Inerrancy of Scripture

[billwald]

"I would suggest that a Christian who reads his Bible ask God to witness to The Truth of The Gospel on the inside of them, as we're told He will."

I have had several Mormons tell me the same thing about God and the BoM.

One problem is caused by failing to differentiate between the Gospel (Good News) and the "Then what you do is . . . .
The Gospel is that God solved the sin problem by sending Jesus who died for our sins. All the rest is secondary stuff that sells books.

 

[logos_x]

The letter of Scripture is a veil just as much as it is a revelation; hiding while it reveals, and yet revealing while it hides.—Andrew Jukes

It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible-reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom. -- Horace Greeley

The foibles, inconsistencies and humanness (of the Bible) all the more show us that the letter of the Scripture is not to be enthroned as an idol to be worshipped of itself. The letter will always kill. It is the spirit which God has breathed into his holy instrument, the spirit of his high Logos, this Word, that transmits its life to all those who obey it. –Michael Phillips

The value of the Old Testament may be dependant on what seems its imperfection. It may repel one use in order that we may be forced to use it in another way—to find the Word in it…to re-live, while we read, the whole Jewish experience of God’s gradual and graded self-revelation, to feel the very contentions between the Word and the human material through which it works. –C.S. Lewis

One of the dangers from which the Church should pray to be delivered is idolatry of the letter of Scripture. The letter exists for the spirit, not the spirit for the letter. Literalism is the grave in which spiritual religion is buried. The New Testament is a book which is to be spiritually interpreted. James M. Campbell

If we move in the direction of biblial absolutism ("the religion of the Book"), how can we escape turning the New Testament into a Christian Torah and the gospel into a new law? Once we do that, religious fascism with all its sectarian ugliness cannot be far away. Far better a mistaken Christian (a heretic) who has somehow caught the Spirit of Christ, than an orthodox Protestant who thinks that the Spirit is mediated to him through the letter of correct theology. --Robert D. Brinsmead

The Bible in itself is not the Word of God. The Word of God is a person (John 1:1). Neither does the Bible have life, power or light in itself any more than did the Jewish Torach. These attributes may be ascribed to the Bible only by virtue of its relationship to Him who is Word, Life, Power and Light. Life is not in the book, as the Pharisees supposed, but only in the Man of the book (John 5:39). --Robert Brinsmead

 

[Granite]

Have you ever gone into a Christian bookstore to buy the Bible? Today there are a multitude of versions and translations. And even before the advent of Christian bookstores there were several "Bibles"--each one the revealed word of a different and separate Christian sect.

You can't change the fact that all copies of the Bible were made by hand before the invention of the printing press in about 1450. So they consequently contain mistakes, mistranslation and inaccuracies.

Whether you like it or not, there aren't any fragments of any of the New Testament books older than about 125 AD.

And there are no copies of any Christian scriptures that can be dated to a time before 200 AD.

And there are no copies of the Hebrew Bible older than 200 years before Jesus' birth.

We can't change these facts. Only new discoveries can alter them.

Basically the book has no provenance. Kind of a big problem...

 

[Zakath]

Basically the book has no provenance. Kind of a big problem...

Now don't go using those big three-syllable words, folks around here get testy when they don't understand your argument. :chuckle:

 

[Caledvwlch]

I am surprised by that comment. I thoughth the virgin birth was pretty well laid out in Isaiah.

Mistranslation. Isaiah said "young woman". And a few months later, his young wife had aboy. Guess what they named him...

...Emmanuel. Hmm...

 

[Granite]

:doh:

My bad.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Re theologians, I've quoted Jerome already. You jumped all over me in the No Longer A Chistian thread because I quoted from other people, and now you switch gears, because you must have taken a blood oath somewhere to be cranky and annoying no matter what someone is saying.

The word "Nazarene" is used as a synonym of "branch", to show their similarity. Jesus is called a Nazarene, or Netzer, "the branch", because he's from Natzareth, so called because of the many plants ("netzers") that grow there. Jesus fulfills the prophecies in Isaiah 11 by being a descendant of David and a Nazarene.

The geneologies in Luke and Matthew are so completely different... why should we believe either one?

 

[Zakath]

The geneologies in Luke and Matthew are so completely different... why should we believe either one?

Particularly in light of Tit. 3:9...

Seems that ole Paul knew what kind of trouble they caused and was smart enough to tell his disciples to avoid them... :chuckle:

 

[Caledvwlch]

God's word is perfect, it has no errors. We humans who read can misinterpret what we read though.

What Moses wrote, what Apostle Paul wrote...what any of the authors of the Bible wrote...it was all recordings of the events and accounts.

Basically, what Jesus taught...boom, included. What happened to this prophet and that prophet? Boom, included. If there were any errors or "false/unnecessary" things, they would've been left out or not even passed as God's word. The way I see it, it's like authors assembling an anthology...to have it correct, you need an editor. Well? Who's more perfect than God? That's all.

I'll ask you then. If the geneologies in Luke and Matthew are both inspired? Which one is infallible, because they are COMPLETELY different.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Particularly in light of Tit. 3:9...

Hmm...

 

[Granite]

Ah. Well, the pat answer is the geneologies just differ in their FOCUS. :hammer:

How this explains away the discrepancies is beyond me.

 

[Zakath]

Ah. Well, the pat answer is the geneologies just differ in their FOCUS. :hammer:

How this explains away the discrepancies is beyond me.

It doesn't. That's why the topic still comes up, over and over, after 1600 years...

 

[Caledvwlch]

It doesn't. That's why the topic still comes up, over and over, after 1600 years...

And rightfully so. I was a Christian from childhood until a month or so ago, and I finally compared the 2 geneologies yesterday. I was appalled. The bald-faced lies were just too much.

 

[Granite]

The lies are appalling, about as appalling as the X-rated incest, rape, murder, gang rape, genocide, and gore.

 

[Caledvwlch]

The lies are appalling, about as appalling as the X-rated incest, rape, murder, gang rape, genocide, and gore.

Well, not quite that appalling...

 

[Aimiel]

You are misinformed on all three counts.

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[Granite]

I know you are, but what am I?

A real space cadet, for one.

 

[Caledvwlch]

I know you are, but what am I?

Aimiel, congratulations, you're the new winner of the "Single Coolest Post Caledvwlch Has Ever Seen" award!

 

[Zakath]

Aimiel, congratulations, you're the new winner of the "Single Coolest Post Caledvwlch Has Ever Seen" award!

If you're a member you could post it as your Post of the Day!

 

[Aimiel]

And rightfully so. I was a Christian from childhood until a month or so ago...

No, you believed you were Christian. A Christian (IMHO) is someone who is in a relationship with The Lord, and anyone (in my experience) who is in a relationship with Him doesn't leave Him, and He never leaves or forsakes anyone.