Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
The errant theology is the one that falsely claims inerrancy of the scriptures. I agree that I am not a spokesman for errant theology. You are filling that role in this thread.
You gave no answer.
Still pretending you explained the error in Matthew that states all the generations from David to the deportation were 14, when there were actually 18?
Here is the error no one will even try to explain.
Angel4truth did copy and paste an explanation of why someone though Jehoiakim was missing. The person who originated the supposed explantion apparently did not notice that three more generations were missing.
Of course, there were other errors I mentioned earlier and I have more to present but you gave up trying to explain the errors.
God never promised us a perfect book.
Angel4truth did copy and paste an explanation of why someone though Jehoiakim was missing. The person who originated the supposed explantion apparently did not notice that three more generations were missing.
Lon, this is clearly an error in Matthew and disproves your false doctrine of inerrancy.
Of course, there were other errors I mentioned earlier and I have more to present but you gave up trying to explain the errors.
God never promised us a perfect book.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Matthew never promised a complete list of names.
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
Well that's between you two. What I can assert is yes, the textual context is clear both Jesus and the religious leaders Jesus was arguing with both believed the Hebrew scriptures were accurate and without error. Many of the religious Jews of today would say the same, just like Christians do.
Last edited:
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
Well that's between you two. What I can assert is yes, the textual context is clear both Jesus and the religious leaders Jesus was arguing with both believe the Hebrew scriptures were accurate and without error. The religious Jews of today would say the same.
Last edited:
Wrong again, but thanks for finally trying.
Matthew said all the generations from David to the deportation were 14. That was not true.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.
He said 14 were all the generations, and he listed them, and he missed 4.
An error that disproves the false doctrine of inerrancy.
Last edited:
There is an alternate view: that Jesus did not come to correct the view of people on every matter. He did not correct their views on science and history. He had the more important missions, one of which was to show them the Father through his love and mercy and reveal a God who could be called Father. It was a radical change.
So we can’t know what Jesus thought about the scriptures other than what He told us. He said they can’t be annulled or discredited. He never called them inerrant. He never even called them complete, and He quoted a scripture not found in the Old Testament.
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
Okay.
When did anyone ever talk about these subjects for Him to correct them?
Actually Jesus only spoke about love on 6 occasions, which represents less than 1% of His ministerial teaching. He taught on other subjects that that were much more important. The most important subject that he taught on, over half of the time, was about His coming Kingdom.
You set up your own theology then you believe it. That's not how it works. You either Believe what is written or you don't; 'The scriptures cannot be discredited':
discredit
verb
past tense: discredited; past participle: discredited
1. harm the good reputation of.
"his remarks were taken out of context in an effort to discredit him"
2. cause (an idea or account) to seem false or unreliable.
You are discrediting what the NT says Jesus said.
Jesus knew their views. If He had wanted to correct their views on history and science He could have raised the topics.
Could you go through the math that led to the 1%?
Jesus gave them a new command: that they love one another.
And, if you are defining speaking about love as the only times He taught on love, then I think you have missed the point. Love is more action than words.
The people who set up the doctrine of inerrancy created their own theology. That doctrine is not found in the Bible.
No, I am pointing out that you are interpreting the passage. Jesus said the scriptures can’t be discredited. You are rewording it to say the scriptures are inerrant. Isn’t that making up your own theology?
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
Well there were any number of subjects that were not aired before Jesus but it can be safely assumed that the most important ones were recorded in the Gospels. Technically science was not even a subject then unless you consider philosophy a science, and that is mentioned in Paul's writings at least. Being religious I really don't think it was something that the religious leader paid any mind to. As for the Hebrew history I think there was little argument in that regard.
Take the 6 times Jesus talked about love, divide it by the number of separate other things Jesus talked about and times it by 100.
Of course but we're talking about His Teachings
Is this what you're referring to:
Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".
A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
inerrant
adjective
incapable of being wrong.
Where as:
discredit
verb
past tense: discredited; past participle: discredited
1. harm the good reputation of.
"his remarks were taken out of context in an effort to discredit him"
2. cause (an idea or account) to seem false or unreliable.
It's hard to tell the difference to be honest; Like geese or goose? Semantics hey..
I'm not sure if I am doing that TBH. I can't say that I have enough esoteric knowledge of semantics to make an informed enough comment, to decide if the two terms are different enough to warrant my or anyone's disregard for either argument.
I knew when I came on this thread it wasn't my cuppa tea.
Well there were any number of subjects that were not aired before Jesus but it can be safely assumed that the most important ones were recorded in the Gospels. Technically science was not even a subject then unless you consider philosophy a science, and that is mentioned in Paul's writings at least. Being religious I really don't think it was something that the religious leader paid any mind to. As for the Hebrew history I think there was little argument in that regard.
Take the 6 times Jesus talked about love, divide it by the number of separate other things Jesus talked about and times it by 100.
Of course but we're talking about His Teachings
Is this what you're referring to:
Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".
A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
inerrant
adjective
incapable of being wrong.
Where as:
discredit
verb
past tense: discredited; past participle: discredited
1. harm the good reputation of.
"his remarks were taken out of context in an effort to discredit him"
2. cause (an idea or account) to seem false or unreliable.
It's hard to tell the difference to be honest; Like geese or goose? Semantics hey..
I'm not sure if I am doing that TBH. I can't say that I have enough esoteric knowledge of semantics to make an informed enough comment, to decide if the two terms are different enough to warrant my or anyone's disregard for either argument.
I knew when I came on this thread it wasn't my cuppa tea.
Jesus used the word love in 19 separate verses in the gospel of John alone. Are you sure about the numbers?
Lon
Well-known member
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
I said 6 occasions and yes I'm sure. If you divide that by all the other separate things Jesus talk about it comes to less than 1%.
Lon
Well-known member
Thread summary position
Thread summary position
There are excellent websites and posts in this thread regarding inerrancy. This is a summary of much of my conversation in thread. Inerrancy is the default and faith position. "Errant" theology is the 'attacking' position AGAINST God and His disciples:
Thread summary position
There are excellent websites and posts in this thread regarding inerrancy. This is a summary of much of my conversation in thread. Inerrancy is the default and faith position. "Errant" theology is the 'attacking' position AGAINST God and His disciples:
I will summarize what you wrote, Lon:
I can’t explain the errors you pointed out, so I am going to call them discrepancies and declare my undying, illogical allegiance to a man-made teaching not found in scripture. I don’t care if it is wrong or not, because I am more dedicated to my tradition than to truth. It doesn’t matter that making it a core doctrine may turn immature believers away from the gospel; what I learned in preschool class from the flannelgraph board is more important than growing in grace and knowledge.
I can’t explain the errors you pointed out, so I am going to call them discrepancies and declare my undying, illogical allegiance to a man-made teaching not found in scripture. I don’t care if it is wrong or not, because I am more dedicated to my tradition than to truth. It doesn’t matter that making it a core doctrine may turn immature believers away from the gospel; what I learned in preschool class from the flannelgraph board is more important than growing in grace and knowledge.
How many times did Jesus talk about inerrancy of the scriptures?
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
All we need is John 10:35