Is The Bible Inerrant?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think Bible inerrancy may implicitly be one of the "items of the faith" noted in the mission statement. What you're doing is like getting drunk in a Baptist Church.

I am a card-carrying evangelical, and that means that I believe in inerrancy of the Bible.

The problem is with the meaning of inerrancy. As long as there is unambiguous text that says simply one very straightforward thing in clear, unambiguous words, then the proof of inerrancy would be easy. We would see that everything it says is simply true.

But it is not so easy. While there are unambiguous statements, it is not all so clear. That means we have to analyze and interpret. And if we get competing interpretations (which has happened over and over) then who is right.

I believe that scripture is inerrant in terms of its revelation of God. But to arrive at that revelation, there is a lot that could be said with different words or in different ways that would arrive at the same revelation.

What is fully errant is our insistence on over-analysis of the flavors of words used to say otherwise straightforward things. People come and add their overlays and read through their foggy glasses and do stupid things like read "God is spirit" and conclude that it means that God is the Holy Spirit. Or read "became a quickening (life-giving) spirit" and insist that it must mean the Holy Spirit because there is only one spirit.

I know that those are poor examples. But they are germaine to discussions about the LRC. I can go into the counter-argument that "spirit" in both verses is about nature, not a name, therefore those verses do not mean what Lee and Nee say that they mean.

And so many of the outward divisions of Christianity, and even the debates going on within many groups, are much more complex and less obvious than those two.

How does going through this help with the "inerrancy" issue? Maybe it doesn't. But I think that maybe it does. I believe that the things that matter are not mired in those problems. And while there may be a correct answer for many of the disagreements, they mostly do not matter.

But the revelation of God is accurate. The primary directions to the church and to the Christian are accurate. The only problem is the mess that we have made it into.

While not on topic, there is a song on worship that says something like "I'm sorry, Lord, for the thing I've made it, when it's all about you."

Similarly, scripture is inerrant. What is full or error is our interpretation. Is our majoring on the minors. Is the insistence on the optionals. Is emphasizing and deemphasizing based on our preferences.

The end result is that while scripture is inerrant, the fact is almost irrelevant as long as we keep insisting on our erroneous interpretations. It is almost better to insist upon just reading it and letting it speak for itself. Sure. Get some background on the culture, the times, the events that lead to the writing (such as with the Psalms). But ultimately, they should mean what they say, not something else.

(Do not take that last statement as an insistence upon turning metaphors and pictures into literal things.)

[OBW]

When reading some blogs on various subjects recently, I was pointed to an archived post from 2005 on inerrancy that acknowledged a response in another blog.

The first is by Michael Spencer, and he is lamenting as he explains why he has a problem with inerrancy. Read it here.

The response is part of an abandoned blog call JollyBlogger that somewhat takes an opposing view (yet seems to somewhat hold the some overall position on the whole). Read it here.

Don't think that either can be used to pigeon-hole me. But they do represent a lot the things that I think about the subject. And I do find that the differing views on the term demonstrate the problem with it (the term).

There is no problem with the idea that scripture says precisely what it sets out to say and that it is the truth. The problem is what I think it is saying and what I do with it.

Bible — inerrant

Reader — very errant

And because there is always a reader, it sort of doesn't matter that the Bible is inerrant because it does not get to hit you on the side of the head with a 2x4 when you misinterpret it and start off on a crazy tangent. (And it doesn't step in to decide who is on the crazy tangent and who is getting it right.) I'm comfortable that enough people reading together and letting the Spirit speak to them will discover the truth in scripture. And I'm comfortable with some varieties in interpretation that do not stand in opposition to the underlying premises of the scripture.

"Inerrant" is only meaningful if God dictated it (or better yet, wrote it out himself) in my language (as currently in use). Just back it up to the 1,600s and there will be problems in determining what it said. Forget that it is actually written in several different ancient dialects of what are (to me) foreign languages. I'm now stuck with what others think is the best way to translate it to my language. What if they are misinterpeting it as they make those decisions?

Lee surely did.

And I probably would too.

[zeek]

I will not question Bible inerrancy on this forum except to know what is meant by the term. It is a negative term for what we are discussing. It's positive counterpart is perfection. Inerrancy requires perfect knowledge and perfect execution. It's substance is the breath of God, the Spirit who is God Himself. The reception of the breath of God is inspiration by which is meant to be infused with the Spirit.The question remains: How is this so?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am a card-carrying evangelical, and that means that I believe in inerrancy of the Bible.

Of course denying all the evidence for errancy. There's no evidence for inerrancy. We have no autographs to prove it, either way. Inerrancy is just wishing it is so.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course denying all the evidence for errancy. There's no evidence for inerrancy. We have no autographs to prove it, either way. Inerrancy is just wishing it is so.

Contrary to your evidentialist assumption, here the Bible is assumed true, evidence notwithstanding.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's positive counterpart is perfection. Inerrancy requires perfect knowledge and perfect execution.

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course denying all the evidence for errancy. There's no evidence for inerrancy. We have no autographs to prove it, either way. Inerrancy is just wishing it is so.

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?"

[OBW]

Harold,

You didn't read the rest of my post. I effectively dumped inerrancy as a useful term.

Read zeek's post (the one before yours). A different take on it than mine, but insightful.

The Bible is a collection of narratives and writings concerning God covering some centuries of time. It is lousy as a detailed history or as a science text. But it reveals God. But it does not do that very well unless the Spirit enlightens it. Then and only then can the term "inerrant" even begin to be discussed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Harold,

You didn't read the rest of my post. I effectively dumped inerrancy as a useful term.

Read zeek's post (the one before yours). A different take on it than mine, but insightful.

The Bible is a collection of narratives and writings concerning God covering some centuries of time. It is lousy as a detailed history or as a science text. But it reveals God. But it does not do that very well unless the Spirit enlightens it. Then and only then can the term "inerrant" even begin to be discussed.

I love the Bible, and I'm in it everyday. I'm just not idealistic about its origins. Much of it came out of the Bronze age, with the very limited science of their day, and limited understanding of the universe, compared to today.

And yes, you can get around those limitations by claiming that the Bible is a revelation from God, so it has God's unlimited cosmic knowledge in it.

There's many ways to take the Bible ... but few can actually be proven ... cuz we can't time travel back to see what actually happened.

And yes, bro Mike, I really appreciated your take on inerrancy.

If the Bible opens you up to God, it's done its job.

Writing has only been around since circa 3500 BCE. So does that mean God was unable to communicate with man before the advent of writing?

[aron]

Originally Posted by james73

what I find poor in the LC is, when people come to read the bible together, they don't let the spirit speak to them, it's the footnotes and the Life Study doing all the talking.

Revelation (i.e. the spirit speaking) in the LC is limited to seeing the truth as revealed by the Ministry. In a meeting you'd hear, "I really didn't understand this point in the outline: how could X be the same as Y? Then I prayed over it and I realized the brother is right -- X really does equal Y!" And everyone else would be like, "Ayyyymmaaannne".

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

The reception of the breath of God is inspiration by which is meant to be infused with the Spirit.The question remains: How is this so?

Nice question. I like Proverbs 30:5 which says "Every word of God is pure (i.e. proven, tested, refined). In that sense I think everyone would agree that God's word is inerrant, simply as a logical proposition. God is adequate, and so is His speaking.

How well does our Bible capture God's speaking? There seem to be fuzzy edges in that some Christian groups have canons that differ. Some books are quoted by "God's word", that were not accepted as "God's word" (i.e Book of Enoch). And then there are various translations, etc. As OBW said, we don't presume perfection/inerrancy in that manner.

To go back to your statement: the perfect breath of God is to some degree reaching me (inspiring) in the Word of His Son. "God, having spoken to us in many ways and many forms in the past, now is speaking to us in His Son". The key phrase is, "to some degree". Peter clearly was not inerrant. He made many mistakes, carefully recorded in the gospels and even in Paul's epistles. Nor should we presume any of the others, less documented, were less error-prone. And so on down the line -- we as readers (myself, anyway) share in the effects of "the fall". I really may be "the least of the saints"!

God was pleased to breathe perfection into me in the Person of His Son, through the Holy Spirit, when by faith I opened my mouth and declared the truth of the words in the Bible that "Jesus is Lord!". The imperfection and errancy in that process are on my end, and not on God's end.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

Writing has only been around since circa 3500 BCE. So does that mean God was unable to communicate with man before the advent of writing?

Ever heard of speaking? I suspect you're being disingenuous.
Writing is the record of what God has spoken, the Bible is that record in one form or another--either in the words of God verbatim or through, for example, the Acts where there is a lot of history mixed in with God's word.

How do you understand Hebrews 11:1?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

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]

Originally Posted by awareness

I love the Bible, and I'm in it everyday. I'm just not idealistic about its origins. Much of it came out of the Bronze age, with the very limited science of their day, and limited understanding of the universe, compared to today.

This bronze age talk is bunk. I know kids on "smart" phones texting and tweeting 1000x a day who can't even communicate with an adult, yet are convinced they are so "smart." How has human nature changed from 5,000 years ago? To say that God's word is out-of-date in the 21st century is foolishness.

That's like W. Lee saying all of Christianity is stuck using horse and buggy but his "new way" is like taking a Boeing 747.

Limited science? We have today millions of doctors and scholars who are convinced that you evolved from a monkey. I'm not discrediting learning, but one can be steeped in it without an ounce of common sense wisdom from God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Ever heard of speaking? I suspect you're being disingenuous.

Hey bro ABinF. That was my point about Abraham, that, he received God's word without any Bible at all. It's been asked out here, "How could you know God without the Bible?" Well how did Abraham know God? And don't tell me I wouldn't know that without the Bible. Just because I wouldn't know about Abraham isn't the point. The point is I can too know God without the Bible, or knowing anything about Abraham.

So, you are right when you ask "ever heard of speaking?" You got my point.

Writing is the record of what God has spoken, the Bible is that record in one form or another--either in the words of God verbatim or through, for example, the Acts where there is a lot of history mixed in with God's word.

And thank God for the Bible. It's full of great stuff. If the Psalms is the word of Christ it's because God can speak without a book. So the Bible is not necessary to receive the word of God. The Bible can be dead letter ... that can "kill." Do you realize the Bible can kill? It kills when it replaces God's living word. That's why people beat each other up with it.

How do you understand Hebrews 11:1?

I don't follow. Please explain.

[UntoHim]

Here ya go Harold. Let's keep all the "inerrant" stuff over here.

Watch your step...the same Forum rules apply here just as anywhere else.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

And thank God for the Bible. It's full of great stuff. If the Psalms is the word of Christ it's because God can speak without a book. So the Bible is not necessary to receive the word of God. The Bible can be dead letter ... that can "kill." Do you realize the Bible can kill? It kills when it replaces God's living word. That's why people beat each other up with it.
I don't follow. Please explain.

Of course God can speak without a book, but He has given us the Bible as His word. To second guess it is to second guess Him. Because the Bible can kill does not me there is something wrong with it. You're interpretation of it, your understanding of it, if it leads to such killing has something wrong.

The Bible is the record. Without the record we would have no knowledge, unless there were some other record, unless God chose to speak in another way (He hasn't). We are living in a time when the Bible exists, without it we have no reference point, nothing to base out faith on. Your supposed knowledge of God would mean nothing to me or anyone else without such a reference point. I could claim to have God's speaking and someone else could claim it as well. Those so called words of God could be ad odds. How would you know which one was God's true Word? You wouldn't.

Hebrews 11:1 replies to your needing proof.

Ask yourself why you need proof, or why you know better. Why is your logic superior? Faith is simple. Maybe too simple for some. And that is it's power, that is the wisdom of God.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because God, in my heart, in my mind, and somehow in my spirit, has affirmed my this belief. There is a lot I don't understand and can't reconcile, but I am not God. Nor do I seek to be.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That was my point about Abraham, that, he received God's word without any Bible at all. It's been asked out here, "How could you know God without the Bible?" Well how did Abraham know God? And don't tell me I wouldn't know that without the Bible. Just because I wouldn't know about Abraham isn't the point. The point is I can too know God without the Bible, or knowing anything about Abraham.

Your logic is seriously flawed. Times have changed, and so has our God.

In the O.T., if you tried to build an altar like Abraham did, God would reject it. His temple was in Jerusalem.

In the N.T., if you tried to worship in the temple, God would reject it. We must worship Him in the Son.

The more I hear you boasting that you can know God without His word, the less I hear God in your words.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Here ya go Harold. Let's keep all the "inerrant" stuff over here.

Watch your step...the same Forum rules apply here just as anywhere else.

Oh ... yer such a sweetheart ... I love ya ... and will do my best to be a good boy ... I'm not worthy.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Here ya go Harold. Let's keep all the "inerrant" stuff over here.

Watch your step...the same Forum rules apply here just as anywhere else.

...so you're giving Harold a thread with which to hang himself?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your logic is seriously flawed. Times have changed, and so has our God.

In the O.T., if you tried to build an altar like Abraham did, God would reject it. His temple was in Jerusalem.

In the N.T., if you tried to worship in the temple, God would reject it. We must worship Him in the Son.

The more I hear you boasting that you can know God without His word, the less I hear God in your words.

What has changed demonstrably is human culture. That includes religion and science. James 1:17 says that God does not change. The Nicene Creed states that those who assert that God is 'changeable,' or 'alterable' are 'condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church'.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is no problem with the idea that scripture says precisely what it sets out to say and that it is the truth. The problem is what I think it is saying and what I do with it.

Bible — inerrant

Reader — very errant

The good news is that God has spoken to sinful, errant man.
The bad news is that God has spoken to sinful, errant man.

Those who question the accuracy and inerrant nature of the Bible are barking up the wrong tree. The accuracy and inerrant nature were verified and confirmed long, long ago by many learned and wise men, some who were within a generation or two of the original authors. There is very little doubt that these men had extremely accurate and complete copies of the original writings. It was with these accurate and complete copies that many of the early church "fathers" produced some of the earliest polemics and creeds.

Over the centuries have sinful, errant men taken the pure and inerrant teaching and message of the Word of God and corrupted it, twisting it for their own evil and selfish purposes? Sure. Have false teachers taken the pure and inerrant teaching and message of the Word of God, adding to it when they wished, taking away from it when they wished, all to bring more sinful, errant men under their power and spell, sometimes tickling their ears, and other times beating them over the head with it? Absolutely.

God has chosen to speak to sinful, errant man. He spoke to man before he fell and became sinful and errant, and he spoke to man after he fell and became sinful and errant. He spoke to people, and to his chosen people, in various ways. He even allowed a Donkey to speak one time. "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Heb 1:2) It is very likely that when the writer of Hebrews penned this the Lord Jesus was already resurrected and not physically ministering on the earth. So "has spoken to us" meant something that was in writing, written down and passed down to all the Christians. This was the Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and Revelation - The New Testament. This is how the Son speaks to us in these days. We can ignore it if we so choose, but we do so at great peril I believe. We can also choose to deny that the Bible is actually the Word of God, and we do this at an even greater peril.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? Romans 10:14 If we deny the Bible is the Word of God we leave God with no way to speak to us in these last days. The next time that God comes out of the clouds with a thundering voice to speak to man it will be too late for many. The Son of Man will be coming in power and glory with his angels. Then many will be weeping and will remember what God has spoken to man for centuries and millennia in His Word - The Holy Bible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Heb 1:2) It is very likely that when the writer of Hebrews penned this the Lord Jesus was already resurrected and not physically ministering on the earth.

Yes; the Lord had already resurrected. Hebrews 2:3,4 says "how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."

"to us by those who heard Him" seems pretty definitive.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So "has spoken to us" meant something that was in writing, written down and passed down to all the Christians. This was the Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and Revelation - The New Testament.

Actually the epistle to the Hebrews doesn't quote the gospels or Paul's epistles. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews quotes the OT, profusely. So "has spoken to us" meant the written words of the prophets, confirmed (orally? in writing?) by those who orally heard him. Probably at the time of "Hebrews" much of the NT wasn't yet in writing, and much of it which was written was in very limited circulation. What was in widespread circulation was what we call "OT" today.

None of this really changes your argument, though.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your logic is seriously flawed. Times have changed, and so has our God.

Whoops. I think I get what you are saying, but others might not.

In the O.T., if you tried to build an altar like Abraham did, God would reject it. His temple was in Jerusalem.

Can you cite verses to back this up? I'm not sure God would reject any worship. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm open to learning.

In the N.T., if you tried to worship in the temple, God would reject it. We must worship Him in the Son.

Yes Jesus is recorded as saying in Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

But it's also recorded :

Act_2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Act_3:1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.
Act_3:2 And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;
Act_3:3 Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.
Act_3:8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.

The more I hear you boasting that you can know God without His word, the less I hear God in your words.

Boasting? I'm but a worm. How can I boast of anything?

Of course you don't hear God in my words. Aren't you looking at my words against inerrancy as a direct assault and affront on God Himself?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Whoops. I think I get what you are saying, but others might not.

I don't get it, I am lost. Correct me where I am mistaken:

Awareness -- Your position is that the Bible is the word of God, you love the Bible, you love God, but many parts of the Bible are man's word, not divinely inspired. Also, you can worship God without the Bible. And the misunderstanding of various Bible verses have been used to justify evil actions by man. You also don't agree with the concept that times have changed and as a result man's worship of God has changed too. You state that since Abraham didn't have a Bible and worshipped God, you also don't need a Bible.

This seems to me to be what you have said, am I wrong, am I missing the key point, or is this pretty much correct?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't get it, I am lost. Correct me where I am mistaken:

Awareness -- Your position is that the Bible is the word of God, you love the Bible, you love God, but many parts of the Bible are man's word, not divinely inspired. Also, you can worship God without the Bible. And the misunderstanding of various Bible verses have been used to justify evil actions by man. You also don't agree with the concept that times have changed and as a result man's worship of God has changed too. You state that since Abraham didn't have a Bible and worshipped God, you also don't need a Bible.

This seems to me to be what you have said, am I wrong, am I missing the key point, or is this pretty much correct?

Me too. I have no desire to continue being played the fool.

[UntoHim]

My bad. I thought if I opened a thread for Harold and zeek they would post in good faith, and maybe want to engage in some sensible dialog.

Go ahead guys and do what you do best....then I'll decide what to do with the thread in the morning. Thanks for the memories!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My bad. I thought if I opened a thread for Harold and zeek they would post in good faith, and maybe want to engage in some sensible dialog.

Go ahead guys and do what you do best....then I'll decide what to do with the thread in the morning. Thanks for the memories!

I have posted in good faith and followed the rules in the mission statement to the letter. I don't know how you can say otherwise. Your moderating seems quite bias from where I am sitting.

[james73]

Originally Posted by zeek

I will not question Bible inerrancy on this forum except to know what is meant by the term. It is a negative term for what we are discussing. It's positive counterpart is perfection. Inerrancy requires perfect knowledge and perfect execution. It's substance is the breath of God, the Spirit who is God Himself. The reception of the breath of God is inspiration by which is meant to be infused with the Spirit.The question remains: How is this so?

I went to a ministry meeting last night with a DVD from Bob Sorge, the last in the series of "Secrets of the Secret Place". I find I don't agree with Sorge's ideas in a lot of places - last night he was labouring to find what the seven flames in the lampstand in Zechariah 4 represented but it sounded like a concordance project to me.... (now, search "fire", now find seven instances which sound great in a sermon....)

However, I did sit up and take notes when he started talking about the two Olive trees in Zechariah 4:11, because it seemed this was what we've been discussing a little here: he says, in his interpretation (and he said he could well be wrong) : the two olive trees by the side of the lampstand are the Word and the Spirit.

He said you need both - if you get the Spirit without the Word, "we'll wave goodbye to you, because you're off, you're gonna get weird". I found that quite funny and appropriate to our discussion here the last few days. I think a couple of people waved goodbye to me when I suggested you could enjoy the spirit without the word

Thinking about Sorge's idea, I had a slightly new perspective on the Word as a guide to the experience of the Spirit - a God-inspired guide written over the centuries to help us understand this strange spirit experience. In this case, inerrant therefore being a better word than perfect. You would never see the instruction manual for a piece of IKEA furniture being described as "perfect" but you would hope it was "inerrant", because without it you'll be lost.

Perhaps it is irrelevant to discuss bible inerrancy without the Spirit, because without the Spirit the bible is not the Word, it's just a collection of books. The instructions to a Billy bookcase are only inerrant for a Billy bookcase construction, the bible is only inerrant when read with the Spirit.

It's a kind of chicken and egg mystery - the Spirit and the Word. Historically was can argue, well obviously the Spirit came before the bible, because writing wasn't invented until the Slovenians perfected ink manufacture in 1066AD etc etc- but that's not the mystery - the mystery is, which came first, the Spirit or the Word?

A Buddhist answer to chicken and egg is that both are an illusion, names given to a collection of cells. The bible itself is an illusion too, a complicated mess of translations with a cover and a stamp on the front, it's not a "bible" it's a collection of atoms. We can argue over its source and we'll only go back to atoms and printing presses, but the Word - this is not a physical thing, it's aligned with the spirit. The Word lives in the bible when the Spirit is present.

What we have in LC is the bible, not the Word, because the spirit is denied by the Life Study and the footnotes. We won't get the Word until we delete the footnotes and open to the spirit.

This, to me, is the concept of inerrancy. Not "verse X says Y" which kills the spirit so quickly. Once, feeling generous, I said to my LC group that indeed, the concept of Locality was a great idea, I wanted to share something about it and immediately someone jumped in, piously, looked at me quite pityingly and said "it's not a concept! it's in the bible". My sharing was just killed dead. This is the sort of "bible inerrancy" which gives bible inerrancy a bad name, it's confusing inerrancy with interpretation and assuming the interpretation is inerrant.

OK sorry for the longish posts---- this is probably all first grade to most of you, I'm just enjoying exploring these ideas. Plus it's lonely out here in GMT+8 while you guys are probably all sleeping or out guzzling kegs

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My bad. I thought if I opened a thread for Harold and zeek they would post in good faith, and maybe want to engage in some sensible dialog.

Go ahead guys and do what you do best....then I'll decide what to do with the thread in the morning. Thanks for the memories!

What specifically brought this on? Where did I go wrong?

Tell us just what you expect. No rules were broken that I know of. So what is required beyond the rules? Are members of LCD, for example, required to be fundamentalist, or some such? Put everything you want and expect in the mission statement. Spell it out. If only inerrantists are allowed here just come out and say it. State it as a requirement.

And start vetting new memberships to make sure.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by james73

... I had a slightly new perspective on the Word as a guide to the experience of the Spirit - a God-inspired guide written over the centuries to help us understand this strange spirit experience. In this case, inerrant therefore being a better word than perfect.

Perhaps it is irrelevant to discuss bible inerrancy without the Spirit, because without the Spirit the bible is not the Word, it's just a collection of books ... the bible is only inerrant when read with the Spirit.

The Word lives in the bible when the Spirit is present.

OK sorry for the longish posts---- this is probably all first grade to most of you, I'm just enjoying exploring these ideas. Plus it's lonely out here in GMT+8 while you guys are probably all sleeping or out guzzling kegs

Hey "GMTplus8" calling from "GMTminus5."

Great comments here. One verse that always challenged me, yet which has made my journey all the more difficult and yet exciting at the same time, is that we were never instructed to "walk by the word," rather we "walk by the Spirit," which is almost identical to the verses which instruct us to "walk by faith."

To "walk by the word," without the Spirit of faith, probably means we have degenerated into walking by the letter. There is neither faith nor the Spirit required for this walk. Instead of sharing what fellowship God has given to us in the Spirit, walking by the word usually means we are critical of one another. Yet, as you have warned, without the word, you will get weird, sorry to say. You will not become legalistic, yet you will accept numerous philosophies which rob you from reality. And without the foundation of faith, all sorts of avenues will become appealing.

Anyways, these kinds of discussion are never first grade.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Me too. I have no desire to continue being played the fool.

I'm sorry if I've made you feel this way bro Ohio. It's not my intention.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm sorry if I've made feel this way bro Ohio. It's not my intention.

Brother, your "analysis" is all distorted. For example I said, "In the N.T., if you tried to worship in the temple, God would reject it. We must worship Him in the Son." To which you reply with citations from Acts, like this one "2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart."

Obviously, as you well know, the disciples were not offering animal sacrifices in the temple in order to worship God, and atone for their sins. They used the Temple complex in order to meet. But you knew that. But instead of acknowledging my point, you twisted it against me.

That's playing me for a fool.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother, your "analysis" is all distorted. For example I said, "In the N.T., if you tried to worship in the temple, God would reject it. We must worship Him in the Son." To which you reply with citations from Acts, like this one "2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart."

Obviously, as you well know, the disciples were not offering animal sacrifices in the temple in order to worship God, and atone for their sins. They used the Temple complex in order to meet. But you knew that. But instead of acknowledging my point, you twisted it against me.

That's playing me for a fool.

Not. Not what I was doing at all. If you feel I twisted it, then point it out. That's why we discuss these things. All you had to do was point out where I was wrong. I know you're to smart to try and play you for a fool. That's an extreme reaction.

And what about the dispute between Paul and James, and how Paul was required to prove he wasn't negating the law, and what he had to do to prove it?

And what about James, who was practicing the law? It wasn't as clear back in the earliest days of Christianity as you made it sound. Weren't the earliest Christians still practicing Jews ... even requiring circumcision of the gentiles?

But that wasn't your point. You were trying to point out how God had changed (not God, God doesn't change) but how he changed his expectations after Jesus ; that God expected worship in his son.

Then you said "The more I hear you boasting that you can know God without His word, the less I hear God in your words."

And that's a twist on what I've been saying, that, God has, in the past, spoken his "word" without the Bible. Which is undeniably the truth. The Bible wouldn't even be here without that truth.

But sorry for the mix up between us. It happens. And my intention was never to offend you, or play you for a fool. My bad. Mea culpa. I can be stupid some times. Feel free to point it out. I mean no malice by it. And besides, I really like you.

Now if I and Untohim can straighten things out. That's my current concern. You may be rid of this idiot soon, as I may not be a member much longer.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

... God has, in the past, spoken his "word" without the Bible. Which is undeniably the truth. The Bible wouldn't even be here without that truth.

Morning Awareness,

How would you, today, know God if the Bible didn't exist?

[zeek]

This is an interesting discussion. Too bad UntoHim is threatening to delete it. He already has deleted at least one of my posts. Rather than reply to me when he disagreed, he chose to censor me. He did that even though I was following the mission statement rules. That is an unprincipled way of handling a dispute among anyone let alone a brother in Christ. It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion with all the moderator editing going on. Apart from that I am enjoying the lively intelligent discussion. I hope that we can continue. And no UntoHim there are not a bunch of other websites where you can have a meaningful discussion with ex-local churchers. This is the best place I know of to do that.

[UntoHim]

zeek, if you want to call that smartass one liner that I deleted "meaningful discussion" then you're even more disingenuous than I thought. You rarely engage anyone without insulting, belittling and flaming. It's just how you do business on the Internet, and this kind of stuff doesn't fly around here and you know it.

awareness asks "what do you expect?" I expect common civility to start with. That's the bare minimum and you rarely even make it to that minimum. Harold is usually above this minimum but is constantly poking around to see what he can get away with. It becomes real old and tiresome for a moderator to have to worry about what you guys are going to say next.

If you want to engage Local Churchers (current or ex) I suggest you do so over on the Bereans forum. I don't think they even moderate the LC forum thread over there so you guys can get your jollies - insult, belittle, patronize and flame to your little hearts desire. And of course there's the extra bonus of being able to whine and cry about being moderated over here.

I'm keeping the thread open if you want to be civil and engage others in good faith. Anything else that is posted will be deleted.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Morning Awareness,

How would you, today, know God if the Bible didn't exist?

Ya know ABinF I honestly can't answer that question.

Cuz from the time my mother could take me out of the house she took me to her Southern Baptist church every time the doors were open.

And that's how I came to know God. It was forced upon me.

So I don't think I can calculate the answer to your question. I was born into the Bible. It's too blurry to figure out.

But it's not the way I know God in my daily life. I don't go around on a daily basis trying to mimic Bible characters, or conform to Bible verses. I relate with God directly.

Because God still speaks without the Bible, just as in old.

[aron]

Originally Posted by james73

Thinking about Sorge's idea, I had a slightly new perspective on the Word as a guide to the experience of the Spirit - a God-inspired guide written over the centuries to help us understand this strange spirit experience. In this case, inerrant therefore being a better word than perfect. You would never see the instruction manual for a piece of IKEA furniture being described as "perfect" but you would hope it was "inerrant", because without it you'll be lost.

Perhaps it is irrelevant to discuss bible inerrancy without the Spirit, because without the Spirit the bible is not the Word, it's just a collection of books.

Thanks for the tip on Sorge. I am interested in the scene of the "throne". Jesus, while a man on earth, dwelt in the Shadow of the Almighty. The rest of us wander about, at least I do, occasionally stumbling on some "living water" only to have it dry up almost instantly.

How did Jesus dwell there, continually? How was, and is, a Man able to stand there and intercede for us? How does He sit at His right hand? How do, in fact, "all the angels of God worship Him?" These mystical scenes in the bible are our roadmap home. They literally show us the Spirit. The four gospels show us the effect of the Spirit, but the "secret of the secret place" shows us the Spirit.

So in that sense the bible is inerrant. It shows us the way home to the Father. Our ability to follow directions seems to be a little suspect.

That is why I became so interested in the Psalms. They show us mystical scenes, which Lee said were "fallen concepts" and which I largely agreed with, until recently. I found that, ironically, Lee was right; when you "strike the Spirit in the Word with your human spirit" it will give you a vision in the Word which will become your directions home...

As a Buddhist once told me, "The path and the destination are the same thing."

Originally Posted by james73

This, to me, is the concept of inerrancy. Not "verse X says Y" which kills the spirit so quickly. Once, feeling generous, I said to my LC group that indeed, the concept of Locality was a great idea, I wanted to share something about it and immediately someone jumped in, piously, looked at me quite pityingly and said "it's not a concept! it's in the bible". My sharing was just killed dead. This is the sort of "bible inerrancy" which gives bible inerrancy a bad name, it's confusing inerrancy with interpretation and assuming the interpretation is inerrant.

That "it's in the bible" is a conversation-killer for sure. "Hey, buddy, what are you doing with that jug of poison in your hand, ready to drink?!?"

"It's in the bible" (Mark 16:18)

Originally Posted by james73

sorry for the longish posts---- this is probably all first grade to most of you, I'm just enjoying exploring these ideas. Plus it's lonely out here in GMT+8 while you guys are probably all sleeping or out guzzling kegs

Very nice writing. I don't consider your ideas "first grade" at all. No longer guzzling kegs, thank God. Those days are over.

[awareness]

I'm afraid to respond to posts out here. We're unable to openly discuss inerrancy without the risk of getting kick off the forum. As if that's the way to hold to truth ; just block anything disagreeable out, and stop all contrary thought.

I lived with that in the local church. But I left the local church and don't operate like that anymore. I'm now open to whatever God wants to show me. And I'm open like Witness Lee condemned : "Open like a trash can." Boy that was a brilliant method of stopping thought.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm afraid to respond to posts out here. We're unable to openly discuss inerrancy without the risk of getting kick off the forum. As if that's the way to hold to truth ; just block anything disagreeable out, and stop all contrary thought.

I lived with that in the local church. But I left the local church and don't operate like that anymore. I'm now open to whatever God wants to show me. And I'm open like Witness Lee condemned : "Open like a trash can." Boy that was a brilliant method of stopping thought.

> <

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

> <

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ya know ABinF I honestly can't answer that question.
Cuz from the time my mother could take me out of the house she took me to her Southern Baptist church every time the doors were open.
And that's how I came to know God. It was forced upon me.
So I don't think I can calculate the answer to your question. I was born into the Bible. It's too blurry to figure out.
But it's not the way I know God in my daily life. I don't go around on a daily basis trying to mimic Bible characters, or conform to Bible verses. I relate with God directly.
Because God still speaks without the Bible, just as in old.

I really don't know if you're pretending not to understand the question or if you genuinely don't understand it!

My question was not about YOU specifically, not about how would you have come to know God. It was about how, if there were no Bible, would you or ANYONE ELSE know who God was. Anyone else includes the Southern Baptist preacher, choir, minister, brothers and sisters, kids hanging round the door, etc.

My point is, and I suspect you know this, that without the Bible no one today could know God. Not only that, but it is the way He has chosen to reveal Himself to us. We do not have an oral tradition or paintings or video or anything else to go by as far as a source is concerned. We have what we have because of the sovereignty of God.

Of course someone could tell us about God, and we could believe, but without the Bible our believe would be quickly subject to our own whims. It would have nothing to ground it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

zeek, if you want to call that smartass one liner that I deleted "meaningful discussion" then you're even more disingenuous than I thought. You rarely engage anyone without insulting, belittling and flaming. It's just how you do business on the Internet, and this kind of stuff doesn't fly around here and you know it.

awareness asks "what do you expect?" I expect common civility to start with. That's the bare minimum and you rarely even make it to that minimum. Harold is usually above this minimum but is constantly poking around to see what he can get away with. It becomes real old and tiresome for a moderator to have to worry about what you guys are going to say next.

If you want to engage Local Churchers (current or ex) I suggest you do so over on the Bereans forum. I don't think they even moderate the LC forum thread over there so you guys can get your jollies - insult, belittle, patronize and flame to your little hearts desire. And of course there's the extra bonus of being able to whine and cry about being moderated over here.

I'm keeping the thread open if you want to be civil and engage others in good faith. Anything else that is posted will be deleted.

I asserted that you had committed a logical fallacy in the post of yours I quoted. The idea that logical analysis is "smartass" is new to me. Please explain how you would like me to handle fallacious arguments when I see them.

I assure you, that I am utterly ingenuous when it comes to this forum. I did make several personal characterizations when I returned to this site recently. I confess that it was probably resentment that I misdirected at a couple of the regulars here. I have apologized to them personally via messaging. I usually try to avoid getting personal as much as possible and you can count on that from me from now on. Ohio did feel I was patronizing him, but that was never my intent. One poster accepted my apology another said it was unnecessary. I hope that you will be as gracious toward me as they were. I support your aim of maintaining civility here.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't get it, I am lost. Correct me where I am mistaken:

Awareness -- Your position is that the Bible is the word of God, you love the Bible, you love God, but many parts of the Bible are man's word, not divinely inspired. Also, you can worship God without the Bible. And the misunderstanding of various Bible verses have been used to justify evil actions by man. You also don't agree with the concept that times have changed and as a result man's worship of God has changed too. You state that since Abraham didn't have a Bible and worshipped God, you also don't need a Bible.

This seems to me to be what you have said, am I wrong, am I missing the key point, or is this pretty much correct?

Since you didn't respond I will assume this is an accurate depiction.

My issue is this:

We have used the Bible to highlight the errors of Witness Lee. This is based on the Bible being the word of God and hence the highest authority.

If you argue that the Bible is not the highest authority, then based on what are you taking issue with Witness Lee? Your personal morality? We have already learned over and over that using what man figures is OK is a sliding scale. One day marriage refers to a man and a woman, the next we discover that is a bigoted attitude, blah, blah, blah. The Bible condemns fornication and adultery, this generation doesn't. The Bible condemns covetousness, this generation argues that "greed is good". The Bible condemns liars, this generation has experimented with every form of lie imaginable.

Likewise, if you provide a basis to say that some verses do not rise to the standard of God's word which carries His authority and inspiration, then who decides which verses these are? You have just justified a third of the issues I have with Witness Lee's teaching, and you have completely undermined any basis to take issue with the other two thirds.

If you say MOTA is unscriptural, what weight does that have if you have different people deciding what is and is not scripture?

How do you say that the NT condemns the litigious nature of Witness Lee and the LSM? Maybe those verses were influenced by Plato, or the Bronze age, or some other lame excuse.

The book of Colossians says that "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge is hidden in Christ". To me if I don't understand a verse in the Bible then there is a hidden treasure of wisdom there for me to discover, it is merely one more example of how God's thoughts are not my thoughts. But teaching that you can go through the Bible with a knife and cut out verses you don't like completely short circuits the chance of discovering these treasures.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Since you didn't respond I will assume this is an accurate depiction.

I have actually a response in the queue to you and ABrotherinFaith. And I was going to respond in kind until things went funny. Give me some time. I'll get back to them. And thanks for your summary. You're really gifted at that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I really don't know if you're pretending not to understand the question or if you genuinely don't understand it!

Thanks bro ABinF for your kind reply.

You asked : "How would you, today, know God if the Bible didn't exist?"

And that brought forth my personal testimony on how I came to know God.

My question was not about YOU specifically, not about how would you have come to know God.

My bad. I obviously failed to read your question deeply enough.

It was about how, if there were no Bible, would you or ANYONE ELSE know who God was. Anyone else includes the Southern Baptist preacher, choir, minister, brothers and sisters, kids hanging round the door, etc.

Well God has His ways. And nothing is impossible for him.

But you drive a hard argument. There's no denying the Bible has had a profound impact on history -- some good, some bad -- and even is having a profound impact on the present -- again, some good, some bad.

My point is, and I suspect you know this, that without the Bible no one today could know God.

Have some faith bro ABinF, in God. God can reveal Himself without the Bible. Case in point is the Native Americans, who had no Bible, nor knew of Jesus even, but had the Great Spirit. Don't you think that was God revealing Himself to them?

Not only that, but it is the way He has chosen to reveal Himself to us.

Yes, A way. For example, I know brothers and sisters that before they came to the Lord were being led by the Lord, without any Bible being involved.

We do not have an oral tradition or paintings or video or anything else to go by as far as a source is concerned. We have what we have because of the sovereignty of God.

I think I get what you are saying, that, we only have what we have, the Bible. And thank God for that. And thank Him also for protecting other writings too. Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Coptic Gnostic writings found at Nag Hammadi in 1946. If God protected the Bible, as some claim, He protected these as well. And lots of other wrings from back in those ancient days too. Just do a search for "Apocryphal books" for samples, and further reading and study.

Of course someone could tell us about God, and we could believe, but without the Bible our believe would be quickly subject to our own whims. It would have nothing to ground it.

But I don't see the Bible as resolving this "our own whims" problem. If anything, history has shown, it exasperates it.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I asserted that you had committed a logical fallacy in the post of yours I quoted. The idea that logical analysis is "smartass" is new to me. Please explain how you would like me to handle fallacious arguments when I see them.

zeek, thanks for your retort this time. I'm just quoting the part I have a big problem with. Your one liner did not address anything about committing a logical fallacy and I think you know this. My post was quoting scripture for the most part and you call this quoting of scripture "a logical fallacy". So how did your one liner smartass "is this a threat?" quip constitute "logical analysis"? We've been over this again and again, but for anyone on this forum to consider the quoting of the Bible as "fallacious arguments" needs to find themselves a new forum.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

zeek, thanks for your retort this time. I'm just quoting the part I have a big problem with. Your one liner did not address anything about committing a logical fallacy and I think you know this. My post was quoting scripture for the most part and you call this quoting of scripture "a logical fallacy". So how did your one liner smartass "is this a threat?" quip constitute "logical analysis"? We've been over this again and again, but for anyone on this forum to consider the quoting of the Bible as "fallacious arguments" needs to find themselves a new forum.

I didn't say "is this a threat". You might know that I didn't if you had not deleted the post. I asked, "is this an appeal to fear?"

Arguments are a kind of appeal. It seemed to me that the thrust of your argument was that people should stop questioning things you hold sacred lest they be struck by the wrath of God when he returns. What is that but an appeal to fear? The appeal to fear is a fallacy with the following pattern: 1) Y is presented (a claim that is intended to produce fear). 2) Therefore claim X is true (a claim that is generally, but need not be, related to Y in some manner). This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim.

Your argument that I need to find another forum because I questioned a Bible quotation is false as well. When Jesus went to the wilderness the devil quoted the Bible to him three times to make his point. Jesus disputed the devil's arguments even though the devil backed them up with Bible quotations. So quoting the Bible doesn't necessarily prove an argument is true though the Bible itself be inerrant. Since what I was doing was like what Jesus did, it doesn't seem to be a good cause for expelling me from a Christian website.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

That "it's in the bible" is a conversation-killer for sure. "Hey, buddy, what are you doing with that jug of poison in your hand, ready to drink?!?"

"It's in the bible" (Mark 16:18)

Aron makes a funny with this. And provides me with one reason I don't think the Bible is inerrant.

That's because the end of Mark is a real mess in the NT manuscripts. There's two versions of Mark in the NT manuscripts ; a short version, and a long version.

The short version cuts off at Mark 16:8, and the long versions has the crazy stuff, like drinking poison and snake handling. (And believers are dying because of it.)
https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-...iw=944&bih=487

So there's two versions of Mark in the manuscripts. And obviously there can't be two copies of the original autograph copy. So somebody messed with the autograph copy of Mark, and either added to it, or deleted from it, and we don't know who. But it's likely that a scribe didn't like Mark ending with :

"And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

So he added the crazy stuff.

So if God protected the scripture, as some claim, He didn't do a very good job of protecting the gospel of Mark.

And such a claim therefore impugns God ... which offends me.

[UntoHim]

Usually I save deleted posts in a moderator thread, but your's was so trite and unworthy of staying on the forum I guess I just deleted it outright. Even if you used the term "appeal to fear" your claim that it is "logical analysis" is just silly and knee slapping hilarious If quoting the Bible to you is a threat or and appeal to fear then you are just wasting your time here. What's worse is that your wasting our time as well.

If you don't want your trite quips and one-liners deleted then the answer for you is super simple - Don't Post Them. In the meantime if you want to dialog with other members about the Bible being inerrant or not then your welcome to do so. But don't insult, don't belittle and don't flame.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Usually I save deleted posts in a moderator thread, but your's was so trite and unworthy of staying on the forum I guess I just deleted it outright. Even if you used the term "appeal to fear" your claim that it is "logical analysis" is just silly and knee slapping hilarious If quoting the Bible to you is a threat or and appeal to fear then you are just wasting your time here. What's worse is that your wasting our time as well.

If you don't want your trite quips and one-liners deleted then the answer for you is super simple - Don't Post Them. In the meantime if you want to dialog with other members about the Bible being inerrant or not then your welcome to do so. But don't insult, don't belittle and don't flame.

I won't insult, belittle or flame even though that is what you did to me above. You mocked my arguments by calling them trite, silly and hilarious. Would it be too much for you to extend the same courtesy to me as you are asking me to extend to you and others?


But calling my argument names i.e. belittling it, is not the same as refuting it. To refute it would require a valid counter-argument. If you have any of those I'd love to see them.

Quoting the Bible isn't threatening to me. But when the Bible is quoted as a threat to win an argument, that deserves being pointed out. That may seem trite to you, but isn't from the standpoint of truth and also from the standpoint of empathy for the other party. It depends on whether the goal is to empower people with the truth or to control them by invoking fear. That isn't trite to me. As a person with authority it shouldn't be for you either in my opinion.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I won't insult, belittle or flame even though that is what you did to me above. You mocked my arguments by calling them trite, silly and hilarious. Would it be too much for you to extend the same courtesy to me as you are asking me to extend to you and others?

Lower your voice and strengthen your argument.

If the Bible is not established as an authority for Christians, then what is? Jesus, the incarnated word, is Lord. If you don't agree that the Lord's authority is conferred on the written word then please explain what is the authority.

[OBW]

Harold,

Things are sketchy right now. But I have a different view of this one comment or yours:

Originally Posted by awareness

But you drive a hard argument. There's no denying the Bible has had a profound impact on history -- some good, some bad -- and even is having a profound impact on the present -- again, some good, some bad.

This is something I have heard from others. But this is one of those places where "root causes" probably require a deeper look.

And I wonder if the deeper look would find that people who have done bad things with the Bible did so because they wanted to do them. But since they did not want to act contrary to the Bible, they put their own spin on things (a verse, passage, etc.) to create commands in scripture for their errors.

The KKK uses Romans 12:1-2. Anyone think that their version of "present your bodies" is what the Bible is talking about?

It is harder to see the religious errors that are not so blatant. But Lee had quite a few. Just not the same kind of egregious twist that the KKK found in Romans 12.

Don't blame the Bible for the evil that men do. The Bible has not spoken to anyone to do evil. Rather the evil have argued that the Bible has blessed their evil.

But it does not.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Lower your voice and strengthen your argument.

If the Bible is not established as an authority for Christians, then what is? Jesus, the incarnated word, is Lord. If you don't agree that the Lord's authority is conferred on the written word then please explain what is the authority.

I haven't questioned the authority of the Bible for Christians. I questioned the use of fear to establish the truth of a proposition. If I say proposition p is the case and if you don't believe it a zombie will strike you dead, that does not make proposition p the case. The Bible can be used as a threat to do the same thing. The Bible isn't the problem, the fallacious argument is.

[UntoHim]

"Proposition P"? Sorry, but as much as you would like it to be so this is not a philosophy or logic class. It's an Internet forum that has a mission statement and rules - most of which you are diametrically opposed to. So why waste so much energy and fuss? Really, you must still have some of that ole Local Church glutton for punishment syndrome left in you.

And of course, sensing that your time is at an end, you go with the tried and true zombie smack. Dude, you make Harold seem like a lightweight...and let me tell you that takes some doing. I'm going to keep your last post up for a while lest you say "what?...I didn't use the term zombie...I'm positive I said 'animated corpse'.."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Dude, you make Harold seem like a lightweight...and let me tell you that takes some doing.

I've tried to stay out of this fray. Lord knows I have enough with my own problems.

But I had to respond to this compliment from Untohim, with ..

ROTFLMAO

[awareness]

Mike, this post (below) was a great post.

I agree the problem is not the Bible, but is how it's used. And ya can't get a higher authority then to use the Bible to justify what you want to do (like the formation of the Southern Baptist church, who used the Bible to justify the holding of slaves.)

And the problem we see in the middle east today ; with the Jews using the Bible to justify taking all the land they say God give to them in their Torah.

Yes the Bible has impact. WWIII might be the result of it.

Come Apocalypse come. Screw our neighbors. Let them suffer. Like when they took the Promised Land in the OT.
---------------------------------------

Originally Posted by OBW

Harold,

Things are sketchy right now. But I have a different view of this one comment or yours:
This is something I have heard from others. But this is one of those places where "root causes" probably require a deeper look.

And I wonder if the deeper look would find that people who have done bad things with the Bible did so because they wanted to do them. But since they did not want to act contrary to the Bible, they put their own spin on things (a verse, passage, etc.) to create commands in scripture for their errors.

The KKK uses Romans 12:1-2. Anyone think that their version of "present your bodies" is what the Bible is talking about?

It is harder to see the religious errors that are not so blatant. But Lee had quite a few. Just not the same kind of egregious twist that the KKK found in Romans 12.

Don't blame the Bible for the evil that men do. The Bible has not spoken to anyone to do evil. Rather the evil have argued that the Bible has blessed their evil.

But it does not.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"Proposition P"? Sorry, but as much as you would like it to be so this is not a philosophy or logic class. It's an Internet forum that has a mission statement and rules - most of which you are diametrically opposed to. So why waste so much energy and fuss? Really, you must still have some of that ole Local Church glutton for punishment syndrome left in you.

What rule have I violated by questioning your logic? What rule do you think I am opposed to? I'm a glutton for punishment? Are you trying to punish me? If so, why?

And of course, sensing that your time is at an end, you go with the tried and true zombie smack. Dude, you make Harold seem like a lightweight...and let me tell you that takes some doing. I'm going to keep your last post up for a while lest you say "what?...I didn't use the term zombie...I'm positive I said 'animated corpse'.."

It was a parable. You know- like Jesus used to tell. What's wrong with the word zombie? What possible difference could it make if I said zombie or animated corpse. I make Harold seem like a lightweight at what? Your last post is all innuendo without substance. Why do you suggest that I lied when you deleted my post and then forgot what I said?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I haven't questioned the authority of the Bible for Christians. I questioned the use of fear to establish the truth of a proposition. If I say proposition p is the case and if you don't believe it a zombie will strike you dead, that does not make proposition p the case. The Bible can be used as a threat to do the same thing. The Bible isn't the problem, the fallacious argument is.

A single observation of a zombie not striking someone dead is sufficient to disprove this theory. In science we say that you cannot prove theories with observations but you can disprove them, the geocentric model was disproved by a single observation by Copernicus.

The question "is the Bible inerrant?" is in fact questioning the authority of the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And the problem we see in the middle east today ; with the Jews using the Bible to justify taking all the land they say God give to them in their Torah.

Yes the Bible has impact. WWIII might be the result of it.

Come Apocalypse come. Screw our neighbors. Let them suffer. Like when they took the Promised Land in the OT.

Bait? Flame? Troll?

This post is too hot for me to touch!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A single observation of a zombie not striking someone dead is sufficient to disprove this theory. In science we say that you cannot prove theories with observations but you can disprove them, the geocentric model was disproved by a single observation by Copernicus.

The question "is the Bible inerrant?" is in fact questioning the authority of the Bible.

I didn't ask the question "is the Bible inerrant?" What if proposition p is: ZNP's dog has red eyes? If that is the case then whether or not you are stricken dead is irrelevant. The appeal to fear is a fallacy. It may be prudent to believe something if you will be killed if you don't. A prudent reason to believe is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief) that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim.

So if I want to stay on this forum, it is prudent for me to accept the Faith. But, that doesn't make the Faith true. As it happens, I'm not questioning the Faith, but I am questioning the use of the appeal to fear as an argument for accepting the Faith including Bible inerrancy if one considers that part of the Faith.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bait? Flame? Troll?

This post is too hot for me to touch!

The middle east is hot, isn't it? Very troubling.

But to be fair. The Jewish Bible inerrantists are fading in Israel. They may soon lose their free ride state welfare, and have to serve in the military ... for the first time. (Where they may get to live the inerrant "kill everything that takes breath" in their Torah.)

And Israel is becoming ever more secular. "Running off to other" is also in keeping with their inerrant Torah.

Yet not long ago I saw Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actually say God gave them the land in the Bible (they don't have it all yet).

And THAT'S more than a "flaming" statement ... backed by real nukes ... and Jericho intercontinental ballistic missiles, to deliver them.

Inerrantism has bearing in the world ... and not always good ... like would thought to be expected.

Inerrantism is just one way to use the Bible. And it can be misused and dangerous.

The miracle of God is required to use the miracle of the Bible properly.

[UntoHim]

Harold, you're so far off base you not even in the stadium.

You're mixing up the secular state of Israel with the religion of Judaism. And what's worse you're using your confusion and ignorance as a weapon of mass destruction in your war against the Bible. How many times do I have to tell you my man, please stay on topic. The dealings of and with the secular state of Israel ARE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS FORUM. PERIOD. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Orthodox Jews believe the Old Testament is the inspired, inerrant Word of Jehovah - The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. If you want to get into this then maybe, just maybe you could stay on topic.

Fly straight airman, or you're going to crash and burn...again

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, you're so far off base you not even in the stadium.

You're mixing up the secular state of Israel with the religion of Judaism. And what's worse you're using your confusion and ignorance as a weapon of mass destruction in your war against the Bible. How many times do I have to tell you my man, please stay on topic. The dealings of and with the secular state of Israel ARE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS FORUM. PERIOD. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Orthodox Jews believe the Old Testament is the inspired, inerrant Word of Jehovah - The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. If you want to get into this then maybe, just maybe you could stay on topic.

Fly straight airman, or you're going to crash and burn...again

Sorry ... again ... the rules are a moving target, but I'll eventually hit that darn target. I'm learning ... I think. I throw myself at the mercy of the court.

[awareness]

Untohim,

I think I'm beginning to get it. I can be thick some times.

The truth is, out here on this forum, only inerrancy is on topic.

Did I finally hit the target?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The middle east is hot, isn't it? Very troubling.

But to be fair. The Jewish Bible inerrantists are fading in Israel. They may soon lose their free ride state welfare, and have to serve in the military ... for the first time. (Where they may get to live the inerrant "kill everything that takes breath" in their Torah.)

And Israel is becoming ever more secular. "Running off to other" is also in keeping with their inerrant Torah.

Yet not long ago I saw Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actually say God gave them the land in the Bible (they don't have it all yet).

And THAT'S more than a "flaming" statement ... backed by real nukes ... and Jericho intercontinental ballistic missiles, to deliver them.

Inerrantism has bearing in the world ... and not always good ... like would thought to be expected.

Inerrantism is just one way to use the Bible. And it can be misused and dangerous.

The miracle of God is required to use the miracle of the Bible properly.

Your post reveals that you have serious problems with how Jehovah worked through Israel. You say "It's not God I have a problem with, it's His fan club," but since the only knowledge we have of God is that which his "fan club" has written, there is no way to "disconnect" the two. This glaring contradiction regularly surfaces in a number of your posts.

You say you have "no problem with God," but how would you know? Perhaps God is "My Favorite Martian." How could you dispute that? Perhaps God is a murderous and savage pedophile. How would you know? Perhaps God really hates WASPs, like yourself, how would you know?

You take issue with "Jewish Bible inerrantists." Perhaps they are the only ones on earth with the "real" God. How would you know? You have a problem with them, and now you have a problem with God! You like to make comments about how Abraham "knew God without the Bible," but perhaps God really spoke to him and promised him land that Israel does not now possess. How would you know?

Maybe God wants to use Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu these days to fulfill his promise to Abraham. You seem to think that's a little crazy. Therefore you have a serious problem with God. How would you know?

Since all you have is your own "fantasy God" who can can be anything you want him to be ... who is to say what this God of yours should be? You have made Him up, so how can we even discuss Him? Once you discredit the Bible, your God can be anything you dream up that day. Your imaginary God has never told us what He likes or does not like, so nothing you say about God has any value. Today your God is good, tomorrow your God is bad, who can know which day it is?

How can there be a "miracle of using the Bible properly," since it was written by fallen, failing, errant men from a time irrelevant to the 21st century? It's about as pertinent today in Obamaland as the American constitution. Why waste time even discussing it? awareness, we have gone around this massive molehill ad infinitum. You really don't listen to anything that is said in support of the Bible. You are only here to poke jabs at those who do. It's all a big game with you. It's called flaming. You are just doing what trolls do on internet forums. You are good at it. You get lots of attention. You like to get away with things.

To me it's real simple: no Bible -- no God. You can't have it both ways.

[james73]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A single observation of a zombie not striking someone dead is sufficient to disprove this theory. In science we say that you cannot prove theories with observations but you can disprove them, the geocentric model was disproved by a single observation by Copernicus.

The question "is the Bible inerrant?" is in fact questioning the authority of the Bible.

See, I think this gets to the root of the problem - in fact, Copernicus didn't disprove anything, he simply proposed a new theory based on new observational data. Galileo was doing great work with glass and lenses and the universe was opening up night by night; Galileo's observations were not trying to disprove anything either, he was driven by curiosity and ability to see what is out there. None of this work disproved the geocentric model, it merely afforded scientists a better view, a new, better theory, which you could accept or, in the case of the Catholic church, reject for 300 years.

Why is this important to inerrancy? Because as I understand it, we don't have all available data yet, as far as the bible goes. We haven't yet seen Jupiter's moons.

Now, of course you could have argued a heliocentric theory from the dawn of time, but nobody would pay any attention because although it would fit observations quite nicely, there's many other theories which ALSO explain the observations quite nicely, thank-you very much, and we're very happy with them. Heliocentricity, while fitting the facts, would be as welcome 2,000 years ago as me saying "in fact, I believe our whole existence is a dream of a giant zombie turtle". Heliocentricity in that case is "inerrant" (as we know now) but before its time.

I guess my point is, we'll never know for sure that the bible is inerrant until the very end. Faith, to me, is saying "I believe the bible will be shown to be inerrant all along". Now, I personally don't believe this 100%, but I do believe the mystery of man's experience of God will continue to unravel until a point when we'll be able to say "Ah! Now Genesis makes perfect sense".

Cheers!
James

PS I misspelled Galileo there and the spell checker came up with Galilee, a reminder of the good church background of the man

PPS And sorry for the rather mischievous mention of the zombie turtle- peace

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your post reveals that you have serious problems with how Jehovah worked through Israel. You say "It's not God I have a problem with, it's His fan club," but since the only knowledge we have of God is that which his "fan club" has written, there is no way to "disconnect" the two. This glaring contradiction regularly surfaces in a number of your posts.

You say you have "no problem with God," but how would you know? Perhaps God is "My Favorite Martian." How could you dispute that? Perhaps God is a murderous and savage pedophile. How would you know? Perhaps God really hates WASPs, like yourself, how would you know?

You take issue with "Jewish Bible inerrantists." Perhaps they are the only ones on earth with the "real" God. How would you know? You have a problem with them, and now you have a problem with God! You like to make comments about how Abraham "knew God without the Bible," but perhaps God really spoke to him and promised him land that Israel does not now possess. How would you know?

Maybe God wants to use Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu these days to fulfill his promise to Abraham. You seem to think that's a little crazy. Therefore you have a serious problem with God. How would you know?

Since all you have is your own "fantasy God" who can can be anything you want him to be ... who is to say what this God of yours should be? You have made Him up, so how can we even discuss Him? Once you discredit the Bible, your God can be anything you dream up that day. Your imaginary God has never told us what He likes or does not like, so nothing you say about God has any value. Today your God is good, tomorrow your God is bad, who can know which day it is?

How can there be a "miracle of using the Bible properly," since it was written by fallen, failing, errant men from a time irrelevant to the 21st century? It's about as pertinent today in Obamaland as the American constitution. Why waste time even discussing it? awareness, we have gone around this massive molehill ad infinitum. You really don't listen to anything that is said in support of the Bible. You are only here to poke jabs at those who do. It's all a big game with you. It's called flaming. You are just doing what trolls do on internet forums. You are good at it. You get lots of attention. You like to get away with things.

To me it's real simple: no Bible -- no God. You can't have it both ways.

WOW! and again WOW! Talk about a post too hot to touch. This one takes the cake.

It's an outstanding post tho ... really great.

But if I respond, or try to respond, I'll just get in more trouble.

Yer playing me bro Ohio ... just paying me back ... I guess I deserve it.

But you did make me realize that I have problems with ALL of God's fan club ... starting with Adam ... when I was only thinking of His fan club in this life.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by james73

Why is this important to inerrancy? Because as I understand it, we don't have all available data yet . . .

. . . I guess my point is, we'll never know for sure that the bible is inerrant until the very end.

Yes James, we don't have any evidence or facts to present that the Bible is inerrant. Cuz presently the data on it reveals the opposite.

So the only way inerrancy can become a fact is to just proclaim it, and call it one.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by james73

I guess my point is, we'll never know for sure that the bible is inerrant until the very end. Faith, to me, is saying "I believe the bible will be shown to be inerrant all along". Now, I personally don't believe this 100%, but I do believe the mystery of man's experience of God will continue to unravel until a point when we'll be able to say "Ah! Now Genesis makes perfect sense".

Great post James. Inerrancy can only be accepted by faith. But must it be? In other words is inerrancy a matter of The Faith? Does the principle "All, scripture is God-breathed necessarily entail inerrancy?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Great post James. Inerrancy can only be accepted by faith. But must it be? In other words is inerrancy a matter of The Faith? Does the principle "All, scripture is God-breathed necessarily entail inerrancy?

Of course, the whole thing hinges on what you mean by "inerrant." Which is why I don't like discussions where terms are not defined and it just becomes a word game.

The way I look at it is simple. I believe in Jesus. The most reliable record of Jesus shows him with the unmistakable attitude that the entire OT was the Word of God. He quoted it profusely and plainly stated that it was authoritative. His ministry and Paul's were a period of major changes for God's arrangement with mankind. Don't you think if they had problems with parts of the OT they would have let us know during that time? But they didn't.

It makes sense to validate ancient texts and modern translations. However, sometimes I think people seek to find errors in the Bible to introduce doubt about it and undermine its authority, in order to free themselves from some of its requirements, which may not even be related to the text they are questioning. That's a dangerous path to take.

Better, once you've validated the text and vetted the translation (and former has been done to a degree which should satisfy anyone), to interpret the Bible, rather than eviscerate it.

I just can't imagine a plausible scenario where God would allow us to be deceived in such a way. To present us with his Son respecting the OT, and then going, "Oops, well that really wasn't the way. Sorry." Makes no sense at all.

[Cal]

Of all the passages in the Bible which are questionable due to differences in ancient texts, including the end of Mark and the portion in John about the adulterous woman, not one if removed would change any major Christian doctrine. So the message remains intact.

So why do people nitpick about alleged Bible errors? If the message doesn't change, what are they worried about?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

... once you've validated the text and vetted the translation... to interpret the Bible...

3 Good aspects of "inerrancy" to examine here.

Validating the texts: We have different original OT texts such as Masoretic (Hebrew) versus LXX (Greek), plus different NT codices (Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc). In spite of variations, nothing that I can see undermines the faith. On the contrary, the variations really highlight the scrupulous work of diligent caretakers over the centuries, as faithful transmitters of the Word of God shepherded the texts. New discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which introduced original biblical texts hundreds of years earlier than previous copies, reinforce the idea of this process of continuously faithful transmission.

Translation: I love comparing different translations, because pretty much all of them allow the voice of God to speak to us. Again, variation produces reinforcement, not chaos. They are like intertwined strands of a single rope.

Interpretation: In spite of the phenomenal variety of the Christian message today, the "fact" that God loved us and sent His Son to save us and bring us back to Him is pretty clearly and universally understood. Likewise that we who believe into Jesus Christ should now love one another and obey His commands. I don't see any new "interpretation" looming on the horizon.

All of this allow a lot of "variance" while maintaining the validity of the Christian enterprise. To me it is like a human organ, which can maintain functionality within a range of temperatures, pressures and chemical gradients. It doesn't have to be "exact" in order to avoid collapse.

Likewise, the gospel message of God's love for us in Jesus Christ is actually quite robust. I love the fact that the more we "try it with fire" the more it seems to radiantly shine forth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The way I look at it is simple. I believe in Jesus. The most reliable record of Jesus shows him with the unmistakable attitude that the entire OT was the Word of God. He quoted it profusely and plainly stated that it was authoritative. His ministry and Paul's were a period of major changes for God's arrangement with mankind. Don't you think if they had problems with parts of the OT they would have let us know during that time? But they didn't.

This is exactly what millions of believers have concluded throughout the church age. The Reformers really never addressed this issue since their chief battle with Rome was over the elevation of traditions to the status of scripture. It was not until rationalism arose, that seeds of doubt were spread abroad that the Bible was nothing more than a human endeavor, fraught with error.

I also prefer to take the pattern of Jesus and the original apostles. They considered the whole law, the history, the songs, and the prophets to be God's word. Never once did Jesus or the apostles point out any errors in the scripture, and they had plenty of opportunity. Jesus and the apostles even took this one step further to the anger of the Jewish religionistas of the day -- they often quoted from the Greek Septuagint rather than the original Hebrew. The Lord Jesus and the apostles took the double step of unequivocally endorsing both the scriptures and the translation of the scriptures. Thus God Himself told us once and for all that His word is not corrupted by minuscule variations of words.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Interpretation: In spite of the phenomenal variety of the Christian message today, the "fact" that God loved us and sent His Son to save us and bring us back to Him is pretty clearly and universally understood. Likewise that we who believe into Jesus Christ should now love one another and obey His commands. I don't see any new "interpretation" looming on the horizon.

A good example of this is the Lord's Table, or if you prefer Supper, or Communion, or the Breaking of Bread Meeting, etc.

Since I have left the LC, I have visited many churches that celebrated this remembrance of the Lord Jesus. Using only my 5 senses, each of these celebrations was different. Some were very different -- different songs, different presentation, different practice, and even tasted different. They were different in the natural.

But in the realm of faith and in the realm of the Spirit, they were all identical. They were all remembering the Lord and His death on the cross. They remembered His last supper, His shed blood, His love for us, and His sacrifice for sin.

As the scripture has said, "man looks at the outward, but God looks at the heart."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by james73

See, I think this gets to the root of the problem - in fact, Copernicus didn't disprove anything, he simply proposed a new theory based on new observational data.

No that is not accurate. He had much more accurate and detailed observations, true, but these observations were clearly contrary to the geocentric model of the day. You could argue that he didn't prove that the heliocentric model was true, the observations only presented that as the simplest explanation. But his observations most definitely disproved the geocentric model that was accepted at that day.

My point is simple, proving that the Bible is inerrant is probably not something that can be done with one observation, or two, or even a thousand.

However, a single observation of an error made by the Bible would disprove the theory. As a result I was led to believe that Awareness was going to provide us with this error. The job for Awareness is infinitely easier. Now even if the Bible was written by one author it should have errors. Since it was written by numerous authors over many years the errors should be simple to find. But I am still waiting for Awareness to respond to any of my posts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But I am still waiting for Awareness to respond to any of my posts.

Yes bro ZNP it appears that I'm diss'ing you. Sorry. I promise to remedy that. I just got a little discombobulated by Untohim.

But I feel to express that I, for one, like your lists and summaries. I think you are gifted at it. So kudos bro.

[zeek]

Igzy

Of course, the whole thing hinges on what you mean by "inerrant." Which is why I don't like discussions where terms are not defined and it just becomes a word game.

What's your definition?

The way I look at it is simple. I believe in Jesus. The most reliable record of Jesus shows him with the unmistakable attitude that the entire OT was the Word of God. He quoted it profusely and plainly stated that it was authoritative. His ministry and Paul's were a period of major changes for God's arrangement with mankind. Don't you think if they had problems with parts of the OT they would have let us know during that time? But they didn't.

They did not have modern science. Their knowledge base was relatively limited compared to ours. Also, it depends on what you mean by "they". There were different schools of thought back then not totally unlike there are today. You are imagining total agreement whereas history shows that was not the case.

It makes sense to validate ancient texts and modern translations. However, sometimes I think people seek to find errors in the Bible to introduce doubt about it and undermine its authority, in order to free themselves from some of its requirements, which may not even be related to the text they are questioning. That's a dangerous path to take.

You're right, sometimes people do. But let's not pretend that there are not real problems with the text that exist independent of the motivation of inerrancy opposers.

Better, once you've validated the text and vetted the translation (and former has been done to a degree which should satisfy anyone), to interpret the Bible, rather than eviscerate it.

Can you give an example of a text for which that process has been completed and show us how it's done?

I just can't imagine a plausible scenario where God would allow us to be deceived in such a way. To present us with his Son respecting the OT, and then going, "Oops, well that really wasn't the way. Sorry." Makes no sense at all.

So to you Jesus of Nazareth in no sense had ordinary human cognitive limitations? If that is the case, in what sense can we consider him a man by which I mean an ordinary human being? And if he is not an ordinary human being, how can he save us who are?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So to you Jesus of Nazareth in no sense had ordinary human cognitive limitations? If that is the case, in what sense can we consider him a man by which I mean an ordinary human being? And if he is not an ordinary human being, how can he save us who are?

By age twelve He was teaching the brightest of His day in the temple.

He is an "ordinary human being" because He was born of the virgin Mary.

Since all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Him bodily, I doubt if He had "human cognitive limitations" like you do.

[Cal]

Zeek, I think we can presume that Jesus was not mistaken in his assessment of the OT. We are not going to question his status as the Messiah on this board. And I think it is utterly stupid to takes seriously a scenario where the Messiah of the Jewish people would not be clear on the authority of the Jewish sacred texts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

He is an "ordinary human being" because He was born of the virgin Mary.

Sarcasm. I love it.

Since all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Him bodily, I doubt if He had "human cognitive limitations" like you do.

Well not ALL the fullness of the Godhead, or he would have known the day and the hour. So he did have some cognitive limitations, tho nothing like you and I ... who don't even know the millennium.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sarcasm. I love it.


Well not ALL the fullness of the Godhead, or he would have known the day and the hour. So he did have some cognitive limitations, tho nothing like you and I ... who don't even know the millennium.

This is an absurd argument. Aren't you familiar with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the act of measuring sub atomic particles location changes their location and/or motion.

Don't you think that Jesus announcing the day and hour would have a similar impact?

[Ohio]

Thinking about this endless chatter about the inerrancy of scripture, which has now even questioned the intelligence of our Lord Jesus as a man on earth, all could think about was Paul's warning to Timothy in chapter 6,

"If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I read this a few times, and all could think about was Paul's warning to Timothy in chapter 6,

"If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain."

Sounds like the Christianity of today.

And it doesn't reference Biblical inerrancy at all ... as a failing.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sounds like the Christianity of today.

You sound like the Witness Lee of yesterday.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You sound like the Witness Lee of yesterday.

Correction : SOUNDS like Witness Lee of yesterday ... I included him in that statement ..

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thinking about this endless chatter about the inerrancy of scripture, which has now even questioned the intelligence of our Lord Jesus as a man on earth, all could think about was Paul's warning to Timothy in chapter 6,

"If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth."

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

According to the scripture Jesus emptied himself to the point of human limitations so that he could die for us like a man.

[Cal]

I don't find the question of inerrancy very interesting because the Bible doesn't make such a claim for itself.

To me the truth is that the Bible is God-breathed, God-inspired. Each verse conveys the truth as God wants us to know it.

It's pretty clear, to me anyway, that the NT is not that concerned with word-for-word accuracy in quotes. The same conversations are recorded differently in different Gospels. So if you think that anything other than the exact precise recounting of superficial facts the way they happened is evidence of error then you are just holding the Bible to a standard it doesn't even hold itself to. The important thing isn't that each word is exactly quoted. The important thing is the passage conveys the truth of God the way he wants us to know it.

We can assume it does because the Bible is such a remarkably unique book. No important historical, geological or archaeological fact it reports has ever been show to be false. It was written by many different types of men over 1500 years, yet it is amazingly consistent in its message. It contains over three hundred prophecies about Jesus that were fulfilled. Critics are always hoping some new discovery will show the Bible false. But each new find just confirms it more. This has been going on for centuries.

Here's a little known fact about the Greek NT. Did you know that each writer of the NT uses a set of words which are not used anywhere else in the NT, and that the number of each writer's set of unique words is a multiple of seven? It's true. Was that collusion? Not possible. Does it show tampering? There is no evidence of tampering in the textual record.

I challenge you to write the genealogy of any real person using his or her real ancestors where the following is true about the record you write.

• The genealogy is accurate.
• The number of words you use must be an exact multiple of seven.
• The number of letters must also be an exact multiple of seven.
• The number of vowels must be an exact multiple of seven.
• The number of words that begin with a vowel must be an exact multiple of seven.
• The number of words that occur more than once must be an exact multiple of seven.
• The number of words that occur in more than one form must be an exact multiple of seven.
• The number of nouns must be an exact multiple of seven.
• The number of names must be an exact multiple of seven.
• The number of nouns that are not names must be an exact multiple of seven.
• The number of male names must be an exact multiple of seven.
• The number of generations must be an exact multiple of seven.

These are the characteristics of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, a real person with real, known ancestors, in the first eleven verses of Matthew. It goes without saying this is not a coincidence. So you have to decide whether it was a plot, or divine sovereignty and inspiration.

God's fingerprints are all over the Bible. And if you can't see that, you are indeed blind.

Arguing that the Bible is "errant" because of some discrepancy you can find by staring at it long enough is like arguing that a gorgeous woman isn't beautiful because you located a blemish on her elbow. It's a very small and boring expression of taste.

[zeek]

Since no one else has defined inerrancy on this thread I will:

"A SHORT STATEMENT
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order
thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord,
Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His
Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be
believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it
requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward
witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching,
no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and
about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in
individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any
way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own;
and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church. "

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Aren't you familiar with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the act of measuring sub atomic particles location changes their location and/or motion.

Don't you think that Jesus announcing the day and hour would have a similar impact?

Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Galilean version: "But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into." Luke 12:39

Remember that these are two completely antithetical kingdoms. They do not like to share information with each other. If you are not fully in his kingdom, and attempt to interrogate Jesus, you won't even get name, rank and serial number. You'll get nothing.

"But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge--to the great amazement of the governor." Matthew 27:14

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Correction : SOUNDS like Witness Lee of yesterday ... I included him in that statement ..

Okay, you SOUNDS like the Witness Lee of yesterday. It's bad English but I guess you have your reasons.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Since no one else has defined inerrancy on this thread I will:

"A SHORT STATEMENT
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

True.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it
requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

True. Infallibility meaning the divine truth it accurately teaches is infallible.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

True.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

True. Note: "without error or fault in its teaching, not in the recounting of every detail. In other words, it teaches truth about God's truth.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church. "

True. Once you say one verse doesn't teach God's truth, you might as well say the whole thing doesn't.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't get it, I am lost. Correct me where I am mistaken:

Awareness -- Your position is that the Bible is the word of God, you love the Bible, you love God, but many parts of the Bible are man's word, not divinely inspired.

Something like that, yes. One of my contentions is that "God allows freedom of will." It has been claimed many times to me that, surely God protected His word. But how could he do that and respect man's free will? So if scribes down thru the ages decided to meddle with the manuscripts, as evidence clearly shows, God would not and could not stop them from exercising their freedom of will and changing the scripture.

Also, you can worship God without the Bible. And the misunderstanding of various Bible verses have been used to justify evil actions by man.

Yes, like the Southern Baptists used scripture to justify slavery.

You also don't agree with the concept that times have changed and as a result man's worship of God has changed too. You state that since Abraham didn't have a Bible and worshipped God, you also don't need a Bible.

I don't follow the first sentence. But to the second sentence I say, of course we don't need the Bible to worship God. We can go out in the woods, with no Bible at all, and worship God.

This seems to me to be what you have said, am I wrong, am I missing the key point, or is this pretty much correct?

Ya done a pretty good job.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Something like that, yes. One of my contentions is that "God allows freedom of will." It has been claimed many times to me that, surely God protected His word. But how could he do that and respect man's free will? So if scribes down thru the ages decided to meddle with the manuscripts, as evidence clearly shows, God would not and could not stop them from exercising their freedom of will and changing the scripture.

There are differences in texts, but these are exposed through cross-comparing the thousands of artifacts. The fact is there are enough samples to accurately determine the correct version with almost 100% confidence. So God did not restrict free will by preventing tampering, yet he allowed enough versions to expose the tampering. Glory to God.

So your argument is moot and, I have to say, empty.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Zeek, I think we can presume that Jesus was not mistaken in his assessment of the OT. We are not going to question his status as the Messiah on this board. And I think it is utterly stupid to takes seriously a scenario where the Messiah of the Jewish people would not be clear on the authority of the Jewish sacred texts.

Many of Jesus' contemporaries thought that the messiah would vanquish the Romans and deliver the kingdom back to the nation of Israel. Jesus did not do that in a literal sense. So, if he was the messiah he was messiah in a different sense than they expected. Of course, the ones who later were called Christians were the one's who "got" the sense in which Jesus IS the messiah. The questions of those who did not accept Jesus as the messiah are part of the putatively inerrant New Testament historical record. According to the definition of inerrancy I quoted. "4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, ... about the events of world history. "

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Many of Jesus' contemporaries thought that the messiah would vanquish the Romans and deliver the kingdom back to the nation of Israel. Jesus did not do that in a literal sense. So, if he was the messiah he was messiah in a different sense than they expected. Of course, the ones who later were called Christians were the one's who "got" the sense in which Jesus IS the messiah. The questions of those who did not accept Jesus as the messiah are part of the putatively inerrant New Testament historical record. According to the definition of inerrancy I quoted. "4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, ... about the events of world history. "

Okay, I'm going to go ahead with my first instinct of what the point of this post was.

Basically you are saying that if any record claims to be inerrant and it records errors made by others then it is in fact errant.

Such an assertion is ridiculous, of course.

Example: A newspaper reports a story about a terrorist group which claimed it placed a bomb in a mall. The paper quotes some of the people in the mall as saying, "We don't believe there is bomb in the mall." The bomb explodes. Therefore the newspaper is in error because it reported the erroneous declaration of the disbelieving people.

This is zeek's point. I think. I wish it wasn't.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't find the question of inerrancy very interesting because the Bible doesn't make such a claim for itself.

It's also clear to me, by relations with inerrantists all my life, that believing the Bible is inerrant doesn't bear any noticeably different good fruit in the believers.

In fact, it can and does -- not in all cases, but enough to make it stick out -- produce legalism, that can result in judgmentalism, and even hatefulness, towards neighbors, and even within churches, between members.

So I don't see holding to inerrancy as anything special. And it certainly doesn't result in the fruits of the Spirit, as listed in Gal. 5.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, I'm going to go ahead with my first instinct of what the point of this post was.

Basically you are saying that if any record claims to be inerrant and it records errors made by others then it is in fact errant.

Such an assertion is ridiculous, of course.

Example: A newspaper reports a story about a terrorist group which claimed it placed a bomb in a mall. The paper quotes some of the people in the mall as saying, "We don't believe there is bomb in the mall." The bomb explodes. Therefore the newspaper is in error because it reported the erroneous declaration of the disbelieving people.

This is zeek's point. I think. I wish it wasn't because...well...you know.

Anyway, anything else anybody? Because if this is as good as it gets we are wasting our time.

No you're way off. I'm saying that Jesus' question "Who do people say I am...who do you say I am" is itself Biblical. To reject the question is to reject part of the inerrant Bible. It would be a significant- red- letter- words- -of Jesus part. If you believe the Bible is inerrant, how can you reject the question? I have never questioned the inerrancy of the Bible on this thread. I even supplied you with a detailed definition of inerrancy when no one else did. You're welcome. I have asked how it is inerrant because I don't know.

The Bible documents that not everyone accepted Jesus as the messiah. So, he must have been messiah in a way that was not unambiguously clear to everyone. If he had been a messiah in the way the jews expected him to be it would have been apparent to everyone. He would have overthrown the Romans and taken the throne of Israel. That didn't happen in any unambiguously apparent way. The inerrant bible records that such is the case.

So, I am not questioning if Jesus is the messiah or not. I am noting that the way in which he is the messiah is different than the way that was expected. Perhaps the Bible is inerrant in a way different than people expect it to be.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's also clear to me, by relations with inerrantists all my life, that believing the Bible is inerrant doesn't bear any noticeably different good fruit in the believers.

In fact, it can and does -- not in all cases, but enough to make it stick out -- produce legalism, that can result in judgmentalism, and even hatefulness, towards neighbors, and even within churches, between members.

So I don't see holding to inerrancy as anything special. And it certainly doesn't result in the fruits of the Spirit, as listed in Gal. 5.

You really need to get out more bro.

I see legalism, judgmentalism, and even hatefulness towards neighbors all the time, and that's why I try to find Christian friends, those who love the Lord and His word. Go spend some time in the inner city ghetto, and then you will love some of those "inerrants" like me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Bible documents that not everyone accepted Jesus as the messiah. So, he must have been messiah in a way that was not unambiguously clear to everyone. If he had been a messiah in the way the jews expected him to be it would have been apparent to everyone. He would have overthrown the Romans and taken the throne of Israel. That didn't happen in any unambiguously apparent way. The inerrant bible records that such is the case.

So, I am not questioning if Jesus is the messiah or not. I am noting that the way in which he is the messiah is different than the way that was expected. Perhaps the Bible is inerrant in a way different than people expect it to be.

Jesus fulfilled literally hundreds of prophecies. Numerous and detailed descriptions in the O.T. were provided by God so that it was unambiguously clear to all of the house of Israel who their Messiah would be. The problem was never on His side or the scriptures' side. It was the unbelieving and proud Jewish leaders who rejected their Messiah! They said to Pilate, "we have no king but Caesar!"

The works that Jesus did made this absolutely, unambiguously apparent to the Jews. Lazarus was dead for days, stinking in the tomb, and then Jesus raised him from the dead. Everybody in Jerusalem knew about this. The Jews then plotted to kill Lazarus, rather than to believe in the Son of Man, their long-promised Messiah. It was never some simple misunderstanding that caused the Jewish leaders to misidentify the Messiah, and subsequently coerce Pilate to have him crucified. It was their evil heart of unbelief.

I expect the Bible is inerrant differently than the way you would like it to be.

[OBW]

Harold,

There are a lot of posts after the one I am quoting, this is the thing that stands out most to me in all of them.

Originally Posted by awareness

I agree the problem is not the Bible, but is how it's used. And ya can't get a higher authority then to use the Bible to justify what you want to do (like the formation of the Southern Baptist church, who used the Bible to justify the holding of slaves.)

This part is very sound, including the parenthetical.

But the parenthetical is also a problem to you.

It is true that many people, back when slavery was an existing institution that was under fire, used the Bible to both justify and deny slavery.

While the Bible briefly describes a peaceful utopia in its first two chapters, the fall into darkness that followed and the slow move of God to give man the opportunity to return to righteousness in obedience to Him began with Abraham.

He made us with free will and continues our free will to this day. So the institutions of man, dark as they may be, were seldom simply edicted away. Instead, a directive of righteousness was placed on us, and sometimes directly upon our institutions.

When we get to the NT, the statements concerning slavery were few, but were (from our present perspective) difficult to maintain while maintaining the institution. Yet God did not insist upon no slavery, but rather upon a level of righteousness that we now consider to be virtually in opposition to it. It took 1600+ years for some of the earliest nationwide stands against it, and still more before it was abolished through war in the US.

If anything, the Bible has provided the direction to move from the worst of that institution to the place where it is now considered abhorrent by most.

Still people will poke and prod at the Bible looking for ways to justify the unjustifiable. Some of it is social evil. Some of it is spiritual snobbery. Some of it is an attempt to personal gain that many would consider the Bible as otherwise denying.

In all this, the Bible makes no error. God stands as righteous in it all and his ways holy.

So I rephrase and repeat something I said way back at the beginning of this discussion: The Bible is inerrant but is read and misread, used and abused by the people who read it. The Bible is righteous but is often chopped-up and made to appear to support the schemes of the unrighteous.

And it is against these kinds of errors that John wrote that we have an anointing and don't need teachers. He wasn't actually saying we don't need teachers at all, but that it should be evident what is outside of acceptable teaching that claims a base in scripture and in God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Something like that, yes. One of my contentions is that "God allows freedom of will." It has been claimed many times to me that, surely God protected His word. But how could he do that and respect man's free will? So if scribes down thru the ages decided to meddle with the manuscripts, as evidence clearly shows, God would not and could not stop them from exercising their freedom of will and changing the scripture.


Yes, like the Southern Baptists used scripture to justify slavery.


I don't follow the first sentence. But to the second sentence I say, of course we don't need the Bible to worship God. We can go out in the woods, with no Bible at all, and worship God.


Ya done a pretty good job.

Abraham didn't have electricity either and got along just fine for over a 100 years without it. But why would you want to live without electricity now that we have it?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Abraham didn't have electricity either and got along just fine for over a 100 years without it. But why would you want to live without electricity now that we have it?

Good point Z. I learned that during the ice storm here in W. Ky, when everything died, even water and cell phones - a total blackout. The only thing that saved me was the fact that I heat with wood.

So I'm assuming that you are saying, the Bible is our "heating with wood?" It's our savior during these dark times.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, I am not questioning if Jesus is the messiah or not. I am noting that the way in which he is the messiah is different than the way that was expected. Perhaps the Bible is inerrant in a way different than people expect it to be.

Okay, I misunderstood. Sorry. But I asked you to clarify the post and you seemed to be right there to do it and you didn't.

"The Bible is inerrant in a way people don't expect." Okay. God often works contrary to our expectations. That's fair.

So where do we go with that?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus fulfilled literally hundreds of prophecies. Numerous and detailed descriptions in the O.T. were provided by God so that it was unambiguously clear to all of the house of Israel who their Messiah would be. The problem was never on His side or the scriptures' side. It was the unbelieving and proud Jewish leaders who rejected their Messiah! They said to Pilate, "we have no king but Caesar!"

The works that Jesus did made this absolutely, unambiguously apparent to the Jews. Lazarus was dead for days, stinking in the tomb, and then Jesus raised him from the dead. Everybody in Jerusalem knew about this. The Jews then plotted to kill Lazarus, rather than to believe in the Son of Man, their long-promised Messiah. It was never some simple misunderstanding that caused the Jewish leaders to misidentify the Messiah, and subsequently coerce Pilate to have him crucified. It was their evil heart of unbelief.

I expect the Bible is inerrant differently than the way you would like it to be.

So Lazarus was prophesied in the the OT? Please show me where. How many people witnessed the raising of Lazarus? I'm surprised it didn't get in the history books outside of the Gospel of John. Great deed that it was even the other Gospels don't mention it. Nor does Paul. It seems it was a relatively hidden event, historically speaking.

Many of the prophecies were fulfilled in a hidden or paradoxical ways. For example, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but in a hidden way so that most thought he was born in Nazareth.

Messiah was applied to Jesus by the disciples. But many of the connotations of the term went beyond his actual appearance as I have already noted. Jesus himself realized this so he prohibited his disciples to use the term with reference to him. Again it was a secret hidden fulfillment.

Same thing with the term Son of man. The son of man was supposed to appear in power and glory. But Jesus appeared in a lowly way.

Likewise, the term Son of David. The Son of david was supposed to be an earthly king, a political leader. Jesus was not that.

Son of God was a pagan concept. The Jews had difficult with the term because of that. When it is used in the OT it is applied to angels who are the monotheistic equivalent of the pagan pantheon. If you don't believe me, check G. H. Pember.

The title kyrios was applied to the mystery gods who, like the resurrected Jesus of Paul were objects of mystical union. So the term was transformed when it was applied to Jesus who was, in the first place, a real man.

Finally, the term Logos came from Greek philosophy where it signified the cosmic principle of creation. It's application to Jesus was paradoxical because Logos was a universal principle whereas Jesus was a concrete human being. This mystery is expressed in the great paradox of Christianity: the Word became Flesh.

All of this takes place in the brilliant, mysterious inerrant New Testament where the ancient symbols are transformed to serve the new being who is Jesus as the Christ. Initially only a few believed because he wasn't what the majority of Jews expected when they thought of the Messiah. That's why Paul called him a "stumbling block." Surely you are aware of this.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, I misunderstood. Sorry. But I asked you to clarify the post and you seemed to be right there to do it and you didn't.

"The Bible is inerrant in a way people don't expect." Okay. God often works contrary to our expectations. That's fair.

So where do we go with that?

Thank you. I didn't know what you were looking for until you spelled out what you thought I meant. I don't know where we go. Ohio and I seem to have digressed a bit. Someone might like to put us back on track.

[Cal]

Anything with a potential for good has a relatively equal potential for evil. Everything depends on how it is used. The Bible is no different. But that doesn't lessen it.

Please supply a scenario where God could give us his Word and it could not be used for evil. The only one thing I can think of is a situation where people are perfect. It's people that mess things up. That's because God created us with the potential for both good and evil.

But (surprise!) God's plan is with people. Becoming misanthropic (Harold) is tempting, but it denies the truth that God's desire is people.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

All of this takes place in the brilliant, mysterious inerrant New Testament where the ancient symbols are transformed to serve the new being who is Jesus as the Christ. Initially only a few believed because he wasn't what the majority of Jews expected when they thought of the Messiah. That's why Paul called him a "stumbling block." Surely you are aware of this.

The OT also prophesies Christ as the suffering sacrifice who was "bruised for our iniquities." Missing this was not the fault of the OT, but of the Jews' selective reading of it.

This is similar to people today who only choose to see the verses describing the loving Jesus, and ignore the ones describing the righteous, judging Jesus.

The lesson is clear. If you superimpose your vision of Christ over the Bible's, you miss the real Christ. This should be a strong heads-up to Harold, who apparently thinks he can get to know God sufficiently without the Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The lesson is clear. If you superimpose your vision of Christ over the Bible's, you miss the real Christ.

If anything deserved an entire meeting in which we contemplated the words of a man, it would be for a phrase like that one. And then we turn immediately back to our focus on Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, I misunderstood. Sorry. But I asked you to clarify the post and you seemed to be right there to do it and you didn't.

"The Bible is inerrant in a way people don't expect." Okay. God often works contrary to our expectations. That's fair.

So where do we go with that?

I don't know. It might be forbidden to talk about. So I'll shut up.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know. It might be forbidden to talk about. So I'll shut up.

That's never stopped you before.

[OBW]

I was scanning through the multitude of posts in the last two days and the following three snippets set-up my general feelings on the subject. They may not entirely square with any of the people I quoted. But here goes:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't find the question of inerrancy very interesting because the Bible doesn't make such a claim for itself.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is simple, proving that the Bible is inerrant is probably not something that can be done with one observation, or two, or even a thousand.

However, a single observation of an error made by the Bible would disprove the theory.

Originally Posted by awareness

Inerrantism is just one way to use the Bible. And it can be misused and dangerous.

I started with Igzy because he has put it where it belongs — outside the discussion of the self-proclaimed attributes of scripture. The most that it says is that it is the breath of God, and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

And what is righteousness if there is no unrighteousness against which to compare and contrast.

ZNP is right. Proving the status as inerrant is a classic case of negative research. In legal research, you think you have something so you start looking for anything that would contradict so you can either adjust your thinking or argue a difference in facts. But when you are finding nothing, there is always the nagging thought that you just haven't looked quited long enough.

And one on-point case that stands in contradiction is all it will take to tear down your position.

But the real key is who is trumpeting the case of inerrancy? Mostly those who want to push a particular position. For example, young earth adherents use it to insist that the account in Genesis 1 must be a literal 6 days (plus rest). (I have no strong opinion on that particular subject, so don't ask.)

"The Bible is inerrant!" and it did not outlaw slavery. It just told slave owners and their slaves how to act toward one another.

"The Bible is inerrant!" and it clearly makes the slave owner and the slave of equal status, therefore it must stand in opposition to slavery.


It seems that people who are busy searching the scriptures for instructions for their own lives do not have the consideration of "inerrant." They accept that God has spoken and seek to find his speaking in the words written.

On the other side, people who are busy searching the scriptures for evidence on why they are right and others are wrong are quick to throw out declarations like "inerrant" and "biblical" as cloaks under which to hide their own errors from the prying eyes of those who might otherwise question them. They use the terms to force a particular understanding without any true consideration for the speaking of God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good point Z. I learned that during the ice storm here in W. Ky, when everything died, even water and cell phones - a total blackout. The only thing that saved me was the fact that I heat with wood.

So I'm assuming that you are saying, the Bible is our "heating with wood?" It's our savior during these dark times.

good try, my internet surfing friend, but using a wood fire to heat your house is not evidence of someone that prefers to live without electricity. Now if you tell me that you wash your clothes down by the stream by hand on a smooth stone, then we could begin the discussion there. Why do you prefer to do that rather than to let electricity do it for you?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

good try, my internet surfing friend, but using a wood fire to heat your house is not evidence of someone that prefers to live without electricity. Now if you tell me that you wash your clothes down by the stream by hand on a smooth stone, then we could begin the discussion there. Why do you prefer to do that rather than to let electricity do it for you?

Yer a fun guy bro Z. But isn't trying to live the Bible trying to go way back to the days without electricity, and living cultures from the Bronze age, and early Iron age? Is that what God is expecting of us? Is that your point? Should we give up the computers, microwaves, toaster ovens, wash machines and dryers, and the like ... just to live the Bible?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

It seems that people who are busy searching the scriptures for instructions for their own lives do not have the consideration of "inerrant." They accept that God has spoken and seek to find his speaking in the words written.

On the other side, people who are busy searching the scriptures for evidence on why they are right and others are wrong are quick to throw out declarations like "inerrant" and "biblical" as cloaks under which to hide their own errors from the prying eyes of those who might otherwise question them. They use the terms to force a particular understanding without any true consideration for the speaking of God.

Well said. I appreciate more now what you were trying to tell me months ago about "biblical."

Certainly the Bible should be vetted for errors. Anyone investigating the claims of Christianity should do his or her homework. I have no quibble with that.

But be that as it may, it also should be clear to anyone that the Bible is a very special book, most likely worthy of the label "Word of God." The legwork has already been done. If the Bible had any errors worth worrying about we'd know about them already. The best people can come up with is stuff like discrepancies of numbering, and different versions of quotations, and "how could a loving God blah, blah," and that people have committed atrocities and said they were following the Bible. That's pretty thin gruel for 2000 years of research.

Inerrancy is a legitimate question but not the most important question. That question really is: Does the Bible convey God's truth better than anything else we have? The answer to that is a resounding Yes!

[Cal]

Witness Lee was an example of someone who took inerrancy too far. He created doctrines from phrasing discrepancies.

A good example is his doctrine of the difference between "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of the heavens." Matthew uses the term "kingdom of the heavens." The other gospels use "kingdom of God." From that Witness Lee created this elaborate doctrine about the difference between the two and what that all meant.

But it's pretty clear to me that many passages where Jesus said "kingdom of the heavens" in Matthew and "kingdom of God" in Mark and Luke are recounting the same incident but using different words (eg. cf. Matthew 13:31-33, Luke 13:18-21). Is this error? No, not one God cares about, anyway.

Certainly God is sovereign, but to think he is sending a message about two versions of the kingdom by recounting the same speaking with different words is, to me, too much of a stretch to take seriously.

You can stare at the Bible too hard to find errors, and you can stare at it too hard to find truths.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The OT also prophesies Christ as the suffering sacrifice who was "bruised for our iniquities." Missing this was not the fault of the OT, but of the Jews' selective reading of it.

This is similar to people today who only choose to see the verses describing the loving Jesus, and ignore the ones describing the righteous, judging Jesus.

The lesson is clear. If you superimpose your vision of Christ over the Bible's, you miss the real Christ. This should be a strong heads-up to Harold, who apparently thinks he can get to know God sufficiently without the Bible.

Right it does. But, that passage was not usually associated with the messianic hope of most first century Jews. It was genius of the Spirit to make that association in the New Testament.

Yes we must see love and justice united in Jesus to get the full picture. i agree.

I don't agree with your last statements. The paradox of Jesus as God-man, the Word made flesh is the central theme of the New Testament. It is a huge problem for the human mind. As a result Christian tend to emphasize one aspect over the other. When one goes too far it can lead to heresy. Most heretics are never prosecuted as such by the church. "They are among us" as they say in the horror movies. Heaven forfend that you would think me one of them. But you would probably find me more on the human side than yourself I reckon.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Witness Lee was an example of someone who took inerrancy too far. He created doctrines from phrasing discrepancies.

A good example is his doctrine of the difference between "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of the heavens." Matthew uses the term "kingdom of the heavens." The other gospels use "kingdom of God." From that Witness Lee created this elaborate doctrine about the difference between the two and what that all meant.

But it's pretty clear to me that many passages where Jesus said "kingdom of the heavens" in Matthew and "kingdom of God" in Mark and Luke are recounting the same incident but using different words (eg. cf. Matthew 13:31-33, Luke 13:18-21). Is this error? No, not one God cares about, anyway.

Certainly God is sovereign, but to think he is sending a message about two versions of the kingdom by recounting the same speaking with different words is, to me, too much of a stretch to take seriously.

You can stare at the Bible too hard to find errors, and you can stare at it too hard to find truths.

Matthew was probably an observant Jew who avoided writing the name of G-d whenever possible.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't agree with your last statements. The paradox of Jesus as God-man, the Word made flesh is the central theme of the New Testament. It is a huge problem for the human mind.

I'm not sure this makes much sense. You would not have a concept of Jesus as God-man without the Bible. And you would push one side (God vs. man) or the other if the Bible didn't insist on balance. So in fact we are dependent on the Bible for an accurate and balanced picture of Christ. It's the people who leave the Bible that come up with these wacko versions of Christ. So I'm not sure what I said that you disagree with.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But (surprise!) God's plan is with people. Becoming misanthropic (Harold) is tempting, but it denies the truth that God's desire is people.

Harold are you misanthropic? Sounds serious, almost life-threatening, what's it mean? Is it contagious?

mis-an-throp-ic: marked by a hatred or contempt for humankind

Doesn't sound like you. Of course, these online relationships can be deceiving. I think you've just been burnt too many times to trust them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But isn't trying to live the Bible trying to go way back to the days without electricity, and living cultures from the Bronze age, and early Iron age? Is that what God is expecting of us? Is that your point? Should we give up the computers, microwaves, toaster ovens, wash machines and dryers, and the like ... just to live the Bible?

You remind me of these two guys in Columbus back in my college days. They were walking up High Street in white robes and sandals, just begging someone to ask them about their getup. Now, mind you, I had just migrated to Columbus to take that city for the Lord's Recovery.

"We are Jesus people, and we don't wear leather." the dude said.

Harold, is that what you had in mind about "living the Bible?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yer a fun guy bro Z. But isn't trying to live the Bible trying to go way back to the days without electricity, and living cultures from the Bronze age, and early Iron age? Is that what God is expecting of us? Is that your point? Should we give up the computers, microwaves, toaster ovens, wash machines and dryers, and the like ... just to live the Bible?

Simple analogy, you say that Abraham could worship God without the Bible, therefore you can too. I agree, but ask why would you want to? Abraham also lived without electricity, and I know you can do that, but why?

Abraham also gave his son stories that were to be passed down. They were faithful to that, which is why we have the Bible.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Simple analogy, you say that Abraham could worship God without the Bible, therefore you can too. I agree, but ask why would you want to? Abraham also lived without electricity, and I know you can do that, but why?

Because I wouldn't have all this fun debating with you.

Abraham also gave his son stories that were to be passed down. They were faithful to that, which is why we have the Bible.

And tons of other writings too.

In reading the early Christian pseudepigrapha writings, it's obvious, that, Christians back in those days, sure loved to make up complete BS. But their stories of Jesus make for entertaining reading ... if you're a fan of science fiction, and fantastical mythologies.

And they are a lesson in how Christians back then would lie to support their beliefs. And credit their writings to Paul, or some other pillar of the faith, to gain more authority and readership.

Pretty funny stuff ... but deceptive.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You remind me of these two guys in Columbus back in my college days. They were walking up High Street in white robes and sandals, just begging someone to ask them about their getup. Now, mind you, I had just migrated to Columbus to take that city for the Lord's Recovery.

"We are Jesus people, and we don't wear leather." the dude said.

Harold, is that what you had in mind about "living the Bible?"

Yes bro Ohio. We should go back to wearing tunics and sandals, and growing long hair and beards. Then God would be more (sic) happy with us. Cuz we'd be living His holy book.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Bible documents that not everyone accepted Jesus as the messiah. So, he must have been messiah in a way that was not unambiguously clear to everyone. If he had been a messiah in the way the jews expected him to be it would have been apparent to everyone. He would have overthrown the Romans and taken the throne of Israel. That didn't happen in any unambiguously apparent way. The inerrant bible records that such is the case.

This post assigns some responsibility to God that He did not adequately make the coming of the Messiah clear enough, or unambiguous enough, or unambiguously clear and apparent enough to His chosen people.

I disagreed with zeek's complaint, and cited a few obvious evidences. Then he replies with this ...

Originally Posted by zeek

So Lazarus was prophesied in the the OT? Please show me where. How many people witnessed the raising of Lazarus? I'm surprised it didn't get in the history books outside of the Gospel of John. Great deed that it was even the other Gospels don't mention it. Nor does Paul. It seems it was a relatively hidden event, historically speaking.

Is this a joke?

The raising of Lazarus from the dead occurred just days before His Palm Sunday walk from Bethany to Jerusalem, about two miles long. It was headlines news in all the Jerusalem papers. The whole city was buzzing about Lazarus being alive. This was one of Jesus' few visits to Judea, and it was His last.

Many of the Jews in Judea believed in Jesus because of this miracle. Immediately the Pharisees had to gather to take control. They knew if they did nothing, everyone would believe in Jesus. They knew that the Romans would come. Then the high priest concluded that Jesus must die to save the whole nation. Everything was according to the Father's plan.

zeek, you might try to dismiss the raising of Lazarus as an insignificant event, but it was absolutely instrumental to fulfill God's plan. From that day forward, the Pharisees were obsessed with killing Jesus. These chief priests also planned to murder Lazarus, because on account of him many Jews believed in Jesus.

As Jesus rode on that colt as the Prince of Peace into the city of Jerusalem, all the city went out to greet Him, crying "Hosanna, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel." The crowd went out to worship Jesus because they had heard He had just raised Lazarus from the dead. The Pharisees then began to turn on one another saying, "you worthless good for nothing, behold, the whole world has gone after Him!" Less than one week later, He was crucified, saying, "It is finished!"

zeek, it is troublesome that you give so much credit to secular history and secular "scholarship," and often dismiss things related to the Bible as meany or insignificant.

[Cal]

** Moderator note ***

Let's keep this discussion on the subject.

Harold, please respect other posters and stop hiding behind cutesy humor. It isn't as charming as you think. It's actually pretty annoying and you are getting close to trolling. Stop playing games with people.

If you want to participate in the discussion, why don't you start out by explaining to us all how you determine which verses in the Bible to believe, instead of the endless dancing and ad nauseum warning about the dangers of religion. You made that point long ago and you truly sound like a broken record recorded by a bunch of jaded hippies.

[OBW]

I came across this quote today while reading through my list of Christian blogs:

It’s time to stop fighting for inerrancy and to start living as if everything in the Bible is true.

Ed Cyzewski; In a Mirror Dimly

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was headlines news in all the Jerusalem papers. The whole city was buzzing about Lazarus being alive...

...As Jesus rode on that colt as the Prince of Peace into the city of Jerusalem, all the city went out to greet Him... The crowd went out to worship Jesus because they had heard He had just raised Lazarus from the dead...

For confirmation of this idea, see Luke 24:18 -- "The one whose name was Cleopas answered [Jesus], "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who doesn't know what happened there in the past few days?"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This post assigns some responsibility to God that He did not adequately make the coming of the Messiah clear enough, or unambiguous enough, or unambiguously clear and apparent enough to His chosen people.

That's your inference. I did not say nor imply that.

The raising of Lazarus from the dead occurred just days before His Palm Sunday walk from Bethany to Jerusalem, about two miles long. It was headlines news in all the Jerusalem papers. The whole city was buzzing about Lazarus being alive. This was one of Jesus' few visits to Judea, and it was His last. Many of the Jews in Judea believed in Jesus because of this miracle. Immediately the Pharisees had to gather to take control. They knew if they did nothing, everyone would believe in Jesus. They knew that the Romans would come. Then the high priest concluded that Jesus must die to save the whole nation. Everything was according to the Father's plan.

All this info comes from one source that is not prophesied in the OT and is uncorroborated by any book in the Bible or out of it.

zeek, you might try to dismiss the raising of Lazarus as an insignificant event, but it was absolutely instrumental to fulfill God's plan. From that day forward, the Pharisees were obsessed with killing Jesus. These chief priests also planned to murder Lazarus, because on account of him many Jews believed in Jesus.

All this info comes from one source that is not prophesied in the OT and is uncorroborated by any contemporary document in the Bible or out of it.

As Jesus rode on that colt as the Prince of Peace into the city of Jerusalem, all the city went out to greet Him, crying "Hosanna, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel." The crowd went out to worship Jesus because they had heard He had just raised Lazarus from the dead. The Pharisees then began to turn on one another saying, "you worthless good for nothing, behold, the whole world has gone after Him!" Less than one week later, He was crucified, saying, "It is finished!"

See my last two comments. The event is unknown in the annals of history except for one book in the New Testament.

zeek, it is troublesome that you give so much credit to secular history and secular "scholarship," and often dismiss things related to the Bible as meany or insignificant.

I don't care if the scholar is secular or religious. Look at the scholarship, the science.

[Cal]

*** Moderator Note ***

Off-topic posts will be moved.

Further note. Posts which imply or state that the moderators of this board or anyone else on the board are not good Christians will also be moved.

If you don't like it, you can complain. And those posts will be moved as well.

Thank you.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not sure this makes much sense. You would not have a concept of Jesus as God-man without the Bible. And you would push one side (God vs. man) or the other if the Bible didn't insist on balance. So in fact we are dependent on the Bible for an accurate and balanced picture of Christ. It's the people who leave the Bible that come up with these wacko versions of Christ. So I'm not sure what I said that you disagree with.

On re-reading your post, I think that I misunderstood you previously. Now I understand you to be saying that the Bible is essential to the revelation of Christ and I agree with that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"A SHORT STATEMENT
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church. "

Along with "A Short Statement," the The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy has these ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL.

Article I We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture. We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write. We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration. We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history. We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word. We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.

[OBW]

On the whole, the 19 articles provide a more restrictive understanding of inerrancy than is often intended when it gets used as part of theological debates (on topics other than inerrancy).

But there are a few specific statements that seem a bit of a stretch to me. For example, #6:

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

I generally agree with the second sentence, most heartily with the last part, yet with some concern on the first part.

And that concern is because the first sentence contains the unnecessary declaration, "down to the very words of the original." I find nothing that makes this statement true or false. It is a preferred position for those who wrote these articles. But I find no support, or for that matter, need for this to be absolutely true. Since virtually every word has multiple meanings, even if only in flavor relative to the primary meaning, the certainty of the speculations that arise from the parsing of individual words is too often the source of the multitude of variants of understanding.

In other words, it is the focus on the individual words that is too often the cause of division. Should it be translated "believe in Christ" or "believe into Christ"? Were the gospels originally written, or spoken? And was it in Greek? Or in Hebrew/Aramaic? Over what period of time were some of these "books" oral — and subject to variation.

Yet, having suggested variation over the period of retelling until transcribed (in a different language?) I would suggest that the revelation of God remained constant and true.

Questions like those surrounding the story of the woman caught in adultery become unimportant. Was the story part of many of the re-tellings but not all, and as the re-tellings were written down, some of the earliest omitted it and later on it was "added back"? Or was it a phantom story of tradition with no substance? I find that whether real or imagined, it is consistent with the revelation of Jesus, the gospel, and righteousness that is revealed in the remainder of the scripture, therefore any controversy is unimportant.

Preachers (including Lee) love to make things out of specific words yet the passage in which those words are found would say the same thing if half the words were exchanged for variants or alternatives. Sometimes the word is meaningful. It is often noted that Matthew spoke of the Kingdom of heaven while the other synoptics mention the Kingdom of God in the same places. While the difference may be relevant in flavor to the overall theme of the particular gospel, is there really a difference in the two kingdoms? Since most are alternate tellings of the same statements of Jesus, it is clear that he only said it one way.

Yet if Article 6 is to be taken absolutely as written, then Matthew would become altered if we rewrite it with "Kingdom of God" and likewise, Mark would be altered if rewritten as "Kingdom of heaven." While I would agree that the use of the particular words was intentional, does this not argue against the extreme view of the inspiration of the specific words?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am a card-carrying evangelical, and that means that I believe in inerrancy of the Bible.

The problem is with the meaning of inerrancy. As long as there is unambiguous text that says simply one very straightforward thing in clear, unambiguous words, then the proof of inerrancy would be easy. We would see that everything it says is simply true.

But it is not so easy. While there are unambiguous statements, it is not all so clear. That means we have to analyze and interpret. And if we get competing interpretations (which has happened over and over) then who is right.

Thank God it is not easy! How boring would life be if everything in the Bible were unambiguous.

Originally Posted by OBW

I believe that scripture is inerrant in terms of its revelation of God. But to arrive at that revelation, there is a lot that could be said with different words or in different ways that would arrive at the same revelation.

Then you don't believe the Bible is inerrant. Part of that belief is that "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" are hidden in these words. To think that there are other ways to write the words that end up in the same revelation is to miss the wisdom and knowledge hidden in this way.

Originally Posted by OBW

What is fully errant is our insistence on over-analysis of the flavors of words used to say otherwise straightforward things. People come and add their overlays and read through their foggy glasses and do stupid things like read "God is spirit" and conclude that it means that God is the Holy Spirit. Or read "became a quickening (life-giving) spirit" and insist that it must mean the Holy Spirit because there is only one spirit...

You cannot have Bible commentary without the possibility that some of this commentary will be in error. Giving man a free will gives him the opportunity to make mistakes. Once mistakes are made, say with the "Ground of the Church" doctrine it requires a painstaking effort to clean up the mess these errors make. It is all part of the multifaceted grace of God to us.

Originally Posted by OBW

How does going through this help with the "inerrancy" issue? Maybe it doesn't. But I think that maybe it does. I believe that the things that matter are not mired in those problems. And while there may be a correct answer for many of the disagreements, they mostly do not matter.

If that were true then the epistles' of Paul "mostly do not matter".

Originally Posted by OBW

But the revelation of God is accurate. The primary directions to the church and to the Christian are accurate. The only problem is the mess that we have made it into...

As a teacher I originally thought that the students would just listen to me, get the clear message, and "learn". Since then I have discovered that kids don't learn that way, they learn by doing. I am much more like a band director now and the students do 90% of the work, and we get much better results. The kids think they understand, act on that understanding, learn immediately that they don't understand and then are forced to deal with that. How would we know we were in error in our understanding of the Bible if those teachings didn't result in a mess. It is the mess that makes us realize the error. Also, how can we say it doesn't matter when these errors result in a mess?

Originally Posted by OBW

Similarly, scripture is inerrant. What is full or error is our interpretation. Is our majoring on the minors. Is the insistence on the optionals. Is emphasizing and deemphasizing based on our preferences.

The end result is that while scripture is inerrant, the fact is almost irrelevant as long as we keep insisting on our erroneous interpretations. It is almost better to insist upon just reading it and letting it speak for itself. Sure. Get some background on the culture, the times, the events that lead to the writing (such as with the Psalms). But ultimately, they should mean what they say, not something else.

You have the cart before the horse. Believing that scripture is inerrant is what makes us realize our interpretations are erroneous when they make mess. Once we have a mess it is very difficult to figure out what caused it, where the error is, because we have previously assumed there was no error. However, once you discard the belief that scripture is inerrant you can dismiss the errors as a result of scripture and not your erroneous interpretation. This opens the door to dismiss scripture, as WL did when he pooh poohed the idea of righteousness in Psalms, James, and Proverbs.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Then you don't believe the Bible is inerrant. Part of that belief is that "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" are hidden in these words. To think that there are other ways to write the words that end up in the same revelation is to miss the wisdom and knowledge hidden in this way.

I don't believe the Scripture every makes the claim that there is no better way of saying what it says.

Inerrant doesn't mean there is not a better way of saying something. It means the way it reads is the way God chose to say it to us. We might actually stumble upon a better way of saying something, but we wouldn't know it because we'd have no way of validating that. Although we do often know that a modern rendering is more understandable and thus "better."

But I agree with you that we assume Scripture is inerrant because that's the only way to expose our own errors of interpretation. If we presume our interpretation is better than Scripture we are on shifting sand.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If that were true then the epistles' of Paul "mostly do not matter".

You really didn't understand what I was saying. I state that so many of the variants of understanding are really not that important and you conclude that to imply that the epistles of Paul don't matter?

What kind of stupidity is that?

There have been so many posts since #1 in which I clearly stated contrary to that and you say that now. What a joke!!

Do you just like creating controversies that do not exist? Putting words into others' mouths so that you can deride them?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have the cart before the horse. Believing that scripture is inerrant is what makes us realize our interpretations are erroneous when they make mess. Once we have a mess it is very difficult to figure out what caused it, where the error is, because we have previously assumed there was no error. However, once you discard the belief that scripture is inerrant you can dismiss the errors as a result of scripture and not your erroneous interpretation. This opens the door to dismiss scripture, as WL did when he pooh poohed the idea of righteousness in Psalms, James, and Proverbs.

You miss the difference between "inerrancy" as often espoused and "God breathed" as the scripture declares of itself.

Lee didn't even believe in "God breathed" concerning James. Oh, he said that God put it there as an example of error. But that is a dodge. He really wanted to exclude it from the canon of scripture. But he knew he couldn't get away with that, so he came up with that excuse. Same with the Psalms (or many of them).

Backing away from the extreme claims that "inerrancy" puts on scripture does not diminish them in the least.

And backing down from the extremes of inerrancy does not increase errors or keep us from realizing our ridiculous misinterpretations. It would seem that the most common places where inerrancy is proclaimed the loudest is in conjunction with errant declarations as to what that inerrant scripture means. In effect, it is too often used as a descriptor of the interpretation of scripture rather than of the scripture itself.

I agree that the scripture itself is without error. But saying that does not make my favorite interpretation correct. Neither does it help to prove that it is either correct or incorrect. It only declares that the words from which I/they got the interpretation are, themselves, without error.

[Cal]

We believe the Scripture is without error. The next step is to define "error." Clearly it cannot mean that every quote is recorded exactly as it was made, because the same incidents are quoted differently in the different Gospels.

That, perhaps, gives us some clue as how to regard the Scripture. You can created doctrines out of the differences, as with Lee's baffling kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God dichotomy. Or you can do what I prefer to do--take it as a sign to not quibble over words, but to step back and get the bigger picture.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

On the whole, the 19 articles provide a more restrictive understanding of inerrancy than is often intended when it gets used as part of theological debates (on topics other than inerrancy).

But there are a few specific statements that seem a bit of a stretch to me. For example, #6:

I generally agree with the second sentence, most heartily with the last part, yet with some concern on the first part.

And that concern is because the first sentence contains the unnecessary declaration, "down to the very words of the original." I find nothing that makes this statement true or false. It is a preferred position for those who wrote these articles. But I find no support, or for that matter, need for this to be absolutely true. Since virtually every word has multiple meanings, even if only in flavor relative to the primary meaning, the certainty of the speculations that arise from the parsing of individual words is too often the source of the multitude of variants of understanding.

In other words, it is the focus on the individual words that is too often the cause of division. Should it be translated "believe in Christ" or "believe into Christ"? Were the gospels originally written, or spoken? And was it in Greek? Or in Hebrew/Aramaic? Over what period of time were some of these "books" oral — and subject to variation.

Yet, having suggested variation over the period of retelling until transcribed (in a different language?) I would suggest that the revelation of God remained constant and true.

Questions like those surrounding the story of the woman caught in adultery become unimportant. Was the story part of many of the re-tellings but not all, and as the re-tellings were written down, some of the earliest omitted it and later on it was "added back"? Or was it a phantom story of tradition with no substance? I find that whether real or imagined, it is consistent with the revelation of Jesus, the gospel, and righteousness that is revealed in the remainder of the scripture, therefore any controversy is unimportant.

Preachers (including Lee) love to make things out of specific words yet the passage in which those words are found would say the same thing if half the words were exchanged for variants or alternatives. Sometimes the word is meaningful. It is often noted that Matthew spoke of the Kingdom of heaven while the other synoptics mention the Kingdom of God in the same places. While the difference may be relevant in flavor to the overall theme of the particular gospel, is there really a difference in the two kingdoms? Since most are alternate tellings of the same statements of Jesus, it is clear that he only said it one way.

Yet if Article 6 is to be taken absolutely as written, then Matthew would become altered if we rewrite it with "Kingdom of God" and likewise, Mark would be altered if rewritten as "Kingdom of heaven." While I would agree that the use of the particular words was intentional, does this not argue against the extreme view of the inspiration of the specific words?

Good post Mike. This "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" is likened to The Dei Verbum released by the Catholic church in 1965, specifically addressing the divine revelation :
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...verbum_en.html

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't believe the Scripture every makes the claim that there is no better way of saying what it says.

Inerrant doesn't mean there is not a better way of saying something. It means the way it reads is the way God chose to say it to us. We might actually stumble upon a better way of saying something, but we wouldn't know it because we'd have no way of validating that. Although we do often know that a modern rendering is more understandable and thus "better."

But I agree with you that we assume Scripture is inerrant because that's the only way to expose our own errors of interpretation. If we presume our interpretation is better than Scripture we are on shifting sand.

The scripture never uses the word "inerrant" concerning itself. Since that word is defined differently by different people why don't we stick to what the scripture does claim for itself.

Colossians 2:3 "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge".

Since Jesus is the incarnated word I think it is fair to interpret this as referring to the scripture. If this said "many treasures of wisdom" then I would agree with you. But wisdom includes how something is done, not just the finished product. After all isn't Henry Ford's wisdom expressed in how he built the cars? So then, if "all" the treasures of wisdom are hidden in this word, then it is not merely the finished revelation but also how we got to the finished revelation, "every jot and tittle".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

You really didn't understand what I was saying. I state that so many of the variants of understanding are really not that important and you conclude that to imply that the epistles of Paul don't matter?

What kind of stupidity is that?

There have been so many posts since #1 in which I clearly stated contrary to that and you say that now. What a joke!!

Do you just like creating controversies that do not exist? Putting words into others' mouths so that you can deride them?

You miss the difference between "inerrancy" as often espoused and "God breathed" as the scripture declares of itself.

Lee didn't even believe in "God breathed" concerning James. Oh, he said that God put it there as an example of error. But that is a dodge. He really wanted to exclude it from the canon of scripture. But he knew he couldn't get away with that, so he came up with that excuse. Same with the Psalms (or many of them).

Backing away from the extreme claims that "inerrancy" puts on scripture does not diminish them in the least.

And backing down from the extremes of inerrancy does not increase errors or keep us from realizing our ridiculous misinterpretations. It would seem that the most common places where inerrancy is proclaimed the loudest is in conjunction with errant declarations as to what that inerrant scripture means. In effect, it is too often used as a descriptor of the interpretation of scripture rather than of the scripture itself.

I agree that the scripture itself is without error. But saying that does not make my favorite interpretation correct. Neither does it help to prove that it is either correct or incorrect. It only declares that the words from which I/they got the interpretation are, themselves, without error.

You cannot expose a ridiculous misinterpretation without engaging in the reasoning. If someone derives a ridiculous interpretation based on a greek translation then you must address that, if they derive a ridiculous interpretation based on "context" or semantics, or reference to Plato, or Cargo cults, or the Bronze age then you must address that.

So then if you think that a doctrine, such as "The ground of the church" is in error then you must walk through the way in which this teaching was derived from scripture and expose the error, regardless of how much you dislike it. You cannot mud wrestle without getting dirty.

Now if you don't think that teachings like "MOTA" or "Ground of the Church" warrant you getting dirt on your hands so be it. But dismissing the battle because you think they have blown some minor detail out of proportion and we shouldn't parse the word of the Bible like that will have no effect on helping those deceived. Like Paul said "I have become all things to all people".

When I was in the LRC I fellowshipped with Christians all the time and I wanted them to either point out the errors in "the ground of the church" doctrine or else respond to it.

Your post reminds me of the Lord complaining that the Pharisees would strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. He didn't condemn them for straining out the gnat, He said they should do that, only He condemned them for swallowing the camel.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

On the whole, the 19 articles provide a more restrictive understanding of inerrancy than is often intended when it gets used as part of theological debates (on topics other than inerrancy).

But there are a few specific statements that seem a bit of a stretch to me. For example, #6:

I generally agree with the second sentence, most heartily with the last part, yet with some concern on the first part.

And that concern is because the first sentence contains the unnecessary declaration, "down to the very words of the original." I find nothing that makes this statement true or false. It is a preferred position for those who wrote these articles. But I find no support, or for that matter, need for this to be absolutely true. Since virtually every word has multiple meanings, even if only in flavor relative to the primary meaning, the certainty of the speculations that arise from the parsing of individual words is too often the source of the multitude of variants of understanding.

Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it and that "not one jot or tittle" would pass away from the law (Luke 16:17 and Matt 5:18). Now I think it is very reasonable to interpret this word as referring down to the very words of the original. I would personally think that a jot or tittle is even more restrictive than that. So I think there is certainly Scriptural support for this position.

To say that something in the OT would be fulfilled indicates that it was not spoken in error, to say that it would be fulfilled down the very last jot and tittle is as restrictive as you can get. So to my understanding this verse does apply to the concept of the Bible being inerrant.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We believe the Scripture is without error. The next step is to define "error." Clearly it cannot mean that every quote is recorded exactly as it was made, because the same incidents are quoted differently in the different Gospels.

That, perhaps, gives us some clue as how to regard the Scripture. You can created doctrines out of the differences, as with Lee's baffling kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God dichotomy. Or you can do what I prefer to do--take it as a sign to not quibble over words, but to step back and get the bigger picture.

I definitely agree with this.

It's like the old King James Version that added the words "and fasting," in italics to one verse in the gospels (Mark 9.29.) None of the manuscripts included it, and neither did any good translations. But that never stopped those diehard James'ers from spewing out condemnation on all those "corrupted" translations which "took fasting out of the Bible."

Another one I like is in I Cor 13.5 in the KJV, "love is not easily provoked." The KJV translators added the word "easily" to their translation, reportedly because King James had such a bad temper. This verse is for you buddy! There is no basis in the Greek for the modifier "easily."

By the way, after some recent forum happenings, I propose we make this "errant" verse translation our theme verse for the day. Now let's all pray-read this verse together.

Love is not easily provoked!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We believe the Scripture is without error. The next step is to define "error." Clearly it cannot mean that every quote is recorded exactly as it was made, because the same incidents are quoted differently in the different Gospels.

That, perhaps, gives us some clue as how to regard the Scripture. You can created doctrines out of the differences, as with Lee's baffling kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God dichotomy. Or you can do what I prefer to do--take it as a sign to not quibble over words, but to step back and get the bigger picture.

In PM I told Ohio about my cousin here. For decades he was a deacon in a very conservative -- no pants, wine only, KJV only -- Southern Baptist church.

So he was so gung ho about the Bible he took Koine Greek classes to read it in "the original" Greek.

After learning Greek we were talking one day and he told me he could no longer say that the Bible is inerrant.

But one day, in Sunday School class, there was asked for all hands that believed the Bible is inerrant, and he raised his hand, along with everyone else.

He lied. Cuz there's social pressure in his church to hold to inerrancy.

Ohio responded with a question. He asked what my cousin meant by inerrancy.

So this morning I called my cousin to ask him.

In a nutshell he said : Is the Bible inerrant? Yes. Is the Bible we have today inerrant? No.

He went on to say that, he believed that the autograph copies were inspired by the Holy Spirit. And that they were inerrant. But the second copy of the autograph, was not inspired of Spirit and wasn't inerrant ... and so on down the line, thru all the manuscript copies, up to today.

In other words, the scribes that copied from copy to copy were not inspired of the Holy Spirit, and therefore the copies weren't inspired, so the Bible we have today is not inerrant.

He used to be a KJV, Textus Receptus, only believer. But after being able to read it in Greek he thinks the KJV is a bad translation.

But he did say that in spite of the errancy, the message from God still comes thru.

And he told me he didn't lie in that Sunday School class. Because he does believe the Bible is inerrant. He just didn't tell them that the Bible they did have, in their hands, is errant.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

. . . a very conservative -- no pants, wine only, KJV only -- Southern Baptist church.

Wine only?

Are you sure?

I thought Southern Baptists, by definition, argued that "wine" was really grape juice everywhere it is found in scripture.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

In PM I told Ohio about my cousin here. For decades he was a deacon in a very conservative -- no pants, wine only, KJV only -- Southern Baptist church.

So he was so gung ho about the Bible he took Koine Greek classes to read it in "the original" Greek.

After learning Greek we were talking one day and he told me he could no longer say that the Bible is inerrant.

But one day, in Sunday School class, there was asked for all hands that believed the Bible is inerrant, and he raised his hand, along with everyone else.

He lied. Cuz there's social pressure in his church to hold to inerrancy.

Ohio responded with a question. He asked what my cousin meant by inerrancy.

So this morning I called my cousin to ask him.

In a nutshell he said : Is the Bible inerrant? Yes. Is the Bible we have today inerrant? No.

He went on to say that, he believed that the autograph copies were inspired by the Holy Spirit. And that they were inerrant. But the second copy of the autograph, was not inspired of Spirit and wasn't inerrant ... and so on down the line, thru all the manuscript copies, up to today.

In other words, the scribes that copied from copy to copy were not inspired of the Holy Spirit, and therefore the copies weren't inspired, so the Bible we have today is not inerrant.

He used to be a KJV, Textus Receptus, only believer. But after being able to read it in Greek he thinks the KJV is a bad translation.

But he did say that in spite of the errancy, the message from God still comes thru.

And he told me he didn't lie in that Sunday School class. Because he does believe the Bible is inerrant. He just didn't tell them that the Bible they did have, in their hands, is errant.

Interesting post awar. So your cousin has decided where to put his faith and that is on the original Bible manuscripts. Or, at least the Bible is an item in the sphere of his faith. I imagine there are some here who see things much like your cousin.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Colossians 2:3 "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge".

Since Jesus is the incarnated word I think it is fair to interpret this as referring to the scripture.

Mmmm, I would have to disagree. "Fair?" I would have substituted "wishful thinking."

Sorry, I don't buy it at all.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Wine only?

Are you sure?

I thought Southern Baptists, by definition, argued that "wine" was really grape juice everywhere it is found in scripture.

I remember him telling about them arguing over this matter. And it was settled by the fact that Jesus drank wine at the last supper. It's just a small glass of it, after all. But yes, all the SBCs I grew up in didn't allow for drinking of wine.

In Michigan my mother smelled wine on a deacon's breath, and made a fuss about it. And even went and grabbed his garbage, to find his wine bottles, and brought them to the church to prove he was a wine drinker. A big no-no ... at least to her and others in her SB church. But he wasn't dismissed, nor did he step down. Which made my mom very angry. My mom was a legalist. Now you have a little window into what y'all think is wrong with me.

[james73]

Commercial break

The real question is, not whether "The Bible" is inerrant but will "AD: Beyond the Bible" be inerrant?

http://www.tvwise.co.uk/2013/07/nbc-...ond-the-bible/

Love the quote from NBC Chairman ".. the story was far from over after Christ's Crucifixion." Yup I think we would probably all agree with that here!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Mmmm, I would have to disagree. "Fair?" I would have substituted "wishful thinking."

Sorry, I don't buy it at all.

Just so we are all clear, you are saying that "all the treasures of wisdom" are not hidden in the written word. This verse refers to Jesus Christ but not to the scripture.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just so we are all clear, you are saying that "all the treasures of wisdom" are not hidden in the written word. This verse refers to Jesus Christ but not to the scripture.

I would say that is a fair and accurate statement based on the claims of scripture itself.

Jesus is the Word. But the scripture is never declared as having the entire Word. Only imparting the truth and wisdom that God actually revealed.

It is, by nature, "word of God." But it does not claim to be all of it. It only claims to be breathed out by God. To be profitable for teaching with a goal to righteousness. To be worthy of our focus and even meditation.

[OBW]

I will start by pleading for mercy from the Topiq Nazis.

Someone recently pointed out that all of the religious texts for all the religions have heroes and saints that are entirely that — heroes and saints.

All except the Bible. In the Bible, if we omit Christ, there is no perfect or infallible person no matter how highly praised or used by the God on which the text dwells. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, the prophets, Peter, James, John, Thomas, Paul, Barnabas. None were entirely examples of perfection. But they were used by God.

Does anyone know of a contradiction to this claim? I have read little of any of them and cannot verify the accuracy of the claim.

Just an aside.

But an interesting one since whether or not we like the 19 articles of inerrancy, we declare the Bible to be the completely true written revelation of the one true God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that is a fair and accurate statement based on the claims of scripture itself.

Jesus is the Word. But the scripture is never declared as having the entire Word. Only imparting the truth and wisdom that God actually revealed.

It is, by nature, "word of God." But it does not claim to be all of it. It only claims to be breathed out by God. To be profitable for teaching with a goal to righteousness. To be worthy of our focus and even meditation.

When did God stop breathing?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that is a fair and accurate statement based on the claims of scripture itself.

Jesus is the Word. But the scripture is never declared as having the entire Word. Only imparting the truth and wisdom that God actually revealed.

It is, by nature, "word of God." But it does not claim to be all of it. It only claims to be breathed out by God. To be profitable for teaching with a goal to righteousness. To be worthy of our focus and even meditation.

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. Paul said that his burden was to "complete the word of God". 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.

But aside from John's word in Revelation and Paul's word about his completing ministry, how about

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. So if you want to limit the scope of "all wisdom" to God's plan with man that would be one way to interpret this. But how do you say "the scripture is never declared to be complete" when that is exactly what is declared.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

When did God stop breathing?

Apples and oranges. The Bible is very clear that God is still speaking.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that DNA is a complete word on how to build a man while at the same time saying that man is still living, growing and maturing. In fact that maturation process is also written into the DNA.

[UntoHim]

OBW, as the original Topiq Nazi, I hereby and duly absolve you of the sin of offtopiqness. Now go and post off topiq no more!

Someone recently pointed out that all of the religious texts for all the religions have heroes and saints that are entirely that — heroes and saints.

In thinking about this, it seems to me that the Local Church's religious text (The One Publication) have Nee and Lee as their heroes and saints. Watchman Nee, due to his status as movement founder and martyr, and Witness Lee, as the last Minister of the Age. (probably hasn't yet reached sainthood, but like Sister Teresa, is well on his way)

we declare the Bible to be the completely true written revelation of the one true God.

Most orthodox, evangelical churches, groups and denominations have such a declaration incorporated into their "Statement of Faith", however, as we have found out in this thread, there are some twists and turns and bumps in the road on our travels through "the completely true written revelation".

This is why, in my view, it is imperative, it is essential that Christians not jettison so many of the original creeds, statements of faith and polemics of the early church fathers, etc. Having been produced in the crucible of the earliest heresies, these provide some reasonable guidelines and ground rules to protect and preserve the most accurate and fullest presentation and interpretation of the Word of God.

It's easy to see now where Nee, and to a much greater extent Lee, went so far off track. Eventually the LC/LSM proclaimed "we stand apart from historical Christianity", and it is this stand that has wreaked so much untold damage and havoc in the movement over the years.

[UntoHim]

ZNP, please try to understand what Mike is saying instead of misunderstanding on purpose. I think if you take some time to see what he is actually saying (instead of rushing to judgment with your knee-jerk attacks) you can make the dialog a lot more interesting and profitable for all concerned.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

All except the Bible. In the Bible, if we omit Christ, there is no perfect or infallible person no matter how highly praised or used by the God on which the text dwells. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, the prophets, Peter, James, John, Thomas, Paul, Barnabas. None were entirely examples of perfection. But they were used by God.

Does anyone know of a contradiction to this claim? I have read little of any of them and cannot verify the accuracy of the claim.

Some have said Joseph was without failure.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

When did God stop breathing?

What is He, a man? That He needs oxygen?

[OBW]

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.

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.

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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

When did God stop breathing?

Cute.

But irrelevant.

This presumes that the meaning is that for God to breath, his "Word" must be conveyed to someone to write down.

"God breathed" or "the breath of God" in this context means that what we have as scripture is from God, not that every time he breathes, scripture becomes written.

I do note that some have stated that God is still speaking. And this is true. But so far I have not heard anything that was clearly his speaking that told us something new or different. Outside of the questionable (like a bunch of Lee's teachings) it is all there in the scripture we have. We just need enlightenment. And sometimes enlightenment comes through the enlightenment that others have received.

And surely God's breath is in that through the Holy Spirit. But that does not make it scripture.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some have said Joseph was without failure.

As recorded, this might appear correct. Yet I suspect that, in some way, Joseph was less than perfect in his youth with respect to his special status around the "house."

But still, not really what I was asking for. Even if we conclude that Joseph was, as portrayed, without fault, he would be the exception, not the rule. The question is whether the texts surrounding other religions similarly describe the frailties and faults of those that are written of with esteem in their pages.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

In thinking about this, it seems to me that the Local Church's religious text (The One Publication) have Nee and Lee as their heroes and saints.

Most orthodox, evangelical churches, groups and denominations have such a declaration incorporated into their "Statement of Faith" . . .

This is why, in my view, it is imperative, it is essential that Christians not jettison so many of the original creeds, statements of faith and polemics of the early church fathers, etc. . . .

It's easy to see now where Nee . . .

All great points.

But as I said to Ohio, the question was whether other religions (Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) are as honest about their "heroes" and saints as is the Bible.

The Bible, is curiously premised upon a perfect God who more than tolerates the foibles of the miserable beings that he seeks to shepherd toward his goals. And these imperfect men and women are constantly referred to as things like "a man after God's own heart."

While no specific conclusion was provided, the obvious notion is that this is a grand differentiator between Christianity and virtually every other religion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

All great points.

But as I said to Ohio, the question was whether other religions (Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) are as honest about their "heroes" and saints as is the Bible.

And I agree with this.

One day in the LC I came to realize that everyone was flawed but Lee. He had "successfully" cast judgment upon all Bible figures, Old and New, and all contemporary Christians. By critically examining the "flaws" of them all, even using false standards to indict them, Lee became, by default, the "last man standing." As long as his version of events is the only one we know, his charade can continue to deceive the LC's.

The only exceptions to this were his lineage of MOTA's -- Paul, Luther, Zinzendorf, Darby, Nee. They "had" to be "perfect" since that gave striking endorsement to the notion that God "has always had one minister in every age." Thus "proving" to us "convincingly" the notion of a "Minister of the Age" or MOTA.

Lee's entire construct of a "flawless" MOTA literally vaporizes when one begins to learn the actual facts of history. For me, this began as I read Brethren history and discovered the "real" John Darby, who was a gifted minister to be sure, but definitely not some "perfect" minister of the age. Next I read Ingall's account STTIL and learned the "real" Witness Lee.

This reminds me of that old TV show "To Tell The Truth" where 3 candidates were interrogated by a panel of 4 judges to ascertain who was the "real" person. My younger brother was actually on that show due to his passion for raising rats. You may think I am joking, but growing up in a 3 bedroom house with 9 kids, dogs, cats, and my brother's collection of rats is nothing to joke about. Anyways, back to the show. None of the judges were fooled. Once they started asking questions about raising rodents, my brother started to shine. It's too bad, I never did see that show. Perhaps you did.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

None of the judges were fooled. Once they started asking questions about raising rodents, my brother started to shine.

One major defensive mechanism of the LC system is that only their MOTA got to ask questions. He could question Luther, Darby, the apostle Peter, or King David. But you couldn't question the MOTA. That was considered a threat to the "oneness", and presaged being labeled "negative" and "rebellious".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just so we are all clear, you are saying that "all the treasures of wisdom" are not hidden in the written word. This verse refers to Jesus Christ but not to the scripture.

Just for the record, yes.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

One major defensive mechanism of the LC system is that only their MOTA got to ask questions. He could question Luther, Darby, the apostle Peter, or King David. But you couldn't question the MOTA. That was considered a threat to the "oneness", and presaged being labeled "negative" and "rebellious".

True observation according to my experience.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

All great points.

But as I said to Ohio, the question was whether other religions (Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) are as honest about their "heroes" and saints as is the Bible.

The Bible, is curiously premised upon a perfect God who more than tolerates the foibles of the miserable beings that he seeks to shepherd toward his goals. And these imperfect men and women are constantly referred to as things like "a man after God's own heart."

While no specific conclusion was provided, the obvious notion is that this is a grand differentiator between Christianity and virtually every other religion.

The greek heroes are all famously tragically flawed. Oedipus killed his father and married his mother without knowing it. Heracles had a murderous temper, Achilles was arrogant, Oedipus was sneaky. All flawed. Putative differentiation refuted.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The greek heroes are all famously tragically flawed. Oedipus killed his father and married his mother without knowing it. Heracles had a murderous temper, Achilles was arrogant, Oedipus was sneaky. All flawed. Putative differentiation refuted.

And Mike asked about Hinduism (I think Mike asked, but maybe it was rhetorical).

Anyway, Krishna was flawed too. Not only was he a prankster, but he also killed people, like his uncle. I think pretty much, besides Jesus, no human hero is/was other than flawed. It's a common motif with heroes.

So sorry bro Mike, but you are either wrong or ill-informed.

None of us can know everything. Isn't that why we're on this forum? to be informed by others that know things we don't know?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

And Mike asked about Hinduism (I think Mike asked, but maybe it was rhetorical).I think pretty much, besides Jesus, no human hero is/was other than flawed. It's a common motif with heroes.

Imperfection in men is charming. In gods not so much.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Imperfection in men is charming. In gods not so much.

Imperfection in men is forgivable; in gods not so much.

“I said, ‘You are gods;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”

The higher up you are, the less God tolerates your imperfection.

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Imperfection in men is charming. In gods not so much.

gods are a projection from human imaginations. When anthropologists asked hunter-gathering tribes to draw pictures of their spirits and gods they draw stick figures, with two arms, legs, and a head. That's all humans know. And even when their spirits are animal like, they always have brains like humans.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

gods are a projection from human imaginations.

This is not necessarily true. The Nephilim were sons of gods. God did not judge the world with a flood because of over-active imaginations.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is not necessarily true.

Of course it's not necessarily true. But surely you don't think Zeus was a real god ... or anything other than from a wild imagination.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is not necessarily true. The Nephilim were sons of gods. God did not judge the world with a flood because of over-active imaginations.

Ohio!! I am very impressed with your research!!! Genesis 6...as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man....
There were Nephelim in the days of Noah....

Tick - Tock....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course it's not necessarily true. But surely you don't think Zeus was a real god ... or anything other than from a wild imagination.

Imagine that! awareness telling me what not to think!

From our vantage point, we have no way to know how much of ancient mythology is purely imaginative and how much is based on actual events. Like the movie credits say, I'm sure Zeus was "inspired by real events." What do we do with the Bible's brief mention of "the mighty men of old?"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Ohio!! I am very impressed with your research!!! Genesis 6...as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man....
There were Nephelim in the days of Noah....

Tick - Tock....

Somebody around here finally appreciates my genius.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Somebody around here finally appreciates my genius.

of course you are a genius Ohio...you have the Mind of Christ don't you? ok..at least by Faith 'cause the Word which is True tells us we have the Mind of Christ ! And HE is the GENIUS in us. Just keep speaking it, believe it and follow the Word of the Spirit...it will come to fruition in us one of these days!

In any case, you are one of the reasons I hang around. You have a good "HEAD"
on your shoulders.

Carol Garza

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

of course you are a genius Ohio...you have the Mind of Christ don't you? ok..at least by Faith 'cause the Word which is True tells us we have the Mind of Christ ! And HE is the GENIUS in us. Just keep speaking it, believe it and follow the Word of the Spirit...it will come to fruition in us one of these days!

Carol Garza

Should have told me this before them Spurs crashed in Miami.

I'm still in shock. Having the summer sports withdrawals.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Should have told me this before them Spurs crashed in Miami.

I'm still in shock. Having the summer sports withdrawals.

Ohio, I want to know how you made it for 30 years in the LC as a closet sports nut.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio, I want to know how you made it for 30 years in the LC as a closet sports nut.

I went nearly 15 years barely knowing who was in the White House, let alone watching a sports event! Then things changed, the kids grew up, and I got tired of being weird.

Twenty years ago I read David Robinson's testimony, and ever since then I liked the Spurs.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I went nearly 15 years barely knowing who was in the White House, let alone watching a sports event! Then things changed, the kids grew up, and I got tired of being weird.

Twenty years ago I read David Robinson's testimony, and ever since then I liked the Spurs.

Ohio and all,
I went 4 yrs without knowing who the President of the U.S was. I don't think anyone in my LC knew either for we were never encouraged to vote. I did hear once or twice...WL would make an excellent and the best President there. ohhhhhhh K....

I had just moved back to SA when the Admiral, David Robinson played his last game as SA won the championship. What a terrific retirement sendoff!!

To those who do not know, David was a real Admiral in the Navy. He is responsible in bringing integrity, character, humbleness and team work to the Spurs organization.

And to think just a few years earlier Dennis Rodman the disgusting and sad representation of the human race, played for the Spurs! Talk about a purging and purification process!!!!

Hooray for OHIO who got tired of being weird!!! Hooray for the San Antonio SPURS! 4 time NBA championship winners. 5 time Western conference champions!!

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Should have told me this before them Spurs crashed in Miami.

I'm still in shock. Having the summer sports withdrawals.

That was a real heartbreak. Going home from my friend's house, I prayed the Lord would comfort them, especially Manu. Then what came to me was "It was a blessing in disguise they lost the NBA championship." There is a lot of politicking behind the scenes. I prayed for each Spur to be brought close/closer to our Lord and King Jesus.

I am saddened Gary Neal was traded off. So glad everyone else remained. I love Patty Mills even if he did not play too much this year. What a great cheerleader he is...as well as a great 3 point shooter. Love Kwai Leonard and Danny Green. Tony Parker did a great job of keeping the team together. Tim Duncan played as if he was 27 instead of the 37 year old guy he is. Manu has had better years but he is part of the "old guard".

And me? I went hog wild for the Spurs this year!!!! It would be great if we could watch a game together Ohio!! We would have so much fun!!!

I too am going through the summer sports blues...at least for NBA and the Olympics. I hate the pagan pageantry of the opening and closing ceremonies lately. One can see the demonic convention in action.

NFL doesn't do that much for me. I like a good game with lots of running and distant throwing.

Nothing like the Spurs. How Bout them SPURS!!!! GO SPURS GO!!!

Ok...I know we went a little off topic... But how About them SPURS????

Blessings all!!

Carol G

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Ohio and all,
I went 4 yrs without knowing who the President of the U.S was. I don't think anyone in my LC knew either for we were never encouraged to vote. I did hear once or twice...WL would make an excellent and the best President there. ohhhhhhh K....

I had just moved back to SA when the Admiral, David Robinson played his last game as SA won the championship. What a terrific retirement sendoff!!

To those who do not know, David was a real Admiral in the Navy. He is responsible in bringing integrity, character, humbleness and team work to the Spurs organization.

And to think just a few years earlier Dennis Rodman the disgusting and sad representation of the human race, played for the Spurs! Talk about a purging and purification process!!!!

Hooray for OHIO who got tired of being weird!!! Hooray for the San Antonio SPURS! 4 time NBA championship winners. 5 time Western conference champions!!

Wait a minute! Hold the bus! Let's get your facts straight!

Dennis Rodman is our ambassador to North Korea. He may be even be nominated for some Peace Prize. Just think about what great impact the Spurs and coach Pop had upon him, going from circus freak to international diplomat. Who knew? Mr. Rodman has personally averted nuclear disaster on the Asian continent.

David Robinson was not a real "admiral" in the Navy. Those guys have to be like 60 years old, caucasian, and shorter than 6'-2-1/2". The "admiral" was just a nickname.

Finally, the Spurs proved they were not inerrant in the finals.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

That was a real heartbreak. Going home from my friend's house, I prayed the Lord would comfort them, especially Manu.

We changed his name to Turnobili.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wait a minute! Hold the bus! Let's get your facts straight!

Dennis Rodman is our ambassador to North Korea. He may be even be nominated for some Peace Prize. Just think about what great impact the Spurs and coach Pop had upon him, going from circus freak to international diplomat. Who knew? Mr. Rodman has personally averted nuclear disaster on the Asian continent.

David Robinson was not a real "admiral" in the Navy. Those guys have to be like 60 years old, caucasian, and shorter than 6'-2-1/2". The "admiral" was just a nickname.

Finally, the Spurs proved they were not inerrant in the finals.

Ok.
Ok
.so I got some of my facts wrong...but you misspelled a word. You wrote diplomat instead of diporat. I don't know why I thought David had been an admiral in the Navy. I believe he was an officer of high caliber. My bad!!! Poor Turnobli. Still he did sign on for two more years with the Spurs for a measly 14 mil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Ok.
Ok
.so I got some of my facts wrong...but you misspelled a word. You wrote diplomat instead of diporat. I don't know why I thought David had been an admiral in the Navy. I believe he was an officer of high caliber. My bad!!! Poor Turnobli. Still he did sign on for two more years with the Spurs for a measly 14 mil.

So God heard your prayers for Manu?

And how did my spell-checker miss that one?

[OBW]

Before I "devise" a meaningful definition of inerrant, I want to note that there are three who have been posting here that are complaining elsewhere that they have been warned concerning off-topic posts while this thread has turned to a series on sports. While the rest of their complaints seem rather hollow, they do have a point here. Off topic is off topic. Just because you like one off-topic and not another is not really a differentiator.

But that is too simplistic. It was never completely about on v off topic. It was about some of the core assumptions being challenged. Not quite to the point of "is there God" but problematic.

Which brings me to "inerrancy" again.

While I may actually buy into some of the 19 articles of inerrancy listed earlier, for me, inerrancy is really at the level of "it is the revelation of God" or "it is not the revelation of God." We can legitimately disagree about what something means. But if you suggest that it is simply wrong that it is there to argue about, then you have crossed the line. It is inerrant because it is God's word. The only error is in what we do with it.

And anytime we make a declaration of inerrancy about what a passage means, we have moved the discussion from the scripture being God's word to my version of what it means being God's word. And at that point, it is no longer inerrant. Not because God's word has error, but because we are declaring something other than God's word to be God's word.

So, as long as the underlying assumption is that God's word is God's word and the only thing up for question is what it means, then "inerrant" is virtually pointless. We already agree that the word is without error. We are now mired in how to understand it.

And that is fraught with error. But also full of truth. Some would then declare that understanding scripture is hopeless because we are all fallen, blinded, error-prone people.

But the Spirit enlightens.

In my personal life, He enlightens me through my reading in the word, in listening to and reading healthy teaching, and in my circumstances as those sometimes faint lights become brighter when given real application.

In terms of the major "doctrines" and teachings, the Spirit enlightens through the working of the church. The RCC has the practice wrong, but the idea right. The church is a much better arbitrator of truth than the scripture (sola scriptura) because the scripture does not look at you with a puzzled face when you wander off the reservation of sound understanding. Complain about hierarchies or clergy all you want. It was the general discussion, led by the apostles (including James) that directed freedom from the Jewish rituals.

You can argue that it should have been obvious. But based on what? A writing by Paul? And if you listen to Lee, you would be convinced that even the righteous law was no longer in play. You should be free to be caught in sin until you have sufficient "dispensing" to stand against it. Heaven forbid that you read somewhere that you should not steal or commit adultery and just obey.

We may now see through the error that Lee taught us. But is that any more or less based on a poor reading than someone reading that the Jewish rituals should remain? I don't believe that Jesus said it was terminated. So how "obvious" was it really? If it was really so obvious, there would never have been a counsel in Jerusalem over it. They would have gotten Paul's letter and just had a quick conference to set a bunch of people straight. No need to discuss.

Still, the scripture is without error. But that is essentially stipulated. The only place that would matter would be in discussions with some who want to create a "sort of" church or with those who have not yet come to believe in the One revealed in that scripture.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Off topic is off topic. Just because you like one off-topic and not another is not really a differentiator.

*** Moderator Note ***

I disagree. A few side posts about a light subject is just being friendly. Trying to change the subject of the thread is another thing.

I'm not going to moderate so severely as to correct people over a few light posts, especially if the people involved have a good track record. But attempting to steer a thread to another subject because one doesn't like the current one is a problem that I sometimes must address.

Thanks for your input.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

However I get what bro Z is trying to do. Seem's to me he's just trying another tactic to refute me, who hold's that the scripture is not inerrant.

And ya gotta give it to him that he's thinking and trying, to defend the scripture.

I agree with what you have said, awareness, except that "the scripture is not inerrant." You have never pointed out errors in the scriptures, only discrepancies in the manuscripts. For me there is a world of difference. You keep making that claim, but have always sideswiped the points made to the contrary.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

And Mike asked about Hinduism (I think Mike asked, but maybe it was rhetorical).

Anyway, Krishna was flawed too. Not only was he a prankster, but he also killed people, like his uncle. I think pretty much, besides Jesus, no human hero is/was other than flawed. It's a common motif with heroes.

So sorry bro Mike, but you are either wrong or ill-informed.

None of us can know everything. Isn't that why we're on this forum? to be informed by others that know things we don't know?

I hate to say it this way, but this answer is technically unresponsive.

So the Hindus follow a capricious god. That still is not the point. Do the sacred texts of the religion speak of its natural people (not its gods) as either entirely flawed and thus derelict or, instead, perfectly good, heroic, and "saint-like"?

Same question concerning the humans referred to in the stories about the Greek, Norse, Roman, and other gods. The question is not about the gods, but about the stature of the humans written into the stories.

I guess that in the case of the Roman/Greek myths, the question is who is a god and who is just a man. What was Achilles? Just a man, or one of the lesser gods with a fatal flaw?

And, in the case of the Norse, Roman and Greek gods, are there any truly "sacred" texts which in any way reference mortals as other than as the pathetic followers of the gods, or are there any Abrahams, Moseses, Davids, etc?

These kinds of hierarchies of imperfect gods sort of muddies the analysis.

And I did not assert that the claim, made by another, was simply true. I admitted, up front, that I did not know.

But the question still has not been answered.

And it may be that it is too far off-topic to continue at this point.

[OBW]

I found the following that describes part of my problem with the whole fight for inerrancy:

I do not affirm the word inerrancy because it compromises the Christian faith to the standards of secular scientific thinking. It takes our devotion and worship away from Christ and substitutes a second-rate god that breeds fear and paranoia, threatening to crumble our faith in God with every scientific report, literary device, or historical discrepancy.

This second-rate god demands that we spend our lives worrying about the chronology of the Hebrew kings, the findings of archeology, the age of the earth, and the chronology of the gospels.

This second-rate god drives wedges between the people of God as we fight each other in the name of protecting this false “foundation” of our faith.

On its own, the Bible is incapable of giving life, peace, or healing. It only can give a fragile certainty that must be defended tooth and nail.

That we feel compelled to fight for this god suggests that we may have lost sight of the true foundation in scripture. Our faith rises and falls on the person of Christ alone. We trust that the Bible is true and reliable, but we don’t have to meet a modern, scientific standard in order for Christ to be Lord.

I hate the word inerrancy because it creates a super supernatural standard for truth that the Bible never set up.

I hate the word inerrancy because it clouds the ways that the Bible actually is true.

I hate the word inerrancy because it binds the Christian faith to a set of standards that were never intended for the people of God and that are completely foreign to the centuries of Christians who have gone before us.

I hate the word inerrancy because it has become a way to determine who’s in and who’s out, even though few actually understand what it means or where it came from.

I hate the word inerrancy because it provides a flimsy, easily combustible foundation for the people of God.

I hate the word inerrancy because it takes the focus of our faith away from Christ and places it in a book.

It’s time to stop fighting for inerrancy and to start living as if everything in the Bible is true.

When we see the words of scripture come true in our own lives, we’ll have all of the proof we need that the Bible is reliable.

I believe in the truth of scripture. And that truth is primarily what is revealed about Christ.

Inerrancy comes from the desire to make the scripture into a provable document from the era of Enlightenment that speaks with authority concerning history, science, geography, anthropology, the age of the earth, etc.

And since the document fails at so many levels, you either have to declare that it is entirely accurate and true at the nth level or have a hole in your faith.

But, like all writings from the times in which they were made, the collected works of the Bible describe what is necessary for the purpose of revealing God rather than describing quantum physics and the age of the earth for the purpose of being "inerrant" in modern terms.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have never pointed out errors in the scriptures, only discrepancies in the manuscripts.

To the young earth creationist, the earth was absolutely created in the seven days recorded in Genesis 1. Yet it is most likely that there were long and overlapping eras in which those events occurred. To declare "inerrant," you have to assert that one way of reading Genesis chapter 1 is THE WAY to read it. That way is the only inerrant way. Any others are in error.

So . . . is it 7 days (well, 6) or is it millions of years? One is inerrant and the other is error.

Unless it doesn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, then the claims of "inerrancy" down to the specific words used becomes pointless or even ridiculous.

And if that is the case and you still want to use the term, then you have a slightly less inerrant version of inerrancy.

But I like a scripture that leads us to God and Christ, not a scripture that is so perfect that it is inerrant, and we can then fight over what that means. Many doctrinal statements are more certain about the inerrancy of scripture than they are about the person of Christ.

They have it backward.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But I like a scripture that leads us to God and Christ, not a scripture that is so perfect that it is inerrant, and we can then fight over what that means. Many doctrinal statements are more certain about the inerrancy of scripture than they are about the person of Christ.

And herein lies the essence of the word of God.

I have long been convinced that all the "inerrancy" talk really is designed to discredit the value of God's word. What persuades me is not the painstaking way the scribes have passed down copies of the original autographs, but how Jesus Himself and the Apostles treated and quoted the scriptures.

God's word enables us to know about Him and to know Him, which is perhaps the most significant feature of the new covenant. The scriptures also provide us with excellent history, wisdom, song, etc. but they are all secondary to the primary goal of God's word. Jesus says, "be it unto you according to your faith." If you want to find flaws in the scripture, or to find "flaws" in God Himself, then you will indeed. God seems to have had little intention in merely providing us with a perfect and inerrant book.

Jesus Christ is the Logos of God. He is the message of God. It is interesting to note that the Greek word logos comes from lego, which is to gather, to assemble, to enumerate a collection, a list, a catalog, a narration. And so it has been with the word of God. The Bible was a growing collection of writings enumerating the knowing of God, a narration growing in detail and scope, for whosoever will to know God. To truncate the list, by supposedly knowing God as father Abraham did without some book, is to "truncate" the knowledge of the Logos of God.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have long been convinced that all the "inerrancy" talk really is designed to discredit the value of God's word. What persuades me is not the painstaking way the scribes have passed down copies of the original autographs, but how Jesus Himself and the Apostles treated and quoted the scriptures.

And how is it that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the scriptures? Was it with painstaking accuracy? or did they get the meaning of it by different words? Sometimes in such a manner that the original source is occasionally debated or questioned.

I didn't start out to respond to that question, but to put something here that related to how we quote scripture. I was reading a quote in another thread that went as follows:

Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

I was struck by the fact that we either go to great extremes to say it exactly like one of the translations, or we simply copy it from some source without considering how it reads.

This is not a slam on anyone. We all do it. But when is the last time that you "shew" anyone anything? That you "knowest" anything? Or referred to someone else as "thee" or "thou"?

We treat the words of scripture as it sacred in their very form. We fight with understanding strange words (and often misunderstand them) because we unwittingly are stuck in the words rather than in the passages. I know that there was this constant battle with Steward on the other thread concerning the KJV, or more correctly the "received text" versions versus others.

While I wouldn't suggest trying to devise doctrine from them, the best reading is often the more strange paraphrases like The Message because it forces you to see the larger discussion and quit looking for the comfortable collection of specific words. It is nearly impossible to discover where certain things are by chapter and verse because that is not how the original was devised. Too often can't find a specific verse, even by content, but you can find the entirety of the passage to say what the specific verse, plus its context said.

I listen to a couple of different theology podcasts on occasion. Both are evangelical-based, and one is specifically an apologetics podcast. I tend to believe pretty consistently with both of them. But I too often find the importance of the things they cover (and that I believe) to be much lower than what they give them.

For example, one was covering the somewhat recent defection of the man who was the president of some evangelical society (think academics and theologians, not preachers and ministers) to become Roman Catholic. There are three different people who participate in discussions on this podcast and at one point they asked one who had been somewhat silent what he thought about a particular thing. His response was that, while he might have plenty to say about the practices of the RCC, he was certain that many of those following that way are genuine believers (and therefore Christians). While there might be many questions to raise, in his mind it was not about abandoning the faith, but in understanding it differently.

In other words, if you believe in Jesus, the fact that you say "Justification" and mean the entirety of the process from conversion through sanctification, or mean only the process of initial conversion is not a matter of faith. It is a doctrine that is unable to save or refuse salvation.

And it is too often in the process of fighting over these kinds of things that "inerrancy" comes into the discussion. The fight over the accuracy of scripture is seldom over its overall correctness relative to what it is trying to say, but its specific correctness within a specific interpretation so that it says a specific thing that is not otherwise definitely so.

So, in this way, I disagree with Ohio that the discussion of inerrancy is "designed to discredit the value of God's word." I think it is mostly designed to turn the narrative writings of centuries-old cultures into scientifically provable treatises on anything that is mentioned. Or insist that it is otherwise metaphorical and not intended to represent scientific fact. And the result of insisting on inerrancy is that any particular view becomes tenuous since just one verifiable fact that contradicts is evidence of error, therefore scripture becomes entirely not inerrant. That is the position that Christians put the Bible into by their insistence on inerrancy.

But if the Bible is designed to speak to the people it was written to so that they understood their creator and God within their world-view, then the fact that it was written with scientific errors would be expected since no one would have understood it if it had been scientifically accurate. The science was not the point. God was.

Today, we read the same text, now centuries ancient, not to discover how scientifically foolish those people were, but to see the same God. And to discover His working in this very different age. The Bible, as written, has much scientific and historical error. But it is irrelevant.

Someone pointed out that many of the genealogies are written according to a pattern. From one major person to another was always a certain number of generations (no matter how many generations there actually were). There is an ongoing debate concerning the precise time of Egyptian slavery for this reason. But the precise length of time of the slavery was never the point and never relevant. That they were slaves was. That it had been about some length of time might have been. That some genealogy was accurately describing every generation from person A to person B was not.

God is still revealed consistent with the truth whether the genealogy is complete or partial. The revelation of God is true whether Kings and Chronicles got the chronology of kings spot-on. It is true whether Paul was really just expressing his opinion or God was writing a hard and fast rule that has to be followed.

And how do you follow a rule that doesn't speak against slavery, but declares that you must love your slaves as you love yourself. That you must serve them within the context of the church. And on and on.

It isn't by declaring more and more "this is exactly how it is" rules but by recognizing the principles. Obedience. Faith. Love. Righteousness (and a hunger for it). Service, not ruling.

Last (in an already too long post), I work in tax. One of the continually frustrating things about tax work is that there are continually more and more complex regulations. And many of them could have been written so much more easily. But the consideration is that if you make them too simple, there will be uncertainties and then everything will go to court. But that will only be true for a while. As long as the regulations are specific and complex, they are never going to cover everything. So there will continually be facts that fall outside the rules that will go to court. And the courts will decide differently than what the government wants. So they will return to write yet another regulation to cover yet another specific set of facts.

And on it goes.

But the Bible is written. The "edict" in Revelation is probably not speaking about the whole of the canon of scripture. But we treat it as so (and probably rightly). My observation is that those who are busily nit-picking the words of scripture are seeking more rules to put on people. Or looking for loopholes. The only ones suggesting that the Bible really supports the continuance of any kind of slavery are the nit-pickers. Those who read it as it to find God see that it can never support slavery where it is not already found. And even where it is found, it has to affect how it is carried out until it eventually disappears.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And how is it that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the scriptures? Was it with painstaking accuracy? or did they get the meaning of it by different words? Sometimes in such a manner that the original source is occasionally debated or questioned.

So, in this way, I disagree with Ohio that the discussion of inerrancy is "designed to discredit the value of God's word." I think it is mostly designed to turn the narrative writings of centuries-old cultures into scientifically provable treatises on anything that is mentioned. Or insist that it is otherwise metaphorical and not intended to represent scientific fact. And the result of insisting on inerrancy is that any particular view becomes tenuous since just one verifiable fact that contradicts is evidence of error, therefore scripture becomes entirely not inerrant. That is the position that Christians put the Bible into by their insistence on inerrancy.

I'm honestly ... frankly speaking ... not exactly sure how you are disagreeing with me.

But, back to your initial question. Jesus often did not quote from the Hebrew text, rather He used the Greek Septuagint translation o the Hebrew scriptures. I'm sure that ticked off the Scribes and Pharisees.

The writer of Hebrews did the same.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus often did not quote from the Hebrew text, rather He used the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures. I'm sure that ticked off the Scribes and Pharisees.

The writer of Hebrews did the same.

The Masoretic/LXX(Septuagint) issue certainly throws a wrench into "inerrancy" discussions. Lee's RecV uses the Masoretic as its textual OT base, as do most Christian Bibles (Eastern Orthodox being notable exceptions).

This may lead to problems where the OT and NT don't "agree" with each other if the NT writer used LXX. In the "Psalms" thread, I noted the way Lee tried to reconcile Hebrews 10:5 with Psalm 40:6.

The writer of Hebrews, quoting LXX, says,

10:5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law.
9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second.
10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.(NIV)

Note the Hebrews author's additional commentary in vv. 8-10, esp. the bolded part in v.10.

The (Masoretic version) Psalm says,

40:6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire—
but my ears you have opened—
burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require.
7 Then I said, “Here I am, I have come—
it is written about me in the scroll.
8 I desire to do your will, my God;
your law is within my heart.”(NIV)

Lee et al used the Masoretic text and translated it as "You have prepared(lit. 'bored') ears for Me", and then wrote "This was quoted by the apostle Paul in Heb. 10:5 as 'a body You have prepared for Me.' The boring of a slaves ears indicates that the master required the slave's obedience... Paul interpreted the boring of the ears as the preparing of a body, in which Christ offered Himself to God..."

Actually, most scholars don't think Paul authored Hebrews, because first of all the Greek is so different, and secondly the Hebrews author heard the gospel from the disciples (2:3), but Paul repeatedly presented his revelation as not from men but from God (Gal 1:1, 1:11-12; also 2 Cor. 1:1). So it would have been quite a change for Paul to present his personal testimony in that manner.

But authorship aside, how can someone say that a NT writer purposely altered the (Masoretic) text when that writer was clearly quoting another version? Especially when the Masoretic text didn't exist until after the NT was written? Were Lee and the editorial team at LSM unaware, or did they know it and ignore it, in an attempt to "reconcile the texts"? Or were they just being sloppy? I don't know.

In any event, we have to adjust to the idea that there are different versions of scripture, that they don't all "agree" word-for-word with each other, and that none of this should bother a mature believer in Christ one bit. The fact that so little variation exists after several thousand years of transmission speaks to the careful stewardship these texts deservedly received.

God did an excellent job, passing along His Holy Word through generation after generation of fallible and errant humankind. I'd say it was rather, ahem, inspired.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Talking to a former LC friend the other day. He mentioned that he has one Nee book by 4 different publishers, and they are all quite different.

I wanted to put Ohio's comment into this thread; it shows the difficulty of maintaining textual fidelity, when the transmittors also have editorial bias (as many do). The biblical texts passed through human hands for literally thousands of years but they still came to us quite well preserved. Contrast that to the fate of Nee's writings in less than 100 years!

The discovery of the pre-Christian-era Dead Sea Scrolls, containing extant texts such as Isaiah and Genesis and Psalms which were nearly identical with today's versions, gives strong confirmation to the textual fidelity of our modern Christian Scriptures.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Actually, most scholars don't think Paul authored Hebrews, because first of all the Greek is so different, and secondly the Hebrews author heard the gospel from the disciples (2:3), but Paul repeatedly presented his revelation as not from men but from God (Gal 1:1, 1:11-12; also 2 Cor. 1:1). So it would have been quite a change for Paul to present his personal testimony in that manner.

Years ago I read much about the author-dilemma of the book of Hebrews. Then I realized the solution was staring me in the face. Paul is ruled out because of the points you mentioned. Luke is suggested to solve the language issues, but ruled out because he lacked Jewish training.

But were not Paul and Luke almost inseparable? The letter probably was written in the early 60's after Paul was arrested in Jerusalem. He spent a considerable amount of time under Felix's care, and the incredible detail of these events proves that Luke was nearby. After Paul's "warm reception" at the temple, it was a wise decision to write anonymously, since he was still so heavily burdened for his kinsmen according to the flesh..

I believe it was this period of time when Luke was engaged in his literary works. Living near Palestine, he could research the eye-witness accounts for his gospel and the early parts of Acts. Perhaps Theophilus helped sponsor his work. Luke is the only N.T. author with the command of the Greek language mandated by Hebrews. That's why I feel Hebrews is a corroboration between Paul and Luke, the former preparing the drafts, and the latter polishing the book we now have.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I wanted to put Ohio's comment into this thread; it shows the difficulty of maintaining textual fidelity, when the transmittors also have editorial bias (as many do). The biblical texts passed through human hands for literally thousands of years but they still came to us quite well preserved. Contrast that to the fate of Nee's writings in less than 100 years!

The discovery of the pre-Christian-era Dead Sea Scrolls, containing extant texts such as Isaiah and Genesis and Psalms which were nearly identical with today's versions, gives strong confirmation to the textual fidelity of our modern Christian Scriptures.

Nee's messages were never written by him. He shared in workers' meetings without audio or video recordings. Each note-taker recorded his own version of the message. Each translator/publisher then took these notes in Chinese and embellished them into an English book.

It's no wonder that Lee's versions are so different from others. Within the Recovery, we were always convinced that "ours" was the best.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

In any event, we have to adjust to the idea that there are different versions of scripture, that they don't all "agree" word-for-word with each other, and that none of this should bother a mature believer in Christ one bit. The fact that so little variation exists after several thousand years of transmission speaks to the careful stewardship these texts deservedly received.

God did an excellent job, passing along His Holy Word through generation after generation of fallible and errant humankind. I'd say it was rather, ahem, inspired.

Ahem ... Amen to that!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee's messages were never written by him. He shared in workers' meetings without audio or video recordings. Each note-taker recorded his own version of the message. Each translator/publisher then took these notes in Chinese and embellished them into an English book.

I understand your point, and think that it highlights the challenge to many of the Christian gospel testimonies, which probably passed through an even longer and more tortuous "oral tradition" before becoming finalized as written documents.

The fact that there is so much agreement shows an amazing commonality of purpose, and the different gospel accounts' not being identical reinforces this. Were all their details perfectly synchronous, it would speak to some later "redactor" who basically bulldozed the texts into his idea of "agreement". The fact that God (largely) preserved the texts from such heavy-handed treatment is amazing. Think of how many generations have trembled before these words!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I feel Hebrews is a [collaboration] between Paul and Luke, the former preparing the drafts, and the latter polishing the book we now have.

This is an attractive idea on several counts. The author occasionally writes of "we" and "us", which is reminiscent of the latter part of Acts, when Luke was now on the scene. It certainly seems to have come from within Paul's cohort, given the salutations at the end. But to simply say, "Paul must have written the epistle to the Hebrews" really doesn't do justice to this remarkable document. It could also have had considerable (or even primary) input from Barnabas, Apollos (whom Luke called "...a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures" [Acts 18:24]), Priscilla and Aquila, etc.

At the very least, the admission in 2:3 diminishes the notion that it was exclusively Paul. Someone else's pen, and even voice, was likely involved. And Luke would seem an obvious candidate.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm honestly ... frankly speaking ... not exactly sure how you are disagreeing with me.

But, back to your initial question. Jesus often did not quote from the Hebrew text, rather He used the Greek Septuagint translation o the Hebrew scriptures. I'm sure that ticked off the Scribes and Pharisees.

The writer of Hebrews did the same.

Don't despair. The disagreement is minor.

You seemed to say that inerrancy was placed on scripture so that it could be refuted by secularists (or other non-Christians). I think that inerrancy was placed on scripture by Christians with a view to forcing it to become a modern, scientifically-sound document. It is only in the "why" of pushing inerrancy, not the strengths, problems, or results that we differ.

In other words, I think that to the extent that the discussion goes too far in forcing absolutely precise meaning that is consistent with known history, science, etc., inerrancy is a problem.

But if we remove inerrancy from the discussion, we return to a collection of writings that describe the God in whom we must have faith, not fact, to believe and follow. We eliminate the need to fight about the ancient forms of prose, poetry, etc., used in describing phenomenon for which they had no first-hand knowledge (creation, the fall, even the flood). The purpose was not a detailed, factual account of creation, etc., but a telling of the person and actions of God with respect to man. And the truth concerning God is accurately revealed even if precise science and history is not.

So don't fret over our minor disagreement. Who gave us inerrancy to argue over is not that important.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

This is an attractive idea on several counts. The author occasionally writes of "we" and "us", which is reminiscent of the latter part of Acts, when Luke was now on the scene. It certainly seems to have come from within Paul's cohort, given the salutations at the end. But to simply say, "Paul must have written the epistle to the Hebrews" really doesn't do justice to this remarkable document. It could also have had considerable (or even primary) input from Barnabas, Apollos (whom Luke called "...a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures" [Acts 18:24]), Priscilla and Aquila, etc.

At the very least, the admission in 2:3 diminishes the notion that it was exclusively Paul. Someone else's pen, and even voice, was likely involved. And Luke would seem an obvious candidate.

Interesting thought to suggest a collaborative work. God's sovereign arrangement was evident throughout this period of time. We never hear anything about Paul's personal life, and then suddenly in Jerusalem his sister's son hears of a plot on Paul's life. Being transferred to Felix, whose wife was Jewish, Paul was given many liberties while in custody, with the specific instruction that "no one should prevent his own people from attending to him."

Paul was thus held in "special" custody in northern Palestine for more than two years. He could have had access to all the brothers in Antioch, his home church, including Barnabas and Mark. We know that Luke's gospel, though synoptic like Matthew's and Mark's, was heavily influenced by Paul's burden for the Gentile world. During this time, Luke would have had ready access to all the holy land to interview sources for his gospel.

[james73]

I visited my Hindu friend in Malaysia a couple of weeks ago~~ he had some interesting insights into scripture inerrancy.

For classic Hindu texts, which were at first passed down orally, inerrancy comes from the structure of the language. There is a "checksum" built into the Sanskrit, within the grammar. And so, if one were to change the lineage of a certain king or prophet, inserting your own favourite king etc when passing down the history, it would become readily apparent because the grammar wouldn't "add up".

Immediately he said this I thought of the lineage of Jesus and how people say there is a very fixed structure to that lineage in terms of syllables, vowels etc. I don't know much about it, but it seemed the same concept might be at work.

Some people use the "checksum" nature of Jesus' lineage to "prove" that God must have written it since it is too complicated for man to have developed, it would have taken the author 50 years to come up with something so exquisite and consistent etc - but what if, in fact, it was a verbal code, developed over generations to ensure accurate verbal transmission?

That might be a good definition of "inerrant" - that the scriptures we have today, written down, are a faithful record of what was intended to be passed down to future generations.

[Guest5]

Originally Posted by OBW

But if we remove inerrancy from the discussion, we return to a collection of writings that describe the God in whom we must have faith, not fact, to believe and follow. We eliminate the need to fight about the ancient forms of prose, poetry, etc., used in describing phenomenon for which they had no first-hand knowledge (creation, the fall, even the flood). The purpose was not a detailed, factual account of creation, etc., but a telling of the person and actions of God with respect to man. And the truth concerning God is accurately revealed even if precise science and history is not.

So don't fret over our minor disagreement. Who gave us inerrancy to argue over is not that important.

Inerrancy is to God as errancy is to a book like the bible, whose going to agree to that proposition? Only one or two, maybe, and three would be too much by this time.

However, your suggestion of removing the inerrancy and returning to a collection of writings is much better than having us all in here arguing over and over again for this non-essential thing (inerrancy of the bible) that would lead not our soul to the gate of the kingdom of God. What would our soul benefit from elevating the bible to the level which is only fitted to the Lord God? Would God be delighted with us if we treat the bible as if it were God?

God is always here with us to help us resolve things which are impossible to all of us to fathom with, while the truth about inerrancy if placed or not placed in the bible is not a big thing for God to shed the light to us, be it in our dreams or in our daily activities in life. How we believe and trust God matters most of all to Him rather than believing the bible to be inerrant or not which is just a waste of time and effort on our part.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Juan

Inerrancy is to God as errancy is to a book like the bible, whose going to agree to that proposition? Only one or two, maybe, and three would be too much by this time.

However, your suggestion of removing the inerrancy and returning to a collection of writings is much better than having us all in here arguing over and over again for this non-essential thing (inerrancy of the bible) that would lead not our soul to the gate of the kingdom of God. What would our soul benefit from elevating the bible to the level which is only fitted to the Lord God? Would God be delighted with us if we treat the bible as if it were God?

God is always here with us to help us resolve things which are impossible to all of us to fathom with, while the truth about inerrancy if placed or not placed in the bible is not a big thing for God to shed the light to us, be it in our dreams or in our daily activities in life. How we believe and trust God matters most of all to Him rather than believing the bible to be inerrant or not which is just a waste of time and effort on our part.

Good post Juan. Thanks fer yer thoughts.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Juan

What would our soul benefit from elevating the bible to the level which is only fitted to the Lord God? Would God be delighted with us if we treat the bible as if it were God?
....How we believe and trust God matters most of all to Him rather than believing the bible to be inerrant or not which is just a waste of time and effort on our part.

Juan,
First of all WELCOME TO THE FORUM! Please feel free to give us a short testimony when you get a chance.

The points you have made here are very well reasoned and to be well taken, however, in a sense, and in so many words, the Bible itself seems to tell us to treat it as if it were God Himself, or at the very least it is divine. Now when I say divine I don't mean simply "divinely inspired" - I mean divine as to it's very nature. I'll let the Bible itself speak to this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."(John 1:1,14)Please note that it does not say that "flesh became the Word" but rather "the Word became flesh". It was the Word that is ETERNAL, preexisting, and therefore not merely a "thought" or "inspiration". Also we see in Revelation that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was called the Word: "and his name is The Word of God" (Rev. 19:13)

The Bible does not have to agree with or confirm in any way science or scientific observations or discoveries, for we are only observing and discovering the very things that God himself created and the very "laws" that he himself established. Time and space are at his command. He can even contradict any established law if he so chooses (cf: parting of the Red Sea, making the Sun stand still, etc.)
-

[awareness]

Wow! UntoHim! How far do you take this kind of thinking?

I attended a Church of Christ church for awhile around here. One of the teachers told me that the Holy Spirit quit moving after Pentecost, and that today the Bible is the Holy Spirit.

Is that what you mean UntoHim?

[UntoHim]

Harold I'm only taking it as far as the Bible itself seems to be taking it...and that's why I quoted those verses in John and in Revelation. Of course if one thinks the Bible is nothing but a collection of fairy tales, myths and legends then we are spinning our wheels from the very start and our discussions are going to be fruitless.

THERE ARE TONS OF FORUMS OUT THERE FOR PEOPLE TO CHALLENGE AND EVEN TRY TO DEBUNK THE BIBLE BUT THIS FORUM IS NOT ONE OF THEM. PLEASE STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE GENERAL THEME OF THE FORUM.

Frankly I couldn't care less about what a church of Christ pastor told you, it's totally irrelevant to our forum. Now if you want to discuss how Witness Lee taught that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit then we have something to talk about...but some pastor from some other denomination/sect telling you that the Bible became the Holy Spirit is not relevant to our discussions.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold I'm only taking it as far as the Bible itself seems to be taking it...and that's why I quoted those verses in John and in Revelation. Of course if one thinks the Bible is nothing but a collection of fairy tales, myths and legends then we are spinning our wheels from the very start and our discussions are going to be fruitless.

THERE ARE TONS OF FORUMS OUT THERE FOR PEOPLE TO CHALLENGE AND EVEN TRY TO DEBUNK THE BIBLE BUT THIS FORUM IS NOT ONE OF THEM. PLEASE STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE GENERAL THEME OF THE FORUM.

Frankly I couldn't care less about what a church of Christ pastor told you, it's totally irrelevant to our forum. Now if you want to discuss how Witness Lee taught that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit then we have something to talk about...but some pastor from some other denomination/sect telling you that the Bible became the Holy Spirit is not relevant to our discussions.

Okay just to be clear, and drive your point home. Members of this forum are required to respect your opinion that the Bible is not only divinely inspired but also is divine in its very nature.

And that's true even tho not all Christians from the earliest days haven't held to such an opinion. Cuz it's just your pet doctrine about the Bible bro UntoHim. That you have every right to believe and espouse ... even if the verses you provided don't actually apply to the Bible, and the writers of those verses had no intention of them being used to turn the Bible into God.

At least we should be knowledgeable of Bibliolatry, even if we can't speak of it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliolatry

'nough said.

Blessings bro UntoHim ..... I love you like I love family members that hold to your opinion about the Bible.

[OBW]

I like the way Juan puts it.

The funny thing is that while I would not join with those who argue so strongly for inerrancy, I do believe that the scriptures are true and accurate, but in a different sense than is meant by inerrancy. They accurately portray God — not always through a litany of details, but through what we see in the picture painted with the words spoken. That takes a lot of focus off of the specific words used and places it on the whole of the writing that is painting the picture.

That does not mean that specific words are not sometimes important. But I honestly think that it is a lot less often than so many would want to assert.

That is the reason that I am much happier reading the NIV or some other translation that is focused on the whole rather than on the words. I'm not a huge fan of The Message. But I do think that the way it removes you from the background of words and phrases that are familiar makes every passage speak with new life and light.

As to literal translations, I have a Christian friend that I get to see rather infrequently because he and his wife spend most of their time in remote parts of India meeting with others from various places in and around India. Their objective is to help in the translation of the Bible into the multitude of dialects found in that part of the world. He does not know any of these languages, but is working with locals who do, and who also know English. His objective is to help them understand what they are translating, then get them to give it back to him from their translation after they are done.

He recently told a story about a particular dialect/language that had a different way of saying "fisherman." It would literally translate to "killer of fish." That posed a unique problem when they went to translate "I will make you fishers of men." At that point, you have to throw the idea of a literal translation out the window and find a different metaphor — one that will say what Jesus said without using the "fisherman" analogy.

The Bible is very true and accurate in the things that it is true and accurate about. But it is not presumed to be true and accurate about what it clearly is wrapping in sideways and metaphorical terminology. The land produced vegetation, as well as living creatures. It is described as a 6-day adventure. But is the day literal?

And is it important?

Why is this account there? To lay out the hows of creation? Or to tell that it was God that ordained it? I say the latter. For all the textbooks on biology, geology, physics, etc., they can only deal with aspects of it all. How is a telling to a people who wouldn't understand the opening paragraph of a biology textbook going to understand the details of creation? So make the long story short. "I did it. It was a combination and series of parts that I will call days. Eventually, there was man. We had a falling out and that is why things are as they are now." Was "Adam" 6,000 or 60,000 years ago? Was the flood a simple 40 days of raining followed by a period of drying after which 8 people repopulated the earth, or something else told in this manner that was understandable at the time?

I honestly don't think haggling over these as items of "inerrancy" is worth the breath we would breathe during the process. Some will disagree. But that is my take.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay just to be clear, and drive your point home. Members of this forum are required to respect your opinion that the Bible is not only divinely inspired but also is divine in its very nature....

Harold I had several points and as usual you have either misunderstood them on purpose or simply ignored them altogether. But the main thing is that I am not going to allow debate on whether or not the Bible is "the Word of God" (in the traditional protestant sense) Again, ONCE AGAIN, questioning/challenging/debunking the Bible is NOT within the scope of this forum. There are MANY forums out there for folks that want to engage in these kinds of discussions and debates - NOT HERE. NO WAY, NO HOW!

-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold I had several points and as usual you have either misunderstood them on purpose or simply ignored them altogether. But the main thing is that I am not going to allow debate on whether or not the Bible is "the Word of God" (in the traditional protestant sense) Again, ONCE AGAIN, questioning/challenging/debunking the Bible is NOT within the scope of this forum. There are MANY forums out there for folks that want to engage in these kinds of discussions and debates - NOT HERE. NO WAY, NO HOW!

-

Then why this thread?

[Guest5]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]Juan,
First of all WELCOME TO THE FORUM! Please feel free to give us a short testimony when you get a chance.

Thank you UH, I'll try to attend to it later or "in due time."

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[The points you have made here are very well reasoned and to be well taken, however, in a sense, and in so many words, the Bible itself seems to tell us to treat it as if it were God Himself, or at the very least it is divine. Now when I say divine I don't mean simply "divinely inspired" - I mean divine as to it's very nature. I'll let the Bible itself speak to this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."(John 1:1,14)Please note that it does not say that "flesh became the Word" but rather "the Word became flesh". It was the Word that is ETERNAL, preexisting, and therefore not merely a "thought" or "inspiration". Also we see in Revelation that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was called the Word: "and his name is The Word of God" (Rev. 19:13)

Let us dissect what you have laid down on the operating table. In my high school days in my Biology subject, I dissected a frog alive without using anesthesia and I plan to do the dissection here in the same way that I did to that hapless frog then, my sincere apology to all who in one way or another may find the following words below (as my treatment of the bible) "unholy" in comparison with the way how they treat the bible in their whole life.

First thing first, is the bible the Lord God? Many people around the globe believe it (bible) is simply because of the verse you quoted in John 1:1. But whether we like it or not, the bible is simply a book which is no ordinary thing to any other book in this world with respect to its built and materials use to produce its entirety as a book in itself. It has no life in itself that it cannot speak, feel, see, and hear anything around it. How in the world of more than 6 billion people around the world wide web do you now say that "the Bible itself seems to tell us to treat it as if it were God Himself," is it really the bible which seems to tell us ....., or is it simply the speaker himself who seems to tell us his opinion about the bible?

Secondly, is the Word in John 1:1 the bible itself that we have in our possession today? Sadly and in total irony to what you claim about the bible as it were God himself, you yourself clearly identify who the Word is when you went over to John 1:1 and Rev. 19:13, and your identification points clearly not to the bible itself but to the Lord Jesus Christ who is The Living Word of God. Now, is the Lord Jesus Christ the bible itself? Was the bible with God from the very beginning? If not, your opinion about the bible wrt the issue at hand has no bearing at all to those verses you quoted above, hope you can go back to your previous post and do the necessary refitting works therein to rebuild and fortify your claim about the bible - as if it were God himself.

Last but not the least, God is divine and He alone is perfect and since the bible is not the Lord God, how can we say the bible is divine?

[Guest5]

Originally Posted by awareness

I attended a Church of Christ church for awhile around here. One of the teachers told me that the Holy Spirit quit moving after Pentecost, and that today the Bible is the Holy Spirit.

Next time you meet him kindly bring him on to Matt. 23:8 and John 10 and then ask him who appointed and ordained him to be a teacher of the bible. Surely, you can see how many tons of TNT does he have in his bulges that will surely explode right there on your face.

[Guest5]

Originally Posted by OBW

I like the way Juan puts it.

The funny thing is that while I would not join with those who argue so strongly for inerrancy, I do believe that the scriptures are true and accurate, but in a different sense than is meant by inerrancy. They accurately portray God — not always through a litany of details, but through what we see in the picture painted with the words spoken. That takes a lot of focus off of the specific words used and places it on the whole of the writing that is painting the picture.

That does not mean that specific words are not sometimes important. But I honestly think that it is a lot less often than so many would want to assert.

That is the reason that I am much happier reading the NIV or some other translation that is focused on the whole rather than on the words. I'm not a huge fan of The Message. But I do think that the way it removes you from the background of words and phrases that are familiar makes every passage speak with new life and light.

Expressing our opinion about the bible is not bad for as long as we do not make our opinion the absolute truth which only emanate from God alone. We can have this discussion in a peaceful way by acknowledging that what we all are saying here are purely our own understanding/opinion of the things we read and understood in the bible and that we have it contained just within our minds.

Originally Posted by OBW

I bThe Bible is very true and accurate in the things that it is true and accurate about. But it is not presumed to be true and accurate about what it clearly is wrapping in sideways and metaphorical terminology. The land produced vegetation, as well as living creatures. It is described as a 6-day adventure. But is the day literal?

And is it important?

Why is this account there? To lay out the hows of creation? Or to tell that it was God that ordained it? I say the latter. For all the textbooks on biology, geology, physics, etc., they can only deal with aspects of it all. How is a telling to a people who wouldn't understand the opening paragraph of a biology textbook going to understand the details of creation? So make the long story short. "I did it. It was a combination and series of parts that I will call days. Eventually, there was man. We had a falling out and that is why things are as they are now." Was "Adam" 6,000 or 60,000 years ago? Was the flood a simple 40 days of raining followed by a period of drying after which 8 people repopulated the earth, or something else told in this manner that was understandable at the time?

I honestly don't think haggling over these as items of "inerrancy" is worth the breath we would breathe during the process. Some will disagree. But that is my take.

Sadly for all who engage themselves in too much arguments, why the need to haggle over these things of accuracy, the hows of creation, and this never ending debate of "inerrancy" as if God were not here with us in all ages to help us resolve problems like these ones which truly burdened and divided many people all around the globe? The wars in the ME have their origin traceable to the history of their ancestral religion similar to what the whole world of biblical Christianity today is exactly experiencing around their midst. God is here with us in all ages, what hampers us from coming and learning from Him in the way how He prescribed it to be working efficiently for all of us?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Then why this thread?

The inerrancy debate is not about whether the Bible is the word of God. It is about what the Bible actually claims about itself and about what we accept as being a metaphorical telling of certain things that would truly require a textbook to tell in accurate detail.

The Bible is the revelation of God. Whether it is textbook accurate on how creation occurred does not really reveal anything about God other than his desire to communicate about himself (and not about the details of creation). We learn about God as it is told. We are saved from the distraction of all the details. It is clear that it all fits together well. Describing how DNA makes it happen and even allows for ongoing slight changes is just TMI. Especially for a nomadic race of people who don't understand most of what we know as physics and biology.

And since God is living outside of our physical limitations, some of the descriptions can only be "like" something else that we kind of understand, so the metaphor is commonly used.

But when people start harping over the precise translation of a certain Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word, they are missing the point. And when they think that slight variations in the manuscripts that have survived means we don't know which is right and which is wrong, they again are missing the point. When they translate the whole that is there, is there really any notable difference in the picture painted? Only if you are so focused on the slight variation in color at the microscopic level while you miss that the picture of the whole tree, or rather the whole forest is essentially unaffected.

As someone mentioned (and quoted) there is the reference to those who are busy haggling over words rather than the Bible. They would rather waste their resources saying things like "there can only be one life-giving spirit." But that is so stupid. Jesus gives life and he is spirit. How do we know this? Because God is spirit. Therefore Jesus is (now) spirit. And of course the Spirit is spirit. The difference is that the mention of "spirit" in 1 Cor 15 is not a mention of "Spirit" but of "spirit." There is only one Spirit. But all three of the Godhead are "spirit." But a guy haggling over words would argue differently. And in today's discussion would insist that it must be that way due to "inerrancy."

Inerrancy is a human concept that sounds both viable and necessary. But it is not. The Bible stands as the accurate and true word of God without achieving the level of "inerrancy" that those who use the word mean (and want).

So that is why this thread exists. But it exists without debating the very concept that the scripture is the word of God. Of course, to those who argue for inerrancy, they believe that failing to be inerrant is to fail to be the word of God. Their faith is built on something less than Jesus blood and righteousness.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

Inerrancy is a human concept that sounds both viable and necessary. But it is not. The Bible stands as the accurate and true word of God without achieving the level of "inerrancy" that those who use the word mean (and want).
So that is why this thread exists. But it exists without debating the very concept that the scripture is the word of God. Of course, to those who argue for inerrancy, they believe that failing to be inerrant is to fail to be the word of God. Their faith is built on something less than Jesus blood and righteousness.

Great post Mike. If the forum software wasn't malfunctioning I would have placed the above quote in the "Featured Post" module at the top of homepage. What you have stated gets to the heart of three of the most fundamental elements:

That the Bible stands as the accurate and true word of God, and that it does so despite and beyond our feeble, mortal limitations to comprehend just how and why God chose some fallible, sinful and mortal men to record his everlasting, holy Word for us.

That we can debate and maybe even argue a little over some of the "non-essentials" (of which maybe inerrancy could be one such non-essential?) without questioning/challenging/debunking any of the "essentials" of the Christian faith, all of which are related to us clearly and without contradiction in the 66 books of the long-accepted biblical canon.

That in the end, thanks to what God saw fit to record for us in these 66 books, the One who said "'let there be light!' 'has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."(2Cor 4:6) So that we can boldly sing out "my faith is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness!"
-

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Juan

Let us dissect what you have laid down on the operating table. In my high school days in my Biology subject, I dissected a frog alive without using anesthesia and I plan to do the dissection here in the same way that I did to that hapless frog then, my sincere apology to all who in one way or another may find the following words below (as my treatment of the bible) "unholy" in comparison with the way how they treat the bible in their whole life....
Last but not the least, God is divine and He alone is perfect and since the bible is not the Lord God, how can we say the bible is divine?

Without anesthesia? OOOOOWWWWCCCCHHH

Juan you have said a lot in this post. Give me some time to recover from your dissection, and all the while I'll be thinking about what you have said.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Juan

Last but not the least, God is divine and He alone is perfect and since the bible is not the Lord God, how can we say the bible is divine?

Well that's the wrong question. The Bible is a record of His word.

God spoke the universe into existence thru His word, but none of us would say that the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

His word is a lamp unto my feet, but I never carried the Bible around like a flashlight in a dark house.

His word is found and I have eaten it, but never have I munched on a leather binding.

We have played these word games before. Posters come along with neat little trivia insights to unleash on us. Most of us are not kids any more, and playing with toys isn't much fun any more. (Except when the grandkids come over! Then I get out the cars and trucks.)

Believe it or not I still have my stainless steel scissors from biology class, and can still remember what I did to that poor frog.

[Guest5]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Well that's the wrong question. The Bible is a record of His word.

Let us give the exact contents of the bible that we have in our possession today in our time. It is a book which contains, not all, works and actions that God did in the past, words that God did utter then to His prophets, disciples, servants, apostles and the likes, and it also contains letters of men, cultures and tradition of men, songs of Solomon, and many more.

Originally Posted by Ohio

God spoke the universe into existence thru His word, but none of us would say that the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

God created the universe by himself but not by and through the scriptures, clarify your phrase "thru His word," what do you mean by that phrase?

Originally Posted by Ohio

His word is a lamp unto my feet, but I never carried the Bible around like a flashlight in a dark house.

The words that the Lord uttered, utters, and will utter are exactly not the bible itself thus the bible is not the lamp unto our feet. Any word that we can hear now from the Lord is exactly the lamp unto our feet.

Originally Posted by Ohio

His word is found and I have eaten it, but never have I munched on a leather binding.

That is your own opinion and it does not mean that everybody agrees with what you think about the bible.

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have played these word games before. Posters come along with neat little trivia insights to unleash on us. Most of us are not kids any more, and playing with toys isn't much fun any more. (Except when the grandkids come over! Then I get out the cars and trucks.)

Believe it or not I still have my stainless steel scissors from biology class, and can still remember what I did to that poor frog.

I'm not playing with words but I definitely mean how I say them. What is the connection between your poor frog and your bible in this discussion?

[Guest5]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Without anesthesia? OOOOOWWWWCCCCHHH

Juan you have said a lot in this post. Give me some time to recover from your dissection, and all the while I'll be thinking about what you have said.
-

Actually, the dissection is not yet reaching the layers of the fatty tissues of the frog's belly.

[awareness]

The Bible does not record all the words God has spoken to people since the book of Revelation.

[KSA]

Here is an interesting topic I missed. I found the book "Jesus Driven Life" very helpful in this regard.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by KSA

Here is an interesting topic I missed. I found the book "Jesus Driven Life" very helpful in this regard.

In what way was the book helpful to you on this issue?

Hi everyone! I have been in the LC for about ten years and am now a college student. I am in the process of leaving (I will tell my story another time).

No too long ago I have taken an FTT online course on the Bible. Most of the course was how we should "use" the Bible for the "Triune God's revelation and His move." Anyways... imo what WL defines as the "divine concept" is something that fits into "God's economy" or "God's move" or "Lord's Recovery." I felt extremely uncomfortable about this, but I was being forced to regurgitate and internalize the information. I did not question why we even should categorize the Bible in this way or why WL should have the authority to define this. Also, he seemed to have built his "credibility" for his viewpoint on the Book of Psalms and James by simply stating not every word in the Bible is God's speaking. While I agree not every word in the Bible is spoken by God, there is no basis to make further conclusions about whole books in the Bible! See below for an excerpt from one of the lessons:

"The distinction between the divine and human concept is even finer in the book of Psalms. When we read a psalm we may say, 'That is so good,' BUT WHEN WE COMPARE THE PASSAGE TO THE ETERNAL ECONOMY OF GOD, we may feel convicted and realize it is a mixture of the human and divine concepts. In the Life-study of the Psalms, Brother Lee presented and began to "FINE TUNE" the matter of the human vs. divine concept in the Scriptures.

Finally, in the Crystallization-study of the Epistle of James, BROTHER LEE ENTERED INTO THE FINEST DISCRIMINATION OF THE HUMAN AND DIVINE CONCEPTS. James may have thought that God inspired him to write the book of James so that everyone would be like him, but actually God inspired James to write 'to EXPOSE HIM IN HIS WRONG CONCEPT OF THE LAW AND HIS VAGUE VISION OF GOD'S ECONOMY' (p. 95)."

Also, I have been so judgmental of others whenever I thought they were interpreting Scriptures according to their "human concept" (whatever that means). One of my classmates in the course wrote: "The human concept is that man needs to know God's Word, that we may be able to follow God's path for us, behave in a way that brings glory to God, and be able to rightly interpret the Bible. The human concept is that man succeeds in these matters by learning right from wrong, building up his human character, and seeking God's leading through the Word." My question is, what is so "bad" or wrong about the "human concept" as WL defines it?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi everyone! I have been in the LC for about ten years and am now a college student. I am in the process of leaving (I will tell my story another time)....

Thanks for your post, full of great thoughts and insights! Please consider registering when you get a chance. When you become a member your posts don't have to go through a moderation que and appear on the forum immediately. Also, you will gain access to the Private Message system and can communicate with other members in full confidentiality.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"The human concept is that man needs to know God's Word, that we may be able to follow God's path for us, behave in a way that brings glory to God, and be able to rightly interpret the Bible. The human concept is that man succeeds in these matters by learning right from wrong, building up his human character, and seeking God's leading through the Word."

My question is, what is so "bad" or wrong about the "human concept" as WL defines it?

Nothing is wrong with it. In fact, every point has verses to support it. What Lee calls the human concept is actually the Bible's concept.

Lee believed that the Bible was teaching something "deeper" than the actual words, and so threw out all the words that he felt weren't speaking to that deeper matter. But the fact is, if there is deeper truth, it wouldn't be contrary to the plain word, but would include and support it, not make it invalid or problematic.

[Cal]

Lee's desire was to put his "economy" view front and center in importance. But in order to do that, he had to bad-mouth parts of the Bible. Which should be evidence enough that his emphasis is warped and should be abandoned.

[HoldFast]

Thank you for your insights! Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

[HoldFast]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thanks for your post, full of great thoughts and insights! Please consider registering when you get a chance. When you become a member your posts don't have to go through a moderation que and appear on the forum immediately. Also, you will gain access to the Private Message system and can communicate with other members in full confidentiality.

Thank you for the information! I am now registered.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi everyone! I have been in the LC for about ten years and am now a college student. I am in the process of leaving (I will tell my story another time).

No too long ago I have taken an FTT online course on the Bible. Most of the course was how we should "use" the Bible for the "Triune God's revelation and His move." Anyways... imo what WL defines as the "divine concept" is something that fits into "God's economy" or "God's move" or "Lord's Recovery." I felt extremely uncomfortable about this, but I was being forced to regurgitate and internalize the information. I did not question why we even should categorize the Bible in this way or why WL should have the authority to define this. Also, he seemed to have built his "credibility" for his viewpoint on the Book of Psalms and James by simply stating not every word in the Bible is God's speaking. While I agree not every word in the Bible is spoken by God, there is no basis to make further conclusions about whole books in the Bible! See below for an excerpt from one of the lessons:

"The distinction between the divine and human concept is even finer in the book of Psalms. When we read a psalm we may say, 'That is so good,' BUT WHEN WE COMPARE THE PASSAGE TO THE ETERNAL ECONOMY OF GOD, we may feel convicted and realize it is a mixture of the human and divine concepts. In the Life-study of the Psalms, Brother Lee presented and began to "FINE TUNE" the matter of the human vs. divine concept in the Scriptures.

Finally, in the Crystallization-study of the Epistle of James, BROTHER LEE ENTERED INTO THE FINEST DISCRIMINATION OF THE HUMAN AND DIVINE CONCEPTS. James may have thought that God inspired him to write the book of James so that everyone would be like him, but actually God inspired James to write 'to EXPOSE HIM IN HIS WRONG CONCEPT OF THE LAW AND HIS VAGUE VISION OF GOD'S ECONOMY' (p. 95)."

Also, I have been so judgmental of others whenever I thought they were interpreting Scriptures according to their "human concept" (whatever that means). One of my classmates in the course wrote: "The human concept is that man needs to know God's Word, that we may be able to follow God's path for us, behave in a way that brings glory to God, and be able to rightly interpret the Bible. The human concept is that man succeeds in these matters by learning right from wrong, building up his human character, and seeking God's leading through the Word." My question is, what is so "bad" or wrong about the "human concept" as WL defines it?

I took the same online course where I learned that every word in the bible is inspired by God, but not every word is the word of God (or something close to that). Kind of convenient to be able to claim you know what in the bible is really God's word so you can ignore things that don't fit your concepts. I wonder what an evangelical scholar would say about that?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

I took the same online course where I learned that every word in the bible is inspired by God, but not every word is the word of God (or something close to that). Kind of convenient to be able to claim you know what in the bible is really God's word so you can ignore things that don't fit your concepts. I wonder what an evangelical scholar would say about that?

Isn't it strange that God would inspire words that are not his?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Isn't it strange that God would inspire words that are not his?

We know what the Bible says, concerning the scriptures.

"Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Matt 4:4; Deut 8:3

"All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction in righteousness..." 2 Tim 3:16

And so, where are we presented with the idea that it is not "every word" or "all scripture" but rather "some words" and "some scripture"; secondly, by what process we are to relegate some of it to a status of lesser profitability or nourishment?

And where is it suggested that some scriptures' utility are only in showing fallen men's failed good intentions?

I would like to see the precedent for this: if this presentation came AFTER WL's "God's eternal economy" template emerged, then that should rather impel us to relegate his hermeneutical template to a lesser rank, rather than subordinating the scriptures themselves.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Finally, in the Crystallization-study of the Epistle of James, BROTHER LEE ENTERED INTO THE FINEST DISCRIMINATION OF THE HUMAN AND DIVINE CONCEPTS. James may have thought that God inspired him to write the book of James so that everyone would be like him, but actually God inspired James to write 'to EXPOSE HIM IN HIS WRONG CONCEPT OF THE LAW AND HIS VAGUE VISION OF GOD'S ECONOMY' (p. 95)."

Actually, I think what's more likely is that God allowed Witness Lee to spout his nonsense about James to expose the wanna-be MOTA as someone to avoid.

I mean, if God is going around inspiring teachers to expose their lack, is it more likely he did it with someone who wrote a book of the Bible, or someone who claimed to be the MOTA, fabricated odd teachings just to be different, and built an exclusive sect in his own image with himself as the supreme ruler? Hmmmm?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

We know what the Bible says, concerning the scriptures.

"Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Matt 4:4; Deut 8:3

Of course "in the beginning was the Word." Cuz without the invention of words there's no chance of it being remembered, orally recorded, transmitted, or utilized between each other (Even monkeys have a body language, but not words).

That's even more true for the invention of the written word, in Mesopotamia some 5,500 yrs ago. (God's word came to man before the advent of written language.)

And God's Word(s) created the whole cosmos. So the cosmos, and even we, are God's Word (DNA & Galaxies both swirl); written in His own hand; with no human intermediary.

So we have two books from God: The Bible and the Cosmos; "by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

And I think I'm hooked on both Words of God, or all, oral(s) and written(s), that are both, grand and glorious, spellbinding, mysteries to me; that have a firm hold on me, pulling on, like a gravitational force (I will draw all men), it more than seems, my mind, heart, and spirit, or whole being.

Amen Lord. I can't thank You enough.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course "in the beginning was the Word." Cuz without the invention of words there's no chance of it being remembered, orally recorded, transmitted, or utilized between each other (Even monkeys have a body language, but not words).

That's even more true for the invention of the written word, in Mesopotamia some 5,500 yrs ago. (God's word came to man before the advent of written language.)

And God's Word(s) created the whole cosmos. So the cosmos, and even we, are God's Word (DNA & Galaxies both swirl); written in His own hand; with no human intermediary.

So we have two books from God: The Bible and the Cosmos; "by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

And I think I'm hooked on both Words of God, or all, oral(s) and written(s), that are both, grand and glorious, spellbinding, mysteries to me; that have a firm hold on me, pulling on, like a gravitational force (I will draw all men), it more than seems, my mind, heart, and spirit, or whole being.

Amen Lord. I can't thank You enough.

One small (perhaps large, I don't know) caveat is that the world system as it is configured puts out a lot of stuff (transmission, communication, signals) not lined up with the throne. So we have to be careful what we take in from the "cosmos". Yes, God can smile at you through a dog wagging his tail and grinning. God can speak to you through your next-door neighbor's kid.

But sometimes the creation around you manifests the result of its remove from God. And sometimes, especially with culture, and even more so with religious culture (see the thread "The Asian mind and the Western mind") that manifestation is tricky, and will suck you in. Suddenly your capacity to hear "the Word" is clouded, and obstructed.

God Himself tells us to look up at the stars, who declare the glory of God (see e.g. Psa 19). Scriptures continually reference creation to make us understand God's heart, thoughts, feelings, and intentions toward us. But Satan, in my view, continually comes into the conversation, and insinuates stuff to "twist" our view. I know I'm sounding like Lee here, but I am also sounding like James ("keep yourself from being spotted by the world").

(And today I like James more than Lee because James said that Godliness was to care for widows and orphans and Lee completely missed that - he even publicly despised it).

Also I differ from Lee in that I posit that much of my writings are also confused, and errant, reflecting my confused and darkened person as much as God's current speaking today. I notice that Paul continually sprinkled his writings with admonitions like, "I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers" (see e.g. Rom 11:25, 1 Cor 12:1, 1 Thess 4:13). For whatever the veil of ignorance has been rent, if at all, has been in recognizing that a) the world system as it is currently configured is continually striving to distract me from my divine appointment with the Father, and b) the Word of God, revealed in scriptures, continually points me back.

And I don't have to "understand" the Bible - remember that the disciples were "continually amazed beyond measure" - as much as I understand that I don't understand it. I recently likened Lee going through scriptures to a bulldozer going through a flower garden. I am likewise. But I don't pretend that my perusals have chased the truth down into some corner where it turned and yielded to me. I'm not that smart.

I'm sure this is way off topic.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

One small (perhaps large, I don't know) caveat is that the world system as it is configured puts out a lot of stuff (transmission, communication, signals) not lined up with the throne. So we have to be careful what we take in from the "cosmos". Yes, God can smile at you through a dog wagging his tail and grinning. God can speak to you through your next-door neighbor's kid.

But sometimes the creation around you manifests the result of its remove from God

A bro and I have been discussing this matter. That is, God the creator is separate from His creation. That means the creation is not God so it can't have the perfection of God. That would mean creation was a fall from the get-go.

However, can a perfect creator create imperfection?

Deu 32:3-4 For I will proclaim the name of the LORD; ascribe greatness to our God! "The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.

I don't know. It's a mystery. It's spellbinding.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

God the creator is separate from His creation. .

There is an assumption there that is not warranted, by scriptures. Think of my oft-repeated example, of the angel and Hagar, talking there in the desert. She tells the angel, "You are the God who sees me". The angel is "separate from" the creator God, because she is talking to a messenger, a sent one. But through the medium of this messenger she is connected to God. She is not as separated as we may think.

In another example the angel who spoke to Mary said, "I am Gabriel; I stand before God." If the angel stands before God, how can Gabriel also stand before Mary? I think our notions of "time" and "space", of "togetherness" and "separateness" may be skewed by our being stuck in physical bodies in space and time, and our conceptual arrangements resulting from that experience. So we may not understand God, nor His creation, as well as we suppose.

When John the apostle fell at the angel's feet he was told, "Do not do that. I am your fellow creature. I am not the Creator. Worship God." Yet the difference between John and the angel was so great that John was overwhelmed with awe and reverence. And John had seen Jesus transfigured! Surely he wasn't so easily impressed. But when he saw this angel he was overwhelmed, and began to worship.

Perhaps the distance between those in temporal space-time, and the realm of perfection and immutable spiritual reality is rather vast. So making conjectures about the immutable nature of reality itself, merely because they seem reasonable to our semi-rational minds, may not be warranted.

Put another way; I am not so easily impressed with Lee's "this equals that" or "this means that" logic today as I was several decades ago. And that extends to you and me, as well -- the gap between us and the divine reality is just too great. We shouldn't trust our thoughts too much.

[awareness]

We need a "like" button. Cuz I'd use it on this post. Thanks for your thoughts and insights. Wonderful bro Aron.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I am not so easily impressed with Lee's "this equals that" or "this means that" logic today as I was several decades ago. And that extends to you and me, as well -- the gap between us and the divine reality is just too great.

Interesting that I made those remarks after commenting on the separation, or lack thereof, between "Creator", and "creation."

So maybe I was the one being illogical.

Let me first go back to Lee, then try to make a larger point. Lee's logic took him to a place where he refused to acknowledge his fellow believers, over doctrinal differences: his so-called "ground of oneness", aka "the doctrine of dirt".

Lee's logic took him to a place where he despised, or at least ignored, the weak, the poor, the widows, and the orphans.

Lee's logic took him to a place where he concluded that some parts of the Bible were revelatory and others were fallen, and natural, i.e. not divine. His logically-derived "economy" template then allowed him to determine which was which. His logic ultimately over-rode the warnings of the apostle John (Rev 22:19) not to take away any of the words of prophecy of "this book". His logic even over-rode his own "minister of the age", the apostle Paul, who repeatedly encouraged the saints in his epistles to sing the Psalms. No, said Lee, they are too low. Too natural. Lee's mind had determined this, after years of study, and thinking, and logical progression, had led him to that conclusion.

Now, to my own commentary. I cannot say what unfulfilled issues led this man to become a merchandiser of the Gospel, even the "merchandiser of the age." But it is a truth that one side-effect of the tree of Knowledge is that we can see the splinter in others' eyes, while missing the beam in our own. Thus, Lee could freely point out shortcomings of the ideational structures of Luther, Wesley, et al, even while being blind to his own. We, likewise, can look back and see Lee's faults while being unaware of ours (a benefit of this forum is that those who comment have not been unanimously impressed with my thinking; necessary medicine, to be sure).

To go back to the subject at hand, as I understand it: the disciples were continually "amazed beyond words" and "astonished beyond measure"; they were continually looking at each other and saying, "What is this?!?" I am unfortunately a creature of logic; I am always turning over "A = B" and "B + C = D" in my head. But deep inside there is something that longs for the cloud of unknowing. The journey involves the basic element of continual astonishment, like Moses when he saw the bush, and like myself when I was informed that God loved me and sent His Son to die for my sins.

The "truth" of the word is not where Noah's children found spouses, nor whether Judas hanged himself or died of an intestinal rupture. The truth is not found in God's economy or the doctrine of oneness. No, there is a Person lurking there, hidden and concealed within the words of scripture. This Person will never surrender to our logical constructions. Rather, we can come to the Word, and surrender to Him. And surrender, or "repentance", includes our own deluded, semi-logical minds.

[OBW]

Aron,

Within the context of this thread, and of the Bible, I think that there is a definite place for logic and reasoning. And there is a place where it fails. There is he place where scripture itself calls to "come reason." And there are the places where there is great mystery that is left as such.

And even where Paul says that there are things hidden in ages past that are now made known, even that was not everything. It was something specific. Lee liked to make each of those things into grand metanarratives. But, for example, the rather grand statement in Colossians 1:27 "the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" is not as revelatory as some might think. First, is the last part referring to the riches or the mystery? (I'm sure that someone who knows Greek well might be able to tell.) But is the statement that follows really about the full mystery of God, or about the entirety of his riches? Probably not. And it is encapsulated in something that has a "known" factor, but is still not fully known or understood. "Christ in you" is something that is at one level simple, yet at another is not so simple.

We sometimes refer to it as complete, yet at others as incomplete, as if we have let him into the foyer and he will slowly move into the rest of the house over the remainder of our lifetime. And in this life, it is a hope. And while hope is not necessarily irrational or incomplete, it is not the same as certainty and complete knowledge. Oh, we are certain — or as certain as a fallen human can be. Yet we have an expectation that we do not understand. All we have is the present, and some notion of what is to come.

But enough on this. I believe it is sufficient to say that there is a lot in that. Yet there is also a lot in that which we still do not understand.

In the meantime, those who argue for inerrancy, especially in the typical evangelical way, are leaning toward a version of inerrancy that is setting them up for a crisis of faith. They assert that the Bible is true and accurate and without error on all things on which it speaks. So if you find a verse that says you can dig brass, then we have to assume that there was a time when brass was not the combination of metals not found naturally in a combined form in the earth, but was found already combined. And since that is not true, there is an error in the Bible. Inerrancy is now destroyed and Christianity is in chaos.

The terms under which inerrancy is said to exist by those who need to have it and define it are far beyond the claims of scripture itself.

Profitable for teaching. Is the Bible concerned with the table of elements and the methods by which things like iron and copper might be alloyed into something else? Or is the passage in question a statement about the bounty of the land in question? And when it comes to teaching, what are you looking to the Bible to teach? Science? Technology? Or the person of God, his relationship to man, and the life that he has chosen/ordained for his people?

Reproof and correction. About science? About history and timelines if past events? Or about living life as one regenerated to be the active image-bearer of God?

Instruction in righteousness. Not in understanding about precisely how the cosmos, the earth, and man came into being. As little information as there is on the subject, it is as if God simply said "I did it. Now let's move on.)

But when someone tries to assert inerrancy, they are almost always starting with a specific interpretation of a specific passage. They are not talking about the Bible in general. They are talking about their interpretation. They might deny that. But since it is almost always attached to an interpretation that is declared to simply be "the word of God," the whole discussion becomes a ruse. It is an alternative way to turn an interpretation into the "pure word of God."

The Bible clearly says a lot. But the things it is clear on do not need an inerrancy clause to be true. Inerrancy clauses are part of the arguments by people who need to find the remains of a wooden ship high in the mountains of what is now the vicinity of the borders of Turkey, Iraq, and Armenia. If those remote sightings that no one seems to be able to get close to turn out to be illusions, then where is their faith?

If it turns out that the earth was created millions of years ago (by God) and a form of intelligent design through directed evolution turns out to be the way so much of the life on earth came to be, what will happen to the faith of those who are clinging to a literal, six-day creation? What if Adam and Eve are stand-ins for something long before, like a general rebellion among many humans, some of whom recognized their error and some who did not? What if the two trees are symbolic of the directives God put before mankind at that earlier time? What if the fall as we know it was not part of a time long after the fall of Lucifer, but was part of that rebellion? Is the simplistic description of a civilization that came to be, then was destroyed (by flood or other calamity) with only a paltry few surviving, importantly described in accurate detail, or in metaphorical language? If we are meant to have a knowledge that can be argued in the manner of a scientific inquiry, we are missing too many details. The only stories of what happened before that calamity were either what Noah and the few with him could keep up with, or what God distilled into the short telling. In any case, over a thousand years, plus the account of the creation and fall are only 6 chapters in Genesis (assuming the literal 6-day creation). Not much detail on which to hang too many hats. And virtually no details if the longer creation timeline is ultimately true.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Aron,

Within the context of this thread, and of the Bible, I think that there is a definite place for logic and reasoning. And there is a place where it fails. There is he place where scripture itself calls to "come reason." And there are the places where there is great mystery that is left as such.

And even where Paul says that there are things hidden in ages past that are now made known, even that was not everything. It was something specific. Lee liked to make each of those things into grand metanarratives. But, for example, the rather grand statement in Colossians 1:27 "the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" is not as revelatory as some might think. First, is the last part referring to the riches or the mystery? (I'm sure that someone who knows Greek well might be able to tell.) But is the statement that follows really about the full mystery of God, or about the entirety of his riches? Probably not. And it is encapsulated in something that has a "known" factor, but is still not fully known or understood. "Christ in you" is something that is at one level simple, yet at another is not so simple.

Certainly there is a place for logic, for rational thought. I am nothing if not a rational person. But at the same time I realize the limits of my rationality today, much more than 20 years ago, and I am less impressed with people who are so satisfied with their "revelation", however they present it, that they brook no questioning or conversation. And Lee certainly falls in that camp.

We need look no farther than today's newspapers, with wars either raging or simmering in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Israel/Palestine, Ukraine, and Missouri (?!?), with a large subset of our population either incarcerated or mentally incapacitated, and with millionaire movie stars committing suicide, to know that there are limits on our rationality. Under the veneer of our logic are animal instincts, not always properly tamed. We though Lee had somehow gone beyond all that and was "transformed", now our own logic was limited to "Brother Lee is always right"; but hard experience should have taught him some bounds, and it certainly schooled the rest of us.

"Christ is you" is a mystery which I suspect (barring some phenomenal breakthrough, which I always hold out 'irrational' hope for) that I will spend the rest of my life working on. He said, "It is finished", and it is, but my journey continues nevertheless. That includes my full faculties of rationality, but today I know that it goes deeper. It always goes deeper.

Originally Posted by OBW

We sometimes refer to it as complete, yet at others as incomplete, as if we have let him into the foyer and he will slowly move into the rest of the house over the remainder of our lifetime. And in this life, it is a hope. And while hope is not necessarily irrational or incomplete, it is not the same as certainty and complete knowledge. Oh, we are certain — or as certain as a fallen human can be. Yet we have an expectation that we do not understand. All we have is the present, and some notion of what is to come.

But enough on this.

I think we are saying the same thing. My only difference is in the "enough on this" part. There is never enough on this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

I think we are saying the same thing. My only difference is in the "enough on this" part. There is never enough on this.

That's too true. There is never enough because we never really get it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

That's too true. There is never enough because we never really get it.

If the apostle wrote, "We see darkly", how much more we all!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

If the apostle wrote, "We see darkly", how much more we all!

That we see darkly is why those like Lee, and Nee, can build something like the local church movement.

Cuz they acted like they didn't see darkly, but crystal clearly.

But it's our fault. We're the ones that bought into that they didn't see as darkly as all the rest of us. They tricked us with the Bible ... using it to sound like their speaking was from the very words of God.

Looking back it now appears to me that is was a sleight-of-mind-now-you-see-it-now-you-don't kind of trick.

It's a tried and true method of attracting a following. And has been used down thru the ages. That, speaking the Bible is God's present and new speaking on the earth. Hey, it sounds good. It's the Bible, the very Word of God.

But the disappointment, for me, was as great as, well, >The Great Disappoint<.

[zeek]

I have rarely seen explanations for how the Bible is inerrant. It is usually simply asserted that such is the case and that such assertion must be accepted on faith. II Timothy 3:16 is cited to support the proposition, but again no explanation is provided for how it works. Witness lee did attempt an explanation on the basis of the principle of incarnation by which I understood that God was somehow incarnating himself in the Biblical writers. He may have admitted that this might be a temporary or conditional phenomenon of the Spirit in some cases. I can't recall at what conference or training he taught this. I don't remember what texts he used to support his claim, but, it might well have been Galatians 2:20 with the inference that Christ is incarnating in Paul. Apologies in advance to everyone on all sides of the issue if my memory is mistaken.

[OBW]

As has been stated by some recently, there are things that we can use our good minds to deduce. But there are parts that we can only accept by faith. And other parts that we cannot even understand and can only accept that what it actually means is really the truth.

The main thing about a book like the Bible (ignoring the part about it being written by the actual God of the universe) is that it is true to those of us who believe. We believe in God because we believe in God. This almost sounds postmodern because it is only true for those who believe that it is true. By that, I mean that it is accepted as true and is given place to guide us in the ways that we believe are true because we believe.

I am not saying that it is not true to those who don't believe. But if they don't believe, in this life, they don't believe. When (as we understand and believe) each of our lives ends (with or without the end of times) they will discover that what we have said was true was actually true.

If you try to use inerrancy on an unbeliever, it is pointless. They don't believe any of it, so making a claim about how accurate it really is seems kind of stupid. With the exception of some of the most liberal of Christians, if you use the inerrancy argument on another believer, what does it mean? We all believe. And we believe the Bible. So what is the point?

The point is to lay claim to a particular interpretation of a particular passage as meaning a specific thing as opposed to another specific thing that some other people think it means. So it is not really about the accuracy of the Bible, but the accuracy of our interpretation. And that claim is made out to be part of the Bible through your claim of inerrancy.

And this results in the classic error of begging the question. The issue at hand is the interpretation of the Bible. One side claims that their interpretation is simply the Bible while the other is not. They are forcing their interpretation — not by working through the words, history, hermeneutics, etc., but by declaring that it is simply so. (Sounds a lot like Nee and Lee.)

Inerrancy is a ruse to win an argument without making an argument. Just state that your position is God-ordained and walk away.

In short, no matter how we want to understand the accuracy, inerrancy, etc., of the Bible, the only really important part is faith in Christ and obedience to his words. That might seem to insist on knowing what is really right. But it seems that the parts that are really important don't need that kind of rubbish to prop it up. And the parts that people think do need it still don't because we have faith, not scientific proof.

[OBW]

And in the mean time, we don't all agree on everything and we live by the faith we have.

I recently said that we should let the theologians do the bickering over the minors of the faith. We should be one with all our brothers and sisters in Christ. Not saying we all have to agree on style of meeting/worship, or on those minors. But we should major on the majors when it comes to how we treat our fellow believer. Just as we should then treat the unbeliever (our neighbor) the very same way.

Among the believers we should have the attitude that belief is the key. The forms and traditions are not.

If we lift hands and shout, or sing Kyrie
Sing hymns of praise or quietly pray
May your kingdom come, your will be done
Here

Add to that if we meet in a home, or a rented school cafeteria. If we sit in pews and listen to organ/choir-led music, or a praise band. If we are somewhat free in form, or follow a scripted liturgy. If we pass around little crackers and plastic cups, or file to the front to take a wafer and dip it in juice or have a preacher/priest put it on your tongue.

All of this fits within the Bible. I absolutely believe the Bible. It just doesn't have the answer to everything. Except that it provides a more reliable view of Jesus than me and my private prayers could ever do.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Inerrancy is a ruse to win an argument without making an argument. Just state that your position is God-ordained and walk away.

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.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

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.

Well if we're gonna talk inerrancy of the Bible, we have to use the Bible to prove it. Right? Or our answers will be extra-Biblical.

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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well if we're gonna talk inerrancy of the Bible, we have to use the Bible to prove it. Right?

Not really. We have to figure out how whatever the Bible says is historically, scientifically, socially, philosophically, etc., true in every way. Might be able to get the philosophical and social parts to at least be true in a broad sense, but not everyone will agree. Whatever it says about science was never intended as an accurate, detailed explanation of something scientific, but was instead spoken within the knowledge (or lack thereof) of the people to whom it was written. At some level, even some of the history is probably compressed.

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).