Direct attacks on the Word of God

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, Apr 13, 2005.

  1. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am very concerned with some of the posts on the Baptist Board, especially those that directly question the Infallibility and Inerrancy of the original 66 books of the Holy Bible.

    When someone can say that the "Bible never claims to be Inerrant", that is a challenge to the Truthfulness of God. Since the Holy Spirit is the author of the original writings, and He is the Spirit of Truth, we can only conclude that EVERYTHING (Plenary) that He has revealed in Holy Scripture is 100% faultless in everything that it addresses, and that it is therefore completely Trustworthy. God cannot err, and therefore the Holy Bible, which is His Word, would also be without error, Inerrant.

    I feel that any posts that challenge the original writings of God, and suggest that they could be faulty, should be dealt with. No one should be allowed to openly attack the Word of God and expect to get away with it. Just because someone says that they are Evangelical, or Orthodox, does NOT mean that they are. The devil will use what is available to him to try to discredit the Infallable, Inerrant Word of God, and we are responsibly to have this stopped.

    <Moderator note: This thread is posted with my permission as it does not publicly question BB policy as a similar one did. This thread deals with posters responding to real or percieved attacks on the Word of God.
    Roger
    C4K
    >

    [ April 13, 2005, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Actually, this is a wonderful discussion topic. We should not just "accept" that the Word of God is infallible, inerrant, inspired, but should be able to defend that position.

    There are Baptists who do not believe it (shocking? it was to me, but there are some wierd birds in the baptist tree). And many others who question it.

    Please go right ahead, Ich, and refute and deal with ANY post that attacks the precious Word of God. That is what a debate forum does. You have my blessing!!
     
  3. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Again, Icthus, who is questioning the autographs? You've stated in other thread (rather implied as you have here tha people are doing it) that there are people who are questioning such. Whom? Have I overlooked their posts? [​IMG]
     
  4. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read the various posts, and you will see that there is an attack on the original Word of God
     
  5. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    I've read them, and I don't see any such attack. Maybe you should point out EXACTLY where the attack allegedly is, or what you perceive as an attack.
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Volumes have been written on this subject—and volumes have been written on this subject because the answers are highly complex, a fact that I have already briefly illustrated.

    The Bible makes no claim to be inerrant.

    No, it does not.

    No.

    This question is packed full of non-Biblical assumptions. Remove the non-Biblical assumptions from your question and I will answer it.

    [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]
     
  7. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Thank you, Scott. I had indeed overlooked this.
     
  8. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's much more if you care to go lookin':

    Note the certainty asserted by the words used.

    There is no room left for a differing opinion, interpretation, or view of the evidence... if you don't agree with this "enlightened" position, you must be ignorant, stupid, or dishonest (aka: ultraconservative/fundamentalist).

    The position stated by CBTS here BTW is the "conservative" position.
     
  9. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Craigbythesea: No, it does not.

    Craigbythesea: No.

    This question is packed full of non-Biblical assumptions. Remove the non-Biblical assumptions from your question and I will answer it.
    </font>[/QUOTE]:eek:
     
  10. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    If this is CBTS's position then let him have it. That would classify me as an ultraconservative/fundamentalist for sure! ;)

    If that is "enlightened"....well...I'll stay in the dark, thanks! :eek:
     
  11. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Let me add...the reason I missed these posts is because I don't usually read CBTS's posts. There are others here I avoid also, or just skim over them.

    Icthus, I owe you an apology...there are indeed some here on the BB that question the infallibility of the originals.
     
  12. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is the full version of the post that "threw me for a loop".

    Craigbythesea


    Marcia wrote,

    quote:

    It is not irrelevant as to whether the original documents were inerrant or not, because it goes to the very nature of God. If God inspired the original biblical books, and if God is perfect and without fault, then it is only a logical conclusion that the originals are inerrant.


    Craig replied;

    You appear to me to be assuming that God inspired the actual words written in the original documents. However, the internal evidence that this is not the case is conclusive. Each individual writer’s personality, theology, vocabulary, phraseology, style, etc., are manifested in all 27 books of the New Testament. And of course Luke expressly refutes such a notion,

    Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
    2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
    3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write {it} out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
    4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB, 1995)

    Additional internal evidence includes the fact that many passages in the New Testament were poorly worded, giving us a multitude of ambiguities that have caused debates, squabbles, fights, controversies, disputes, etc., ever since they were first written. Many professional writers today could do very much better, and I personally believe that God could do even better than those professional writers. Therefore, we know for a fact that either the New Testament documents as we have them today are radically different than what they were originally, or they were not very well written to begin with. Therefore, there can be no possibility whatsoever that the originals were inspired by God word for word.
    (bolded for emphasis)


    :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
    And this is the point of view of a man who is/was a pastor?

    RUN SHEEP RUN! THE WOLVES ARE GONNA GET YOU!

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  13. mcgyver

    mcgyver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Truly, Truly sad......

    I figure it this way....The God we serve is big enough to give us a Word we can trust. I believe His word is true, so I therefore believe that the autographs were inspired, inerrant, given by His Holy Spirit to the men who wrote, 'cuz that's what the Bible says! 2 Tim 3:16,2 Pet 1:21 [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  14. KeithS

    KeithS
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where are the Baldknobbers when you need them? :D
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Since JESUS made all languages, and controls'em all in His office as The Word, it stands to reason He has supplied His word in those languages in forms readable for the various peoples in the various eras. Greek and Hebrew are quite different from English, and modern Hebrew is quite different from the Proto-Hebrew used by Moses. Yet, Jesus has seen to it that the same messages are conveyed in every language. This obvious fact is lost on the One-Versionists who incorrectly claim THEIR fave version is THE "OFFICIAL" one.
     
  16. Dr.Tim

    Dr.Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    0
    You guys can think CraigByTheSea is nuts.. well.. come on down to New Orleans and enroll yourself in New Testament Survey at our seminary..
    Man named Hunter wrote the text book that was used... (I am praying they no longer use it.. with the new direction the SBC has taken, I assume it is not used any longer)... this guy says the same thing Craig is saying. Hunter is completely against the inspiration of the written word.. PERIOD.
     
  17. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    I suppose that if I read Craigbythesea’s posts out of the context of the debate, I would agree that he is nuts. But those who have read this thread in its entirety have read his post in the context of the debate and they know that he is not nuts at all. He has no idea who this guy “Hunter” is, but apparently he believes something VERY different than does Craigbythesea. If you want to know what Craigbythesea really believes and why, you can read his posts in the full context of the debate beginning here:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/2318.html?

    [​IMG]
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Please keep your discussion to the issues. This is not a forum to discuss our views of other posters. Feel free to express your views on their opinions, but not on them as individuals.

    Roger
    C4K
    Moderator
     
  19. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
  20. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Let’s take a look at the view posted by Icthus in the same thread,

    Please notice especially the first paragraph,

    What do you guys think of these views?

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...