Thread:Superdadsuper/@comment-1777104-20151130020148

I see where you made a small edit concerning the POV. I noticed that same section, as I was looking at that page even as we were in chat!

My concern was not so much that the 2nd person was used, but that there is a slight problem with logic in claiming that denying parts of the Bible means you cannot trust other parts. The references in that section do not clearly teach that.

John 5:46-47 teaches that Jesus is trustworthy. He tells his opponents that, as unbelievers, they have no expectations in believing the promised Messiah. At Luke 11:31, Jesus is telling how the rich man, in requesting a witness to his brothers, cannot expect them to listen to a ressurected man if they don't first believe the Old Testament teachings concerning the coming judgment.

The argument that the Bible cannot be trusted if it has any errors in it is a dangerous one that can backfire. Apostates have used that teaching to declare themselves agnostics or atheists. Their problem is a lack of faith, which is God-given in the first place. The new birth comes from "above" -- not from within.

I believe that the Bible is inerrant in all its parts -- in the original documents. That is all we can say with certainty. And that conviction comes through faith, not logical arguments. Given that conviction, I can view apparent contradictions with an eye towards reconciling them. This may entail considering transmission and translation errors. It may require examining context and genre. But as an argument, IF it were found that one of the writers had indeed made errors, it would not negate ALL the other writings.

However, two verses in the New Testament relate the truth of inerrancy very well: 2 Tim. 3:16 (All Scriptures (OT)...) and 2 Pet. 3:16 (Paul's letters [3:15] ... wrested ... as other scriptures). Paul is confident with the OT, and Peter is confident with the NT (even Paul!). But in the end, it is by faith that we accept the Bible to be infallible and inerrant.

This has not been a diatribe against inerrancy, but I hope my point has been made. Our arguments should be made on basis of Biblical evidence, not logic. 