|
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
10-03-2006, 10:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Christians: Biblical Errancy vs. Inerrancy
HI,
thought i should start my first debate thread with one of the most controversial topics going on in Christiandom today---Is the Bible 100% accurate. Positions often include: Inerrancy Infallible: The Bible is perfect in original texts and perfect for doctrine---it is entirely breathed by the mouth of God--can not lead one astray Inerrancy Fallible: 100% perfect if you translate correctly, poor translation might lead one astray. insert also interpretation Errancy Infallible: text may be incorrect but is perfect enough to lead us to righteousness and good doctrine Errancy Fallible: text contains errors-can lead to bad doctrine contrary to science and God im sure there are others, but these are the ones i have run into i happen to have recently started believing Errant Falliblity with the Bible , i believe it is good for Doctrine, but Christ is the Perfect Word Discuss 
|
|
#2
10-03-2006, 10:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#3
10-03-2006, 10:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
__________________
|
|
#4
10-03-2006, 10:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Personally, I don't see how any discussion or position on inerrantcy is going to be boring and unintelligent. The Bible is a human document, written by humans for humans - copied, edited, and transmitted by humans, and finally canonized in several different versions.
Protestants generally are over-zealous in waving their canon around and making any number of claims about it. It's really tiresome and stupid IMHO. EDIT: It's fundie evangelical wackos that are forcing people to come up with a position on this petty issue. When I am at Southwestern Seminary it's hard to have a conversation with anyone and not talk about inerrancy. However, when I am on more fertile theological ground, where everyone realizes the hopeless impossibility of any position on inerrancy - it is never mentioned. In fact, I don't think that I've heard anyone talk about inerrancy outside of Southwestern...
__________________
Last edited by angellous_evangellous; 10-03-2006 at 10:47 AM.
|
|
#5
10-03-2006, 10:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
hilarious i like to be able to argue both sides---but you ---your a master
|
|
#6
10-03-2006, 10:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
amen to that
|
|
#7
10-03-2006, 10:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Angellous vs Angellous: Nature of Hell
__________________
|
|
#8
10-03-2006, 10:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Scientific Evidence that Angellous is Your Daddy Be sure to check out page 6. 
__________________
|
|
#9
10-03-2006, 10:57 AM
|
||||
|
