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.
In other words, you believed in the inspiration of the Bible because you believed an extra-biblical tradition. As I noted earlier, most Christians in the world have no problem with that idea -- but most Protestants certainly do. The question then becomes either a) how does a Protestant solve this problem?, or b) why insist on having this problem by insisting on being a Protestant?
In other words, sounds as if you are saying that Protestants don't believe the words of 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 ?
That ALL Scripture is inspired by God................
In other words, sounds as if you are saying that Protestants don't believe the words of 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 ?
That ALL Scripture is inspired by God................
When 2 Timothy was written, the only thing that could possibly have been considered "Scripture" were the Jewish holy writings. The gospels and letters of the New Testament hadn't even been written yet.
That you can try to figure out what "inspired" means, but I'm certain that you won't get any consensus among the regulars here.
When 2 Timothy was written, the only thing that could possibly have been considered "Scripture" were the Jewish holy writings. The gospels and letters of the New Testament hadn't even been written yet...................
Yes, the Bible was Not completed until the very end of the 1st century.
Peter believed that men (Bible writers) spoke from God........ So, to me that includes ALL Scripture both past and present.
Seems to me Paul makes the connection of 2 Tim. 3 16-17 with 1st Corinthians 10:11,6 because he makes reference that the OT examples were written as a warning example for us today.
The problem with this sweeping claim is that the Bible itself never says that, nor does it tell you how to believe which books belong in the Bible, and which don't. If the Bible is God's accurate Truth standard, what is the accurate, reliable, unchanging standard for determining what constitutes the Bible? To give you an example of what I am talking about, is the Book of Esther part of the Bible? How do you know for sure, if the Bible itself never says so?
jghorton did not make a sweeping claim. Go back and read the first paragraph of his post.
In other words, sounds as if you are saying that Protestants don't believe the words of 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 ?
That ALL Scripture is inspired by God................
No, that isn't what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that Protestants have no way of identifying which books should be included under the heading of "inspired scripture", and which books should not. Tell me: how do you know which books are inspired scripture? You won't find the answer to that in the Bible, so what do you do? Just guess randomly, and hope for the best? Trust the non-scriptural Table of Contents page that some publisher put in the Bible you picked up at Walmart? Don't think about the question at all, and pretend that the Bible is a single, self-defining book, rather than a collection of separate writings that were identified as special in some way by ... whom, exactly?
Have you really never thought before now about who has the authority to establish the canon of scripture? And if not, why ever not?
jghorton did not make a sweeping claim. Go back and read the first paragraph of his post.
Of course he (or she) did, and what I described as a "sweeping claim" was quoted in his/her exact words in my response: "The Bible is God's accurate, reliable, unchanging Truth standard."
That is certainly a claim, isn't it? Do you really deny that? Or do you say that this statement by jghorton, while obviously a claim, is not a sweeping claim? In my book such a statement amply deserves to be called "sweeping", which here means "extensive; expansive; far-reaching." Do you think this adjective is inapposite, and that the statement by jghorton is better described as "narrow" or "circumscribed"? I don't.
Of course he (or she) did, and what I described as a "sweeping claim" was quoted in his/her exact words in my response: "The Bible is God's accurate, reliable, unchanging Truth standard."
That is certainly a claim, isn't it? Do you really deny that? Or do you say that this statement by jghorton, while obviously a claim, is not a sweeping claim? In my book such a statement amply deserves to be called "sweeping", which here means "extensive; expansive; far-reaching." Do you think this adjective is inapposite, and that the statement by jghorton is better described as "narrow" or "circumscribed"? I don't.
I think jghorton (he) gave multiple reasons why the Bible is God's accurate, reliable, unchanging Truth standard.
I think jghorton (he) gave multiple reasons why the Bible is God's accurate, reliable, unchanging Truth standard.
So what are you saying then?
We both agree that jghorton said "The Bible is God's accurate, reliable, unchanging Truth standard."
I described this statement as a "sweeping claim."
You denied this, by saying "jghorton did not make a sweeping claim."
Since you have now admitted that jghorton did indeed make this statement, what is your point (presuming, that is, you have one)?
Are you saying that the statement "The Bible is God's accurate, reliable, unchanging Truth standard" should not be described as a claim?
Or are you trying to say that this claim made by jghorton is not properly described with the adjective "sweeping"?
Considering your admission quoted above, these are the only two possible meanings that remain for your odd declaration "jghorton did not make a sweeping claim." So which one did you intend?
We both agree that jghorton said "The Bible is God's accurate, reliable, unchanging Truth standard."
I described this statement as a "sweeping claim."
You denied this, by saying "jghorton did not make a sweeping claim."
Since you have now admitted that jghorton did indeed make this statement, what is your point (presuming, that is, you have one)?
Are you saying that the statement "The Bible is God's accurate, reliable, unchanging Truth standard" should not be described as a claim?
Or are you trying to say that this claim made by jghorton is not properly described with the adjective "sweeping"?
Considering your admission quoted above, these are the only two possible meanings that remain for your odd declaration "jghorton did not make a sweeping claim." So which one did you intend?
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.
