Scripture/The Bible is God's Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible Word of Truth. (gnostic, beliefs)
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.
It is NOT your inerrancy. If you believe it like Dr. Wallace plainly state what he does--
The last verses of Mark are not a part of the Bible.
The woman caught in adultery is not a part of the Bible.
The Johnine Comma is translated improperly in our earliest English Bibles.
Then go sell it at your church.
You won't admit to these because then your whole foundation of scripture collapses. Your idol is your bible. IT is your savior. Jesus just happens to be mentioned in that idol.
Dr. Metzger, who was not an inerrantist and whom you tried once again to MISLEAD people into thinking he was, said very plainly he would not claim for the Bible what it doesn't claim for itself.
But you have the affrontery to do so.
Biblical passages are not understood in isolation.
Meaning flows from the larger unit to the smaller unit. The sentence helps us understand the meaning of an individual word in the sentence. The paragraph helps us understand what the sentence means. The chapter helps us understand the paragraph’s role in the larger STORY. And the genre and historical context help us understand the book.
Proper understanding of the whole is key to understanding the meaning of—and the proper application of—the parts. We can't simply isolate a sentence or two and ask, “How can I stick this line into my life?” Instead, we have to follow the flow of thought to know how the broader passage speaks to the particulars of our individual experience.
But you consistently pick a part of the Bible out of context from the rest, out of context from the culture in which it was written, and then try to "explain" it to us. If your god wrote it the way you claim he did, what a mixed up god he is!!! 30,000 denominations of christians all holding different sway of the same book, BUT YOUR EXPLANATION is always right!
P.S. And I said you don't have a single original autograph--not one. You don't even have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of the first copy. It's a plain stupid argument to say the original autograph is sacrosanct. Now you may wish to BELIEVE that, but that's not what you are stating as fact.
Inerrancy is inerrancy is inerrancy. The means of arriving at the conclusion of the Bible's inerrancy may vary, (inductively or deductively) but the Bible is either inerrant or it isn't. And the Bible is inerrant.
You keep demonstrating a profound lack of comprehension skills. Again, inerrancy refers to the original autographs and therefore the variations in the manuscript copies have no bearing on the inerrancy of the original autographs.
And again you fall back on making a false charge that I attempted to mislead people concerning Dr. Metzger with regard to inerrancy when the quote I posted of Dr. Metzger concerned the textual reliability of our copies which has nothing to do with the issue of inerrancy of the original autographs.
Also again, the textual critics I quoted say that our copies are very faithful to the originals.
Since you continue to demonstrate a profound lack of comprehension ability, and a lack of integrity with your continuing false accusations against me, it is pointless to give you any further attention. I do have better things to do.
Readers can refer to my prior posts, #5, 45, 51, 54, 77, 81, 84, 112, 117, 120, 126, 129, many of which concern what I have said to you.
Inerrancy is inerrancy is inerrancy. The means of arriving at the conclusion of the Bible's inerrancy may vary, (inductively or deductively) but the Bible is either inerrant or it isn't. And the Bible is inerrant.
You keep demonstrating a profound lack of comprehension skills. Again, inerrancy refers to the original autographs and therefore the variations in the manuscript copies have no bearing on the inerrancy of the original autographs.
And again you fall back on making a false charge that I attempted to mislead people concerning Dr. Metzger with regard to inerrancy when the quote I posted of Dr. Metzger concerned the textual reliability of our copies which has nothing to do with the issue of inerrancy of the original autographs.
Also again, the textual critics I quoted say that our copies are very faithful to the originals.
Since you continue to demonstrate a profound lack of comprehension ability, and a lack of integrity with your continuing false accusations against me, it is pointless to give you any further attention. I do have better things to do.
Readers can refer to my prior posts, #5, 45, 51, 54, 77, 81, 84, 112, 117, 120, 126, 129, many of which concern what I have said to you.
And as I have repeatedly pointed out and will continue to point out--not all inerrancy is inerrancy!!!!
YOUR inerrancy is of words. MY inerrancy and I think of Dr. Wallace as well, is of WITNESS. Two tremendously different things. The fact that you don't get it, speaks volumes toward the fact that you have no critical understanding what scholars are saying.
And once again you are DODGING the question.
Do you agree with Wallace that the ending to Mark found in early English Bibles is an addition?
Do you agree with Wallace that the story of the woman caught in adultery in the gospel of John is and addition?
Which book of Jeremiah was the God breathed book? The one in our Bibles or the one written hundreds of years earlier?
Can you answer any of these? I will repeat the questions over and over--which corner are you going to paint yourself into? Because IF you answer you will prove your own statement of inerrancy is inerrancy is inerrancy as ill founded.
Readers are welcome to read my posts concerning what I have said to you! Posts 71, 73, 75, 82, 101, 116, 118, 128, and 130
And good luck on coming up with a straight answer to those questions.
And as I have repeatedly pointed out and will continue to point out--not all inerrancy is inerrancy!!!!
YOUR inerrancy is of words. MY inerrancy and I think of Dr. Wallace as well, is of WITNESS. Two tremendously different things. The fact that you don't get it, speaks volumes toward the fact that you have no critical understanding what scholars are saying.
And once again you are DODGING the question.
Do you agree with Wallace that the ending to Mark found in early English Bibles is an addition?
Do you agree with Wallace that the story of the woman caught in adultery in the gospel of John is and addition?
Which book of Jeremiah was the God breathed book? The one in our Bibles or the one written hundreds of years earlier?
Can you answer any of these? I will repeat the questions over and over--which corner are you going to paint yourself into? Because IF you answer you will prove your own statement of inerrancy is inerrancy is inerrancy as ill founded.
Readers are welcome to read my posts concerning what I have said to you! Posts 71, 73, 75, 82, 101, 116, 118, 128, and 130
And good luck on coming up with a straight answer to those questions.
Dear Warden, i know we might not agree on many things, but i still have the utmost respect for you. Your posts are like the stones in David's sling. I know you are aiming at a far greater stronghold than Goliath, but believe me there's not a shot you are taking that is not a direct hit.
How fundamentalists misunderstand the "Word" of God
From Dennis Bratcher, retired professor of Old Testament:
Quote:
Several years ago I was driving very late at night and needed something to keep me awake. I couldn’t find any appealing music on the radio and settled for listening to a rebroadcast of Jerry Falwell’s sermon that Sunday. He was preaching from John 1. It started out fine. He was talking about the Incarnation, and the Son of God, the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us. Good stuff. He continued talking about the Word, and that we as Christians should believe in the word because it was our only hope of salvation. He then said that we should believe every word in the word, because God Himself had spoken the word. It was with God from the beginning, referring to John 1:1. "Huh?" I thought.
He went on. We Christians don’t really read the word anymore, let alone believe it. We’ve got to believe in the inerrant, infallible word of God or we have no way to know God’s will. We have to defend the word against the secular humanists who say it is only a myth. . . . etc.
Well, it took several miles before it finally dawned on me what had just happened. Right in the middle of an otherwise good sermon about Jesus, he had just made a huge jump from talking about Jesus Christ as the incarnate Word of God to talking about the Bible as the written word of God. Everything that John 1 said about Jesus, he took to be saying about the Bible. And apparently he didn’t even realize that he had radically changed topics!
Now, the point here is that Jesus and the Bible are not the same thing. I definitely want to affirm the Bible as the word of God, but it is certainly not the same thing as Jesus himself, although we sometimes elevate the Bible to similar status. God has spoken through His Son, according to Hebrews, and we also believe that He speaks through the Bible. But it is an extremely important point of theology that we do not confuse the two. There is only one Word of God who is the incarnate Son of God. The Bible as the word of God bears witness to that Word. The word bears witness to the Word. I make that distinction by only capitalizing "Word" when it refers to Jesus.
I think in trying to fight a "battle for the Bible," (a battle that really didn’t ever need to be fought except to protect certain ideas people had about it)some have adopted the idea that the Bible itself is somehow absolute Truth. And in so doing, I think we have misunderstood its role, and ended up spending far more time and energy trying to fight that battle than we have in trying to understand Scripture and live by it!
Although the Bible is certainly true and bears faithful witness to the Truth, I don’t think the Bible is absolute Truth, not in the same way that Jesus is the Truth. I don’t think the Bible is the Word of God (note, Word), but I do think it is God’s word that bears witness to the Word. (See Revelation and Inspiration of Scripture).
John’s use of the term logos, or "word," was nothing less than a stroke of genius. I wouldn’t even hesitate to affirm that God may have helped John find a way to express this. Yet, as a Wesleyan who believes that God works through redeemed humanity, I can just as easily affirm that John used the intellect God gave him to find ways to express the truth about Jesus that God had helped him get his mind around.
Dear Warden, i know we might not agree on many things, but i still have the utmost respect for you. Your posts are like the stones in David's sling. I know you are aiming at a far greater stronghold than Goliath, but believe me there's not a shot you are taking that is not a direct hit.
Thank you for the kind comments, pcamps. This debate is not about the fundamentalists who repeatedly start this same battle for the Bible, it is about those who have not reached a decision in their lives. Too many are abandoning evangelical churches because of the hijackings by fundamentalists. They see the mistakes and inconsistencies in scripture and hear fundamentalists saying the only way one can be a christian is to follow our single-minded approach. They don't want to leave their intellect (a gift from God) on the back porch in order to enter a church.
It wasn't that way when I was a youth, but it was beginning. Now my own Southern Baptist denomination has been destroyed by fundamentalists. Instead of preaching Good News, it is busy idolizing the Bible.
Those young people are in need of hearing from some of us who do believe the Scripture is a Witness to Jesus Christ, but that Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and the Bible as the word of God simply points toward something much larger than itself.
Like Abraham who was a liar,
Like Issac who was a cheat,
Like Moses who was a murderer,
Like Sampson who lacked personal discipline,
Like David who was a murderer and adulterer.
All these sinful imperfect men still managed to point to something greater than themselves.
The bible has flaws just like the men it characterizes, but it points to something greater than itself.
Dear Warden, i know we might not agree on many things, but i still have the utmost respect for you. Your posts are like the stones in David's sling. I know you are aiming at a far greater stronghold than Goliath, but believe me there's not a shot you are taking that is not a direct hit.
Amen! Warden would make a fine preacher for any church representing the real Jesus Christ . . . our disagreements notwithstanding.
Inerrancy is inerrancy is inerrancy. The means of arriving at the conclusion of the Bible's inerrancy may vary, (inductively or deductively) but the Bible is either inerrant or it isn't. And the Bible is inerrant.
You keep demonstrating a profound lack of comprehension skills. Again, inerrancy refers to the original autographs and therefore the variations in the manuscript copies have no bearing on the inerrancy of the original autographs.
And again you fall back on making a false charge that I attempted to mislead people concerning Dr. Metzger with regard to inerrancy when the quote I posted of Dr. Metzger concerned the textual reliability of our copies which has nothing to do with the issue of inerrancy of the original autographs.
Also again, the textual critics I quoted say that our copies are very faithful to the originals.
Since you continue to demonstrate a profound lack of comprehension ability, and a lack of integrity with your continuing false accusations against me, it is pointless to give you any further attention. I do have better things to do.
Readers can refer to my prior posts, #5, 45, 51, 54, 77, 81, 84, 112, 117, 120, 126, 129, many of which concern what I have said to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
And as I have repeatedly pointed out and will continue to point out--not all inerrancy is inerrancy!!!!
YOUR inerrancy is of words. MY inerrancy and I think of Dr. Wallace as well, is of WITNESS. Two tremendously different things. The fact that you don't get it, speaks volumes toward the fact that you have no critical understanding what scholars are saying.
And once again you are DODGING the question.
Do you agree with Wallace that the ending to Mark found in early English Bibles is an addition?
Do you agree with Wallace that the story of the woman caught in adultery in the gospel of John is and addition?
Which book of Jeremiah was the God breathed book? The one in our Bibles or the one written hundreds of years earlier?
Can you answer any of these? I will repeat the questions over and over--which corner are you going to paint yourself into? Because IF you answer you will prove your own statement of inerrancy is inerrancy is inerrancy as ill founded.
Readers are welcome to read my posts concerning what I have said to you! Posts 71, 73, 75, 82, 101, 116, 118, 128, and 130
And good luck on coming up with a straight answer to those questions.
Inerrancy simply means that the Bible tells the truth. Having been forced to admit it you are now acknowledging that Dr. Wallace believes in Biblical inerrancy whereas before you claimed that he did not. But you are now trying to distance yourself from your earlier claim with this new claim of yours that there different kinds of inerrancy which you don't even believe in in the first place, and by again trying to make it about me. Either the Bible is inerrant, or it isn't. But it is inerrant and attempting to argue that I have a different view of inerrancy than Wallace or anyone else doesn't change that.
And for the last time, you are attempting to refute the inerrancy of the original autographs by pointing to errors in the copies. Copies come after the original and therefore you cannot point to variants in the copies in an attempt to refute the inerrancy of the original autographs.
Again, and which you simply do not get is that Wallace stated that we have the original text in the copies along with some dross.
'Though textual criticism cannot yet produce certainty about the exact wording of the original, this uncertainty affects only about two percent of the text. And in that two percent support always exists for what the original said--never is one left with mere conjecture. In other words it is not that only 90 percent of the original text exists in the extant Greek manuscripts--rather, 110 percent exists. Textual criticism is not involved in reinventing the original; it is involved in discarding the spurious, in burning the dross to get to the gold.' [The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
Study By: Daniel B. Wallace The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
Dross would include things such as the ending of Mark. But that is an issue concerning the copies. Not the original autographs and has no bearing on the inerrancy of the original autographs.
It not I who misunderstand what the textual critics I have quoted are saying. It is you who have the misunderstanding. And I am not going to play your little game. The Bible is inerrant. All this garbage you have been posting trying to make it about me, and all of your false accusations against me do not change that.
Here once again for anyone on this forum who is interested are the nineteen articles of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. - Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
We're done here. I expect that you will take another pot shot at me. But if so, that is your problem. Not mine.
Inerrancy simply means that the Bible tells the truth. Having been forced to admit it you are now acknowledging that Dr. Wallace believes in Biblical inerrancy whereas before you claimed that he did not. But you are now trying to distance yourself from your earlier claim with this new claim of yours that there different kinds of inerrancy which you don't even believe in in the first place, and by again trying to make it about me. Either the Bible is inerrant, or it isn't. But it is inerrant and attempting to argue that I have a different view of inerrancy than Wallace or anyone else doesn't change that.
And for the last time, you are attempting to refute the inerrancy of the original autographs by pointing to errors in the copies. Copies come after the original and therefore you cannot point to variants in the copies in an attempt to refute the inerrancy of the original autographs.
Again, and which you simply do not get is that Wallace stated that we have the original text in the copies along with some dross.
'Though textual criticism cannot yet produce certainty about the exact wording of the original, this uncertainty affects only about two percent of the text. And in that two percent support always exists for what the original said--never is one left with mere conjecture. In other words it is not that only 90 percent of the original text exists in the extant Greek manuscripts--rather, 110 percent exists. Textual criticism is not involved in reinventing the original; it is involved in discarding the spurious, in burning the dross to get to the gold.' [The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
Study By: Daniel B. Wallace The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
Dross would include things such as the ending of Mark. But that is an issue concerning the copies. Not the original autographs and has no bearing on the inerrancy of the original autographs.
It not I who misunderstand what the textual critics I have quoted are saying. It is you who have the misunderstanding. And I am not going to play your little game. The Bible is inerrant. All this garbage you have been posting trying to make it about me, and all of your false accusations against me do not change that.
Here once again for anyone on this forum who is interested are the nineteen articles of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. - Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
We're done here. I expect that you will take another pot shot at me. But if so, that is your problem. Not mine.
Once again, YOU HAVE NO ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS. Not a single one--of any book in the Bible, but you speak authoritatively as if you do. It's not even good conjecture. Now what ANY christian can agree upon is that WHOEVER wrote those different books WAS trying to pass on some idea about their own faith and how they interpreted events happening around them. But the strict black and white view of fundamentalists is--because the ORIGINAL documents were 100% coming from the lips(?) of God--that means because 90% of the copies agree with one another (except for the 400,000 or so obvious spelling and copyist errors) this must absolutely mean that the copies we have REALLY DO REFLECT what was written in the ORIGINALS. But since there are no originals, there is no way to know if the copies we have are 90% compliant with the originals. But we do KNOW there are some significant additions AND deletions (Jeremiah) between the copies.
If God could whisper into the ears of His blessed followers about the exact words to put in the originals, why wasn't He able to preserve the originals. Instead He decided to play a joke on His children and let thousands of alternative texts exist in order to leave us guessing? Is that YOUR god? It must be because that is the result.
On the other hand, the voice of reason and intellect says that the Bible was a WITNESS about God from people who believed in Him. Nothing more, nothing less. That doesn't cheapen the Bible, but glorifying the Bible above the One to Whom it points cheapens grace, makes it no more than a story in a book. Believe the book and you get your ticket punched to heaven. Quite simple in your view.
Being born again, however, is quite complicated. And the experience overrides every idol including the Bible that men put before Him.
Quote:
----we bring our own culture, language, knowledge (or lack of it), historical experience, personality, ethos, etc., to the biblical text when we read it. And we grapple with its implications in living out being the people of God. If we are going to take this dual nature of Scripture seriously, we need ways of understanding Scripture and theories of inspiration of Scripture that will likewise take these two aspects seriously.
This still allows Scripture to be revelatory to us today, but in a slightly different dimension than the absolute categories often associated with this idea. It is not that the revelation of God in Scripture is absolute and final, and therefore truth about everything. That is the position of fundamentalism, literalism, and inerrancy, positions which are not part of historic Christianity nor the belief of most modern churches (see "Faith Statements Before and Beyond Inerrancy" in The Modern Inerrancy Debate). And it is not just that the revelation of God was only "back then," and so we can have no direct experience of God now. That is the classical position of deism. But Scripture is revelatory in the precise sense that God reveals himself in history in the dynamic of the community as they bear witness to "what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20). Scripture is living and active, as God continues to confront people with himself in their own history in the witness of the community of Faith to him from their history.
---------------
However, a dynamic model that sees inspiration of Scripture as a process operating within the community of faith rather than a one time revelation of absolute truth also allows us to examine all the evidence within Scripture honestly without need for apology or rationalization. So, I can conclude based on that evidence that Moses did not write the Pentateuch as we now have it (JEDP: Sources in the Pentateuch), or that Ezekiel was dead wrong in his prediction about the destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel and the Oracles against Tyre), or that Isaiah did not have Jesus in mind in Isaiah 7 or 9 (Immanuel in Isaiah and Matthew), without in any way taking anything away from the message of Scripture, from its witness to God’s revelation of Himself, and the resulting call for us to respond to that revelation.
A dynamic view of inspiration is also very close to the Wesleyan perspective of the balance between God’s grace and human freedom. Contrary to some other traditions in the Christian faith, Wesleyans affirm that God’s grace actually transforms people, and makes them capable of freely responding to Him. Wesleyans simply do not accept the idea that human beings are so perverted and corrupted by sin that they can never be righteous or understand the things of God. We really do believe that God can work with people, and even can, by the power of His grace, enable them to be righteous rather than simply being counted as being righteous.
So instead of being Good News for all, fundamentalists and inerrancy have turned the Bible into an impediment to many. That's why you must resort to constant rationalization to support unrealistic and unsupportable inerrancy arguments.
And you STILL have not answered the questions
Does Wallace believe the ending of Mark is a scribal addition?
Does Wallace believe the woman caught in adultery is a scribal addition?
Do you?
And if you accept that there were one or two additions, then who is to say that we simply haven't discovered the texts yet that will show further additions. After all, the last most important findings weren't until half a century ago.
And lastly for all who are reading. Fundamentalists came up with the "original autographs" theory after they began discovering the myriad holes in a book they claim God dictated.
Quote:
If there is a factual error in the original (say Jesus’ mother’s name is Lisa in the real world rather than Mary), then the subsequent copies even though being copied with 100 percent accuracy (copying ‘Mary’ from the original) will still bear that factual error. Hence arguing from perfect transmission of the scripture is not relevant to the issue on autographs’ inerrancy. It has no case to make on whether the Bible is inerrant or not.
Once again, YOU HAVE NO ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS. Not a single one--of any book in the Bible, but you speak authoritatively as if you do. It's not even good conjecture. Now what ANY christian can agree upon is that WHOEVER wrote those different books WAS trying to pass on some idea about their own faith and how they interpreted events happening around them. But the strict black and white view of fundamentalists is--because the ORIGINAL documents were 100% coming from the lips(?) of God--that means because 90% of the copies agree with one another (except for the 400,000 or so obvious spelling and copyist errors) this must absolutely mean that the copies we have REALLY DO REFLECT what was written in the ORIGINALS. But since there are no originals, there is no way to know if the copies we have are 90% compliant with the originals. But we do KNOW there are some significant additions AND deletions (Jeremiah) between the copies.
If God could whisper into the ears of His blessed followers about the exact words to put in the originals, why wasn't He able to preserve the originals. Instead He decided to play a joke on His children and let thousands of alternative texts exist in order to leave us guessing? Is that YOUR god? It must be because that is the result.
On the other hand, the voice of reason and intellect says that the Bible was a WITNESS about God from people who believed in Him. Nothing more, nothing less. That doesn't cheapen the Bible, but glorifying the Bible above the One to Whom it points cheapens grace, makes it no more than a story in a book. Believe the book and you get your ticket punched to heaven. Quite simple in your view.
Being born again, however, is quite complicated. And the experience overrides every idol including the Bible that men put before Him.
So instead of being Good News for all, fundamentalists and inerrancy have turned the Bible into an impediment to many. That's why you must resort to constant rationalization to support unrealistic and unsupportable inerrancy arguments.
And you STILL have not answered the questions
Does Wallace believe the ending of Mark is a scribal addition?
Does Wallace believe the woman caught in adultery is a scribal addition?
Do you?
And if you accept that there were one or two additions, then who is to say that we simply haven't discovered the texts yet that will show further additions. After all, the last most important findings weren't until half a century ago.
And lastly for all who are reading. Fundamentalists came up with the "original autographs" theory after they began discovering the myriad holes in a book they claim God dictated.
No, actually it's not inerrant and infallible. That's not even a view that was held by the Church fathers. And it depends on which Bible you're talking about since different versions say different things. Not to mention people who have a different interpretation or find any excuse to dismiss errors.
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.
Posts 71, 73, 75, 82, 101, 116, 118, 128, and 130
How fundamentalists misunderstand the "Word" of God
