Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, the liberal scholars DO have evidence to support their viewpoint. You haven't posted anything that conservative scholars say--I have--the battle has been lost by conservatives according to Dan Wallace, Professor of OT at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is quick to engage liberals when he has evidence. He doesn't, so he won't.
If you think it is all God-breathed then you must have some wonderment that in Jeremiah, the first scroll he wrote was burned up by a wicked king. God then told Daniel to write a second scroll and ADD words to the first, which He supposedly left out. When Jeremiah was done, God told him to throw it in the sea.
Obviously we have a THIRD Jeremiah scroll which is what you have in the English translations we have. Except, wait!! We have a FOURTH scroll that was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls that is an abbreviated version of the one in our Bibles. And the one in our Bibles appears to have both edited out what was written in the fourth scroll (which is older) and added significant material. All taking place long after the fourth was written and presumably dating closer to scrolls one and two.
Scholars have concluded that the version in our English Bibles is from a later, edited version of Jeremiah. God wouldn't need to edit His version, and according to your understanding of Him, He wouldn't be changing His mind so frequently.
You've got an incorrect picture of how God uses writings to inspire the community of faith. And the picture you have leads you to many errors about both sin and godliness.
THE JEREMIAH DILEMMA
Work on getting some scholastic knowledge instead of relying on Sunday School teachers. It will give you a new light on scripture. And either you will have the faith to digest it, or discover that you never had any faith to begin with.
Typical liberalism. If you believe scripture, someone brainwashed you.
Typical liberalism. If you believe scripture, someone brainwashed you.
Has the Holy Spirit confirmed all this to you?
You betcha it has. And in ways you wouldn't even begin to understand. Your fundamentalism is a modernistic movement, see post #34 below. Seeing inspiration as God speaking to the community of faith through the weakness of men is both biblical and historical.
You are brainwashed by Sunday School teachers who haven't the slightest clue about biblical scholarship. Worse, when confronted with facts, you don't study the scripture, you just hang on to dogma. Typical inerrantist.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 11-27-2014 at 01:15 PM..
Read the entire content of the article that Dr. Wallace wrote and do not take a quote out of its context. To do so is dishonest and misleading.
I pointed out that Wallace believes it, but he also admits the battle is lost because the vast majority of scholars have the debate settled in their minds.
Nice of you to point out what YOU are always doing with quotations of scholars.
The amount of harm that has been caused by the modernistic inerrantist movement is beyond description. The results are droves of people leaving evangelistic churches today.
It is important to note that inerrancy and literalism are not the same thing.
But by and large evangelistic churches have marginalized themselves.
Quote:
In the larger social and cultural scene, the whole concept of the inerrancy of Scripture may actually be having the opposite effect than many intend. It is intended to affirm the authority and value of Scripture as the sole guide to the Christian Faith, as the source of inspired instruction for meeting the spiritual and ethical challenges of a modern world. Yet the direction in which the concept has evolved and the manner in which it is being presented today both tend toward an "all or nothing" or an "either/or" acceptance of a whole range of ideological and theological ideas linked to the concept, with a corresponding militant attitude toward those who do not accept it in toto. The result has been that in many cases beyond the narrow circles of those who promote the concept, it has weakened the credibility of Scripture and created tremendous controversy, friction, and pain within the Christian community.
I think we would be able to move further toward maintaining the credibility of the Bible to skeptics of our day, as well as providing a more positive witness to the transforming grace of God revealed in Christ, if we discard the whole concept of inerrancy, at least in the way it is advocated by many today. I think it simply creates more problems in our communication of the Gospel message than it solves. Wesleyans can affirm and defend the truth, authority, and reliability of Scripture far better on other grounds, and even other theological camps have better ways to affirm the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture.
Back in 1990, theologian J. I. Packer recounted what he called a “Thirty Years’ War” over the inerrancy of the Bible. He traced his involvement in this war in its American context back to a conference held in Wenham, Massachusetts in 1966, when he confronted some professors from evangelical institutions who “now declined to affirm the full truth of Scripture.” That was nearly fifty years ago, and the war over the truthfulness of the Bible is still not over — not by a long shot.
From time to time, the dust has settled in one arena, only for the battle to erupt in another. In the 1970s, the most visible battles were fought over Fuller Theological Seminary and within the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. By the 1980s, the most heated controversies centered in the Southern Baptist Convention and its seminaries. Throughout this period, the evangelical movement sought to
regain its footing on the doctrine. In 1978, a large number of leading evangelicals met and adopted a definitive statement that became known as “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”
Many thought the battles were over, or at least subsiding. Sadly, the debate over the inerrancy of the Bible continues. As a matter of fact, there seems to be a renewed effort to forge an evangelical identity apart from the claim that the Bible is totally truthful and without error.
-------
---Kenton L. Sparks in his 2008 book, God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship. Sparks, who teaches at Eastern University, argues that it is nothing less than intellectually disastrous for evangelicals to claim that the Bible is without error.
His arguments, also serialized and summarized in a series of articles, are amazingly candid. He asserts that Evangelicalism has “painted itself into an intellectual corner” by claiming the inerrancy of Scripture. The movement is now in an “intellectual cul-de-sac,” he laments, because we have “crossed an evidential threshold that makes it intellectually unsuitable to defend some of the standard dogmas of the conservative evangelical tradition.” And, make no mistake, inerrancy is the central dogma he would have us let go.
Holding to inerrancy is intellectually dishonest and makes anything and everything claimed by the inerrantist to be suspect. If you are an inerrantist you are LOSING THE WORLD for Christ as opposed to winning it.
But inerrantists want to win. That is their downfall. Winning always creates another battle, another war and more casualties, particularly among those who are not part of the community of faith. Everyone else in the Christian community is seeking reconciliation which brings unity.
Is the Bible inspired? Yes. Is it inerrant? A resounding NO. And every time someone points out the fallible points of the scripture, there is an inerrantist creating an explanation which then becomes the "new" bible which they believe.
The inerrancy doctrine (not literalism) is resulting in tragic and unintended consequences. Those without formal education in the Bible who hold to it are doing harm to both themselves and the witness of the Christian community.
The amount of harm that has been caused by the modernistic inerrantist movement is beyond description. The results are droves of people leaving evangelistic churches today.
It is important to note that inerrancy and literalism are not the same thing.
Holding to inerrancy is intellectually dishonest and makes anything and everything claimed by the inerrantist to be suspect. If you are an inerrantist you are LOSING THE WORLD for Christ as opposed to winning it.
But inerrantists want to win. That is their downfall. Winning always creates another battle, another war and more casualties, particularly among those who are not part of the community of faith. Everyone else in the Christian community is seeking reconciliation which brings unity.
Is the Bible inspired? Yes. Is it inerrant? A resounding NO. And every time someone points out the fallible points of the scripture, there is an inerrantist creating an explanation which then becomes the "new" bible which they believe.
The inerrancy doctrine (not literalism) is resulting in tragic and unintended consequences. Those without formal education in the Bible who hold to it are doing harm to both themselves and the witness of the Christian community.
What parts of the Bible are fallible, and how is that determined?
Let's see if what Dresden claims is true. Here is what Dan Wallace states in his introduction to Second Peter in which he objectively gives both sides of the argument concerning the authorship and authenticity of Second Peter.
Dr. Wallace cites the case against authenticity and then cites the case for authenticity. He then evaluates the objections to authenticity.
Excerpt:
There are a number of considerations which suggest that Peter did, indeed, write this book. Our discussion will begin with the external evidence, then move to a consideration of the internal.
Dr. Michael Sheiser also leans towards the Petrine authorship of Second Peter.
Excerpt:
The result of this survey of various theories leaves us in no doubt that the traditional view which accepts the claim to the epistle to be apostolic is more reasonable than any alternative hypothesis.
Read the entire content of the article that Dr. Wallace wrote and do not take a quote out of its context. To do so is dishonest and misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
I pointed out that Wallace believes it, but he also admits the battle is lost because the vast majority of scholars have the debate settled in their minds.
Nice of you to point out what YOU are always doing with quotations of scholars.
No, he does not say 'the battle is lost.' He merely points out that most scholars don't believe that Peter wrote 2 Peter. That in no way implies that they are correct.
As for you, your extreme bias renders you unable to be objective and therefore it is pointless even to bother with you.
I have posted three articles on the subject for anyone who cares enough to hear both sides of the argument. That is all.
Last edited by Michael Way; 11-27-2014 at 03:44 PM..
"Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century.
"The principal reasons for this view are the following. The author refers to the apostles and "our ancestors" as belonging to a previous generation, now dead (2 Peter 3:2-4). A collection of Paul's letters exists and appears to be well known, but disputes have arisen about the interpretation of them (2 Peter 3:14-16). The passage about false teachers (2 Peter 2:1-18) contains a number of literary contacts with Jude 1:4-16, and it is generally agreed that 2 Peter depends upon Jude, not vice versa. Finally, the principal problem exercising the author is the false teaching of "scoffers" who have concluded from the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could scarcely have been an issue during the lifetime of Simon Peter."
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 11-27-2014 at 03:53 PM..
Reason: typo
Do we get to decide which parts of scripture are inspired?
Even the slightest compromise is a slippery slope. Emancipation from the smallest portion of scripture, frees one to more readily discount any other part that one does not understand or agree with. Soon, the entire Bible becomes a lie, and personal preference becomes one's 'god.'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
