Are the Scriptures the Word of God?
One issue that has emerged from book reviews to date is that quite a few universalists do not appear to believe that the scriptures are the word of God. There are some who believe that parts of the Bible are from God, but who conclude it is impossible to determine which have a divine origin and which do not. There are others who argue that as all biblical teaching came through fallible men, none of it can be inerrant. Finally, there are probably others who believe that the scriptures may have been originally divine and inerrant, but who think that these texts have been irretrievably lost to the mists of time.
There appear to be two main reasons for these conclusions. The first are the contradictions they allege are contained in the Bible. These may take the form of internal inconsistencies, but might also include statements that are contradicted by the facts of science and history. The second main reason appears to be is that some of the statements of the Bible are considered to be morally repugnant. Many here may have in mind some of the stern laws and punishments in the Torah or perhaps the ways in which the Bible says Israel was told by God to prosecute its wars.
So why do others fervently believe that the whole of the Bible is the word of God? Perhaps the first reason is that they cannot accept that a loving God and Father of us all would not communicate with mankind. After all, what loving earthly father would never communicate with His children?
Next, they might argue that if God is perfect and all-powerful, why would He allow His words to be so tainted by human error that none of us could determine what is divine and valuable and what is human and untrustworthy? Permitting this would make the Bible effectively useless, as no one could sort out the chaff from the wheat.
Whatever the truth of these matters might be, one thing is certain: if the Bible simply contains the thoughts of men, universalists have no firm basis for claiming to have any idea about God’s attributes. If the bible just contains human propositions, then we cannot even know if God is all-loving, omniscient or omnipotent. And without these fundamental pillars of belief, the arguments of universalists have nothing solid to rest upon.
I’d like to open this them up for discussion, but it would be good if these deliberations could focus on bringing to light any evidence that shows the Bible contains:
(a) internal contradictions;
(b) factually incorrect statements; and,
(c) immoral laws or actions attributed to God.
To keep it focused, would contributors please just select what they consider to be one ‘killer’ example in any or all of these categories.
One example that is offered as a clear contradiction is given as follows.
…did Jesus say, ‘those who are not with me are against me’ or ‘those who are not against me are for me’? Either one of the evangelists is in error or Jesus said both and so contradicted himself’. (Hell to Pay, page 339).
The facts are that Jesus said, ‘those who are not with me are against me’ in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23. He said this in response to challenges from the pharisees that He cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Jesus replied that a kingdom that is divided cannot stand. He then added the above words, which are identical in Matthew and Luke. Jesus was making the point here that, in relation to Him, there is no divided house or half-way house. People are in either one of two mutually exclusive houses: (A) with Him or (B) against Him.
Jesus did not quite say, ‘those who are not against me, are for me?’ What He actually said in Mark 9:40 was, ‘who is not against us, is for us’., and in Luke 9:50 He said, ‘he is not against you, is for you’. In the first version Jesus used the word, ‘us’ and in the second He used the pronoun, ‘you’. However, this is not a contradiction. Jesus may have simply reinforced this message by repeating the point, something He often did, in this case to make it clear to the disciples that this principle applied as much to them as group as it did to Him personally.
In this second passage, Jesus spoke these words to His disciples in relation to a man who was casting out demons in Jesus’s name, but who decided not to join the disciples at that time. Making the point He made to the pharisees in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23, Jesus said that there were only two camps: (A) with Him or (B) against Him. There was no mixing of this position, no divided houses and nothing outside of (A) and (B).
Even if Jesus had said exactly what was quoted above, therefore, no contradiction would arise. If there are only two groups (A) and (B), saying that you are not in (B) must mean you are in (A) and vice versa. Far from being a contradiction, this is actually a logical necessity.