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.
My point was the answer the OP. Your point seems to be something else.
I don't believe so. The question of whether the (present) Bible is the 'Word of God' applies if we are asking what we consider to be the word of God (inerrant) and the word of man (perhaps not so inerrant). Whippersnapper OP
"That it is the word of God?
That it is inerrant?
That it is true?"
If it shown to be errant, do we say that
The Word of God can be errant
The Bible is not the Word of God
or that some is the Word of God and some isn't?
You mentioned a letter of Paul in relation to the Bible itself stating that it is the Word of God so I raised the question of errancy is respect of Paul. I'd say I was smack on the money in respect of the OP.
The modern Bible, used by Christians world-wide, contains the NT.
Jimmie, the idea isn't that hard to grasp. Modern Christians claim that the Bible (Old and New Testament) is confirmed as true by quotes in the Bible.
But, as shown by other posters in this thread, the quotes used don't refer to the Whole Bible. It refers to, primarily, just the Old Testament. It doesn't refer to the modern Bible, which came later.
It probably does say so, but does not matter one iota to me if it doesn't. Why would it need to? If there IS a God, and I do know there is, why should any reader of Bible need the book to say that it is, what it is? God, being the Holy Spirit does silently communicate with the readers when He chooses to do so, or not. Therefore, readers should be able to have the confidence that what they are reading is indeed reality--without being told--by bible, or any other human.
The kingdom of God is inside us, not in a church, temple, book, etc. etc.
If you start from the Timothy statement (which most fundamentalists do) and understand (as has been pointed out several times by several different posters) that "all scripture" refers to the earlier jewish writings, but more specifically the LXX (Septuagint), then at that point (Timothy) would have been talking about a very specific collection of writings - and even then, the LXX was evident in several revisions. This is the "scripture" that the majority of 1st century jews would have been using to consider as "inspired of God". Now - this is not the same thing as saying it's "inerrant", because "inspired" has the connotation of "God-breathed". Only by extraplotating further theological beliefs can one arrive at "inerrant" to replace the words "inspired". Humans were given life (according to some beliefs) by having Yahweh breathe the breath of life into them. He did not "inerrantize" them. The Timothy passage is open to interpretation. Only when you start thinking that God possessed the writers and put actual words in their mouth and mind, moving their hand and pen - do you reach "inerrancy". That's a very limited view of "inspiration". Many things inspire me, but do not control me or tell what to write.
Now, the 1st century christians were using the Greek Septuagint as their
"inspired" scripture - not the Hebrew Tanakh. The Septuagint contains different books, sections, versions of works from what later became the canonical Tanakh - and it's even produced different canons within Christianity.
Paul's writings were later brought under the mantle of authoritative writings, but this took some time, and not everyone believed Paul to be an authority. The history of which books gained authority, later gained "inspirational" status is a complicated one.
If you want to get technical - the OP wanted to know where in the Bible it claims that the Bible itself is inerrant. Well - nowhere. As several people have pointed out - the Biblical collection was not even complete by the time of Timothy (if that's the text being used to misinterpret "inspired"), let alone in a stable form to be able to call anything canonical.
Besides all that - it's a simple procedure to read any Biblical book and discover for yourself that it's far from inerrant, and a very human work. Inspired? Possibly. Inerrant? Not possible, unless you willfully ignore all evidence to the contrary.
IF--bible claims to be the inerrant word of God, it is claiming that the ORIGINAL writings are, and only them! Ahem...that blows a lot of comments by probably many, right outta da water.
Interpretations sure do have mistakes, the KJV.....a place in it says "resist not evil!"
Spare me, of course, with my God-given, Common sense I know that I am supposed to "resist evil" and I do, always have and always will, even with a shotgun if need ever be.
Therefore, and if this one was ever written in Aramaic, I KNOW it's a misinterpretation. Aramaic is VERY easily misread since a word can have four, very different meanings changed by only a dot above one letter or something, for example.
"RESENT not evil" is most likely what that passage in KJV really said, in the original.
IF--bible claims to be the inerrant word of God, it is claiming that the ORIGINAL writings are, and only them! Ahem...that blows a lot of comments by probably many, right outta da water.
Interpretations sure do have mistakes, the KJV.....a place in it says "resist not evil!"
Spare me, of course, with my God-given, Common sense I know that I am supposed to "resist evil" and I do, always have and always will, even with a shotgun if need ever be.
Therefore, and if this one was ever written in Aramaic, I KNOW it's a misinterpretation. Aramaic is VERY easily misread since a word can have four, very different meanings changed by only a dot above one letter or something, for example.
"RESENT not evil" is most likely what that passage in KJV really said, in the original.
Unforunately for us - many people claim that the KJV was ALSO inspired!
To be fair to Aramaic - the same could be said of Hebrew. Without vowel markings, it can be a fairly easy enterprise to confuse various words with others - especially when the matres lectionis came along! Consonant or vowel....consonant or vowel....
I don't believe so. The question of whether the (present) Bible is the 'Word of God' applies if we are asking what we consider to be the word of God (inerrant) and the word of man (perhaps not so inerrant). Whippersnapper OP
"That it is the word of God?
That it is inerrant?
That it is true?"
If it shown to be errant, do we say that
The Word of God can be errant
The Bible is not the Word of God
or that some is the Word of God and some isn't?
You mentioned a letter of Paul in relation to the Bible itself stating that it is the Word of God so I raised the question of errancy is respect of Paul. I'd say I was smack on the money in respect of the OP.
The OP asked where in the Bible could such Scripture be found. Two passages were given. You now want to debate the validity of Scripture.
Please refer back to the thread title. The fact that there was no Bible at the time is totally relevant to it.
At what time?
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.
