Actually it was moved to the Moderator's only forum by Dr. Bob because of all the reports from your personal attack.
Here are my quotes from that thread.
Please point out the one where I said that scripture is not "Authoritative."
So, God uttered the words, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread," which are the words of Satan while tempting Jesus?
Or is this a record or narrative of something Satan uttered?
This should not be a point of contention with us.
Surely any reasonable and objective person can distinguish between words uttered by God and those uttered by Satan, both of which are recorded BY INSPIRED MEN OF GOD in the RELIABLE and AUTHORITATIVE scriptures. Right?
I have affirmed my belief in the inspiration of scripture a number of times in reply to you JF, so I'm not sure what you are REALLY wanting.
People hold to different definitions of those terms and vary regarding current manuscripts versus original autographs, so even that question is more complex than one might think.
Read the question I was asked and maybe then you could refrain from being purposefully divisive.
He asked, "... IF you view ALL scripture as equally inspired/infallible..."
I read your question asked, and your response and there is absolutely nothing divisive about my conclusions other than you just don't happen to like them.
Please refrain from making accusatory statements.
Autographs and manuscripts have nothing to do with this.
Autographs and manuscripts may not have to do with the title being the "word of God," but it does have something to do with his question regarding inspiration and infallibility.
Then he would be fired as an umpire for making a call at first when he was watching third.
I mentioned manuscripts and autographs in reference to JF's question about the inspiration and infallibility of scripture, not about the other discussion regarding the title of the Bible being "the word of God."
If you two can't see that clear distinction I would suggest that umpiring, or any job needing the ability to make a unbiased judgement, would not be the wisest choice. :wavey:
Please pay attention Aaron.
I said that I did, but qualified it by pointing to the known fact that various scholars define those terms differently and hold to diverse views depending upon if one is addressing the original autographs or our current manuscripts.
But I suspect you already know that and are merely using this as an opportunity to nit-pick and cause unneeded division as that appears to be you MO.
:sleep:
The autographs don't exist. No one is asking you about them. The question was about Paul's "opinion." Will God hold one accountable to Paul's "opinion" as if the words were spoken by Christ Himself on the earth?