Any other book

[Catherineanne]

Oh and don't forget that the Earth doesn't move, and the sun revolves around it

Indeed so!!

 

[Hentenza]

Again, much of this has no basis in Scripture. There is no evidence in Scripture that God kept the authors of the various books from error. Nor that Scripture has a human nature and a divine nature, come to that; that smacks far too much of confusing the Bible with Christ once more.

If Scripture doesn't say it, as far as I am concerned, we are not authorised to believe it.

You can smack it as much as you want. The bible claims inspiration. Inpiration can not happen unless is inspired by God. The bible was written by men and inspired by God. That makes it a dual natured book.

You can attempt to deny the inspiration of the Bible but then your last sentence in your post betrays you.

 

[Catherineanne]

That's why quoting a God you don't believe can only defeat your whole point which it has.

You are confusing me not believing you with me not believing God; the two are very much not the same. I have consistently throughout this thread challenged what you have claimed, and shown that it is unBiblical. Not one of these points has been addressed, and instead you are resorting to ad homs.

So, let us address at least one central issue.

Do you believe that the quotation I have given from Revelation is Biblical evidence that the Word of God is a title for Christ himself?

It is an easy enough question. Is the Word of God Christ?

 

[Catherineanne]

Well Igot news for you, God's words will never pass away but your words will pass away. So it's a waste of time to add them to scripture. "By their fruits you will know them." Indeed.

You have said it. And in saying this, you write your own epitaph.

 

[peace4ever]

You are confusing me not believing you with me not believing God; the two are very much not the same. I have consistently throughout this thread challenged what you have claimed, and shown that it is unBiblical. Not one of these points has been addressed, and instead you are resorting to ad homs.

So, let us address at least one central issue.

Do you believe that the quotation I have given from Revelation is Biblical evidence that the Word of God is a title for Christ himself?

It is an easy enough question. Is the Word of God Christ?

Sorry but my "interpretation" of this verse: "For the Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" is;

"For the Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.'

Notice they are one in the same.

So when you disagree with people who believe the bible exactly s written, you are also disagreeing with God. that's why only those who don't go beyond scripture apply to this verse; 2 Corinthians 5:20, "Therefore, we are Christ's ambassadors as though God were making his appeal through us."

But those who don't believe the bible as written are passing along their imaginations as God's word. They thus worship themselves.

 

[Catherineanne]

You can smack it as much as you want. The bible claims inspiration. Inpiration can not happen unless is inspired by God. The bible was written by men and inspired by God. That makes it a dual natured book.

You can attempt to deny the inspiration of the Bible but then your last sentence in your post betrays you.

I do not deny what Paul says in Timothy; the Scriptures are indeed inspired by God.

What I am unwilling to do is to exchange the perfectly clear word 'inspired' for the other perfectly clear word 'perfect' when there is no authority whatever in Scripture to do so.

The Bible is not dual natured because it is inanimate, and does not have any nature whatever. It is Christ who is dual natured in being fully human and fully divine. The Bible is just a book. First among books, maybe. But still just a book.

Anything which serves to confuse the two is, to me, idolatrous.

 

[Catherineanne]

But those who don't believe the bible as written are passing along their imaginations as God's word. They thus worship namely themselves.

Once again, you have said it.

 

[peace4ever]

Once again, you have said it.

Then it appears that you don't know what Genesis 2:7 says since have no clue which words are God's, which are mine, yours or anyone else's. You thus can't know who God is. It would thus, not be productive to discuss the bible with you.

 

[Hentenza]

I do not deny what Paul says in Timothy; the Scriptures are indeed inspired by God.

What I am unwilling to do is to exchange the perfectly clear word 'inspired' for the other perfectly clear word 'perfect' when there is no authority whatever in Scripture to do so.

The Bible is not dual natured because it is inanimate, and does not have any nature whatever. It is Christ who is dual natured in being fully human and fully divine. The Bible is just a book. First among books, maybe. But still just a book.

Anything which serves to confuse the two is, to me, idolatrous.

But then you say: "If Scripture doesn't say it, as far as I am concerned, we are not authorised to believe it." That is the same fallacious argument used by the proponents of non inspiration.

If the bible confuses you then why do you believe what it says? Any part of it? If the word of God (notice the small w) is not perfect then God is not perfect which is absurd. The bible is God's special revelation and as such it does predicate the perfect nature of God. God can not err, the bible is the word of God, therefore, the bible can not err.

 

[Catherineanne]

Then it appears that you don't know what Genesis 2:7 says since have no clue which words are God's, which are mine, yours or anyone else's. You thus can't know who God is. It would thus, not be productive to discuss the bible with you.

Strike three!!!

 

[Catherineanne]

God can not err, the bible is the word of God, therefore, the bible can not err.

This is a non sequitur. A non Biblical non sequitur, come to that.

It would only work if you add the following: the Bible is God.

And that, in case you are interested, is both blasphemous and idolatrous.

 

[Jase]

But then you say: "If Scripture doesn't say it, as far as I am concerned, we are not authorised to believe it." That is the same fallacious argument used by the proponents of non inspiration.

If the bible confuses you then why do you believe what it says? Any part of it? If the word of God (notice the small w) is not perfect then God is not perfect which is absurd. The bible is God's special revelation and as such it does predicate the perfect nature of God. God can not err, the bible is the word of God, therefore, the bible can not err.

You are presenting a false dichotomy here. The Bible can have errors in it, withoutt making God in error. The entire Bible is not the word for word dictation of God. In fact most of it isn't. To claim the Bible has to be perfect or God can't be, smacks of weak faith and confining God to a human interpreted box.

 

[Hentenza]

This is a non sequitur. A non Biblical non sequitur, come to that.

It would only work if you add the following: the Bible is God.

And that, in case you are interested, is both blasphemous and idolatrous.

Nope. The bible is not God nor is the argument a non sequitur. The argument in no way claims that the bible IS God only that the Bible IS the word OF God. Big difference. Proponents that claim that the bible is God are nothing more than pantheists since that is the same argument that pantheists use to claim creation is God versus creation by God.

Prove the argument wrong instead of deflecting. Which premise is wrong?

 

[Hentenza]

You are presenting a false dichotomy here. The Bible can have errors in it, withoutt making God in error. The entire Bible is not the word for word dictation of God. In fact most of it isn't. To claim the Bible has to be perfect or God can't be, smacks of weak faith and confining God to a human interpreted box.

Again, this is merely your opinion with no facts introduced. Prove it.

 

[Jase]

LOL!!!! IF Genesis had been disproven as you say then I guess we might as well just turn out the lights and close the door. But you see, it hasn't been disproven. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. My research has led me in the oposite direction of where you are so you believe what you want to believe. I'm fine and secure in my belief.

Do not mistake your unwillingness to look at the evidence as "unproven". Genesis was never meant to be taken as a literal scientific account of creation. Christian Protestants have completely distorted the Jewish intention of that book. You can deny the truth all you want, but it is a 100% fact that the accounts of Genesis are not 100% factual. You can believe what ever you want. But stop pretending like the things you speak of regarding such things as "it's just a theory, therefore not true" actually mean anything, because they merely show that you have no interest in honest discussion or learning. But since i'm frankly tired of wasting my time with creationists who can't possibly ever be wrong, I will leave you with St. Augustine who described the creationist mentality 1600 years ago.

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

– De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]​

[my emphasis]​

 

[peace4ever]

You are presenting a false dichotomy here. The Bible can have errors in it, withoutt making God in error. The entire Bible is not the word for word dictation of God. In fact most of it isn't. To claim the Bible has to be perfect or God can't be, smacks of weak faith and confining God to a human interpreted box.

And what scripture says that any scripture is lying? None, because God cannot cast out His own words. So sorry, but either you don't know where to find God's words or you believe in a divided God that cannot stand which is not the God of the bible. So since you have no scriptural authority to say that, then your words are coming from your imagination which makes them imaginary. Again, "by their fruits you will recognize them". Sorry.

 

[Catherineanne]

So since you have no scriptural authority to say that, then your words are coming from your imagination which makes them imaginary. Again, "by their fruits you will recognize them". Sorry.

And that makes 4.

I really like this game; spot the projection.

 

[Catherineanne]

Which premise is wrong?

'The Bible cannot err' is wrong. It not only can, but it does, if it is treated as being other than what it is.

If you accept the Bible for what it is; a sacred book which shows us how to find God, then it certainly does not err, because it indeed does show us how to find God. In these terms it is meaningless to speak of truth or error in relation to the Scriptures, any more than in relation to the liturgy of any of our churches; they exist in order to help us to find God, and truth is found in him, nowhere else.

If, however, you place an undue, and unBiblical burden of literal truth on the Bible, then it will fail and fall down time and again, by the standards of literal truth. The Bible was never intended to be literally true, nor to be judged by the standards of literal truth. It is those who regard it as such, and who ignore what it actually says (as the quotations I have given from Scripture on this thread have been ignored) who distort the gospel and replace the one in the Bible with a new, man made one.

Those who have eyes to see, let them see.

 

[Hentenza]

Do not mistake your unwillingness to look at the evidence as "unproven". Genesis was never meant to be taken as a literal scientific account of creation. Christian Protestants have completely distorted the Jewish intention of that book. You can deny the truth all you want, but it is a 100% fact that the accounts of Genesis are not 100% factual. You can believe what ever you want. But stop pretending like the things you speak of regarding such things as "it's just a theory, therefore not true" actually mean anything, because they merely show that you have no interest in honest discussion or learning. But since i'm frankly tired of wasting my time with creationists who can't possibly ever be wrong, I will leave you with St. Augustine who described the creationist mentality 1600 years ago.

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

– De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]​

[my emphasis]​

Context, context. Augustine does not claim the account of Genesis to be not literal. In his work "On the Soul and It's Origins" he certainly claims it. In it's work that you quote, Augustine attempts to address the often asked questions "Who made it?" "How?" and "Why?". All of his answers as based on the Genesis account. Furthermore, other early church fathers and medieval church fathers confirm the literality of Genesis. Check out Iranaeus, "Against Heresies", Justin Martyr, "Hortatory Address to the Greeks", Anselm, "Monologiom", Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologia", etc. etc. etc.

I leave you to your research.

 

[Hentenza]

'The Bible cannot err' is wrong. It not only can, but it does, if it is treated as being other than what it is.

If you accept the Bible for what it is; a sacred book which shows us how to find God, then it certainly does not err, because it indeed does show us how to find God. In these terms it is meaningless to speak of truth or error in relation to the Scriptures, any more than in relation to the liturgy of any of our churches; they exist in order to help us to find God, and truth is found in him, nowhere else.

If, however, you place an undue, and unBiblical burden of literal truth on the Bible, then it will fail and fall down time and again, by the standards of literal truth. The Bible was never intended to be literally true, nor to be judged by the standards of literal truth. It is those who regard it as such, and who ignore what it actually says (as the quotations I have given from Scripture on this thread have been ignored) who distort the gospel and replace the one in the Bible with a new, man made one.

Those who have eyes to see, let them see.

The bible can not err is the conclusion not the premise. If you want to debunk the conclusion then you have to prove that either God can err or that the bible is not the word of God.

Go for it.