Just to let you know

I do apologize to sum of my long-term followers if some of my post seem out of order.  At this time I have 24 finished post and about 5 that I’m currently working.  I do it this way because I have so much on mind.  Here are some of the ones that are finished and that I am currently working.

• History of Inerrancy
• 9-Part Series on Reasoning with Faith, Atheism, and Religion
• Bible, Torah, & the Koran
• Bible Study on Atheism
• Which is better Faith or Reason?
• The Hiddeness of God
• 4-Part Series on a Perfect God (unfinished)
• What is Biblical Infallibility? (unfinished)

So I put them up as I feel, and how my mindset is at the time, and also how I feel the flow of the blog is going.  So, now you what to be expecting in my next few post.

The Christian (Theist) Challenge

10 Questions to ask a Christian

I thought this would be interesting, because I’ve seen several questionnaires like this, but I wanted something that would go deep and to get people someone thinking.  (Please give realistic and honest answers.)

1. Do you feel like Religion, God and The Bible conflict?

2. If God told you kill someone, (And you are 100% it’s God).  Would you kill that person?  Why or Why Not?

3. Who created God; if he came from nothing or has no creator doesn’t that violate The First Law of Thermodynamics?

4. If you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God; do you believe it to be inerrant or infallible?  And, If the Bible is found errant, does God still exist and is the Bible still a trustworthy source?

5. In the Bible their are stories of God telling the Israelites to kill innocent women & children and children being punished for the sins of their father.  Is this morally right or morally justifiable?

6. If God is perfect, how can something imperfect come out of something that is PERFECT?  Did God make a mistake?

7. If a Christian goes into a forest and gets lost.  And he prays to God to be saved and not die.  Does a God still here him?  How do know?  And, how can you be sure?

8. If you were to die, and when you go before God; it’s some other God you have never seen or heard of nor worshiped?  What would you do?  Would you plead for him not to judge you harshly and what would you say?

9. What is something that would convince you that Christianity is wrong and that there is no God?  (If your answer is NOTHING, than please explain WHY?)

10. This is a quote by the atheist Richard Dawkins…”We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go ONE god further.“-Richard Dawkins. Why does the Christian reject all other gods, but not their own?  Why are you Christian?  Why do you believe in only the Judo-Christian God?

The Atheist Challenge

10 Questions to ask an Atheist 

I thought this would be interesting, because I’ve seen several questionnaires like this, but I wanted something that would go deep and to get people someone thinking.  (Please give realistic and honest answers.)

1. If there is NO God, then their is no Measurement or Standard for morality?  Then what will define morality?

2. If there is NO God, then there is NO meaning or purpose to Life;  So not everything meaningless since there is no God?  So what will the purpose of living?  Without God, does the Atheist have purpose?

3. Are you an advocate of New Atheism and Darwinism?  If so then the most extreme and logical form of Darwinism is Eugenics, Survival of the fittest.  Would you support this?  Why or Why Not?

4. If we are ancesoters/descentdents of Apes, then why are there no transitional fossils or species to support this theory?

5. Do you believe in Human Nature?  It is Human Nature to believe in God, if so, why do you go against human nature and not believe in God?

6. Can Nothing come from Something?  Doesn’t that violate The First Law of Thermodynamics?

7. It seems that a society of Atheist are immoral and self-destructing.  Why would anyone want a Godless Society, just look at our examples, North Korea, Maoist China, Stalin, & Pot Pol?

8. If you were to die, and you were before God.  And he was getting ready to pass judgement on you,  What would be your reaction or thoughts?  What plea would you give him so he does not judge you harshly?

9. What would convince you atheism is wrong?  And that Christianity is Right?

10. Why are you an Atheist?  Why do you NOT believe in God?  Why do you reject God?  (You can be as detailed as you want.)

Religion Vs Science by J.P. Moreland: Has Science Made Belief in GOD Unreasonable?

I saw this video on Religion & Science, on somebody elses blog.

The two main things I took away from this video, were the idea that 95% of science support or correlates with Religion.  And on the Atheist turned Deist, Anthony Flew (and the fined tuned argument).

A Double-Sided Message

Earlier this year I put on my Facebook Wall:

For the most dangerous thing to Christianity is a man with a BIBLE, for No One can tell him what Christianity is or what it should look like, for he is able to discover TRUTH by simply reading.

I had about nine of my christian friends like the status, and one comment ‘Amen to that!!!.’ But it actually had a double meaning.  Because on this journey to the bittersweetend I don’t feel like I’m losing faith in church.  I still love church.  I still love reading my bible.  I’m still actively involved in teen-youth.  In fact I’m now the ordained youth leader/minister at my church.

I feel like I’m losing faith in God.  The more I read my bible, the more I feel like God does not exist.  Now to be quite honest with the masses,…..I feel more Atheist than Christian.

Making Sense of 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Making Sense of Inspiration

For anybody who has followed my blog, this has been my biggest gripe and stumbling block on dealing with the Inerrancy-Errancy of the Bible.  And I have for the most part, I’ve come to realize the bible has errors.  So in dealing with this, I asked (Atheist) Nate from Finding Truth and (Christian) Eric a.k.a. UnkleE from The Way? , Is There a God? to both do a contribution post on making sense of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and the inspiration of God and the Bible.

So I sent them both an e-mail with the following questions and parameter of 1400 words to address: (Please forgive Nate for going over the 1400 words, he also lacks a belief in counting..J/K, couldn’t help myself.):

>> > how are you doing,  I was wondering if you would like to do a contribution peace on 2 tim. 3:26-27  and on inspiration and inerrancy/errancy of the bible.    And what it all means?

> Does the belief in the bible require belief in inerrancy?
> What does 2 Timothy 3:16-17, actually mean?
> Does an errant bible affect Christianity as a whole?  (does it diminish the testimony of christ, the value of the cross, or the reliability of the bible?)
> Is is reasonable to say the bible is errant, but I still believe?
> Are the issues of Errancy or Inerrancy essential to the faith?
> Does the bible call or require the doctrine of inerrancy?
> What does inspired mean?
> IF the bible is errant, how can one interpret the bible objectively?

The following is the response:

• Some Thoughts on the Inspiration of the Bible By (Christian)Eric Hatfield

• Why the Bible must be Inerrant By (Atheist) Nathan Owens

Some Thoughts on the Inspiration of the Bible

Contribution Post By Eric Hatfield from The Way? & Is there a God?

 

Starting point

It is best I begin by outlining where I’m coming from. I believe the evidence points to God being the creator and designer of the universe, and of the human race; to Jesus being divine and the revelation of God; and to people having experiences of God in their daily lives. I won’t be discussing that evidence here (you can see my reasons at Why believe?), but that is the basis of how I approach the Bible.

All of these conclusions can be reached without considering the Bible to be anything more than what historians tell us. But once I believe, then I must approach the Bible by considering historical facts and the implications of faith in Jesus.

So I begin my thinking about the Bible believing that the New Testament has historical credibility, understanding that Jesus respected the Old Testament but superseded it, and concluding that I should treat the Bible as a revelation of God. The question is, what does that mean?

Is the Bible inspired?

2 Timothy 3:16 must be the starting point. It says:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness ….

The key here is the word translated “God-breathed”, or (often) “Inspired”. The difficulty is that this is the only place where it is used in the Bible, so its meaning is uncertain.

• The most common understanding is that the Bible is “breathed out” by God, so it contains the very words of God.
• NT Wright says inspiration means “by his Spirit God guided the very different writers and editors, so that the books they produced were books God intended his people to have.” This implies God exercised less control than the first explanation.
• This passage could be translated “Every inspired writing is profitable …”, thus telling us how to use the Bible, but nothing about inspiration.
• Ben Witherington says inspiration means “God speaks through these words. God breathed life and meaning and truth into them all.” Witherington goes on to point out that Paul doesn’t explain how this occurs, and is more interested in the result – that christians can know how to behave.

Other passages also show there isn’t a clear answer:

• 2 Peter 1:21, which speaks of human beings being “carried along by the Holy Spirit”, is equally ambiguous.
• When Paul discusses marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, he distinguishes between various levels of authority – from Jesus’ teachings (v 10), his own opinions (v 12) and his conclusion based on the guidance of the Spirit (v 40).

I conclude then that we should be wary of thinking we can fully define the roles of God and the human authors in the Biblical writings. We should be content with believing that the Bible is an important part of God’s revelation of truth to us, but the authors used their own gifts and style.

Is the Bible without error?

• The Bible doesn’t make this claim. Inerrancy is generally based on verses which say God’s words are true, and the assumption (also never found in scripture) that the Bible can be understood as God’s own words.
• It doesn’t look as though it is inerrant, for there are many obvious difficulties and many historical problems we may not always be aware of.
• Claims of inerrancy only apply to the original writings, and not to any document or translation we have today, so the doctrine has no practical application.
• It has not been a majority view through 2 millennia of christianity, and is not held by all (possibly not even by most) christians today. Its present-day formulation is relatively recent.

I can only conclude that there is no reason to believe that the Bible contains no errors. That doesn’t mean I believe it has errors, or that any individual problem is an error, for many apparent errors have subsequently been explained. I prefer to think that regardless of possible errors, God inspired the authors and uses the Bible to reveal himself. Some people find this view incongruous, but we are quite used to reading fallible books and newspapers and drawing what we believe are true conclusions, so why not here? – and we have the Holy Spirit to guide us (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13).

Interpreting the Bible

How should we interpret the Bible?

Unfortunately, both believers and sceptics too often interpret in the way that suits them. I believe we need to learn from the scholars what the words and concepts meant in the original culture, then we need to pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance, discerned by the body of christians, on how to apply passages today.

Should the Bible always be interpreted literally?

It is clear that some sections are poetry, parable, vision, psalm, etc, and most christians recognise that these types of literature should not be interpreted literally – though unfortunately this doesn’t stop many christians from using the Psalms in inappropriate ways. But the harder question is: which other sections are literal and which are not?

I have no trouble, based on scholarship and the Holy Spirit, interpreting Genesis 1-11 as myth, and Job and Jonah as more folk tale than historic. I have more difficulty with the ‘historical’ books of the Old Testament, but I tend to agree with CS Lewis that they appear to be exaggerated history with legendary elements.

It is worth noting that Jesus and the New Testament writers don’t always interpret the Old Testament in a literal way, but use interpretations common to first century Judaism that we would regard as somewhat fanciful. For the first few hundred years, many christians employed allegorical interpretations, and Augustine (one of the most influential of all christian writers) cautioned in the 4th century against interpreting Genesis literally.

Is the Bible a book of rules for faith and life?

If this is its primary purpose, then its final form is very strange, for it is more narrative than anything else. It certainly contains rules, but the New Testament replaces rules with principles, and a strong teaching that the Old Testament laws have been superseded by the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Luke 16:16-17, Romans 7:6, 2 Corinthians 3:6) – so anything not done in faith is sin (Romans 14:23).

Questions and difficulties

Most common questions and difficulties are removed by the above approach. We don’t expect perfection and unambiguous rules, but more a story of God at work with imperfect people. We don’t expect to understand everything, but we expect the important things to be clear enough, and the Spirit to guide us. Perfect knowledge is not achievable in this life, and we live with uncertainty but also with faith.

Thus difficulties in the Bible are not sufficient to undermine my faith and my reasons for believing, though I must admit I am still troubled by the Old Testament commands to kill.

Living as a christian

I have lived as a christian for almost 50 years, and these convictions have developed slowly. I haven’t found that my changed view of the Bible has led to any loss of faith or zeal for God – at 66 I am still as committed to serving God by helping others to ‘see him more clearly, love him more dearly and follow him more nearly’, and playing my small part in bringing justice and mercy on earth.

My wife and I pray together every day and read the Bible together on many days. I study the Bible with the best scholarly help I can get, and lead studies for others in groups. I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant, but I take it seriously and I find that the Spirit speaks to me through it – certainly I find plenty of places where I see the need to improve my behavior.

Why the Bible Must Be Inerrant

Contribution Post by Nathan Owens from Finding Truth

I became a Christian just before my 10th birthday, and I was regularly leading our song service, leading prayers, teaching classes, even giving short sermons before I graduated from high school. I was a Christian first – everything else was secondary. Over the years, I managed to convert several people over to the brand of Christianity that I believed in.

But two years ago, my faith in the god of the Bible was ebbing away. The more I studied, the less I believed. When I reached a stage in my doubts in which I knew I needed to talk to other Christians about it, I realized that I would need to tread very carefully. I spent several weeks pulling together all the reasons and evidences that had led to my erosion of faith, and I wrote them out as clearly and thoroughly as I knew how. When I finished, I had over 50 pages — almost 34,000 words. It was very important to me that I communicate my thoughts on this important subject as clearly as possible.

A couple of months after I had finished it and sent it out to some of my friends and family, I was really disappointed to find out that I had cited the wrong chapter and verse in a few of my scripture references. I felt that those mistakes, while fairly incidental to my overall points, still detracted from the message I was trying to present. I knew that those mistakes would allow some people to claim that I hadn’t researched well enough, or that I hadn’t taken good enough care of the subject matter. Worse, some might think that I was making up passages in order to trick people into believing false claims. My goal had been to write so perfectly that no one would be able to misunderstand the reasons for my position. But of course, I’m human… and humans make mistakes.

As far as I know, most monotheisms claim that God is perfect. And in the Bible, Jesus referred to God being perfect (Matt 5:48). So if a perfect being wanted to write us a book, should we expect it to also be perfect? The message I composed to my Christian friends was of the utmost importance to me. If I could have written it perfectly, I would have. So if God is perfect and his message is important, couldn’t we also expect it to be perfect? Wouldn’t he want to be as clear as possible?

The Nature of Inspiration
Sometimes it’s said that the writers of the Bible were inspired by God, but they were also allowed to keep their own manner of speech, etc, and that this process could have allowed a few errors simply because the men themselves were not perfect. While I would agree that maintaining their style of speech even when inspired is plausible, I think the content of their message would have to be correct if they were truly inspired. After all, 2 Peter 1:20-21 says this:

knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

While this passage speaks specifically about prophecies, I would imagine that the process of inspiration is basically the same whether the inspired person is speaking an actual prophecy or just repeating a message from God. Notice that the writer points out that these prophecies didn’t come by the will of men, but were direct revelations from God through the Holy Spirit. And one of the most important passages to consider is the following from 2 Tim 3:16-17:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

This passage makes it clear that all scripture is from God, and it makes the man of God complete. It’s everything he needs. So if God is perfect, and he inspired his writers to record his exact message, and all scripture is from him and profitable, why wouldn’t it be inerrant?

Sometimes, the point is made that 2 Tim 3 is talking about the Old Testament — the New Testament had not been written yet. That’s only partially true. By the time 2 Timothy was written, many of the other New Testament books had already been penned. And 2 Peter 3:15-16 says the following:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

This shows that Paul’s writings were considered scripture at this time. Is there any reason to think the rest of the New Testament wouldn’t also be considered scripture? Therefore, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would also apply to the New Testament, and it’s hard to understand why the message of a perfect deity would be flawed in some way.

Inerrant… Sometimes
Despite all of this evidence, there are still many Christians who maintain that the Bible does not have to be inerrant. For them, it is only inerrant when it comes to matters of spirituality, salvation, doctrine, etc. So when it talks about matters of science or history, for example, it may not be completely accurate.

I think there are some major issues with this position. First of all, it seems to run counter to the other passages we’ve looked at. Also, in John 3:12, Jesus rightly pointed out, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” There’s no way we could know that the Bible’s teachings on Heaven and Hell, the divinity of Christ, or the necessary steps of salvation are true and accurate unless we could verify the more mundane things it claims. For instance, would you trust information on particle physics if it came from someone who had never gotten past 4th grade science? When the Bible tells us about Heaven, it’s impossible for us to sit back and say, “Yes, that’s exactly right,” because we have no independent knowledge of Heaven. We only know what the Bible has told us. And if it can’t be trusted
in more minor details, why should we believe it on things that are completely unverifiable?

There’s another problem. Most Christians believe that other religions are false. Many Christians believe that non-Christians will be punished in some way (annihilated, sent to Hell, etc). If those things are true, and if God truly wants everyone to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-4), then it only follows that he would make his message as plain and accessible as possible. If the Bible contains historical and scientific mistakes, as well as internal contradictions, how is it any different than the religious texts of other religions?

Difficulties, not Contradictions
Another attitude toward Biblical inerrancy is to say that the Bible is inerrant in its entirety, but they admit that several places seem to be problematic. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article XII says the following:

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

If I understand this correctly, it basically says that the Bible is true in matters of science, but new discoveries in science can’t overturn anything the Bible says. So it’s impervious to scientific evidence. That’s awfully convenient.

Article XIV says this:

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

In other words, the Bible might appear incorrect or inconsistent in places, but those are just problems that haven’t been solved yet. One day, those discrepancies will be understood more fully. I wonder if they feel that way about the problems in the Book of Mormon?

Article XIII says this:

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

This is one I hear a lot. We should not expect the Bible to fit within our modern ideas of accuracy. This means that since the Bible was written by ancient people, it should be understood in an ancient context. For instance, no one has been able to definitively explain why Matthew and Luke have different genealogies for Christ (or why neither of them match the genealogy in Chronicles), but we’re told that this would not have bothered ancient readers. It turns out, this claim is completely false (see here and here), but that’s what we’re told, nonetheless. Yet, isn’t this still a problem since the Bible is supposed to be inspired? I could understand why human writers would be bound within the same methods and practices of their own times, but why would God be constrained by those things? Didn’t he
know that later generations would see some of these difficulties as reasons to doubt the Bible’s inspiration? If he had inspired the Bible’s writers to record things in a more straightforward way (the same genealogy for Jesus, for instance), would ancient readers not have understood it?

It seems to me that the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy only has to make these caveats because the Bible does not actually meet the standards for inerrancy that we would expect from a book written by a perfect deity.

Inerrant in the Original
Sometimes Christians will claim that the original manuscripts of the Bible were completely inerrant, so any problems in our Bibles today come from copyists and translators. Of course, since we have none of the Bible’s original manuscripts, it’s impossible to verify that claim. I won’t spend much time on this issue, because it would take us too far away from the topic at hand, but as I understand it, most scholars think that we’ve been able to come very close to what the original documents said. The fact that some passages were kept in popular translations for centuries even though we’ve now discovered that they weren’t original to the Bible only hurts the notion of inspiration, in my view. After all, what good are perfect originals if we don’t have access to them? But in the end, copyist errors can’t account for all the difficulties in the Bible, so I don’t feel it’s worth going into any further at this point.

Long Story Short
To me, whether or not the Bible should be inerrant is actually very simple. If someone tells me a story that involves breaking the laws of nature (miracles, in other words), I want to know I can trust that person completely before I accept his story. I need evidence, in other words, and the Bible seems to think that’s a reasonable standard. When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, he turned Moses’ staff into a serpent, then withered and restored Moses’ hand in order to prove that he really was God. When God called Gideon to deliver the Israelites from Midian, he gave at least 3 different signs in order to prove who he was (Judges 6). John 20:30-31 tells us that Jesus performed his miracles, and they were recorded, so that people might believe:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

And the author of Acts pointed out that the Bereans were noble because they consulted scriptures to test the message Paul was bringing them (Acts 17:11).

Even the Bible itself demonstrates the importance and necessity of evidence. As Jesus told Nicodemus, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” That’s absolutely right. If the Bible can’t tell mundane things accurately, why should we believe all of its amazing things? Christians believe that God spoke from the top of Mount Sinai, that he walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve. He sent fire from Heaven to consume Elijah’s sacrifice on Mount Carmel, and he parted the Red Sea to deliver the Israelites. He leveled the walls of Jericho for Joshua’s army, and he caused Samson to kill 1000 Philistines with a donkey’s jawbone. His son walked on water, healed the sick, and defeated death. He spoke to his prophets and wrought amazing miracles through them. But now he communicates with us through a book? That’s how he chooses to communicate with us today? Either it’s just a
fable, or that book must have some amazing evidence. If God were going to send us a written message, if he were perfect, and if this message was so important that it decided the eternal fate for each of us, then that book must stand out in some way. At the very least, it should be utterly flawless. Anything less would run completely counter to every claim that’s been made about this god.

Why does Biblical Inerrancy matter (to me)?

The Scripture at the heart of this debate is 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

^“16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ¹⁷ so that the servant [man] of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

This is the scripture most evangelicals will refer to describe the inspiration and inerrancy of scriptures.  Heck, I can’t think of any Bible Believing Christians who believes contrary to this.  In fact, this has been a fundamental cornerstone of belief for most protestant Christians.  (Even Mine)

It seems common knowledge to assume divine inspiration of the bible is also to imply divine authority.  For a Christian, belief in Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of the God of the bible.  And the doctrine of divine authority and divine inspiration calls for the infallible teaching of God and therefore also requires full agreement.  And every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore unquestionably and respectfully promotes the idealism of the infallibility and inerrancy, not just of the bible, but also of God.

So, Why is Inerrancy or Errancy important to me?

The majority of protestant denominations attests and affirms biblical inerrancy, so does the one I have been raised in the faith in.  The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is an extremely important one because the issue reflects on the character of God and is foundational to our understanding of everything the Bible teaches. Here are some partial reasons why we should absolutely believe in biblical inerrancy as presented by {http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-inerrancy.html  }:

1. The Bible itself claims to be perfect. “And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6). “The law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). “Every word of God is pure” (Proverbs 30:5 KJV). These claims of purity and perfection are absolute statements. Note that it doesn’t say God’s Word is “mostly” pure or scripture is “nearly” perfect,…, leaving no room for “partial perfection” theories.

2. The Bible stands or falls as a whole. If a major newspaper were routinely discovered to contain errors, it would be quickly discredited. It would make no difference to say, “All the errors are confined to page three.” For a paper to be reliable in any of its parts, it must be factual throughout. In the same way, if the Bible is inaccurate when it speaks of geology, why should its theology be trusted? It is either a trustworthy document, or it is not.

3. The Bible is a reflection of its Author. All books are. The Bible was written by God Himself as He worked through human authors in a process called “inspiration.” “All scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16). See also 2 Peter 1:21 and Jeremiah 1:2.

4. The Bible’s message must be taken as a whole. It is not a mixture of doctrine that we are free to select from. Many people like the verses that say God loves them, but they dislike the verses that say God will judge sinners. But we simply cannot pick and choose what we like about the Bible and throw the rest away. If the Bible is wrong about hell, for example, then who is to say it is right about heaven—or about anything else? If the Bible cannot get the details right about creation, then maybe the details about salvation cannot be trusted either. If the story of Jonah is a myth, then perhaps so is the story of Jesus. On the contrary, God has said what He has said, and the Bible presents us a full picture of who God is. “Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89).

5. The Bible is our only rule for faith and practice. If it is not reliable, then on what do we base our beliefs?

“Inerrancy is not the center of belief.”- William Lane Craig

After doing much reading and research, I feel like I got the impression, I am making too much of a big deal out of this Errancy-Inerrancy issue.  It seems like a large portion of Christian scholars confess and believe that the scriptures are with flaws and errancy.  This is mind-blowing to me, because I thought belief in a perfect God and perfect bible go hand-in-hand.  That you couldn’t have one without the other.  But it seems to that many Christian scholars don’t perceive it that way.  Even world-renowned Christian Apologist William Lane Craig, says that inerrancy is not a fundamental belief for a believer and that Christians should not get too caught up in the doctrine of inerrancy.  And that we should not lose faith, because a person thinks the bible has a few errors.  In fact, he even implies that the bible difficulties are more because we have a lack of understanding of inerrancy, and may have too radical of an approach on biblical inerrancy.  You can listen Dr. William Lane Craig here talk about biblical inerrancy.  Even the famous, C.S. Lewis didn’t believe in the inerrancy of the bible.  —Now whether they are implying the autobiographical text, I don’t know.  But holistically and contextually speaking they still affirm that the scriptures and the bible is errant, yet they still hold to their Christian faith.  According to Jonathon Dodson “Does your Bible contain errors? Yes. Does that mean Scripture is inerrant? No.”  But that seems to defy logic, common sense, and the definition of inerrancy. Is it me, or does that just seem off?

What is Inerrancy?

I guess the greater question is when talking about biblical inerrancy; —first & foremost what exactly is inerrancy?  Well, when you have discussions, on inerrancy it’s always good to start out by defining the term.  But that’s actually where the problem starts.  There is no one clear definition or interpretation on what biblical inerrancy is.  -Now to set the story straight, this does not imply Biblical literalism, which does not take into account textual criticism and grammatical error.  When we say that the Bible is the Word of God, does that imply that it is completely accurate, or does it contains insignificant inaccuracies in details of history and science or that it is perfect and inerrant without contextual or grammatical flaws?

What others say about the Bible & Inerrancy?

Here are some quotes about Inerrancy and what some of the so-called experts describe and define it as?

• ·         “The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.’ (Charles C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy, p. 16).

 

• ·         “By this word we mean that the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.” -(E. J. Young, in his classic work on the inspiration of the Bible, gives us good definition of inerrancy)

 

•  ·         ”The word inerrancy means “freedom from error or untruths.” Synonyms include “certainty, assuredness, objective certainty, infallibility.”  -(J. Hampton Keathlye III)

 

• ·         “Inerrancy.  Inerrancy does not mean everything in the Bible is literally true.  It does not mean everything in the bible is true.  But that everything the Bible teaches and affirms is true.”  -(William Lane Craig, Biblical Inerrancy Podcast on ReasonableFaith.com)

 

• ·         “The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective. -(Harold Lindsell, 1978)

 

• ·         ”Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.” -(Chicago Statement of Inerrancy)

 

• ·     http://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/what-is-inerrancy-via-the-good-news/ 

 Many people also describe calling the Bible inerrant as saying Biblical inerrancy is about truthfulness and honesty not precision and accuracy.  Which borders more on biblical infallibility then inerrancy.  John Some consider this to be a lesser definition of inerrancy.  ”‘Inerrant’ means there are no errors; ‘Infallible’ means there can be no errors.”  (John Frame, 2002).  Frame does allude that modern theologians insist on redefining what inerrancy is so that it actually says less than ‘inerrancy’. Now when it comes to the premise of biblical inerrancy, a good starting point is the  Chicago Statement of Inerrancy.   Here is sample, but vital part of the statement: 

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.      

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in its Chicago statement affirmed inerrancy in a brief statement that the “Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching.…” In 1978, a large gathering of American Protestant churches, including representatives of the Conservative, Reformed and Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Baptist denominations, adopted the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  Then further explained inerrancy in detail and clarity in the rest of the statement.  In addition, according to this statement, only the original manuscripts are absolutely inerrant cause they are inspired and ‘god-breathed.’  Christians, who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, often reference this statement of belief by saying that only the original autographs (the original writings by the original authors) are, strictly speaking, without error.  But the process of transmission, however imperfect, is reliable enough to “faithfully represent the original,” such that no “essential element of the Christian faith” is compromised by the lack of original biblical wording.  And the majority of Christian theologians, philosophers, and scholars believe this and hold to this.  Click here to listen to John Dodson give a message on the subject.  However agnostic Bart Ehrman’s has an objection to this standard of inerrancy: “What good does it do to say that the words are inspired (or inerrant) by God if most people have absolutely no access to these words?” 

Now, when I think of inerrancy, I think of Occam’s Razor approach and I assume the most simple and elegant definition of inerrancy…..NO ERRORS.   “The theological basis of the belief of inerrancy, in its simplest form, is that as God is perfect, the Bible, as the word of God, must also be perfect, thus, free from error.” (New World Encyclopedia: Biblical Inerrancy)  In addition to that, I think some of the larger questions are:  Is inerrancy essential?  Is inerrancy biblical?  Is it right to believe in biblical inerrancy?  Am I interpreting inerrancy correctly? 

Christian Doubt

How can we overcome the dark thoughts and feelings threatening to overwhelm our trust?  This is a three part series on dealing with doubt (part 1, part 2, part 3). This is a post I found on the site CHRISTIAN DOUBT, but I slightly altered it and added some stuff to it:

• Dealing with Doubt Overview
• Dealing with Doubt the PDF the complete series
• Eight Points of Encouragement for Those Who Are Doubting Their Faith
• Dealing with the Doubt of God not being there when you want him
• How to overcome Doubt
• Dealing With Doubt, finding the anchor
• William Lane Craig on Christian Doubt (Video or Q & A Post)
• Is Doubt a Healthy part of Christian living?
• The Thomas Factor: Using your doubts to draw closer to God
• Doubt by Tim Davis
• etc…

Below is the current list of Authors who contributed articles about Christian Doubt:

• Darrell Bock
• Paul Copan
• Mike Licona
• Gary Habermas

According to George Hitzata Christian Doubt can be categorized into three sections: Intellectual Doubts, Doubts of Imagination and Sin, and Emotional & Experiential Doubts.  With each one affecting our Christianity and Faith differently.  C. Michael Patton explains the three forms of Christian Doubt in his own words and how to overcome them:

For those who are struggling with intellectual doubts:

Focus attention only on the issues that make or break the core essence of Christianity such as the resurrection of Christ and the existence of God. Don’t spend time on more ancillary issues such as creation/evolution, the world-wide flood, or the perfect harmony of the individual authors’ truth claims. These, either way you go with them, do not effect the essence of the Gospel message. If Christ rose from the grave as an historical reality, then all else, though they may shake, crack, or crumble, do not have the sting of apostasy on board.

For those who are struggling with emotional doubt

Remember that our emotions do not have a determinative vote in truth. We must be willing to trust God even when the truth claims we are asked to believe seem to militate against our moral compass. Remember that God gave us our emotional dispositions and he knows the struggles we have, yet he tells us that he loves everyone more than we do and knows what he is doing. In this sense, he holds out his hand and says “Trust me. I know you would do things different, but just trust me.”

For those struggling with experiential doubt

Remember that the lot life hands us will often be filled with experiences that differ from the experiences we would bring about were we in control of the world. Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible does not guarantee anything but suffering, pain, and perplexity as we attempt to live for God. This is why so much of the Bible points our thoughts to the unseen future that God has promised. Often times we “punt to the eschaton” not as a cop-out, but because in it is our true hope where tears will be no more.

This is going to be my last post on Christian Doubt and dealing with Christian Doubt.  I’ve decided to do more of collection of resources on Christian Doubt in this posing because it will be my final post on this specific topic.  However I am considering opening up blog variety to include such things as the philosophy of God and Morality in the Bible.  I think it’s time I open up the discussion and take it too a new level.  in the grand scheme of things, learning about Christian Doubt is irrelevant in to the BIG question:

Is the Bible Inerrant or Errant?  And if found errant how do we as Christians handle that?  Do we accept them, or ignore them , or justify them, or explain them?

Twelve Questions People Ask About the Christian Faith

This is an article I found while researching on the reliabity of the bible.  I thought I would re-post it, cause I though it was interesting.  I thought it was interesting cause it goes into many of the same questions believers and non-believers both have on Christianity and the Faith.  (Wheather you find the answers sufficient, thats for you to decide.) 

Twelve Questions People Ask About the Christian Faith By Pat McLeod

When it comes to God and Christianity do you have questions? Nearly everyone does–believers and unbelievers alike. Have you ever wished for a concise, understandable response that will satisfy both the mind and the heart?

It is amazing how many times people ask questions that they think no one else has asked and certainly no one has ever answered.

Here you will find the twelve questions most often asked about the Christian faith, and responses to each of them. There are three levels of answers: the return question (which helps get to the heart of the issue), a one-minute response (which is about all the time one has when discussing these questions with others) and, finally, a prolonged response (often with suggested sources if you want to go deeper on that issue).

It is foolish to assume that everything we believe is true. Here are some things to consider when your beliefs are called into question:

1. Clearly identify the belief you hold that is being called into question and the arguments for that belief.
2. Clearly identify the belief that is being offered in its place and the arguments for it.
3. Treat the belief you hold as innocent until proven guilty. Treat it like a relative in good standing that has been accused of a felony. Continue to act upon your belief until it is proven guilty. Make sure you consult with a good counselor.
4. Before amending the inner constitution of your belief system, first share the proposed amendment with several people you know who hold the belief that you are giving up, and give them a chance to rebut the arguments.
5. Pray for God to give you clarity of thought so that you can be courageous and loving.

The Questions:

1. How do you know there is a God?
2. How can there be a God when there is so much evil and suffering in the world?
3. How can you reconcile belief in God with science and especially evolution?
4. How can you trust the bible? -(The following below)
5. What about all the hypocrites in the church?
6. How do you reconcile God’s sovereignty with man’s freedom?
7. How can a loving God send people to Hell?
8. How can any rational person believe in the Trinity?
9. How do Christians get off saying their religion is the only one? 
10. Don’t all religions lead to the same God?
11. What about those who have never heard?
12. Isn’t everything relative?

How can you trust the Bible?

Question in Response:

Are you aware of any known factual inaccuracies or contradictions?

Have you looked into the evidence (archaeological, bibliographic, historical) that supports the reliability of the Bible?

Where did the people come from after Adam and Eve? Where did Cain find his wife?

Bible Difficulty #7

I know…I know, this is a common one and relatively old & simplistic contradiction, but none the less still a MAJOR GAPING HOLE.  But lets see if we can put this one to rest.

The reason I bring this one back up, is even though I have heard this question a lot from non-believers and just curious youth from church.  I have to be honest,nobody has ever really answered the question, and for those that do -the answer made absolutely no sense.  So I think this would be a great time to research the apologetic s on this common question.  (To see if I can find a reasonable answer/solution.)

Genesis 4:16-17

 ¹⁶ So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. ¹⁷ Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

So the obvious question, where in the world did Cain’s Wife come from?

From doing a little research, I have found two running theories.

Scriptural Difficulties

I think after some time, I realized I may have been too presumptuous in some of my post topics.  Instead of taking these questionable scriptures as bible contradictions, I should stay neutral as much as possible.  I should not automatically presume it is a biblical contradiction and calling them alleged bible contradictions maybe too forward in my presupposition.  Being too forward in presupposing that some of the topics I post about might be an alleged contradiction; -it hurts the initial purpose of why I started this blog.  It hurts in the search for objective truth.  {Initial presuppositions & presumptions hinders the search for truth and clarity.}

“Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth.” -Blaise Pascal

I think I may have initially approached the idea of a Bible Contradiction wrong.  Instead of it being a contradiction, maybe they were just misunderstood propositions in scriptures.  I like the way Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (C.A.R.M.) approaches the issue.  Instead of calling them Biblical contradictions, they call them Biblical Difficulties or Scriptural Difficulties.  I think this would do more Justice to the Cause.

And that is what this is all about Truth, Clarity and Reasonable Faith.   And the search for Objective Truth.

What would a Historical Approach to the Proof of the N.T. Bible & Jesus Possibly Look Like…

What would a Historical/Scientific Approach to the Bible & Jesus Possibly Look Like…It asserts that we start by treating the bible as a normal ancient historical text.  (Instead as the inspired Word of God.)  I saw this on a random blog, and it had some decent ideas for approaching the historical N.T. Bible & Jesus, but it seemed to me it need more for it seemed to be missing some gaps in logic it to have any creditably, so I added & revised to points 3,4, and 5.

1. Start by treating the New Testament as a normal historical document – to be tested and evaluated.

2. The secular Historians have done this and found we can know quite a bit about the historical Jesus and his life – see Jesus in history.

3. On this basis, we can consider what we conclude about Jesus indeed and definitly did exist.  As can affirmed by the well respected agnostic Dr. Bart Ehrman.    

4.  In addition they must also evaluate the historiography of the Gospels and if they are reliable and trustworthy.

*In comparison to other ancient text such as the Iliad or the Odyssey, they hold a strong sense of reliability.

5. Next is for the Historian to evaluate all the options and possibilities for the historical Jesus.  There are five very reasonalbe possible theories: Christianity, Hallucination, Myth, Conspiracy and Swoon.

1	Jesus died	Jesus rose	Christianity
2	Jesus died	Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceived	Hallucination
3	Jesus died	Jesus didn’t rise—apostles myth-makers	Myth
4	Jesus died	Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceivers	Conspiracy
5	Jesus didn’t die		Swoon

6. Once we draw all the options, it is reasonable to conclude that a God, having sent Jesus, will give us information about him. —So one can reasonably assume the Original Autobiographical New Testament as holding inspired truth for Biblical Jesus.  – and using only what secular scholars consider to be well-based, we can also reasonably assume that Jesus was divine – see Jesus – son of God.  (And who he said he was.)  Which would inadvertently also prove the Deity of Jesus as the Christ and his death & resurrection.  

When we say that the Bible is the Word of God, What does that really mean?

When we say that the Bible is the Word of God, does that imply that it is completely accurate, or does it contain insignificant inaccuracies in details of history and science?

By: Dr John Bechtle

Some theologians teach that the Bible is inspired and authoritative, and that it is an accurate revelation of what God wants us to know about salvation—but they leave room for minor errors in non-crucial areas. One theologian, for instance, says that the Holy Spirit’s work in inspiring the Bible only guaranteed “selectivity of events and accuracy of reporting and interpretation sufficient to achieve God’s purpose throughout the rest of man’s existence” (Dewey Beegle, Inspiration of Scripture, p. 190).

However, classic Christianity rests on the assurance that the Bible is completely accurate. It may contain statements that are (1) figures of speech, (2) non-technical descriptions, or (3) difficult to understand. But actual errors would fall into a different kind of category. If there are any errors in Scripture, no matter how small, the book can no longer be our standard of truth. I become the standard of truth, as I determine which Bible statements are right and which are wrong. And if I can’t trust God to get the facts straight on things like dates and measurements (where I can check on Him), why should I expect Him to be more accurate in areas likesin and salvation (where I can’t check on Him)?

The Bible doesn’t use the word “inerrant,” but the idea is obvious.

• Psalm 19:7-9—“The law of the Lord is perfect… the testimony of the Lord is sure… the commandment of the Lord is pure… thejudgments of the Lord are true forever.”
• Psalm 119:43—“the word of truth.”
• Psalm 119:142—“Thy law is the truth.”
• Psalm 119:160—“Thy word is true from the beginning.”
• John 17:17—“Thy word is truth.”

An inaccurate Bible contradicts God’s character quality of absolute truthfulness.

• Titus 1:2—“God who cannot lie.”
• Hebrews 6:18—“It is impossible for God to lie.”

Some consider this a minor issue, but the idea that the Bible contains errors opens the door to serious spiritual danger. When people decide they have the authority to label one verse as a mistake, they soon find others that they consign to the “error” category. I’ve watched it happen over the years. Each generation rejects more and more Scripture, as it gets in the way of their own opinions.

Author: Dr. John Bechtle

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t001.html

Why the Bible? Why Christianity?

This is Ravi Zacharias on why Christianity is the true religion.  And what make Christianity and the Bible unique over all the other world religions.

And these are some of the same things I have said to people on why they should believe Christianity over any other God or Religion.

Check this Out

I have two new pages with the Best Collection of Apologetic-Christian resources and the Best Collection of Atheist & Skeptics resources I could find.  Check it out.  These are just some of the tools, websites, and blogs I use.  Hope you enjoy!!!

Why are the Gospels written in THIRD Person?

Contradiction #6

Well this is not much of a scriptural contradiction; it’s more of a logical contradiction. When going through the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, I noticed that they are all written in third person. That was interesting, cause I always thought that the gospels were written by the disciples and first hand eyewitnesses from their own personal perspective. Traditional Christianity claim that the Gospels were written by two of Jesus’ twelve disciples (Matthew & John), a man who closely followed the memoirs of Peter the Apostle/Disciple (Mark), and a fourth who carefully interviewed eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life(Luke). So taking all this into consideration Matthew & John should have definitely been written in first person. And Luke & Mark probably should have shown some slight tendencies to both third and first person. Yeah, I know many of them were written decades after Christ Death. But the perspective of who it wrote should not change. Even if the Gospels were just copies of the disciple who wrote it, then they should still remain in first person. Either way we look at it, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John are to be considered eyewitness and should have been written from a first-person perspective. After all, any story that is telling of oneself in it (even if it is a copy), should have accounts or traces of being written with first person tendencies scattered throughout the text.

“If they[gospels] were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated.” (C.A.R.M.)

Well this should be true, and easily verifiable, except for their authorship is neither easily verifiable nor substantiated. Now the more I think about the issue; the more I think of it as a common sense contradiction verse a biblical contradiction. Yes, it’s a contradiction of common sense for an eyewitness account of something to be written in third person.

I could not find any scholarly apologetic answers to this question. It’s odd that the Christian Apologist hasn’t even attempted to answer this question. But here are some answers I found on various blog posts and some yahoo Question/Answer. Which can really be categorized into Two sections: God inspired the Bible & Writing Style of the time.

God Inspired The Bible

• It is God’s Word because He inspired the writers to write what He wanted written – not because He personally took a pen and physically wrote it.
• Those who wrote the Bible were inspired by God. They wrote his thoughts, not their own.
• This is a common question with two relatively easy answers. 1. God did not sit down at his desk, sharpen up a pencil and get to work. He used human authors to convey his message. It is similar to an architect building a structure, he may not lay a single brick with his own hands, but they are all where he intends them to be. 2. Using third person narrative, even switching between first and third, was a common writing style of the Hebrews of that time. A good example of this is Acts of the Apostles, the whole thing was written by one man (St. Luke) but the narrative changes from first to third.

Writing Style of the Time

• They are narrating a story or event for the reader. Like a reporter would narrate or articulate for the public, the scene of a crime.
• That was the writing style at the time.
• The Bible isn’t an autobiography; much of it is history. If you were writing a history book, even about yourself, you would not write it in the first person; you would write it in the third person.

Now if the reason why the Gospels are written in third person is because God inspired them to write that way, that really does raises some eyebrows. Because there are no modern scholars who write that way or when people give testimony about the thing God has done for them, how come the average person doesn’t tell the story in third person? Even if this was true, how come the Gospels of Luke and John were inspired in third person; but God didn’t inspire Luke to write the Acts of Apostles fully in third person. -And how come God didn’t inspire John to write his three epistles in third person. Well if the answer to that is God designed it that way, then one can imply God inconsistent in his writing style. And the idea of writing in third person was the writing in ancient history is just straight absurd. We don’t need to look any farther than the bible to see that other parts of the bible are written in first person. Even the other works by Luke- Acts of the Apostles and John- 1, 2, & 3 John are all written in first person. So this can’t be it.

Now the two following points were the closest thing I could find to a scholarly answer. The first was posted on a Yahoo Question/Answer.

1. “According to professors of ancient literature, the Gospels are written just the way they should be for the time. We have a problem because we are used to everything RIGHT NOW!! It didn’t work that way back then. Plus, it speaks more in volume when you look at the changed lives of the Gospel writers. Jesus did not need to change. He was perfect. We have hope when we compare ourselves to the Apostles. Look what happened to them? We can and should expect the same when we place our lives in Jesus’ hands.” (Reference Yahoo Question) Now it’s hard to take this answer serious, because there are no citations to where this source comes from. The answer is very bland and lastly, it doesn’t provide the name or school of the professor.

2. Now according to other sources, the reason why the Gospels are written in third person is because they were never (originally) written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They were just randomly assigned the names because so many Jesus stories were in circular; that early Christians randomly assigned these names to help distinguish each of the gospels apart. This explanation of why the Gospels are written in third person, -then one can only assume that NOBODY truly knows who wrote Gospels and that we have absolutely eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. http://www.facingthechallenge.org/gospels.php

So now the Question remains, Can the Gospels still be considered reliable and trustworthy if we know that they are not eyewitness accounts?

Mitch Jaeger Answers Yes, that we should still trust the Gospels even though they are written in the Third Person

or
A Hard case of why not to trust the gospels by Diogenes the Cynic with replies by John McClymont

Dealing with the Reasonable vs. the Possible

What is the difference between “possible” and “reasonable”? Why does it matter? How can mastery of this distinction help us to think clearly before we begin to examine the case for the Christian Worldview?

When dealing with the reasonable & the possible, one must make a clear distinction between the too when searching for answers.  Yes, when I got through the alleged bible contradiction and biblical difficulties, I try to go through all possible answers to my question, but the answer still must be reasonable.  I could go even farther and look for every possible answer, but I only need to look for the reasonable answer….whatever that might be.  Anything is possible, but not everything is reasonable.

Believing in an inerrant Bible is about a reasonable trust in God.  This is a search for a reasonable truth!