Is the Bible infallible? Probably not. It has passed through hundreds of hands down thru the centuries. It has been translated and revised many, many times. So, its highly probable that the words have changed. The accounts of certain events may have been altered. It may not be as scientifically or historically accurate as we might hope, but, really, thats okay...It is neither a Scrience or Historical book.
The Message of the Bible, however, IMO, IS accurate and infallible. The Bible is the "vehicle" that is used to bring us the Message God wants us to hear. The Word of God is that message. Jesus said Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. Jhn 8:43 We can't understand the Bible because we can't hear Its Message (Word).
Is the Jonah story factual or is it an anology to convey a deeper meaning? I don't know.... but I do know there IS a deeper meaning than a man being swallowed by a whale. Or fish.
So, I'll go on record as saying the Bible, as we have it today, is not infallible. But the Word of God contained therein is absolute Truth.
To illustrate, in Acts 9 we have the account of Pauls conversion. We read in verse 7: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. They heard a voice, but saw no one with Saul (Paul). However, Acts 22:9 says: "...they heard NOT the Voice....". Contradiction? No, just a difference in the way the story was retold. The MESSAGE of the story, however, remains true and accurate.
__________________
"Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him...." -Psa. 37:7
Waiting for the Lord is easy... Waiting patiently? Not so much.
To illustrate, in Acts 9 we have the account of Pauls conversion. We read in verse 7: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. They heard a voice, but saw no one with Saul (Paul). However, Acts 22:9 says: "...they heard NOT the Voice....". Contradiction? No, just a difference in the way the story was retold. The MESSAGE of the story, however, remains true and accurate.
Those are the scriptures that were brought out to me as the Spirit was teaching me about not letting the bible become my idol. Which it was at one point, I used to think the bible was God before I received the Holy Spirit! But not any longer, I understand now that without the Spirit to bring revelation, life, and interpretation to the written word of God, the letters written remain only words on the page.
If you take those scriptures about the conversion of Paul exactly as they are written there is a contradiction, who was correct, Luke who wrote Acts? Or Paul who had the experience and was there?
There is definitely an inconsistancy in the written text about Paul's conversion.
__________________ Matthew 24:13-14 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."
Those are the scriptures that were brought out to me as the Spirit was teaching me about not letting the bible become my idol. Which it was at one point, I used to think the bible was God before I received the Holy Spirit! But not any longer, I understand now that without the Spirit to bring revelation, life, and interpretation to the written word of God, the letters written remain only words on the page.
If you take those scriptures about the conversion of Paul exactly as they are written there is a contradiction, who was correct, Luke who wrote Acts? Or Paul who had the experience and was there?
There is definitely an inconsistancy in the written text about Paul's conversion.
Nice, ty both.
As you've pointed out, there may be an inconsistency for too-literal children to argue about, but does it change the message, the Word, here?
As I was meditating more on the scriptures about Paul's testimony, I was thinking perhaps when Paul recounted what happened to him later on in Acts 22 he may have forgotten all the little details, and what he spoke wasn't exactly the same as he spoke before, and Luke recorded it? I have done that many times!
Also in Acts 2 when Peter is preaching on the day of Pentecost, he quotes Joel 2, and the words Peter spoke are not the exact words of the prophecy, could be a similar situation with Paul? Something to meditate on!
__________________ Matthew 24:13-14 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."
As I was meditating more on the scriptures about Paul's testimony, I was thinking perhaps when Paul recounted what happened to him later on in Acts 22 he may have forgotten all the little details, and what he spoke wasn't exactly the same as he spoke before, and Luke recorded it? I have done that many times!
Also in Acts 2 when Peter is preaching on the day of Pentecost, he quotes Joel 2, and the words Peter spoke are not the exact words of the prophecy, could be a similar situation with Paul? Something to meditate on!
The same can be said of Paul's quoting the prophecy of Habakkuk 1:5 which is found written in Acts 13:40-41. In the former it says nothing about "despisers" or "perishing," yet when Paul recited it he did. But, again, the essential message or intent remains the same.... simply another way of repeating that which someone else has stated, but not actually altering or changing its essence.
Those are the scriptures that were brought out to me as the Spirit was teaching me about not letting the bible become my idol. Which it was at one point, I used to think the bible was God before I received the Holy Spirit! But not any longer, I understand now that without the Spirit to bring revelation, life, and interpretation to the written word of God, the letters written remain only words on the page.
If you take those scriptures about the conversion of Paul exactly as they are written there is a contradiction, who was correct, Luke who wrote Acts? Or Paul who had the experience and was there?
There is definitely an inconsistancy in the written text about Paul's conversion.
The difference between the two is found in these words.... "A" and "THE." In the former the men with Paul did, indeed, hear "a" voice, but they did not hear "the" voice of God. Different, yet the same thing, actually, only the former advises that they did not distinguish "a" voice which they heard as being that voice of "the" Lord. That's the way I see it, but as others have stated, it really doesn't change the main point, which is, Paul heard "the" voice of Jesus.
The difference between the two is found in these words.... "A" and "THE." In the former the men with Paul did, indeed, hear "a" voice, but they did not hear "the" voice of God. Different, yet the same thing, actually, only the former advises that they did not distinguish "a" voice which they heard as being that voice of "the" Lord. That's the way I see it, but as others have stated, it really doesn't change the main point, which is, Paul heard "the" voice of Jesus.
The scriptures in question are Acts 9:7 which says:
7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.
9 “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid,but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.
Now which account of Paul's experience is correct?
As I'm reading these scriptures right here it looks like the writer Luke is giving his account of what happened in Acts 9:7 and then in Acts 22:9 Paul is giving his account of what happened.
__________________ Matthew 24:13-14 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."
9 “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid,but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.
Now which account of Paul's experience is correct?
As I'm reading these scriptures right here it looks like the writer Luke is giving his account of what happened in Acts 9:7 and then in Acts 22:9 Paul is giving his account of what happened.
Consider a similar scenario:
John 12
27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
Of the people standing around, some heard something like a thunder while others heard said it was an angel. However, Jesus would HAVE told you it did NOT thunder, neither was it an angel, but it was the Father who spoke.
So in Paul's case, it is the same thing. The vision was meant for Paul alone. So the words Jesus spoke did not have to heard by those standing by. This shows us that God can be speaking to a person audibly and those standing by might either hear something different or not even hear anything at all.
If all accounts are exactly word for word, what would be the point of having different accounts? However, if we study the "differing" accounts, we'd see that the message of each account is still the same.
__________________
...Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ...(Acts 20:21)
Hybrid Mode
