I don't feel any need to try to prove it. It remains a fact that if God inspired the writers the writing has no errors and should be taken as God's own communication. My opinion is irrelevant, as is yours.
Funny how y'all keep missing the simple basic logic here, which is stated thusly: If the writings are inspired by God, if the people who wrote them down were inspired by God, then they are inerrant and it is not a matter of human opinion. Just fyi, the Greek word translated "inspired" in English literally means "God-breathed."
...and why did he use this preposterous method that was bound to go wrong and be disbelieved? Why not write them himself?
People ignorant of 2000 years of theology really should take the time to learn something instead of expressing such ridiculous opinions.
"Bound to go wrong?" That's ridiculous for starters. The Bible has been believed by millions for the last two millennia, and been the cause of great changes in society, even the foundation of western civilization itself out of barbarian Europe.
If some disbelieve it hardly matters. And besides we know that was part of the plan. God isn't interested in turning the entire world into believers, but in saving those who do believe out of this fallen world, to make up a chosen people, just as He did with ancient Israel. It's His way whether you like it or not. So we have believers and we have unbelievers, until He comes again.
There is enough there to make believers of millions. I forget exactly how Pascal put it, but something like this: The Bible contains enough light to guide believers, and enough obscurity to discourage unbelievers. There's no lack of light for anyone who in good faith would like to understand and believe, but if you don't or won't, so be it.
Pascal also said something about those who are always objecting to Biblical revelation: that they really ought to learn something about the religion they are criticizing before they open their mouths. Of course there are always those who have learned a great deal and use it as a cudgel too. The more the truth is attacked, however, the more it acquires believers. Funny how that is.
Bound to go wrong?" That's ridiculous for starters. The Bible has been believed by millions for the last two millennia, and been the cause of great changes in society, even the foundation of western civilization itself out of barbarian Europe.
Even after 2,000 years it's disbelieved by billions more than believe. And those that believe in it don't believe the same things. Why make it this way? Why not write it yourself? How is it possible to that the word of god is not capable of being understood equally by all?
I'm glad I can see the humor in all this lately. The cleverness of the debunkers is really very amusing.
But lemme see, how might I try to answer this? According to your reasoning the truth is to be found in the greater numbers of those who disbelieve in the Bible? Is majority opinion really the basis of truth?
Why not understood by all? Perhaps because as the Bible itself reveals, this world is fallen, our minds are corrupted, we lost touch with God through the disobedience of our original parents and have continued to be sinners ever since. The evidence of that is in the billions of disbelievers for starters. Also in the fact that the ability to believe is a gift from God, it's not in us as fallen humanity, and it's a gift based on the great sacrifice of the Son of God who died so that God could give us eternal life, which He couldn't morally or justly do until our sin debt was paid for. It would defeat the purpose of demonstrating the realities of fallenness, sin, salvation and redemption, if everyone could understand the Bible. There are many here who think they understand it but don't. All that is evidence of its truth, or will be seen to be in the end.
SO I suppose we have to have debunkers until Jesus returns, in order to demonstrate the truth of the Bible itself. To demonstrate the ugliness of sin and the costliness of atoning for it. .
But lemme see, how might I try to answer this? According to your reasoning the truth is to be found in the greater numbers of those who disbelieve in the Bible?
It was your point Chuck, not mine.
"The Bible has been believed by millions for the last two millennia"
But one imagines that the point of it was to persuade? If so it's failed. Christianity is not even a majority belief. And in the developed world it's in decline.
The point of pointing out that millions have believed was specifically to counter your notion that to have any validity it should be understandable by all. My point was that it IS understandable by plenty, by millions, even billions really in the end, and has in fact promoted great good in the world as a result. It wasn't a statement about numbers as such but a way of saying obviously it is understandable and in a way that makes a difference in the world. It isn't exactly that the "point of it was to persuade" but that it is designed to persuade exactly those whom God wants to persuade, as Pascal's comment explains.
Even its being in decline is going to demonstrate its truth in the end, especially if it's an indication that we are approaching the last of the last days, about which scripture has a lot to say.
There are many here who think they understand it but don't.
Exactly my point. Why bother leaving this vitally important story in the hands of fallible man? Why not write it himself?
I answered that. So my answer doesn't persuade you. What else is new?
It's actually done and is doing exactly what God intended it to do.
All I can do is say the same thing again: there certainly is a lot of convincing evidence or the multiple millions I mentioned earlier would not have been convinced. Other religions, by the way, don't have any evidence or require any, unless you happen to get waylaid by one of their demon deities. Christianity does rest on evidence, but the contemporary "enlightened" fallen mind rejects it. All the miracles in the Bible are evidence for starters.
Gosh, maybe it doesn't have anything to do with the question of authority because I wasn't addressing the question of authority at that point. Golly gosh. And again you are arguing the numbers, as if majority determined truth, while I am not.
I'm claiming my interpretation is true. How does that make me "infallible?" Everybody claims their view is the true one. So do you. Ever noticed how flatly assertive your one-liners are? Sounds "infallible" to me.