How much of Scripture is inspired?

[there buster]

Quote:

I believe I do know that Jesus did not quote the entire OT.

wow. That's a lot of certainty for someone who wasn't there.

Quote:

But even if He did,all the quotations of the OT by Jesus were reinterpretations, which He used to effect conversions to His Gospel.

Another sweeping statement, and more besides. You apparently know how he interpreted the portions of the OT you don't think he quoted. Quite a feat.

Quote:

just read what Jesus said, and trust that. After all that is the only way to follow His command to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Is it, indeed? The only way?

Well, I can see you are never in doubt.

[Tom Wetmore]

But is "oldsailor" being any less dogmatic than many others around here?

[there buster]

What the Klingon has said is unimportant. We do not hear his words.

[Guest]

[oldsailor29]

But is "oldsailor" being any less dogmatic than many others around here?

Thank you Tom. I appreciate your objectivity here. The answer is probably not, which I suspect was the intended answer of this apparently rhetorical question.

The post following yours indicates that one of us is being ignored and called a bad name. We both know that neither of us is ignored, so that isn't true. Therefore, somebody was called a bad name and lied about. That much is clear. But what I would like to know, is Richard laughing because he thinks it is funny, or just to make the other guy feel accepted, or trying to pass it off as a joke?

[Musicman1228]

Oldsailor29 said, "So I think our safest course will be to just read what Jesus said, and trust that."

Thank you for saying this. Isn't this what I have been saying all along, one way or another? Jesus offers those who listen to Him (both then and now) the only reliable interpretation of the OT that there is. We get into big trouble by placing fallible human beings between what Jesus said and what it is we choose to hear. I simply refuse to put anyone in that position; it is unsafe for me, and unfair to them.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

But is "oldsailor" being any less dogmatic than many others around here?

Thank you Tom. I appreciate your objectivity here. The answer is probably not, which I suspect was the intended answer of this apparently rhetorical question.

The post following yours indicates that one of us is being ignored and called a bad name. We both know that neither of us is ignored, so that isn't true. Therefore, somebody was called a bad name and lied about. That much is clear. But what I would like to know, is Richard laughing because he thinks it is funny, or just to make the other guy feel accepted, or trying to pass it off as a joke?

I thought it was funny oldsailor, I've seen him say that to Tom before. I think it's an inside joke between the two of them. A clingon is an alien character on Star Trek.

[there buster]

Quote:

Therefore, somebody was called a bad name and lied about.

Wow. Lied about? Of all the reactions I might have predicted, that is WAY outside of the venn diagram.

But now I'm fascinated. What sort of lie was being told? (This should be really interesting)

[teresaq]

We also need all the positive, respectful, considerate persons ... on Club Adventist that we can get!

keep working at it. youll get there. :)

[oldsailor29]

Quote:

Therefore, somebody was called a bad name and lied about.

Wow. Lied about? Of all the reactions I might have predicted, that is WAY outside of the venn diagram.

But now I'm fascinated. What sort of lie was being told? (This should be really interesting)

I'm ignoring you. :smile:

[oldsailor29]

Quote:

Therefore, somebody was called a bad name and lied about.

Wow. Lied about? Of all the reactions I might have predicted, that is WAY outside of the venn diagram.

But now I'm fascinated. What sort of lie was being told? (This should be really interesting)

same sort of lie i uttered when i said i was ignoring you. not really that interesting, and obviously a false statement. but what i would like to know is, what is a venn diagram?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

from Wikipedia: Venn diagrams or set diagrams are diagrams that show all hypothetically possible logical relations between a finite collection of sets (groups of things). Venn diagrams were conceived around 1880 by John Venn. They are used to teach elementary set theory, as well as illustrate simple set relationships in probability, logic, statistics, linguistics and computer science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

[Guest]

Just when you thought you were to old to learn something new, huh oldsailor?

[Guest]

Biblical Interpretation.

Besides their different views on scriptural authority, critical

scholars also differ from Bible-believing scholars in their method of Bible interpretation. Accommodationists claim to find in the Bible some intrinsic problems such as errors, contradictions, irrelevance, and even immorality.

The preferred terms for the alleged contradictions and errors in the Bible are "diversities," "differences," and "disturbing details."

According to moderate liberals, such problems should not disturb mature Christians, since the "discrepancies" or "inaccuracies" inherent in Scriptures are "minor" in comparison to the Bible's great themes of salvation. Accommodationists explain that just as I consider my wife to be a good loving wife despite her occasional mistakes, so also the Bible is a good book, despite its occasional inaccuracies.

If Scripture is not absolutely trustworthy and dependable, how are we to determine when the Bible is not presenting the truth? Accommodationist scholars answer this question by appealing to the "assured results" of modern (liberal) scholarship. In other words, they exalt the findings of historical-critical methodology as the norm by which we can accept or reject certain portions of the Bible.

But the accommodationist is faced with a dilemma. He wants to be true to the Bible and to critical methodology at the same time. He wants the acceptance of Bible-believing conservative Christians, and at the same time, he seeks the respect of liberal theologians. In the end, he is not truly accepted by either camp.

[Guest]

A Look at Some Bible Difficulties

In order to understand the nature of Scripture's alleged discrepancies, we must look briefly at some of the assumptions behind accommodationists' claims of error. As we did with the quail problem in Chapter One, in Chapter Ten we shall deal with many of them.

The Bible and Modern Science.

The Bible's worldview, we are told, conflicts with some aspects of modern science. Consequently Christians can no longer accept those portions of Scripture founded on this "pre-scientific" worldview.

These questions are often posed: (1) Can well-meaning Christians still accept a literal six-day creation when modern science has "clearly and persuasively" shown that the theory of evolution is more acceptable than divine creation? (2) Since the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa, how could the sun have stood still in Joshua's day? (3) How do we prove the Bible's assertion in Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 that hares chew the cud? (4)

How can the circular "sea of cast metal" in Solomon's temple (2 Chron 4:1-2) have a diameter of 10 cubits and yet have a circumference of 30 cubits, when we know from simple mathematics that the circumference should be about 31.42 cubits (circumference = p x

diameter, i.e., 3.142 x 10)?

[Guest]

The Bible and Ancient History.

Moderate liberals argue that the way in which the Bible writers wrote their accounts of ancient historical events is no different from the manner in which historians of every generation report theirs. Even in our age of computers, satellites, fax machines, and internet communication systems, it is often difficult to ascertain fully the facts surrounding an event. It is very difficult to explain, for example, what really happened during the Gulf War and the real reason behind it. Because people may forget, misunderstand,

misinterpret, and even distort events, some suggest that the Bible's historical accounts suffer the same problems as other histories.

Questions often raised include: (1) Was there ever a worldwide flood in the days of Noah, as recorded in Genesis 6-8? (2) Did the number of people who left Egypt during the exodus reach 600,000 men (about 2 million people, if women and children are included)? (3) Did

Caesar Augustus order an empire-wide census while Quirinius was governor over Syria (Luke 2:1-2)?

[Guest]

The Bible and Predictive Prophecy.

Critical scholars suggest that whatever Scripture presents as a prophetic prediction of the future is no prediction after all, since the "open view of God" in liberal theology does not allow for a God who knows the future. Therefore, Bible prophecies are dismissed as descriptions of what has already happened presented in the guise

of a prophecy of what will happen (this is known technically as vaticinium ex eventu).

This view also assumes that there can be no miraculous manifestations, including God's ability to foretell the future; therefore, wherever there are clear evidences of fulfilled prophecies, the prophecies must have been written after the events actually took place.

Questions associated with this view affect how we date some books of the Bible and how their prophecies are to be interpreted. For example: Are the five books of Moses to be dated to the time of Moses or to a later date such as the 10th century B.C. (the time of David and Solomon), the 9th century (the time of Elijah and Elisha), or the 8th, 7th or 6th centuries or later (pre-exilic, exilic or even post-exilic times)? Did Daniel the prophet really live and

prophesy in the 6th century B.C. (the time of Babylon) as the Bible says, or did someone else write the Book of Daniel in the 2nd century B.C. (during the time of Greece), making up "prophecies" to fit past events?

[Guest]

The Bible and Ethical Morality.

Some scholars find certain Bible accounts ethically repugnant to their individual feelings and moral judgments. It is ironic that our generation, thriving on violence and lewdness in popular magazines and television, should be repulsed by certain accounts in the Bible.

Examples often cited include:

(1) The morally offensive character and acts of Old Testament figures. Examples include the lies, cover-ups, immorality, adultery, murder, etc., of Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others--people on the Bible's honor roll (Heb 11).

(2) The morally offensive character and acts of God. These include statements in the Bible in which God is represented as partial, fickle, hateful, vengeful, and otherwise morally unworthy; God's apparent complicity in the she-bear attack on a group of boys (2 Kings 2:23-25); God's command to Israel to "go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (1 Sam 15:3); God's endorsement of executions of people with other religions (e.g., Baal worship, witchcraft, sorcery, astrology, etc.), other days of worship than His seventh-day Sabbath (Ex 22:18, 20; Ex 35:2; Num 15:32-36; Deut 13:1-10), alternate lifestyles like homosexuality, sex between consenting adults--within or without the marriage relationship (Lev 20:10-21; Deut 22:20-22), problem children--whether they be incorigible, delinquent, or disobedient (Deut 17:12; 21:18-21; Ex 21:15; Lev 20:9; Prov 20:20), etc.

[Guest]

The Bible's Own Alleged Internal Discrepancies.

While the previous cases of alleged errors are ideological in nature, that is to say, the Bible is construed as mistaken on the basis of the accommodationist's presuppositions on science, history, and ethics, the fourth example of "inaccuracies" in the Bible is argued on the basis of alleged self-contradictions in the scriptural text itself.

In a court of law, a lack of confidence in the credibility of a witness can result in dismissing the witness's testimony in important matters. Thus, if it can be shown from the Bible itself that it contains discrepancies, contradictions, and errors, however minor or inconsequential they may be, then one may more easily reject any other part of the Bible, including doctrinal and theological parts.

For example, one can easily dismiss the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality if it can be proved that the Bible is mistaken on some issues and therefore may be mistaken in its condemnation of homosexuality. Similarly, if one can disregard the creation basis of the Bible's teaching of male headship, why can't one also ignore the seventh-day Sabbath, since it is also rooted in creation?

The kinds of questions raised by the Bible's alleged internal discrepancies include: Where was Jacob finally buried? Was it at Shechem, in the tomb of Abraham (Acts 7:16) or at Hebron (Gen 50:13; cf. 23:19)? Who is telling the truth regarding the motivation, the exact number, the personalities, and costs involved in David's census? Is it 2 Samuel 24 or 1 Chronicles 21?

Further, which of the four gospel writers should be trusted when there are apparent discrepancies between their accounts? For example, which genealogy of Christ is correct, Matthew 1 or Luke 3?

How many demoniacs met Jesus at Gadara--one (Mark 5:2 and Luke

8:27) or two (Matt 8:28)? How many blind men were healed in Jesus' encounter with Bartimaeus--one (Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35) or two (Matt 20:30)? Did Jesus instruct his disciples to take a staff on their preaching mission (Mark 6:8) or did he specifically prohibit

the taking of a staff (Matt 10:9-10; Luke 9:3)? How many times did the [censored] crow (Matt 26:74; Luke 22:60; John 18:27; Mark 14:72)? How many angels were at Christ's tomb on the resurrection morning--one (Matt 28:5 and Mark 16:5) or two (Luke 24:4 and John 20:12)?

In a later chapter we shall wrestle with the Word regarding some of these alleged errors or contradictions of the Bible. Before doing so, however, we shall first highlight some implications these so-called discrepancies may have for the authority and reliability of

Scriptures. For if these questions are valid, they suggest that the Bible writers were not always truthful or accurate in what they wrote.

[Guest]

Implications of Alleged Discrepancies

Charles Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, drew out the implications of the alleged biblical discrepancies: The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. Therefore:

1. It could not be the invention of good men or angels, for they neither would nor could make a book, and tell lies all the time they were writing it, saying, "Thus saith the Lord," when it was their own invention.

2. It could not be the invention of bad men or devils, for they would not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity.

3. Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must be given by divine inspiration.

But if the alleged discrepancies are valid, Bible-believing Christians will have to address their implications for Scripture's inspiration, trustworthiness, and authority.

[Guest]

The Question of Divine Accommodation.

Does God accommodate Himself to popular opinion, even opinions that are in error? Does God in Scripture ever make an incidental

affirmation of a "fact" that was untrue? Some scholars think so.

They argue that even though God or Jesus was aware of the truth of certain minor historical, scientific, or geographical facts,

(a) for the sake of the people at that time whose knowledge of those truths was limited, and

( for the sake of effectively communicating His ethical and theological teachings to them, He deliberately accommodated His message to the needs of the people, sometimes by adopting mistaken views prevalent in those days. This view is not only contrary to Scripture's own testimony, it raises many theological questions:

1. If this view of divine accommodation is right, that is to say, if God intentionally affirmed incidental falsehoods in order to present greater truths, then God is guilty of telling "white lies." But the Bible teaches that it is "impossible for God to lie" (Heb 6:18); God

"cannot lie" (Titus 1:2); "thy word is truth" (John 17:17; cf. 10:35).

2. If such a view of accommodation is correct, it raises moral problems for Christians since they are called to imitate the character of God (Lev 11:44; Eph 5:1).

3. If this position on accommodation is right, it denies the Bible writers' unanimous affirmation of the truthfulness of every statement in Scripture--not some, or most (Ps 12:6; 18:30; 119:96; Prov 30:5; Matt 22:44-45; Luke 24:25; John 10:35; Acts 3:18; 24:14; Rom 15:4; 2 Tim 3:16-17; etc.).

4. If such a view of divine accommodation is valid, it is contrary to Jesus' claim that "He who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from Him" (John 8:26, 38).

5. Finally, adopting this view of divine accommodation is contrary to the practice of Jesus, who refused to accommodate Himself to the mistaken views current in his day. His statements, "You have heard that it was said of old. . . . But I say unto you" (Matt 5; cf. John 8:24, 44), illustrate this fact. For this reason, Jesus took contrary positions on divorce, oath-taking, and traditions regarding food (Matt 19:9; 23:16-22; 15:11-20). If Jesus, the Incarnate Word, deliberately accommodated Himself to mistaken views of His day, He was a liar and therefore a sinner. But the Bible says that He "did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Pet 2:22).

[Guest]

The Problem of "Mistakes" or "Errors."

By errors, we are not referring to those that may have crept into the text as a result of transmission (e.g. occasional or apparent discrepancies due to copyist glosses, slips, misspellings, additions, etc.) and which can be corrected by comparing the various manuscripts.

The question at hand has to do with "errors" alleged to have originated with the Bible writers themselves at the time they wrote their accounts. For example, was Moses mistaken when he wrote of a literal six-day creation, a literal Adam and Eve, a literal universal flood, a miraculous Exodus consisting of over 600,000 males, etc.? Was Matthew deceived or mistaken about the virgin birth or about the crucifixion and the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

Was Paul misguided when he condemned homosexuality because he lacked knowledge of an alleged genetic basis for homosexuality? These are the kinds of "errors" we have in mind. Are the details (however minor) in the Bible accurate and trustworthy, or are they mere

theological statements, void of any factual certainty?

How do we define what constitutes an "error" in Scripture? Does an interpreter possess superior wisdom and spiritual insight to determine the "mistakes," "contradictions," or "errors" of the Bible? What if the person's judgment is wrong? What if that individual condemns as "mistaken" what is correct and endorses as correct what is erroneous?

Bible-believing Christians accept the biblical command: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths" (Prov 3:5, 6).

Therefore, when Bible-believers perceive difficulties in Scripture, rather than judging the Bible to be "contradictory," they question their own assumptions. As they study prayerfully, they ask God to shed more light on the difficult passages. God has done so in the past.

For example, through the painstaking studies of the Adventist scholar Edwin Thiele, the world came to recognize that there are no contradictions in the chronology of the Hebrew Kings; through the discovery of scientists, He proved that rabbits (Lev 11) chew the cud; through archaeologists He showed the trustworthiness of historical details of the Old Testament.

The decision to suspend judgment as they wrestle with difficult biblical texts is one of th reasons why Bible-believing scholars study the Bible so earnestly. It would be easier for them

simply to declare unresolved difficulties as errors, thereby avoiding the challenge of seeking biblical solutions.

[Steve Billiter]

The Question of Divine Accommodation.

Does God accommodate Himself to popular opinion, even opinions that are in error? Does God in Scripture ever make an incidental

affirmation of a "fact" that was untrue? Some scholars think so.

They argue that even though God or Jesus was aware of the truth of certain minor historical, scientific, or geographical facts,

(a) for the sake of the people at that time whose knowledge of those truths was limited, and

( for the sake of effectively communicating His ethical and theological teachings to them, He deliberately accommodated His message to the needs of the people, sometimes by adopting mistaken views prevalent in those days. This view is not only contrary to Scripture's own testimony, it raises many theological questions:

1. If this view of divine accommodation is right, that is to say, if God intentionally affirmed incidental falsehoods in order to present greater truths, then God is guilty of telling "white lies." But the Bible teaches that it is "impossible for God to lie" (Heb 6:18); God

"cannot lie" (Titus 1:2); "thy word is truth" (John 17:17; cf. 10:35).

2. If such a view of accommodation is correct, it raises moral problems for Christians since they are called to imitate the character of God (Lev 11:44; Eph 5:1).

3. If this position on accommodation is right, it denies the Bible writers' unanimous affirmation of the truthfulness of every statement in Scripture--not some, or most (Ps 12:6; 18:30; 119:96; Prov 30:5; Matt 22:44-45; Luke 24:25; John 10:35; Acts 3:18; 24:14; Rom 15:4; 2 Tim 3:16-17; etc.).

4. If such a view of divine accommodation is valid, it is contrary to Jesus' claim that "He who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from Him" (John 8:26, 38).

5. Finally, adopting this view of divine accommodation is contrary to the practice of Jesus, who refused to accommodate Himself to the mistaken views current in his day. His statements, "You have heard that it was said of old. . . . But I say unto you" (Matt 5; cf. John 8:24, 44), illustrate this fact. For this reason, Jesus took contrary positions on divorce, oath-taking, and traditions regarding food (Matt 19:9; 23:16-22; 15:11-20). If Jesus, the Incarnate Word, deliberately accommodated Himself to mistaken views of His day, He was a liar and therefore a sinner. But the Bible says that He "did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Pet 2:22).

Richard my only answer to that is, God cannot lie. End of story!

[Guest]

Amen!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

What about the comma johanneum in 1 John that Erasmus added that was not in the manuscripts that he was translating from? That is still in the KJV.