Inerrancy of Scripture

Caledvwlch

Caledvwlch

New member
Aimiel said:
No, you believed you were Christian. A Christian (IMHO) is someone who is in a relationship with The Lord, and anyone (in my experience) who is in a relationship with Him doesn't leave Him, and He never leaves or forsakes anyone.
Click to expand...
Yeah, whatever. I know a great many people who were forsaken by him. Because he was never there to begin with, no matter how abdly we wanted him to be.
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Aimiel said:
... anyone (in my experience) who is in a relationship with Him doesn't leave Him, and He never leaves or forsakes anyone.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a relationship between an abused wife and her husband...
 
Aimiel

Aimiel

Well-known member
Caledvwlch said:
Aimiel, congratulations, you're the new winner of the "Single Coolest Post Caledvwlch Has Ever Seen" award!
Click to expand...
It's a favorite saying of mine, especially when someone gives a rebuttal which is bereft of all substance and a waste of time to read.
 
Caledvwlch

Caledvwlch

New member
Zakath said:
Sounds like a relationship between an abused wife and her husband...
Click to expand...
Precisely! Man this guy is on the ball...

Christianity is mainly psychological abuse. "Believe it or you're going to hell!" Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is a good example. What a grump that guy was...
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Caledvwlch said:
Precisely! Man this guy is on the ball...

Christianity is mainly psychological abuse. "Believe it or you're going to hell!" Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is a good example. What a grump that guy was...
Click to expand...
Grump he may have been, but boy could he work a crowd!
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Aimiel said:
No, you believed you were Christian. A Christian (IMHO) is someone who is in a relationship with The Lord, and anyone (in my experience) who is in a relationship with Him doesn't leave Him, and He never leaves or forsakes anyone.
Click to expand...

:yawn:

Whatever helps ya sleep at night.
 
A

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Aimiel said:
No mistakes, mistranslation or inaccuracies in the KJV.Why would that change anything? The ones that we have are accurate.Or, as in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, verify the authenticity of what we have, to the letter, every jot and tittle.
Click to expand...

Right! All the errors in the KIng James Version were put there by the Devil to confuse unwary Christians--right? All translation is a betrayal of the original. The Dead Sea Scrolls are not a 100 per cent accurate standard for comparison. Only about a third are rough duplicates of Hebrew texts in the canon; "jot and tittle" is an overstatement. The scrolls' discovery showed us that first-century Judaism was more complex and varied than Christians ever thought before.
 
M

Mr. Coffee

New member
Caledvwlch said:
The geneologies in Luke and Matthew are so completely different... why should we believe either one?
Click to expand...
I guess it's "so completely" as opposed to "partly completely", and if we have two differing accounts of something, aren't they both false? Well, I'm not touching that one.

But the genealogies are different. We have two different bloodlines through two sons of David--Solomon and Nathan. The question is how they intersect. There are a number of viable theories, and this one at least has the virtue of simplicity. But without further documentation, we don't really know. And this cuts both ways, because the mere existence of two genealogies is not a prima facie case for Biblical errancy, either.
 
Caledvwlch

Caledvwlch

New member
ilyatur said:
I guess it's "so completely" as opposed to "partly completely", and if we have two differing accounts of something, aren't they both false? Well, I'm not touching that one.

But the genealogies are different. We have two different bloodlines through two sons of David--Solomon and Nathan. The question is how they intersect. There are a number of viable theories, and this one at least has the virtue of simplicity. But without further documentation, we don't really know. And this cuts both ways, because the mere existence of two genealogies is not a prima facie case for Biblical errancy, either.
Click to expand...
You're right. It's not a prima facie case. It is however a strong hint. The fact that theologians have to jump through hoops to explain it is interesting to me, to say the least...
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Caledvwlch said:
You're right. It's not a prima facie case. It is however a strong hint. The fact that theologians have to jump through hoops to explain it is interesting to me, to say the least...
Click to expand...
What that old saw...

"The Bible says what it means, until it doesn't." ;)
 
logos_x

logos_x

New member
The letter of Scripture is a veil just as much as it is a revelation; hiding while it reveals, and yet revealing while it hides.—Andrew Jukes
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
The Bible is all things to all men; if you want to prove something you'll find a verse to do it.
 
Caledvwlch

Caledvwlch

New member
granite1010 said:
The Bible is all things to all men; if you want to prove something you'll find a verse to do it.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. Remember that time with that guy and that thing? :chuckle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top