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

[RevOxley_501]

im sure my terminology is way off, i was typing and working at the same time---

I have no Doubt that every word that comes from Gods Mouth is true---but i do believe that the second it hits a man;s ear, flaws begin to rush in. So it is propable that as God gave John the Revelation, john could have started makin stuff up...im not saying he did, but he could have. and from the writers you have the translators, and from them you have the cannonizers (huge concern for me) and then more translators...God would have to have seriously intervened ALOT to keep it clean and perfect--i dont believe he did.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by RevOxley_501

im sure my terminology is way off, i was typing and working at the same time---

I have no Doubt that every word that comes from Gods Mouth is true---but i do believe that the second it hits a man;s ear, flaws begin to rush in. So it is propable that as God gave John the Revelation, john could have started makin stuff up...im not saying he did, but he could have. and from the writers you have the translators, and from them you have the cannonizers (huge concern for me) and then more translators...God would have to have seriously intervened ALOT to keep it clean and perfect--i dont believe he did.

I don't either, but I suspect the problem began with the transcribers and translators and was further compounded by the canonizers. My guess is that the men God chose through whom to actually reveal His word (including John the Revelator) were reliable and honest. I don't believe they "started makin' stuff up."

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by RevOxley_501

im sure my terminology is way off, i was typing and working at the same time---

I have no Doubt that every word that comes from Gods Mouth is true---but i do believe that the second it hits a man;s ear, flaws begin to rush in. So it is propable that as God gave John the Revelation, john could have started makin stuff up...im not saying he did, but he could have. and from the writers you have the translators, and from them you have the cannonizers (huge concern for me) and then more translators...God would have to have seriously intervened ALOT to keep it clean and perfect--i dont believe he did.

This is where Church tradition is helpful.

If we are going to conclude that the Bible is a compilation of records of a revelation - that is, we confess that there is a God because God revealed God to a prophet and either the prophet himself or someone the prophet spoke to wrote the revelation down for some reason AND a community of faith preserved, edited, and transmitted the document to us...

ah, forget it, it's a big fat hairy mess. We have 10,000 Greek manuscripts and another 30,000+ Latin manuscripts and no two match, and that's just for the NT. Church tradition(s) [making us orthodox] can help us to descide together what is authentic/authoritative or we can wing it on our own [making us Protestant or otherwise heretics].

[RevOxley_501]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I don't either, but I suspect the problem began with the transcribers and translators and was further compounded by the canonizers. My guess is that the men God chose through whom to actually reveal His word (including John the Revelator) were reliable and honest. I don't believe they "started makin' stuff up."

im sure---but then i am very sure that the people that cannonized were not good people, and had their own goals and intentions

so we cant know that the current cannon is the best cannon for the job

and we cant prove in any manner how accurate the current ancient texts are compared to the originals---they dont exist

[RevOxley_501]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

This is where Church tradition is helpful.

If we are going to conclude that the Bible is a compilation of records of a revelation - that is, we confess that there is a God because God revealed God to a prophet and either the prophet himself or someone the prophet spoke to wrote the revelation down for some reason AND a community of faith preserved, edited, and transmitted the document to us...

ah, forget it, it's a big fat hairy mess. We have 10,000 Greek manuscripts and another 30,000+ Latin manuscripts and no two match, and that's just for the NT. Church tradition(s) [making us orthodox] can help us to descide together what is authentic/authoritative or we can wing it on our own [making us Protestant or otherwise heretics].

that last line herts


see my latest blog entry on the subject of herecy hehe

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by RevOxley_501

im sure---but then i am very sure that the people that cannonized were not good people, and had their own goals and intentions

so we cant know that the current cannon is the best cannon for the job

and we cant prove in any manner how accurate the current ancient texts are compared to the originals---they dont exist

Some arguments are better than others.

Every Christian church except for the Protestants accept the Apocrypha as Scripture, and the other churches' (Orthodox, Catholic, Ethiopian/Coptic) canon came first.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by RevOxley_501

that last line herts


see my latest blog entry on the subject of herecy hehe

I'm using "heretic" in a non-pejorative way... it simply identifies that which is new.

[RevOxley_501]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I'm using "heretic" in a non-pejorative way... it simply identifies that which is new.

ohh i know

and think about precannonization---if Gods word is eternal, the bible should have fallen from the sky


kinda like the book of mormon

[RevOxley_501]

and i dont mean that BOM thing in a bad way

i just mean when it came it came all at once--