Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I beleive that is a part of our fallen condition and that God has a plan for redemption and restoration. Although I just stated a thread on what Frances Collins has to say about this.
But your belief in an inerrant Scripture actually came from church teachings to that effect. Everyone looks at Scripture through a lens. For many laity, it is the lens of church teachings. Many laity come to the Bible , with the idea firmly set in their minds that Scripture is inerrant. That the way the Bible says things happened is exactly how they did, period, no question about it. OK, fine. If that's what the laity want to do, so be it. Problem is, however, in modern biblical studies, that is about the worst way to come to Scripture. You should come to Scripture, with an open mind. That means viewing Scripture though the lens of a healthy skepticism about traditional church teachings. Maybe Scripture is inerrant, maybe not. Let's review the hard data and then decide. On that basis, the inerrancy theory is ruled out. The fact of the matter is that the Bible contains about 100 major contradictions. Many accounts were written long after the events took place. The Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. The Bible does not present an objective history. Conclusion: The Bible is not inerrant, nor should it be expected to be. Divinely inspired as it may be, it is still the work of fallible human beings. Now unless you are naïve enough to believe that humans are infallible and always make infallible judgments, then you have to accept the fact there really are no infallible human witnesses. That doesn't mean the Bible is worthless, just that it is not infallible. Well you may read Scripture and decide it is infallible, biblical scholars also read it and conclude otherwise.
Not at all. I read the Bible and the Holy Spirit of God is to be our teacher, not man. Of course I am interested in what God shows others but not so much what makes the rounds from first to second to third hand accounts. We can not teach truth we can only help people to discover truth for themselves.
That maybe your conclusion but it is not my conclusion at all and it does not seem to be the conclusion that Collins arrives at. Collins is able to reconcile what appears to be randomness with the clear plan that God has.
Evidence, please.I esp like the part about Horse evolution that has gone though total revision,
yet the text books still teach the old obsolete model.
Sorry, no way near accurate about the Bible. The Johnnie Comma was a later insert by Trinitarians. The ending of Mark is a later insert. Originally, three were at least tow Bibles, the Septuagint (Greek OT) and the Masoretic (Hebrew OT). Also there was a Samaritan Pentateuch, which included and eleventh commandment. Both Catholic and early Protestant Bibles contained the Apocrypha, then it was drooped by the Protestants. Between the DSS and later Bibles, Samuel got shorter and Goliath got way taller. Early Christian gnostics had a wholly separate, very different set of Gospels. The Book of Ester got chopped into two pieces, one piece inserted teh Apocrypha, teh other in the OT as we Protestants have it. Luther's Bible place James in a special appendix, separate form the rest, because he believed it was a "straw epistle." Later German Bibles moved it back.
Totally inaccurate. Scripture makes it very clear that some are to be teachers. Also, the traditional teachings about inerrancy argued they were all inspired by the Spirit, though later debunked. Look, saying teh Spirit inspired you or taught this and that is a dangerous claim to make without providing tons of supporting evidence. Every kook and fanatic in teh book claims he is inspired by the Spirit.
Absolutely true. England resolved this debate way back when, yet it still continues on over here.
Incorrect, pure creation-science propaganda. There is absolutely no evidence that the finches played a major, central role in Darwin's thinking. Also, it was actually a colleague, AR Wallace, who first came up with the idea of survival of teh fitters, which he then shared with Darwin. Originally, it was called the Darwin-Wallace theory.
That was a quote from the link that someone else listed. I just posted it for the people that do not want to click on the link.
He is not saying anything any different then I am. He is just a lot more articulate then I am. I would almost think he was sneaking in here at night and reading my posts except that he takes it all a lot further then I have ever studied it or thought about. Of course as Christians we have the mind of Christ and we are to be of one mind and one accord.
Ok, now I know you have not read your Bible:
I do not say it is false. I go along with Collins and what he says. He is just a lot more articulate and a lot more educated then I am so He can say it better then I can.
