Proving The Bible

[NORM]

4. Jesus taught that the Bible is the word of God.

 

 

What Bible do you suppose Jesus was referring to?

 

NORM

[Hornet]

Hornet

 

I would be interested in the criterion or criteria that you apply.

 

George

 

I would use the following criteria:

 

1. If an Old Testament law or moral principle is repeated in the New Testament, then it applies to us today.

 

2. If the New Testament abrogates an Old Testament law or moral principle, then it does not apply to us today.

 

3. Moral values that existed before the Law of Moses came into existence apply to us today.

 

4. The Old Testament civil ordinances of Israel do not apply to us today.

 

5. The Old Testament ceremonial laws do not apply to us today.

[Neon Genesis]

I would use the following criteria:

 

1. If an Old Testament law or moral principle is repeated in the New Testament, then it applies to us today.

 

2. If the New Testament abrogates an Old Testament law or moral principle, then it does not apply to us today.

 

So should women be required to wear veils at church as commanded by Paul in 1 Corinthians? Are all those movie actors who played Jesus with long hair in bible movies going to hell because Paul said men should not have long hair?

[GeorgeW]

Hornet,

 

Was the death penalty for smart-mouthed children explicitly abrogated in the NT?

 

George

[minsocal]

I would use the following criteria:

 

1. If an Old Testament law or moral principle is repeated in the New Testament, then it applies to us today.

 

2. If the New Testament abrogates an Old Testament law or moral principle, then it does not apply to us today.

 

3. Moral values that existed before the Law of Moses came into existence apply to us today.

 

4. The Old Testament civil ordinances of Israel do not apply to us today.

 

5. The Old Testament ceremonial laws do not apply to us today.

 

Given the fact that some 2,000 years have passed, such a summary should be available ... or must we wait another 2,000 years?

[PaulS]

The following three statements come from RC Sproul's book, Scripture Alone, on pages 72 and 73:

 

1. The Bible is a reliable and trustworthy document.

2. On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

3. Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an infallible authority.

 

I'll add two more statements:

4. Jesus taught that the Bible is the word of God.

5. Whatever Jesus teaches is true.

 

If the five statements above are true, then one is justified in believing that the Bible is the word of God.

 

I don't know who RC Sproule is, but I can pretty much be sure that he has made up his mind and that is that, as far as biblical authority and inerrancy is concerned.

 

As for this discussion, clearly just because Sproule says the bible is reliable & trustworthy, doesn't mean anything to me. The fact that we don't have any original documents older than about 300CE would suggest to me that there is plenty of room for changes to be made from whatever the orginal documents may have contained (and even then, what's to say the original docs didn't miss the truth anyway?).

 

So relying on an unreliable bible would seem to be my next issue. I know some Christians use this circular argument that the bible is true because God wrote it, and we know that because the bible says God wrote it, but the reality is nobody knows who wrote most of it, what they were thinking at the time, what their political and social context may have been, and subsequently how all of this may have affected their message. That's where I really appreciate forums like this one where people are prepared to challenge previously held beliefs when new information and ideas are presented, and that many PCs are prepared to acknowledge that really they don't have all the answers.

 

Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an interpretation made by some NT writers. They are entitled to their opinion, but 2000 years on I don't believe I have to agree with them. I mean some of these writer's also believed things that are now outdated, even considered repulsive. Slavery for example.

 

Regarding your added statements about Jesus teaching that the bible is the word of God and that whatever Jesus teaches is true, have you stopped to think that absolutely NONE of the NT was written until about 40 years AFTER Jesus' death? Therefore how can anyone say that Jesus taught that the NT is the word of God? As for what Jesus was teaching as true, you are relying solely on what these people wrote decades and decades after Jesus' death. What if they got it wrong? Have you considered that men being men, perhaps their own interpretation was intertwined with their stories/letters/versions, and that in fact you could be following anything but Jesus' true teachings? I think this is strongly represented in Paul's alleged versions of what he thinks Jesus is/was vs other accounts of Jesus' alleged teachings.

 

There is a lot of information out there these days (thankyou internet) that casts good doubt on those absolute statements made by the likes of Sproule.

[NORM]

2. If the New Testament abrogates an Old Testament law or moral principle, then it does not apply to us today.

 

 

 

Do you have a list of all of the laws out of the 613 Mitzvot that are abrogated and where in the New Testament I can find them?

 

We were instructed in Shul that the Laws were created by G-d for our betterment. Are you saying this is wrong?

 

If Moses said that the Laws were given to us for our betterment, then was Moses wrong?

 

Moses told the people that the Laws were written by G-d's own hand. It says that in the Tanakh. Is this part incorrect too?

 

Also, why would G-d change his mind about the importance of the Mitzvot? I mean, an awful lot of people killed and were killed in order to preserve these Laws.

 

NORM

[JenellYB]

Hornet, so what of such as in Deut. 22, if a bride on the wedding night doesn't bleed and leave 'tokens' on the bedsheet, she is to be stoned to death by all the men? Since i know of no NT 'disallowance' of that OT law, are we to assume it still apllies today?

 

We know today, medically established, that only about 50-60% virginal girls/young women actually bleed at first intercourse, many have small, thin, rudimentary hymens that simply stretch or do not extend to completly impede access, therefore do not bleed. It is also not unusual for a girl child's hymen to be 'broken' in accident...one I know of was a little girl of 4 yrs, standing on the seat of a swing, playing, when her feet slipped and she landed astride the swing street, and suddenly there was blood. Her mother rushed her to the ER, by which time the bleeding had stopped, but it was found the hymen had been ruptured. Was it EVER God's command that so many virginal girls should suffer that humiliation and horribly cruel death? What POSSIBLE purpose, reason, could God have EVER had for such 'laws'???

 

I often wonder when someone argues for validity of biblical laws if they've ever even READ them and given thought to just what they mean!

 

Jenell

[PaulS]

Just building on questions raised by Jennel and others, Deut 22 also discusses those in the same category as homesexuals, i.e. the abominations who wear clothing of the opposite sex (" ⁵ “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God).

 

I'm wondering what inferences you draw on from the New Testament to help you know whether this Old Testament law applies to us today? Do you consider it a law to be applied today? In our modern, western society, are jeans/trousers/belts etc male or female clothing? It's a tricky one, but I don't want to be regarded as an abomination.

[GeorgeW]

I mean some of these writer's also believed things that are now outdated, even considered repulsive. Slavery for example.

 

Hornet,

 

This is another example. Is it acceptable in the eyes of God to own slaves as long as one treats them well? Slavery was not, to my knowledge, abrogated in the NT. As I recall Paul (the original one) seemed to accept it.

 

P.S. Hornet, I appreciate your willingness and courage to address the challenges put to you.

 

George

[PaulS]

......... The evidence for this is that Jesus fulfilled many of the Old Testament prophecies.

 

Hornet, I have read elsewhere that there isn't a single prophecy in the OT that can be attributed as a true and correct prophecy concerning Jesus' existence. Actually I read somewhere that there is one that is 'iffy', but that the remainder actually refer to other kings and situations and are more appropriately explained as anything but a prophecy concerning Jesus of Nazareth. Essentially any direct relevance to Jesus from these is strained at best.

[GeorgeW]

I have read elsewhere that there isn't a single prophecy in the OT that can be attributed as a true and correct prophecy concerning Jesus' existence.

 

Paul,

There seems to generally be two interpretations of the Isaiah's suffering servant. The traditional interpretation claims that Jesus was factually the suffering servant as prophesied by Isaiah. The second, and more secular, interpretation is that Jesus was not the suffering servant prophesied by Isaiah, but was mythologized by the Gospel writers based on Isaiah.

A couple of years ago, our pastor suggested a third interpretation: That Jesus (the man) fashioned his life and ministry on Isaiah's suffering servant. Since Jesus was almost certainly familiar with Isaiah, there may be some element of truth in this.

George

[JenellYB]

To be honest, when I look at the common lists of supposed prophecy fulfillments that are presented as 'evidence' or 'proof' of Jesus as messiah, and/or son of God, I'm left somewhat speechless that ANYONE actually sees anything signficant in them....one that always has that effect is, the supposed fulfillment of the OT prophecy that the messiah "would be born of a woman." and lo and behold, Jesus was born of a woman, right? That leaves me speechless simply because I generally cannot bring myself to say bluntly what I'd think should be obvious to anyone about that. What leaves me speechless about it is my sheer amazement that "being born of a woman" should in any way seem as something "remarkable " that would be seen to set any individual apart from any others....

Likewise, such common things as riding into Jeruselem on the donkey colt...now, given the common use of donkeys, that would have been about as remarkable an unique as event as to say today that there's something remarkable about someone's arriving somewhere today riding in a car!

 

I am also uncomfortable with NT passages in which it is explained that someone did something so that it would "come to pass" something that supposedly fulfills some IT prophecy, and especailly such minor things as that, the donkey colt thing. That doesn't seem to qualify to me as "fulfilled prophecy", both when such common everyday things as riding a donkey colt into town or such as absurdity as being "born of a woman" are framed as being remarkable and signficant, and when there is conscious decision made to do some ordinary such thing "so as to fulfill" some prophecy, "as it is written."

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

I must say that this thread has served a useful function for me, in setting me along a line of thought, and inquiry, into something I've not has much understanding of, and realize I would do well to try to understand better.

 

That is my not having really given much thought to or having much understanding of this what is called "apologetics" as a position in belief and reasoning processes, and the mindset/worldview of those that embrace such form of thinking. In the last few days, thinking about this thread has brought me to consider such things as prooving, reprooving, trying (as in testing) of any idea, or belief we may hold. Specifically, just where this position stands as compared to and up against other forms of what I know as sound reasoning processes and elements of critical thinking skills.

 

I've searched out and examined various NT passages that contain such words as reprove, try, sound (used as sound mind, sound doctrine, not noise) and rebuke. Examining them in context, as well as studying on their dictionary meanings and word origins, it seems to me what I'm learning of the apologetics perspective, is that it is entirely contrary to not only any acceptable form of sound reasoning, critical analysis, formal logic, but just ordinary common sense.

 

(Btw, a good online resource for a full bible concordiance for such purposes, searching all occurences of variouus words..)

http://godsview.com/

 

To attempt to "proove" some belief for which there was/is no first existing logical or rational reason for having accepted as true to begin with seems to me just entirely upside down and backward to any process of sound reasoning I can come up with. To try to 'defend' or 'prove' anything for which you haven't, or are unable to articulate, where you came up with the idea and why you beleive it to begin with, and can present no such evidence or sound convincing argument for to begin with, is something I'm just not getting my mind around.

 

As I observed in a previous post here, any and all attempts to "proove", provide evidence to support the truth, facts, of particular elements, events, etc, found within the bible, toward arguing for it's divine origin or accuracy and inerrancy as a whole just isn't a sound reasoned approach. All it takes is disprooving, discrediting, as false, inaccurate, any single thing in the bible to falsify the claim to inerrancy, no matter how many other things might be proven as true. To prove the inerrancy of the whole requires, through soound reasoning, that each and every single element contained within it can be proven true and accurate. And that just isn't possible. Not only are the numerous particular things that can be effectively discredited, shown to be false, relevant to this apporach, but all that which simply can't possibly be proven or disproven.

 

The test here, is the claim falsifiable to begin with? In the claim of the bible as accurate and inerrant in every detail, no, it isn't. The greater part of what is found in the bible can be neither proven nor disproven. No matter how much archaological evidence we find to support, for example, the fall of the city of Jericho in a certain period of history, there is still no way to prove or disprove the details given in the biblical story of how it was accomplished, who said what to whom, least of all, what GOD said to whom.

 

I am not someone having to consider upon the validity of the claim to biblical inerrancy from some position outside the religious tradtion and community in which it is an accepted belief, and therefore, unfamiliar with what arguments used by those to try to claim and support it...I've spent most of my life...63 years...raised within, living within, those very religious communities. Any "approach" that assumes I'm just some unevangelized non-Christian that just lack having been "properly educated" in that belief simply doesn't apply to me, or many others like me.

 

The simple bottom life fact is, in all my exposure and even at times active participation in that religious community, I've never encounted even ONE sound argument, that stands up under examination through sound critical reasoning, for believing in biblical inerrancy to begin with.

 

Can you do that, Hornet? Explain, put into a sound, reasoned argument, WHY you believe this? What led you to believe it, to begin with? What sound reasoning process led you to accept it as truth, rather than just believing it because other mere humans told you that you were supposed to believe it? An argument that is not itself arrived at through equally unsupportable presuppositions as premises for that argument? Ie, an argument that follows each premise back to the same standard of valid reasoning?

 

If you can do that for me, Hornet, what no one else has been able to do for me in my 63 years, you will have accomplished the holy grail of biblical inerrancy believing evangelical christianity....or at least what they claim is their goal....to "convert" someone else to "the truth" as you see it.

 

Jenell

[PaulS]

Paul,

There seems to generally be two interpretations of the Isaiah's suffering servant. The traditional interpretation claims that Jesus was factually the suffering servant as prophesied by Isaiah. The second, and more secular, interpretation is that Jesus was not the suffering servant prophesied by Isaiah, but was mythologized by the Gospel writers based on Isaiah.

A couple of years ago, our pastor suggested a third interpretation: That Jesus (the man) fashioned his life and ministry on Isaiah's suffering servant. Since Jesus was almost certainly familiar with Isaiah, there may be some element of truth in this.

George

 

Thanks George,

 

As I understand it, one very solid way of interpreting the story (and in fact what I understand as the rabbinic interpretation) is that the suffering servant is in fact the nation of Israel itself, and not an individual (which perhaps is what you were alluding to when you say that the gospel writers mythologised it). This would also make sense if Jesus did in fact fashion his life & ministry on the well known Jewish understanding.

 

"Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the "servant" to the nation of Israel who silently endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of its gentile oppressors. The speakers, in this most-debated chapter, are the stunned kings of nations who will bear witness to the messianic age and the final vindication of the Jewish people following their long and bitter exile. "Who would have believed our report?," the astonished and contrite world leaders wonder aloud in dazed bewilderment (53:1).1

 

The stimulus for the world's baffled response contained in this famed cluster of chapters at the end of the Book of Isaiah is the unexpected salvation of Israel. The redemption of God's people is the central theme in the preceding verse (52:12) where the "you" signifies the Jewish people who are sheltered and delivered by God. Moreover, the "afflicted barren woman" in the following chapter is protected and saved byGod, and is also universally recognized as the nation of Israel (54:1).

 

The well-worn claim frequently advanced by Christian apologists who argue that the noted Jewish commentator, Rashi (1040 CE – 1105 CE), was the first to identify the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 with the nation of Israel is inaccurate and misleading. In fact, Origen, a prominent and influential church father, conceded in the year 248 CE – many centuries before Rashi was born – that the consensus among the Jews in his time was that Isaiah 53 "bore reference to the whole [Jewish] people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations."

 

The broad consensus among Jewish, and even some Christian commentators, that the "servant" in Isaiah 52-53 refers to the nation of Israel is understandable. Isaiah 53, which is the fourth of four renowned Servant Songs, is umbilically connected to its preceding chapters. The "servant" in each of the three previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the nation of Israel."

[GeorgeW]

As I understand it, one very solid way of interpreting the story (and in fact what I understand as the rabbinic interpretation) is that the suffering servant is in fact the nation of Israel itself, and not an individual (which perhaps is what you were alluding to when you say that the gospel writers mythologised it).

Paul,

 

I think that is right with respect to Judaism. But, early Christians (and many now) thought that this foretold Jesus as the suffering servant who was "was despised and rejected by men" (53:3); who "was wounded for our transgressions, was bruised for our iniquities" (53:5); who "was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth" (53:7).

 

It wouldn't have taken a huge leap in imagination for his followers to relate Isaiah's suffering servant to Jesus. Did Jesus see himself in this role?

 

George

[PaulS]

Paul,

 

I think that is right with respect to Judaism. But, early Christians (and many now) thought that this foretold Jesus as the suffering servant who was "was despised and rejected by men" (53:3); who "was wounded for our transgressions, was bruised for our iniquities" (53:5); who "was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth" (53:7).

 

It wouldn't have taken a huge leap in imagination for his followers to relate Isaiah's suffering servant to Jesus. Did Jesus see himself in this role?

 

George

 

Oh, I agree George. Indeed many have used Isaiah 53 to come up with that meaning. I think you are asking rhetorically, but for what it's worth I don't think Jesus did see himself in this role, or if he did, I don't think that was his principle focus. Perhaps the few elements attributed to Jesus, which seem to tie in with this view, were added by gospel and other NT writers moreso than Jesus himself. IMO, it would seem that Jesus' overall message was not at all about focussing on him as some sort of saviour (or suffering servant) but rather to focus on community, brotherhood, compassion, love and respect - which is the way it would be in the Kingdom of God (i.e. if God's kingdom were to be enacted on earth).

[JenellYB]

In a very real sense, everyone that is led by the Spirit, every member of the "Spiritual body" is and always has been a "suffering servant," for the world is never kind to those that break with the traditions and authority structures of man to follow the spiritual path. To those still unawakened, blind, walking in darkness, those led by the Spirit seem very threatening.

 

I think much of that is rooted in fear of loss of power over those that are spiritual...most people cling to the world systems of authority and control, social, religious, political, military...for their sense of security, sense that there is order in the world.

 

I remember reading a commentary somewhere years ago, pertaining to something the commentator had observed in the written words of the mystics, and those of mystic bent he had met, that really struck me at first as odd, but since then has come to make perfect sense to me. He observed that something that seemed to him consistent in mystics was they seem so "irreverent" they scared him to death! He percieved that to the mystics, nothing was/is "sacred."

 

I've realized what he meant by that was a lack of reverence, or recognition of the sacred, in the traditions and doctrines and structures of authority in human society, again be they religious, social, or whatever. Those solidly on the spiritual path have rejected the constraints of human authority, are unafraid to question absolutely anything and everything. They have no fear of toppling authority in human power structures.

 

As that commentator summed up his observation, he closed his comments with the remark that "the mystics are, indeed, marked by a definite tendency to rush right in where even angels fear to tread."

 

I have been criticized myself, more than once, for not having "proper fear of God," proper reverence for the sacred (which as they define that, means religious traditions and authorities), for my "over-confidence" in God's love, and my sense of secure relationship in the Spirit.

 

And I can see how that would scare a lot of folks!

 

Jenell

[Hornet]

Hornet,

 

This is another example. Is it acceptable in the eyes of God to own slaves as long as one treats them well? Slavery was not, to my knowledge, abrogated in the NT. As I recall Paul (the original one) seemed to accept it.

 

P.S. Hornet, I appreciate your willingness and courage to address the challenges put to you.

 

George

 

References to slaves submitting to their masters in the New Testament are not endorsements of the institution of slavery, but temporary injunctions given certain social realities. Paul refers to slave traders as evil (1 Timothy 1:10) and he says that slaves can seek freedom when they can lawfully (1 Corinthians 7:21).

[Hornet]

Thanks George,

 

As I understand it, one very solid way of interpreting the story (and in fact what I understand as the rabbinic interpretation) is that the suffering servant is in fact the nation of Israel itself, and not an individual (which perhaps is what you were alluding to when you say that the gospel writers mythologised it). This would also make sense if Jesus did in fact fashion his life & ministry on the well known Jewish understanding.

 

"Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the "servant" to the nation of Israel who silently endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of its gentile oppressors. The speakers, in this most-debated chapter, are the stunned kings of nations who will bear witness to the messianic age and the final vindication of the Jewish people following their long and bitter exile. "Who would have believed our report?," the astonished and contrite world leaders wonder aloud in dazed bewilderment (53:1).1

 

The stimulus for the world's baffled response contained in this famed cluster of chapters at the end of the Book of Isaiah is the unexpected salvation of Israel. The redemption of God's people is the central theme in the preceding verse (52:12) where the "you" signifies the Jewish people who are sheltered and delivered by God. Moreover, the "afflicted barren woman" in the following chapter is protected and saved byGod, and is also universally recognized as the nation of Israel (54:1).

 

The well-worn claim frequently advanced by Christian apologists who argue that the noted Jewish commentator, Rashi (1040 CE – 1105 CE), was the first to identify the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 with the nation of Israel is inaccurate and misleading. In fact, Origen, a prominent and influential church father, conceded in the year 248 CE – many centuries before Rashi was born – that the consensus among the Jews in his time was that Isaiah 53 "bore reference to the whole [Jewish] people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations."

 

The broad consensus among Jewish, and even some Christian commentators, that the "servant" in Isaiah 52-53 refers to the nation of Israel is understandable. Isaiah 53, which is the fourth of four renowned Servant Songs, is umbilically connected to its preceding chapters. The "servant" in each of the three previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the nation of Israel."

 

The following are my comments concerning Isaiah 53:

 

If Isaiah 53:2 says that the “he” is Israel, then who is the “him” before whom “he” grows up? Who is the “we” who sees “him”? It seems like the word "we" in Isaiah 53:3 refers to Israel. If this is the case, then it makes no sense if the “he” and “him” is also Israel.

 

How can Israel be described as "righteous" in Isaiah 53:11 if Isaiah 1:4-6 says that Israel is unrighteous?

 

According to Isaiah 53, the servant bears the sins of other people. If the servant is Israel, how does Israel atone for the sins of others?

 

Isaiah 53:9 says that there was no deceit in the servant. Was Israel without deceit?

 

Isaiah 53:12 poured out his soul to death for the sins of others. Sin is atoned for through the shedding of blood. How could Israel make a blood atonement if Israel was sinful?

[Hornet]

I don't know who RC Sproule is, but I can pretty much be sure that he has made up his mind and that is that, as far as biblical authority and inerrancy is concerned. As for this discussion, clearly just because Sproule says the bible is reliable & trustworthy, doesn't mean anything to me. The fact that we don't have any original documents older than about 300CE would suggest to me that there is plenty of room for changes to be made from whatever the orginal documents may have contained (and even then, what's to say the original docs didn't miss the truth anyway?). So relying on an unreliable bible would seem to be my next issue. I know some Christians use this circular argument that the bible is true because God wrote it, and we know that because the bible says God wrote it, but the reality is nobody knows who wrote most of it, what they were thinking at the time, what their political and social context may have been, and subsequently how all of this may have affected their message. That's where I really appreciate forums like this one where people are prepared to challenge previously held beliefs when new information and ideas are presented, and that many PCs are prepared to acknowledge that really they don't have all the answers. Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an interpretation made by some NT writers. They are entitled to their opinion, but 2000 years on I don't believe I have to agree with them. I mean some of these writer's also believed things that are now outdated, even considered repulsive. Slavery for example. Regarding your added statements about Jesus teaching that the bible is the word of God and that whatever Jesus teaches is true, have you stopped to think that absolutely NONE of the NT was written until about 40 years AFTER Jesus' death? Therefore how can anyone say that Jesus taught that the NT is the word of God? As for what Jesus was teaching as true, you are relying solely on what these people wrote decades and decades after Jesus' death. What if they got it wrong? Have you considered that men being men, perhaps their own interpretation was intertwined with their stories/letters/versions, and that in fact you could be following anything but Jesus' true teachings? I think this is strongly represented in Paul's alleged versions of what he thinks Jesus is/was vs other accounts of Jesus' alleged teachings. There is a lot of information out there these days (thankyou internet) that casts good doubt on those absolute statements made by the likes of Sproule.

 

It is possible for a copy for an ancient document to accurately reflect an earlier copy. For example, the Book of Isaiah of the Masoretic Text accurately reflects the Book of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and there is about a 1000 year gap between these two documents.

 

Jesus affirmed that the Jewish Scriptures were inspired by God. Jesus confidently quotes and interprets the Old Testament as a settled matter of His worldview. He said that the Scriptures cannot be broken and that they are true. Jesus equated the Hebrew Bible with the very words of God, as when he said that David's writing in Psalm 110 was through the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:35-36). He also said that the religious leaders of his day nullified the word of God through their human tradition.

 

Instead of saying that Jesus taught that the New Testament was the word of God, I would say that Jesus anticipates the divine inspiration of the New Testament through his authorization of the apostles, whose teachings inform and ratify the New Testament. The canon of the New Testament was determined by its adherence to the coherent and ancient teachings of the apostles of Jesus. The apostles were authorized representatives of Jesus. They taught what Jesus taught. The apostles were commissioned by Jesus, had unique historical experience with Jesus, and were given special inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into the truth.

 

The New Testament writers did not say that slavery was morally right. An omission of the condemnation of slavery is not the same as the endorsement of slavery.

[Hornet]

Can you do that, Hornet? Explain, put into a sound, reasoned argument, WHY you believe this? What led you to believe it, to begin with? What sound reasoning process led you to accept it as truth, rather than just believing it because other mere humans told you that you were supposed to believe it? An argument that is not itself arrived at through equally unsupportable presuppositions as premises for that argument? Ie, an argument that follows each premise back to the same standard of valid reasoning? If you can do that for me, Hornet, what no one else has been able to do for me in my 63 years, you will have accomplished the holy grail of biblical inerrancy believing evangelical christianity....or at least what they claim is their goal....to "convert" someone else to "the truth" as you see it. Jenell

 

Hi Jenell,

 

I believe that one should prove that the Bible is God-breathed before proving that the Bible is inerrant. (God-breathed means inspired by God.) First, I will give an argument in favor of it being God-breathed and then I will give another argument showing that it is inerrant.

 

Argument# 1 (Argument that the Bible is a God-breathed book)

 

Truth claim:

The Bible is a God-breathed book.

 

Evidence to support this claim:

Fulfilled prophecy in the Bible.

 

Examples of fulfilled prophecy-

 

1. Isaiah writing around 700 B.C. predicts Cyrus by name as the king who will say to Jerusalem that it shall be built and that the temple foundation shall be laid. At the time of Isaiah’s writing, the city of Jerusalem was fully built and the entire temple was standing. Not until more than 100 years later would the city and temple be destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. After Jerusalem was taken by the Babylonians, it was conquered by the Persians in about 539 B.C. Shortly after that, a Persian king named Cyrus gave the decree to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was around 160 years after the prophecy of Isaiah! Thus Isaiah predicted that a man named Cyrus, who would not be born for about 100 years, would give the command to rebuild the temple which was still standing in Isaiah’s day and would not be destroyed for more than 100 years.

 

2. The Messiah would be born of a virgin, not just of a woman.

 

3. Isaiah 53 predicts that the Messiah would atone for the sins of other people. In an earlier post, I gave some reasons why the suffering servant could not be Israel.

 

4. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

 

5. The Messiah would come from the house of Judah, from the root and stump of Jesse, and from the house of David.

 

6. The Messiah would come out of Egypt.

 

7. The Messiah's ministry would include miraculous healings and the deliverance of spiritual captives.

 

8. The Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver.

 

Argument# 2 (Proof that the Bible is inerrant)

 

Premise 1: All God-breathed books are inerrant.

Premise 2: The Bible is a God-breathed book.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is inerrant.

 

The truth of the first premise seems obvious. God cannot lie; He cannot make mistakes; He cannot give out false information. God cannot guide people into writing something that is false. Argument# 1 provides support that premise 2 is true.

[GeorgeW]

References to slaves submitting to their masters in the New Testament are not endorsements of the institution of slavery, but temporary injunctions given certain social realities.

 

True. Nor condemnations.

 

The Bible has no problem banning eating shrimp or wearing mixed wool and linen garments, but condones slavery (both OT and NT).

 

George

[GeorgeW]

It is possible for a copy for an ancient document to accurately reflect an earlier copy. For example, the Book of Isaiah of the Masoretic Text accurately reflects the Book of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and there is about a 1000 year gap between these two documents.

 

Hornet,

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not, in fact, "accurately reflect" the Masoretic Text. According to James Vanderkam & Peter Flint in The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls about Isaiah,

 

"The text of this scroll, is generally in agreement with the Masoretic Text, but it contains many variant readings and corrections, which are of great interest to scholars [. . .]

 

First, some variants or otherwise distinctive since they involve one or more verses that are present in some texts but absent from others [. . .]

 

A second category involves errors on the part of the scribe or in the text he was copying [. . .]"

 

A third category involve thousands of differences in spelling, the forms of names, the use of the plural versus the singular, changes in world order, to name a few." [bolding and underlining are mine]

 

If you are interested in the DSS, I highly recommend this book written by recognized scholars in the field. However, a caution: It will dispell any notions that the DSS accurately reflect the Masoretic Texts.

 

George

[PaulS]

The following are my comments concerning Isaiah 53:

 

If Isaiah 53:2 says that the “he” is Israel, then who is the “him” before whom “he” grows up? Who is the “we” who sees “him”? It seems like the word "we" in Isaiah 53:3 refers to Israel. If this is the case, then it makes no sense if the “he” and “him” is also Israel.

 

How can Israel be described as "righteous" in Isaiah 53:11 if Isaiah 1:4-6 says that Israel is unrighteous?

 

According to Isaiah 53, the servant bears the sins of other people. If the servant is Israel, how does Israel atone for the sins of others?

 

Isaiah 53:9 says that there was no deceit in the servant. Was Israel without deceit?

 

Isaiah 53:12 poured out his soul to death for the sins of others. Sin is atoned for through the shedding of blood. How could Israel make a blood atonement if Israel was sinful?

 

In my humble and most limited opinion:

• I think the 'Him' before 'He' grows up is God, i.e. Israel growing up before God.
  
• The 'we' who sees 'Him' (this time being the person previously referred to as 'He') are the Kings of the other Nations who are caught by suprise at Israel returning to favour.
  
• To the contrary, I think the 'we' in 53:3, rather than being Israel, fits better if you use the Kings of the other nations as being the 'we' who did not esteem 'Him' (Israel). So to me it makes more sense in fact, than thinking it means Jesus.
  
• As for Israel being being described as righteous (53:11) and not unrighteous (1:4-6) - I'm simply not sure (oh for a PhD in Bible Scholarship!). That's where it would be so interesting to properly understand the context these books were written in. But what do you make of Isaiah 44:21, which clearly states that Israel is God's Servant?: " ²¹ “Remember these things, O Jacob,
  And Israel, for you are My servant;
  I have formed you, you are My servant,
  O Israel, you will not be forgotten by Me
  
• Or Isaiah 45:4, would you expect God to call an unrighteousness nation "His chosen one" - "4And Israel My chosen one".
  
• Maybe Israel atones for the sins of others by learning from it's mistakes. I'm no biblical scholar but it seems Isaiah has a bit of a theme running from an Israel that rejects God, that then goes though hell (no pun intended), but is then well regarded because it (Israel) returns to God
  
• Israel without deceit - maybe so. Israel rejects God, but didn't really carry out any deceit as far as I can make out in Isaiah
  
• Concerning the blood atonement you mention - do you think this verse in Isaiah can only be read literally to mean actual, physical blood? With the concept of blood atonement being well known, couldn't this simply be allegory for Israel taking the wrap for others because of its mistakes and rejection of God? If we were to take all the verses of Isaiah 53 literally, what about the 'crushing' of the servant (vs 5) which immediately follows the verse often picked by some Christians as pointing to the Sevant being Jesus, i.e. that He was 'pierced through for our transgressions'. That fits neatly with the lancing of Jesus' side story. But as I understand it, common crucifiction practice involved crushing or smashing the legs to bring on asphyxiation, yet some Christians say that didn't happen as fulfilled by Isaiah. Yet Isaiah does actually say the Servant was crushed, so which is it?
  

Just my thoughts.