Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

[Hespera]

Meh. People say Stupid Things when they are dying or in severe pain. If you feel free to believe that a lifetime of atheism can be erased by a few choice words in the last few minutes of life, then you must also accept that a lifetime of devotion to God by a long-time Christian can be erased by renouncing God from the deathbed... This notion speaks to a very fickle God; one who measures a person by whatever distressed thoughts/words are blurted out under duress of fear and pain;

"welcome to heaven, lifelong atheist! You said the magic words in the last five seconds, and are now a lucky winner!!!! Grab a toga and a cloud of your choice"

"Sorry dedicated Christian, those eighty years of devout faith are meaningless... you cursed and renouced me in the last minute of your life. No, it doesn't matter that the pain of the cancer raging through your body incited the outburst... Its off to the Pit of Fire with you!"


IMNSHO, it would be far more just to take the measure of a person by what they stood for and accomplished in the majority of their lives.

No, not "forced", they're merely people acting like people, when faced with overwhelming pain, fear, and/or suffering.

Basically it comes down to regression, like calling out for one's mother, or, grasping at straws.

I've heard people say it proves that we all actually believe in god.

 

[Split Rock]

I am 100% behind AV in his factual interpretation of scripture as being 100% true, divinely inspired, good for learning and rebuke and (from what I can tell) inerrant.

I have no problem if in your opinion, the Bible is inerrant... as long as it is clear it is an opinion. We can argue about inerrancy if you like in another thread... my point here is that Biblical Inerracy is not supported directly by scripture. It is an opinion based on interpretation.

The second part of the OP deals with what AVET has refused to deal with. Even if the Bible is inerrant, his or your (or anyone else's) interpretation od scripture most certainly is not inerrant. I believe you at least agree with this part.

 

[Split Rock]

Preposterous. Why common descent and the big bang are wrong, etc, is not because of the word of God. The word of God simply clues us in that you are dead wrong. And if you were not, you could prove it. Of course you can't.

Why don't you prove they are wrong.. oh yeah... you can't.

The whole idea of God speaking to man, and getting a record to us is that it is inspired. Holy men of God did speak as led by God, of course. No way round it.

According to your opinion.

It gives that lineage to within a small margin of interpretation. Do you doubt Adam lived 930 years or whatever? The changes in kids we can see, that came after they got off the ark. The bible also mentions changes to come in kinds, like lion eating straw...

Yes I doubt Adam lived 930 years. No human being lives that long and the evidence from buried human skeletons shows they never did. Oh, and lions don't eat straw.

The universe changes that were after effects of putting man's universe into a temporary state, are too numerous to list. Neither are they important, as they will all be changed again. What is important is that God sent His son to save us from ourselves, and death forever. Whether His living here on earth will mean the sun starts to revolve around the earth, we don't know. Just as whethher it used to in anotther state is unknown..

More state nonsense you cannot provide evidence for..

Or the tooth fairy! So??? It does mention in the latter days men will worship the creation more than the creator.

How about A Rib-Woman?

I thought everyone will worship The AntiChrist?

No more than interpreting Adam lived 930 years.

An incorrect interpretation leads to incorrect conclusions.

Not all ancients were goat herders. Really. The wise men, for example. Or Daniel. Many things were written for the latter times, not just in the US, but Israel, and etc.

It was written for goat-herders to understand, not by them.

Not at all. The years from Adam till Solomon are pretty well mapped out. Opinion comes into play only in a minor way, to the tune of max hundreds of years.

"Begat" only indicates ancestry, not whether it was direct or not. My great-great grandfather begat me... it doesn't mean he was my father.

Yes, they do,, if we are talking the garden, the flood, or Babel, or etc. Also the timeframes, within a small margin of possible interpretation. That is why it is such a raging debate.

Only if you interpret Genesis like a 21st century American Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian.

Creation, and creation week is sacrosanct, untouchable, immutable, absolute, written in stone, divine, confirmed in the mouth of New Testament witnesses, impervious to science, and certain.

So You Claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

Meh. People say Stupid Things when they are dying or in severe pain.

Then why is it considered solid evidence in court?

If you feel free to believe that a lifetime of atheism can be erased by a few choice words in the last few minutes of life, then you must also accept that a lifetime of devotion to God by a long-time Christian can be erased by renouncing God from the deathbed...

Nope --- doesn't work that way.

Once-save, always-saved.

This notion speaks to a very fickle God; one who measures a person by whatever distressed thoughts/words are blurted out under duress of fear and pain;

Not hardly ---

...for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

Are you denying the fact that the repentant thief is in Heaven?

"welcome to heaven, lifelong atheist! You said the magic words in the last five seconds, and are now a lucky winner!!!! Grab a toga and a cloud of your choice"

No happy endings in your book, is there?

And fyi, God would never welcome a person to Heaven as a 'lifelong atheist'.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Then why is it considered solid evidence in court?

It is?

 

[AV1611VET]

It is?

Yes --- if someone shot someone, and the police arrived and cradled the dying man in his arms, and the dying man said 'the butler did it', then believe me, the butler is going to be investigated.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes --- if someone shot someone, and the police arrived and cradled the dying man in his arms, and the dying man said 'the butler did it', then believe me, the butler is going to be investigated.

This is a really bad analogy. He would need to say, "I believe in you Jesus!" And that would then need to be cited as evidence he was a Christian.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes --- if someone shot someone, and the police arrived and cradled the dying man in his arms, and the dying man said 'the butler did it', then believe me, the butler is going to be investigated.

Getting back to the O.P. AVET, can you answer this question for me...

Is your interpretation of scripture inerrant?

 

[Hespera]

It is?

AbsoLUTELY! And without exception. That is why prisoners are always tortured, and their forced confessions obviate the need for a trial, except you know, for show.


ps like the butler would not be investigated anyway, and like they would not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt just like there had been no dying accusation by the guy who still loved his wife despite she just shot him and he wanted to blame the butler, who was her lover.

We notice that things like ID / creationism do badly in court because their case... despite being the product of divine reality...has not one single last solitary piece of physical evbidence.

Astronomy did badly at first against an intensely hostile court, but, in the end, reality won out. (evidence, of the physical kind)

 

[atomweaver]

Then why is it considered solid evidence in court?

Testimony is never 'solid evidence', not like physical evidence, anyways... Further, testimony given under duress is never considered solid evidence, either.

Nope --- doesn't work that way.Once-save, always-saved.

Then nearly all of us in the US are saved, since nearly every US child has at one time thought of themselves as being a saved Christian. Hooray!!!

/christianforums

Not hardly ---Are you denying the fact that the repentant thief is in Heaven?

It is perfectly consistent with your belief in the nature of your God. It is not, however, consistent with the notion of a God who is just.

No happy endings in your book, is there?

Heh. A happy ending is inevitable in my book, AVVET...

And fyi, God would never welcome a person to Heaven as a 'lifelong atheist'.

Good thing that how God chooses to address that person is trivial minutiae to the example, then, other than as a means of conveniently describing the person in the example.

 

[Hespera]

Getting back to the O.P. AVET, can you answer this question for me...

Is your interpretation of scripture inerrant?

Question is seconded. We should be able to get a yes or no; you cant keep a good man like the old time John Wayne from just bluntly speaking the truth, no ifs, ands, buts, qualifications, ameliorations, side notes, references, embellishments, allegory, phrases like "in the sense that", weasel words, temporizing or other indications of inability, disinclination, or indisposition to plain courageous statement of the facts. We expect no less in this case.

 

[AV1611VET]

Getting back to the O.P. AVET, can you answer this question for me...

Is your interpretation of scripture inerrant?

I use the historical-grammatical interpretation method, backed up with basic theology, including dispensation theology.

It's hard to go wrong with that, wouldn't you say?

Beyond that, I freely give ad lib answers to ad lib questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Astronomy did badly at first against an intensely hostile court, but, in the end, reality won out. (evidence, of the physical kind)

It was empirical evidence that got astronomy so out-of-tune with reality in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is perfectly consistent with your belief in the nature of your God. It is not, however, consistent with the notion of a God who is just.

That's right, it's not.

If God used justice to save us, we'd all go to Hell; but it's by His grace He saves us.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Here are the differences:

• justice = getting what you deserve
• mercy = not getting what you deserve
• grace = getting what you don't deserve

 

[Split Rock]

Getting back to the O.P. AVET, can you answer this question for me...

Is your interpretation of scripture inerrant?

I use the historical-grammatical interpretation method, backed up with basic theology, including dispensation theology.

It's hard to go wrong with that, wouldn't you say?

Beyond that, I freely give ad lib answers to ad lib questions.

One more time, AVET. My question was not "ad lib," as there is no such thing as an "ad lib" question. Please assume we are living in the real world, not AVET Land. Is it really so very hard to answer this question in a straight-foward manner? A Yes or No, please.

Is Your Interpretation of Scripture Inerrant?

 

[Hespera]

I use the historical-grammatical interpretation method, backed up with basic theology, including dispensation theology.

It's hard to go wrong with that, wouldn't you say?

Beyond that, I freely give ad lib answers to ad lib questions.

Is that a yes, or a no? Doesnt read like either one.

The answer to your question there, is............NO!

See, its easy, just type in two or three letters: no, or yes.

Its what people do when they have the courage of their convictions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is Your Interpretation of Scripture Inerrant?

No.

 

[Split Rock]

No.

Thank you.

Now then, follow my logic and tell me if it is flawed somewhere.

1. God's Word is inerrant.
2. AVET's interpretation of scripture is not inerrant.
3. AVET's interpretation of scripture is not God's Word.

Make sense?

 

[ProfessorMari]

I invite anyone who is interested in this topic to check out a website called songofgenesis.org
(I can't post the link yet, but just type it in your URL).

I think it does a very convincing job of explaining how faith and science are supposed to work together. After all, knowledge and wisdom come from God.

If atheists don't believe in a Creator God, that's fine. Faith is also a gift. Who can judge why some are given it and some are not?

But believers who deny or ignore science are worse off, because they are hiding from a deeper understanding of God's creation and should not be afraid of seeking knowledge.

There is a lot of information on this site, but it is pretty easy to follow.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you.

Now then, follow my logic and tell me if it is flawed somewhere.

1. God's Word is inerrant.
2. AVET's interpretation of scripture is not inerrant.
3. AVRT's interpretation of scripture is not God's Word.

Make sense?

Yes and no --- only where my interpretation disagrees with God's Word, would it be errant.

If it agrees with God's Word, whether accidentally or on purpose, then God's Word gives my opinion its credibility.

For instance, if I claim God exists --- my interpretation would be inerrant.

If I claim evolution exists --- my interpretation would be errant.