Let's have another controversial post on inerrancy

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Your attitude does not help matters. For some, including me, this is a massive issue.

My attitude is the direct result of your own pronouncements that there are "contradictions" when you haven't even taken the time or put forth the energy to find that they simply don't exist, as I will now prove to you.

Reading the Bible raises up some huge questions and we're trying to work our way through them. I read something like Proverbs;

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

And those 2 are contradictory statements.

This is what I mean. Your have not studied sufficiently to know what the passage says. It seems to me, also, you've posted this so-called "contradiction" on the board in another thread today, and the question was answered there, and yet you continue to hold to your insistence that this is a "contradiction."

The word "according" in v. 4 is the Hebrew kem'o, meaning "like." In other words, "Do not answer a fool in like folly." The word "deserves' in v. 5 is the Hebrew ghem'ool and quite literally means "deserves." Therefore, answer as the folly deserves, i.e., either do not answer at all, or answer with wisdom so as to correct the folly. Anyone could have discovered this for themselves, rather quickly, if they were so inclined.

Looking at the Resurrection accounts, they do differ. Now they are there how they are for a reason but to say "oh its an illusion" doesn't help me and is just insulting. I know how to read!

English, yes. English translated into Greek without having the benefit of knowledge of the idioms, the fact that the Greek has six tenses, that the Greek is able to express in one single word what we require a half-dozen to say? No, you don't know that, and you apparently don't want to know that. Also, there are no "differences" in the resurrection accounts. There is perspective differential, because the four gospels were written from four different views. Matthew presented Christ as King. Mark presents Him as Son of Man. Luke presents Him as the humble Servant. John presents Him as God the Son. With differing perspectives, each author is going to note different things about the life of Christ, as well as his death. Because they don't read identically does not make them "contradictory." It makes them different in perspective. No two modern authors will treat the same subject in the same manner. Why do you insist the authors of the true accounts of Christ and His ministry do so?

The problem for me has been not so much that I have these issues but the attitude like the one you're showing; "I believe its inerrant therefore I'm better than you."

As surely you have noted by now, it isn't simply belief. It is the fact that I have made the effort to study and dissect God's word and understand what it says and why it says it. You do not know the simple facts I have pointed out in just this post. These are facts that most middle-school aged Southern Baptist kids know from their Bible studies in church. The fact that you do not know them indicates that your are making a complaint based on no knowledge whatsoever. It indicates you have simply read that there are contradictions and haven't investigated them for yourself. You are buying into an agenda of ignorance and have no desire to correct it in yourself. I'm sure you think that to be harsh, but let me put in perspective for you.

Do you understand what transference is from a psychological standpoint? Can you discuss circular vs. linear causality with me on a professional basis? Is it possible you can give me a detailed outline of the differences between Aaron Beck's cognitive behavioral therapy and Carl Rogers' humanistic psychology? I'd be very surprised if you could, and unless you've had the training I've had, there is no reason that you should be able to answer any of those question.

So what makes you think you can challenge the inerrancy of the Bible without having investigated whether or not it is?

 

[Arch Angle]

I am a nice guy.

Have I done mean things?

The bible is "us". Like it or leave it.
It answers 'who am I"

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

The Church that helped him come to his faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

Christians who don't have a church family tend to fall prey to Satan's attacks much easier and quicker.

Church fellowship along with bible study and prayer are simple Chrisitan disciplines that are to be encouraged not discouraged.

33

 

[SlickPen50]

My experience is that what calls itself church in most cases is one of the centers of satan's attack on believers. We've accepted virtually everything done in "church" which cannot be found in the NT. We've created classes of people laity/clergy distinction in the name of doing church, which doesn't exist in the NT. And we've accepted theology, which is a belief in a belief (in other words a man made creation) as the means to define what is thought to be orthodox (another word that doesn't exist in the bible). But we want to swear on the bible's inerrancy as the place we are to believe. However, in practicum, "the bible" is the place everybody departs from in their "doing" of so-called church.

I've left "the organized church" and never felt better, never felt closer to God, never learned more about God's gift and call on my life, and have never been more enabled to do it....

 

[Grazer]

My experience is that what calls itself church in most cases is one of the centers of satan's attack on believers. We've accepted virtually everything done in "church" which cannot be found in the NT. We've created classes of people laity/clergy distinction in the name of doing church, which doesn't exist in the NT. And we've accepted theology, which is a belief in a belief (in other words a man made creation) as the means to define what is thought to be orthodox (another word that doesn't exist in the bible). But we want to swear on the bible's inerrancy as the place we are to believe. However, in practicum, "the bible" is the place everybody departs from in their "doing" of so-called church.

I've left "the organized church" and never felt better, never felt closer to God, never learned more about God's gift and call on my life, and have never been more enabled to do it....

The latter is very much the same for me

 

[Free]

My experience is that what calls itself church in most cases is one of the centers of satan's attack on believers.

Satan uses people in the church, just as he uses people outside the church. That Satan can attack people through the church is certainly no reason to abandon it or think the church itself is wrong or evil.

We've accepted virtually everything done in "church" which cannot be found in the NT.

That some or many things are not found in the NT is largely irrelevant and does not necessarily mean they shouldn't be done.

We've created classes of people laity/clergy distinction in the name of doing church, which doesn't exist in the NT.

And yet the NT speaks of elders, deacons, pastors, teachers, and church leadership. There certainly appears to be a hierarchy, even a God-given one.

And we've accepted theology, which is a belief in a belief (in other words a man made creation) as the means to define what is thought to be orthodox (another word that doesn't exist in the bible).

Theology certainly is not "a belief in a belief." And whether or not it is "a man made creation" is irrelevant to it's necessity and usefullness. That 'orthodox' isn't in the Bible is irrelevant as it is just a word for a concept given in Scripture. It is very necessary to define just what right belief is.

But we want to swear on the bible's inerrancy as the place we are to believe. However, in practicum, "the bible" is the place everybody departs from in their "doing" of so-called church.

And yet the Bible is what we have been given by God.

I've left "the organized church" and never felt better, never felt closer to God, never learned more about God's gift and call on my life, and have never been more enabled to do it....

And yet you are in just as much danger, if not more, of falling into error. You are no different than the organized church, just that you're an organization unto yourself.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Neither this website, or you, seem to understand what is meant by "inerrancy."

There may be a few copying errors, but those are the translations, not the original manuscripts, and none of these errors change doctrine one single jot or tittle . . .

One can't complain of inerrancy being a crime if one doesn't really understand what inerrancy means. Learn that. Then come back and complain -- if you still can.

If God hands someone an inerrant Book, and someone else takes that Book and tries to make copies, and those copies are errant, then those copies are not "the inerrant Word of God".

Period.

 

[P31Woman]

If God hands someone an inerrant Book, and someone else takes that Book and tries to make copies, and those copies are errant, then those copies are not "the inerrant Word of God".

Period.

So you agree the original was inerrant.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

So you agree the origional was inerrant.

I agree.

It's just amazing how some people can boldly claim that they have a firm handle on the concepts of "errant" and "inerrant", and then beat around the Bush of Confusion with such simple black-and-white concepts.


Here! Let me show some people how it's done!

1+1=2 . . . inerrant!

1+1=3 . . . errant!

 

[P31Woman]

I agree.

It's just amazing how some people can boldly claim that they have a firm handle on the concepts of "errant" and "inerrant", and then beat around the Bush of Confusion with such simple black-and-white concepts.


Here! Let me show some people how it's done!

1+1=2 . . . inerrant!

1+1=3 . . . errant!

LOL, bout time you admit you agree to the doctrine of inerrancy of scripture. Now we can move on to see if the copies we have are reliable.

 

[SlickPen50]

but when the book tells of missing parts and we don't have the original documents, NO ONE can say the "original" documents are inerrant because we cannot observe that they are. They don't exists and the documents we have shows that some were lost before they could be replicated... This idea (inerrancy) is nuts and the opiate of the religious.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If God hands someone an inerrant Book, and someone else takes that Book and tries to make copies, and those copies are errant, then those copies are not "the inerrant Word of God".

Period.

If it can be demonstrated that it is a faithful reproduction -- and that proof is a fact, beyond argument or discussion -- it most assuredly IS the inerrant Word of God. Period!

 

[VirginShallConceive]

If it can be demonstrated that it is a faithful reproduction -- and that proof is a fact, beyond argument or discussion -- it most assuredly IS the inerrant Word of God. Period!

I agree 100%.

 

[P31Woman]

but when the book tells of missing parts and we don't have the original documents, NO ONE can say the "original" documents are inerrant because we cannot observe that they are. They don't exists and the documents we have shows that some were lost before they could be replicated... This idea (inerrancy) is nuts and the opiate of the religious.

Not everything King David wrote was scripture. Not every letter Paul, Peter, John, Luke, etc wrote was scripture.

Our cannon of scripture is complete. We are not missing any books.

I don't need the origionals to know my God is incapable of making an error.

 

[SlickPen50]

I beg to differ with you all... We're missing at least two books in the New Testament, which the actual text we have admits as much. Philippians says that it is the second letter written to this fellowship and 3rd John states that a former letter was absconded and so it is actually 4th John.

If you really want to believe that scripture is "inerrant" and we don't have the manuscript originals to prove it, then you will also have to accept that the Mormon teaching, once gathered from their "golden plates" is legitimate.

I just don't get why "inerrancy" is such a big deal? If one holds the scripture as foundational and it leads us on to a relationship with God (which P31W incessantly refuses to articulate), then what is the big rub... There is more to why you all want to believe this than what you say... Its another case of belief in a belief rather than a walk with God who cannot be confined to 66 books and who is still speaking and guiding people who will listen and obey.

 

[farouk]

I beg to differ with you all... We missing at least two books in the New Testament, which text we have admits as much. Philippians says that it is the second letter written to this fellowship and 3rd John states that a former letter was absconded and so it is actually 4th John.

If you really want to believe that scripture is "inerrant" and we don't have the manuscript originals to prove it, then you will also have to accept that the Mormon teaching, once gathered from their "golden plates" is legitimate.

I just don't get why "inerrancy" is such a big deal? If one holds the scripture as foundational and it leads us on to a relationship with God (which P31W incessantly refuses to articulate), then what is the big rub... There is more to why you all want to believe this than what you say... Its another case of belief in a belief rather than a walk with God who cannot be confined to 66 books and who is still speaking and guiding people who will listen and obey.

Non sequiturs.

 

[Mike]

The Lord has revealed Himself to His creation through His Word. It is inconceivable to me that He would not ensure and sustain His revelation that He calls us to know Him by.

Some believers go beyond claiming errors in His Word. They are bent on making others believe there are errors, and I believe pride is at work there. They will even go so far as to imply that believers in biblical inerrancy are not equipped to think for themselves. I would say the honest believer has spent very much time contemplating the reliability of what s/he has read and has resolved that it is s/he that is the source of the confusion; not the Word. It seems to me that pride will compel the person to draw the conclusion that it is the other way around.

 

[tandemcpl]

I just don't get why "inerrancy" is such a big deal? If one holds the scripture as foundational and it leads us on to a relationship with God (which P31W incessantly refuses to articulate), then what is the big rub...

I think I’m missing something here because I don’t understand how one can hold something that is full of errors as foundational.

 

[Grazer]

Sorry, had to post this:

View attachment 3018

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So this means you think witnessing and speaking out when bad or misguided doctrine is taught as fact is being a "jerk"? Just guessing here ...