barker:

Stipulation: I haven't read or heard of this fellow before, so the answers I 'm about to provide are directed to your questions and not based on a review of his work. Effectively I'm answering as if you asked "Is it correct to presuppose that the Bbile has contraditions' and not 'Is Barker correct ...'. I can't speak to what I'm unfamiliar with, but I'll do the best I can.

Sidenote: I 'm sometimes inconsistent with my spelling of Bible with a capital. I mean no disrespect, you can assume I mean it to be capitalized.

Sidenote 2: I reordered your questions as a set of nineteen instead of two sets of ten and eight (you skipped the second 5).

1. In general, no. It seems to me that a presupposition isn't necessary or logical; you should start from a neutral position and attempt to prove both errancy and inerrancy. My preferred method is to argue against as many hardcore atheists as I can in favor of inerrancy, and as many fundamentalists as I can in favor of errancy, and see which side posses the truth by finding which has the strongest arguements.This duality is important. I'm sure you agree that the Catholics have often presented lies and obscenities (purgatory, indulgences, ect.) (Fun fact: the official position of the Catholic church today is that Mary not only was a virgin her entire life (what about her other kids mentioned in the Bible?), but was also in fact born of a virgin herself.) as truth, so the people they deceived would have done much better to verify the accuracy of their claims. And remember, the same idiots who pray to saints and elected a high priest after God ripped the temple veil had their hands on the Bible at one point too and determined what books and what passages went where. I trust God, but I think it's wise to verify everyone and everything else.

2. Pretty much ditto. The question is whether the whole Bible is God-breathed or if some of it has been edited. If the Bible was tampered with by ancient Catholics, then that would explain the confusion on both counts.

3. No, I would take as granted that God acts both benignly and without error.

4. I don't think that is an atheist argument. I think there is a distinction in their minds between God the person, in whom they disbelieve, and god the concept, in which they observe but disdain.

5. Again, pretty much ditto. I think here they distinguish between oppressed and oppressing humans. To atheists, Biblical authors are oppressors who attempt to enforce imperfect systems out of madness or for material gain, and that rejection is a perfect reaction to imperfect deception.

6. I'm not sure there's a question there, but ok. I agree that there aren't many full-on errors, but there is tons of stuff that, in order to make sense, you have to take strange liberties with the original wordings. You have to read them in ways that you wouldn't have read them the first time. But you don't need a swarm, even one full error is sufficient to prove errancy.

7. I think that's pretty accurate. Sometimes people insist on things not because they really believe them but because they're psychologically adverse to anything else for one reason or another. That's one reason why I love truth and logic. If something is logical, then all people have something to really believe in and not just pretend. If I can find a logical backing to Biblical claims, then not only does it help me, but you can effectively 'save' all the people who just were just fake-believing up to this point. I'm sure you've seen, there's lots of people who are just halfway believers; who think they are but really aren't. Those guys are the hardest to truly save, because they only have enough Christianity to vaccinate them from the real kind. When you have logical proofs you don't need to believe something just because you want to, you can really have faith because you can feel the rocks under your feet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for informing me that I skipped number 5 on the second set of questions.

Thank you also for answering the answers as requested. Now I think I know you better.

I will wait for your complete answers before I make any further comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. If you speak English, you need a KJV. All other English modern versions are false bibles. You know that you have a false bible if 1 Corinthians 1:18 reads "are being saved". If it says that, throw it out. Otherwise, you don't even put a high standard on the word of God yourself, so don't expect one to be kept. If you believe that rendering, get saved so that you can understand scripture, because it is spiritually discerned.

Secondly, do yourself a favor, and quit quoting the Greek unless you can speak common Greek and read the received text for yourself. Otherwise, you are a poser and don't know what you are saying. 

If you don't have faith, you will not receive the answers, even when the work is done for you by other people. God puts stumbling blocks in your path to test your faith. That's when you get to work, or make a decision for faith. Jesus Christ is a stumbling block to the unbelieving, Christ rejecting Jews. If you fail the test of faith on verses in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, then go do something else, such as decide whether you want to burn in hell, or put your "faith" in the Word of God, because you can't deny the Word and be saved. 

Some save with fear, which seems like what you need. You certainly don't need any sugar coating on your bible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

To Allen on "God does not write the scriptures for your...: This is not totally relevant to my point, but oh yes, he absolutely does write based on his audience. Who do you think is reading this? Angels? Lizards? And you don't have to take my word, take Jesus' on the divorce law stuff I mentioned in my last post. He explicitly said that God gave a different divorce law to a different people in the past on the basis of their specific inclinations. Also, why do you think that there are so many genealogies in the Bible, especially leading to Jesus? Most modern people don't really care one way or the other (how many times do you 'skim' or skip past the genealogies in your readings?), and God certainly doesn't need to prove it too himself. Presumably he included it because there existed certain past and perhaps future cultures that really buy into the 'sins of the father' type of worldview, where the children of bad people are thought less of even before they've done wrong themselves, so he established a longstanding genealogy of good men and women (Ruth).

On Dan Barker:

Stipulation: I haven't read or heard of this fellow before, so the answers I 'm about to provide are directed to your questions and not based on a review of his work. Effectively I'm answering as if you asked "Is it correct to presuppose that the Bbile has contraditions' and not 'Is Barker correct ...'. I can't speak to what I'm unfamiliar with, but I'll do the best I can.

Sidenote: I 'm sometimes inconsistent with my spelling of Bible with a capital. I mean no disrespect, you can assume I mean it to be capitalized.

Sidenote 2: I reordered your questions as a set of nineteen instead of two sets of ten and eight (you skipped the second 5).

1. In general, no. It seems to me that a presupposition isn't necessary or logical; you should start from a neutral position and attempt to prove both errancy and inerrancy. My preferred method is to argue against as many hardcore atheists as I can in favor of inerrancy, and as many fundamentalists as I can in favor of errancy, and see which side posses the truth by finding which has the strongest arguements.This duality is important. I'm sure you agree that the Catholics have often presented lies and obscenities (purgatory, indulgences, ect.) (Fun fact: the official position of the Catholic church today is that Mary not only was a virgin her entire life (what about her other kids mentioned in the Bible?), but was also in fact born of a virgin herself.) as truth, so the people they deceived would have done much better to verify the accuracy of their claims. And remember, the same idiots who pray to saints and elected a high priest after God ripped the temple veil had their hands on the Bible at one point too and determined what books and what passages went where. I trust God, but I think it's wise to verify everyone and everything else.

2. Pretty much ditto. The question is whether the whole Bible is God-breathed or if some of it has been edited. If the Bible was tampered with by ancient Catholics, then that would explain the confusion on both counts.

3. No, I would take as granted that God acts both benignly and without error.

4. I don't think that is an atheist argument. I think there is a distinction in their minds between God the person, in whom they disbelieve, and god the concept, in which they observe but disdain.

5. Again, pretty much ditto. I think here they distinguish between oppressed and oppressing humans. To atheists, Biblical authors are oppressors who attempt to enforce imperfect systems out of madness or for material gain, and that rejection is a perfect reaction to imperfect deception.

6. I'm not sure there's a question there, but ok. I agree that there aren't many full-on errors, but there is tons of stuff that, in order to make sense, you have to take strange liberties with the original wordings. You have to read them in ways that you wouldn't have read them the first time. But you don't need a swarm, even one full error is sufficient to prove errancy.

7. I think that's pretty accurate. Sometimes people insist on things not because they really believe them but because they're psychologically adverse to anything else for one reason or another. That's one reason why I love truth and logic. If something is logical, then all people have something to really believe in and not just pretend. If I can find a logical backing to Biblical claims, then not only does it help me, but you can effectively 'save' all the people who just were just fake-believing up to this point. I'm sure you've seen, there's lots of people who are just halfway believers; who think they are but really aren't. Those guys are the hardest to truly save, because they only have enough Christianity to vaccinate them from the real kind. When you have logical proofs you don't need to believe something just because you want to, you can really have faith because you can feel the rocks under your feet.

 

The bolded part of the quote says everything that needs to be said.

This man ahs done this on several occasions: he quotes a part of a statement and then answers something that was not actually posed.

Here is the actual post that Alan made, to show that this guys answer is a false accusation against Alan, for Alan never posed such as this guy suggests. This is plain misrepresentation.

12 hours ago, 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

He is not here to get an answer for his supposed troubles.

If he was he would not misrepresent people, and he would not introduce side issues to cloud the discussion, such as why he introduced the discussion about divorce aimed particularly at SAB, because he knows that it is something that SAB is passionate about. Thankfully everyone has ignored this attempt at causing division.

His misrepresentation of people, his disdain for the Word of God, his constant uplifting of man's word over God's, including the words of some men who are absolutely ungodly, and his baiting with side issues, all add together to prove that this man is not here for any purpose other than to cause trouble and division.

He is "nicer", and he is more measured, but the evidence is there.

If he was genuine he would stick to his first purpose - the veracity of the Word of God.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

My preferred method is to argue against as many hardcore atheists as I can in favor of inerrancy, and as many fundamentalists as I can in favor of errancy, and see which side posses the truth by finding which has the strongest arguements.This duality is important.

So...you argue for both sides...inerrancy and errancy.

When joining an atheist forum, do you say that you need help, because you're starting to believe that God's word is true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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.

Loading...

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...