Confused

How can we defend the authority of bible…bcoz of so many interpetations ?

4 Likes

In a perfect world, all Christians would have the same interpretation of every subject in the Bible. But that’s just not so. This does not mean we don’t agree on the core of what makes Christianity true. In other threads which I will link to we talk about the “levels of doctrine” where the are some absolutes about Christianity that can not be misinterpreted otherwise its heresy.
Too Many Interpretations! [Objection]

Some of those being Christ’s deity, death, burial, and resurrection. These things are very clear about Christ so much so that any deviation from them is wrong. In church history, you can see the early church fathers talk about these things and condemn them because there were heretical groups saying different about the absolutes. One example would be the gnostics. Here is a brief history on them so you can see how they were considered a heretical group. The Gnostics

Here is also a podcast by Frank Turek a Chrisitan apologist who talks about why there are so many denominations and talks on the four points of:

  1. Are just Christians divided?
  2. How serious are denominational disagreements?
  3. What causes divisions?
  4. Is God clear enough?

Here is another link for you to read as well that focuses on some of the points I brought up and some that are brought up in the podcast as well.

I hope some of this information helps and feel free to ask more questions about anything you may not understand. I and others will try our best to help.

God Bless :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Thnk u sis…also i have some questns…how can we challenge a naturalist ?..by asking direct questns to challenge their belief…like thy saying there is no god…we just had to live happily and make others happy also etc

  • List item

@Pulikkottil excellent question! Though to be fair, it’s kinda a false assumption that multiple interpretations undermines authority. Look at how divided science can often be, or politics. In neither of those cases does opposing views invalidate either view. Rather, it provides an onus to investigate, to compare and contrast, to test for consistency.

Regarding the Bible, I would argue that it’d be a mistake to make the authority of the text the starting point, but rather the authority of the resurrection. You can prove that the Bible has been around a long time, and that lots of people value it, but you’ll no more prove the Bible to be true than you would Oedipus Rex or Beowulf, for precisely the reason that you suggestion – they are interpretations. Unless you have the physical, original copies, written by the original hand, all you have is a re-write or a translation.

That said, you’re not without options here. Note, for example, how the Bible is “said” to have been written hundreds of years after the fact, and yet we have fragments (read “copies of copies”) of Gospel accounts dating back to within 100 years of the actual events. If you have copies of copies (continuously being re-written to perpetuate the text), that means the original was written far earlier – maybe as many as 50 years earlier. Do enough digging, and you find that the original Gospels and letters were written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses… and survived any criticisms that these eyewitnesses might’ve raised, had they been false.

Still, my favorite means of defending the scriptures is to go straight to the resurrection account, because where the Bible might be discarded as unprovable, the existence of Christ – and particularly, His crucifixion – is referenced in more EXTRA-biblical sources than the likes of Plato (who nobody questions actually lived). More than that, where people can deny an argument, they are powerless to deny that a relationship exists. 1 Peter 3:15 suggests as much, when Peter advises you to tell people not so much what they should believe, but rather why YOU believe. People can deny any evidence that you present them, if they’re determined to deny it, but they cannot tell you that you don’t know the Savior that you know. And that’s the beauty part – He doesn’t ask you to blindly believe in Him, but rather He asks you to FOLLOW Him on a journey where you will experience Him for yourself.

Too long, didn’t read? The sum is this. I don’t believe in Jesus because of the Bible. I believe in the Bible because I know Jesus.

1 Like

Hi, @Pulikkottil! I’m curious to know a little more detail about the nature of this objection you have encountered.

  1. In what context was Scripture’s authority being challenged? Is the person challenging this coming from an atheistic or theistic (whether mono- or poly-) framework?
  2. How did they come to see numerous interpretations as being a problem for its ultimate authority? What’s the line of reasoning that connects the two?

This may help the community break this massive down a bit into digestible chunks. :slight_smile: