Is "sola scriptua" real

No, Sola Scriptura isn't real. The main reason billiee believes it's true is

because of these verses, ll Timothy 3:16-17

"All  Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for  reproof, for

correction, and for training in righteousness; so that  the man of God may

be equipped, prepared for every good work”.

But the word "profitable" doesn't mean that's all you need. profitable doesn't

mean sufficient. It's a good start it just doesn't say Scriptures are all that is

needed. No where in the Bible is the Bible only proven.

_______

There's many scriptures in the Bible that contradict itself. I've wondered about those same things before, & went so far as to ask as you have. My questions were turned into a spitting contest & name calling by the forum troll that loves making fun of anyone on this forum that doesn't worship/admire him. Hopefully, this topic will stay on a serious discussion level.

I really don't believe there is a logical answer that makes any sense but maybe someone can try to explain it.

Wait just a bit, and you'll be astounded by the fundy razzle-dazzle that "explains" the contradictions discrepancies errors how you are misunderstanding the perfectly written, inerrant, literal writing of God himself. 

Do not look behind the curtain.

Hi Paw Paw,

You question "Is 'Sola Scriptura' Real" because you find things in the Bible which bother you.  Such as God destroying the enemies of Israel, God allowing Samson to destroy the enemies of God, etc.  Yes, without looking deeper, those things can make us wonder.

And, Chick declares the Bible to have many contradictions.  But, that only shows that she has not really gone past a "scratching the surface" examination of Scripture.  The Bible does not contradict itself in its message of salvation nor in its message for Christian living.

And, faithful Vic tells us that God does not mean what He has inspired to be written in:

2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

Personally, I take God at His word.  When He tells me that He inspired ALL SCRIPTURE -- I believe Him.  And, when He tells me that His Inspired Scripture is sufficient or adequate -- to equip the man of God for every (all) good work in the name of the Lord -- I believe Him.

Keep several things in mind.  First, Chick denies Scripture, and more and more even seems to be denying God.  Why?  Because if she accepts God, if she accepts the Bible as His Written Word -- she will be held accountable to them.  That is like we see in Obama today when he tries to defeat the Constitution -- because he does not want to be held accountable to the Constitution.  In other words, they want to write their own rules, instead of adhering to the rules of God and the rules of the Constitution.

And, for Vic and the Roman Catholic church -- they CANNOT live with accepting Sola Scriptura -- because the vast majority of their doctrines come, not from Scripture, but from the Apocrypha, from traditions, and from man-created writings.   Just as Darwinian Evolution MUST have billions of years to be valid; the Roman Catholic church MUST have the Apocrypha, the traditions, and the man-created writings to be valid.  Thus, they fight tooth and nail against Sola Scriptura.

Now, let's look at what several very reliable Christian Apologetic ministries have to say about Sola Scriptura:

Question: "What is Sola Scriptura?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

Answer:  The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”-- referring to the Scriptures.  Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.  The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true.  “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation.  For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible.  This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible.  Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority.

And:

And:

I agree. Don't look behind the curtain. You won't like what you see.

Smoke and mirrors are the games that religion plays. It's a continuous game of he said she said... I believe. He believes. You're wrong and going to hell. I'm right and Jesus loves me but hates your guts. 

Good time. Good times. 

In Bill DHL™'s post above he begins with a false premise: that God wrote the Bible.  He didn't.  Bill DHL™ continues throughout his post equating the Bible with God.  They aren't one and the same, though Bill DHL™ seems to think so, to the point of worshiping the Bible as God. 

By all means, do not listen to Bill!  His state goal in life is to match or surpass God by imitation.  This on par with Lucifer's sin. 

Hi all,

You can always tell when you are near a hornets' nest -- as they swarm around trying to sting you.

And, you can tell when you have stirred up an atheists' nest -- when they come out in force attempting to drive off anyone who mentions the words "God, Jesus Christ, Bible, Christian, etc."   

Just like hitting a hornet's nest with a stick -- mentioning "God, Jesus Christ, Bible, Christian, etc."  in front of an atheist gets the same result.  But, for a different reason.   You see, the hornets are only trying to protect their homes.  While with the atheists, just saying "God, Jesus Christ, Bible, Christian, etc."  in their presence scares the pedoodle out of them.  They deny God -- but, they wet their pants trying to muffle His name.  

Watch this!   "God, Jesus Christ, Bible, Christian, etc."   There is that stick again -- hitting the atheist hornets' nest.  Watch out!

Bless their shaking little hearts!

Bill

Semi, I think you understand what I am trying to ask. Bill, if you are going to attempt to answer the questions, please keep it simple for my sake. I did not ask what the Catholics think or what you think of the other members. Look at my four examples and just explain to me why these errors exist. I think the one that bothers me most is the first example I mentioned where God gave Moses a list (ten commandments) that includes thou shall not kill and then has Sampson kill many people.

___________

paw-paw, Bill won't answer your question because he can't. Not with a Bible proven answer. That's why you will always see him respond with a nasty, hateful, "make fun of everyone/call us names" answer & never see him give a serious, proven answer.

Maybe some of our Christian, serious minded forum members can answer your questions & we can just ignore Bill.

Since you are more bothered by your first Bible objection, let's take a look at it.  You say, "Why is one of the ten commandments 'Thou shall not kill' yet God had Sampson kill many men with a jawbone. Yes he killed them."

This is a good answer to that question:

Question: "Does God killing people make Him a murderer?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-killing.html

Answer:  The Old Testament records God killing multitudes of people, and some people want to believe this makes Him a murderer.  The misconception that “killing” and “murder” are synonymous is partially based on the King James mistranslation of the sixth commandment, which reads, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).

However, the word kill is a translation of the Hebrew word ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause.  The correct rendering of this word is “murder,” and all modern translations render the command as “You shall not murder.”  The Bible in Basic English best conveys its meaning: “Do not put anyone to death without cause.”

It is true that God has intentionally killed many people.  (God never “accidentally” does anything.)

In fact, the Bible records that He literally wiped out entire nations including women, children, cattle, etc.  In addition to that, God killed every living creature upon the face of the earth with the exception of eight people and the animals on the ark (Genesis 7:21-23; 1 Peter 3:20).  Does this make Him a murderer?

As already stated, to kill and to murder are different things.  Murder is “the premeditated, unlawful taking of a life” -- whereas killing is, more generally, “the taking of a life.”   The same Law that forbids murder permits killing in self-defense (Exodus 22:2).

In order for God to commit murder, He would have to act “unlawfully.”  We must recognize that God is God. “His works are perfect, and all His ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is He” (Deuteronomy 32:4; see also Psalm 11:7; 90:9).   He created man and expects obedience (Exodus 20:4-6; Exodus 23:21; 2 John 1:6).

When man takes it upon himself to disobey God, he faces God’s wrath (Exodus 19:5; Exodus 23:21-22; Leviticus 26:14-18).  Furthermore, “God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day.  If [man] does not turn back, He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready” (Psalm 7:11-12).

Some would argue that executing the innocent is murder; thus, when God wipes out whole cities, He is committing murder.  However, nowhere in Scripture can we find where God killed “innocent” people.

In fact, compared to God’s holiness, there is no such thing as an “innocent” person.  All have sinned (Romans 3:23), and the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23a).  God has “just cause” to wipe us all out.  The fact that He doesn’t is proof of His mercy.

When God chose to destroy all mankind in the Flood, He was totally justified in doing so: “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).

During the conquest of Canaan, God ordered the complete destruction of entire cities and nations: “But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you” (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).   And Joshua did what God had told him (Joshua 10:40).

Why did God give such a command?  Israel was God’s instrument of judgment against the Canaanites, who were evil, almost beyond what we can imagine today: “Every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:31).

Their utter annihilation was commanded to prevent Israel from following their ways: “Lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 20:18; also Deuteronomy 12:29-30).

Even in the dire judgments of the Old Testament, God offered mercy.  For example, when God was about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, God promised Abraham that He would spare the whole city in order to save ten righteous people there.  Though God did destroy those cities (ten righteous people could not be found), He saved “righteous Lot” and his family (Genesis 18:32; Genesis 19:15; 2 Peter 2:7). 

Later, God destroyed Jericho, but He saved Rahab the harlot and her family in response to Rahab’s faith (Joshua 6:25; Hebrews 11:31). Until the final judgment, there is always mercy to be found.

Every person dies in God’s own time (Hebrews 9:27; Genesis 3:19).  Jesus holds the keys of death (Revelation 1:18).  Does the fact that everyone experiences physical death make God a “killer”?  In the sense that He could prevent all death, yes.  He allows us to die.  But He is no murderer.

Death is part of the human experience because we brought it into the world ourselves (Romans 5:12).  One day, as John Donne put it, “Death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.”  God, in His grace, has conquered death for those who are in Christ, and one day that truth will be fully realized: “The last enemy to be subdued and abolished is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26).

God is faithful to His word.  He will destroy the wicked, and He holds “the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment” (2 Peter 2:9).

But He has also promised that “the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23b).

Recommended Resources: Knowing God by J.I. Packer

Paw-Paw, some may reject what the article above tells us -- but, it is Biblical truth.   God's perfect Mercy is balanced by God's perfect Justice.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Hi Paw-Paw,

Two other questions you have regarding supposed Bible discrepancies are:

1:  Jehoiachin's age:

2 Chronicles 36:9 says “Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem…”

2 Kings 24:8 says “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months."

And,

2.  Sins of the father passed on to the sons:

Isaiah 14:21, "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities."

Deuteronomy 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

I will quote from several sources to respond to your points.  First, let me quote this explanation to lay the groundwork:

Answering Alleged Bible Contradictions
http://www.thedevineevidence.c..._contradictions.html

Most Bible contradictions may be dismissed as translation errors as we will prove throughout this article with the assistance of lexicons.  Other difficulties are resolved once we explore the context of the conflicting passages, examine older manuscripts which verify some contradictions as simple scribal errors, and apply logic to solve philosophical dilemmas.

One thing I find in common with those who distribute Bible contradictions is their use of the 1611 King James Bible. However, this is a 400 year old English translation- not an original Biblical language. Linguistic scholars have learned a lot in regards to how the Bible should more accurately translate into English. Although the KJV sufficiently gets the point of salvation across to the reader (the fundamental purpose of the Bible), I strongly suggest using a more modern and accurate translation and the use of lexicons when examining the Bible in depth. We will now answer some common criticisms of those who have answered Bible contradictions in the past.

TRANSLATION ERRORS:  Many Biblical critics do not reference the original Hebrew and Greek texts when searching for errors.  In my opinion, this is poor, irresponsible scholarship.  Such critics fail to realize translation difficulties are not exclusive to the Bible.  Any text translated into another language will contain errors due to the use idioms, archaic terminology, and puns that do not translate properly into other languages. In order to finally resolve such errors, links will be provided to the original Hebrew/Greek throughout this article.  Using this method, we will find most alleged contradictions do not even exist.

SCRIBAL ERRORS:  Few critics are satisfied when a contradiction is explained as being a scribal error.  However, the Bible was obviously written long before electronic methods of reproduction.  Scribes had no choice but to hand write new copies, thus allowing room for human error. Furthermore, though a newer manuscript may reveal conflicts, older manuscripts reveal the original correct text and answer the apparent contraction.

CONTEXT:  Many contradictions are explained once we examine the context of the conflicting passages. This is another explanation I have seen skeptics criticize. But context is extremely important when dealing with any text. When one passage is isolated it becomes vulnerable to
manipulation. Isolated verses may seem contradictory but become clear once the context is taken into consideration.

LITERALISM VS. METAPHORIC:  Some contradictions we will examine have erroneously been assigned literal interpretations.  When apologists explain such verses are actually poetic in context, their answer is not generally accepted.  However, critics fail to realize the Hebrew Tanakh (roughly the Christian Old Testament) is organized into three divisions: The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings.  Books such as Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes are composed using poetic styles.  Even Biblical books not classified as The Writings may still contain literary styles just like The Writings may also contain prophecies.  Don't automatically assume a literal interpretation by default but instead use common sense and spiritual discernment.

DUALISM:  In some instances, two seemingly conflicting passages may both be correct.  For instance, God is a God of mercy but He is also a God of judgment.  In a later section, we will explain how such terms are not mutually exclusive.

HYPOCRITICAL BIAS:  I've heard it said Christians would dismiss any other text for containing the same errors found within the Bible.  Though this may be true to a point, (hopefully) they would take a less superficial approach.  One needs to take an impartial view when examining the facts.  Many times a skeptic will point out a verse to me as the ultimate proof that the Bible is a fraud.  Unfortunately, they don't read the next two verses that clearly explain their problem.

DEFENSIVENESS:  Some apologists have been accused of answering Bible contradictions because they feel threatened.  Though this is not true for everyone, I will expose my own humanity and admit that when I was a "baby" Christian I was rather nervous when confronted with difficulties such as Bible contradictions and pagan copy-cat allegations.  I had to seriously consider the possibility my own beliefs were in error!  I certainly didn't want to be deceived so I did what any responsible investigator would do -- I researched the claims for myself.  Hopefully the following information in this article will answer some nagging doubts for other believers.

Now, to your first question:

1:  Jehoiachin's age:

2 Chronicles 36:9 says “Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem…”

2 Kings 24:8 says “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months."

This was obviously a translation or scribal error:

How Old Was Jehoiachin When He Began To Reign?
http://www.thedevineevidence.c..._contradictions.html

(KJV) Contradiction 1: Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign... II Chronicles 36:9
(KJV) Contradiction 2: Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign... II Kings 24:8
(NIV) Accurate: Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king... II Chronicles 36:9

Pre-Masoretic manuscripts record the presumably correct age as being 18 in both verses.

And, your second question:

2.  Sins of the father passed on to the sons:

Isaiah 14:21, "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities."

Deuteronomy 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

This can easily be explained:

6. (16) Each shall bear his own sin.

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.

a. A person shall be put to death for his own sin: God commanded that each individual be responsible for their own sin. A father cannot be blamed and responsible for the sin of their (grown) children, and the children cannot be blamed and responsible for the sin of their parents.

i. It is wrong for a parent to automatically blame themselves for their wayward children; though they may have a part in the problem, it isn't always the case.

b. For his own sin: There are instances when God commands that a whole family be punished for sin, such as with the family of Achan in Joshua 7:16-26. When God deals with a whole family, it shows that there must have been some conspiracy between family members, for each is responsible for his own sin.

And,

Should Children Suffer For The Sins Of The Father?
http://www.thedevineevidence.c..._contradictions.html

(NIV) Contradiction 1: Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers. Each is to die for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16

(NIV) Contradiction 2: "You shall not bow down to them or worship them for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." Exodus 20:5

To understand the above verses, we need to distinguish between mankind's sinful nature as compared to a specific act of sin committed by an individual.  If you have ever heard a friend say Alcoholism runs in my family, this is an example of inherited iniquity whereas something like robbing a store would be an act of sin.  The meaning behind the first passage is a direct order not to punish an individual for someone else's crime -- whereas the second verse is stating a spiritual principle which exists where sin begets sin, iniquity begets iniquity (one bad apple spoils the bunch) from one generation to the next.

And,

Will Children Pay For The Sins Of The Father Or Not?
http://contenderministries.org...s/contradictions.php

Deut. 5:9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me...

Deut. 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

James Patrick Holding gives an excellent explanation for this "contradiction" that says it all:

A couple of years ago, when I first faced this "contradiction" in reply to Jim Merritt, I gave this brief and rather off-the-cuff answer:

(Deuteronomy 24:16) refers to punishments meted out for crimes, as does Ezekiel.  Isaiah and the others refer to punishments and sufferings that are the natural results of one persons' actions "rolling downhill" on another person.  In other words, if Dad goes alone and robs the Hickory Farms store and steals all the weinerschnitzel, then Junior doesn't get thrown in the slammer if he wasn't part of it.

But if Dad is a smoker, then Junior's lungs will get polluted; if Mom drinks too much when pregnant, Junior may be born with fetal alcohol syndrome.  If Dad brags about robbing the Hickory Farms store or seems content with his lot in jail, and Junior hears or finds out about it, Junior might be inspired to a life of crime also!

To this I also added the point that "four generations" in Deut. 5:9 and elsewhere refers to the normal lifespan of a human being, so that essentially, the verse means that punishment will be meted out over the lifetime a person alone -- to which I will add here, that punishment is not the same as guilt. Thus my explanation above is somewhat correct -- but far from complete.

You can read the rest of Holding's explanation here:  http://www.tektonics.org/lp/paydaddy.html

So, Paw-Paw, my Friend, I realize this answer might be a wee bit long.   But, if you ask me for directions to Nashville -- should I just tell you, "Drive to the corner and turn right" -- stopping there?

Or, should I give you a more complete answer which will truly help you find your way to Nashville?

I prefer the more complete answer -- instead of the "find you own way" approach.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill, while I do not agree with all your answers, I only read through them once. I need time to digest all this. I do thank you for addressing the questions I posed. Anyone else have another answer? I would like to hear other opinions. Thanks

You are welcome.  And, I thank you for raising the questions.   Honestly, I am happy that we do not agree on everything.  For those issue which do not affect our eternal salvation, it is good to have folks who will disagree.

Why?  Well, could you imagine trying to have a Biblical discussion, or any discussion -- where everyone agreed?  There would be no discussion, just back patting and smiles.

However, when we disagree on such issues, this causes us to think more deeply about them, to research them, and, hopefully, to get deeper into private and corporate Bible study -- seeking the answers.

In my near 50 years in the electronic and computer industry, I have taught many classes and seminars.  Most of the time I was only one day's study ahead of the class.   I was learning as I was teaching.

I taught my first class when I was 20 years old and stationed in the Air Force in Austin, Texas.  In our Fighter-Bomber Squadron we had about 100 Radar/Gunsight Control technicians.  We took our annual career field test -- and out of the 100, only 7 of us passed.  Because we 7 passed with flying colors -- our Commanding Officer issued an order:  "There will be a Radar/Gunsight Control System training class -- and we have 7 Volunteer Instructors."   Believe me, I had to study half the night to stay ahead of the class -- but, I learned.

And, that is the kind of discussion, Bible study, and Sunday School class I enjoy -- one with hearty discussions which cause us all to dig deeper.   For that, I thank you.

Believe it or not, even many of our Religion Forum "nay-sayers" contribute a lot to our Biblical discussions.  Once we get past their spitting and fuming, they often come up with good discussion points.  And, for that, I thank them.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

_____

You've put ole Billy in Hog Heaven. He loves to copy/paste to try & make people think he's smart & a Christian.

Most of us do have our opinions/explanations about scriptures in the Bible but Bill has turned this forum into a Bully Playground. Most of us don't take part in a serious discussion anymore because we're called names, made fun of & told we're going to Hell. This religion forum belongs to ole Billy, & that's why you won't see any serious discussions. Eventually, most everyone comes to see that the man is truly an idiot!

Hi all,

My Friend, Chick, is like a person who has fallen from the boat into the deep lake and is flailing around yelling for help.  However, when believers throw her a lifesaving floatation device -- she refuses to grasp it -- declaring NO ONE can tell her what to do.

She is on her way to drowning in this world.  And all the time she is blaming the people who have thrown her the lifesaving floatation device -- instead of clinging to it.  God is the only salvation for her, yet she keeps wondering if He is really there.  And, she blames Christian believers for telling her that God is within her grasp.

Yes, Bill Gray is a nasty old guy -- because he has told her that God loves her and wants to save her.  But, because Bill Gray told her -- she refuses to even reach out for that lifesaving device, God.   And, her drowning in this lost world -- is ALL Bill Gray's fault.   Duh!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Johhny No Cred pulls out his best argument... "DuH!".

Hi Paw-Paw,

Let me correct one oversight. I did not really notice this initially.

In your opening post, you wrote, "The following examples are just a few I have found that make me wonder about every word in the bible being correct."

You are right. Over the millennia, with many copies, there have been copy (typo?) errors inserted.  However, there are none which constitute contradictions, nor are there any which change the message of the Bible: salvation for all who will receive it - and God's guideline for living the Christian life.   In those, there are no errors, nor contradictions.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

_____________

Of course you don't know that, since none of the original texts exist.  The best that we have is a copy of a copy of a copy.  The original may have been written in Klingon for all we know. 

And it doesn't matter, the definition of Sola Scriptura isn't supported by the

Bible in the first place. It's a moot point.