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

well, yes. you're never going to get EVERYONE to agree. that's just a simple fact of humanity.but the vast majority of churches use basically the same new testament.

But the only way that you can judge how well they conform to it is by comparing them to what you think "it" is based on your senses.

I know this was in response to Crashfrog's argument about judging authority against reality but wouldn't your response mean that the Bible's authority is beyond our ability to prove?Here is what I've gathered from the responses. Please correct this argument if it's not what you're trying to get at:1) We judge reality via our perceptions
2) Our perceptions only reveal part of reality
3) An absolute authority reflects the whole of reality
4) Thus we're never able to completely judge how well an absolute authority conforms to realityIf a document(the Bible for example) is an presented as an absolute authority and we can never prove it's absoluteness how can we ever be sure it's really an absolute authority?thanx
PM1K

Yes. And the only way to eliminate the possibility that I'm hallucinating, or whatever, is to get as many people as possible to make the same observation and report their results, too.Hence, the scientific method. Which we use to determine that the Bible is not universally inerrant, and therefore, no authority at all.

Well, this argument started because someone at the beginning of this thread explained how referring to what the Bible says about itself as proof for its authority is circular reasoning, which is correct buy the definition of circular reasoning. My original post was simply showing that if, in fact, the Bible is absolutely authoritative, the first place that we would have to look is at what the Bible says about itself. By judging whether it is true or not by some sort of outside evidence is making that evidence an authority over scripture. I was not suggesting whether scripture is inspired or not, but if it is, we can look at what it says about itself and circular reasoning is a good thing.The tangent came when someone said that this could refer to any 'religion' and I said that it also works with science. Most scientists belive (as Crashfrog has been driving at) that we distinguish what reality is through our sensory perception, which is fine to a point (because it is possible for the senses to be fooled) it just makes sensory perception out to be our absolute authority in determining reality.As for Crashfrog's post about the Scientific Method, thanks. I knew where you were going, I personally think that there might be some flaws in the way that the "scientific method" is applied, but I am in no position to argue such a thing with someone like you.

I don't see why that is true at all. You seem to have this hang-up where the only way you know something is true is if an authority tells you it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE:
< !--UB -->< !--UE-->Matthew 5:37 (Jesus speaking)

​

Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.< !--UB -->< !--UE-->

​

This verse means that we are not to say 'yes' if we mean 'no' and not to say 'no' if we mean 'yes'.

---

actually that verse is saying not to make vows or to swear
(to something). because this would make your ordinary truth-telling look less truthful. thus our lawbooks have a different affirmation for quakers to use in court (since they're the only ones who actually listen to this verse correctly). read the verse before it. you're taking it out of context.

it can only be non-biblical. even paul who proclaims that the bible is god-breathed says to ignore (and not argue about) geneologies because they just cause problems and don't get anyone anywhere. this can only mean that he knew they didn't line up right (ask arach about this one) and that arguing about them would cause needless strife in the church. thus even paul recognized that the bible isn't perfect and wholly historical. but that's okay because IT ISN'T THE POINT. the point is a parable to explain to us about who god is... but then everyone has read that part wrongly too. yeah it may have bits that are historically accurate but the whole thing isn't.

who says he doesn't audibly speak today? you just aren't listening right.the point is if someone said they heard something from god, you'd think they were crazy and blow them off anyways. it doesn't matter.

adam was last... unless you count rain and the rainbow.

Hi brennakimi,I also didn't count the Sabbath even though I was taught that on the seventh day God created a day of rest. I guess it doesn't seem a lot like work to me when the big guy says, "OK, Time Out."I find it interesting that the clergy (Hebrew priests) worked more on the sabbath than on any other day of the week. The higher the sabbath (passover, new moon, etc) the more slaughtering ang building of fires; even though the commandments include a prohibition against building fires on sabbath.In the same vein: Prophets were executioners. Kings raped, pillaged, & plundered. And priests created graven images.Seems to me the commandments were for the little people. db

yeah... none of it really makes sense. the later ten commandments were just copied from hammurabi. there was a first ten with would have actually set the jews apart.

well, the other babylonian influences are rather apparent. why does this one bother you?

it doesn't. i think i should have put a blank line in there somewhere.the 'it doesn't make sense' was to the 'don't kill unless i say so' i replied to.

oic.