The problem with the bible.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Kcnorwood

I'm sorry you said that you were right & they are wrong how silly of me...

"Silly" does not begin to accurately characterize your nonsense. Now, once again, where do I call "them" a liar? (Or is it you who is lying?)

[Kcnorwood]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

"Silly" does not begin to accurately characterize your nonsense. Now, once again, where do I call "them" a liar? (Or is it you who is lying?)

You made a statement saying that if they do not agree with you they are wrong & your right. Which means some how they are lying about how they see things...

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Kcnorwood

Which means some how they are lying about how they see things...

I disagree.
It simply means they are wrong.
Using your logic, every time my daughter gets an answer wrong on a test in school....she is lying!

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Kcnorwood

You made a statement saying that if they do not agree with you they are wrong & your right. Which means some how they are lying about how they see things...

What a joke!

To lie is to deceive, to make a statement that one knows is false.

People can be persistently wrong without being a liars. One need not look far to find examples of this ...

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Nessa

The Roman Catholics were heavily involved in the canon of the Bible it's hard to argue they don't believe in it's inerrancy.

Here is a link describing their thought process..Skim down to Scripture.

Just because one is involved in setting the canon doesn't necessarily mean that one thinks the scriptures that are thus canonized are "inerrant."

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Nessa

Christians that believe the Bible is the word of God quote II Peter 3:14-16 and Timothy 3:16 as proof of its inerrancy.

The problem with II Peter is most Biblical Scholars doubt Peter was the author.



Bible.org: Is 2 Peter Peter’s?

And the problem with Timothy is that Paul wrote it several centuries before his letters were assimilated into the Bible. At the time that Paul wrote his letters, accepted scripture was the Old Testament. That's taking Paul so far out of context it's disingenuous.

And I've never stated that Christians have to believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

I said,

Studying the Canon of the Bible should be a prerequisite to accepting the Bible as the inerrant word of God. But I've had the same experience as you.

I was referring to the Christians that believe it's infallible.

Right. I understand what you're saying. My reply is that studying the canon has very little to do with one's perception of the Bible as either "inerrant" or "inspired." It usually has everything to do with a belief that "God wanted it this way."