The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life

[OBW]

Originally Posted by JJ

I’m amazed at your statements regarding Bible inerrancy. Psalm 119:60 says “The entirety of Your words are truth”.

You are presuming that everything that ended out between "in the Beginning" and "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus" (I left out the less clearly unique last verse) are all "words of God." But there are many words in the Bible that are not the words of God. (Note there is a difference between the "Word of God" and the "words of God.") All of the words that are given as statements of God are true. But much of the Bible is not "statements of God" unless you insist on an otherwise unstated premise that the Bible is word-by-word dictated by God. And the Bible does not say that.

But even that does not grant the words of the serpent as being "words of God." They are not God's words, but the serpent's.

Take care concerning what is actually said in any verse. Otherwise, you might find yourself in the clutches of yet another huckster like Lee.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by OBW

You are presuming that everything that ended out between "in the Beginning" and "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus" (I left out the less clearly unique last verse) are all "words of God." But there are many words in the Bible that are not the words of God. (Note there is a difference between the "Word of God" and the "words of God.") All of the words that are given as statements of God are true. But much of the Bible is not "statements of God" unless you insist on an otherwise unstated premise that the Bible is word-by-word dictated by God. And the Bible does not say that.

But even that does not grant the words of the serpent as being "words of God." They are not God's words, but the serpent's.

Take care concerning what is actually said in any verse. Otherwise, you might find yourself in the clutches of yet another huckster like Lee.

I’m not presuming anything different than generations of Christians have regarding “the canon of scripture” being God’s words. And, if you want to take that topic on these boards.... well...really? I suspect Unto Him will move that discussion to Alternative Views. We should probably talk about your other points in the OP.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by JJ

I’m not presuming anything different than generations of Christians have regarding “the canon of scripture” being God’s words. And, if you want to take that topic on these boards.... well...really? I suspect Unto Him will move that discussion to Alternative Views. We should probably talk about your other points in the OP.

We have already had a discussion on inerrancy. Needless to say, what is inerrant if we can't agree on what it says? Or is inerrant a term to put on top of our version of what it means so we can dismiss what others think it means?

I am not trying to say that the canon of scripture is invalid. Or that what we learn of God is diminished. But at the same time, the words used are not defined (by the Bible) as being inerrant. Neither are they described as dictated word-by-word by God.

The word translated as "inspired" or "God-breathed" does not simply mean dictated. We use it to refer to varying degrees of connection between one thing and another. Like a movie "inspired by the book" which is similar to, but not exactly like the book. Or is a story that is sort of like the book but has none of the same characters. Either could be "inspired" by something.

The problem with making a general statement like "generations of Christians" is that you presume that because they may have used a common word in some part of what they said that they mean the exact same thing. Two different groups using the same flowery verbiage concerning what scripture does and doesn't say stand and call the others heretics for their differing insistence that the Bible says "X" or "Y" in a certain place. Calling the words on the page "inerrant" really does not solve anything. It just works as a club to beat others over the head with.

In other words, the claim of inerrancy is almost always associated with "my way" of understanding the words I am reading. That makes inerrancy of no practical importance. But to say that the Bible (scripture) is profitable for teaching, etc., is without controversy (ignoring skeptics and unbelievers). But we do not presume to think that our mission is to hamstring all of the heathen (what some of Jacob's sons did to a neighboring tribe). So even the declaration that scripture is profitable for teaching does not mean that everything that God's people did (and is recorded in the Bible) is profitable for teaching/imitation. What else would you do with that, unless it is not really the point of the scripture, but an account of history that reveals mankind along with the God that slowly brings them to where they needed to be for the coming of the Messiah?

It was not necessary that God dictate those words. No matter how you tell it, you get the picture. But what is important is where God fits into the story. That is what is revealed. He is not revealed in the action of hamstringing the nearby tribe. He is revealed in the whole of the process of saving them from themselves, and eventually from famine. So the fact that it became part of the oral history is "inspired" by God.

If you want a better example of the unimportance of word-by-word dictation, read the various English translations and see that you ultimately get the same information. Even the very different Message translation mostly conveys the same thing while using words and phrases so different that if you are not paying attention, you may not recognize where in the Bible you are because it doesn't sound like the KJV, NASB, NIV, etc. translation that you may be used to. But either way, there is teaching, instruction in righteousness, etc., that is profitable.

But if you are seeking the Christian equivalent of a book of incantations and magical phrases, expect to be disappointed because it is not a book of crafted words that have special powers. (please understand this as a little over-the-top) It is a book of the progressive revelation of God in his relationship with man.

[OBW]

Look, if all anyone wants to do is try to read into my statements about the Bible something that I did not actually say, then I have to wonder whether you read the rest, or just want a straw man to beat up. I did not say the Bible is useless or that it was just made up by man. But lots of Christians over the ages have also understood it to be the writings of men of God who in their writings gave evidence of God and his intent toward Israel and toward mankind in general. They did not all believe that God wrote the words using their hands, or that they heard audible voices dictating the words. "Word-by-word" is not supported in anything that you can find in scripture. The opinions of a lot of theologians do not make it so.

But I still believe virtually everything that you do concerning what comes out of the Bible (well, unless you believe in Christ becoming the Holy Spirit or something else like that). So while I have a problem with the unsupported claims of verbal perfection and inerrancy, I get out of it what you do. So what is the problem? That I don't hold the Bible — a book, not God himself — in high enough esteem? The Word that became flesh was not the Bible. It is Christ. The written word is letters that kill.

Well . . . I guess if it is going to kill me then it should at least be inerrant.

[Sons to Glory!]

What is this book about!? (am I transmitting here . . . ?)

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

What is this book about!? (am I transmitting here . . . ?)

According to Lee: “These are things you must know to have a balanced church life”

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by JJ

According to Lee: “These are things you must know to have a balanced church life”

No chicken dinner for you!

Someone else wanna give it a try?

What is this book about!?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by OBW

We have already had a discussion on inerrancy. Needless to say, what is inerrant if we can't agree on what it says? Or is inerrant a term to put on top of our version of what it means so we can dismiss what others think it means?

I am not trying to say that the canon of scripture is invalid. Or that what we learn of God is diminished. But at the same time, the words used are not defined (by the Bible) as being inerrant. Neither are they described as dictated word-by-word by God.

The word translated as "inspired" or "God-breathed" does not simply mean dictated. We use it to refer to varying degrees of connection between one thing and another. Like a movie "inspired by the book" which is similar to, but not exactly like the book. Or is a story that is sort of like the book but has none of the same characters. Either could be "inspired" by something.

The problem with making a general statement like "generations of Christians" is that you presume that because they may have used a common word in some part of what they said that they mean the exact same thing. Two different groups using the same flowery verbiage concerning what scripture does and doesn't say stand and call the others heretics for their differing insistence that the Bible says "X" or "Y" in a certain place. Calling the words on the page "inerrant" really does not solve anything. It just works as a club to beat others over the head with.

In other words, the claim of inerrancy is almost always associated with "my way" of understanding the words I am reading. That makes inerrancy of no practical importance. But to say that the Bible (scripture) is profitable for teaching, etc., is without controversy (ignoring skeptics and unbelievers). But we do not presume to think that our mission is to hamstring all of the heathen (what some of Jacob's sons did to a neighboring tribe). So even the declaration that scripture is profitable for teaching does not mean that everything that God's people did (and is recorded in the Bible) is profitable for teaching/imitation. What else would you do with that, unless it is not really the point of the scripture, but an account of history that reveals mankind along with the God that slowly brings them to where they needed to be for the coming of the Messiah?

It was not necessary that God dictate those words. No matter how you tell it, you get the picture. But what is important is where God fits into the story. That is what is revealed. He is not revealed in the action of hamstringing the nearby tribe. He is revealed in the whole of the process of saving them from themselves, and eventually from famine. So the fact that it became part of the oral history is "inspired" by God.

If you want a better example of the unimportance of word-by-word dictation, read the various English translations and see that you ultimately get the same information. Even the very different Message translation mostly conveys the same thing while using words and phrases so different that if you are not paying attention, you may not recognize where in the Bible you are because it doesn't sound like the KJV, NASB, NIV, etc. translation that you may be used to. But either way, there is teaching, instruction in righteousness, etc., that is profitable.

But if you are seeking the Christian equivalent of a book of incantations and magical phrases, expect to be disappointed because it is not a book of crafted words that have special powers. (please understand this as a little over-the-top) It is a book of the progressive revelation of God in his relationship with man.

OK you don’t like the word “inerrant” and think to use a term like that is to hamstring the gentiles. Let’s use the words the Bible (Psalm 119) uses. The Bible is righteousness (or true depending on translation) and altogether faithful. Was it not inspired word for word? When I read the collection of verses the authors used to describe its origins (below) it is hard to argue otherwise. But, perhaps we should stick to using the words the verses use so we are not adding or taking away from it. The danger in going where you seem to be going (questioning the accuracy of some verses?, or am I misinterpreting what you said) is where then does one stop? Is that not opening a Pandora’s box that is kind of like what Lee did with the Psalms and James (picking parts that are “fallen human concepts from the tree of knowledge of good and evil” while others are “consistent with God’s economy and the tree of life”. Maybe doing that (cherry picking) is to hamstring the gentiles? Either way can we agree not to subtract or add to the Bible? Now here are the collection of verses and a summary:

2 Peter 1:21

https://biblehub.com/2_peter/1-21.htm see Cross References and Treasury of Scripture

Hebrews 1:1

https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-1.htm

Psalms 119:138

https://biblehub.com/psalms/119-138.htm see Cross References and Treasury of Scripture

2 Peter 3:16

https://biblehub.com/2_peter/3-16.htm see Cross References and Treasury of Scripture.

Revelation 22:20

https://biblehub.com/revelation/22-20.htm


Summary: On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our (Hebrews’) fathers through the prophets.

No prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, will reveal Myself to him in a vision, I will speak to him in a dream

I (YWVH) speak with him (Moses) face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD.

The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me (Samuel); His word was on my tongue.

The testimonies You (the Lord) have laid down are righteous and altogether faithful.

The word of the LORD came directly to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the Kebar River. And there the LORD's hand was upon him (Ezekiel 1). See Cross References in Ezekiel 1:3 too regarding other times Ezekiel wrote of.

Afterward (Peter interpreted this as corresponding to the day of Pentecost): I (God) will pour out My Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.

Paul wrote his letters with the wisdom God gave him. He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard so that you will not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing.

Adding to or taking away from the book of Revelation takes ones right to the tree of life away and all of its curses are added to him. Adding or subtracting to scripture is dangerous. I apologize for adding the word inerrant.

JJ