Christians: Biblical Errancy vs. Inerrancy (translation, hell, doctrine, zealous)

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by writer

To the contrary: the Infallible Creator, incarnate, az recorded in John, said His Scripture "can't be broken"

Quote it. Put it down in writing where is says the Bible is without error. Don't resort to interpretations here. Just put it down in black and white.

[RevOxley_501]

Originally Posted by writer

107 im going to guess that you have no evidence for your assertions?
i don't gotta gues i do

...impossible
sounds like my characterization of some o' yours

108
To the contrary: the Infallible Creator, incarnate, az recorded in John, said His Scripture "can't be broken"

if i wrote a book, and i said "I hearby claim this word to be Breathed of God, and it can not be broken" does that make it so?

IT WAS broken multiple times during cannonization, during pre cannon many texts were destroyed because the Church didnt approve of them---so it certainly has been broken---it still is. You are defending the IGNORANT position without any evidence---what does it change if the Bible is fallible? would that destroy your faith in God? if so, why? why dont you put your faith in God instead of a book---and why dont you answer my points as to the definition of the WORD.

[writer]

111 Quote it.
i already did.

Put it down in writing where is says the Bible is without error.
Twice.

Don't resort to interpretations here.
'k

Just put it down in black and white.
asked and answered.
Posts 48 'n 54.
Blue 'n grey.

112 if i wrote a book, and i said "I hearby claim this word to be Breathed of God,
do u? Did u? Have u? Will u? Can u? May u?

and it can not be broken" does that make it so?
Two things: 1st we can compare whether whut u write can be broken
or not.
2) we can ask u: r u true?

IT WAS broken multiple times during cannonization,
2 kwestions: 1) what's canonization?
2) it duzn't appear u kno whut you're talkin about.
(That 2nd one wasn't a question)

during pre cannon many texts were destroyed because the Church didnt approve of them---
That sounds laffable.
But to give u the option of bein halfway serious:
What texts?
What writing do u refer to which tells u (or anybuddy) "many texts were destroyed"?

so it certainly has been broken---it still is.
i woon't call your unsubstantiated, un-even-attempted-2-b, bare assertions "clear"

You are defending the IGNORANT position without any evidence---
To the contrary: my evidence's my (and your) Author

what does it change if the Bible is fallible?
the Bible

would that destroy your faith in God?
God's not a book. He's this particular book's Source, Spiritually

why dont you put your faith in God instead of a book---
cuz this book's God's book/.
Duz your faith, if we can call it that, tel u God CAN'T have a book?

and why dont you answer my points as to the definition of the WORD.
"Word" in John 1 'n 1 Jn 1 is God's Christ. Jesus Christ. Who is God. In flesh.
"Word(s)" in some other places in the NT 'n O r words, embodying people's thought, or God's Breath, words spoken and/or written

[Scuba Pete]

I didn't think you could. Thanks for proving my point.

PS: I don't think I need to continue a discussion with a person whose words are dripping with condescension. You might think you are cute, but I surely don't.

Is there ANYONE here that can quote somewhere in scripture where it claims to be without error? Anyone? Writer seems to be at a loss for words here.

[RevOxley_501]

Originally Posted by writer

111 Quote it.



112 if i wrote a book, and i said "I hearby claim this word to be Breathed of God,

do u? Did u? Have u? Will u? Can u? May u?

That wasnt the question--dont be a dolt---if i did, would that substantiate a book from God?

and it can not be broken" does that make it so?
Two things: 1st we can compare whether whut u write can be broken
or not.
2) we can ask u: r u true?

1:We can compare the bible the same way---it can and has been broken
2: I exist---r u capable of typing words?

IT WAS broken multiple times during cannonization,
2 kwestions: 1) what's canonization?
2) it duzn't appear u kno whut you're talkin about.
(That 2nd one wasn't a question)

1: If you dont know what cannonization is , then you a: Do not belong in this conversation and b: can neither prove nor disprove your point because you are far too unawares of the simplified tenets of your own faith. If you cant handle something as simple as cannonization-and expect to be taken seriously in this thread-then you are far mistaken and diluted.
2: I know what cannonization is, and i know how it happened---if you are unfamiliar with it, you might just wanna do a search for it in wikipedia and educate yourself---when you are done there---come back so i can hand your inexperienced mind another dose of reality.

during pre cannon many texts were destroyed because the Church didnt approve of them---
That sounds laffable.
But to give u the option of bein halfway serious:
What texts?
What writing do u refer to which tells u (or anybuddy) "many texts were destroyed"?

So you are unfamiliar with the apocrypha and the many other books left out of the Bible? Do you not know that during cannonization such books were DEBATED upon by supposed church elders, and doctrines that you hold so dear, like the existance of Hell and the Diety of Christ were debated on as well?

The books that were utterly destroyed, like the majority of the Gospel of Thomas, is one example---of course it is a crazy book--but it existed at one time. Others were left out, like Barnabas, books of Adam and Eve, Books of Abraham, and the EVER important book of Enoch---there are hundreds of these books, many with valid doctrine that matches up with the current cannon. Do you even know that the catholic church has a different cannon? or that the Ethiopian Church includes gnostic gospels??? whaere have you been?

so it certainly has been broken---it still is.
i woon't call your unsubstantiated, un-even-attempted-2-b, bare assertions "clear"

I find them rather clear. That, however, is a matter of reading ability.

You are defending the IGNORANT position without any evidence---
To the contrary: my evidence's my (and your) Author

I hope you can find a better way to substantiate your claim then---because "God the Author" just wont do it.

what does it change if the Bible is fallible?
the Bible

Not if it always has been fallible and errant---it remains the same

would that destroy your faith in God?
God's not a book. He's this particular book's Source, Spiritually

Perhaps a source--a cited source, but HE did not write every passage in the Bible--in fact, his hand touched no pen near it. Men wrote the words---wether or not each word is perfect is simply defined as an impossibility because of the poor preservation of texts, languages, and understanding.

why dont you put your faith in God instead of a book---
cuz this book's God's book/.
Duz your faith, if we can call it that, tel u God CAN'T have a book?

another unsubstantiated claim, and my faith tells me God does NOT have a perfect infallible book--i make no claim as to what God is capable of.

and why dont you answer my points as to the definition of the WORD.
"Word" in John 1 'n 1 Jn 1 is God's Christ. Jesus Christ. Who is God. In flesh.
"Word(s)" in some other places in the NT 'n O r words, embodying people's thought, or God's Breath, words spoken and/or written

examples of these please---im going to need the original language references to continue the conversation as well


and i want to add---please for the Love of God almighty, and all things good in this world--stop typing like a 13 year old valley girl---z does not equal s, and when you are debating you should try for some sort of sensibility. Also---please please please do some genuine research that is a-biblical, a self-redeeming book will fail you every time

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Writer seems to be at a loss for words here.

Perfect.

[sojourner]

**WHAMMY!**

[writer]

115 dont be a dolt
likewise


if i did, would that substantiate a book from God?
like i said: did u?


We can compare the bible the same way
i'll wait


it can and has been broken
To the contrary: it can't 'n hazn't, includin not by u

I exist
to quote u: that wasn't the question. My question was:
Is your statement in 112 concerning your writing: "I hearby claim this word to be Breathed of God, and it can not be broken"
true?


r u capable of typing words?
u seem to b replyin to 'em


If you dont know what cannonization is , then you a: Do not belong in this conversation
Iz that your way of sayin u don't know either?


and b: can neither prove nor disprove your point because you are far too unawares of the simplified tenets of your own faith.
Since u introduced the word "canonization,"
why say it's part of "my faith"?


If you cant handle something as simple as cannonization-and expect to be taken seriously in this thread-then you are far mistaken and diluted.
Then we're even, in that some of what you've written's laughable


I know what cannonization is,
What?

and i know how it happened
How?


if you are unfamiliar with it, you might just wanna do a search for it in wikipedia and educate yourself---when you are done there---come back so i can hand your inexperienced mind another dose of reality.
You're in unreality in that respect


So you are unfamiliar with the apocrypha and the many other books left out of the Bible?
Left out? They never were Scripture


Do you not know that during cannonization such books were DEBATED upon by supposed church elders,
Supposed church elders debate(d) alot o' things.
Scripture neither needs to be canonized, debated, nor even read, to be Scripture.
It's Scripture in its writing


and doctrines that you hold so dear, like the existance of Hell
This kinda indicates your silly style o' learning or debatin.
Where'd i ever say, here, or anywhere else, or to u personally,
that i "hold hell's existence dear"?
Why introduce a topic and then blame me for what u introduce?
Did someone tell u that's effective, or helpful, debate?
What iz, or what do u mean by, "hell"?


and the Diety of Christ were debated on as well?
He still is. But there's no debate in the Scriptures


The books that were utterly destroyed, like the majority of the Gospel of Thomas,
If the majority of the Gospel of Thomas wuz destroyed, then how do you know it existed? What makes u say it was destroyed?
Do u have some ancient quote you'd care to supply?


of course it is a crazy book
Includin the one that exists presently?