The Bible as inerrant and complete, or sufficient.

by dgp 61 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JuanMiguel

  Hello, newbie to the forum here, but been out of the JWs since 1998.

  While I very much understand from experience where Qcmbr is coming from, I do have to suggest that such views are still pretty dependent on the Watchtower being correct in its interpretation of Scripture.

  In other words, for such views as Qcmbr to be valid requires that one accept the F & S theology as valid representation of the meaning behind the Bible. It is the Watchtower that interpreted the sacrifice of Christ as something demanded by God's justice. Such words do not appear in Scripture and such a view of Jesus' death is not taught by Protestants, Orthodox, or Catholics.

  It took me about ten years or so to finally comprehend that what Christians outside were saying about Jesus death as a sacrifice was not what the Watchtower says. The words are similar, often the same, but the meanings attached to them outside the Watchtower don't mean anything close to the concept you are speaking of.

  Now I'm not saying abandon your current set of convictions, no! Merely pointing out something does not mean I subscribe to it or support it or believe it. Learning the accuracy regarding what the rest of the world understands about Jesus' death in comparison to the so-called "requirements of Jehovah's justice" paradigm that the Watchtower has drawn up (and learning that the guys on the F & S are way off in left field about it) doesn't mean you're going to suddenly worship God and accept the Bible's every word. But it will mean you can't be accused of only knowing one side of the story or holding your current convictions based solely on what you learned from a shoddy religious group (which would mean your views are not well-founded).

  What I am advising is don't be so sure that what you've rejected applies to anything outside the Watchtower. Accepting the Noachin Flood as a literal account or that the God Jesus preached of considers you unacceptable without a sacrifice is JW-speak, not Biblical concepts and interpretation as understood by non-Witnesses.
• 

  garyneal

  I think Qcmbr is a former mormon.

  While I can read the Bible and get something useful to strengthen my faith, I find it refreshing that so much of what people wrestle over, trying to figure out the 'hard parts' of the Bible, etc, can be merely nothing more than men throughout the ages adding and taking away what THEY think belongs there. It goes back to the simple principles surrounding love and tolerance, meekness and gentleness, etc.. If the Bible is inconsistent then perhaps it is because men make it that way.
• 

  Terry

  Jesus and the apostles did not have a New Testament to carry around a quote from.

  When any of them spoke of scripture they were referring to the SEPTUIGENT (Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 2nd Centuries BCE in Alexandria. It was begun by the third century BCE and completed before 132 BCE.)

  Christianity had not yet been invented.

  What Jesus said and did was in a context of Judaism.

  Our conception today of what Christianity is and what it means is an invention of long transformation.

  The writings (and and all) of the bible started out NOT AS HOLY WORKS DELIVERED DIRECTLY BY GOD.

  The writings gradually through there use in rituals took on significance and an aura of special context.

  Like a painting by an up and coming artist may be considered pretty good and later becomes priceless.

  The bible is almost entirely a self-created MYTH when it is put in the context of HOLY writing.

  It is a fabrication of the human mind.

  ESTEEM is a function of one's values.

  HOLY means "set apart for special purpose."

  Think of how the young Jewess, Mary, has gone from being the mother of Jesus to a supernatural icon and heavenly MOTHER OF GOD.

  The church even had to invent a special miraculous birth doctrine just for her alone: the Immaculate Conception. It means Mary herself was born without human sin.

  Think about that for awhile and you'll get the point of what I'm saying.

  What people need----they invent.

  Then, they believe it.

  Bible inerrantists only claim the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPH MANUSCRIPTS were without human corruption. They never claim what we now have (copies of copies of copies) is inerrant.

  This is a sly way to avoid admitting the bible is not what everybody tries to pretend it is.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  About Jesus' alleged inconsistency.

  I don't think it is fair to the actual guy the Biblical Jesus is based on to call him inconsistent. More fair would be to say the many men who wrote about him and tried to quote whole speeches of his decades later did so inconsistently, and then those who compiled those works and sorted through the mess to select the parts that they wanted to stand for "God's Word" did so inconsistently, as well.

  The ininerant rabbi who later came to be known as the founder of Christianity gets a bad rap because of his PR people. It isn't fair.
• 

  Terry

  Jesus came to show us His Father as His Father truly is.

  Himself, huh?
• 

  PSacramento

  Jesus was NEVER consistent. Think about it. If he represented his father and was one with him then who was responsible for the flood, the order to kill babies and take virgins for sex, who was responsible for causing war across Palestine? If Jesus was seriously saying he was god or was united with god then he must have agreed with all the death an destruction dished out by the vengeful OT god.

  Jesus was quite clear that much that people THOUGHT they knew about God was wrong, he blamed the scribes ( as did jeremiah) and the ruling religious heirarchy's of the time for that, He said it plainly that NO ONE had ever seen God and that had multiple implications.

  He said it plainly that God is revealed in his Son, in Christ.

  In other words, much of what was attributed to God was merely Man attributing it to God for his own sake.

  Of course what Jesus said was taken in differently by those that heard him, certianly even they have "preconceived Biasis".

  While it is for us to view God through the lens of the OT, it is also possible that the OT was not a full or totally correct representation of God and that this revelation of God in the NT is indeed just that, a new and perhaps correct revelation of God, far beyond what was able to be revelaed in the Past because NOW it was revealed by God's ONLY begotten Son, the true and complete representation of God.

  You bring out the issue of "hell" and Armegeddon but what you seem to forget is that Hell is a choice made by people and not forced By God ( according to some) and that Armegeddon, the final battle between good and evil, is something that people WANT to have happen.

  How many times do you hear a non-believer say that they want proof of God or if ther eis a God why doesn't he do soemthing, well...Armegeddon is Just that ( according to some).
• 

  designs

  Mr. Tolerance: "I am the way and the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father except through MEEEE!"

  On Religious tolerance Mr. Tolerance says: "Look your House is abandioned to you".

  Mr. Tolerance on Love- If you don't genuflect and kiss his toes what happens- Matthew 3:12, Rev.19:20

  Course maybe people were just putting words in His mouth, or he was just kidding...........
• 

  dgp

  Bible inerrantists only claim the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPH MANUSCRIPTS were without human corruption. They never claim what we now have (copies of copies of copies) is inerrant.

  This is a sly way to avoid admitting the bible is not what everybody tries to pretend it is.

  Not that I disagree with Terry. I only go beyond: this is a hypocritical way to hold that the Bible is inerrant, and yet at the same time say it isn't. Because, what do we have now that is not copies of copies? Do Bible inerrantists treat the copies of copies we have as "inerrant", or not?

  It also seems to me like a way to be evasive about the Canon. Yes, let us say that the Bible "was" inerrant at the time of writing, and now we have copies of copies. That is what the people who decided the Canon had, as well. AND it was them who decided what would stay in the Bible and what wouldn't. Are we to put faith in the Bible, then? For Christs's sake?
• 

  PSacramento

  Mr. Tolerance: "I am the way and the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father except through MEEEE!"

  Yep and this coming from the guy that siad that LOVE woudl defien his disciples so I wonder what he meant...

  On Religious tolerance Mr. Tolerance says: "Look your House is abandioned to you".

  Mr. Tolerance on Love- If you don't genuflect and kiss his toes what happens- Matthew 3:12, Rev.19:20

  Dude, seriously.

  Course maybe people were just putting words in His mouth, or he was just kidding...........

  Well, he did create comedy.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  God told me to stop reading the Bible. He reminded me that Jesus didn't do any Bible writing or build some Bible printing factory. And Jesus didn't build Kingdom Halls or Churches with complex laws.

  God said that he gave me a brain for a reason--to think, learn, love, enjoy. I need to follow the best path I can find for good and right. When I finish this life, we'll see how I've done and what God decides for me next.