Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Once again you make statements that boggle my mind. The word never claims to "be all of it" yet the book of Revelations does make it clear that you are not to add to it, which to my understanding is saying that it is complete.
|
The statement in Revelation is only "clearly" with respect to what is written in those few chapters that we call the Book of Revelation. Extension beyond those pages to any or all of the rest of what we call the Bible is purely speculative.
Any such claim would continually put the relatively long process of deciding the canon of scripture in doubt because when those words were written, it is quite possible that significant portions had not yet been committed to writing, and even not yet agreed to as being scripture in oral form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Earlier you said "you found no support" for the assertion that the word of God being inerrant is true down to the very word, which seems very similar to the sentiment Jesus said concerning "every jot and tittle". So whether or not you wish to interpret this differently it seems patently obvious that there is support in the Bible for this assertion.
|
Cute. A reference to the law. Not even to the prophets or the Psalms.
Yes the previous verse does mention the Prophets along with the Law. But in verse 18, the Prophets are curiously absent. It may mean nothing. But since the point of the passage as a whole (i.e., the context) is on the Law, that is all that is specifically addressed.
But even at that, the reference to jot and tittle is not to demand that each "stroke of the pen" is searchable for peculiar meaning. It is clear here, and in other passages, that the religious rulers (whether Pharisees or Sadducees) were fond of making exceptions to rules when it suited them. In another place we hear of a way to avoid caring for you parents (not honoring them).
The process of transcribing the scrolls of the OT was a painstaking process of not only being sure that the words were all there in the proper order, but that they even looked right. The implication of mentioning the "jots" and "tittles" was not to give the form of the words special meaning, but to indicate that removing them was not an option.
But to insist that it means that the jots and tittles themselves have instructive meaning is to go beyond the context. It is more like the reference to loving or hating God or money. Jesus said you loved one and hated the other. Yet we clearly understand this as a device of emphasis to describe a hierarchy of preference, or "love," not a dichotomy of love and hate. If Jesus literally meant love and hate as we know it, then there is no hope for any man who would be other than a wandering destitute, accepting only what is offered without asking.
Yet, it would appear that for some, the Bible must be parsed in such a painstaking way, and that only interpretations arrived at in this manner are consistent with the "inerrant Word of God."
This is why "inerrancy" is such a dubious topic. For the most part, only those seeking to force more out of scripture than it would otherwise seem to provide insist on the kind of view of inerrancy that needs the support of verses stretched beyond credulity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
1Tim
3:16 Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
3:17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
Surely the scripture is declared here to be a complete word. Now you may argue that this is in the context of making man complete.
|
The only thing declared "complete" here is "man" growing to the level that he is considered "complete." "Complete" is not in reference to "word" or "scripture" but to "man."
But if you really have to push this one to also be talking about the level of completeness of scripture relative to the wisdom of God, then . . . well, you become exactly what I was talking about above. You are more interested in forcing specific scripture to say what it does not. You make your constant use of scripture into a form of littering. Into proof texts for things that the scripture does not say.
I'm sure that someone (besides ZNP) will become incensed at the idea that quoting scripture could ever be littering. But just like searching the scriptures to find something but not going where they point, just saying a sequence of words that happens to be one of the sequences found in the Bible does not confer truth to what it is attached to.
This is the error of the vocal segment of the inerrant crowd. They, like you, declare something to be true, then trot out verses that do not support it while insisting that they do, and that the lack of scripture quoted by those who see the error makes their claim or error to itself be error.
Those are the claims of people whose god is the Bible. Who have made an idol out of the words in a book.
I do not need a verse to assert that 1 Timothy 3:16-17 does not declare or even imply that the scripture is complete with respect to all of the wisdom of God. It just does not speak to the subject. It could be true. But it does not say it. There or anywhere else.