Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Apologetic discussions

Apologetic discussions Apologetic Discussions Regarding the Teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-27-2013, 07:40 AM   #1
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
Default Re: The Psalms are the word of Christ

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Inerrant means without error, but you have made the definition to include perfection. By raising the standard to that level, then, by your definition, none of scripture should be trusted, because we have no "proof." But your standard is a false standard. Biblical scholars of textual criticism never use your approach. Where is the error that would make the text "errant?"
I asserted perfection not Awareness. Inerrancy means 100% accuracy, right? How is that different from perfection? On the other hand, I did not assert that evidence is required. Awareness did. He did not stipulate that perfection is necessary, so I don't see where you got that. I am accepting inerrancy as a given on this forum. What is required to answer these questions is a theology of inspiration. According to the testimony here so far, WL did not supply one. As I recall, the closest he came was in his discussions of the "principle of incarnation."
zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 08:10 AM   #2
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
Default Re: The Psalms are the word of Christ

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
I asserted perfection not Awareness. Inerrancy means 100% accuracy, right? How is that different from perfection? On the other hand, I did not assert that evidence is required. Awareness did. He did not stipulate that perfection is necessary, so I don't see where you got that. I am accepting inerrancy as a given on this forum. What is required to answer these questions is a theology of inspiration. According to the testimony here so far, WL did not supply one. As I recall, the closest he came was in his discussions of the "principle of incarnation."
I quoted two posts and somewhat put them together.

I don't see inerrant as 100% "accurate." For me inerrant is without errors, that is, substantive errors which seriously affect our faith. That's why I ask where are these errors that cause the Bible we have to be not inerrant? The demands of so-called "perfection" are even more unnecessary.

For example, if numerous manuscripts use the aorist tense and others use the perfect tense for a certain verb in a certain verse, is that an error? Is this verse no longer inerrant? It appeared to me like awareness felt it would be errant, since we don't have the original autograph to decide which tense is correct. By your using the word "perfection," apparently you also would see errancy in my proposed verse.

How do you define a "theology of inspiration."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:27 AM.


3.8.9