Inerrancy

[ContentInHim]

a) You mean 2 Timothy, not Titus.

b) he never defines exactly what he means by the Holy Scriptures. Does it for instance include the Apocrypha, and if not why not?

c) He seems to be talking to people who know the OT. So it seems to be written to a Jewish community, not the increasingly goy community the church rapidly became. If you're not brought up with the Hebrew scriptures, as the non-Jewish believers were not, how does that affect that passage?

You are correct - 2 Timothy. Thanks!

Paul doesn't have to define what he meant by scripture. The Jews don't include the Apocrypha in their scripture - therefore Paul wouldn't have included it. There, that was simple, wasn't it?

Actually, the earliest church was taught the Hebrew scriptures whether they were Hebrew or not. It's what they had - it's the scripture that Paul taught. There was no scripture except that. That was simple also!

 

[calidog]

I test the words against Christ, rather than the other way round. And I find Christ in Scripture, in my church, in those I encounter every day, and in my heart.

I also find much in the Bible that contradicts God in Christ, and those bits I measure against Christ, and I find them wanting.

It is Christ who is the benchmark against which to measure Scripture, not the other way round.

It is good you have a living relationship with Christ. You are missing out on some treasures by ignoring the bible.

 

[Ben12]

Eighteen Times in OT the word corn wine and oil are put together; I believe what God’s Spirit is revealing to us is without these three spiritual principles that to leave out one then you are missing the message. Corn speaks of the Word of God it root word is the Hebrew word dagan (daw-gawn'); meaning properly, increase, i.e. grain, wheat. Wheat makes bread which is symbolic of Christ body which was broken. It also takes the wine or revelation of the Spirit to balance as well as the oil (anointing) of the Spirit of Christ with out this spiritual balance.

 

[artybloke]

The Jews don't include the Apocrypha in their scripture -

They don't now. In the centuries up to Paul and for several centuries afterwards, there was a very much more fluid approach to the Jewish idea of scripture. Just as there was until the church approved the canon of the NT some time in the 5th Century AD.

I love the way fundagelicals claim to be literal than ignore the facts of history. don't you?

 

[Catherineanne]

You don't have that faith in the Bible. It's that simple!

Quite right. Guilty as charged.

I have faith in God.

The Bible is not God. Never was, never will be.

 

[Catherineanne]

It is good you have a living relationship with Christ. You are missing out on some treasures by ignoring the bible.

Where did I say I ignore the Bible?

What evidence do you have for this accusation?

 

[Catherineanne]

BTW, I never said God=Bible, that's not even the point here.

The point is inerrancy. I take your points about the message being different from the medium, and the message of God having at least the capacity for inerrancy, depending on lots of other factors.

This is a very different thing from using Scripture verses as weapons to beat other believers over the head with, in order to convince them of a particular point of view, which is what many Christians do. Scripture is not intended to be used in this way, and neither is every single verse taken out of context inerrant in any context to which it is then applied.

For the simple reason that Scripture as it stands, in context, is nowhere claimed to be perfect. So out of context it becomes less so, not more.

My own view of Scripture, if we use a metaphor, is that it is a beautiful creation, like a temple or palace. Each part of the whole can be looked at individually, as a room or a contributing part, but it is best seen in context of the whole. If you take that building apart, and select from it a few favourite bits, and then ignore the rest in order to concentrate on your own selections, then you distort the whole. What we have is an allegory of the ancient temple. What modern fundamentalists do is to tear apart that temple in order to find the most destructive parts of it, and then use these parts to stone other believers.

None of this behaviour is sanctioned in Scripture. Each part has to be seen in the context of the rest, and the whole temple seen in the context of God, who inhabits it, as he inhabits each one of us. But he does not inhabit a pile of bricks, used to throw at other believers in the hopes of destroying them.

 

[calidog]

Where did I say I ignore the Bible?

What evidence do you have for this accusation?

if You don't trust what the bible says why would you pay it any mind? You find it wanting so why would you want it?

 

[Ben12]

I love God’s Word; BUT there are two at least two ways to approach God’s God; the letter that killeth and the spiritual word. (There is alway one other way to approach God's Word; religious)

Pro. 25: 2

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter​

​

I love the above verse and find such an awesome deepness in God in things that are hidden. I find the Bible full of hidden mysteries (Greek Sacred Secret) and what amazes me are some many brothers and sisters in the Lord actually believe there are no mysteries in scripture.

When we receive Jesus as savior we are brand new babes spiritually speaking; all we can handle is the milk of God’s Word. Spiritual matters are hidden from spiritual babies; you see a baby has no teeth and cannot chew on a spiritual steak.

So many of God’s people are mature; mature only in their little religious box; as if you can fit God’s Word in any controlled container. But they are immature spiritually speaking; they might be one hundred and five years old and been going to church for a hundred years but all they can handle is milk.

 

[Catherineanne]

if You don't trust what the bible says why would you pay it any mind? You find it wanting so why would you want it?

These questions are about your interpretation of my belief, and actually say nothing about my actual belief.

Again, you have no evidence for this kind of sweeping generalisation.

 

[Catherineanne]

I love God’s Word; BUT there are two at least two ways to approach God’s God; the letter that killeth and the spiritual word. (There is alway one other way to approach God's Word; religious)

Pro. 25: 2

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter


​

I love the above verse and find such an awesome deepness in God in things that are hidden. I find the Bible full of hidden mysteries (Greek Sacred Secret) and what amazes me are some many brothers and sisters in the Lord actually believe there are no mysteries in scripture.

When we receive Jesus as savior we are brand new babes spiritually speaking; all we can handle is the milk of God’s Word. Spiritual matters are hidden from spiritual babies; you see a baby has no teeth and cannot chew on a spiritual steak.

So many of God’s people are mature; mature only in their little religious box; as if you can fit God’s Word in any controlled container. But they are immature spiritually speaking; they might be one hundred and five years old and been going to church for a hundred years but all they can handle is milk.

Agreed except for one small amendment. The Gospel of John and Revelation uses Word of God as a title for Christ. When talking of the Bible, the appropriate form is 'word of God', so as not to confuse the two.

Apart from that, I agree with what you say. The literal meaning of any verse of Scripture is only the beginning. And to remain on that literal level is the equivalent of staring into a puddle beside the ocean, and thinking that what you see is all that there is to see.

 

[calidog]

These questions are about your interpretation of my belief, and actually say nothing about my actual belief.

Again, you have no evidence for this kind of sweeping generalisation.

I dont need evidence, Are we in court?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I dont need evidence, Are we in court?

Of sorts. You have made an unjustified claim, and it is only fair we ask for evidence to support it. If you are not prepared to stand by your beliefs, then why post them at all?

 

[calidog]

Of sorts. You have made an unjustified claim, and it is only fair we ask for evidence to support it. If you are not prepared to stand by your beliefs, then why post them at all?

OK, I'll answer it.

 

[calidog]

It is good you have a living relationship with Christ. You are missing out on some treasures by ignoring the bible.

Quite right. Guilty as charged.

I have faith in God.

The Bible is not God. Never was, never will be.

Where did I say I ignore the Bible?

What evidence do you have for this accusation?

These questions are about your interpretation of my belief, and actually say nothing about my actual belief.

Again, you have no evidence for this kind of sweeping generalisation.

OK, I'll answer it.

This is how I gather you have little use for the bible.

 

[Catherineanne]

I dont need evidence, Are we in court?

You tell me. You are the one passing judgement. And as you rightly say, you do so without evidence, or seeing the need for it.

Interesting perspective on life.

 

[Catherineanne]

This is how I gather you have little use for the bible.

If it comforts you to believe that, in order to maintain your defences, then go ahead.

However, the evidence is against you. This whole thread is about challenging the false gospel of believing the Bible to be equal to God, perfect and infallible. I have said over and over, the Bible does not say this, so why believe it. This is not about me, or what I believe, or do not believe, in spite of your attempts to belittle both. This is about the Bible.

This thread is not about me. I ask again, why believe the Bible to be perfect, when that is an unScriptural, unBiblical thing to believe? I have yet to hear a Bible based answer to this. And, fwiw, I would prefer answers from this point to relate to Scripture, and not to be attempted character assassination. Many thanks.