Then the problem comes…if you claim some things said, in the Bible are true and some things are false…then you need to have a criteria, to determine the difference. With all due respect, I still don’t understand your criteria - LLC.
I like the take of RC and EO churches…along with folks like NT Anglican bishop and NT scholar - NT Wright. There are parts of the Bible that are written, in concrete or literal language…and there are parts, that are written in allegorical or abstract language. Now Genesis could be an example, of the latter. As scientists talk about Old Earth, Big Bang and Evolution…as the “how” of creation…as contrasted with the “why” (AKA God).
Of course, some might think demons are a fiction…and continue to do bad things, like Carl does…but he finally uncovers, the reality of demons!
HF, According to 2 Kings 8:26 “Ahaziah as twenty two years old when he became king.”
2 Chronicles 22:2 “Ahaziah was forty two years old when he became king.”
This is an obvious error- mistake so you cannot say the Bible is inerrant.
As far as teaching goes:
Lev. 19:18 says “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Whereas Lev. 24:19-21 says this
Is this loving your neighbor as yourself? To me, it’s not. However, you’ll have to determine for yourself.
Lev. chapter 12, Is it a sin to have a baby? And does a woman need to atone for it?
To me this is totally ridiculous. Did this come from God? My answer is definitely NOT. However, again, you’ll have to determine for yourself.
Always the old testament. Why not read the New which sheds light on the Old and interprets it?
Is that such a hard principle? All this endless arguing over that very old and undeveloped writing?
I also have thought similarly. Why wasn’t Clement’s letter to the Corinthians included? Clement was Paul’s fellow labourer (Philippians 4:3). He wrote a very powerful letter to the Corinthian assembly. Paul had written to them about their party spirit. But at that time their partialities were for renowned men of God such as one of Christ’s disciples. But when Clement wrote to them, young upstarts wanted to replace the overseers. His letter is rather long but truly addresses the problem.
In your title, you ask whether the Bible is infallible. The words “inspired” and “infallible” are not synonymous. As I see it, inspiration refers to God having inspired the writers. But their own thoughts could get in there as well.
I think it is clear that parts of the Bible are false and therefore not infallible. A clear example is Jude 14, 15. Jude wrote:
It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
In this passage Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, and stated that the author was “the seventh from Adam” (that is, the historic Enoch found in Genesis 5). I have the book of Enoch, and found the passage which Jude quoted. However, the author, at one point, refers to a people group that was known not to exist until about 300 B.C. So Jude was clearly mistaken in referring to the writer as “the seventh from Adam.”
I might add, however, that Jude was not the only person in his day to presume the writer was the historic Enoch. It was a common belief among other early Christians.
Thanks for that response, those are good examples to think about.
I take it you believe that some parts of the Bible are inspired and others are not. How do you decide which is which?
One “hot topic” example is homosexuality. The Bible condemns it in both OT and NT. But you could argue that the writers were just expressing the morality of the time, and that it’s therefore not binding on all times and cultures. So you could rationalize it being acceptable today.
I think this is also true of the books of Moses. Some assume that the first five books were written by Moses. However, many passages begin with " The Lord said to Moses…". If Moses was the writer wouldn’t it say, " The Lord said to me…"? Even with this, there is no guarantee. A lot of material could have been lost, hidden away, burned up, excluded etc.
According to Deut. 10:5 Moses put the tablets of his testimony in the ark of the covenant.
1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chron. 5:10 say that there was nothing in the ark except for the two tablets of stone that Moses put there in Horeb.
mcarans, I don’t believe in progressive revelation. To me, God revealed himself in the beginning and there have always been people who have known the truth and were testifying to it. It was no different back then as it is today. Although we have the testimony of truth through Jesus, people have many other beliefs, and things could get dark depending on what those beliefs are and what we choose to follow.
Let’s look at one answer from article 2…as it’s the same, as an answer from article 1
The discrepancy in ages is due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 20 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented decades. would equal the number 14 where would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyri, then the dates would be off by ten years or a factor of ten.
Let’s look at another explanation, from this article:
One solution offered is that the Hebrew text of 2 Chronicles 22:2 literally describes Ahaziah as a “son of forty-two years.” Some scholars have argued that this phrase does not mean that he as an individual was forty-two years old when he came to the throne. Rather, they suggest that the expression depicts the sum of years that had passed since the founding of the dynasty of Omri, the father of Ahab (note the phrase “house of Ahab” v. 3), from whom Ahaziah was descended through his mother (v. 2b).
In addition, several ancient translations cast doubt upon the forty-two figure. Most manuscripts of the Septuagint have the number twenty, and one has twenty-two. Twenty-two is also reflected in the Syriac and the Arabic versions. Accordingly, some of the more current English translations have changed forty-two in 2 Chronicles 22:2 to twenty-two (NASB, NIV, ESV).
Several of the letters in the Hebrew script are strikingly similar in appearance, and such is the case with the letters which represent twenty-two and forty-two. A very slight stroke of the pen could blur the distinction.
There are two primary explanations for the apparent contradiction between 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9 in regards to Jehoiachin’s age. The first explanation is that this represents a copyist’s error. As the Old Testament manuscripts were copied by hand, from century to century, small and inconsequential errors found their way into the biblical text. In ancient Hebrew, the numbers 8 and 18 would have been differentiated by a very small mark. No matter how meticulous the scribes were, it would be understandable if one misread the number and recorded the wrong number on the new manuscript.
The second explanation in regards to Jehoiachin’s age in 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9 is that 2 Chronicles records Jehoiachin’s age when he was appointed co-regent with his father, and 2 Kings records Jehoiachin’s age when, after his father’s death, he became king in his own right. Other kings also used co-regents. David appointed Solomon king while David was still alive (1 Kings 1:33-40), and, when Uzziah was afflicted with leprosy, his son Jotham became co-regent (2 Chronicles 26:21). While there is no specific mention of a co-regency in regards to Jehoiachin, this is a plausible explanation for the difference between 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9.
If I were a betting man - with virtual play money…I’ll bet that for every contradiction, someone on this forum can bring up…I can come up with a reasonable explanation…from some know scholar or theologian, from the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Got Questions, Etc. - worlds.
Keep in mind, that I am a professional digital marketer and copywriter - in the technology area - before I retired. And I have used those skills, even in retirement. So I can keep this up, until the end of time.
But let’s make this easy on everyone!
If you find a Biblical contradiction, look to see if some scholar or theologian…from the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant world…has one or more reasonable explanations, to explain the contradiction. Then explain why those explanations are faulty.
This way, we are not wasting time.
Here are some songs, to help everyone remember the message.
If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then Israel had no need for atonement or forgiveness of sins. According to Leviticus, this was accomplished by the sacrificing of animals.
If you find a Biblical contradiction, look to see if some scholar or theologian…from the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant world…has one or more reasonable explanations, to explain the contradiction. Then explain why those explanations are faulty.
This way, we are not wasting time.
Otherwise, it reminds me of when Ross Perot ran for president. His claim to fame, was coming up with these great one liners - like you are doing.
One following the path of Holy Foolery, really has no contemporary Holy Fools to follow. The closest I can come, is following in the footsteps - of great vaudeville acts…like the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, and Abbott and Costello.
That is not a contradiction. Depending on what you are trying to accomplish, you may wish to respond to fools, or not respond. Additionally, Proverbs are in a different classification of instruction. They are not always true, but are true more often than not.
Well, here’s the take of the Got Questions site on this!
However, I would argue that one following the path - of the Holy Fool…as found in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic traditions…has a different take on “fool” and does incorporate wisdom…however, the world fails to see it.
The book of Leviticus discusses many of the sacrifices performed by the Levitical priests. In some places, it seems to claim that a particular offering could remove sins.
And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. (Leviticus 4:20)
Yet the book of Hebrews explicitly states that animal blood could not take away sins.
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. (Hebrews 10:4)
The Solution
This is fairly simple to resolve. Nowhere in the Old Testament is it ever claimed that sins were “taken away” (i.e., completely removed) by animal sacrifices. The root of the Hebrew word translated “atonement” in the Old Testament is kaphar , which has the idea of “covering,” not total removal. This word is also used to refer to how Noah’s ark was to be covered with pitch.
Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. (Genesis 6:14, emphasis added)
Tens of thousands of animals were ceremonially slaughtered by Jewish priests for centuries, the spilling of their blood vividly illustrated the deadly seriousness of sin. However, these sacrifices were essentially like a bandage, only acting as a covering for sin. They did not, and could not, remove sin, as Hebrews 10:4 clearly states.
They also pointed forward in time to the only One that could remove sin—Jesus Christ who shed His precious blood to accomplish that purpose.
By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:10–12)
The phrase “take away” in verse 11 is translated from the Greek root periaireo , which does convey the idea of removal. This is consistent with the use of “atonement” in the Old Testament, as the Levitical sacrifices foreshadowed the final sacrifice of Christ.
Conclusion
Animal sacrifices could only cover sins; they could not remove them. The passage from Hebrews 10 draws a contrast between the animal sacrifices and Christ’s sacrifice. The former could never take away sins, but when Christ shed his own blood, it was a once and for all sacrifice that removes sins.
In this alleged contradiction, the solution is found by simply understanding the context and the proper meanings of the words employed within the text.
Of course, we need a song - to commemorate this revised understanding!
HF, Instead of just admitting that the Bible is not infallible and that the Levitical law contained pagan rituals and sacrifices that did not come from God, they try to come up with all kinds of explanations that make no sense.
According to Leviticus, these animal sacrifices were an atonement for sins and they were forgiven- exonerated, absolved. If it means they were covered then “let it be” as you say.
Romans 4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are COVERED. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”
Isaiah had it right. Animal sacrifices were totally useless, good for nothing, “bull crap” pardon the pun. And as Jeremiah said, God didn’t command them.
