Why God's Word The Bible IS Infallible!

reply to post by jmdewey60


ahhh, I see. So you hold scholars and yourself as the final authority when deciding what is true in the scriptures and what is not. Correct? This would make you AND your scholars God. Congratulations, you are on your way to being a Mormon *just kidding*

Why not just try and give God the benefit of the doubt FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFETIME and "believe" that God "just might" be big enough, powerful enough, and obligated to preserve His words for all to read? The Bible even says the God Himself would keep His words for EVERY generation to have.

Psalms 12:6-7
"6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. "

Why not give God just a little bit of credit since you say you are a Christian, and trust that He is able to keep His own words. I do, why can't you? Do you doubt God so much that He can't even keep His words straight? Seems like you have a heart and trust problem....not a head problem.

reply to post by KJV1611
Just purifying it in the oven to refine it a few times.
You seem to know nothing about the bible, along with the person who started the thread.

reply to post by KJV1611

Why not just try and give God the benefit of the doubt FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFETIME and "believe" that God "just might" be big enough, powerful enough, and obligated to preserve His words for all to read? The Bible even says the God Himself would keep His words for EVERY generation to have.

Correct!!

Those words are in the book... they are not the "entire" book...

Why not give God just a little bit of credit since you say you are a Christian, and trust that He is able to keep His own words. I do, why can't you? Do you doubt God so much that He can't even keep His words straight? Seems like you have a heart and trust problem....not a head problem.

Gods words are straight... The bible is not, its crooked, sometimes backwards...

What one must do is fine the truth within the book...

reply to post by jmdewey60


Ahh!! I see! So your the one that wrote Psalms 12:6-7!! Your the one that refined your words. Nice to meet you god....see you soon at the great white throne.

LOL, p.s. I just saw your title under your account name:

Bible Scholar of Revelation

Oh my....your too much! Notice my title which has been there for many a month now? Egos are a funny thing, pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit BEFORE A FALL.

reply to post by Akragon


Soooooooooo...what are God's words....if they are not in the Holy Bible...? Care to explain? I can't wait to hear

"For the word of God [is] living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." - Hbr 4:12 NKJV

 

This is really all that needed to be said my friend.

If you wish to waste time debating the validity of the words of the dead, then you are in good company here. For myself, I have better things doing living and BEING the WORD.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by Akragon

 

Soooooooooo...what are God's words....if they are not in the Holy Bible...? Care to explain? I can't wait to hear

Correct me if im wrong, but i said "Gods words are in the bible", but they "are not the entire bible"

scroll up and see for yourself...

reply to post by Akragon


fair enough. but i will assume that only Jesus's words are the words of God from past experiences talking with you. If i am wrong say so.

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by Akragon

 

fair enough. but i will assume that only Jesus's words are the words of God from past experiences talking with you. If i am wrong say so.

I would say that... though that doesn't mean im calling him God.

reply to post by Akragon


then I rest my case. If there is no final authority in regards to God's words to debate upon, then there is no argument.

reply to post by IAMIAM


no, not so much. We (Christians) are not God's living words....that would be Jesus Christ Himself, John 1:1-3, Revelation 19, 1 John 5:7....Not quite sure where you get your info from Curious though!

The verse you quoted would make you a judge of everyone....so much for thou shalt not judge.
Besides, you said

validity of the words of the dead

which is in error. Everyone that had a part in writing the Bible are alive in Heaven:

MARK 12:26-27
"And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
He is not the GOD OF THE DEAD, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err."

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by Akragon

 

then I rest my case. If there is no final authority in regards to God's words to debate upon, then there is no argument.

There is a final authority... which is within the bible. AND... that authority is infallible as far as i've ever read. I've yet to find anyone who could prove it wrong...

Sadly, you have no case to be put to rest.

The bibles infallibility has been torn apart in this thread...

reply to post by Akragon


Who are you now?!?!? Its like you have turned around completely Dang it madcat! Just come right out and SAY what you are alluding too! What do you find infallible and error less in the Bible, and what do you say is fallible?

I hold to the WHOLE Bible being infallible and perfect because of Bible verses that say it is, plus hundreds of scientific, prophetic, and archaeological proofs from the Bible itself. What is your position?

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by Akragon

 

Who are you now?!?!? Its like you have turned around completely

Dang it madcat! Just come right out and SAY what you are alluding too! What do you find infallible and error less in the Bible, and what do you say is fallible?

I hold to the WHOLE Bible being infallible and perfect because of Bible verses that say it is, plus hundreds of scientific, prophetic, and archaeological proofs from the Bible itself. What is your position?

I haven't turned around, the issue is you don't pay attention to what others post...

The only infallible property within the bible is the scriptures about love... Most of which Jesus spoke of in his teachings, or was repeated by his followers. The bible as a whole is completely fallible, if not crooked/slanted/sideways....

Love is the only absolute, and i've yet to find anyone that could prove otherwise...

reply to post by jmdewey60

An extensive study? You mean you read it?

Both!

You apparently never read anything ABOUT the Bible.

Not I only read the Bible BUT I also read ABOUT the Bible. In fact some of them are from “Higher Critics” like the works of German Bible critic Julius Wellhausen who said that the first six books of the Bible (including Joshua) were as he proudly proclaim written in the 5th cent BCE. That is, according to him about a thousand years after the events described the Bible books in question. One of his often quoted or used arguments is that:

“Genesis is a post-exilic work composed of a post-exilic priestly source (P) and non-priestly earlier sources which differ markedly from P in language, style and religious standpoint.”

In addition he viewed all the history recorded in the earlier part of the Hebrew Scriptures as

“not literal history, but popular traditions of the past.”

That Moses never received any commandment to make the ark of the covenant and that the tabernacle, center of Israelite worship in the wilderness, never existed and blah, blah, blah. No need to repeat his unfounded ridiculous theories.

Then there are those who held that the book of Daniel was forgery but in the end were forced to admit their error.

On this Ferdinand Hitzig concluded:

“The case of the book of Daniel, if it is assigned to any other [writer], is different. Then it becomes a forged writing, and the intention was to deceive his immediate readers, though for their good.”

Sadly even clergymen themselves who claim to be servants of God became critics themselves. Bishop Barnes of Birmingham, England, said:

“The Old Testament was full of ‘folklore, defective history, half-savage morality.’”

These are just some of the failed critics of the Bible who claimed to know more than the Bible itself and thus saw themselves as wiser than the author of the Bible himself. We can add to the list your favorite Bible citric Mr. Bart Ehrman who will be discarded in the dust bin of forgotten history of lies.

Those quotes do not sound like Paul to me.

And just how were you able to determine this? Care to elaborate?

These are called the Pastoral letters because he is writing as if to a Bishop. There were no bishops in Paul's day. That was something that came later. If you think the first century Christians knew the letters, I'm sure you would be happy to quote them.

I think you’re confusing what Paul wrote during his time with what supplanted it later on.

But I’m not faulting you because sadly, you have misled by Christendom.

I’m not sure if you know but the original word for “bishop” is “epi′skopos” which literally means overseer or superintendent but then was converted into “bishop” – meaning a priest with jurisdiction over other members of the clergy in his diocese in the later century. This later meaning was a falling away from the truth and was later introduced by the so called “Church Fathers”. Thus a distinction was made between the “priest” and the “laity” / common people.

Notice:
Spanish Jesuit Bernardino Llorca explains:

“First, there was not sufficient distinction made between the bishops and the presbyters, and attention was only paid to the meaning of the words: bishop is the equivalent of superintendent; presbyter is the equivalent of older man. . . . But little by little the distinction became clearer, designating with the name bishop the more important superintendents, who possessed the supreme priestly authority and the faculty to lay on hands and confer the priesthood.” (Historia de la Iglesia Católica [History of the Catholic Church])

Thus as history shows - bishops began to function in a kind of monarchical system, especially from the beginning of the fourth century.

From this a hierarchy, or ruling body of clergy, was established, and in time the bishop of Rome – unashamedly claimed to be a successor to Peter, was acknowledged by many as the supreme bishop and pope.

cont... next post

cont...

As for the “pope” notice what Former Jesuit Michael Walsh said, he explains:

“The first time a Bishop of Rome was called ‘Pope’ seems to have been in the third century, and the title was given to Pope Callistus . . . By the end of the fifth century ‘Pope’ usually meant the Bishop of Rome and no one else. It was not until the eleventh century, however, that a Pope could insist that the title applied to him alone.”—An Illustrated History of the Popes.

So the title “pope” (from the Greek pa′pas, father) was not used during the first two centuries.
And the rest as they say is history (you can find it in most Encyclopedias and history books).

But today the position of bishop in the different churches of Christendom is a position of prestige and power, often identified with the elite ruling class of each nation.

Contrast these proud and elevated men in the clergy class with the simplicity of organization under Christ and the elders, or overseers, of the early Christian congregations, there is an enormous difference and the difference is quite clear.

As for:

The word, Gnosis, comes into the letters in 1 Timothy 6:20 along with the word, antitheseis, which is the title of the book written By Marcion around 140 AD.
This can be found in Wikipedia.
Historical Views

Interesting that you’ve mentioned it because it’s exactly what the apostle Paul warned his brothers of what will happen once they (and the true followers of Christ – true Christians) are gone.

Beginning in 1 Tim 4:1, Paul warned:

“The inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons.” (1 Timothy 4:1)

On this the apostle Paul counseled Timothy on what to do:

Here’s what Paul said at 1 Timothy 6:20,21:

“ O Timothy, guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” 21 For making a show of such [knowledge] some have deviated from the faith.

The development of the “clergy” class was the “falling away/turning away” from which “false” “KNOWLEDGE” (Gnosis) came about. The True teachings of the Christ were supplanted by “false teachings” of the clergy class. In fact it was already in operation when Paul gave the warning.

Notice the following writings of Paul to the Thessalonian Christians:

“6 And so now YOU know the thing that acts as a restraint, with a view to his being revealed in his own due time. 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way. 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. 9 But the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents 10 and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved. 11 So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thessalonians 2:6-12)

(my underline for emphasis)

The “restraint” is the apostle/s and faithful Christians. Once they are gone “out of the way” the apostasy of the Christian Congregation (Church) will be in full force.

As for:

The other arguments can be found in Bart Ehrman's Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are
You can buy it at Amazon or your local book store or borrow it at your public library.

Since you’re familiar with his lies, please do tell what convinced you that what he said is true?

reply to post by Akragon


Your not a hippy are you...? And what good is love if there is not hate? And to top that off, tell me madcat...

WHY SHOULD GOD LOVE YOU? What makes you think He does? Would God love you even if you didn't believe in Him? (Jesus being God).

reply to post by edmc^2
Daniel is obviously "post exile", and . . so what?
How does that (Daniel's authenticity) prove the rest is not also post-exile?

reply to post by edmc^2

This is just ridiculous that you quote 1 Timothy to support the authenticity of the "letters" to Timothy.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by edmc^2

 

This is just ridiculous that you quote 1 Timothy to support the authenticity of the "letters" to Timothy.

So why is it "ridiculous that" I "quote 1 Timothy to support the authenticity of the "letters" to Timothy"?

BTW - do you agree with the diffinition of the word "bishop"?

That is:

According to Spanish Jesuit Bernardino Llorca:

“First, there was not sufficient distinction made between the bishops and the presbyters, and attention was only paid to the meaning of the words: bishop is the equivalent of superintendent; presbyter is the equivalent of older man. . . . But little by little the distinction became clearer, designating with the name bishop the more important superintendents, who possessed the supreme priestly authority and the faculty to lay on hands and confer the priesthood.” (Historia de la Iglesia Católica [History of the Catholic Church])

Thus as history shows - bishops began to function in a kind of monarchical system, especially from the beginning of the fourth century.

From this a hierarchy, or ruling body of clergy, was established, and in time the bishop of Rome – unashamedly claimed to be a successor to Peter, was acknowledged by many as the supreme bishop and pope.

I'm I correct on this?

Now, back to my Q:

Since you're very familiar with the writings of your favorite Bible Critic Mr. Bart Ehrman - what convinced you that what he said is true?