The Bible as the Inerrant Word of God Argument is a fallacy, and I can prove it.
Please place your seats in the full upright position and lock your tray tables, this could be a bumpy flight for those of you attached to your particular “brand” of truth.
Disclaimer: I believe that much truth resides in the Bible. I think its pages are invaluable, In do not, however, see it as a embodiment of perfect truth, nor do I need that to maintain my faith.
First, let’s make it clear what we are talking about here. There are certain sects of Christianity, by all means, not all , in fact a tiny, tiny minority, that insist that the “Bible” canonized in 66 volumes is the entire, complete and inerrant Word of God.
To do this, they use various verses from disparate texts, created over thousands of years, to create a pseudo, self-referenced definition of their book as “The Word of God” since none of these writers had any knowledge of a such a collection, or mostly, of each other (in fact, many thought they were the only followers of God on more than one occasion and gave voice to that idea inside this book’s pages) in fact, the book itself does not ask for, command, or suggest, that such a collection of texts is necessary, required, or even prudent, outside of the “Book of the Law” which is, in essence, the Hebrew Scripture.
The Bible has this to say. I’ll quote it KJV style for those old school types:
“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and
ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth
you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath
taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
In other words, for the uninitiated, as believers are instilled with the Spirit, the Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit (all three referenced in various places and translations as a person of the trinity whose job it is to “comfort” believers in the absence of Christ, after his ascension) they will be guided into all truth.
At the time that John, the brother of Jesus, wrote this verse in 1st John, 2:7, the Bible had not yet come into existence and would not, in any form, for at least 300 years. In fact, most of Paul’s letter would not have been known to believers in this era, but yet, some Christians would tell you that without this book they possess you are incapable of knowing the whole truth, and in fact, go so far as to insist a SPECIFIC version of the text is required, to keep from falling into apostasy.
If no man is needed to teach me, the book did not exist and is not even mentioned in this passage, or any other, for that matter (all references to “scripture” found in the Bible refer to the prophets and the books of the Law) then how do these “men” who “teach” through the writing of scripture supersede this statement and become “needed” in addition to the Holy Spirit?
Since “the Bible” being inerrant, inherently carries with it, that this verse is absolute truth, how can it be the infallible Word of God? Since this teacher tells us we have no need of any other thing but the spirit that resides within?
But, let’s move on from that. There are other similar passages that I won’t discuss here, but my main argument revolves around the finite mind of man.
When a man says to you, “This book that I hold in my hand, contains the inerrant, infallible Word of God, as described within its pages.” Ask him one simple question to determine if he is telling the truth. That question is this, “Has your understanding of this book ever changed?”
If the answer is "no" it is likely the man is either a liar, or has not studied the book. In the absence of either of these factors, he is a fool who doesn't think about what he reads, but accepts someone else's instruction, opposed to John's edict that the Spirit would teach believers, to the exclusion of critical thought.
If the answer is yes, his understanding is fallible, and incapable of rendering any judgment as to the books own infallibility. Until you have a perfect, accessible (human) frame of reference for understanding its message, no book can claim perfection, it simply does not stand up to logic. Period.
Here is an excellent documentary I just finished watching about how we got the Scriptures (and efforts to undermine them going on today).
Are you the same guy that already shared this with me once?
Probably not. I did see it elsewhere on this forum which is what led me to watch it myself last night. It will now be the subject of my Sunday School lecture this week.
I also plan to share it everywhere this issue comes up. It is a truly powerful explanation of the forces at work both preserving and corrupting the Scriptures. In these last days, it is very important to be able to discern which is which.
Check the sources on this. It's not a scholarly work, it's a defensive political maneuver to protect a certain set of ideals as "the only real truth". The Holy Spirit guides into the knowledge of God, not man, not man's consensus, not orthodoxy. Jesus said this, "My sheep know my voice and a stranger they will not follow." Are you following Jesus, or men?
Jesus quoted Scripture in all that he taught and told us that His words would never pass away. If you find yourself disagreeing with Scripture, you will be criticized by Jesus the same way He criticized the Jewish leaders of His day:
Okay, done playing with you. If you keep preaching condemnation at me, I'll flag every last one of your comments. So, state your opinion, bring your argument, but judge me again and we're done. Jesus and me are just fine, and when Jesus mentioned scripture, (pay attention, this is essential NONE of the NT had even been written yet), so step off your moral high horse, don't put words in Jesus mouth. Do you see that what He actuallly did here is not criticism, he says if they want to claim the law, they will be judged by the law. Since we are no longer under the law, there is now no condemnation. Good luck with that judgmentalism. Maybe he'll set you free from it some day.
How do you know that you are following Jezus and not men?
You believe that you are following him.
I obey His commands. That's what he asked. I do justice, love mercy and try to walk with humility. I work to love God with my whole heart and my neighbor as myself. He said his yoke is easy and his burden is light, so if someone wants to pile a heavy pack on your shoulders and expect you to carry that on your own (rules, extra-Biblical interpretation, judgment) then you are listening to a Pharisee, not a Christ follower.
Good for you. If you believe, you can act as such.
It all depends on the community, how long you will follow him and if you one day will realise that we all are poor people. Keep it up as long as you can, for your own happiness.
I remember from my time as a child, that I had to lie when I had to go to the confession (how many times did I do that little sin / 5 or 10 times/ who cares!). Those priests in the confession-chair must have had good times, when they see all those children practice to become good liars.
For me, as a person who studied the Holy Bible for two years, it's a very interesting post.
Looking forward to more posts from you!
Thank you, I am certainly not suggesting it's not worth studying, I grew up reading through it every year and know most of what's in it.
People don't have a conflict with religions. They want to provide something to eat, to wear, to survive. However, some people still debate if the God exists or not. I don't care. #peace between nations.
Well this was in reply to a particularly set in his ways member who basically attacked me for my statements about my own faith. Steem on!
There was no god, there is no god and there will never be a god.
We hypocrites need a god, but we will never find it.
Everyone may believe in a god, but all those religions are so human.
Religions have made us, what we are now, hypocrite fighters and more...
Also good things from religions, but no hand from god.
It's all human action.
I too am interested in why unbelievers feel the need to make such unprovably definitive statements everywhere they can. "Methinks the poster doth protest too much." as Shakespeare might say.
Since I happen to be a devout believer, I think you are the one who is missing the point. You need a magic book to confirm your faith.
I suppose it is true that everything I know about Jesus comes out of eyewitness testimonies passed down through the ages and collected in the Bible.
When it comes to any tidbit of information about Him or what He said, it either agrees with the Bible or it doesn't.
If it doesn't, I have to ask which is true - the Bible or whatever other competing source is endeavoring to contradict it.
It's really hard for me to imagine any other source of information that I would trust to override the teachings in the Bible.
I know that in the last days "false christs and false prophets will arise to deceive many people." The Bible is my primary defensive "checksum" against that.
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
That 'magic book' you speak of is God.
Yes, guilty as charged. I need God to confirm my faith.
The Bible is your God? I'm not debating the truth of John 1:1, just that it refers to the paper pages, sandwiched between leather you carry.
Well, I could dispute that from my own experience. But, out of curiosity, what do you think caused all of this to come into being?
We should say "We don't know (yet)" and we maybe never know,
Can't you live with that, do you need a god for all you don't know?
Why do we need all these mystery gods.
We know that we know almost nothing and that is also thru for god and his friends.
Believing in a super power, that has created something {in 7 days), and than doesn't care or only for those who will earn heaven.
I am sure that science now could counter a lot of the origin of our recent believes.
But that will not help us, there is no alternative, so let's go with the gods.
If we could accept our destiny (we are alone here, without a god), that would also be an act of faith.
Personal experiences can give us another view and there is nothing wrong with that.
Everyone should believe what he wants, but without all those religions, but that has no value or meaning.
sjamayee, I'm afraid your comment is lost in translation.
OK