The Bible as inerrant and complete, or sufficient.

by dgp 61 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PSacramento

  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.

  Billy has bitch slapped the correct, choked it out and printed his name on its ass in permanent marker !!
• 

  JuanMiguel

  Yea! for creativity.

  But for a board that constantly whacks Bible-believers with demands that they prove themselves for still believing in the Scriptures or God once they’ve left the Watchtower—regardless of how creative Billy has been in his response, it doesn’t float.

  “This book is without error.” First of all I don’t remember ever reading that in any text of Scripture.

  Did you belong to a religion that taught you that it had to be in order to be true? Don’t blame the book. It still doesn’t say that anywhere.

  A lot of things aren’t perfect but still worthy of trust and belief. My parents, old folks that they are—and forgetful a lot more these days—they ain’t the most perfect people on the planet. They’re filled with errors. It doesn’t mean you can’t trust them or they aren't honest.

  How many folks on this board walk on water? Not many, I’m sure. We’re not perfect either. Does this mean that for all our errors and inconsistencies people shouldn’t believe us or trust us? If that is how we’re supposed to judge matters, then not a thing on this board is worth the time reading…

  I mean, how can any of what we’ve written be right if we like all other people are filled withn inconsistancies and errors?

  Now don’t mistake what I’m saying as “poo-poo on you for not believing in the Bible.” There are plenty of other reasons I am sure not to believe in the Bible or some other holy book of your choosing. It doesn’t make you a moron for not believing, but it doesn’t mark you as a genius either. Our IQ scores don’t rise if today we believe in the Bible and tomorrow we don’t.

  If that was true, I would have kicked the Bible out before my last WASI. Would have improved things a lot.

  Non-Witness Bible scholars teach that the Bible is not meant to be taken as historically literal. This is not a new invention either as if it were a loophole to cover over something just discovered. This is a very ancient understanding. Scholars have taught for ages that the Bible is not a book of facts, but rather it is a book of truths.

  You can use all sorts of made up things to illustrate a fact, right? Just because the illustration is something imagined doesn’t mean the illustration can’t teach something that is real.

  Aesop used talking animals to teach moral truths. The morals aren’t any more or less true if the animals are people and the fables are historical because the details don’t matter. It’s what’s in the pudding that makes it taste good, not the name on the box.

  Inerrancy is in the eye of the beholder, and that's the problem. It's not one of the promises of the Bible.
• 

  dgp

  Inerrancy.... is not one of the promises of the Bible.

  Agreed. Therefore no one should claim is is inerrant.
• 

  JuanMiguel

  It's not that simple, and that was not my point.

  First, the inerrancy being discussed on this thread has to do more with details, logistics, descriptions, historical connections, etc.; no errors in the sense of "no mistakes."

  But--and this is the second point-- that only applies if the Bible is meant to be an historically accurate document dependent on the accuracy of the details used to teach. The evidence within the Scriptures itself is contrary to that. To illustrate: Jesus of Nazareth used various parables or illustrations to teach virtue and what he believed were religious truths. Are such axioms false because the method to teach it included employing a narrative that was invented? Does that take away from the value of what Jesus was trying to teach?

  There are some here who say that the Bible isn't true at all because the details employed in some narratives is not accurate history. My point is that such an argument is not logical because there are clearly parts of the Bible that use a narrative device like Jesus parables to teach not history but a religious truth.

  There is no proof that what some adopt as an objective axiom, regardless if it religious or non-religious, is invalidated by the method employed to teach the axiom. If the teacher uses details that are not historical or scientifically accurate, does this mean that the point or value intended is lost? If the axiom is not dependent on the details of the narrative garb in which it is wrapped, then I say no.

  A truth is a truth, regardless if you use facts to teach it or employ a fabricated illustration to get the point across.
• 

  tec

  Aesop used talking animals to teach moral truths. The morals aren’t any more or less true if the animals are people and the fables are historical because the details don’t matter.

  This is why I'm okay with not knowing whether or not something is literal or figurative. Because the lesson inherent is still the same.

  Tammy
• 

  sabastious

  But--and this is the second point-- that only applies if the Bible is meant to be an historically accurate document dependent on the accuracy of the details used to teach. The evidence within the Scriptures itself is contrary to that. To illustrate: Jesus of Nazareth used various parables or illustrations to teach virtue and what he believed were religious truths. Are such axioms false because the method to teach it included employing a narrative that was invented? Does that take away from the value of what Jesus was trying to teach?

  Hey Juan, welcome to the forum!

  People today (and especially the future) are different than the demographic that Jesus had. I get what you are saying and his parables can still be used today, but I would argue that Jesus teachings are best used for the individual.

  Of course I have not met too many Christian's who are interested in just your personal relationship with Christ and the Bible. Ultimately they want membership and funds and that means there is always going to be an ulterior motive.

  As to your question, does Jesus use of illustration take away from the value of what Jesus was trying to teach:

  His method of teaching is actually advanced. But his message was not one of policy for an organization or church, it was how to be good neigbors. If everyone follows the teachings of Christ from an individual's perspective then groups (or Churches) are more easily ran.

  The Bible is not complex and surly doesn't need to be inerrant. In fact the masterpeice is rendered useless if one requires it to be inerrant.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  There are some here who say that the Bible isn't true at all because the details employed in some narratives is not accurate history. My point is that such an argument is not logical because there are clearly parts of the Bible that use a narrative device like Jesus parables to teach not history but a religious truth.

  What do you mean by Religious Truth? Religion, by definition, is a way of life by means of a certain faith. Faith and truth are not in the same ball park. They need to be separated because if they intermingle then you have a mess of things.

  -Sab
• 

  JuanMiguel

  Thanks for the answers, Sab, and I appreciate it. But the questions were hypothetical. I wasn't asking questions because I did not have my own answers to them.

  Also, religion is not a way of life by means of a certain "faith." Religion, according to English dictionaries, is a "set of beliefs or convictions centered around a principle, or deity, which often include some form of ritual practice."

  Along these lines a certain religion can have a set of "axioms" which it claims and cherishes as objective reality or "truth." This collection of objectives is often called by the religion and its adherents "religious truths."

  What Jesus and the Bible offers are not historical or secular facts, but religious axioms or truths held as objectives by Christianity. While these would not be viewed as truth by a Hindu, they are still considered truths by a particular religion, the religion of Christians. That is what the expression "religious truth" means in that sentence, "truths" from the perspective of a religion that makes claim to them and not "truth" in general.
• 

  JuanMiguel

  Oh, and footnote:

  In reference to your claim, Sab, that Jesus' teachings were given for mere individual use and not intended as policy for an organization or church, take note of the only two times the word "church" or "ekklesias" occurs in the gospels, both of which are by Jesus:

  "If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."--Matthew 18:17.

  "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."--Matthew 16:18.

  Matthew 18:17 is indeed policy or direction for a church or group on how to deal with someone who will not repent. And Matthew 16:18 shows that Jesus intended to build his followers into a congregated mass or "church," a group.

  This doesn't mean Jesus' words don't have meaning for the individual. But it is apparent that he had more in mind than obeying him alone outside of the "church" or congregation.
• 

  villabolo

  Didn't see your answer to my previous citation on the other thread Ding. What am I missing here?

  2 Samuel 10:17,18 New International Version

  17 When David was told of this, he gathered all Israel, crossed the Jordan and went to Helam. The Arameans formed their battle lines to meet David and fought against him. 18 But they fled before Israel, and David killed seven hundred of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. He also struck down Shobak the commander of their army, and he died there.

  1 Chronicles 19:17,18 New International Version

  17 When David was told of this, he gathered all Israel and crossed the Jordan; he advanced against them and formed his battle lines opposite them. David formed his lines to meet the Arameans in battle, and they fought against him. 18 But they fled before Israel, and David killed seven thousand of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. He also killed Shophak the commander of their army.

  Villabolo