₦airaland Forum

I would love to address InesQor’s dismissal of the possibility that Daniel and Lao Tse got their inspirations from the same source. But that will just prolong matters here.
My opinion is that all the sacred texts in the world were written to all mankind. Thus the most dye-in-the-wool atheist can learn a tremendous lot, if he humbles himself, from the Bible, the Quran, the Verdic scriptures, The Grail Message, Ifa scripture, etc. When we read, we ought to do so without preconceived ideas, without selfish desires, without undue interference from out intellect, and with the knowledge that we are deficient in knowledge. We ought to agree with that which accords with our experiences and is approved of our spirit. Man has a limited viewpoint. That is why there are sincere people in the different faiths holding fast to the different signposts, thinking they have reached the destination. To pick any of the books mentioned above and follow everything it says based on faith is where danger may lurk.

The ability to distinguish the real from the unreal, the eternal from the transient, the good from the pleasant by discrimination and wisdom can be cultivated through prayer, will and hard work, just as scientists require demanding research and severe discipline to experience the marvel of space travel. This is the task of the human soul. In the words of a sage, “Ignorance has no beginning, but it has an end. Knowledge has a beginning, but no end.” Studying the scriptures available to mankind helps you to understand yourself better (even an atheist will gain here), appreciate your duty towards God and your fellow man, and equip you for the most difficult task in the world: the control of the mind. One who has mastered these scriptures is generous and self-controlled, truthful, and free from anger. She is modest, gentle, constant and luminous. He is kind, bear malice towards none and charity towards all. He is free from the demonic tendencies of greed, deceit and pride, because, as someone here writes on his signature, he has stopped “wanting anything”. He pursues goodness for the sake of goodness, not because judges will jail him or he might be cast into hellfire. She sings the glory of God. This is the duty of the human soul.

The usefulness of the idea that the Bible is inerrant when considered as whole is lost on me. For the whole is made up of the parts. The idea that we should ignore the words and focus on the message was never in question here. What I am questioning is the wisdom of accepting everything any book says. Focusing on the message and leaving out words and technicalities involves picking and choosing. If the message you speak of is “Jesus died to save you”, I am not qualified to refute that. And it is your prerogative to believe it. And the Bible is not being vilified for not being scientifically sound – I think it only becomes open that sort of talk when it is zealously held up as being scientifically sound, which it is in many respects. This forum is about debating religious issues and what I am about here is whether or not the Bible is infallible. And that is talking about everything in the Bible. For to reach that so deliciously meaty message we have to wade the through this wilderness of words. This has led some to employ all that lawless science of scholarship and the tiresome methods of “proof”.

It has been admitted that (1) there may be books out there which were inspired by the Holy Spirit which are not included in the current text we have as the Bible (2) Even if the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, we do not know whether or not insertions were made by men not borne by the Holy Spirit but with impure motives. That is, it is entirely possible, that the Holy Spirit inspired 200 books. When the Council sat, it picked 50 of these and included them in the Bible. Following from which, the Bible would contain 50 inspired books and 16 uninspired ones, while there are 150 inspired books out there (which, on coming across, InesQor will buy on the condition that they agree with the 66 he already has!). It follows from the above that Biblical infallibility or inerrancy is at worse, a myth. And should we work with the assumption that no one knows for certain, it is at best, a speculation to be treated with caution. This is the crux of the matter.

I have learnt a great deal about the Bible here and considered issues I had previously not. Thanks JeSoul, Krayola, InesQor, PastorAIO, chukwudi44, nuclearboy, mazaje, imhotep, and the others.

I am certainly not qualified to question an individual’s faith or any of the assertions about the Holy Spirit inspiring the Bible or helping anyone to understand it. While my personal observation is that talks of Holy Spirit said this Holy Spirit did that are all in your head, I do not know enough to dismiss the possibility, altogether, that there is a Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible and also explains it to you. What I do know is that folks I know who say God speaks to them always relate what it is they wanted to hear, or what those whom God does not speak to, would have figured out in seconds on their own. I am also aware that my level of disagreement on Bible points with Christian A is often about the same as that between Christian B and Christian C. Now, I am one of those the Holy Spirit has never interpreted the Bible to. And I am not here about questioning whether or not all the miracles in the Bible took place, as I have no proof that they did not. It is my view that if the historicity of the Bible is false, it follows that the Bible, or that part of it, is not the inerrant word of God whom nuclearboy has reminded us is all-powerful. If there are interpolations, it does not void the authenticity of the entire Bible but brings “Biblical Inerrancy” under the spotlight.

The above observations made, JeSoul’s position on subjectivity and faith applies perfectly to our apprehension of God, a transcendental being. One is unable to see how it applies to the Bible, a book open to all humanity.

Which is why the assertion combatively made by noetic16 that the Bible is meant for the elect and the unsaved have no business exploring it must be seen for what it is: a fundamentalist brand of neo-Calvinism which will find more resonance among the draftsmen of the discredited apartheid system than in biblical Christianity. While the book of Ezekiel had messages for Oholah and Oholiah (Jerusalem and Samaria) at the height of their “prost[i]i[/i]tution”, Jonah’s message was addressed to the “unsaved” people of Nineveh. (The concept of “saved” and “unsaved” as used here is not biblical, but that is another matter.) Paul, who is credited with the spread of Christianity, along with his companion Silas, used the scriptures extensively in his ministry. The weight placed on the scriptures as authority is demonstrated by their activities among the Beroeans. I have already cited Luke. The Ethiopian Eunuch was helped with the aid of the scriptures to accept Christianity. When rebuking Satan, the Pharisees and other contrarians, Jesus told them “it is written”, not “the Spirit told me”. Those who converted to Christianity in the first century did because they had read of the coming of the Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures. Nobody ever went around in their mission to reach the “unsaved” with the good news citing the Holy Spirit. That is why Christians have been spending millions producing copies of the Bible and distributing them to the “unsaved” far and wide.

And like Krayola has pointed out, the opposition to scholarship is often based on the wrong premises. I am questioning the Bible, and not the lost books of eden, because of the value I attach to it. Moreover, there is some hypocrisy involved. There are countless events in the Bible that have been attested to by archaeology and science and many Christians cite these. Many developed their respect for the Bible through examination of some of these. When the converse is shown, the honest thing is to examine them. If there is any book which ought to be questioned, therefore, it is the Bible. That is not to say, God will judge people on whether or not they accept Biblical inerrancy. To be sure, the Bible is a good book. I think its moral values are sound for the most part. To rephrase the undying words of Mohandas Ghandi, if we live by its precepts, we may just have solved half of our problems.

The historicity of the Bible is hard to sort out due to certain factors, including the paucity of information available about the Middle East at the time of the events recorded, and also differences in Biblical records. For example, Joshua 1-12 tells us that the entire nation of Israel marched into Canaan and conquered the land. But Judges 1-2, which is the version supported by some traditions available, tell us the different tribes marched in at different times and effected a gradual takeover. It was once generally thought that Moses wrote Genesis, but scholarship has now shown convincingly that it was compiled from several sources dating from between the 10th century and the 5th century bc. If you read the Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient heroic poem written around 2000BC, for instance, it may surprise how much of the stories in Genesis and some other OT books is in it. Indeed, many of the stories in those Books of Moses can be found in mythological stories from various cultures. Do all these tell us that the Bible is a fake book? No. They offer us several possibilities, one of the most obvious of which is that those accounts are not meant to be taken as literal history.

Krayola: @ Noetic. u were not entirely wrong, and I was not entirely correct. I did some research and the written form of the gospels were probably written by and, arguably, for communities of believers. Word about Jesus was initially spread orally, and when the generation of first believers were dying out, the "elders" of different communities probably wrote the narratives we have now as a means of preserving his memory. Eventually ( like 1500 years later  after the printing press) they became a means of spreading the word, but that probably wasn't the reason they were written, as most people couldn't even read. So 1 point for u.   

actually 1/2 point.

It is worth pointing out that the gospel of Luke was written to someone, whom the internal evidence reveals was a non-Christian, to bring him the good news. The Acts of Apostles was written to that person at a time the internal evidence suggests he had become a Christian, meaning that the Gospel of Luke had its desired effect.

nuclearboy: I've been here all along but its always wisdom to show caution in posting when Krayola and Jesoul are around. Wouldn't do to be found foot in mouth at this age. 

Plus I had to find a way to wrap my tongue around the Ketubim and Nebiim etal. You people want to break my head with Grammar. Wetin I know be say, take the message, not the words or technicality.

Skipping the words to go for the message presupposes that there is, or might be, chaff. My point. Thank you.

nuclearboy: The Bible is inerrant when you leave the words and pick the message.

This isn’t bad.

nuclearboy: If we believe God is an understanding that has supreme power, knowledge and capability, then He surely must be capable of arranging events to suit His particular purpose! That is what I personally believe. The credit for choice of what books went into todays Bible is assumed to belong to the RCC. Foul! My statement of God's supremacy negates that rubbish. We say He can do what He please and then believe His Word was designed by humans.

I understand that Biblical inerrancy might mean different things to different Christians. Nuclearboy, here, for instance, considers rubbishy any idea of the possibility of human tampering. He believes God conceived of what he wanted us to have, had it written down and then guided it from pollution through the ages. I may be wrong, but I think you mitigated this point earlier when you admonished us to skip words and focus on the message.

nuclearboy: haha. it's funny i got caught up in this debate cause I've been making a real effort to avoid debates like this. It's that thread asking people to pray for me because i was hellbound and Noetic's yabs that got me into this.    Maybe I need to pray for the power to resist temptation

JeSoul: We will hafta open an entirely different thread to hash that one out dude .

*Flinch*

JeSoul: I think the problem is you're looking at faith as a "community" thing instead of a "personal" thing. As I hinted at in my last post, ones faith is only unto oneself and is not meant to be projected onto others and become truth for them.

 And faith is utterly sufficient - for the christian. 
Romans 1:17
For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

Faith in God is sufficient. How do I put this? You see, I, too, believe things I cannot explain objectively. But you cannot apply this all the way to a book handed to you all. The individual either takes an objective look or he risks being duped. There is nothing community about faith and I could not have conceived that, it is individual. My use of "we" is simply in a manner of speaking.

JeSoul: But in the truest sense of the phrase, is there such a thing as an "objective observer"? Let him that is without bias, cast the first stone.

The sufficient amount of objectivity required in these matters is decidedly possible. I, for one, do not dismiss all the miracles in the Bible because I do not know enough to assert they never occurred, even though I do not accept the basic tenets of Christianity. And because I do not adhere to a religion and do not defend any worldview (other than belief in God, love and humanism) I have changed my views on several things over recent years.

JeSoul: I think you may be asking the right question in the wrong manner . . .

 How do we know God inspired the current bible? we as a collective body of people cannot know (or should I rather say prove) to we's satisfaction and beyond all doubt that the bible came from God. It wasn't meant to work that way I don't think.
 How do I/you know God inspired the current bible? by my/your faith - borne and strengthened out of experiences - spiritual or physical - that affirm to only that person that knowledge. And if you arrive at the conclusion that the bible is not inspired by God, that is fine too. The bible does say some will accept Christ as the way, and many will not.

This applies to our apprehension of God who is a transcendental being borne witness to by His creation. The Bible, remember, is just a book. At the most basic level, we can look into its contents, unlike God, whom we can’t see. I take it as a point of disagreement between you and I that a book can be accepted on faith, as my apprehensions where such faith may lead are copiously borne out by events in contemporary human history.

JeSoul: Simply put, we don't.

For your honesty I salute you.

JeSoul: In addition lemme highlight a point InesQor made earlier . . . as a general rule, a christian can accept any writing - from this age or those gone, that are not in contradiction to the gospel as revealed by the bible. So in essence if it doesn't stand in opposition to the bible, then I have no problem with it. Whether or not it was of divine inspiration will be besides the point.

If you read this again, you might spot the contradictions in it as the subject at hand goes.

JeSoul: Yeah I'm aware of a few portions. I recall reading them and thinking - what's the big deal? lol. They don't necessarily take away nor add anything of earth-shattering proportions either way.

I recall reading them and thinking like you did. In my opinion, they confirm what I believe did happen, (which you say may or might not have happened) that people were at various points adding and removing things from that which we are now supposed to accept as coming, in its entirety, from the Holy Spirit and. as asserted by InesQor and highlighted by you, use as a yardstick for accepting or repudiating anything else.

JeSoul: This is why I said sometimes we get hung up on the wrong things and clutch onto that signpost Imhotep spoke about.

I agree with that post of Imhotep’s. From the context and going by his known views in these matters, he considers the Bible, all the scriptures in the world, religions, and all that, to be the signposts. My views on the matter are similar.

JeSoul: But wouldn't that be blaming the text - instead of the people who abused the text for their own sinister purposes?

That would be accepting the obvious reality – that some people abused the text for their own sinister purposes, therefore we need to exercise some care. I am not apportioning blames.

JeSoul: A text in and of itself is harmless - its what we do with it that counts.

What is the difference? The Bible says I should abstain from blood because the life of the soul is in the blood. Isn’t rejecting the text of that verse the same thing as not doing what it says – “abstain from blood”? Texts, my sister, can be very very, perniciously, insidiously, harmful.

JeSoul: Shouldn't we blame ourselves for wrongly handling the word?

Sometimes, yes. At other times, the problem is embedded in the text.

JeSoul: I say picking which parts to accept is even more dicey. I'll go into that a lil more in my next post.

There is no one alive who actually lives by everything in any book, including the Bible. The intellectually inclined will engage in gymnastics to reconcile the text with what his mind says it says or what his sect says it says. Those who don’t and make effort to live by as many of its traditions and injunctions as they can are the ones we call the “literalists”, some of them end up being introverted geeks, others as the bin Ladens of this world. Non-Christians as well as those Christians who love the Bible but reject its inerrancy are simply those who refuse to engage in gymnastics and admit up-front that some verses are not useful.

noetic16:
I would not just say that to you. . .I will highlight to u the essential components of sin and why the maker wants to establish an eternal reconciliation with u,  . .the ultimate choice of accepting the gift of salvation then lies with u.

On what basis do I accept the gift when I believe I already have something - Islam as revealed in the Quran? How do you know Christ died for you? Ever seen a lawyer present a brief without citing authorities?

noetic16: This is simply blasphemous. And also reflects your understanding of God.

Are you reading what you are writing? Have you seen the Holy Spirit preaching in Bhutan or Tibet? And if, according to you, the Bible is addressed to those who are already saved, how does God reach the unsaved?

noetic16:
@ MyJoe

1. The bible makes clear a practical approach to start with. . . . . .you are to believe and be saved. on believing u recieve the power to be the God's son. .  .that power is the HS. The bible then asserts that for as many as are led by th HS, they are the sons of God.

I am a Shi'ite Muslim from Qom. I am also, PhD, physics, who like to analyse things. Noetic walks up to me and says "you, believe and be saved." "Believe in what?" "That Jesus, the son of God, also God, died for you". Ok

noetic16: 2. who are u? and why does the bible have to make sense to u or a muslim? . . .the bible was not written to entertain u or to serve as an alternate religion for historical explorers . . . . . , the bible was inspired to the church . . . . the church is a group of people who are saved. so who cares if u find the bible senseless?

noetic16: 3. whats the usefulness of a complete and perfect book. millions read the bible and remain in sin. . , others read the bible and remain confused and clueless. where EXACTLY did Jesus refer anyone to the bible for salvation? . . .the bible remains subject to several human ill-conceived interpretations, and God aint bothered by it.

4. The HS and Not the bible was sent to be guide to the saved heirs of God. To understand the bible and other secrets of the kingdom u need the HS.

So the Bible is for those who are already saved. Lucky you born where the HS was active. Alright. Thanks for your input.

imhotep:
Hmmmmm. . . good idea. . . I do not really think that a NL thread can capture the heart of the experience.
It was so intense and protracted. . . for instance, because I eventually lived among them, visitors also began to avoid me whenever they came around. . .thinking I had become one of them.
It was a revealing and PURIFYING experience for me to be treated as a leper a couple of times. I myself began to be fear whether I had contracted the disease. . .but eventually I did not care whether or not I had contracted it . . . a very liberating carefreeness.

I am planning to include the story in one of my long reflections.

What a privilege! Have been thinking of doing same with forest pygmies for years,  haven't taken any action.

InesQor:
@MyJoe:
I think, in response to your posts to JeSoul (talking about Paul and James) and to myself (about the faith in Biblical Inerrancy), I only need to ask you, "What do you understand by Faith?" I need to know this because you said (green emphasis mine)

I am using faith in this discourse for its everyday meaning. And "the evident demonstration of realities, though not beheld" is also fine, except for the fact that with religion objectively verifiable "evidence" is usually elusive. I do not wish to get sidetracked by coining my own definition of faith.

InesQor: and
And, my simple answer to the above, is "by faith". Spiritual matters may not always be trivialized into logical procedures. Logic is not the end of everything.

I have made this point repeatedly, but it seems I need to try again, as I see you talk of travialising into logical procedures. Look at it this way:
Olabowale and InesQor are both people of faith. Men of great faith. Each is as convinced as the other because they have great faith and, if you ask, will tell you they have had experiences which prove the rightness of their faiths. We already know that, at least, one of them is wrong. How do know who if not by testing their utterances and ultimately, their sources of inspiration - the Bible and Quran - to see how much they can be corroborated by what is known to be true? This is a strong basis for trying to find out whether we are dealing with a book of myths or truths. If there is anything that demands to be suspected and questioned in the whole world, it is faith.

JeSoul:
I'll speak to my superiors, we'll see what we can do  
But they don't say different things. Paul says its by faith, James simply says that that faith that doesn't result in works is not really faith.

I agree about what James says. But Paul is clear that faith is all you need. A group of Christians I am sure you know their label have since run away with that.

JeSoul: You are right "faith" can be dangerous as many people and establishments are going about doing all manner of things and claiming faith as the basis. But the fact the concept of "faith" has been abused doesn't mean its not still valid.

No. It just proves my point. We have to insist on a basis for our faith. Faith is insufficient.

JeSoul: Anyways. . . . speaking of the "practical approach" and establishing some ground first. I'm not sure how we can go about exactly doing that. I mentioned before that we're all different, all have different experiences and all perceive the same thing differently. Is it really possible that we can establish a "common ground"? Lemme explain some more . . .

We can begin by having a Bible that is an authentic to an objective observer as an encyclopedia. We don't have that if we forget about theology (where faith is fine) a bit and go into the Bible's historicity. If you read my response to Chukwudi44 you will get a glimpse of what I mean.

JeSoul: I say my belief in God and the bible is extremely practical - for me. Why? because my faith is strengthened and solidified by experiences I cannot reproduce and transmit to you, so that you can feel and understand as I do and hence know why I believe what I believe. But it is real to me, and therefore as practical as it gets. Which is why I said before there is no one singular, universal template or blueprint that everyone can equally use, and that will produce equally similar results. Belief in God is an extremely personal, intimate journey - one which we must all go alone.

  and faith (as bastardized as it has been) is absolutely central to everything. Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God

Since you agree that people of non-Christian faiths also have faith, and you do not believe they can be right at the same time as Christians, you will agree that faith can mislead us. So an objective observer, one who has no faith in anything, looking at the religions ought to be able to spot some solid truths which will lead him to faith. That is why I do not accept that we can ever use faith as a starting point.

Will get the movie you speak of asap! Thanks.

@ All
Here is something I will now like to ask everyone: How do we know God inspired everything in the present Bible? (InesQor skipped this point earlier). We have already established that the Holy Spirit may not have preserved the Bible in tact for us, hence the possibility that copyists and translators have messed up a few things. Now, the RCC may have included materials, perhaps entire books, that ought not to be there. I don’t know if any of you have read the Gospel of Barnabas which mentions Mohammed by name as the messenger to come after Christ. I have. Going by its contents, it was clearly written by some scholar with an Islamopolitical agenda in Spain sometime in the 14th century. How do we know that similar material written in times past are not included in the Bible? We already know the gospels were written long after the events they contain.

Consider also the fact that two of the gospels, Mark and John, if I remember well, have certain parts that are not accepted by all Christians because they were omitted from some ancient manuscripts.

You know how the adherents of the Grail Message approach the Bible, which has caused some heated arguments in this forum: They take verse 1 and accept it in its entirety. Take verse 2 and reject it in its entirety. Take verse 3 and accept it but giving it an interpretation that checks with either the personal experience of the person or his understanding of the contents of the Grail Message. I must say this approach appears to me to be much more sensible than that adopted by Christians of accepting the entire Bible, with the implication of swallowing the spiritually dangerous stuff that may have been interpolated by people with some agenda in times past.

Ok, faith. I respect that. But I have already stated my problems with it. We must proceed from the practical to the devotional, or we risk being duped.

chukwudi44:
The holy bible is composed of three very essential information

1.prophecy

2.Spiritual instruction.

3.Historicalinformation

The first two are direct products of the holy spirit and cannot be faulted. Over the years the veracity of the scriptures has been validated by writings of secular historians who lived when the scripture writers penned down their works.

Nah. There have been validations and non-validations. The validations are insufficient to prove the authenticity of the Bible. Any one who accept's the Bible's historicity does so almost entirely by faith, which on its own does nothing for my enquiry in this thread.

chukwudi44: Most of the biblical stories were coloraborated by the popular jewish historian Josephus who lived in the first century.

This is a very contentious issue. Well, not so contentious, as there is a fair amount of agreement on the debate. I suggest you read up on it. I do not believe Josephus corroborated anything.

chukwudi44: The fact thaty Isaaiah could accurately predict the name of the persian emperor Cyrus ,who would liberate isreal ,with other biblical prophecies like the desecration of the temple by Antiochuis Epiphanes,the rise and fall of Alexander the great predicted by the Great prophet Daniel has confirmed the authenticity of the information contained in the bible.

Scholars who have spent countless hours objectively reviewing the facts believe the prophecy bearing Isaiah's name was written after the events.

chukwudi44: Mind you,there is a great difference between the terms bible and scripture as the two terms do not mean exactly the same thing.The bible is a collectionof 73 canonised scriptures.The so called apocryphals are valid scriptures which was removed from the protestant bible in the 19th century.The are still recognised by 70% of chrisians in the roman catholic and orhodox churches

The total number of actual scriptures cannot be known but the no of canonised scriptures was 73 and not 66 as claimed by some christians

So the numbers of actual scripture is unknown. Ehen!

JeSoul:
hehe, even better. We're working on re-opening the doorway to the alternate universe, and seeing the other versions of ourselves. What life choices our other selves made and how they turned out - should be interesting  

This won't do at all. I want the pepetual motion machine now! Getting tired of buying diesel. 

JeSoul: Yeah, I guess I don't buy 2. "Preserved it for us" is a dicey statement. Newer versions these days are so watered down and have become loose paraphrases of the original that while it may make it easier to understand, it frequently strips the power away. I guess the KJV is as close to "preserved" as we have.

I would not trust the KJV too much. I used to trust it till 1 John 5:7,8 came to my notice. Now I use the NIV as my reference point - and that was after some comparison and background check on its translators.

JeSoul: lol, it is my brotha, it is. However note I said "usually fall under that category" not "always fall under that category".

 I think you have answered your question - analogy of the elephant. I don't see how the case can be made though that Paul or James are preaching different or contradictory gospels from their counterparts Luke, Matt and John. I think InesQor has touched on this a bit in his reply. It would help if you could post a few problematic verses that we can take a look at?

I was talking about Paul saying we please God by faith, while James says it is by work. I don't really want to dwell much on the contradiction thing here, as it will only bog us down in lengthy arguments.

JeSoul:

---

  InesQor has already done a good job on this, lemme just add a lil bit

The human in me really likes this a lot, I mean a lot. But the christian in me quickly reminds that christianity and the bible makes an unabashed declaration that it is in sole possession of the way, and that way is Jesus Christ. The bible is monopolistic in this declaration and asserts without room for compromise that this declaration is unnegotiable. So if Daoism fundamentally preaches a way other than Christ, it couldn't have come from the same source. One is right and the other wrong.

It is very important to note that the scriptures also tell us that the Spirit of Christ has been at work long long before the physical man Jesus Christ was made manifest on earth. So I don't believe God exclusively spoke only to the Jews. Infact we see many instances divine commendation of gentile men and women of great faith and belief in the bible.

And as to why I choose to believe the bible over other texts, the answer is very simple - by Faith. I don't know which other materials out there came from God, and honestly I cannot see myself bothering with figuring that out - when I know I have not accomplished with godly consistency the very simple task of loving God and my neighbor as myself. We have smaller, more elusive fish to fry. So this is why, for me, questions like whether the book of John was actually written by the disciple John could not be more insignificant. To focus on things like that I believe, is to miss the point entirely. For me, the potency or validity of the gospel is not hinged upon whether not it can be "more probably" or "more likely" shown to be true. For me, it just is - by faith.

I have stated my problem with accepting things by faith in my response to noetic16. I think faith creates all sorts of problems and is simply out of reach to those who like to take a practical approach. I think faith is dangerous. Some ground has to be established first. There should be a prima facie case on which faith is to be built upon.

Krayola:
haha. na. I knew about that. Just didn't want to do extra typing   . That is why I said.

The statements you quote do not identify the author. The beloved disciple, as described there, is most likely not the author of the gospel in the final form. Notice the "we" which indicates that more than one person is authenticating the message. At best, the "disciple" was responsible for an earlier form of the gospel or was the primary source for the material. It is believed that the disciple may have had students or sumn like that. I just get lazy and don't want to do a lot of typing so i end up shooting myself in the foot by trying to take short-cuts.  
Fant, C. Musser, W. An Introduction to the Bible,Abingdon 1992. page 350.

An interpolation in those last verses or a group work. Highly likely here.

Krayola: The thing about the gospel of John is that while the language it uses is not consistent with 1st century Hebrew life in israel, everything else pretty much is. The geography and understanding of Jewish life and customs is on point. But when it comes to how it portrays the ministry of Jesus and his teachings, things just don't make much sense anymore.

To be fair, the thread in which i brought this up was one in which some of my NL friends were just pranking and so my response was kinda cynical in the way i presented it.  I really do not think the gospel authors, John included, are fraudulent people.  They just understood Jesus differently and went about their business based on their own understandings. A century is a long time so that the teaching of Jesus may have found a Greek "voice" is not really that out of place. It's just that in scholarly research of the historical Jesus, the gospel of John isn't considered to offer much insight into the actual events of the life of Jesus.

I think this Johanine idea makes a ton of sense. Besides, it is just the sort of thing an elderly man who "used to be with the Lord" would inspire.

Krayola: Check your mail in 5 mins.  

Got it. Thanks bunches.  

imhotep:
. . . Going by our modus operandi, these two propositions MUST first of all be supported by the Bible. In other words: which book/chapter/verse of the bible contains these two propositions . . . Does the Bible ever declare itself to be inerrant

There are certain verses in the Bible that have been interpreted to mean that it does claim inerrancy – or, to be from God in its entirety.
2 Pet 1:20,21, 2 Tim 3:16

imhotep: Having said that, I now paste some more food for thought:=>


STRANGER: “The things you teach, sir, are not to be found in Scripture.”

BUDDHA: “Then put them there.”

STRANGER: “May I dare to suggest, sir, that some of the things you teach actually contradict the Scriptures?”

BUDDHA: “Then the Scriptures need amending.’

----------------------------------
“Scripture, like the Sabbath, is for human beings, not human beings for Scripture.”

You may have said it all!

^^^ And Ctrl+Z couldn't bring it back? So sorry to hear it.

@Krayola: I will greatly appreciate those materials. editors008@gmail.com. Thanks.

noetic16:
@ OP

You are to a large extent right about my position. but let me make a case in your proposition 2.

The bible was written to serve as a form of information to already saved persons. . . . . by being informed, their faith is formed simply by peeping into the past to see what God once did and how certain persons lived for or against God, . .teh bible also informs abeit codedly of future events. . . .

in lieu of the above and in regards to proposition 2 I make the following statements.
1. attempting to make sense of God only through the bible is simply IMPOSSIBLE. when Jesus came to the world. . . .those who read, knew and practised the scriptures could not recognise Him. The created could NOT recognise His creator. . . . this IMO was the key reason the Holy Spirit was sent to us. The HS is to lead us all to know God the more and make real the very theoretically incomprehensible things we have learnt in the bible. This is done by dreams, visions, prophetic words, gifts and revelations. The scriptures also asserts that those that are led by the spirit are the sons of God. The bible CANNOT help anyone make an absolutely comprehensible sense of God. . . . thats why salvation is a personal experience between an individual and God.

2. The ontology of God can be deduced from the bible. . . . . .but requires the HS for a complete understanding. for instance how does one relate an omni-potent God to the inactions of satan/evil in this world? how does one relate predestination to free-will? how does one have an appreciative understanding of the sacrifice of JC? how does one denote the "symbolic foolishness" of God's "vessels"?
the point is. . .while the bible teaches the ontology of God. . .it takes an encounter with the HS to truly understand the ontological nature of God.

3. The bible has always made its case. The teachings of the bible on spirituality, after-life, life, death, Godliness or any other subject is NOT a compulsory injunction for anyone. . . there is always the liberty to either accept or reject biblical teachings.

4. The bible is God's message to this generation and the ones to come . . . . .the bible is inerrant. To believe otherwise is to have a different understanding of what the bible ought to contain. . . . .if thats the case, why not write your own book?

Holy Spirit. Ok.

Please be informed that those who don't recognise the Holy Spirit, and who are not lucky enough to have him appear on their road to Damascus, will start with a practical approach. The Bible has to make some sense if they are sense anything in it. I, for one, will not accept anything on the basis of the Holy Spirit argument since there far too many claims of such. Moslems believe by faith that their book is the only truly complete one from God. What does that tell you? That the object of faith can be an empty shell.

mazaje:
^^
My personal take on the gospels not just the book of John is that there were written by unknown men(very educated greek writers) not the alleged disciples of Jesus, They wrote mainly to give credence to the new religion they started. The gospels as we know them were fully develped much into the 2nd and 3rd centuary. The tradition that the gospels are eye witness accounts is false. It is unlikely in the extreme that any of the four canonical gospels were written by the people tradition claims they were written by. Was "Matthew" present at the manger when Jesus was supposedly born? Did he witness the 14 generations between Abraham and David, the 14 between David and the Babylonian Captivity, and the 14 between the Babylonian captivity and baby Jesus? Did he sleep between Joseph and Mary so he'd be sure that Joseph never actually had intimacy with Mary until after Jesus was born?

Was he privy to the conversation between Herod and the wise men? Did he, too, get to watch the dream Joseph had that he should flee to Egypt? . . . .Did Matthew watch "the Transfiguration" he records in Matthew 17? Perhaps he forgot to include himself in the list of disciples Jesus took to that mountain. . . . .It is not just disingenuous, but downright deceitful to claim that the writers of the four canonical gospels were eyewitnesses of what they wrote as so many christian are doing. . . . . . There's no freaking way they could have witnessed much of what they wrote, assuming any of it actually happened. . . . . It's absolute rubbish when people claim that these "eyewitness testimonies" would be sufficient testimony in a court system. Most of what is written at best could only be hearsay. . . . .But the most damning fact of all with regard to claims of "eyewitness testimony" is that all of the documents are anonymous. They do not reveal who claims to have written them. They are not signed, and they do not bear any chain of custody. They just appeared anonymously and began circulating some forty (being generous) to ninety or more years after the dates of the events they allegedly cover. . . . . .

If a lawyer was to introduce an unsigned document with no chain of custody into a court trial as evidence that the person in question floated off into the sky and that's why nobody can find his dead body, what do you think the judge would do? The gospels were just made up stories whose purpose were only to serve for the spreading of the new religion and the personality behind the star of new religion.

Very brilliant as usual, mazaje, but this is the 100% practical approach of the non-religious person. I am prepared to make allowance for the devotional approach of the religious person. Fortunately we have highly intelligent Christians here who are prepared to countenance a discussion of the subject without dismissing anyone as Satan. So I will take things issue by issue without being dismissive.

Krayola:
I doubt the Gospel of John, as it appears in the New testament, was written by John, the disciple of Jesus. SOme church tradition insists that it was authored by John, the son of Zebedee and brother of James, but the gospel of John itself does not identify any such person. Another problem with this is that the Gospel of John does not mention two major scenes that appear in the other synoptic gospels, and in which John was clearly stated as being present; The transfiguration, and Jesus' agony in the garden of Gethsemane. The author of this gospel is unknown.

John 21:20-24 appears to identity John the Beloved, aka St John, as the writer of this gospel.
John 21:20-24 (NIV)
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?" 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
24[b]This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.[/b] We know that his testimony is true.

Does this confuse things further? 

Krayola: My issue is not with the theology of John, but with it's historicity. John is a very theological document, and since I don't subscribe to the ideas expressed there I can't really debate them without being a jerk so I'll rather not. So whether Jesus is really the light of the world is not what i am debating, but the likelihood of his going around making such claims in such language.

You issue here is among my primary concerns. If the historicity is patently or largely false, the Bible can’t be trusted as an inerrant spiritual guide. I opened this thread, not to debate much, but to find out why Christians believe that we should live by the dictates of one book which is deemed to be all-sufficient even if our personal experiences may be contrary to what that book says. I hope to get their views, ask questions and leave matters at that.

Krayola: Now let's say John was the disciple and he was Greek and all that. Fact still remains that Jesus was not Greek, and neither were the people he directed his ministry towards. So when Jesus is depicted as someone going around Israel claiming stuff like "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but have the light of life" or "I am the way, and the truth, and the life . . ." . Such language is foreign to Jewish thought of the time. Such ideas were definitely present around Palestine. . . but that Jesus, a Jewish peasant, was going around making such claims so boldly, the same Jesus that is weary of disclosing his identity as messiah in the synoptics, even in the presence of JOHN, all of a sudden is going around using such vocab in his teachings,  is just very very unlikely.

So while it isn't unreasonable to believe that the author of John had such vocab and ideas in his arsenal, it is very unlikely that Jesus did, and preached to his audience using such, especially considering that we do not see such language coming from the lips of Jesus in the other synoptic gospels.

Please note that there are tonnes of other reasons why John is not viewed as a historical document. Just don't want to get into it so I'm trying not to bring up stuff that isn't already being discussed here.

Thank you.

InesQor:
No sir, I do not agree that the relevance of the Bible has been reduced by cultural / historical value. I believe truth is absolute, but is considered by humans in a limited and dimensioned perspective. As JeSoul correctly said, there is NO way the Bible could have been written to make up for all possible future civilizations and practices, and why's that? Even if it was, all you have to do is to invent and establish a new practice or lifestyle and Voila!

I was saying once on NL that truth has two components: de facto and de jure i.e. that which is being recorded and accurate fact (de facto), and that which is absolute truth (de jure). The de jure truth is harder to extract and isolate, so many people simply grab at  the de facto and they are satisfied. For example, the Egyptian pyramids are observed by MyJoe, an Egyptologist, today, and he believes he understands why they exist. He may be accurate, but that is de facto, not de jure, regardless of whatever evidence he can present about the underlying truth. For him to have the de jure truth about the existence of the pyramids, he must have been there when the Egyptians planned and began to erect the structures.

I like this. It underlines my problem with religious absolutism. We don’t know. We believe. Well, m_nwankwo says it is possible to know. Till I have that experiencing I will keep my mind open on this.

InesQor: I personally don't think Krayola's point applies, because I believe he should know better that since John was written in the first century but well after 70 A.D., (when the temple was destroyed) unlike the three synoptic gospels that were written previously. As such, the audience was different and the language of expression would be more influenced by the Greek, which was fast permeating its notions across all the world civilizations. It's like asking how a modern Nigerian story-teller can have western ideas in his story as compared to his predecessors in the pre-colonial era?

Well after 70 AD. I had forgotten that. He was banished to Patmos at some point, I think? Well, I guess it all creates possibilities I hadn’t thought of. Thanks. But it doesn’t clear up all the issues concerning the general tone of writing, target audience, and the words of Jesus and the other characters in the text. However, let’s proceed.

InesQor:
Partly (1) and Partly (2), because there are aspects that God dictated directly, and there were aspects that are interpretations of what God told them , but I want you to understand that the interpretations, IF THEY GOT COLOURED OR NOT, are deliberate. God knew what he was doing when he selected each person to write whatever they wrote. He KNEW how their writing would colour the experience of the scriptures, and it was his intent for it to be that way. For instance, it was God's pleasure for Paul to convey all the information we have today in the Ephesians, rather than anyone else, and this is because of his erudite background. Many of his procedural and logical methods of addressing the topics are as a divinely deliberate consequence of his person.

Oh My, I don't know how to explain this, but let me use computer programming to illustrate my idea. When a competent and serious programmer develops a software, he traps all possible errors by projecting allowances for their occurrences. It's called error handling, and by so doing the programmer ensures the software works smoothly for the end user. God knew how he wanted the Bible to turn out, so he deliberately hand-picked people all through history to deal with the various topics and aspects, and in some cases, to colour them with their own experiences or understanding in order to present to us the truth in absolute terms. I hope my point is clear, MyJoe.

Your point is clear. But how do we know what God inspired and what he did not, then? I mean there were many books written in ancient times with religious themes. Were the compilers of the Bible also selected by God and inspired? I mean a council made up of men from the Roman(!) Catholic Church (which was prodigiously corrupt) sat down and picked and chose these 66 books out of many. Who told them God inspired the writer(s) of the Gospel of John but not that of Mary Magdalene? Is it not safe to admit there are other inspired books out there not in the Bible while some of the books in the Bible were not inspired at all?

Thanks InesQor. On my way out of here now. Will like to say something tomorrow. Will still like your thoughts on the other points I have highlighted, particularly about the uniqueness of Biblical Christianity.

nuclearboy:
I would trust the Bible for Universal application REALISING there is a distinction between its story of the relationship between God and Israel and the general precepts it teaches (actually, the first could with some thought, be said to be a "type" for the second).

I will like to talk about historicity later, but "the general precepts it teaches"? Can we really stay away from specifics without being too superficial in our approach?

nuclearboy: BTW, Krayola's theory is brilliant but may not take into consideration everything it needs to. For example, what influences do we know shaped John's life? Is it impossible he could have had Greek influence in much the same way as Krayola, a black yoruba guy, find himself living in the western world? Suppose I were, in 200 years time and after reading Krayola but knowing nothing of the stages in his life, to say how can a Nigerian of his time know so much about Canada and that the supposed Krayola (why do I always want to type "Crayon" and green comes to my mind) is fake or his writings do not belong to him?

I agree with your approach. The only problem, though, is that the influences that shaped John's life are fairly well known. He, like most of the other apostles, were simple, barely literate Jewish fishermen. No, John was no Luke, Paul or Gamaliel.

Pastor AIO:
In order for the bible to err there has to be a standard which it errs from. 

Is it possible for the human mind to distinguish a thing-in-itself from the way it interprets that thing.  Is the book you see on the table seen as it truly is or just seen as you perceive it (eg from your own unique perspective).

We need, it seems, to be able to distinguish between essences and derivatives.  ie.  What things are essentially, and the various forms that can be derived from the essence.

When talking about the inerrancy of the bible are we referring to it's essential state or rather to that derivation of meanings that we derive out of it.  There are various orders of derivations, ie you get derivations of derivations.  How far back do you have to go before you arrive at the original essence. 

Imagine lines on a graph, but all you can see is the line y=2, an horizontal line.  But someone tells you that that line is actually derived from another called y=x² which you can't see.  And that in turn is actually derived from another line called y=1/₃x³, well how far back do you have to go to be sure you know what the original line is.  
I seem to have taken a tangent here so I'll stop before I go to far.

I think it is possible to talk about the essence. That is, Is the Bible, in its entirety, the word of God as handed down, or are there inputs therein that originated from the men who wrote?

When we talk of the inspiration of the Bible, there are two possibilities: (1) That God dictated it. (2) That God revealed it to chosen servants. 2 is usually generally accepted among Christians.

Given that we are talking about men, who will see based on their environment, beliefs and deep seated biases as attested to in your posts (also refer to the analogy of the elephant in post # 7) how can we trust what they wrote as the true revelation of God? Does this not account for the seeming contradictions in the Bible, and, indeed, between religions? Indeed, why should we take the Bible as special if it passed through men who added their colouring when writing? I mean, if Paul and James see things differently from the same source, why isn't it reasonable to believe that Daniel and Lao Tse received inspirations from the same source but saw things differently which would lead us to the conclusion that Christianity and Daoism are as the same as Baptists and Methodists?

@InesQor and nuclearboy:
Thanks for your brilliant responses.

InesQor:
A user once said here on NL  that the Bible contains strongly typed allegorical meanings that may be lost if you are not careful, and I want to say some things about that. A lot of the scriptures have to be exegetically considered in the original languages and cultures to get a firm grasp of its absolute meaning, without which there will definitely be an error in appropriation, and people would scream "error" without understanding that it was deliberate.

Many will take this further and localise the Bible like, say, the Quran. That is, it was written for a certain people living at a certain time. The writer wrote it the way he would write a Code of Life, the material thus shows no evidence of the input of a higher power directing the writing of a material to be used by generations to come. Examples, the Arabs covered their heads, so Mohammed simply endorsed it. Women were forbidden from inheriting family, the Old Testament simply endorsed it. Slavery was practised in Palestine in the first century, the New Testament simply endorsed it. Were the Bible written today, these things would not be endorsed and it would be much more relevant to us as suggested by Professor Banana. Conclusion, the Bible cannot be trusted for universal application. Take?

InesQor: The NT seems to be more "free" from all these perceived errors (maybe except for the Gospels, which was a transition period between the Old and the New) because the Western world has been very much influenced by the Greeks. A lot of the way we think and the way we communicate comes from their culture, even though we may not realize it. The great difference between Greek and Hebrew thought is this: we think in a more abstract way, the Jews in a more concrete way. I will give just two examples.

The problems created by this make up part of the issues in the authenticity of the Bible. Please read Krayola here

JeSoul:
Myjoe wassup dude?

I’m doing great. How’s Fringe Science shaping up - discovered how to run cars on water yet? That's the kind of Fringe Science I want to hear! 

JeSoul: You got my position half right. Lets clarify shall we?
  Yes, I believe the bible in its original form/text/document/scroll is free from error. However, what we have today are copies of the originals and yes, there appears to be few copyist errors in the current versions we have today.

Well, there is something I learnt as a kid: that the Holy Spirit (1) inspired the Bible (2) preserved it for us to ensure it reaches us error-free. You don’t seem to buy 2?

JeSoul: A noteworthy comment to attach to the above. These transcriptional errors are minor, about what? 1% of the entire book I think and the usual "bible contradictions" flaunted by antagonists as grounds for dismissal usually fall under this category. When one takes an honest look at the entire bible as a whole body of work, it is very consistent, harmonious and robust, worthy of our trust.

It is convenient to put “bible contradictions” under the Error Category, don’t you think? I think this can apply in a situation where Matthew and Luke report an event with minor differences in details but not when Paul tells us that faith is the most important thing we need and James tells us it is work. There is a measure of consistency in the Bible – there are things you find in the beginning that you find towards the end. But there is also a good deal of contradictions.

JeSoul: This part is loaded and I'll do my best to answer properly. The bible is sufficiently equipped to meet all those spiritual needs you mentioned, but at the same time, it is not, exactly. 4 points:

Ok,

JeSoul: 1 - Not every single situation, or scenario is captured in the bible. However, we are given general godly principles and standards by which we can govern our lives by. General points on the compass by which we can use to navigate the murky waters that is life. So when an issue arises that may not be spelt in black and white (or red) we can use these principles to decide what is right. And this leads me to point 2. . .

2 - The bible, unfortunately, is subject to the sometimes right, sometimes wrong, sometimes in-between interpretation of flawed men - and ALL of us are flawed. What I may read to mean X, you may read to mean Z. So in essence the bible may be saying one thing, but we may interpret it to mean another. In that, the moral of such a verse can be diluted beyond recognition or even lost entirely.
  b. As a side note, there is one interpretation for a verse, but (possibly) different applications of such a verse (as if there weren't enough wrenches in the system already lol)

3 - Thirdly, where the bible "falls short", or should I say, where we fall short, is where the Holy Spirit shines most. Jesus taught that He had to leave so that the HolySpirit would come to "guide us into all things". So though everything may not be in the bible, a christian walks[b] by the spirit[/b] and this Spirit is what guides a christian into all truth - including how to rightly handle the bible.
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

4 - Finally, And what about those who are not "bible scholars"? cannot understand the scriptures as well as more educated people? who are in the middle of the amazon jungle or a small village in Vietnam and just have a rudimentary grasp of the person of Jesus and his sacrifice? just enough of a grasp to know all they need do is simply love God and their neighbor. What about them that cannot etymologically dissect verses with surgical precision like several here on NL? what should they do? is the God of the bible only for smarties? only for learned schooled people?

Which is why I don't think God intended for everything pertaining to living to be captured in the bible for us to follow word for word or that it is do or die without the bible. In addition, many lived in the OT and served God without any bible to follow and they did just fine. His laws are written on our hearts (Romans 2). And also because of our nature, this would lead to a legalistic sort of living that we see in so many churches today - don't drink alcohol, women cannot preach, cannot listen to 'worldy' music etc etc. I mean even with those few issues see how divided we are, talkless if there were many more like that. We are called to live by faith - even as we've been given grace. And while Jesus is the mediator between man and God, we're all different, all have different experiences and all take different paths to get to the ultimate truth that is God. There is no one single template or blueprint on how to go about this.
 
 I hope I did the questions sufficient justice?   so,Jesoul: 1, yes and no. 2, yes and no. 

This is just beautiful. Now let me look at the other posts and move on with my next line of enquiry.

Pastor AIO:
I think that my posts over the years make my position pretty clear on this matter.  I don't think that any text whatsoever can be a conduit for Truth.  There is no text that is complete without an accompanying interpretation.  Such interpretation will be varied depending on who is reading the text.

There appears to be a mitigation in highlighted section. Just to be clear, is the Bible inerrant or is it just its interpretation that is? Is it a case of the seven blind men that "saw" an elephant and gave descriptions - ranging from "it looks like a snake" to "it looks like a bag" - because they touched different parts of it?

Pastor AIO:
Just goes to show you that ambiguity depends on context. When you're trying to fit a statement into a preset category then you might find it ambiguous because it doesn't quite fit. However if your goals are different and you are trying to fit it into another set of categories you might find it quite adequate.

Yes.

toneyb:
Here is what the bible really is.

Bible + history = Thousands of years of changing and recording of non historical events + Lost of mythical narratives.

Judaism + Torah = Christian's old testament, whose teachings have mostly been changed by Christians to fit their own narrative. Some Christians believe its laws are obsolete, while other Christians believe they are not and are still applicable and valid.

Scribes + Bible = Years of mistranslation, misunderstanding, add ons and removed passages, errors and contradictions.

Church + Bible = Different versions of the bible and so many different denominations all claiming monopoly and  knowledge of what the bible actually says.

Christians + Messed up bible = Covering it up and pretending it is perfect and just needs an interpretation.

Messed up bible + People = Too much confusion and the inability for Christians to come together and agree on anything at all it says. Old earth creationist, Young earth creationist, Those that believe in a global flood, those that believe the flood is a local flood, Those that believe in trinity, those that do not, those that accept hell as a place of eternal punishment, those that believe that hell is only a permanent separation from god and not a place of eternal punishment. Those that believe that Christians are supposed to prosper in all they do and those that believe in some form of persecution complex, and the need for Christian to always suffer for their beliefs, the division and confusion is ENDLESS.

Overall: When you find things that do not add up or make sense in your bible, make Poo up and pretend that others are getting it wrongly.

Funny and interesting equations, toneyb! I trust you will stay and defend them when Davidylan or noetic16 shows up.

Pastor AIO:
Interesting that I am the only one that is a definite no no on both counts.

You and Kunle. But, yeah, considering all those charges of ambiguity.

Biblical Inerrancy

“The Christian Bible should be rewritten so that it can be relevant for people in postcolonial societies.” The Reverend Canaan Banana, Methodist minister, professor, ecclesiastical scholar, African liberation theologian, and former president of Zimbabwe.

“Genesis is still regarded by many as a literal account of creation, the view of most Christians and Jews until the latter half of the 19th century. Others see the book as myth or legend expressive merely of tribal beliefs, superstitions, and mores. Intensive scholarship and related archaeological investigation have revealed that numerous events, places, and persons described and named in Genesis—like those of Homer's Iliad—most probably have some basis in historical fact.”
Encarta Encyclopedia

_{This has been turning around in my head so lemme see if I can tap it out in this little time I have got.}

*********************************

By Biblical Inerrancy here I mean two things:

Proposition 1. That the Bible is free of any form of error.

Proposition 2. That the Bible is complete in every aspect; that is, we do not need anything else in our attempt to make sense of God, ontology, the cosmos, origins, death and the afterlife, spirituality, and anything else.

There are Christians who accept 1 and 2. Some accept only one. The Catholic Church does not accept 2. To the Church, the canonical Bible is complemented by apocryphal books and the tradition of the Church Fathers, among others. Protestants and Evangelicals generally accept BI, although not all individual Christians therein do. Jehovah’s Witnesses accept BI on points one and two. In fact their acceptance of 2 is uniquely strict, in that, dreams, miracles, revelations and any direct experience of God or the Holy Spirit by the individual Christian are not countenanced. To them, God needed to reach man through such means only when the complete word of God was not with us. Now we have the Bible in full, it is all we need.

For the regular Christian posters in this section, some have expressly stated their views on this matter in various threads. The views of some can be surmised from posts on some other subjects; for others I have not a clue, either because they have not stated them or I do not recall it, or missed it for reasons beyond my control.

I am not one of the most active participants around here, so it is entirely possible there are regular Christian posters whose names are not listed below. I will like to hear from every Christian on this matter.

Do you accept BI as defined in the propositions above?

JeSoul: 1, yes. 2. I don’t know her answer
Viaro: 1, I don’t know his answer. 2, No, or possibly not
Joagbaje: 1 and 2, NOOoooooo
Davidylan: 1, yes. 2, I don’t know his answer
Tonye-t: 1 and 2, I don’t know his answer
Noetic16: 1, Yes, 2, Possibly not
KunleOsob: 1 and 2, No
OLAADEGU: 1 and 2, YEEEESssssssss
Chukwudi44: 1, I don’t know his answer. 2, No
InesQor: 1 and 2, I don’t know his answer
Tpia: 1 and 2, I don’t know her answer
Nuclearboy: 1 and 2, I don’t know his answer
Beneli: 1 and 2, I don’t know his answer
Karo93: 1 and 2, I don’t know his answer
Easylogic: 1 and 2, I don’t know his answer
PastorAIO: 1 and 2: No

Correct me if I labeled you wrongly. But what do you think? If you think the Bible is infallible, why do you say so, considering issues of contradiction (this one is over-flogged, I know), myth-like stories, questionable historicity, unoriginality, etc.

The Field Marshall who will refuse to get into a scuffle where lesser folks would pull out a gun.
Will reply a rude post with a logical one.
Has more energy for debating than Peter has for boxing.
Is particularly noted for his high intelligence, stubbornness and reliance on sound logical reasoning over anything else.
Be Still. . .

Oh, no! I had an e-dream last night. It is explained now.