Do you all accept biblical inerrancy/infallibility and why?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The point of imagining you are Abram is to realize that if Abram had behaved like many modern Christians then he would have rejected the voice of God because it disagreed with the prevailing religious texts of his culture. When you make a religious text the standard of orthodoxy then you exclude insights that God might give to extend the theology in the future.

BTW, the saving grace for the Bible as a standard of orthodoxy is the Bible's ambiguity and incompleteness. If the Bible was truly unambiguous and comprehensive then Christianity would never change, but obviously Christianity has been changing over the centuries and will continue to change.

So you are opposed to God and to Scripture, understanding neither.

The beliefs(in your posts) you have must be rejected in order to come to Christ Jesus - they are not compatible, and cannot be "cleaned up" as if to be kept or retained in any way.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

yes, I accept it fully.

God IS the standard of the book!

 

[topher694]

The point of imagining you are Abram is to realize that if Abram had behaved like many modern Christians then he would have rejected the voice of God because it disagreed with the prevailing religious texts of his culture. When you make a religious text the standard of orthodoxy then you exclude insights that God might give to extend the theology in the future.

BTW, the saving grace for the Bible as a standard of orthodoxy is the Bible's ambiguity and incompleteness. If the Bible was truly unambiguous and comprehensive then Christianity would never change, but obviously Christianity has been changing over the centuries and will continue to change.

I haven't expressed my stance on the question and I probably won't. My point is simply that your "suggestions" don't really make much sense from a religious or practical standpoint. They simply are not in line with how faith works.

 

[JackRT]

The religious culture of Ur was likely polytheistic and likely henotheistic as well. That is to say that the pantheon of the gods was accepted but each tribe or clan had their own "God" which was the only one they were permitted to worship. Henotheism is a transitional stage between polytheism and monotheism. Genesis 2ff strongly hints that the early Hebrew tribes were henotheistic.

 

[solid_core]

1. Preservation:
- some books are so old that we have no way of knowing what was in the autograph; this applies mostly to the Old Testament
- all books that we have have many variants in readings, so the final text in our printed bibles are more or less educated guesses

2. Inspiration
- while some Christians think it was some kind of automatic dictation, its quite clear that the inspiration is rather in the underlying message than in specific words; but not always, some texts are more inspired (like some prophecies about Christ) and some texts are less inspired (history books, for example)

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I read one of his books, so I am familiar with some of Heiser's views. I don't think he is a good writer, but there are some interesting ideas. I'm not sure what you think of his writing, but I think he should hire a ghost writer for his books.

Funny you should say that! I've only listened to him on You-tube! I think his style is probably best there. But I bought my best friend the Unseen Realm and Reversing Hermon and he had issue with them. What my friend quoted actually sounded a lot like his oral style but less effective! And since my friends theological bias is different on the Nephilim (going with the later Church Fathers interpretation) that made things worse. Basically my friend's attention span could not get past the first chapter or two to get to the strong parts of his case. He early on sounded too opinionated with out footnoting or explaining why that is where in his lecturers he is better at making comments to explain himself.

 

[JackRT]

1. Perseverance:
- some books are so old that we have no way of knowing what was in the autograph; this applies mostly to the Old Testament
- all books that we have have many variants in readings, so the final text in our printed bibles are more or less educated guesses

I think you meant to use the term 'Provenance' rather than "
'Perseverance'. I would disagree that provenance problems are mostly limited to the Old Testament. The authors of the Gospels were assigned a century after the fact based mostly on legend. The Epistles too are very problematic.

 

[solid_core]

I think you meant to use the term 'Provenance' rather than "
'Perseverance'. I would disagree that provenance problems are mostly limited to the Old Testament. The authors of the Gospels were assigned a century after the fact based mostly on legend. The Epistles too are very problematic.

Yeah, I fixed it for "preservation", maybe a better word.

Well, we have some NT fragments from the first century, full texts from the 4th century, but our oldest OT copies are thousands of years after autographs, so the situtation is much more worse there.

 

[Rajni]

Do you all accept biblical inerrancy/infallibility and why?

Not anymore. My deprogramming process is complete.

Shouldn't God be the standard rather than a book?

Once he shows himself, I'll be able to better answer that question.
Until then, I'd only be going by god-concepts, and I'm not sure that
suffices.

-

-

 

[timothyu]

There is no history of sin because God has erased it.

God opened the doors to the Kingdom and His kingdom by way of Jesus. Available to all yes, but it came with stipulations, the first being repentance/change from the self serving ways of man to the will of God. No loyalty to the Kingdom of God instead of the governance of man, no admittance. From cover to cover the scriptures put the will of God before the will of man. From cover to cover the adversarial ways of man to God's will are shown and the results of their actions. Insanity is failing to learn from our mistakes and the world including many in Christianity remain insane in the eyes of the Kingdom for refusing to learn and change, thinking no problem we are saved. Not so without a switch of allegiance. Why would God want Earth V: 2.0 rather than Kingdom V: 1.0?

 

[Halbhh]

Do you all accept biblical inerrancy/infallibility and why? Shouldn't God be the standard rather than a book?

Perhaps this was already addressed, but I think of the difference between the Word itself, and a particular translation of it -- similar to Math itself, and a Math textbook. A particular Math textbook can have a poor wording in some section about some Math topic, for example. But the underlying Math itself is perfect, infallible, even when that particular textbook, distinct from other textbooks, needed an edit. (this is analogous to how some translations can do poorly at times in some passages compared to other translations)

So, the Word is perfect by nature, but the text in hand may not be the best available, at times. (for instance I found some problems in otherwise often-useful NLT. It's not trivial to have some problems. They can be very serious at times)

 

[d taylor]

That would be 'I have gotten a man Jehovah' would it not. There is no punctuation in Hebrew.

The way i wrote Genesis 4:1 in English was from Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum. So as i am also not a Hebrew authority, i can not attest to : in Genesis 4:1

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That would be 'I have gotten a man Jehovah' would it not. There is no punctuation in Hebrew.

I believe there were no capital letters also, and sometimes no spaces?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

obviously Christianity has been changing over the centuries and will continue to change.

Sorry, no. Sorry, yes - the worldly 'christendom' has gone thru a lot of changes.

God knew it would, and provided a Way for His children to not stumble by that.
The Truth.
Jesus.
Never changes.

 

[timothyu]

I believe there were no capital letters also, and sometimes no spaces?

The way i wrote Genesis 4:1 in English was from Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum. So as i am also not a Hebrew authority, i can not attest to : in Genesis 4:1

My point is that the addition of punctuation by Gentiles often changed the meaning of phrase by a simple assumption.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

My point is that the addition of punctuation by Gentiles often changed the meaning of phrase by a simple assumption.

Jews might have done that also. I don't know who did though. The Greek language wa apparently wonderful for preserving what Yahuweh wanted to preserve in the meaning of Scripture, but the Greek lifestyles/ myths and such and not God's Way/ certainly changed the thinking of a lot of multitudes of people in ungodly ways. (published in a few sites only - Hebrew vs Greek comparisons, if still available) .....

 

[timothyu]

Jews might have done that also.

They don't use punctuation in their scriptures.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

They don't use punctuation in their scriptures.

Some did, I would think. Somewhere along the line, sometime in the last thousand or two thousand years ?. ......

 

[timothyu]

Some did, I would think. Somewhere along the line, sometime in the last thousand or two thousand years ?. ......

I'm saying in scripture...

 

[cloudyday2]

They don't use punctuation in their scriptures.

I've always wondered why whitespace and punctuation was so late to gain popularity. I know the writing material was expensive, but all it takes is a tiny dot between words to make it a lot more clear.