Why do you believe the Bible is 100% inspired?

[Helen]

Numbers is one of favourite books. I have several sermons based on excerpts from that book. The story of Balaam alone holds many lessons.

Agree, that is why I mentioned "a couple of gems".....
but on the whole..Y A W N

Give me Hebrews any day...Or Genesis in the old...

 

[shnarkle]

No - Christians were originally persecuted by pagan Rome because Nero put the blame on them for burning the city down.

If you studied your history - you would know the lies that were concocted about them to make them SEEM radical - and even cannibalistic. The writers of the day accused them of everything from incest to murdering and eating babies.

I don't deny any of that.

As for the accounts of the life of Christ - NOT sure where you get your bizarre ideas that they were hatched in the synagogues.

The early church consisted of observant Jews who were in the same habit Jesus was of going to synagogue on the Sabbath as well as the feast days. The Acts of the Apostles verifies this as well. Even more importantly is the fact that the gospel narratives follow the EXACT same pattern as the Jewish liturgy. Coincidence? They fit like a hand into a glove in the EXACT same chronological order. Coincidence? Scholars and theologians alike have often wondered whey the gospels uphold the Mosaic law when Paul doesn't. The point here isn't to note a disagreement between the gospel accounts and Paul, but to spotlight the fact that the gospels do uphold the Mosaic law because they are addressed to churches that were struggling with keeping them.

They were passed on by the TWELVE who lived with Him during His ministry.

And they all kept the Mosaic law. They passed these stories down within the synagogue system.

Again - for your charges to be true - this would have required a massive multi-generational conspiracy.

Non Sequitur. The burden of proof is upon you to back up this claim.

Many of the things simply couldn't be made up anyway.

That's simply false. It is quite easy to make up stories that reinforce stories that are already being used within the synagogue system. We have incomprehensible amounts of similar stories that are exactly the same. They can be found within the Talmud. It should come as no surprise that a story telling culture would continue to tell similar teaching stories. The sad fact is that even an observant Jew understands the message of the gospels better than professing Christians. The reason being that the messages and themes are being clearly presented, but Christians are obsessed with history rather than the truth. The truth will set you free, history will only lead you to apostasy.

For example - the name of Bethlehem means "House of Bread". Jesus is the Bread of Life. The Manna that came down from Heaven precedes the name of Bethlehem. No later conspiracy could have invented this.

No later conspiracy is needed either.

Of the 300 or so prophecies fulfilled by Jesus - there were ZERO errors. The chances of this happening, as I stated in my first post, has been estimated to be around one in ONE QUADRILLION.

And the chances that these narratives are historical rather and coincidently matching the readings that are found throughout the Jewish liturgical calendar are just as high. The conspiracy is beginning to look like it begins with those who insist on ignoring these facts.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't deny any of that.

The early church consisted of observant Jews who were in the same habit Jesus was of going to synagogue on the Sabbath as well as the feast days. The Acts of the Apostles verifies this as well. Even more importantly is the fact that the gospel narratives follow the EXACT same pattern as the Jewish liturgy. Coincidence? They fit like a hand into a glove in the EXACT same chronological order. Coincidence? Scholars and theologians alike have often wondered whey the gospels uphold the Mosaic law when Paul doesn't. The point here isn't to note a disagreement between the gospel accounts and Paul, but to spotlight the fact that the gospels do uphold the Mosaic law because they are addressed to churches that were struggling with keeping them.

And they all kept the Mosaic law. They passed these stories down within the synagogue system.

Non Sequitur. The burden of proof is upon you to back up this claim.

That's simply false. It is quite easy to make up stories that reinforce stories that are already being used within the synagogue system. We have incomprehensible amounts of similar stories that are exactly the same. They can be found within the Talmud. It should come as no surprise that a story telling culture would continue to tell similar teaching stories. The sad fact is that even an observant Jew understands the message of the gospels better than professing Christians. The reason being that the messages and themes are being clearly presented, but Christians are obsessed with history rather than the truth. The truth will set you free, history will only lead you to apostasy.

No later conspiracy is needed either.

And the chances that these narratives are historical rather and coincidently matching the readings that are found throughout the Jewish liturgical calendar are just as high. The conspiracy is beginning to look like it begins with those who insist on ignoring these facts.

First of all - the Early Church consisted of Jews AND Gentiles, who had NOTHING to do with synagogue teaching. On top of that - MOST scholars agree that Luke was a Greek Gentile - and he WROTE both a Gospel account AND Acts of the Apostles.

Secondly - your remarks above in RED are absolute FICTION. Paul not only taught that the Gospel upheld the Mosaic Law - he confirmed that Christ FULFILLED the Law (Col. 2:16-17). They didn't "ALL" keep the Mosaic Law. Read Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem. The Apostles emphatically wrote that they did NOT expect the Gentiles to observe the Law. Do your homework.

So much for your "Jewish-only" suppositions about the Early Church . . .

 

[shnarkle]

First of all - the Early Church consisted of Jews AND Gentiles, who had NOTHING to do with synagogue teaching. On top of that - MOST scholars agree that Luke was a Greek Gentile - and he WROTE both a Gospel account AND Acts of the Apostles.

Secondly - your remarks above in RED are absolute FICTION. Paul not only taught that the Gospel upheld the Mosaic Law - he confirmed that Christ FULFILLED the Law (Col. 2:16-17). They didn't "ALL" keep the Mosaic Law. Read Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem. The Apostles emphatically wrote that they did NOT expect the Gentiles to observe the Law. Do your homework.

So much for your "Jewish-only" suppositions about the Early Church . . .

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem as I never claimed that Paul didn't uphold the law. Read my post again. I firmly agree that Paul did uphold the law. Luke was not a Gentile. He was a Greek speaking Jew writing to cosmopolitan Jews like himself. The early church was exclusively Jewish for one very pertinent reason, i.e. Christ came to call Israel, and Israel alone to repentance. It was only after the gospel had been rejected repeatedly that the gospel was opened to Gentiles, and even then the Gentile converts were being brought into the synagogues. You can read all about it in the Acts of the Apostles.

Paul would proclaim the gospel at the synagogues on the Sabbath, and sometimes the whole Gentile population would come to hear him preach. They would ask if he was going to be returning the following Sabbath so they could come and listen to him preach again. What a great opportunity for Paul to point out that he would be there the very next day. He didn't do that though because he was proclaiming a gospel that upheld the Mosaic law, including the 4th commandment.

The elders even point out that they needn't bother regurgitating the entire Mosaic law to these Gentile converts because:

]QUOTE]Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.[/QUOTE]

Where can they hear the book of Moses being read to them?

"In the synagogues" QED

 

[BreadOfLife]

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem as I never claimed that Paul didn't uphold the law. Read my post again. I firmly agree that Paul did uphold the law. Luke was not a Gentile. He was a Greek speaking Jew writing to cosmopolitan Jews like himself. The early church was exclusively Jewish for one very pertinent reason, i.e. Christ came to call Israel, and Israel alone to repentance. It was only after the gospel had been rejected repeatedly that the gospel was opened to Gentiles, and even then the Gentile converts were being brought into the synagogues. You can read all about it in the Acts of the Apostles.

Paul would proclaim the gospel at the synagogues on the Sabbath, and sometimes the whole Gentile population would come to hear him preach. They would ask if he was going to be returning the following Sabbath so they could come and listen to him preach again. What a great opportunity for Paul to point out that he would be there the very next day. He didn't do that though because he was proclaiming a gospel that upheld the Mosaic law, including the 4th commandment.

The elders even point out that they needn't bother regurgitating the entire Mosaic law to these Gentile converts because:

]QUOTE]Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Where can they hear the book of Moses being read to them?

"In the synagogues" QED[/QUOTE]
WRONG.
Luke wasa NOT a Jew - he was a Greek Gentile.
Scholars agree that his writing style proves that he was not Jewish. The idea of your 1st century "Jews Only" club is dying a horrible death in this conversation. It was LUKE who wrote Acts and LUKE who wrote one of the 3 synoptic Gospels. - and he wasn't Jewish.

As for Paul proclaiming the gospel in the Synagogues - that wasn't the ONLY place he did this. Paul was an observant Jew - but MOST of his audience was GENTILE and did not enter synagogues.

Finally - Paul never taught that the Mosaic Law had to be observed. On the contrary - he called observances of the Law - "shadows of things to come" but that CHRIST was the reality (Col. 2:16-17). In other words - he taught that Jesus FULFILLED the law - just as Jesus Himself did (Matt. 5:17).

 

[Bobby Jo]

RSV Dan. 9:25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.​

What your false translation is suggesting ...

If there's any TRUTH in you, then provide ANY precedent in ANY Society or ANY Scripture passage which cites non-incremented numbers typical of "seven and sixty-two".

Please note that: four score and ten; a dozen and a half; a mile and a quarter are all LEGITIMATE. But NOBODY says their shoes cost ~seven and sixty-two dollars plus tax~. NOBODY!


Bobby Jo

 

[marks]

Agree, that is why I mentioned "a couple of gems".....
but on the whole..Y A W N

Give me Hebrews any day...Or Genesis in the old...

Hebrews is fantastic! We're going through Philippians right now, also amazing! But I'll confess . . . I'm going to say that about all the books. Well, actually, except Song of Solomon. Personally I've never heard teaching of that book that's made any sense to me. I suspect that Elijah who is to come will be revealing it to Israel in the wilderness, as he prepares the bride for her second wedding. Uh-oh. Now these's a big can of wriggly worms!

Much love!

 

[marks]

Oh, but I just realized, I came back to this thread because I finally think I have an answer to the OP (who's writer appears to be a one-hit-wonder) question, why I believe the Bible is 100% inspired?

Well.

Because I have a faithful Creator, who speaks to me, and wants me to be absolutely sure it's Him speaking.

Much love!

 

[Stranger]

Hebrews is fantastic! We're going through Philippians right now, also amazing! But I'll confess . . . I'm going to say that about all the books. Well, actually, except Song of Solomon. Personally I've never heard teaching of that book that's made any sense to me. I suspect that Elijah who is to come will be revealing it to Israel in the wilderness, as he prepares the bride for her second wedding. Uh-oh. Now these's a big can of wriggly worms!

Much love!

Concerning Song of Solomon, that is a shame. There is much there. I would encourage you to seek out it's meaning.

Stranger

 

[marks]

Concerning Song of Solomon, that is a shame. There is much there. I would encourage you to seek out it's meaning.

Stranger

Point me in a direction. I've read it a number of times, given a lot of thought to it. I believe it's more than just the love story of the two lovers.

It "preaches well" in a lot of ways, that is to say, we can use various parts to illustrate various concepts and teachings in the Bible. Just the same, as a cohesive whole, which appears to me to be how it's written, well, I'm all ears to any thoughts.

Much love!

 

[Stranger]

Point me in a direction. I've read it a number of times, given a lot of thought to it. I believe it's more than just the love story of the two lovers.

It "preaches well" in a lot of ways, that is to say, we can use various parts to illustrate various concepts and teachings in the Bible. Just the same, as a cohesive whole, which appears to me to be how it's written, well, I'm all ears to any thoughts.

Much love!

Look at it as a love story between Jesus Christ and His bride the Church. Some would view it as a love story between the Father and Israel, but I believe it to be more directed to the Church. Solomon would represent Christ. The bride is a Gentile as she is called a 'Shulamite' in (6:13), which fits the Church.

The daughters of Jerusalem would refer to Israel who are identified first in (SOS 1:5). Thus you see you have the scenario set. And many verses in both Old and New Testament that relate to the bridegroom and bride will help give understanding.

I would find a study Bible that identifies the speakers as you read through it. They may be wrong sometimes, but it helps as you start. I use the Scofield Study Bible, and his are a help to me.

Does that help?

Stranger

 

[marks]

Look at it as a love story between Jesus Christ and His bride the Church. Some would view it as a love story between the Father and Israel, but I believe it to be more directed to the Church. Solomon would represent Christ. The bride is a Gentile as she is called a 'Shulamite' in (6:13), which fits the Church.

The daughters of Jerusalem would refer to Israel who are identified first in (SOS 1:5). Thus you see you have the scenario set. And many verses in both Old and New Testament that relate to the bridegroom and bride will help give understanding.

I would find a study Bible that identifies the speakers as you read through it. They may be wrong sometimes, but it helps as you start. I use the Scofield Study Bible, and his are a help to me.

Does that help?

Stranger

Hi Stranger,

The NLT translation includes notes on the speakers, which I find very useful for following along. As far as I can tell, they get that right.

I have Scofield's study Bible, that is, the dad's edition, not the son's. He's got some good notes on a lot of passages I think.

Song of Songs 5
1 I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved.
2 I sleep, but my heart waketh: it is the voice of my beloved that knocketh, saying, Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled: for my head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the night.
3 I have put off my coat; how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them?
4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.
5 I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.
6 I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, and was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer.
7 The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.
8 I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him, that I am sick of love.

What praytell is the meaning of this passage?

Her beloved comes to her door, and she hesitates, then goes to the door. He's already gone, and as she goes out looking for him, the city watchmen find her, beat her, and violate her.

What does this tell us about the church, and how can we know with certainty that is what it is intended to teach?

What of the rest?

I think all we can do is associate words in this book to words used elsewhere, but they don't really illuminate the book. But that's just me.

Much love!

 

[amadeus]

Concerning Song of Solomon, that is a shame. There is much there. I would encourage you to seek out it's meaning.

Stranger

I certainly strongly agree.

 

[Helen]

Point me in a direction. I've read it a number of times, given a lot of thought to it. I believe it's more than just the love story of the two lovers.

It "preaches well" in a lot of ways, that is to say, we can use various parts to illustrate various concepts and teachings in the Bible. Just the same, as a cohesive whole, which appears to me to be how it's written, well, I'm all ears to any thoughts.

Much love!

This little page will fill in the blanks.... Quick read...
I have the actual book that this was taken from...I have a lot of Watchman Nee's books...and no, I don't agree with some of the things he says in some books...but overall, he is a good teacher.

The Song of Songs - by Watchman Nee

 

[marks]

This little page will fill in the blanks.... Quick read...
I have the actual book that this was taken from...I have a lot of Watchman Nee's books...and no, I don't agree with some of the things he says in some books...but overall, he is a good teacher.

The Song of Songs - by Watchman Nee

I've read this before but it's been a long time, I'll read it again, thank you!

Much love!

 

[Stranger]

@marks

Let me get back with you later as I have a lot of alerts to address and yours will take some time. But I will get back.

Stranger

 

[marks]

This little page will fill in the blanks.... Quick read...
I have the actual book that this was taken from...I have a lot of Watchman Nee's books...and no, I don't agree with some of the things he says in some books...but overall, he is a good teacher.

The Song of Songs - by Watchman Nee

Well there you have it.

I've recently finished going through Ecclesiates with my small group, and over the past year I'm sure I've read that book at least 200 times.

So, I'll read it with Ecclesiastes in mind, and the contrast he points too.

Thank you!
Much love!

 

[marks]

@marks

Let me get back with you later as I have a lot of alerts to address and yours will take some time. But I will get back.

Stranger

I'm in no hurry! Quality takes time!

Much love!

 

[marks]

This little page will fill in the blanks.... Quick read...
I have the actual book that this was taken from...I have a lot of Watchman Nee's books...and no, I don't agree with some of the things he says in some books...but overall, he is a good teacher.

The Song of Songs - by Watchman Nee

I actually found in a dumpster when I was maybe 8 years old some of his books, I remember reading them with basically no understanding.

But I also remember from that very same time, having the song in my head, "This is my story, this is my song, praising my Savior all the day long", and I knew I wanted that.



Much love!

 

[Stranger]

I certainly strongly agree.

Good to know. It is a great book.

Stranger