Recent content by Matthew

Where exactly have you read these things?

The Bible does maintain a close relationship between Christ and the word of God, but I don't believe that they are ever identified. ("word" in this case refers to Christ, not the the spoken word of God.)

They also do not deny that that is the case. The possibility I gave seems to be the only one available, but there may be others. In any case, one must be careful with any text. I know what "reasoning" is (logic). But "human reasoning" must be something else. What exactly? To me those words...

Lexical studies should only use the language of the time. Consider what would happen if someone were to use modern English to determine the range of meanings of some Early Modern English words.

My argument does not include that assumption. There is a difference between moral actions and successful actions. There is also a difference between wise actions and moral actions. They lied in order to avoid carrying out an evil deed. So which thing did God bless them for? Disobeying...

That is quite obvious. But the idea that 1, 3, and 4 are based on the Bible (as a true document) was not stated and should not be assumed. Remember that there is a difference between "the Bible says" and "the Bible (which is true) teaches". Also, saying that the Bible says x (3)...

You are certainly argueing that, but you have not provided a valid reason for me to believe you. Further, regardless of where your belief in 1 comes from (I did not say it came from the Bible), it is a premise that I assumed we both believed. Was I incorrect? No, that is not what "circular"...

That merely begs the question. If the Bible is God's word, then the Bible can't replace the divine because it is a message from the divine.

I assume that you believe 1 as a Christian. If you do not, you are in violation of CF rule #6, and this is the wrong area for you. If you do believe 1, then why are you disputing it? If you wish to be precise, then we can say that since "Bible" usually refers to the OT and NT, Jesus did not...

I maintain that I was putting it the correct context. I still think that "strongly grieved" is the best understanding of that passage. Although one could put "regret" if it was understood in that manner. You may not think it is useful, but what matters to me is whether it is Biblical...

You are assuming that the argument would go like this: 1) The Bible is true 2) The Bible claims it is inerrant Therefore, 3) The Bible is inerrant (since inerrant and true are identical, this would be circular) Precisely. My claim is simply this: 1) Jesus is by nature God 2)...

In Mark 10 (which I am assuming that you are referring to) Jesus is, when his words are taken in context, saying that divorce is not allowed whenever the husband desires. (Also, adultery divides what God has joined together, and falls under "man dividing what God has joined together".)...

One would need to make an argument that in this case both of these changes are probable. Argument from authority. (There are other authorities that say that that translation is not probable.) Provided that there are no other scriptures, you are correct. As for Mr. Cheese's last...

True. But where should one start? I think that the clear statements in scripture about scripture should be examined before any alleged contradictions. Even if one were to show that the Bible contained no contradictions in matters that could be verified, there are statements in the Bible that...

All you have shown is that the words in themselves can be interpreted that way. You have not shown that the words when in 2 Tim 3:16 can be interpreted that way.