Faith in the living, resurrected Word (while the scriptures are only 50% historically accurate).

[Saint Steven]

Wrong just like Jesus taught about the parable of the soils regarding salvation and the word of God(Scripture) Peter here is saying the same thing, its the gospel message concerning Christ that brings salvation.


hope this helps !!!

Well, that agrees with what Peter J Barban said. To which you originally replied, "IMOSSIBLE!"

Peter J Barban said: ↑
Salvation does not depend on the Bible. I could lead someone to Christ without ever using a Bible verse.

Nevertheless, the Bible is the word of God and reveals the truth about God. Thus, the Bible and salvation are two separate issues.

 

[Hillsage]

Okay. - lol
You posted the definitions in the hope of correcting my misunderstanding of inerrancy,
but then end by saying you don't believe the definitions either. Do you have a formed position on this? ("No.", is an acceptable answer.)

Hillsage said: ↑
No. Here’s a definition of biblical inerrancy; Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching";......or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not.“.

I personally have a problem believing either definition.

I thought my answer was pretty clearly a "NO" Steve. That was true concerning either definition of inerrancy which was given.

As for; the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching." I don't think there is a bible that hasn't been touched extensively over the thousands of years since it came into being (Jer 8:8), let alone what has been done by translators in the last 1500 years to the OT and NT. I mean, we have hundreds of bible translations and a thousand NT translations that have been written. You found, or only posted, one error with the fig tree. I came across many in my studies from multiple sources.

As for the second inerrancy definition, how can anyone know that "the original manuscripts affirmed anything contrary to fact"? Is that even an issue to God?

Inerrancy isn't an issue for me. Like I've said before, many times, I love no book more, and have owned/studied many bibles/translations in my years. Personally I like what I've heard two modern day 'prophets' say; "The bible needs to be re-read, more than it needs to be re-wrote." I don't say that because I totally agree with 'the letter' of what they say, or am a 'KJV only type' but I do agree with 'the Sspirit' of their spoken words.

I think that all we need to WALK as Christians of principle, is to be led by the "holy Spirit" of Christ in us. And we can do that, just like Jesus did. I believe what was available 'in Him' and 'to Him' along with the OT corruptions is just as available to us in most translations. The 'basics' of Christianity is beyond what most walk in IMO. Love your enemies is pretty much the same in any translation. And yet I, like many here have FELT 'less than love' from many claiming to be Christians.

But fighting over the letter of the law of 'doctrines and commandments of men' has done more to divide the body than it ever has to "maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace."

 

[Hillsage]

Thank you for this post. Very helpful. In defense of the OP, I just threw 50% out there for the sake of argument. I have no idea what an exact percentage would be.

I was hopeful 'that was your thinking' was the case PH. But you are relatively new to CF, as well as being brand new to me. And believe me, WE have seen lots of people believe lots of 'you gotta be kidding me stuff' over the years.

Concerning logos and rhema. It is clear in the prologue of John that Logos refers only to the Incarnate Word of God, and not Jesus's sayings nor the scriptures. I capitalized it in the title of the thread in hopes it would be recognized as referring to Christ.

Oh, I caught that Word was capitalized. But did you catch, in my post, that I don't think 'the Word' is "the Christ"? The Word became the Sarx/FLESH/body of the triune man Jesus who was the messias. And it was that "sinful flesh" (Rom 8;3) body which made Him a "son of man". But it was the "spirit of Christ" in Him which made him the "Son of God". I admittedly assume that Adam had the same Christ spirit in Him that Jesus did since he too was considered the "son of God" (Luk 3:38). Not totally adamant here, just thinking out loud, in a box bigger than most ever feel 'safe' in.

That being said, the waters get murky once you begin to look at other passages, 1 Peter 1:23-25 being a prime example where both logos (vs.23) and rhema (vs.25 x2) are used (seemingly?) interchangeably.

One way to read that passage might be that vs. 23 uses logos and refers to Christ (i.e. Christ is the living and enduring Word of God). The first use of rhema in vs. 25 is a translation of the Hebrew dbr (the Septuagint would use either logos/rhema). The second use of rhema in vs. 25 is in reference to the gospel, "That word is the good news that was announced to you." Of course that "good news" is Jesus Christ; however, rhema is appropriate there in that rhema often refers to a saying or a teaching. The gospel is the saying or teaching about Christ. Whatever the case, in none of those instances is the reference the bible.

I've never studied the Septuagint. Do you have a URL you especially like for it? What you share above is indeed interesting. But coming to a Sspirit led understanding of "murky waters" is where I have personally gleaned the 'clearest' understanding of things too.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Well, that agrees with what Peter J Barban said. To which you originally replied, "IMOSSIBLE!"

Peter J Barban said: ↑
Salvation does not depend on the Bible. I could lead someone to Christ without ever using a Bible verse.

Nevertheless, the Bible is the word of God and reveals the truth about God. Thus, the Bible and salvation are two separate issues.

You misread it as I believe in inerrancy .

next

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

You misread it as I believe in inerrancy and it’s the word of God( scripture) that abides forever and will never return back void.

next

 

[public hermit]

Oh, I caught that Word was capitalized. But did you catch, in my post, that I don't think 'the Word' is "the Christ"? The Word became the Sarx/FLESH/body of the triune man Jesus who was the messias. And it was that "sinful flesh" (Rom 8;3) body which made Him a "son of man". But it was the "spirit of Christ" in Him which made him the "Son of God". I admittedly assume that Adam had the same Christ spirit in Him that Jesus did since he too was considered the "son of God" (Luk 3:38). Not totally adamant here, just thinking out loud, in a box bigger than most ever feel 'safe' in.

Oh, yeah. No, I didn't quite catch that. I see now you're coming at it from a different angle, haha. I don't think I have ever seen it put quite that way. Jesus is the "triune man"? Do you mean the Word + human spirit + human flesh = Jesus? Forgive me if I'm messing up your Christology. But, I'm intrigued. Please, say more. I promise I won't rake you across the coals. I'm truly curious.

I've never studied the Septuagint. Do you have a URL you especially like for it? What you share above is indeed interesting. But coming to a Sspirit led understanding of "murky waters" is where I have personally gleaned the 'clearest' understanding of things too.

I don't have a URL. I have a large stack of books. Question: This is the second time you have written "Sspirit." Is that just a consistent error or is there a meaning behind that as well? (How odd that I noticed that but missed the other part, hmm)

 

[Saint Steven]

You misread it as I believe in inerrancy .

next

So you disagree with the NT Greek? (ill advised)

3056 lógos (from 3004 /légō, "speaking to a conclusion") – a word, being the expression of a thought; a saying. 3056 /lógos ("word") is preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit.

 

[Hillsage]

Oh, yeah. No, I didn't quite catch that. I see now you're coming at it from a different angle, haha. I don't think I have ever seen it put quite that way. Jesus is the "triune man"? Do you mean the Word + human spirit + human flesh = Jesus? Forgive me if I'm messing up your Christology. But, I'm intrigued. Please, say more. I promise I won't rake you across the coals. I'm truly curious.

I don't think "Jesus is the only triune man", I think we all are. And I believe Jesus was made like we were in every respect.

1TH 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

HEB 2:17 Therefore he (Jesus) had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people.

As for this Hebrew verse, I do believe it is only true concerning those of us who are "brethren". For it is then that our spirit is born anew into the Sspirit of Christ in us. And the double Ss is simply my understanding of the scholar's admitted inability to correctly know when and what Sspirit was even being talked about in the NT. EW Bullinger even says in his study bible (the Companion Bible) and his book (Word Studies on the Holy Spirit) that translators of the KJV capitalized spirit incorrectly 52 times in the NT. His bible and book both teach and tell which verses he believes translators missed it on.

I have a number of hardback Greek Interlinears. Below is a quote from the 'FORWARD' in one of them. These scholars speak very candidly concerning capitalization problems.

" INTERLINEAR GREEK ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT
ZONDERVAN PUBLISHED 1972. Based on STEVENS GREEK TEXT

Introduction page iii

5. Capitals.- The only remark needed here is in reference to the names of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. The greatest difficulty is touching the word 'Spirit.' In some places it is very difficult to say whether the Holy Spirit as a person or the spirit of the Christian is referred to (see Rom.8:9) ; and if sometimes a small letter and sometimes a capital had been placed to the word (pneuma in the Greek) and if sometimes a small letter and sometimes a capital had been placed to the word (pneuma), in the Greek, persons would naturally have concluded that the question was thus indisputably settled. It was therefore judged best to put a small s in the Greek everywhere. In the English we have been obliged to put a capital S when the Holy Spirit was referred to and so have retained it wherever we thought this was the case; but in some places it is really doubtful, and becomes a question for the spiritual judgment of the reader. The Greek will not help in the difficulty, because in the earliest copies every letter was a capital. In the other names we have followed the usage of modern editors; putting in the Greek a capital to Jesus but a small letter for Christ, and a small letter for Lord and for God."

I especially like where the educated Greek Scholars have left it up to "the spiritual judgment of the reader" to decide Ss.....eg ME!

I don't have a URL. I have a large stack of books. Question: This is the second time you have written "Sspirit." Is that just a consistent error or is there a meaning behind that as well? (How odd that I noticed that but missed the other part, hmm)

Have you ever noticed in the KJV ONLY the following verses?

KJV EPH 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

KJV EPH 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

This was my discovery of what I first thought was a misprint in the original KJV or something. I no longer believe that to be the case. I have since discovered 'recently' yet another verse in the OT below. Things like this force me to seek a "pearl".

KJV ISA 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?

Suffice to say; the body of Jesus was the like our sinful flesh natured body. His spirit was the spirit of Christ. Sometimes capitalized S by translators and sometimes not ("father into thy hands I commend MY spirit") Not "our Spirit" or "the Holy Spirit". And when that Christ spirit was placed in the body his brain became a functioning soul. which had to become "perfectly" saved. Jesus wasn't born "perfect" He was born sinless and had to become perfect with suffering.

HEB 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.

With the spirit of Christ in that sinful flesh body, Jesus the man worked out his human soul's "salvation with fear and trembling" just like we are supposed to. And we can only do that after we too have the Sspirit of Christ in us.

Anyhow, that's a snapshot of my Christology. You don't have to worry about "raking me across the coals". I came here originally just to see if all my 'heresies' could stand the test of those who thought pretty highly of themselves. But also just to see who the Spirit might also speak to concerning these wild and crazy things that work better for me theologically than orthodoxy or CRAZIMATIC Charimatic theologies.

 

[public hermit]

I don't think "Jesus is the only triune man", I think we all are. And I believe Jesus was made like we were in every respect.

1TH 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

HEB 2:17 Therefore he (Jesus) had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people.

As for this Hebrew verse, I do believe it is only true concerning those of us who are "brethren". For it is then that our spirit is born anew into the Sspirit of Christ in us. And the double Ss is simply my understanding of the scholar's admitted inability to correctly know when and what Sspirit was even being talked about in the NT. EW Bullinger even says in his study bible (the Companion Bible) and his book (Word Studies on the Holy Spirit) that translators of the KJV capitalized spirit incorrectly 52 times in the NT. His bible and book both teach and tell which verses he believes translators missed it on.

I have a number of hardback Greek Interlinears. Below is a quote from the 'FORWARD' in one of them. These scholars speak very candidly concerning capitalization problems.

" INTERLINEAR GREEK ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT
ZONDERVAN PUBLISHED 1972. Based on STEVENS GREEK TEXT

Introduction page iii

5. Capitals.- The only remark needed here is in reference to the names of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. The greatest difficulty is touching the word 'Spirit.' In some places it is very difficult to say whether the Holy Spirit as a person or the spirit of the Christian is referred to (see Rom.8:9) ; and if sometimes a small letter and sometimes a capital had been placed to the word (pneuma in the Greek) and if sometimes a small letter and sometimes a capital had been placed to the word (pneuma), in the Greek, persons would naturally have concluded that the question was thus indisputably settled. It was therefore judged best to put a small s in the Greek everywhere. In the English we have been obliged to put a capital S when the Holy Spirit was referred to and so have retained it wherever we thought this was the case; but in some places it is really doubtful, and becomes a question for the spiritual judgment of the reader. The Greek will not help in the difficulty, because in the earliest copies every letter was a capital. In the other names we have followed the usage of modern editors; putting in the Greek a capital to Jesus but a small letter for Christ, and a small letter for Lord and for God."

I especially like where the educated Greek Scholars have left it up to "the spiritual judgment of the reader" to decide Ss.....eg ME!

Have you ever noticed in the KJV ONLY the following verses?

KJV EPH 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

KJV EPH 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

This was my discovery of what I first thought was a misprint in the original KJV or something. I no longer believe that to be the case. I have since discovered 'recently' yet another verse in the OT below. Things like this force me to seek a "pearl".

KJV ISA 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?

Suffice to say; the body of Jesus was the like our sinful flesh natured body. His spirit was the spirit of Christ. Sometimes capitalized S by translators and sometimes not ("father into thy hands I commend MY spirit") Not "our Spirit" or "the Holy Spirit". And when that Christ spirit was placed in the body his brain became a functioning soul. which had to become "perfectly" saved. Jesus wasn't born "perfect" He was born sinless and had to become perfect with suffering.

HEB 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.

With the spirit of Christ in that sinful flesh body, Jesus the man worked out his human soul's "salvation with fear and trembling" just like we are supposed to. And we can only do that after we too have the Sspirit of Christ in us.

Anyhow, that's a snapshot of my Christology. You don't have to worry about "raking me across the coals". I came here originally just to see if all my 'heresies' could stand the test of those who thought pretty highly of themselves. But also just to see who the Spirit might also speak to concerning these wild and crazy things that work better for me theologically than orthodoxy or CRAZIMATIC Charimatic theologies.

Very interesting. Thank you for taking the time. Yes, sometimes a passage can be a bit ambiguous as to the reference of "spirit." I'll think over the rest of what you've shared. And, again, thank you.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

So you disagree with the NT Greek? (ill advised)

3056 lógos (from 3004 /légō, "speaking to a conclusion") – a word, being the expression of a thought; a saying. 3056 /lógos ("word") is preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit.

Context determines the meaning of words and how they are used and I stand in solid ground with plenty of biblical scholarship that supports my views in this thread .

hope this helps !!!

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It depends. Meaning bears attacking children who spoke poorly of a chosen Prophet of God does tell us about the Holiness of God.

The Mosiac law allowed for parents to being their disrespectful sons to the elders to be judged and if judged to be disrespectful, then executed.


But maybe we should look at the context?

Hate to burst your bubble there chief, but there's nothing holy about bears mauling naughty childen.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Three questions:
1) Are there "errors" in the word of God? (the Bible)
3) If so, what effect does that have on the over all message?
2) How do you feel about "extrabiblical" revelation?

1. By faith, I believe that there are no errors in the original writing, but it is likely there are minor errors in copying and translating. This is especially true when considering that the Bible has been translated into hundreds of languages, across thousands of years and yet, all these versions are the word of God.

2. No effect on the overall message, small effect on smaller points.

3. I am fine with extra-biblical revelation and have heard some minor messages from the Holy Spirit myself. The Bible itself says that not all revelation from God is recorded in the Bible, only that which is useful for general teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness. I never put extra-biblical revelation on the same level of authority as the Bible, though.

4! Actually, personal interpretation is where 99.99% of all Biblical error comes from. The problem is not with the Bible, the problem is with us.

 

[redleghunter]

Hate to burst your bubble there chief, but there's nothing holy about bears mauling naughty childen.

Blasphemous youth? The Law addressed this and they were under the Law.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Hate to burst your bubble there chief, but there's nothing holy about bears mauling naughty childen.

Point of courtesy:
I respect regleghunter on the forum and I wish that you would speak respectfully to him.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Blasphemous youth? The Law addressed this and they were under the Law.

Really, the law prescribed death by she-bear-mauling for kids mocking God's prophets? I must be reading the abridged version brother. So does inerrancy mean 'the bear never misses'?

Suffer little children come unto me, forbid them not for this is the kingdom of God.

 

[redleghunter]

Really, the law prescribed death by she-bear-mauling for kids mocking God's prophets? I must be reading the abridged version brother. So does inerrancy mean 'the bear never misses'?

Suffer little children come unto me, forbid them not for this is the kingdom of God.

Do you consider the God of the OT a different God of the NT?

Yes our sensibilities today would not to call for children to be mauled by bears.

So do our sensibilities today change what happened thousands of years ago, or do we just discard the Scriptures for not meeting our post modern sensibilities?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

This post is primarily for those who believe the scriptures (original documents) are an inerrant, perfect representation of historical events. Of course, anyone may comment. (This post may need to be moved, but I figured the topic would be controversial for some so I placed it here).

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that only 50% of the scriptures are (in some sense) historically accurate. Nonetheless, Jesus Christ is the resurrected Son of God whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. Assuming this were true, how would this affect they way you think about the scriptures?

I get the impression from some, who argue for the inerrancy of the scriptures, that if something within the scriptures were not historically accurate, then we could not trust that Jesus Christ is Son of God, whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. But, one does not necessarily follow from the other.

Logically speaking: there is a possible world where Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who is incarnated, dies and rises again, and yet there are no scriptures in the sense that we know them today. Someone might balk and say, "But, how would we know about it?" Well, any number of ways. A different set of writings, perhaps? The point being that the scriptures are not that which makes his death and resurrection efficacious for salvation. They are simply a means to knowing about Christ, as fallible as they might be.

Again, imagine a community of 1st generation Christians, a community that possesses no copy of the scriptures, they find a hermit, they proclaim the gospel in her hearing, and she comes to faith. What does she lack? She has faith in the resurrected Son of God, she has a community within which to worship and learn and grow, so what does she lack not having an opportunity to read the scriptures?

Would you give up the faith if you knew some of the scriptures were not historically accurate and yet you knew that Jesus is in fact the living, resurrected Son of God through whom salvation is given? I dare say you would have no good reason to do so. Thoughts? Comments?

Your hypothetical reveals that you, like many Evangelicals, have a very thin view of Christ and His work.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Really, the law prescribed death by she-bear-mauling for kids mocking God's prophets? I must be reading the abridged version brother. So does inerrancy mean 'the bear never misses'?

Suffer little children come unto me, forbid them not for this is the kingdom of God.

Just wait until Christ's return when the blood will run in the streets, waist deep.

 

[public hermit]

Your hypothetical reveals that you, like many Evangelicals, have a very thin view of Christ and His work.

How so? If you're going to judge my understanding at least give a robust account.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

How so? If you're going to judge my understanding at least give a robust account.

Why, you don't grant the same to God Himself.