Is the Bible 'Scripture', and is it inerrant?

[Musicman1228]

It is repeated often on this forum that the Bible is the wholly inerrant, immutable, inspired very 'word of God', and is the source for all truth both spiritual and scientific. Yet there is considerable argument and heated debate over the meaning of the content of the Bible even among those that believe that it is the wholly inspired, inerrant and immutable 'word of God'. EVERYONE has their own interpretation or understanding such that the by product is disunity and disharmony even though Jesus called for unity among His disciples; even to the extent of vicious name calling and accusations that the person that disagrees with a stated proposition is 'of the devil'.

How can this be if the Bible is what it has been purported to be? It would seem logical that if God had actually meant for the Bible to be the single most important unifying force in Christendom that He would have made it impossible for the understanding and interpretation of the contents of this document to be misunderstood in any way; if God has the desire and power to create a compendium of writings that perfectly expressed His mind and heart such that no one could possibly misinterpret the meaning thus leading to complete unity (as many here have proposed) then why is the result so far afield from that desire? Is God not capable of overcoming the stubbornness and willfulness of the human mind and heart such that those that truly seek Him can find Him without effort in the Bible?

Therefore here is the pressing question: Is the Bible Scripture, and is it inerrant? Who sets the standard for this, and what are the requirements that define what is Scripture?

This is a foundational issue in Christianity and deserves to be treated as such. I know that this question is already settled in many, but there are also many who have questions about the authority of the Bible and from whom is comes. Please express your thoughts and show your proofs in gentleness of spirit, and with respect for our God who does want to lead us into all truth.

[Kevin H]

It is the fundamentalist philosophy that the Bible is inerrant, in response to the liberals who said that the Bible was wholely a human product and a collection of myths that did not happen.

Seventh-day Adventists tend to be either very liberal fundamentalists, or non-fundamentalist. I am a non-fundamentalist. Mrs. White says that she is not inerrant (the fundamentalmentalist in the church have added to this an attitude of "it's just that she never made a mistake"). She tells us that the Bible has an inerrant message, and that it is sufficient for salvation.

There is a clearity in the Bible of God's love, and verses such as John 3:16 and the sermon on the mount that even children can understand. Yet there are ways how we can study to know and have deeper relationships with Jesus.

I could have a picture that you never saw before, and call people to describe the picture. Different people would emphesise different parts, use different language from their background, and you would form a mental picture in your mind as to how it looks like. If you get enought people looking at the picture and discribing it you would get a clearer view, however they will use their language and understandings. Then when you see the picture it would not look exactly like the picture in your mind, but if you were shown a similar picture, you would still be able to recognize which picture was being described to you. So Satan is going to try to decieve us, however reading the descriptions in the Bible will keep us safe from Satan's deception.

But God is always going to demand faith from his followers. The trinity live in a righteousness by faith relationship with each other. When Lucifer was raising his questions about God, God could have put an end to the discussion as easilly as throwing a pebble to the ground. But God wanted us to come to decisions. It was not until everyone had been discussing the evidence for, maybe billiions of years, and made sides either to stay faithful or rebell against God before God gave the proof by creating the world (And even then the beings did not fully close their probation until the cross) and a bit part of the Investagative Judgement was for these beings to review what Jesus did for them which helps them to understand their own salvation better and deepens their relationship with Jesus. (meanwhile we live in the age of exegesis where we can investigate the pages of scripture such as never before)

While God could make the Bible as clear as you are writing about. Again, that would be more like the character of the Beast of Revelation 13. God wants our love from our own growing, studing and coming to conclusions. Not his placing us in a position where we have no other choice. The message of the Bible if infailable, but the Bible itself we can only describe as sufficient for salvation.

I hope this helps.

[Truth Files]

Response to the OP:

>Absolutely .... and there is nothing else like it

[Dr. Rich]

Response to the OP:

>Absolutely .... and there is nothing else like it

TF, can you provide evidence for your opinion please? Opinions are fine, but worthless without true evidence (not hearsay evidence). But then opinions are also a dime a dozen too.

Since God did not keep Satan out of the Garden of Eden, what makes people think that God would keep Satan out of the bible?

Keven H., very good points and I would agree that God's words can be found in the bible and I also believe that they are enough for us to understand how salvation works without using any modern day prophet.

[John317]

SDAs don't believe the Bible to be inerrent, or completely without any errors as we have it today.

But if you are asking whether the whole Protestant Bible is the inspired Word of God, then the answer is yes.

As far as concerns God making the Bible so no one can misunderstand it, that is not how God does things. He honors people's freedom to misunderstand his Word and to reject them. He's not interested in controlling people against their will. If you want to believe that Acts 2: 3 reads "tongue" instead of "tongues" and if you want to believe that Peter was not inspired by God on the Day of Pentecost, God will allow you to believe it. We are free moral agents.

[Truth Files]

"TF, can you provide evidence for your opinion please? Opinions are fine, but worthless without true evidence"

>I think you are a bit presumptious with yout statement, because I don't think my opinion on this matter is worthless ..... but the evidence is in your Bible for answering the question

>I have to run now, but will answer you soon

[Kevin H]

Dr. Rich: Your last line, the ancient world needed local prophets to apply what was written, so why don't we need later prophets? Also the New Testament was teaching that as the apostels were dieing off that the church was going to need new prophets. Was John lieing?

[Musicman1228]

In keeping the topic 'on task', I will ask John this question based on his earlier response that the Protestant Bible is the inspired Word of God: Q-How do you KNOW it is wholly inspired? Where is your documentation to this belief? Is. 8:20 and 2 Ti. 3:16 apply ONLY to the Scripture that was in use AT THAT TIME, which was the OT. Where is your undeniable proof that the entire NT is the word of God?

(I can ask this, John, because I started this thread and I am interested in real answers not guesses, personal beliefs, opinions or WAG's. As the saying goes, "Show me the money".)