Free Will Vs. The infallibility of the Bible

It seems to be that many Christians out there hold two very conflicting beliefs:

A. That the bible is the infallible word of God.

B. That free will is God's gift to man.

But that brings up a complication. If man is not able to corrupt the bible, then his free will is compromised. There can be no stipulations when it comes to free will. We either have it, or we don't have it. If we have it then I'd say that there is a very good chance that the bible has been warped from its original intentions (whether or not it was 'inspired' by God) by those wishing to use it to their advantage. If we don't have it, then our fates are being carefully directed so that our actions don't result in the book's corruption (whether directly or indirectly).

Gauging by the number of contradictions that can be found in the Bible, and by many Christians' observed habits of twisting its words to suit their own agendas, I'm going to vote on 'B'.

Thoughts?

ive been saying this for a long time, but the christians wont accept it

Hmm... maybe some Christians will be kind enough to share their thoughts on this? (Not that others aren't welcome to reply, too).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afghooey

It seems to be that many Christians out there hold two very conflicting beliefs:

A. That the bible is the infallible word of God.

B. That free will is God's gift to man.

But that brings up a complication. If man is not able to corrupt the bible, then his free will is compromised. There can be no stipulations when it comes to free will. We either have it, or we don't have it. If we have it then I'd say that there is a very good chance that the bible has been warped from its original intentions (whether or not it was 'inspired' by God) by those wishing to use it to their advantage. If we don't have it, then our fates are being carefully directed so that our actions don't result in the book's corruption (whether directly or indirectly).

Gauging by the number of contradictions that can be found in the Bible, and by many Christians' observed habits of twisting its words to suit their own agendas, I'm going to vote on 'B'.

Thoughts?

---

If God wanted to write a book, then iam sure he could do it
without a mistake.( inless he typed like me)

1. a difference has to be made between the original writings and current copies, and certainly current translations. i'd make no quarrel that there is a lot of personal agenda in translations, and possibly even copies.

2. the idea of "free will" is sort of extra-biblical. it's not a bible term. it seems to me that the bible does show that we have choice, but we also are not all-powerful, we have choice, but we are limited in our abilities.


i think the easiest answer to your conundrum is this: the authors of the books of the bible CHOSE to let God inspire them to write His word. i don't think they were possessed and forced. in fact, you'll note as you read different authors, that each person brings his own personal style to the text, and you learn something about them. i don't think they went into a coma and they're hand started scribbling down the words, i believe it was a union of God's inspiration and the author's style and humanity.

2 Tim 3:16 says "all scripture is given by inspiration of God". a more literal interpretation would be "God breathed". anyway, i absolutely believe that the authors chose to allow God's inspiration, that they weren't slaves, and i think that comes across in the writings, writings of real people with real human traits, that were inspired to speak the truth.


as far as contradictions, i hear so much "there are all those contradictions in the bible", but folks never seem to name them. there are plenty of websites that list apparent contradictions. i'd be more than glad to go through them one by one and see if i can answer, from my understanding of hebrew and greek.

anyone got a contradiction? let's get going ;) i'm not saying i'll have an answer for every apparent contradiction, but i can try.

in fact, i'm gonna start another thread for this

Thanks much for your reply, bobby.

Although your points are sound, I find they don't altogether solve the conundrum, as you put it. My post was not so much about the process in which the Bible was written, but what happened to it afterwards as it was copied and translated.

Don't get me wrong, I think that there is still truth to be found in the Bible; but where there is wheat, there is chaff, and sometimes it is not always easy to separate.

The point of this post isn't to discredit the Bible, but to encourage people to question what they read and follow what is in their hearts rather than to blindly believe what they're told is the infallible word of God.