Biblical Statements About Infallibility/Inerrancy (A Theology / No Science Topic)

quote:

---

Mankind condemned by Mosaic Law by its impossible requirements and punishment of death for sin. This Old Covenant promised eternal life to anyone who kept it perfectly - no one ever did - obviously.

---

You made this statement before in an old thread concerning the Old and New Covenant, but you didn't provide the verse(s) in the OT that support this claim.Where in the OT does the Mosaic Covenant promise eternal life to anyone who kept it perfectly?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 are both places that the Bible claims to be infallable (or breathed out by God, who cannot lie).I'd like to make a proposition and see what kind of replies it gets, because when talking about this issue the idea of circular reasoning comes up (I saw it mentioned earler, but I didn't take the time to fully read through all of the replies to see if it was dealth with).If the Bible is the Word of God, the absolutely authoritative work given to us by the Creator of the universe, who doesn't audibly speak today, then we can view the Bible as absolute authority. If something is absolute in its authority, then the only way this can be established is by the things that this authority claims about itself. If we were to rely on any other argument for the reliability of scripture, anything at other than what scripture says, we would be making that argument or the source of that information out to be in a place of authority over the Bible, because we are relying on what that says to verify the claims of the Bible. Therefore, in order for an authority to be absolute, we have to rely on what it says about itself.The rest really comes by faith. Any view of the origins of life and the universe involves some kind if inductive reasoning, even those that claim to be truly scientific and provable cannot be 100% sure because nobody was there to see it (besides God and Adam of course).

double postThis message has been edited by winston123180, 11-09-2004 11:44 PM

Okay. You've done a good job of summing up the nature of all revealed religions. That is how they work. You get indoctrinated at somepoint into one of them either by birth or conversion and you believe they are true tautologically because you believe they are true. Such is the nature of religious authority.lfen

Yes, it would definately apply to any religious authority, even science.

We don't have to rely on what a scientist says about his work. There is peer review and the methodology can be examined and critiqued. Experiements can be run again to see if they can be replicated.Science is not about revelation or religious authority, the contents of science is available for scrutiny. There is no evidence that Moses ever existed or the events on Mt. Sinai ever took place, for example, but there is evidence for the claims made by science.Also no one goes to hell if they don't believe in science. Not only that but gravity, electricity, sun all keep working for them believe what they may.lfen

Right, and not all religions involve a hell, or a deity for that matter. The word in its most basic sense is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe (or lack thereof of course). Everyone has to call on something as an absolute authority, whether it be a deity or sensory perception. Just as someone might accuse me of having opinions based on the fact that I believe in the God of the Bible, I would submit that there are quite a few scientists that interperet the 'evidence' of their experiments with the presupposition that science is the final means of truth (evolution, etc.) and it just needs to be proven.

quote:

---

If the Bible is the Word of God, the absolutely authoritative work given to us by the Creator of the universe, who doesn't audibly speak today, then we can view the Bible as absolute authority.

---

Thats right. And that is why ANY contradiction between this absolute authority and actual reality destroyes the claim to be an authority, absolute or otherwise.God clearly failed to understand the age of the world, according to the bible. The bible is thus demonstratedas false on its own terms.

quote:

---

Just as someone might accuse me of having opinions based on the fact that I believe in the God of the Bible, I would submit that there are quite a few scientists that interperet the 'evidence' of their experiments with the presupposition that science is the final means of truth (evolution, etc.) and it just needs to be proven.

---

Thats illogical gibberish. You're saying scientists interpert the evidence of their experiments on the presumption that science is a means of truth. Isn't that obvious? Would you expect a scientist who thought that indfependant verificaiton and peer review were sound data-gathering strategies to instead actual perform a ouija board reading when they wanted to study something?All you are doing is accusing sacientists of having a different opinion from yours, which is self evident. What you have not explained is why your opinion should be taken seriously, that is, why you appear to believe that peer review and independant verification are BAD strategies for finding truth, and why reading some ancient text is a good one.

Sounds right to me. Problem is, unless one can read the ORIGINAL draft of the script, as it was put down so many centuries, yeah millennia, ago; then one must rely on the veracity of other men, most of whom were Jews or Catholics (for better or worse) ruled by tyrants with a sword in one hand and a Bible in the other. Their word was truth because they said so. If you questioned it, you could lose your life.Absolute authority is not mysterious. There have been countless tyrants, great and small, who, like the LORD have been willing to say, "Do it my way, or DIE." We don't need the Bible to remind us how dangerous and deceitful men become when they are given, or assume, "godly power." Adam was the last creation. If he saw anything at all, he's not talking.As for God ... Well, ... He's not talking either. (That is what you said isn't it?)db

No, it can never be established on the word of the authority alone. There are two possibilities: a supposed absolute authority ("AA") is indeed a real absolute authority (AA), or it isn't. In both cases the "AA" says of itself it is an AA. In one case we are justified in believing the AA's claim about itself, in the other we are not. But, without outside knowledge, we have no way of knowing which case we are dealing with, because they are indistinguishable.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Thanks for the post Winston!

quote:

---

2 Timothy 3:14 - 17
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

---

Which scripture is the author talking about here? Just the scripture before 2 Timothy was written?Also can we focus on "inspiration of God". Inspiration seems a far cry from direct infallible dictation.

quote:

---

2 Peter 1:17-21
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

---

These verses speak of prophecy only. As not all scripture is prophecy how do we logically connect non-prophecy?Curiously
PM1K

Quikly before I have to go to workYou can not rely on outside evidence to justify an absolute authority. Period. If your judgment of an authority is based on any other 'evidence' you are making that evidence an authority over the previous authority simply because you are basing the reliability of the first authority on the testimony of the second. This is not saying that the Bible is true or isn't true, but if it is true, the basis of believing that would have to start with what it says about itself. This can be supported by outside evidence, but not determined by outside evidence.Also, when God created Adam, He didn't create a zygote or two gamates that joined together, He created Adam as a man. If you were to see Adam an hour after God created him, you and your peers and any other person that you want to ask would say that he had been alive for years.

But you can't use internal evidence to justify any authority. Period. If what you say is true then there is no way to distinguish between an authority that is absolute, and an authority that is flat-out wrong.The Principle of Parsimony demands that, when presented with a purported authority that is contradicted by evidence, we conclude that authority is totally wrong, not that it is so right that even reality is wrong.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-10-2004 03:54 PM

In that case, the way that you determine 'reality' be it sense perception, etc., is what you call the absolute authority.