The Bible Doesn't Need to be 100% Truth to be the Word of God
As long as something comes from God
THAT validates it.
It doesn't have to be perfect.
Take manna for instance.
There the Children of Israel were - in the desert on their way to the Promised Land
after escaping from slavery in Egypt.
They run out of food; but God, thru Moses,
provides this thing called "manna" to eat.
It was much less appetizing than they would have liked but they swallowed their pride and accepted it.
Why? Because that's all they had?
Yes, but also because IT CAME FROM GOD !!
Ditto with the Bible, it can sometimes seem as inadequate as manna.
But there are other parts of it that are like rich food - you couldn't ask for teachings and miracles more glorious.
About that manna, the Jews later waxed rapsodic about it, calling it "the bread of heaven".
But Christ contradicted them, saying, "Moses gave you NOT that bread from heaven"( ).
Then He explained that He was "the true bread from heaven"( ).
That idea (that Christ compensates for the shortcomings of (what's written in) the Law of Moses) is true in other ways too.
I mean that like manna was much less than it was supposed to be, but Christ makes up the shortfall, so too with the inerrancy of the Bible !!!
It is supposed to be all true, but sometimes it is only "the shadow of the very image"(Colossians 2.15-17; Hebrews 10.1), which is the Apostle Paul's polite way of facing up to something very unpleasant: the Bible falls short of being inerrant.
But Christ comes to the rescue!!!
HIS sinless perfection is enuff to make the Bible as though it really was inerrant, infallible.
While the written Word of God isn't flawless, the living Word of God is flawless,
which trumps everything else !!!
Like Christ Himself said, "I come to fulfill the [Bible]"( ).
Meaning to fulfill the promise of the inerrancy of the Bible !!! That promise is clearly not fulfilled apart from Christ.
Tonight at the Bible Study at Church, the Pastor asked me to read 2nd Timothy 3.10-17. Verse 16 says,"all scripture is God breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction.."
I commented that the Bible can do all those things even if it is less than ideal.
Unsurprisingly, that didn't go over well.
I tried to explain by talking about David.
One verse says David killed the Philistine giant with a stone fired from his slingshot.
But the very next verse explains that David cut the giant's head off.
THAT was what killed Goliath.
If David hadn't followed thru, the giant would surely have come to and gotten back on his feet.
(After all, the stone didn't go thru his head like a bullet would have.
It only lodged in the exterior of his head.)
My point was that its not true that every verse in the Bible is true.
Like fundamentalists like to say.
Rather you have to take the passage as a whole, not verse by verse.
To get to the real truth: yes, the slingshot did the job but it wasn't the whole story.
Saying David killed Goliath with the slingshot is shorthand for the more complete statement.
Namely, he killed him with the slingshot plus the sword.
There is at least one other passage where the Bible is written in shorthand.
So we have to add the part that is left out, if we want the truth.
For example, Christ speaking to the Pharisees, "It is written in your LAW.."( ).
But the passage He was quoting is found in the Psalms, not the first 5 books called the Torah Law.
So we can take Christ's words as shorthand for "the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings."
Speaking of the Law of Moses, the Gospel according to John is pretty hard on the Law.
Listen to this,"The LAW was given by Moses but ..TRUTH came by Christ Jesus" (John 1.17).
Of course the books of the Law are truthful, but NOT TO BE COMPARED to the truth of the Gospel.
So for us to say the truth of the Bible is consistent thruout seems to flat out ignore the Apostle John's words.
By emphasizing the difference between the Books of the Law and the New Testament, John is condemning the first 5 books of the Bible as less than 100% truthful !!!
For example, Noah's Flood as recorded in Genesis is clearly only "a shadow" of what happened.
If we go by the historical "Black Sea Flood"
that took place 5,500 years ago, (1,500 years before Abraham) that demythologizes the Biblical Flood account.
John's words (John 1.17) basically gives us permission to espouse the Black Sea Flood.
My point is that Noah in the Bible is still "profitable for doctrine" etc.
For that flood was the Judgment of God
and so was the Black Sea Flood, presumably.
I mean that the message that God judges sin by letting destruction take place is true.
Jesus ties the future judgment by fire to the flood of Noah's day."As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the day of the Son of Man"(Luke 17.26-27).
Now if we demythologize the flood by seeing it as the Black Sea Flood, this is helpful to us.
The Black Sea is located in Russia.
By Christ tying the future fire falling from the sky (Luke 17.29-30) to the Russian flood,
its like He is hinting to us that the fire from the sky(nuclear war) will have to do with who?? With Russia, Russia, Russia !!
And that much is confirmed by other passages.
PS: look up "Black Sea Flood" on YouTube or Google.
Paul wrote," you are my epistle of Christ."
Now the disciples he was writing to were not perfect people, of course.
But he calls them sort of the Word of God, nevertheless.So an imperfect Word of God can still be useful !!!