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.
This text does not address the issue. They were wrong in their conclusions because they did not appreciate the full power of God.
This does not mean they were in error as we mean it here.
The original is whatevery existed before humans arrived on the planet. It includes all the laws of nature.
The Scriptures wouls likely include some error because they reflect man's understanding of the original. Making a mistake does not mean one is "in error." "In error" seems to imply a quasi-permanent position.According to Jesus, didn't their error result (at least in part) because they didn't know the Scriptures. Is Jesus suggesting that, if they had known the Scriptures, they wouldn't have accepted error?
Can you explain the difference?
The "original" would not include the Scriptures?
BFA
The Scriptures wouls likely include some error because they reflect man's understanding of the original. Making a mistake does not mean one is "in error." "In error" seems to imply a quasi-permanent position.
All the stories are true? Meaning they actually happened or that some truth is revealed through the stories? For instance the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The story was not used to tell people what life after death is like, but to express the unbelief of some, who would ultimately not believe if someone came back from the dead...which is what Jesus actually did. But if that story is true then the concept that God is love cannot be true, because love would not act like that (unless you redefine love to be cruelty).
Do you really believe what it says of the future is true literally? That is do you believe that the locusts in the future will have faces like men and sting like scorpions with the pain lasting for 5 months.
How do you know what books were written by Moses? Is Jewish tradition reality, Did Moses write about his own death?
What you wrote above sounds good but it produces a lot of questions about why and how you really accept the stories, the predictions and even the traditions about who wrote something.
It's actually really cool that you ask those qeustions because I'm starting a series tonight at church called "Study to show yourself approved" where we dig into the Bible and learn to back up our words with scripture.
Ooooh! That's so mysterious.
I actually think that most people are fundamentalists of one sort or another.
I'm sure it does produce a lot of questions, and that's what I likeDoesn't it make you want to know more? Doesn't it make you want to study more instead of rely on someone else's studies? It did me.
I heard about a guy who died for me and came back to life, I heard about a man who lived to be over 900 years old, I heard of a man riding to Heaven in a carriage of fire, I heard that there were prophesies about today's time (which have been coming true) and that there is a peace in the midst of any storm through the name of Jesus... I studied and so far, it's all been right.
It would take me hours to pour into this thread all the answers to the questions you asked because I'd have to sit here and bring up resources and studies and notes which sadly I don't have the time for, but like I tell my youth group all the time, "Get in the Word and study it". I don't want someone just listening to me because what I said sounded good, I want them to be intrigued enough to want to study it for themselves.
It doesn't sound good if someone proclaims that Jesus rose from the dead and if someone asked, "How do you know?" the person says, "Someone told me."
As far as the locusts and all that, I believe John wrote down as best as he could describe it. Some like to try and translate it as a helicopter or something. But I do believe it, with all my heart. Today's events just point back to the Bible, if you read it right.
It's actually really cool that you ask those qeustions because I'm starting a series tonight at church called "Study to show yourself approved" where we dig into the Bible and learn to back up our words with scripture.
The problem is that has happened before and many heinous acts (or prejudices entrenched - look how women have been treated for millenia) in the name of scripture so where should the foundation be based? In the character of the Creator or in the words of texts written by men who had a different outlook on life due to their circumstances and/or cultural?
The problem is that has happened before and many heinous acts (or prejudices entrenched - look how women have been treated for millenia) in the name of scripture so where should the foundation be based? In the character of the Creator or in the words of texts written by men who had a different outlook on life due to their circumstances and/or cultural?
Why should we? How did you get to that point from what I posted?If a person does not view the definition of "truth" and "error" as you do, should we conclude that such person is a "fundamentalist?"
BFA
Why should we? How did you get to that point from what I posted?
fundamentalism -- A religious movement, which orig. became active among various
Protestant bodies in the United States after the war of 1914-1918, based on strict
adherence to certain tenets (e.g. the literal inerrancy of Scripture) held to be
fundamental to the Christian faith; the beliefs of this movement; opp. liberalism and
modernism.
[Usage]
1925 K. Lake. The most energetic ... group, but the least well educated, is the
Fundamentalist. The Fundamentalists have zeal, but it is certainly not according to
knowledge.
1926 H.F. Osborn. The fundamentalist movement ... sought to re-establish the Biblical
literalism of the time of Cromwell, Milton, and the Puritans.
Times 1955. `Fundamentalism' ... appears to have been used first in connexion with
the (American) Northern Baptist Convention of 1920 to describe the more
conservative delegates who desired `to restate, reaffirm, and re-emphasize the
fundamentals of our New Testament faith'. Now `fundamentalism' ... appears to
describe the bigoted rejection of all Biblical criticism, a mechanical view of inspiration
and an excessively literalist interpretation of scripture.
http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/church/fundamentalism/fund5.pdf
You may need to be a little clearer here.Though I'm not part of the conversation, I will say that it is a curious question.
You may need to be a little clearer here.
If a person does not view the definition of "truth" and "error" as you do, should we conclude that such person is a "fundamentalist?"Why should we? How did you get to that point from what I posted?
BFA
BOA, if you look closely you will find that you quoted two (three) questions. Which one were you referring to? Further, why is it curious to ask someone how they came to a conclusion that was not implied in the statement to which they were responding?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?