Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

[Hespera]

"Ethics"?"Morals"?

I kinda like the word "taboo" in this context

 

[Naraoia]

Without looking it up, the only other instance I can think of is Amnon raping his half-sister Tamar.

Neither of which constituted incest.Now that's just wrong on so many levels.

I'll agree that science's version of Eve (mtDNA Eve) would have had to commit beastiality (and this conversation is starting to go south), but not the real Eve.

How many times do you have to be told that mitochondrial Eve was not the first woman?

Once again, she is simply the most recent common ancestor of all living people by the maternal line. She's just the woman in whom the lines of the mothers of the mothers of the mothers of the mothers ... of all of us meet. That doesn't make her special, and she's not an absolute either. If part of humanity died out, mtEve would no longer be the same person.

You'd be wrong, but hten this has been explained to you before...

Mitocvhondrial Eve would be the woman that all current living people can trace their mitochondrial genetic lineage back to. There almost certainly were other families of humans, but their lineages have since died out. The name "Eve" was co-opted in reference to "mother of all" rather than "first woman", even though in the Christian mythos that is one and the same.


Here's a rough time line to illustrate (edit - foolish editor culls deliberate spaces... try this)

Humans
|
More humans
|
mtEve and mt"Jane" and mt"Sarah"
|
more humans (but all of mt"Sarah"'s descendants die in a plague)
|
more humans (but all of mt"Jane"'s descendants die in a drought)
|
more humans
|
Modern humans

That.

 

[AV1611VET]

How many times do you have to be told that mitochondrial Eve was not the first woman?

I thought I said that already, Naraoia --- twice in the same sentence.

As I understand it, mtDNA Eve, who is not to be confused with the Eve of Genesis, was the first (actually the oldest one found) --- but, so far, was the first woman on the planet --- born of what I suppose you'd call a 'proto-glorified ape', or whatever nonsense you want to call it.

 

[Naraoia]

I thought I said that already, Naraoia --- twice in the same sentence.

Must have misread you, then. Sorry.

Still... if you are aware of that, why do you say she would've had to commit bestiality?

 

[Norbert L]

I am not suggesting that scripture is null and void... rather that it is (at best) an imperfect reflection of God's Word. I do not agree with the last sentence, however... interpretation by fallible people is never inerrant.

The Bible suggests otherwise:

"for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pe 1:21)

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." (1 Pe 2:9)

I am generalizing, but this is based on my interactions with creationists and their basic arguments. In the end, for most, it comes down to: "my argument is based on the Word of God and therefore trumps science, because sciecne can be wrong but The Word of God cannot." This assumes The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and that their interpretation is also inerrant. The only truth I am trying to explain, is that none of us are inerrant, including the authors of The Bible. Therefore, none of us can claim inerrancy whether it is based on The Bible or otherwise.

There is a difference between assuming the word of God is inerrant and assuming the interpretation by some men is inerrant.

"... And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it--lest you even be found to fight against God." (Ac 5:38-39)

Indeed how. Once again, it is very possible that no one is interpeting the inspired word in truth... how can we tell? Even if we assume someone must be interpreting scripture correctly on a given subject, how can we determine who? This is in essence, my point.

For the God who claims to have created all things, a good place for anyone to start is,

"For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist," Says the Lord. "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word." (Is 66:2)

"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Is 8:20)

Why those two? It is evident and observable that there's a lot of believing and confessing going on with those who profess Christ nowadays with many different interpretations about who He is. Yet the man who taught, "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." This same man, Paul ends up believing and confessing in public like this,


"But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets." (Ac 24:14)

 

[Split Rock]

The Bible suggests otherwise:

"for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pe 1:21)

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." (1 Pe 2:9)

Are you claiming to be a prophet then? Does being moved by the Hoply Spirit mean you interpret scripture inerrantly? I think not.

There is a difference between assuming the word of God is inerrant and assuming the interpretation by some men is inerrant.

"... And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it--lest you even be found to fight against God." (Ac 5:38-39)

Sure there is a difference, that is why I separated those two points. Both, however, are assumptions. Assumptions built upon assumptions.

For the God who claims to have created all things, a good place for anyone to start is,

"For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist," Says the Lord. "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word." (Is 66:2)

"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Is 8:20)

Why those two? It is evident and observable that there's a lot of believing and confessing going on with those who profess Christ nowadays with many different interpretations about who He is. Yet the man who taught, "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." This same man, Paul ends up believing and confessing in public like this,


"But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets." (Ac 24:14)

I don't see how this addresses my points. All because one has faith, does not make one inerrant.

 

[Norbert L]

Are you claiming to be a prophet then? Does being moved by the Hoply Spirit mean you interpret scripture inerrantly? I think not.

If by pointing out some verses, showing some relative statements that contradict a claim being made. Then even if a chimp would randomly type them in, what does that matter? What does matter are they relevant and are they the written word of God? If one were to assume yes, then there are people voicing His inerrant word.

Sure there is a difference, that is why I separated those two points. Both, however, are assumptions. Assumptions built upon assumptions.

The word of God remains with the knowledge within from one generation to the next. The assumptions wether they are true or false are made by the readers.

I don't see how this addresses my points. All because one has faith, does not make one inerrant.

The word of God is there to show wether someone else is speaking the word in truth.

"Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." (Ac 17:11)

It's also there to show a person wether they're within the truth.

"Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--." (2 Cor 2:13)

Frankly if people were to assume that the Bible is the word of God, just by looking at that last scripture, there are people even today whose interpretation of scripture IS the inerrant word of God.

 

[Split Rock]

If by pointing out some verses, showing some relative statements that contradict a claim being made. Then even if a chimp would randomly type them in, what does that matter? What does matter are they relevant and are they the written word of God? If one were to assume yes, then there are people voicing His inerrant word.



The word of God remains with the knowledge within from one generation to the next. The assumptions wether they are true or false are made by the readers.




The word of God is there to show wether someone else is speaking the word in truth.

"Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." (Ac 17:11)

It's also there to show a person wether they're within the truth.

"Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--." (2 Cor 2:13)

Frankly if people were to assume that the Bible is the word of God, just by looking at that last scripture, there are people even today whose interpretation of scripture IS the inerrant word of God.

None of this changes the simple fact that there are 38,000 Christian denominations (According to Christianity Today Christianity Today - General Statistics and Facts of Christianity Today). Why? Because everyone interprets scripture differently. Thus, no one does so inerrantly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why? Because everyone interprets scripture differently.

Yup --- it's called the Allegorical Method, which allows the reader to be the sole authority for interpretation; in contradistinction to the Literal Method, which forces even those hostile to the Bible to admit what It says.

 

[Cabal]

Yup --- it's called the Allegorical Method, which allows the reader to be the sole authority for interpretation; in contradistinction to the Literal Method, which forces even those hostile to the Bible to admit what It says.

Yeah, AV, this would actually be marginally meaningful if you didn't hold wholly unique Biblical interpretations of some fairly well-known Biblical passages.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Yup --- it's called the Allegorical Method, which allows the reader to be the sole authority for interpretation; in contradistinction to the Literal Method, which forces even those hostile to the Bible to admit what It says.

..unless it's about killing witches or God removing evidence for the flood or the age of the earth, in which case 19th century Irish Protestant theology and personal convictions take over, respectively.

 

[AV1611VET]

..unless it's about killing witches or God removing evidence for the flood or the age of the earth, in which case 19th century Irish Protestant theology and personal convictions take over, respectively.

Incorporating the Salem Witch Trials into theology is like incorporating the Boston Massacre into politics.

 

[Norbert L]

None of this changes the simple fact that there are 38,000 Christian denominations (According to Christianity Today Christianity Today - General Statistics and Facts of Christianity Today). Why? Because everyone interprets scripture differently. Thus, no one does so inerrantly.

That would be only one of two possible conclusions, the other would be some are interpreting scripture inerrantly. And furthermore that would be an objective observation which shows one proof that people should no longer assume the Bible is the word of God, but as a fact it is the inerrant word of God, for even the scriptures themselves speak that.

"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you..." (2 Pe 2:1)

The "you" being:

"Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone" (Ep 2:19-20)

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Incorporating the Salem Witch Trials into theology is like incorporating the Boston Massacre into politics.

Obvious and perfectly reasonable?

 

[AV1611VET]

Valid and obvious?

Scapegoatish.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Scapegoatish.

The Salem trials were the result of a literal interpretation of the Bible. Interpreting the Bible is a field of theology. Arguing whether God wants us to kill witches or not is a field of theology.

The Boston Massacre was the result of British troops being stationed in the city to help enforce laws passed by the British government. How was this event not political in nature?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Salem trials were the result of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Then why do I, a literalist, condemn it?

In fact, why do even allegorists condemn it?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Then why do I, a literalist, condemn it?

Because you're a human being and a literalist only when it suits you. Thankfully, I might say.

In fact, why do even allegorists condemn it?

"Even" allegorists? Why would an allegorist not condemn it?

 

[Cabal]

Then why do I, a literalist, condemn it?

Because you interpret in your own way, the same as every human being on the planet does.

In fact, why do even allegorists condemn it?

Because killing people is t3h l4me.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then why do I, a literalist, condemn it?

Inconsistency.

In fact, why do even allegorists condemn it?

because they should.