The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Do you believe the Bible is infallible? If so, why?

Theology
#84

According to LLC’s “understanding” of Leviticus - you mean. Which differs from the “understanding”, I quoted.

Which raises the 64 dollar question. If several people read the same book…and you have different “opinions”, on what the book says…how do we determine, who is right?

Well, their explanation makes “perfect sense” to me. How do we determine, when an explanation makes “perfect” sense or NOT “perfect” sense? It’s almost like moral relativism. Except I call this epistemological relativism. My “interpretation of knowing”, makes perfect sense to me. Your “interpretation of knowing”, makes perfect sense to you.

#85

I doubt that before the true God who never wanted sacrifices that they ever even truly ‘covered’ sins. The image of atoning sacrifices cleansing sins and taking them far away from Israel is found in the scapegoat ritual, such as in Leviticus 16.

But I find that most religions use similar word games to supposedly easily show that every thing in their changing tradition is also in magical harmony. Muslims use them to prove that there’s no inconsistencies in the Qu’ran. Mormons use them to explain how their books are divinely consistent. Etc.

But my observation is that this method of theirs convinces no one, except those already deeply invested in the view that it is their own literature which must be infallible. To everyone else, it is apparent that the changing views of writers are often reflected.

#86

HF, To me, their explanation is a total farce. Covering and taking away are meant to convey the same idea. Animal sacrifices did neither. If they did, Romans 4:7 would apply to them as well.

The sacrifices in Leviticus are said to be perpetual and everlasting, for example Lev.16:34 “This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year.”
Now one can claim that everlasting doesn’t mean forever, that it was only temporary or for an age. But then what about the new covenant? It’s said to be everlasting as well. Maybe it was only temporary. Maybe the age has come and gone and God changed it on us. We just happened to miss the boat somehow. NOT! God’s word was FIRMLY fixed in the heavens from the beginning
These are the sacrifices that please Him.

  1. A humble/ circumcised heart
  2. Loving others as ourselves
  3. Caring for the poor and down trodden
  4. Showing justice and mercy
  5. Putting away our evil ways
    etc. etc.
    " Love COVERS a multitude of sins"
    This is the way it has ALWAYS been and always will be.
    Abraham knew it, Moses knew it, the prophets knew it and Jesus knew it. People can try to preach false things in their names and many have. Jesus Himself warns us of it. But it won’t work because the truth can’t be hidden. It will always come to light.
#87

We still have a different of opinions, between Bob, LLC and article author Ron Dudek. And if I go to the article website bios at Answering Genesis Bios, I see a lot of “doctors” (AKA PhD folks) . So I assume these “fine scholars”, have reviewed this article. And nobody has any objections to it. So back to my question…how do we know who is right? Bob, LLC or Ron? Ron’s explanation sounds equally plausible - or implausible - from my perspective.

Also, it says this - on the bios website:

Get to know Answers in Genesis speakers from our offices around the world.

Hum! Folks with PhD degrees. Offices around the world. It sounds pretty reputable to me.

And let’s seek a second opinion…on the “covering” of sins…from the site Got Questions.

God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10)

Well, what do we have here? A second professional opinion…from a different website, with a lot of Google juice…saying the same thing.

Of course, someone like Matt Slick from CARM - might use different “language”

Why did God require animal sacrifices in the Old Testament?

They served as a kind of placeholder while people waited for the true Messiah to come and the true sacrifice would be offered. After all, the blood of animals cannot cleanse from sin (Hebrews 10:4). So, the Old Testament animal sacrifices were a representation of the death of Christ on the cross that would later occur and which was recorded in the Gospels.

And we have a different opinion here:

Why Did God Require Animal Sacrifice in the Old Testament?

So you see that animals were sacrificed not because God needed them to forgive people but because his people needed them to remember the death consequences of sin and to therefore repent when they’d broken covenant with God. Later in Israel’s history, when people began sacrificing animals without repenting in their hearts, the Lord told them (through prophets like Isaiah, Hosea and Amos) that he despised their sacrifices, for they are meaningless without a change in heart.

And in

It says:

Why did God have people sacrifice animals if it would never remove sin? Because God wanted His people to realize the cost of sin; because He was preparing the hearts of his people for the when the solution to sin revealed Himself.

Perhaps all these authors, are saying the same thing - but using different language?

Or let me summarize their “collective” thoughts, into my own words. God - via animal sacrifices - gave the Israelites a placebo. But the placebo gets replaced, when Christ comes into the picture.

image

And maybe God wanted the Israelites, to sing this song - until Christ came?

Of course, I proposed a scientific solution - a while back. We live in a universe, of multiple dimensions and parallel universes. And each person on - and off - this forum…is philosophically and theologically correct…in some parallel universe or alternative dimension.

Then again…to me, my understanding of the tribulation and Z-Hell ( 1, 2, 3) - is perfectly sound.

1 Like
#89

The Bible certainly has a lot of these foibles and apparent contradictions. But even if there were no contradictions at all, or they were all satisfactorily explained, it does nothing to answer the bigger question: is it infallible?

To illustrate, I can write a letter to a buddy that has no contradictions and is perfectly clear. It can even have some correct historical statements and good advice. But we would not venerate it, say that it really is God’s words through my pen, and authoritative for all ages.

#90

Maybe you’re asking the wrong question? What if, for example, you ask… is God’s mercy infallible? — would you have any difficulties answering that?

#91
  1. I only know specifics about God’s mercy through special revelation, so if that foundation itself is in question, yes, I would have difficulties answering that.
  2. Infallible in the context of talking about the Bible has a special meaning that is different from its meaning when applied to something else like mercy, so I don’t think your question above would be particularly relevant in this context.
  3. Setting aside 1 and 2 for a moment, let’s say I agreed with your question above. Where would you go next with it?
#92

I would let the certainty of that conclusion settle my heart to where doubts on other matters, e.g., the infallibility or otherwise of scripture, fall into the background. IOW… run with what I have become confident about, i.e., the love and mercy of God.

1 Like
#93

Eph. 3.17
Then Christ will make his home in your hearts as you trust in him. Your roots will grow down into God’s love and keep you strong.

Our roots are in God’s love, not a theory about scripture. Thank goodness.

3 Likes
#94

You need some kind of “external frame of reference”. It might be a denominational set of beliefs. Or the church saying what is correct (i.e. RC and EO churches). They would tell me, if Holy Scripture is infallible or not. And if the Bible isn’t infallible, then I (or me querying some experts)…need to determine, what parts are infallible - and which are not. But you have the same problem, with any scripture - such as the Koran, Gita, etc.

But we can follow the PAC “pick and choose” and RYO (Roll Your Own) interpretation. So PNC what you like - discard what you don’t like…then the parts you like, Roll Your Own interpretation.

Problem solved. I think!

I think some here, are combining the PAC and RYO approaches!

Let’s see what the Seinfeld cast, has to say:

#95

Haha - I think everyone here does that. :slight_smile:

1 Like
#96

These are really nice, heartwarming sentiments. I don’t say that condescendingly; I would really like to believe them, and I appreciate the kind place they are coming from.

The trouble is, our ideas about Christ, God, his love, his mercy, and even the possibility of him “making his home our hearts” is based on Scripture. So if these are just the writings of people, I have no more reason to trust their thoughts than my own. All of these conceptions could be false, or inaccurate.

If I were to walk up to you and hand you a book and say, “This book has authority over your life, every decision you make, your private thoughts, and your beliefs about supernatural realms”… you would be wise to be skeptical of me and this book. And you would rightly demand some pretty extraordinary proof before you submit your life, decisions, thoughts, and beliefs to this book. It’s a bold claim!

Yet this is exactly what we have with the Bible. And other competing Holy Scriptures such as the Quran and Gita, etc. So… where is the proof for any of them?

#97

It all depends, on what you mean by “proof”. The Muslims say that the Koran- was dictated by God, through the angel Gabriel - word per word in Arabic. And Joseph Smith has a similar claim…with stone tablets, of sacred writings - from the angel Gabriel.

But I pose this question. If the Bible isn’t “infallible” - then how do we know, what parts are true or not?

What is YOUR criteria, for determining what is true - and what is false?

How do we know what we know - epistemology. How do you know, you’re not part of a dream…in the mind, of a zombie to boot?

image

#98

Excellent question. The ‘proof’ thing is akin to ‘absolute certainty’ - which is a pipe dream.
Uh…much more than heartwarming sentiments. No need to be condescending, please.

#99

Here, HF, since you like videos, watch these: they will give you a start to my answer to the questions you raised.

By the way, I notice that you completely dodged my questions. Do you have any actual answer, or just foolery??

#100

Post your questions, again. I might have missed them. Are you an atheist? And do you believe in a world of pain, problems, suffering and inequality - without an identifiable first cause?

I point you to Matt Slick’s, excellent set of questions on atheism:

CARM and Atheism.

P.S. If I was going to follow, some flavor of atheism…It would probably be either Existentialism or Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Let me summarize both, in 5 minutes or less.

And if you want to think a bit…come up to answers to these paradoxes:

#101

tomatohorse, Psalm 22 provides to me dramatic evidence of the divine inspiration of Scripture by detailing the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.

Just please briefly examine this set of verses: Ps. 22:1-21, Mt. 27:27-47, Mk. 15:16-35, and see how they compare.

This messianic psalm was written by David 1,000 years before the second person of the Trinity was born as a human, describing a form of execution not yet even invented, by a Roman empire not yet even existing.

Jesus quoted only the very first verse of the psalm: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” But then, he was suffocating to death, and nevertheless made a supreme effort to point people to this clear proof of his identity!

Of course, in his humanity, I am sure Jesus may have felt cut off from his Father on the cross, but Psalm 22 is a psalm of VICTORY and reassurance: God never turned His back on Jesus, who was made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), and He will never turn His back on you or me, even when we sin.

We see how the psalm ends: by quoting the glorious joy of Jesus, and affirming that his Father never turned away from him!

23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him , all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he [God] has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one [Jesus];
HE HAS NOT HIDDEN HIS FACE FROM HIM
but has listened to his cry for help.

So we see from verse 24 that in fact the Father did NOT turn His back on Jesus or forsake him when he took our sins and their consequences on the cross. Rather, the Father Himself was in Jesus on the cross reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19)!

#102

Since Tomato Horse is “apparently” embracing atheism…we need as song, to celebrate this:

But we need a Christian song, to balance this out!

#103

I’ve never seen why this question provides any argument that a specific writing is infallible. One could just as well ask (as many often do), “If the Qu’ran (Book of Mormon, etc) isn’t 'infallible - then how do we know what parts are true or not?”

Explain your answer to that, and I may have an idea what kind of answer would satisfy your own version of this familiar question.

#104

"Psalm 22 provides to me dramatic evidence of the divine inspiration of Scripture by detailing the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.

Just examine this set of verses: Ps. 22:1-21, Mt. 27:27-47, Mk. 15:16-35, and see how they compare.

This messianic psalm was written by David 1,000 years before…"

Hermano, I’ve never understood why any tradition’s believers think parallels in their more recent writings with portraits written much earlier offers proof of infallibility or even of fulfilled prophecy.

Skeptics can note that writers often easily accomplish this kind of parallel with earlier works that they already have in hand. The reality is that no Jew had seen Psalm 22 as “messianic.” Indeed, this only happens after the NT era already believes in Jesus and forms literature to intentionally display Jesus as the messiah that is found through out the Hebrew Scriptures.

Of course, it also discloses that those most conversant with the most obvious messianic passages prophesying a new David king found that Jesus did not fit this kind of text, or messiah and military prowess at all.