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.
Yes, this is why I was told to tell a Christian that I was reading the Bible, so that they could pray for me as I did. That is to say, the first time I did read it.
No, I'm not Roman Catholic. I'm sola scriptura. I claim no denomination but am a follower of Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't mean what you seem to believe it means, which is clear from the context since Paul's reliance on "God-breatthed" is its function in the life of faith. When we speak of the Word of God the Greek word we are referring to is logos, which is not present in 2 Timothy 3:16. The second issue is that pneumotheos is an out-breath not an in-breath so it is eisegetical to read it as inspiration.
So what do you refer to then when suggesting that the bible is not infallible so that we may all refer to your infallible version?
Do you not trust the leading of the Holy Spirit, and need a physical object to discern His voice? The Scriptures are profitable, authoritative, and the central normative element of a broader spiritual leading. Reifying the Scriptures is nothing but having a false sense of security that doesn't fit with either the history of Christianity nor with even the slightest critical inquiry. There is no need for inerrancy to maintain the centrality of the Bible, and maintaining it in the face of evidence to the contrary damages people's faith far more often than it edifies.
I disagree because Jesus Christ refers to 'writings' which He would not refer to if they were open to error. Jesus Christ is perfect and without sin. It doesn't make sense that He would use writings as a way to show He was the Messiah if they could be open to interpretation or error.
And what 'understanding' are you making reference to? The infallible nature of the bible or some other 'understanding'?
The doctrines of inerrancy originating with the Princetonians and adopted by fundamentalists in the 20th century, primarily BB Warfield and Charles Hodge.
Nonesense.
The goal is not to discredit the Bible, but to develop an appropriate perspective on it. Identifying specific errors wouldn't really be suited to the topic, and the premise that we need an infallible textual document is rather short sighted.
God bless you as well.
Sort of. For most of Christian history, the Bible has been viewed as true. Allegory was used to deal with parts of the OT. But major events were assumed to have happened. Contradictions were commonly deal with by harmonization. Calvin understood that there were minor problems like disagreements over numbers of people in the some books, and he took some descriptions as being how things looked rather than scientific fact. But almost no Christian writers would come out and simply say that the Bible was wrong.
Yeah, but there's a world of difference between being true and being inerrant. Most of Christian history is more firmly in the infallible camp, rather than inerrant as most exegetes recognize some basic errors but not outright contradictions.
It's a natural development of sola scriptura, and short shift to dogma like KJVO. Its development happened as a reaction to scientific inquiry and critical scholarship of the Bible, and its more than just a legalistic version of a historic belief but it is a reification of prior beliefs and a natural next step in the development of Protestant theology on the matter. But it remains an innovation by the Princetonians, especially as they replaced the Westminster confessions prior position.
Or even an errant translation of an inerrant text..."However, a 1631 mistake in an English Bible literally turned a passage – one of the Ten Commandments, no less – on its head. Rather than reading “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” this edition declares, “Thou shalt commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14)." Damnable Typos & the Bible
Even if we had infallible interpreters, we'd be stuck interpreting them as well. Unless you're advocating that each of us is infallible in our interpretations. So it doesn't seem to me that we can affirm either, at least unless we're simply going to be insisting on such matters dogmatically and don't deal in the practical realities involved.
I have mixed feelings about this, because there are clearly some who are gifted students/teachers and a lot of possibility for errors coming from people who don't recognize exegetical fallacies especially failure to distanciate. So while there is some benefit to everyone who can read reading for themselves, there are reasons to not encourage private readings as well. Though I am in agreement that so long as its accurate enough that conscienctious students of reasonable intelligence can come to similar understandings of the same passages it is accurate enough.
