Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Why were entries here deleted? Who deleted them? User:Seekcommon

So, Is the Bible infallible? Should all Christians and Jews believe everything the Bible says and live by ALL it's rules?

Surely not. It is up to us as discerning people to pick and choose between the various statements and sentiments within the testaments to determine what is and isn't relevant today. For example, according to the article, capital punishment is not generally supported by Christians for non-murder offenses, despite Exodus 21 listing its appropriateness for many more minor offenses. This means something very powerful. It means that we Christians cannot say "this is right because the Bible says so", but have to say "this is right because I deem that passage still relevant". It means we need to be responsible for our views. Thus the controversy over grey issues such as homosexuality. Proberts84 10:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Then why is a section of the conservative community upset over Darwin and evolution and such? Dismissing evolution as mere theory demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and illiteracy when it comes to science and theories and arguments. Why does so much of science terrifies a significant fraction of the conservative movement? Is science a creation of the Devil then? Was Darwin put on this earth by the Devil to confound God fearing humans? Why did the Catholic Church persecute Galileo for saying the Earth goes round the Sun? And why did it take them 300+ years to say "Sorry"? It remains an issue of power and having people who can follow them no matter what and the Bible is held as that hammer to keep people down when needed. Seekcommon
Absolutely. As a Christian, I would be the first to admit the hypocrisy of our faith over the last few centuries. The main reason for this, of course, is that the church is made up of many many people, each with their own viewpoint. I see no reason why the modern Catholic church should apologise for the treatment of Galileo, any more than Britain should apologise to the aboriginals of America and Australia, or for the burning of Protestants or Catholics under the respective Tudor king or queen of England. It is something done by our ancestors, and not by us. What matters is what we say today. There is no reason why science and religion can't coexist. I accept that almost all Christians no longer believe the early chapters of the Old Testament actually happened. They are, I believe, generally accepted to be metaphors - an easy handle for people to understand God's achievement in creating the World. In times gone by, this is illustrated nicely by the idea of Him creating everything in 6 days in nice stages. To the modern reader, this no longer makes sense (the concept of a day being a length of time before the Solar System was created is meaningless in itself). The modern thinker, then, can rejoice in God's creation of the Universe. The divine energy that created the big bang. The force that gave everything direction. The mind that thought through the rules of physics, and the purity of mathematics. The guiding hand that let today's species exist. The gifts of spirituality, of self-awareness, and the immortal soul. I think understanding more about the nature of the universe makes God seem all the more wonderful. Proberts84 22:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)


The bible simply cannot be taken literally, mostly because it contradicts itself everywhere. Let's look at the gospels of Luke and Matthew. One says Jesus' relation to David was 27 entries long, the other says 42. Also, the Old Testament clearly states that only a descendent of David can be Christ the messiah. Since Joseph supposedly possessed David in his lineage, and since Christ was of virgin birth, does this mean that Jesus was not the messiah? Also, what about the other gospels that aren't integrated into the bible, such as ones that describe Jesus mischievously casting spells on his friends and turning mud into birds. Additionally, the gospel of Matthew states that Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem during one of Caesar Augustus' census activities. However, there was no census until 6 AD, and it was done by Qurinius, not Caesar Augustus. It's all just fairy tales, and poorly-integrated fairy tales at that as well.

One of the geneologies is of Mary and the other of Joseph. To Mary in Luke, and to Joseph in Matthew. Both contain David. Cheers, Adam

Fairy tale is unnecessarily harsh. Neither Matthew nor Luke were historians, in the modern interpretation of the word. In those times history was presented very differently from how it is now. The central message was brought through, as well as all the key points, and the other detail was embellished around it. An example is Joseph's home town. Both authors knew that the important points were that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth. In Luke, they lived in Nazareth first, then traveled to Bethlehem for a census. In Matthew, they lived in Bethlehem, then fled to Nazareth via Egypt. This embellishment still done today - preachers often invent details in the story in order to make the message stronger, or make the characters more personable. People even think that the animals were all put on the Ark in twos, despite the text of the Bible saying the clean ones were in sevens. I think the authors would be upset to know that people were concentrating on the irrelavent detail instead of the main ideas.Proberts84 17:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)


Hypocricy without Faith

I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. Those Truths are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It only betrays the level of their ignorance and illiteracy. Such as those who claim to be Christian and then proceed to criticise and slander the basis of their supposed beliefs. A Christian nows the difference between living under the Law of the Old Testament and living under Grace of the New Testament.--Roopilots6 22:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm a sinner; I eat shellfish and wear clothes made out of two materials. Guess I'm going to hell for that.
The real issue is whether or not the Bible is still relevant in todays society; do you really think God meant for us to be ignorant and unresponsive, and live the same way until the end of time?
God knew that when we gained more knowledge, we would (hopefully) put it to use. But, unfortunately, we have not; there is still a debate over homosexuality. We will never know which modern Bible is accurate (if any); It has been translated so much that it has been overly politicized. And lots of the Bible is pretty hard to take seriously, such as a global flood; instant, recent creation; destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone, etc. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 23:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Knowledge without understanding is useless. What you eat or wear has nothing to do with whether or not you're a sinner. The Bible I'm reading hasn't been politicized, and hasn't changed for over 2,000 years. Geological evidence of the global flood is everywhere. Archeological evidence of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has already been proven with the materials that make fire and brimstone right there amongst the ruins. The same with a young Earth. Scientifically and archeologically documented. I've seen and read it. Rejecting God's Word is a choice you can make on your own. Making false and misleading statements that are ignorant of the facts is mere politics. As well as just plain hard to take seriously.--Roopilots6 11:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

As Roopilots6 I have studied the Bible for many years and the more I read the more convinced I am that it is accurate in every sense.It seems those who read it without the properly prayerful attitude and desire for truth don't get much out of it. Modern archeological discoveries repeatedly confirm the accounts in the Bible. God states that He is unchanging and that heaven and earth will disappear before one scrap of His word will. From my point of view if He said 5000 years ago that crabs were unclean as food I'm not about to argue the point. He made them so He ought to know and in light of the pollution in today's world I'm not too enthused about consuming bottom feeders anyway.~~InHisImage


Okay, InHisImage, and Roopilots6, I have studied the Bible for many years as well, and I desperately wanted to believe it, but I couldn't. Read the account of when the Israelites left Egypt. God repeatedly punished the people of Egypt for something the Pharaoh was doing, when God could have simply pulled the people out himself. Then it says Pharaoh finally consented, and God HARDENED HIS HEART. That means God wanted to murder the first born. And what about all the Israelites who were born and died in the 400 years they were enslaved? They couldn't follow the rituals, so did they go to hell? Yes, they did. As well as everyone else before the laws were put down. And what about other nations during that time? Not their fault they weren't God's chosen people. So, they go to hell. Not my idea of a loving, tolerant god. - Bob Sanchez

1) I don't see anywhere in those passages about those people going to hell. Who said everybody went to hell prior to the law? Check out Romans 1-2. People without the law are judged by their conscience.
2) When you say you don't believe the Bible, do you mean you don't think it reflects history, or that you don't find the God it portrays to be attractive? Those are two entirely different propositions.
3) I don't find the title of those discussion to be a particularly meaningful question. How do you test whether "Bible" = Infallible Word of God? Where do you get your Infallible word? From the Bible! The only thing you can compare it to and test it against is ... itself. A=A. All you can do is determine whether you find the book to be credible or not. That's a whole other inquiry. Ungtss 21:16, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

It implied thay went to hell, as they couldn't follow the law or Jesus. I read Romans 1-2, and have some questions: 1.)Why he says only through faith and not actions can you be saved, but in this passage it says all your actions are judged, and you're punished accordingly. Uh, clarify. 2.)It also says in this passage that God does not show favortism; He had "chosen people" in the form of Israelites, again an example of the Bible contradicting itself. 3.)Romans 2:12 : "God will punish the Gentiles when they sin, even though they never had God's written law. And he will punish the jews when they sin, for they do have the law." Alright, then. And, you didn't answer why God made Pharaoh change his mind. Which also, I just remembered, violates free will. I don't believe the God of the Bible is attractive. I do believe a guy named Jesus was around, and that he was crucified, and etc. Now whether or not it goes down like it says in the Bible exactly, I don't know. - Bob Sanchez

It implied thay went to hell, as they couldn't follow the law or Jesus.

Again, it only implied that if you assume that the author believed that you automatically go to hell if you don't have the law or ever hear of Jesus. I don't see any evidence in the text that the author of Exodus assumed those things. I don't see the words "Hell" or "Jesus" anywhere in that book, nor any implication that the author had any idea what either of those things are. Ungtss 20:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

1.)Why he says only through faith and not actions can you be saved, but in this passage it says all your actions are judged, and you're punished accordingly. Uh, clarify.

Many different opinions on that issue. My personal opinion is that the "faith, not works" passage is badly misinterpreted by contemporary Christianity. Faith is not "mere belief." To be faithful as a spouse is to keep your promises and fulfill your role and duties, even when you don't feel like it. That's what I think "Faith" means in that context. To be faithful to God as to a spouse -- by keeping our promises and living out our commitment. And I think the argument he's making is to legalistic people who think they are saved by doing X,Y, and Z ritual, and saying, "Don't take pride in your ritualistic works -- they aren't what save you -- it is your keeping of your commitment as a whole, which is grounded in HUMILITY. 20:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

2.)It also says in this passage that God does not show favortism; He had "chosen people" in the form of Israelites, again an example of the Bible contradicting itself.

Again, many opinions. My personal opinion is that the two passages do not contradict each other. God judges all people by the same standard, but selected Israel to be a city on a hill -- an example to the rest of us. Nowhere does it say that only Jews go to heaven, or that only Christians go to heaven. But it does say that both groups were selected for a special purpose to fulfill on Earth. Personally, I'm glad to be a gentile, 'cause I like bacon and lobster. I have fewer restrictions than they do, and still can be judged righteous. Google Noahide laws for info on how the Jews think we're judged. Seems to me they're the ones that got the raw deal in their own belief system. Ungtss 20:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

3.)Romans 2:12 : "God will punish the Gentiles when they sin, even though they never had God's written law. And he will punish the jews when they sin, for they do have the law." Alright, then.

Not sure what you're getting at. It says the Gentiles will be judged by their conscience, not by the letter of the Jewish law. Ungtss 20:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

And, you didn't answer why God made Pharaoh change his mind. Which also, I just remembered, violates free will.

I don't claim to know. I'm open to the possibilities that "A) it happened, and was just as unfair as it seems to me; B) it happened and was fair in some way I don't understand; C) It didn't happen, and later writers stuck that in there because they wanted to emphasize God's greatness and power. Ungtss 20:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe the God of the Bible is attractive. I do believe a guy named Jesus was around, and that he was crucified, and etc. Now whether or not it goes down like it says in the Bible exactly, I don't know.

That I can understand. I just think it's important to separate issues of fact (Does this God exist as described?) from issues of preference (assuming this God exists, do I want anything to do with Him?). Your arguments so far have centered around whether or not he is a good God ... my question is, what reason do you have to believe that the book is factually and historically false? Ungtss 20:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Apply your principle to road rules and see how you go

If I decide "Well, I think stopping means to actually stop moving my head, therefore I stopped", I have no excuse when the lawman questions me...unless he notes me as insane.
If I decide to read the building standards but do it my own way, according to what I feel would be nicer, I have no excuse when the lawman questions me...unless I've liaised with him over some misunderstanding.
If I decide to read the scriptures and make my OWN interpretation, then technically, I have my OWN religion, but it won't be registered with man, nor with God. Still, as for the perspective of the Bible having infallible words of God, the answer is yes. How can I say this when the Hebrew scriptures speak of warfare, and in the Christian era those who used to be soldiers gave it up for a life of peace? There must be an understanding. Either it contradicts itself, or it's worth reading to see where this change took place, and even where it was mentioned that it WOULD take place (clue: Isaiah 2:2-4, Micah 4:1-4)

Personal tools