![]() |
|
Apologetic discussions Apologetic Discussions Regarding the Teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
![]()
Yes, the doctrine of inerrancy requires that apparent textual anomalies must either be denied or explained as errors of human understanding rather than flaws in the text itself.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
![]() Quote:
Please somebody prove me wrong, but I can only find hints enough to provoke my imagination into extra-Bible answers, explanations, and conclusions concerning the matter of Biblical inerrancy.. There's no well defined doctrine on inerrancy in the Bible, that's for sure. So our conclusions of certitude, as some have, are extra-Biblical. Please, somebody take me down on this.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
![]() Quote:
So in some people's minds, the Bible can never be inerrant in the way the people who argue about inerrancy claim that it has to be. In short, the best talk about inerrancy is the one in which we conclude that it is itself a colored lens that skews (or skewers) the actual truth that is in the Bible. And in the process, kick it to the curb with Nee and Lee (and a lot of others).
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|