Which Bible is inerrant and inspired?

[McBell]

You can 'nope' all you like. It doesn't change the fact that the purpose in recognizing the Canon of the Bible, was recognizing that which is inspired by God, that which is the Word of God.

You have not established that as a fact.

 

[sojourner]

You can 'nope' all you like. It doesn't change the fact that the purpose in recognizing the Canon of the Bible, was recognizing that which is inspired by God, that which is the Word of God

You can bray on all you want to, but doesn’t change the fact that your views regarding the canon are much too simplistic and heresy-driven.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You can bray on all you want to, but doesn’t change the fact that your views regarding the canon are much too simplistic and heresy-driven.

I didn't bray. I gave you some important quotes.

How can my view be heresy when I am acknowledging God as the Author of Scripture and you do not? How can my view be heresy when I have showed you quotes the Christian view of inspiration and canonization, and you do not see God working in either?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sojourner]

I didn't bray. I gave you some important quotes.

How can my view be heresy when I am acknowledging God as the Author of Scripture and you do not? How can my view be heresy when I have showed you quotes the Christian view of inspiration and canonization, and you do not see God working in either?

Good-Ole-Rebel

1) Your whole series of posts has been braying.
2) Your view is heresy Because you buy into the heresy of sola scriptura, and you view the texts from that stance.
3) Your view of “God as author” is not a criterion for canonization, and is not a view that is in any way congruent with responsible biblical scholarship or the prevailing “Christian view” of what it means for a text to be “inspired.”
3) You have shown me one opinion of canonization which is not shared by mainstream Christian scholarship.
4) I don’t think God “dictated” the texts. I don’t think God had much to do with the process of canonization.

Your view is not in the mainstream of either Christian thought or biblical scholarship. Your view of canonization is fanciful and much too simplistic and rigid.

 

[sojourner]

I didn't bray. I gave you some important quotes.

How can my view be heresy when I am acknowledging God as the Author of Scripture and you do not? How can my view be heresy when I have showed you quotes the Christian view of inspiration and canonization, and you do not see God working in either?

Good-Ole-Rebel

From the Interpreter’s Bible, Abington Press, 1952, vol 1; Buttrick, Geo.A. Editor, pg 32ff, “The Canon of the Old Testament,” We find:

“Part of the inheritance of Christianity from Judaism was a scripture... This body of writings did not profess to include all the religious books that had appeared during the history of the Jewish people. It did not include all the religious documents which were in circulation among the Jews at that period. It was a body of writings which had been brought together by a process of selection...

When in any religion the state is reached where the community is conscious that the authentic voice of religious authority is no longer heard, the writings which had been produced in that past in which such an authentic voice had been heard and recognized tend to be marked out by that fact and so to be set aside as the writings sacred to the community. This would not preclude the possibility of adding to them at some future time other writings in which once again the sure voice of religious authority was heard, nor indeed of the adding to them of historical records, or memorials of the past of the community, without which much of the meaning of ‘the word of prophecy’ might be lost.

Historians can merely state that a canon of scripture is not something given, but something humanly devised. From the historical point of view the canon is the result of human decision as to which among the religious writings exist in in a community are those in which it recognized the authentic voice of religious authority speaking to man.

While the Christians took over a scripture from the Jews, they did not take over any well-defined collection.”

This is the prevailing view. This is why all your posts have been “braying” about something “divinely-ordered.”

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

1) Your whole series of posts has been braying.
2) Your view is heresy Because you buy into the heresy of sola scriptura, and you view the texts from that stance.
3) Your view of “God as author” is not a criterion for canonization, and is not a view that is in any way congruent with responsible biblical scholarship or the prevailing “Christian view” of what it means for a text to be “inspired.”
3) You have shown me one opinion of canonization which is not shared by mainstream Christian scholarship.
4) I don’t think God “dictated” the texts. I don’t think God had much to do with the process of canonization.

Your view is not in the mainstream of either Christian thought or biblical scholarship. Your view of canonization is fanciful and much too simplistic and rigid.

Sorry, but my view is orthodox, and mainstream Christianity. Who is braying now?

You deny God and Christ in the Scriptures yet say I am heretical. You deny the inspiration of the Bible. Foolish.

You must, due to your Christian/Shamanic label, take away from the Christian faith to make it compatible or acceptable to you in some way to the Shamanic faith. You can have your Shamanic faith all you like. I don't mind. But don't kid yourself that the Bible is compatible with it.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

From the Interpreter’s Bible, Abington Press, 1952, vol 1; Buttrick, Geo.A. Editor, pg 32ff, “The Canon of the Old Testament,” We find:

“Part of the inheritance of Christianity from Judaism was a scripture... This body of writings did not profess to include all the religious books that had appeared during the history of the Jewish people. It did not include all the religious documents which were in circulation among the Jews at that period. It was a body of writings which had been brought together by a process of selection...

When in any religion the state is reached where the community is conscious that the authentic voice of religious authority is no longer heard, the writings which had been produced in that past in which such an authentic voice had been heard and recognized tend to be marked out by that fact and so to be set aside as the writings sacred to the community. This would not preclude the possibility of adding to them at some future time other writings in which once again the sure voice of religious authority was heard, nor indeed of the adding to them of historical records, or memorials of the past of the community, without which much of the meaning of ‘the word of prophecy’ might be lost.

Historians can merely state that a canon of scripture is not something given, but something humanly devised. From the historical point of view the canon is the result of human decision as to which among the religious writings exist in in a community are those in which it recognized the authentic voice of religious authority speaking to man.

While the Christians took over a scripture from the Jews, they did not take over any well-defined collection.”

This is the prevailing view. This is why all your posts have been “braying” about something “divinely-ordered.”

You have to be careful about who you are quoting from in the Interpreters Bible as it gives many viewpoints of many authors concerning the Bible. Some for, some against the Christian view. But the overall view of the Interpreters Bible is that the Bible is the Word of God.

From "Review Article by Dwight Marion Beck" concerning the Interpreters Bible: (jstor.org/stable/1458335?seq=1)

"Their viewpoint cover a wide range in theology but are united in a scholarly interest which seeks the truth of the Bible and it's interpretation as God's Word to men."

The bolding of words is done by me.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

From the Interpreter’s Bible, Abington Press, 1952, vol 1; Buttrick, Geo.A. Editor, pg 32ff, “The Canon of the Old Testament,” We find:

“Part of the inheritance of Christianity from Judaism was a scripture... This body of writings did not profess to include all the religious books that had appeared during the history of the Jewish people. It did not include all the religious documents which were in circulation among the Jews at that period. It was a body of writings which had been brought together by a process of selection...

When in any religion the state is reached where the community is conscious that the authentic voice of religious authority is no longer heard, the writings which had been produced in that past in which such an authentic voice had been heard and recognized tend to be marked out by that fact and so to be set aside as the writings sacred to the community. This would not preclude the possibility of adding to them at some future time other writings in which once again the sure voice of religious authority was heard, nor indeed of the adding to them of historical records, or memorials of the past of the community, without which much of the meaning of ‘the word of prophecy’ might be lost.

Historians can merely state that a canon of scripture is not something given, but something humanly devised. From the historical point of view the canon is the result of human decision as to which among the religious writings exist in in a community are those in which it recognized the authentic voice of religious authority speaking to man.

While the Christians took over a scripture from the Jews, they did not take over any well-defined collection.”

This is the prevailing view. This is why all your posts have been “braying” about something “divinely-ordered.”

Your quote is misleading. It is found under the heading 'The Canon Of The Old Testament'. It is by Arthur Jeffery who is giving a historical only point of view. And in your 3rd paragraph of the quote, you begin 'Historians can merely state....", as though it were the beginning of a statement. But it is not. It is the middle of a statement. The quote reads as thus:

"While Christian theologians may recognize in the process of scriptural canonization the official act of the church and the providential work of the Holy Spirit (see article, "The Bible: Its Significance and Authority", p.p.3-31), historians can merely state that a canon of scripture is not something given, but something humanly devised."

See the difference in the meaning. The Christian view is that the Bible is inspired by God and the work of the Holy Spirit.

In the article mentioned above in parenthesis, by Herbert Farmer under the heading 'Significance and Authority", p. 7, he says:

"From the earliest period of it's history the Christian Church has regarded the Scriptures as being in some sense the special revelation of God and therefore as being in some sense the final standard or norm of Christian truth."

It is not I that am heretical to the Christian faith. It is you. The Christian faith believes the Bible is the Word of God, and inspired by God. And it is this inspiration that is recognized in the forming of the Canon of the Bible.

The quotes can be found by goggling, "Full text of the Interpreters Bible The Holy Scriptures In the King James and Revised Standard Version With General Articles and Introduction Exegesis Exposition for each Book of the Bible Vol. 1."

The bolding of words in the quotes is done by me.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, but my view is orthodox, and mainstream Christianity

No. It’s neither.

You deny God and Christ in the Scriptures yet say I am heretical. You deny the inspiration of the Bible. Foolish.

I’ve none neither of these things. You can stop posting lies about what I’ve said at any time.

You must, due to your Christian/Shamanic label, take away from the Christian faith to make it compatible or acceptable to you in some way to the Shamanic faith

You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

 

[sojourner]

You have to be careful about who you are quoting from in the Interpreters Bible as it gives many viewpoints of many authors concerning the Bible. Some for, some against the Christian view

The exegetical process doesn’t seek any particular “view” when working with ancient texts. It seeks an unbiased reading.

"Their viewpoint cover a wide range in theology but are united in a scholarly interest which seeks the truth of the Bible and it's interpretation as God's Word to men

None of this says that they believe that the Bible fell out of the sky, or that the words are God’s, Ana especially not that the texts are inerrant. It says only that they seek that particular interpretation.

 

[sojourner]

"While Christian theologians may recognize in the process of scriptural canonization the official act of the church and the providential work of the Holy Spirit (see article, "The Bible: Its Significance and Authority", p.p.3-31), historians can merely state that a canon of scripture is not something given, but something humanly devised."

See the difference in the meaning. The Christian view is that the Bible is inspired by God and the work of the Holy Spirit

First, it’s the historic, factual perspective we need, not something bolstered only by “belief.” So the historic perspective prevails here (which was why I quoted it). Second, this isn’t “the Christian view.” That’s not what the article says. It says that it’s the theological view. There’s a big difference between the theological and the historical POV. Xy seeks both perspectives. The theological POV doesn’t seek authentication, it seeks authorization. Do we ascribe authority to the texts? Yes we do. But are they authentic? That’s the question a historical criticism answers, and that’s what Christians take under consideration.

"From the earliest period of it's history the Christian Church has regarded the Scriptures as being in some sense the special revelation of God and therefore as being in some sense the final standard or norm of Christian truth

Which says nothing about canonization or inerrancy.

The Christian faith believes the Bible is the Word of God, and inspired by God

No.

And it is this inspiration that is recognized in the forming of the Canon of the Bible

As I said earlier: Partly. But not only this.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Good-Ole-Rebel

My point in this post is not to unduly criticize you other than to point out reasons why you’ve lost all of your debates in this thread and why your theories are being dismissed and why you are having so much negative Religious influence among the posters you are interacting with.

Much of the negative influence you are having is partly due to the types of unreasonable and unsustainable claims you are making.

For example, @Skwim points out that there are multiple canons (Skwims post #18) when you claim “there is one correct canon of Scripture” (post #3) which your family introduced you to. You claim inspiration as the criteria for inclusion or exclusion but you cannot offer objective data nor logical support for this theory either. You claim “the people of God” determined the canon but then cannot define this “people” of God who did this and thus you cannot advance this theory either. You claim inerrancy despite the fact that posters see errors with their own eyes and thus that theory also fails.


INSPIRATION AS A CRITERIA FOR THE CANON

You claim “inspiration” is the criteria for inclusion or exclusion, but this criteria is also arbitrary since different texts were inspirational to different people. For example, Luther and Erasmus each had different Canons and each said it was because their different canons seemed inspired “to them” as individuals.

You’ve also said (post #115) however, that “A writing is not inspired because man declares it inspired." Yet the only evidence you offer for canon is quotes from men who declared a canon is inspired. The inconsistency and conflicting claims causes problems for your theory for logical and rational people.

When @sojourner asked “By what Apostolic authority?” (#103) was your canon deemed inspirational, you cannot find any Apostolic authority and announce instead that the scriptures are deemed inspired by “the people of God”. Then you cannot define who “the people of God” are. “People of God” differ geographically and in various eras.

For example, are the modern authentic and good Christians of Ethiopia not “people of God” since their Canon differs from yours?
Were the ancient Christians in the East in the 4th Century “people of God” since their canon differs from yours?

Your habit of claiming other Christians who disagree with you are “not Christians” further damaged your credibility on this point since it is an irrational claim.


INERRANCY CLAIMS

When you make claim of inerrancy (posts 70, 80, etc) for a canon that has obvious errors, this inconsistency also causes problems for rational thinkers.


INSPIRATION ASSOCIATED WITH INERRANCY

You claimed the inspired text was inerrant yet readers can see errors with their own eyes and justifiably dismiss the claim to inerrancy outright. IF, as you claim, Inspired texts are inerrant, then the fact that texts have errors mean they are not inspired according to your claim. This causes a problem if we are to remain logical and rational.


I am not trying to simply complain about illogical and irrational claims but to describe why illogical and irrational claims have caused you to lose all of your debates in this thread and why you have not had the degree of good influence for Christianity that I think you want to have.

In any case @Good-Ole-Rebel I hope your spiritual journey is good.

Clear
τζτζφιειω

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

No. It’s neither.


I’ve none neither of these things. You can stop posting lies about what I’ve said at any time.

You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

Is the Bible the Word of God as it states? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God and only Saviour as the Bible states?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

The exegetical process doesn’t seek any particular “view” when working with ancient texts. It seeks an unbiased reading.


None of this says that they believe that the Bible fell out of the sky, or that the words are God’s, Ana especially not that the texts are inerrant. It says only that they seek that particular interpretation.

"God's Word to men" That is what he said. Do you believe the Bible is God's Word to men?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Wandering Monk]

Is the Bible the Word of God as it states? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God and only Saviour as the Bible states?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

First, it’s the historic, factual perspective we need, not something bolstered only by “belief.” So the historic perspective prevails here (which was why I quoted it). Second, this isn’t “the Christian view.” That’s not what the article says. It says that it’s the theological view. There’s a big difference between the theological and the historical POV. Xy seeks both perspectives. The theological POV doesn’t seek authentication, it seeks authorization. Do we ascribe authority to the texts? Yes we do. But are they authentic? That’s the question a historical criticism answers, and that’s what Christians take under consideration.


Which says nothing about canonization or inerrancy.


No.


As I said earlier: Partly. But not only this.

The 'historians' point is not the main point. The Christians view of the Scripture is the main point which is, that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired by God. And canonization is based upon the 'inspired books'. Not your 'historical books'. You understood what was being said which is why you manipulated and left it out of the quote and tried to peddle your false representation of what was being said.

Historical criticism cannot determine what books have authority. What is your authority based on? Christians do not rely on historical criticism alone. They rely mainly on the inspiration of Scripture. Is it the Word of God.

Certainly proves you wrong when you call me an heretic. Christianity holds to the Bible as the inspired Word of God as I have said and as the quotes from the book you recommended said.

Your 'no' is empty. I have shown your manipulation of quotes to try and peddle your point. Your 'no' means nothing.

No, not partly. Completely. Which is why there are only 66 books in the Canon of Scripture.

As I said, have your religion all you want, but don't try and distort the Christian faith just so you can somehow hope to get some benefit with it. The Christian faith, the Bible is against you.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sojourner]

Is the Bible the Word of God as it states? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God and only Saviour as the Bible states?

Good-Ole-Rebel

The Bible is not the “word of God,” as you state.

 

[sojourner]

"God's Word to men" That is what he said. Do you believe the Bible is God's Word to men?

Good-Ole-Rebel

It doesn’t matter what I believe. it only matters what we know can be proven. The Bible is a collection of texts written by human beings. That’s a fact. whether the Bible is “God’s word” is a matter, not of fact, but of belief. The exegetical process seeks to separate the two to keep them from becoming conflated.

 

[sojourner]

The 'historians' point is not the main point

In the case of the exegetical process to determine authenticity, it certainly is.

You understood what was being said which is why you manipulated and left it out of the quote and tried to peddle your false representation of what was

Of course i understood it! I didn’t manipulate it; I merely quoted the point I wanted to make, which is that, factually and historically, the texts are what they are, not what we “believe” them to be. it wasn’t a false representation. Although your claim of the canon is....

Historical criticism cannot determine what books have authority

It does determine which books are authentic.

Christians do not rely on historical criticism alone. They rely mainly on the inspiration of Scripture. Is it the Word of God.

I never said they did.

Certainly proves you wrong when you call me an heretic

I labeled you a heretic for your views of sola scriptura.

No, not partly. Completely. Which is why there are only 66 books in the Canon of Scripture

Which is why you’re wrong. There are a number of legitimate canons, and they all vary in number.

The Christian faith, the Bible is against you

You’re against me. Happily, you don’t represent either Christianity or the Bible very well in this thread.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

The Bible is not the “word of God,” as you state.

And what Christian believes that? None. Christianity recognizes the Bible is the Word of God. If you don't, you cannot be Christian. If the Bible is not the Word of God, it has no authority.

Why didn't you answer my other questions? I said in post #(226) that you denied God and Christ in the Scriptures. You claimed in (229) that you didn't. Thus my questions in (233), of which one, you ignored.

Why? Because you deny God and Christ in the Scriptures. If not plainly answer. Is Jesus Christ the Son of God and only Saviour as the Bible states?

Good-Ole-Rebel