Inerrancy of Scripture

[Agape4Robin]

Some people just refuse to "get it". They are over thinking it.
I was born in New yourk, but grew up in Florida.
This is not rocket science! Sheesh! :doh:

 

[Granite]

Hey Il, before you take your ball and go home...

First of all, some theologians who agree with your exegesis might be useful, as opposed to making yourself look like just any old Christian who interprets the Bible at will.

Secondly, does it strike anybody as odd that even IF what he says is true, the Bible continues to be translated using the word "Nazarene" here as opposed to "branch"? Did everyone else just get it wrong?:think:

 

[billwald]

First, Paul's "Pastorals" were probably written after his death.

Second, "The Messiah is referred to a "the branch" in Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:5; and probably Zechariah 3:8; 6:12," how do we know that these verses are not referring to George Washington?

 

[billwald]

Third, an inerrext text is useless without inerrant understanding. For all I know, my calculus text was inerrant but I twice flunked the course and changed majors.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Third, an inerrext text is useless without inerrant understanding. For all I know, my calculus text was inerrant but I twice flunked the course and changed majors.

I'm surprised.

 

[Lovejoy]

Not to mention Matthews invention of the virgin birth because he couldn't stomach the thought of the Messiah being of Moabite descent.

I am surprised by that comment. I thoughth the virgin birth was pretty well laid out in Isaiah.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Hey Il, before you take your ball and go home...

First of all, some theologians who agree with your exegesis might be useful, as opposed to making yourself look like just any old Christian who interprets the Bible at will.

Secondly, does it strike anybody as odd that even IF what he says is true, the Bible continues to be translated using the word "Nazarene" here as opposed to "branch"? Did everyone else just get it wrong?:think:

Re theologians, I've quoted Jerome already. You jumped all over me in the No Longer A Chistian thread because I quoted from other people, and now you switch gears, because you must have taken a blood oath somewhere to be cranky and annoying no matter what someone is saying.

The word "Nazarene" is used as a synonym of "branch", to show their similarity. Jesus is called a Nazarene, or Netzer, "the branch", because he's from Natzareth, so called because of the many plants ("netzers") that grow there. Jesus fulfills the prophecies in Isaiah 11 by being a descendant of David and a Nazarene.

 

[aikido7]

Infallible And Inerrant Revelation....

Infallible And Inerrant Revelation....

Again, before we get too self-righteous and faux humble, we need to ask the question:

IF WE ARE TO DEMAND SCRIPTURE BE INERRANT, DOES THAT ALSO MEAN THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE IS ALSO INERRANT?

This seems to me that this is a fair and relevant question here.

The Doctrine of Inerrancy (or the political Doctrine of Infallibility) seems based on the notion that only particular interpreters have been granted the only correct interpretations by divine right and light. But if these interpreters have the only correct interpretation, then they, too, must be equally ijnspired if their interpretations are to be infallible.

And if their interpretations are infallible, then we must share their inspriation. And their infallibility--if we are to perfectly understand their interpretation.

Now it seems we are in a chain of endless sequence in which everybody who pretends to understand must participate in the original inspiration to be part of the chain.

And as of today, there are at least 130,000 established sects that call themselves Christian. And most of these, I'll wager, see themselves as the only TRUE Christians.

Sometimes the back-and-forth discussions on these threads seem to bear out this difference of opinion. If the text is truly inerrant and everything in it that is written down is to be taken as historical fact, then of what earthly use is "faith"?

I just find it best to admit that our knowledge is limited and open-ended. And that means that it is subject to modification and that we have derived it not by preistly authority, but by the hard work of study and learning. This admission will at least put us all on a level playing field and makes a dialogue and sharing of ideas possible....

I am surprised by that comment. I thoughth the virgin birth was pretty well laid out in Isaiah.

I am of the opinion that the virgin birth speaks more to the importance of Jesus than to the physical biology of Mary.

 

[Lovejoy]

Again, before we get too self-righteous and faux humble, we need to ask the question:

IF WE ARE TO DEMAND SCRIPTURE BE INERRANT, DOES THAT ALSO MEAN THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE IS ALSO INERRANT?

This seems to me that this is a fair and relevant question here.

The Doctrine of Inerrancy (or the political Doctrine of Infallibility) seems based on the notion that only particular interpreters have been granted the only correct interpretations by divine right and light. But if these interpreters have the only correct interpretation, then they, too, must be equally ijnspired if their interpretations are to be infallible.

And if their interpretations are infallible, then we must share their inspriation. And their infallibility--if we are to perfectly understand their interpretation.

Now it seems we are in a chain of endless sequence in which everybody who pretends to understand must participate in the original inspiration to be part of the chain.

And as of today, there are at least 130,000 established sects that call themselves Christian. And most of these, I'll wager, see themselves as the only TRUE Christians.

Sometimes the back-and-forth discussions on these threads seem to bear out this difference of opinion. If the text is truly inerrant and everything in it that is written down is to be taken as historical fact, then of what earthly use is "faith"?

I just find it best to admit that our knowledge is limited and open-ended. And that means that it is subject to modification and that we have derived it not by preistly authority, but by the hard work of study and learning. This admission will at least put us all on a level playing field and makes a dialogue and sharing of ideas possible....

I am of the opinion that the virgin birth speaks more to the importance of Jesus than to the physical biology of Mary.

I don't entirely understand the last comment. I, too, assume that that it is more about Jesus than Mary, which is why I think she did finally have children with Joseph. I don't think she had had sex prior to having Jesus though. I also believe, though, that God wanted it that way so there would be another miracle to testify to the nature and identity of Christ.

 

[aikido7]

I suppose we could mention many things in the Bible and discuss whether or not they should be taken "inerrantly." I would like to focus on the topic of inerrant revelation.

(I will address your point in private, Lovejoy. Or--you can start a thread on the virgin birth. That should keep the discussion in relative focus and I'm sure we will have plenty of company discussing the topic!)

 

[Lovejoy]

That's fine, aikido. I never know where these threads are going, and I certainly appreciate efforts to keep them on topic!

 

[Mr. Coffee]

If the text is truly inerrant and everything in it that is written down is to be taken as historical fact, then of what earthly use is "faith"?

Personal trust. It means don't stake your happiness on the things of the world.

And by revealing truths about His nature and saving work, God gives a friendly challenge to stubborn sinners: will we accept the authority of facts or will we proudly cling to our lies, as if truth is something we can create ourselves. The latter is freedom of conscience run amok, and the historical irony is that that was Protestantism's gift to the West.

And as of today, there are at least 130,000 established sects that call themselves Christian. And most of these, I'll wager, see themselves as the only TRUE Christians.

I've had a fair amount of contact with other believers across denominational boundaries, and I'd say that the kind of hard core exclusivism you describe is rare.

There is no scandal in a diversity of views on things like baptism or church polity. If Presbyterians baptise their infants on the premise that baptism is new covenant circumcision, and if other groups link baptism with conversion, neither side is saying that the other folks don't believe in Jesus. Both sides have something important to say in the reasons they give. Most Christians don't believe that secondary issues are the stuff of anathemas.

 

[Aimiel]

I would suggest that a Christian who reads his Bible ask God to witness to The Truth of The Gospel on the inside of them, as we're told He will. The Holy Ghost will give assurance to the believer as they read, you just have to make yourself sensitive to Him. The Testimony of Jesus is The Spirit of Prophecy.

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This 'more sure Word of Prophecy' that the apostle spoke of is The Holy Ghost, and He will share His Testimony with anyone who seeks Him for It.

 

[Everglaze]

God's word is perfect, it has no errors. We humans who read can misinterpret what we read though.

What Moses wrote, what Apostle Paul wrote...what any of the authors of the Bible wrote...it was all recordings of the events and accounts.

Basically, what Jesus taught...boom, included. What happened to this prophet and that prophet? Boom, included. If there were any errors or "false/unnecessary" things, they would've been left out or not even passed as God's word. The way I see it, it's like authors assembling an anthology...to have it correct, you need an editor. Well? Who's more perfect than God? That's all.

 

[aikido7]

God's word is perfect, it has no errors. We humans who read can misinterpret what we read though.

Amen!

 

[BillyBob]

God's word is perfect, it has no errors. We humans who read can misinterpret what we read though.

I guess that's how Aikido justifies being a commie.....

 

[BillyBob]

Hey Aikommie, I see you have 4 Red Squares!! :noway:


:darwinsm:

 

[aikido7]

The way I see it, it's like authors assembling an anthology...to have it correct, you need an editor. Well? Who's more perfect than God? That's all.

Have you ever gone into a Christian bookstore to buy the Bible? Today there are a multitude of versions and translations. And even before the advent of Christian bookstores there were several "Bibles"--each one the revealed word of a different and separate Christian sect.

You can't change the fact that all copies of the Bible were made by hand before the invention of the printing press in about 1450. So they consequently contain mistakes, mistranslation and inaccuracies.

Whether you like it or not, there aren't any fragments of any of the New Testament books older than about 125 AD.

And there are no copies of any Christian scriptures that can be dated to a time before 200 AD.

And there are no copies of the Hebrew Bible older than 200 years before Jesus' birth.

We can't change these facts. Only new discoveries can alter them.

 

[Aimiel]

You can't change the fact that all copies of the Bible were made by hand before the invention of the printing press in about 1450. So they consequently contain mistakes, mistranslation and inaccuracies.

No mistakes, mistranslation or inaccuracies in the KJV.

Whether you like it or not, there aren't any fragments of any of the New Testament books older than about 125 AD.

Why would that change anything? The ones that we have are accurate.

And there are no copies of the Hebrew Bible older than 200 years before Jesus' birth.

We can't change these facts. Only new discoveries can alter them.

Or, as in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, verify the authenticity of what we have, to the letter, every jot and tittle.

 

[aikido7]

You are misinformed on all three counts. You might read some more about the formation of the canon, the art of translation and the history of biblical interpretation.

Sadly, you probably will not....