Featured Do you hold the Bible as Inerrant/inspired/infallible?

I don't understand how you get to that point. There are typographical and other errors of similar type in the texts of scriptures which we have. But these errors don't affect scriptural inerrancy, infalliblity, or inspiration of the scriptures. Scriptures do not err when it comes to salvation, doctrine, morality, etc... How do you get from that perspective to "The textual errors are predestined"?

 

Yes, but "plain text" is what you claim you understand and "figures of speach" are text that you don't claim to understand. In other words, theology precedes the text.

 

No, its just that the bible speaks as a book written in different sytles of writting/genre, need to amke (sic) sure apply correct one to each passage!"

BUT the reasons there exists hundreds of Christian denominations is that every denomination claims to do exactly what you recommend and comes to a different conclusion.

 

Which is irrelevant.

 

Why is it irrelevant? God isn't able to write a clear text that any literate person can understand?

Or do you agree that every human activity is contaminated by sin thus every denomination, every congregation, and every preacher is teaching some error?

 

The inerrancy of scripture is not dependent on Denominational positions.

 

What good is an inerrant text is no one understands it? Do you inerrantly understand the Bible text?

 

Good question. There are some here who believe they do. But the truth is that "we all see through a glass, darkly."

And for those reasons, denominations exist. Some think that's a bad thing, but I don't.

 

Ok again not relevant

 

Yes, I believe the autographs to be inerrant/inspired/infallible.

Our understanding is not, and our translations are not, but as the Holy Spirit teaches us and we compare scripture with scripture we have all we need for life and godliness and many texts which I did not understand I do now.

I believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice

 

http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html

The NT does not quote the entire passage as referring to Jesus in the other text you have a problem with.

The text in Genesis doesn't say the moon produces it's own light.

On a side note your spelling certainly isn't inerrant, nor your understanding or research into these texts.

 

Maybe it isn't his spelling, but his typing. That's the case with me. :laugh:

 

Question. Do you have the autographs? Do you know anyone who has the autographs? If not how do you know? and If not what does it matter as no copy we have are free of those errors?

 

They may or may not be. What proof do you have? Do you know anyone with the autographs?

Ok.

Ok.

Yes, as it should be for all Christians.

What about the early Christians who couldn't read? Didn't they have to rely on what people told them? Even if it means someone reading to them? In either case that isn't the point of this thread. The point is do you hold to the inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration of the Scriptures? I certainly do. However, I also think its important to understand what you mean by those discriptors. Because taken a certian way can seriously mislead people. Which is what I was trying to point out.

 

Seems like a lot of rationalization going around. Legs are legs just because observationally early man got it wrong doesn't make it right. Its still not scientifically accurate. And that is because the bible isn't a scientific book. I'm certain that if God wanted to give us a scientific discourse it would blow our mind but that wasn't his intent on the scriptures. His intent was to discuss our salvation with us and reveal to us his person, his plan, and his goals with us that apart from divine revelation in scriptures we would never have known and he explains it to us so that we can understand it in a way we can understand it.

The NT does not quote the entire passage as referring to Jesus in the other text you have a problem with. [/QUOTE] Explain what you mean. Certainly in John if you follow the passage its certainly a discourse between Jesus and his disciples at the last supper.

It certainly leaves that impression as if the moon is a seperate light when in actuality its the same light as the sun reflected. Look at the passage

Ie two independent lights. Observationally for early man that may indeed have been the case a greater light for the day and a lessor light for the night. To be scientifically accurate God made the great light for the day and the night but durring the day the earth get the light directly from the great light and at night the great light isn't direct but reflected.

I agree my spelling is bad as is my typing. But I never made the claim otherwise. What I find interesting is that when some one points out a perspecitive different than your own (and I'm not speaking just to you but is a general criticism for several people) to which you disagree the quick resort is to make criticism a personal issue. For instance what you just did here. You've attempted to provide explanation at how the scriptures can be considered a scientific manual and is correct in all its scientific assertions (interesting to note you didn't mention pi) when clearly it is not (and by the way that isn't the problem I find with your answer) which is ok to do so. What I find curious is that because I'm a bad speller or typer (sometimes its both) that you make a point of that (a personal affront to me) as if somehow my points aren't valid because of it. Kind of on the level of accusing someone who stutters of not having a valid theological perspective. I find that it goes to the very heart of the character of the one who lowers themself to attempt that line of reasoning.

 

to be fair its both.

 

When scientists found some bones in Israel in a box and insisted that they were Jesus bones were interviewed by Matt Lower he asked them "what about the New Testament account of Jesus resurrection?"

Their response:


"The Bible is and a scientific book."