Why believe the bible is inerrant?

[tim_from_pa]

(Siskim;49546)
And while many really do cry at night for them, they laugh, saying you are a fool to cry for what's only in your mind...your heart is weak; you believe like a naive child who has not reached a level of intellectual maturity to be able to dissect all knowledge to nothing, but back to man who in his foolish pride believes the power of intellect God has given him is capable of doing exactly what Lucifer attempted...kim
One thing that really bugs me about critics who claim "open mindedness" and "enlightenment" is that they seem quick enough to label Christians as intellectually lacking. Isn't that what the world would call "stereotyping" and is the epitome of subjectiveness--- the very opposite of what they are supposedly seeking? I'm not accusing anyone of this on this thread as so far it seems civil enough and respectable, but I am speaking generally from experience. For example, I heard of cases already (thankfully it seems to be a minority yet) where a person's beliefs are weighed before accepting them into certain educational content to be learned---- in other words, the message is that if you believe this (and it concerns Christianity) you are either biased or too dumb to understand what we are teaching. I often joked I used to be the only Sunday School teacher that brought a calculator to class. I delve into concepts that even Christians are uncomfortable accepting that the bible teaches.Gematria is one example. Isaiah 19:19-20 adds up to the height of the Great Pyramid in pyramid inches. And that passage is talking about such straightforwardly, as what other pillar and altar (monument) is at both the border and yet midst of Egypt. Geographically, this only describes the location of the Great Pyramid. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that structure is Egyptian---- theories include Enoch or Noah blueprinting it by God's instructions. In turn, one can find lot of mathematical "coincidences" that strain the limits of normal probability. And that's just one of many things in the bible as such related (Gematria included). The bible can be read straightforward, but it is also coded: mathematically, linguistically and by parable to say the least.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(tim_from_pa;49568)
Gematria is one example. Isaiah 19:19-20 adds up to the height of the Great Pyramid in pyramid inches. And that passage is talking about such straightforwardly, as what other pillar and altar (monument) is at both the border and yet midst of Egypt. Geographically, this only describes the location of the Great Pyramid. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that structure is Egyptian---- theories include Enoch or Noah blueprinting it by God's instructions. In turn, one can find lot of mathematical "coincidences" that strain the limits of normal probability. And that's just one of many things in the bible as such related (Gematria included). The bible can be read straightforward, but it is also coded: mathematically, linguistically and by parable to say the least.
I never heard of this. Can you provide a link I am curious.

 

[Lunar]

(tim_from_pa;49567)
Well, Lunar, I read that other thread and whether one or several axioms, it's a matter of where one wants to draw the line. Actually, we assume a whole lot of axioms. The person next to you existing for example. It's like that bird analogy.
Well, we aren't accepting "that the bird was chirping" or "that there is a person standing next to us" as axiomatic. They are rationally entailed by the "common sense axiom" (that we can trust our sense data).(tim_from_pa)
I still think that an absolute statement that "there is no God' is limiting oneself.
My belief that "there is no God" is contingent, not axiomatic. I'm open to the idea that there may be a God and would accept it if it was shown to be entailed by my epistemological axioms + sense data, but it has not shown itself to be so.(tim_from_pa)
Actually, unless I missed it, I still did not get an answer to the original question as to what evidence, even if some basic axioms were accepted, an atheist would need to believe there's a God.
Sorry if this was unclear. What I was trying to convey with the P(H/E) and P(E/H) business was this - I would be convinced of a belief in a particular God if I encountered evidence that was best accounted for by that evidence, compared to all other alternate hypotheses, and if that evidence lent credibility specifically to that hypothesis and not to other mutually exclusive hypotheses. In other words, if I encountered evidence in which both P(H/E) and P(E/H) were very close to 1.Here are a few examples of things that would absolutely convert me to being a Christian (I credit most of these to a particular youtube video that does an excellent job of summarizing appropriate conditions for belief in a particular theology): Verified and specific prophecies that could not have been contrived (i.e., if the Bible stated that a massive flood would destroy island nations in 2009, and then that happened in 2009), indisputably miraculous occurrences (amputees having their legs restored through prayer, sinful cities routinely bursting into flames for no apparent reason, etc. The Bible was filled with miraculous occurrences - why are there no burning bushes today?), God directly revealing himself and speaking to us (and it would have to be more than one person at once who, so that each could confirm it with each other and know that they were not all either lying or delusional. Also, it would have to be an explicit enough revelation such that it could not be attributed merely to strong emotion). Other things, like scientific knowledge that far preceded their historical discovery, would lend credibility to the religion, though would not be conclusive since we can see with the Greeks that modern scientific concepts were philosophized about, if not refined, long before their discovery.(tim_from_pa)
As for internal and circular reasoning of the bible, that touches on a lot of subjects there, but I simply do not believe that believing in God "because the bible says so" is the only source.
Well, we can go over this again if you want, but considering this thread's history it's a bit of a dead horse.(tim_from_pa)
One thing that really bugs me about critics who claim "open mindedness" and "enlightenment" is that they seem quick enough to label Christians as intellectually lacking. Isn't that what the world would call "stereotyping" and is the epitome of subjectiveness--- the very opposite of what they are supposedly seeking?
Let's not make the mistake of thinking this is a trait that's limited to atheists. People who disagree with each other, in general, are quick to resort to these sorts of accusations. I could provide you with a long list of members of this forum who have called me deluded, brainwashed, ignorant, blind, and all sorts of other things - I'm sure you're aware that Christians do this all the time. That being said, there's not a whole lot that is subjective about the multiple scientific studies that have shown religious people have, on average, lower levels of intelligence and academic achievement than those who are not religious. This, of course, doesn't mean that any Christian who tries to argue his case is automatically stupid; I'm well aware there are many brilliant religious scholars out there, but it is indicative of something.As for open-mindedness and closed-mindedness, I consider myself open-minded to the truth and closed-minded to most other things.

 

[tim_from_pa]

I'm open to the idea that there may be a God and would accept it if it was shown to be entailed by my epistemological axioms + sense data, but it has not shown itself to be so.
OK--- fair enough. I'll let it at that. Who knows what the future may bring?

 

[Alpha and Omega]

Lunar, to answer the question you raised about what is required for salvation, faith or faith and works. This is perhaps the most important question in all of Christian theology. This question is the cause of the Reformation - the split between the Protestant church and Catholic church. This question is a key difference between Biblical Christianity and most of the "Christian" cults. Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works? Am I saved just by believing in Jesus, or do I have to believe in Jesus and do certain things?The question of faith alone or faith plus works is made difficult by some hard-to-reconcile Bible passages. Compare Romans 3:28, 5:1 and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works). In reality, Paul and James did not disagree at all. The only point of disagreement some people claim is over the relationship between faith and works. Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9) while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his life – then he likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their lives is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17)! James and Paul do not disagree on their teaching on salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that faith in Christ produces good works.

 

[Lunar]

(Alpha and Omega;55503)
James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26).
Nowhere in that passage is it suggested that faith led to works. James is pointing out specific instances in which individuals were justified by works.(Alpha and Omega)
James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his life – then he likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).
James 2:14 says "Can faith save him?" after describing someone who has faith and not works. This does not imply that faith leads to works. It specifically implies that if someone has faith alone, he will not be saved. Likewise, in 2:17, he says "Faith, if it have not works, is dead." This simply does not say that faith leads to works. It simply says that faith is useless without works. Same deal with 2:20. Nowhere in any of those passages does James imply that faith inevitably leads to good works. That is pure conjecture on your part.(Alpha and Omega)
The good fruit believers should have in their lives is listed in Galatians 5:22-23.
Galatians 5:22-23 is evidence directly against what you're arguing for. Read it: Paul writes that before faith and the Spirit, there is no law. That would be the very Judaic law that writers like James were promoting when they speak of works.(Alpha and Omega)
Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10).
That is not the same as saying that we are saved through good works.I don't buy your argument, A&O. I did not see any evidence in any of those passages supporting the claim that James thinks faith necessarily leads to good works. All those passages say is that someone who has faith but no works will not be saved - which intrinsically implies that there can be faith without works.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(Lunar;55513)
Nowhere in that passage is it suggested that faith led to works. James is pointing out specific instances in which individuals were justified by works.
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?wrought here means works together or works with therefore if one has true faith he will also do the works of God.26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.If I say that I am the best surfer in the world but cannot surf if my life depended on it what good is my word? Likewise if someone says they believe in Jesus but they continuously break the commandments, do they really believe? What good is their word?(Lunar;55513)
James 2:14 says "Can faith save him?" after describing someone who has faith and not works. This does not imply that faith leads to works. It specifically implies that if someone has faith alone, he will not be saved. Likewise, in 2:17, he says "Faith, if it have not works, is dead." This simply does not say that faith leads to works. It simply says that faith is useless without works. Same deal with 2:20. Nowhere in any of those passages does James imply that faith inevitably leads to good works. That is pure conjecture on your part.
(Lunar;55513)
Galatians 5:22-23 is evidence directly against what you're arguing for. Read it: Paul writes that before faith and the Spirit, there is no law. That would be the very Judaic law that writers like James were promoting when they speak of works.
I do not see how this contradicts my argument. This verse simply states that all of the things noted there is no law against them. Just before this verse we see the following....19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. God is simply saying that these things are bad and the good things that I mention there is no law against them. Why would there be a law against love, joy, peace etc? That's why it reads against such there is no law.(Lunar;55513)
That is not the same as saying that we are saved through good works.
In that particular verse that was not what I was pointing out. I was simply pointing out that Paul says that once we are created in Christ good works will follow. We are not saved by works by the way.

 

[Shornaal]

(Alpha and Omega;55576)
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?wrought here means works together or works with therefore if one has true faith he will also do the works of God.
Wrought here actually would mean "is created", meaning that faith without deeds is worthless.And as a godless atheist this is one of the parts of the bible I agree with, one should try to change the world, not just sit on his ass praying.And by "change the world" I mean feed the poor, build hospitals and help the sick, not persecute fags.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(Shornaal;55577)
Wrought here actually would mean "is created", meaning that faith without deeds is worthless.And as a godless atheist this is one of the parts of the bible I agree with, one should try to change the world, not just sit on his ass praying.And by "change the world" I mean feed the poor, build hospitals and help the sick, not persecute fags.
No it does not mean "is created" it means 1) to work together, help in work, be partner in labour2) to put forth power together with and thereby to assistdont believe me look up the concordance yourself.http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/trans...orks&t=KJV&sf=5http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon...ongs=4903&t=KJV

 

[ps77]

at night they go searching to see God in their own way..people always want to see God in their own way.except they always claim that is the right way?so how do we know what is the right way? to this, they responded; simply, read the bible.but when i read something, and i dont understand it, and two people get different things from it. validly explaining it using logic, and the bible, which do i choose? do i go with the more popular vote?and Lunar, i've always wondered. we're all hopped up about christianity, but in the middle east, it's islam, and hinduism and so on. they've got their own religions as we have ours. i just see a mirror image and on a global scale i'm not sure where to go.i am not convinced i was born into the right religion. i cannot accept that. luck of the draw? no.also, if we use that logic, then none of the religions of the world are right.so really, that got us nowhere.

 

[kiwimac]

I would argue that only God is inerrant. To assert that a book is inerrant is to say that it is perfect and again, only God is perfect. The Bible reflects not only God's words but the societal mores of the culture within which it was written.

 

[EggsBaconandBeans]

hey.. it's not that we think there are no errors in the bible. it's not about that at all. it's that we are leaning on our faith that we received through God's grace, and therefore we trust Him. i hope that helped.. :) dale

 

[fivesense]

I figured this deserved its own thread.How is it that many Christians believe the word of the Bible is inerrant, when it has been shown to contain numerous inconsistencies, unfulfilled prophecies, and is most likely the work of a number of people with different theological views who redacted source texts with the intention of pursuing a particular religious agenda? The Gospel of John's focus on the Word, meanwhile, suggests clear gnostic leanings on behalf of the writer.Can we possibly believe that the bible is inerrant and internally consistent?

The many translations of the Holy Writings are subject to bias, prejudice, and interpretation. God chose to reveal Himself through the Greek lanquage. He did not choose Latin, Sanskrit, or Arabic, or any other language. That by itself should be a clue to the discerning mind.

The Writings in the original language are indeed inspired. With the abundance of Greek scholarship we have today, an accurate knowledge of what those Writings is indisputable. The resources are available. Reliance upon translations and versions of the "Bible", instead of first-hand investigation, is sure to produce confusion. Individual faith saves, not group faith, and individual study is what conforms a person to the image of God, not group instruction solely.

Proper division of the word of truth, correctly dividing it, is not possible any other way.
fivesense