1. 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!

The Doctrine of inerrancy

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Pah, Mar 28, 2005.

  1. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    I would presume, since this question is being ignored, that NO ONE can find such a claim within the scriptures? How droll to contend for something that not even God lays claim to.
     
  2. precept

    precept Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    184
    Ratings:
    +13


    That Jesus was the son of Mary is true; yet not true! Jesus was the Son of God. God selectively chose Mary...He could have chosen someone else; but arbitrarily chose Mary. So God who did the choosing, could have just as easily made his Son to appear on earth without benefit of any human participation.

    That Jesus was the Son of Joseph is true; but not true! Joseph was Mary's husband. Any child born to Mary who never had sex with any other man; must be Joseph's. But since like Mary, Joseph had no choice but to do as God said; then like Mary,Joseph could hardly be considered Jesus' father....Just as Mary could hardly be considered Jesus' mother.

    That Jesus was from the tribe of Judah is true; but yet not true! Jesus is God without benefit of human origins. God pre-existed Abraham whom He created. Had it not been for God, Abraham wouild not have fathered Issac who fathered Jacob who fathered Judah. Jesus therefore can hardly be considered to have originated from the tribe He Himself designed as a vehicle used for His entry to earth.

    That God chose Judah, Mary and Joseph is a choice and only a choice as made by God to introduce humanity to His salvation of Grace through His Son. Checking as to the accurracy of chronology is minoring in the human misconception that his human participation has any more importance than being simply just chosen by His Creator God as His God's human repository.

    That there are two versions of the ten commandments is true only if one version contradicts the other. Till you can show that the ten commandments are not contained in both versions...ie one only as "eight" the other "ten", or similar discrepancy, they remain the same ten commandments, no matter the language of transcription.

    I searched the scriptures but could only find one burial place for Rachel, Jacob's second of his two wives. She was buried in "Ephrath which is Bethlehem". Genesis 48:7 and Genesis 35:19


    precept
     
  3. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    It bears repeating and bumping
     
  4. BUDDY

    BUDDY User of Aspercreme

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,031
    Ratings:
    +488
    I guess what I am saying is that within the Bible itself, the doctrines talked about don't contradict themselves. I can understand those who do not agree with many of the biblical doctrines, but that is not really the issue here. The issue is whether or not those doctrinal issues cotradict each other in the bible. Issues that I am talking about would be things like, God's view of sin, man's relationship to God, the establishment of the church, etc. Hope that I was a little more clear this time. Please let me know if I am still unclear.
     
  5. BUDDY

    BUDDY User of Aspercreme

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,031
    Ratings:
    +488
    Why does the Bible have to claim itself to be inerrant to be inerrant? Either something is true or it isn't. It does not have to claim to be true in order to be true. It simply needs to be tested by those who consider excepting it. If, by testing the scriptures, you find the words to be truth, then they are to you. I have tested the scriptures and found that I accept them as doctrinal truth. In its historical accuracy, I find that there are some things that do not make much sense. I choose to make a distinction in the way I interpret it.
     
  6. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    I am sure you wrote this with a straight face too! :D Do you not BASE your beliefs on the Bible as I do?
     
  7. BUDDY

    BUDDY User of Aspercreme

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,031
    Ratings:
    +488
    Yes, mostly. Some of the things that I don't agree with have more to do with how some have interpreted the scripture, rather than the scripture itself (i.e. the modern church's treatment of homosexuality).
     
  8. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    So IF you truly base your beliefs on the Bible why do you proclaim it inerrancy, if it does not?
     
  9. Druidus

    Druidus Keeper of the Grove

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,816
    Ratings:
    +515
    Did you read what I wrote?
    Doctrinal opposites. I can get many for you, if you wish...
     
  10. BUDDY

    BUDDY User of Aspercreme

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,031
    Ratings:
    +488
    I proclaim it inerrant on matters of doctrine because I have not seen that there are matters of doctrine which the Bible conflicts on. Of course, a lot of this goes to how you interpret certain writtings.
     
  11. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Druidus,

    Many of the "opposites" you are pointing to are not. Take the last two for instance. Jesus didn't come to "abolish"... he did come to fulfill, which in actuality abolished them. But that was not his purpose in coming.
     
  12. Druidus

    Druidus Keeper of the Grove

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,816
    Ratings:
    +515
    I suppose it depends on interpretation, NetDoc. :p
     
  13. precept

    precept Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    184
    Ratings:
    +13

    Not so "Net Doc"! The scriptures do lay claim to inerrancy! 1 Peter 1:20-21.. "Knowing this that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy CAME NOT IN OLD TIME BY THE WILL OF MAN: BUT HOLY MEN OF GOD SPAKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST".

    The "prophecy of the scriptures refers to the "Word of God, His bible". The Holy Ghost would not be making sure some sections of His Holy Book is without error while He allowed other sections to contain error. Or the Holy Ghost would not "speak words that were without error to the Holy men who wrote what He spake...but then the Holy Ghost looked away as the Holy men included error with the Truth.

    The bible clearly states through another of God's Holy men, the prophet king David....Psalm 19:7-14" The law[Word of God] of the Lord is PERFECT....The statutes of the Lord are Right .....and are to be desired more than fine gold....."

    And so PERFECT are the scriptures...that God issues a warning to any who might choose to mis-interpret, and misrepresent His word...Revelation 22:...."For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book [the bible]; If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take awy his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy city, and from the things which are writtren in this book."

    And which "book" was the apostle Jiohn referring to? Revelation 22:8-9 "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he to me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of them which keep the sayings of this "book":Worship God.

    God imself declares Isaiah 55:11.."So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
     
  14. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Dear Precept...

    you are reading something into that scripture that is simply not there. It says:

    1) Scripture is not open to private interpretation.
    2) Scripture was INSPIRED (not dictated) by God
    3) Scripture was WRITTEN by man

    It's innerrancy was never discussed.

    As for Psalm 19... The "law" is NOT the same as scripture. Yet this "perfect" law has been replaced by something even more perfect. Jesus' "law" which is written on our HEARTS and not on tablets of stone like the previous law. Why twist the scriptures? It either says that it is perfect or it doesn't. So far, you have not come up with anything that says it claims to be perfect. You should really heed the scripture in Revelations 22. You don't do God any favors by speaking where he has not.
     
  15. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Druidus,

    If by "interpretation" you mean "careful reading" then yes. Many read the Bible to justify their beliefs (see Precept's last post) and end up twisting and/or extrapolating scripture to read something it's just not saying. A careful and thoughtful reading of the scriptures resolves many of those so called "inaccuracies" and/or contradictions. Remember that MOST of those "discrepencies" are created by people who just want to discredit the Bible. They are not worried about the accuracy of their claims much like the Swift Boat Veterans during the past campaign.
     
  16. Druidus

    Druidus Keeper of the Grove

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,816
    Ratings:
    +515
    I understand, but I'm not trying to discredit the bible. I truly believe it says some good things. But I do believe, having read the bible myself, that parts of it are contradictory. Such is to expected with any monumental task. ;)
     
  17. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +860
    And so PERFECT are the scriptures...that God issues a warning to any who might choose to mis-interpret, and misrepresent His word...Revelation 22:...."For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book [the bible]; If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take awy his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy city, and from the things which are writtren in this book."

    Actually you are misleading.
    In brackets you have [The Bible} when the verse refers to "This Book"

    The Bible wasn`t compiled until centuries after Revelation was written.
    The author of Revelation was refering to Revelation alone when he wrote "This Book".
    He could not have meant [The Bible] because the Bible didn`t exist and he hadn`t seen parts of it that were eventually compiled anyway.(The Gospels)

    It is not a reference to [The Bible] but a reference to Revelation.
     
  18. precept

    precept Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    184
    Ratings:
    +13

    Let's suppose Linwood, that you are right and that you can only have the plagues added to you when you violate what is written in the book of Revelation. Don't you suppose that since the book of Matthew is not included in the "prophecy of this book",ie[Revelation] that you could "add to this book of Matthew or take away", without any fear that your name would be taken out of the "book of life" or that plagues would be added to your account? But since as you say....'there wasn't a book of Matthew then....There was however, a book of Isaiah from which Jesus Himself quoted this prophecy Isaiah 61:1.. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound ; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord...." Or Luke 4:18.....Jesus in speaking about Himself and reading from Isaiah 61:1...."The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord....Or do you suppose that since the book of Luke was not yet written; that by adding to the words of Jesus in the book of Luke or by subtracting from His words, you would avoid incurring the plagues and or avoid the withdrawing of your name from God's book of life. Do still suppose that you could have added to the words in the book of Isaiah and still avoid the curse penned in the book of Revelation? If you so think that any part of the book of God is exempt from this curse... Think again!


    precept
     
  19. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +860
    The curses and plagues and how the interact within each book or across many books is of no concern to my statement.
    I see them as fables.

    My only point was that at the time any and all of the books of the Bible were written there was no "Bible" and any or all of them might very well have not even been admitted to the compilation if a few bishops chose not to attend any one of a number of counsels.

    My ultimate point is that any claim to inerrancy one might find in the Bible as it is compiled today does not nor can not be refering to the modern Bible as a whole.

    Here`s an interesting question.
    Does anyone know of any scripture not cannonized that makes a claim of inerrancy?

    Enoch?
    Barnabus?
    Gnostic Gospels?

    Any Christian scripture?
     
  20. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Back to the topic gentle people.

    The scriptures that have been presented so far do NOT refer to the Bible as being inerrant. Not by a long shot. We are patiently waiting for those who say it DOES claim to be innerrent to produce such scriptures.
     
Loading...