-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians: Biblical Errancy vs. Inerrancy
- Thread starter RevOxley_501
- Start date
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is a perfect example of how a human document can be (and is) fallible, in the sense that the people who wrote, compiled, translated, printed, and read it are fallible. We can't even agree as to authorship and time frame. Faulty thinking leads to faulty propagation of the content, and faulty comprehension of the message therein.writer said:
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Only God is perfect and he specializes in working through the imperfect.RevOxley_501 said:
The Bible, apart from God's Spirit, cannot save you. Consequently, it is less than perfect!
This is a perfect example of how a human document can be (and is) fallible,
To the contrary: the Bible, being God's breathing, neither can be, nor iz, "fallible"
in the sense that the people who wrote, compiled, translated, printed, and read it are fallible.
That mus be becuz they weren't the Pope.
In any case, its source, the One who breathed it, izn't
We can't even agree as to authorship and time frame.
I disagree that its authors lied pretending to be who they rn't
To the contrary: the Bible, being God's breathing, neither can be, nor iz, "fallible"
in the sense that the people who wrote, compiled, translated, printed, and read it are fallible.
That mus be becuz they weren't the Pope.
In any case, its source, the One who breathed it, izn't
We can't even agree as to authorship and time frame.
I disagree that its authors lied pretending to be who they rn't
RevOxley_501
Well-Known Member
writer said:
im going to guess that you have no evidence for your assertions?
wait , nevermind---you simply are UNABLE to prove this---it is utterly impossible
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
The Bible never claims to be without error. Those that contend it does are adding to the scriptures: a definite "no-no".
RevOxley_501
Well-Known Member
amen to that net
The Bible says the WORD is perfect---and the WORD is also God, With God , and of God, and without the Word was nothing formed.
i will let you guess what the word is
The Bible says the WORD is perfect---and the WORD is also God, With God , and of God, and without the Word was nothing formed.
i will let you guess what the word is
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
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.writer said:
RevOxley_501
Well-Known Member
writer said:
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.
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
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
Le plongeur avec attitude...
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.
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
Well-Known Member
writer said:
That wasnt the question--dont be a dolt---if i did, would that substantiate a book from God?
1:We can compare the bible the same way---it can and has been broken
2: I exist---r u capable of typing words?
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.
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?
I find them rather clear. That, however, is a matter of reading ability.
I hope you can find a better way to substantiate your claim then---because "God the Author" just wont do it.
Not if it always has been fallible and errant---it remains the same
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.
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.
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
:banghead3
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
NetDoc said:
Perfect.
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?
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?
but it existed at one time.
What makes u say so?
Becuz it duzn't exist now?
Others were left out, like Barnabas,
Barnabas may've been left out of some, or even many, believers' collections. But that duzn't, retroactively, make Barnabas Scripture, nor ever Scripture
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.
There's also your and my posts. Which, to the extent they don't replicate or copy Scripture, r not Scripture. Nor ever were. Nor ever can be. Nor ever will be.
Even if "church elders" say they r
Do you even know that the catholic church has a different cannon?
The last Hebrew prophet, and inspired Scripture, was Malachi.
The Rest of Esther, Macabees, Bel and the Dragon, and the rest of the generally assorted crap written in Greek comprising the Jewish Apocrypha, never was Scripture, never was written as Scripture, never can be, never will be. It's so transparently not, that it's both sad and funny that u, or Catholicism, thinks it may've been
or that the Ethiopian Church includes gnostic gospels???
Lots of "Churches" include lots of things. Some even include statues, pedophiles, and hiearchies that move 'em around
whaere have you been?
wasting my time readin your post
I find them rather clear. That, however, is a matter of reading ability.
i meant "clear" in the way of proof. Not in the way of your position
I hope you can find a better way to substantiate your claim then---because "God the Author" just wont do it.
To the contrary: the living and resurrected God's the only One who can do it 4 me
Not if it always has been fallible and errant---it remains the same
That was my (and His) point: Scripture can't be broken (Jn 10:35).
Cuz it's God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).
It's the real thing
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.
To the contrary: He lives inside its authors
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.
To the contrary: the OT 'n NT Scriptures have been written, preserved, and often translated excellently. In addition, the Spirit who inspired the men who wrote the words is equally available to engage men in understanding His words
another unsubstantiated claim, and my faith tells me God does NOT have a perfect infallible book
"faith's the substantiation of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen. By faith we understand that the universe's been framed by the word of God, so that what's seen has not come into being out of things which appear"
--i make no claim as to what God is capable of.
I claim God both created me, can inspire men, and became one
examples of these please---im going to need the original language references to continue the conversation as well
U brot this up in your post 110, in which u nearly quoted Jn 1:1. While you're waiting (to quote u) why dontchya do your own research?
There's some interlinear sites on the Web which i uze
when you are debating you should try for some sort of sensibility
i recommend the same 4 u, dear friend
Also---please please please do some genuine research
i recommend the same 4 u
a self-redeeming book will fail you every time
I'm unsure what you're talking about. But in the remote case that what u write either makes sense, or's true in any way: the Bible, an inanimate book, duzn't need redemption (unless u pawned yours), could not redeem, and thus isn't self-redeeming.
Thanks
What makes u say so?
Becuz it duzn't exist now?
Others were left out, like Barnabas,
Barnabas may've been left out of some, or even many, believers' collections. But that duzn't, retroactively, make Barnabas Scripture, nor ever Scripture
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.
There's also your and my posts. Which, to the extent they don't replicate or copy Scripture, r not Scripture. Nor ever were. Nor ever can be. Nor ever will be.
Even if "church elders" say they r
Do you even know that the catholic church has a different cannon?
The last Hebrew prophet, and inspired Scripture, was Malachi.
The Rest of Esther, Macabees, Bel and the Dragon, and the rest of the generally assorted crap written in Greek comprising the Jewish Apocrypha, never was Scripture, never was written as Scripture, never can be, never will be. It's so transparently not, that it's both sad and funny that u, or Catholicism, thinks it may've been
or that the Ethiopian Church includes gnostic gospels???
Lots of "Churches" include lots of things. Some even include statues, pedophiles, and hiearchies that move 'em around
whaere have you been?
wasting my time readin your post
I find them rather clear. That, however, is a matter of reading ability.
i meant "clear" in the way of proof. Not in the way of your position
I hope you can find a better way to substantiate your claim then---because "God the Author" just wont do it.
To the contrary: the living and resurrected God's the only One who can do it 4 me
Not if it always has been fallible and errant---it remains the same
That was my (and His) point: Scripture can't be broken (Jn 10:35).
Cuz it's God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).
It's the real thing
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.
To the contrary: He lives inside its authors
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.
To the contrary: the OT 'n NT Scriptures have been written, preserved, and often translated excellently. In addition, the Spirit who inspired the men who wrote the words is equally available to engage men in understanding His words
another unsubstantiated claim, and my faith tells me God does NOT have a perfect infallible book
"faith's the substantiation of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen. By faith we understand that the universe's been framed by the word of God, so that what's seen has not come into being out of things which appear"
--i make no claim as to what God is capable of.
I claim God both created me, can inspire men, and became one
examples of these please---im going to need the original language references to continue the conversation as well
U brot this up in your post 110, in which u nearly quoted Jn 1:1. While you're waiting (to quote u) why dontchya do your own research?
There's some interlinear sites on the Web which i uze
when you are debating you should try for some sort of sensibility
i recommend the same 4 u, dear friend
Also---please please please do some genuine research
i recommend the same 4 u
a self-redeeming book will fail you every time
I'm unsure what you're talking about. But in the remote case that what u write either makes sense, or's true in any way: the Bible, an inanimate book, duzn't need redemption (unless u pawned yours), could not redeem, and thus isn't self-redeeming.
Thanks
RevOxley_501
Well-Known Member
wow
that was just
amazing
:bow:
:bow:
:bow:
that was just
amazing
:bow:
:bow:
:bow: