Why God's Word The Bible IS Infallible!

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Well let's start with you answering the first question I asked you... If Moses authored the first five books of the bible why did he tell two different creation stories in the first two chapters?

I can offer my own reason for that one. Moses was discussing two different gods. Chew on that for a minute then go back and read it. If read chronologically, it makes for an entirely different (and really cool) religion.

Originally posted by edmc^2


Rev 1:10 It was the Lord's Day, and I was worshiping in the Spirit. [fn] Suddenly, I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet blast.


Rev 1:11 It said, "Write in a book [fn] everything you see, and send it to the seven churches in the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."

-- NLT

But how do these explain why you are reading all the books in the collection of the bible and why you aren't reading others? There are books in the bible that are just as disjointed and irrelevant to Christianity as the Tao Te Ching. I don't see that book in the bible.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by edmc^2


Rev 1:10 It was the Lord's Day, and I was worshiping in the Spirit. [fn] Suddenly, I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet blast.


Rev 1:11 It said, "Write in a book [fn] everything you see, and send it to the seven churches in the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."

-- NLT

But how do these explain why you are reading all the books in the collection of the bible and why you aren't reading others? There are books in the bible that are just as disjointed and irrelevant to Christianity as the Tao Te Ching. I don't see that book in the bible.

Then which Bible book do you want me to quote from?

how 'bout this?

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." -- 2 Tim 3:16, 17

That's all fine and dandy and all except the book you apply this to didn't exist when it was written....

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Well let's start with you answering the first question I asked you... If Moses authored the first five books of the bible why did he tell two different creation stories in the first two chapters?

Please elaborate further so I know what ur talking about.

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman

how 'bout this?

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." -- 2 Tim 3:16, 17

That's all fine and dandy and all except the book you apply this to didn't exist when it was written....

edit on 18-7-2011 by wearewatchingyouman because: funny fingers

Exactly. If an early book in the bible said something like "any book written in the future by conjoined albinos is the word of God" then there would be something to go off of. But there is nothing that indicates any of the other books' validity so there is no reason (other than the word of the Roman Catholic church) to put all your chips on the books we have.

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman

how 'bout this?

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." -- 2 Tim 3:16, 17

That's all fine and dandy and all except the book you apply this to didn't exist when it was written....

edit on 18-7-2011 by wearewatchingyouman because: funny fingers

So which Bible book are you referring to that this scripture does not apply to?

reply to post by Cuervo

the Roman Catholic church) to put all your chips on the books we have.

I think you got history wrong - it wasn't RCC that cataloged the entire bible - it was the first cent true Christians who were killed by the Romans for teaching Christianity.

Once the apostles and the faithful Christians were gone then the bishops and popes took over thereby transforming the once pagan religion of Rome (Universalis) into Roman Catholic Church - from there it fragmented into different groups - among these were the Protestant who "Protested" against Rome - then the rest is history.

reply to post by edmc^2


check Gen. 1:11 and 1:26 vs 2:5-7...

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Cuervo

 

the Roman Catholic church) to put all your chips on the books we have.

I think you got history wrong - it wasn't RCC that cataloged the entire bible - it was the first cent true Christians who were killed by the Romans for teaching Christianity.



Once the apostles and the faithful Christians were gone then the bishops and popes took over thereby transforming the once pagan religion of Rome (Universalis) into Roman Catholic Church - from there it fragmented into different groups - among these were the Protestant who "Protested" against Rome - then the rest is history.

care to elaborate on where you got this timeline of events from...

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Cuervo

 

the Roman Catholic church) to put all your chips on the books we have.

I think you got history wrong - it wasn't RCC that cataloged the entire bible - it was the first cent true Christians who were killed by the Romans for teaching Christianity.

Once the apostles and the faithful Christians were gone then the bishops and popes took over thereby transforming the once pagan religion of Rome (Universalis) into Roman Catholic Church - from there it fragmented into different groups - among these were the Protestant who "Protested" against Rome - then the rest is history.

I disagree (it was actually the Council of Nicaea) but it doesn't matter who it was as there is no endogenous reasoning behind putting any credit to whoever chose the books in the first place.

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by edmc^2

 

check Gen. 1:11 and 1:26 vs 2:5-7...

no discrepancy here.

Genesis Chapter 1 talks about the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth in all its glory and detail - including man.

Chapter 2 of Genesis talks about the history of man under the heavens and the earth - in detail.

That's all.

reply to post by edmc^2


did you actually look? You don't notice a discrepancy in the timeline, or order, of which events took place first?

reply to post by Cuervo

I disagree (it was actually the Council of Nicaea) but it doesn't matter who it was as there is no endogenous reasoning behind putting any credit to whoever chose the books in the first place

The Council of Nicaea was put together by Constantine to solidify his power because the bishops of Rome were fighting each other on what to believe. One of the primary doctrine that came out of this council was the Doctrine of Trinity and other un-scriptural doctrines. It was a political maneuver by Emperor Constantine to affirm his power. But do you know who was the first pope of Rome?

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by edmc^2

 

did you actually look? You don't notice a discrepancy in the timeline, or order, of which events took place first?

edit on 18-7-2011 by wearewatchingyouman because: clarity

Just so you know - I've studied the Creation account extensively - it's a long post so I'll just provide a link here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

there's more but i think the two should suffice

reply to post by edmc^2


It's like pulling teeth with you... what in the world does science have to do with vegetation coming before man in one account and man coming before vegetation in the other....

Originally posted by edmc^2
True but they were guided by God - thus the author is God - hence God's word.

How do you know the napkin writer wasn't guided by God?

Edit: Basically what you're saying is, "God exists because the Bible says he does and the Bible is a reliable source because God exists."

You don't see the logical fallacy there?

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by edmc^2
True but they were guided by God - thus the author is God - hence God's word.

How do you know the napkin writer wasn't guided by God?

Edit: Basically what you're saying is, "God exists because the Bible says he does and the Bible is a reliable source because God exists."

You don't see the logical fallacy there?

edit on 18-7-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

You're forgetting another important thing.

Here's the Infallible word of God said:

"20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. 22 Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish" -- Roman 1:20, 21.

Nature also not only affirms it but confirms it.

youtu.be...

reply to post by edmc^2


So the bible is true because god says so and god is real because the bible says so.

Why must discussions with christians be so tremendously illogical? Discussions with them always dissolve into pure tautology and circular reasoning.

At the very least you should make an effort to use reasoning and logic, then maybe we all can get somewhere in these discussions.

The koran is also true because it says so and allah is also the one true god because the koran says so.

Plenty other examples exist of holy texts claiming they are true and are from the one true god. What exactly males you think the bible is any different than those?