The Schism in the Southern Baptist Convention

This makes me laugh...because although you say this, it doesn't take much to look at the resurgency, or the current state of conservativism, and see that all the "heady" types in leadership are looking to win debates.

If it wasn't about a mental acknowledgment, the right would care more about the condition of the left's heart than where they went to school, what their systematic theology is, and putting all of their effort into what label fits which leader. They are going about things backwords.

 

You are unique in your view of inerrancy in that you include translations, which ones or one? No one that I know of includes translations or even manuscripts as inerrant. You have gone the only place inerrancy can lead.

 

What if I added, as I did originally, that the original manuscripts of the Bible are inerrant?

 

The original 1611 King James Authorized version of the Bible included the Apochrapha. Was that version inerrant or are today's Protestant versions of the Bible inerrant?

 

So are the religious inerrancy statements twisted to fit something that no English dictionary or definition subscribes to.

Those inerrancy statements fall short of what scripture actually is and even the Bible claims.

I cannot limit God to such a dead statement. He is alive and His word is alive!

 

Because the word inerrancy isn't in the Bible you are left with such statements describe what one thinks the Bible as a whole presents. Same with the trinity. Nowhere is it used so you have to describe what you believe the Bible teaches as a whole. In the case of the trinity, one God three persons.

 

Okay, so looking back through the thread I think this is the closest to a definition you've given.

The only problem is nobody ever disagreed with that statement....

 

Look at post 15 as a whole not a snipet. We live in a day and age when there are those who say the Genesis accounts are just stories and not to be taken literally. And there those as well that say the bible is just "a book of words" and hold experience equal to or higher than scripture.

 

I understand that we live in this day, however I'd imagine that there have always been people who viewed Scripture this way. I don't, by the way.

Nobody has denied innerrancy, nor do I recall anyone here denying Genesis as true stories.

 

Uh, what one believes about creation is not in view when talking to or about inerrancy. Now you have moved on to interpretation, not the same thing. It's not the words themselves that are open to interpretation, the words are the words, I think most folks agree with the grammar of Genesis 1-11, it is the meaning of that grammar that creates the discussion.

 

Agreed! Maybe the good Rev can supply us with a list of deniers and we can review their posts to see where they stand.

I think that is a legitimate request.

 

Maybe you can provide the post # and or list of people on this board I said such about.

 

Who, or what, was this comment directed to if not someone involved in this thread?

 

You and I are not talking to the same people I assume. From those I talk to and many of those who in the convention in the past were removed from teaching positions because they taught that the Bible was not scientifically or historically accurate.

 

Post numbers:
27
37
38

You were talking directly to people where you used language that presupposed a denial of inerrancy.

 

You can't prove creation scientifically or historically, meaning with testable verification, it is a matter of faith that we accept God as Creator, whether or not that was a big bang or silent breath. It is enough that God is Creator, however he accomplished it.

That is my problem with inerrancy, among many, it's never enough to say the words we have today are trustworthy copies of the originals words given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There is always something more you have to believe to prove you really believe the Bible.

 

So, would you agree with these versions of Acts 2:38?

38 Peter said, "Turn back to God! Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will be given the Holy Spirit. (From the Contemporary English Version)

38 Peter replied, "All of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then your sins will be forgiven. You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (from the New International Reader's Version)

38 Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way
you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit
as a gift. (from the God's Word version)

Looks like we'ver either got some bad translations here or else we need to restudy our thinking on baptism. ;-)