Is the Bible Without Error?

[Neogaia777]

@Colter ... You think the OT people who wrote about God, were false in some way, right, were perhaps delusional...? Or Lying, or it was there own idea of God...?

How can you conclude that, when you really do not know, for there is another possibility to explain why the God depicted by men in the OT, just does not seem like God to us, Logically...

There is another possibility, they were telling the truth and were not delusional, and the reason why the God of the OT may not seem like an all-knowing God to us, is because it/him
was a "young God" basically, that It was Christ is a more immature form...

Until you know for sure how can you so easily clasp and latch on to that the OT were wrong about God, maybe God the Father, but not God, the Son, but knowing God the Son is the way to know the Father...

Are there titles like the "one and only true God" Or God Almighty, or the Sovereign Lord, do some of these speak of like the Father only, a triune God in one, or specific certain members of the triune Godhead...

It is my belief that we are dealing with a young, omnipotent, omnipresent, but not 100% omniscient (yet, is now), "God" our God, our Lord Jesus Christ...

How can you be sure your right about the OT...?

God Bless!

 

[jimmyjimmy]

While the cross was an act of Love, it was never a requirement for forgivness. It wasn't a sin offering.

I'm curious as to how anyone could make such a statement, let alone a Christian. It is neither a biblical, nor logically, sound. Did you mean to phrase it differently?

Precisely, how was the cross an, "act of love" if it was not atoning?

Dying to save someone from a burning building is an act of love; however, throwing yourself into a fire for no reason is an act of insanity.

If I said to my wife, I love you this much, then proceeded to jump in front of a speeding train, would she be made aware of my love for her by my suicide? However, if my life were given in her place, that would change everything. If I jumped in front of the speeding train to push her out of harms way, that would clearly demonstrate my love for her.

The reason we understand God's love for us is that, "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

The Lamb of God died "for us". "He is the propitiation for our sins. . ." (1 John 2:2)

 

[rjs330]

There's no manuscript evidence of variation in the Mark narrative.



Eye witness accounts are regularly found to be in error on minor points. You use the word "infallibility" . . . it is true infallibility is questioned by the contradiction. But of course in the Rooster story the little detail of whether there was one or two crowings doesn't really matter to us today . . . except to show we should be careful to not say "inerrant" or "infallible", since slight error and slight failing is demonstrated.



So you admit a witness can be credible while not being inerrant or infallible? Perhaps that's progress.



Exactly.



I have no problem accepting them as evidence; only with claiming they are inerrant or infallible.

No one is claiming that individual witnesses in the bible are infallible or inerrant. We are claiming the bible itself is. There is a large difference between the two.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

 

[Colter]

@Colter ... You think the OT people who wrote about God, were false in some way, right, were perhaps delusional...? Or Lying, or it was there own idea of God...?

How can you conclude that, when you really do not know, for there is another possibility to explain why the God depicted by men in the OT, just does not seem like God to us, Logically...

There is another possibility, they were telling the truth and were not delusional, and the reason why the God of the OT may not seem like an all-knowing God to us, is because it/him
was a "young God" basically, that It was Christ is a more immature form...

Until you know for sure how can you so easily clasp and latch on to that the OT were wrong about God, maybe God the Father, but not God, the Son, but knowing God the Son is the way to know the Father...

Are there titles like the "one and only true God" Or God Almighty, or the Sovereign Lord, do some of these speak of like the Father only, a triune God in one, or specific certain members of the triune Godhead...

It is my belief that we are dealing with a young, omnipotent, omnipresent, but not 100% omniscient (yet, is now), "God" our God, our Lord Jesus Christ...

How can you be sure your right about the OT...?

God Bless!

The OT is a young human understanding of God, not a young inexperienced God.

 

[Neogaia777]

The OT is a young human understanding of God, not a young inexperienced God.

So you say... or is it a God showing us the steps and stages of life and the changes and evolution that goes along with it...? Whether man or God...?

 

[Colter]

I'm curious as to how anyone could make such a statement, let alone a Christian. It is neither a biblical, nor logically, sound. Did you mean to phrase it differently?

Precisely, how was the cross an, "act of love" if it was not atoning?

Dying to save someone from a burning building is an act of love; however, throwing yourself into a fire for no reason is an act of insanity.

If I said to my wife, I love you this much, then proceeded to jump in front of a speeding train, would she be made aware of my love for her by my suicide? However, if my life were given in her place, that would change everything. If I jumped in front of the speeding train to push her out of harms way, that would clearly demonstrate my love for her.

The reason we understand God's love for us is that, "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

The Lamb of God died "for us". "He is the propitiation for our sins. . ." (1 John 2:2)

The Pagans atonement theory is a philosophical assault upon the freewillness of God. The crass injustice of sacrificing the Son presupposes that the Father became incapable of forgiving unless someone almost equal to himself die in order to bring forth the Fathers tender mercy.

Jesus spent his entire triumphant life on the cross of human experience. Self centered man thinks everything is about himself, his guilt, his failings, his sins!

"Experience" in doing the will of the Father as a human. That's why the Son volunterely layed down his life and took it up again. We have a God who was both triumphant in human life as well as faithful to the Father in in death.

The Son of God achieved something in his own rite. It was the fathers will that the Son live the incarnate life for all his creation. Not to be tortured and killed as some primitive sacrifice or scapegoat.

 

[Neogaia777]

The OT is a young human understanding of God, not a young inexperienced God.

What about God's Son...? Isn't all of this supposed to be made including us, for an all-knowing God's, Son, who will grow into being like him, which happens to not be too much different from a man...

What would be the point of truly one God and not triune God, the One God would be omniscient and alone, and would have no reason to interact personally with his/their creation, and I don't think he wanted be alone, but has a heir, the Son, who would be God to us, and who he could take delight in, and the Holy Spirit who would be revealed in time...

 

[Colter]

What about God's Son...? Isn't all of this supposed to be made including us, for an all-knowing God's, Son, who will grow into being like him, which happens to not be too much different from a man...

What would be the point of truly one God and not triune God, the One God would be omniscient and alone, and would have no reason to interact personally with his/their creation, and I don't think he wanted be alone, but has a heir, the Son, who would be God to us, and who he could take delight in, and the Holy Spirit who would be revealed in time...

You're close. But the earth is not a divine child's erector set, it is a creation by a deity of immense power, wisdom, brilliance and many more attributes. It's not God that gets better in the Bible, it's mans understanding of him via revelations great and small.

 

[Neogaia777]

You're close. But the earth is not a divine child's erector set, it is a creation by a deity of immense power, wisdom, brilliance and many more attributes. It's not God that gets better in the Bible, it's mans understanding of him via revelations great and small.

What am I close to...?

I see the Father God, as slightly greater than Christ who is also YHWH, or at least starting out that way, and ending up as his Father, But I see the Father God as slightly greater than Christ/YHWH, and Christ/YHWH a little lower than him (Father God) yet making all the rest of us (angels, man) a little lower than him, (God, the Son/Jesus/YHWH)... and the Son being second only to the Father and no one else and we are all second to the Son...

What am I close to...?

 

[AV1611VET]

The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is foundational to evangelical faith...

Affirmative.

Or is it????!!

Affirmative.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Still debating inerrancy, but not addressed the canon issue very well.

Which collection of Bible books (canon) is inerrant?

 

[AV1611VET]

"ages of ages" become "eternity"

"judgment" becomes "condemnation"

"condemnation" becomes "damnation"

"sheol," "hades," "gehenna" and "tartarus" become "hell."

The King James translators had a lot of correcting to do, didn't they?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which collection of Bible books (canon) is inerrant?

The sixty-six books of the KJB.

 

[ViaCrucis]

.

 

[ViaCrucis]

.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No one is claiming that individual witnesses in the bible are infallible or inerrant. We are claiming the bible itself is. There is a large difference between the two.

Well, actually, many are claiming exactly that, but its nice to know you and I are on the same page here at leas Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

If "inerrant" in its "modern standards" meaning doesn't apply to the Bible, lets stop using that word to describe the Bible. Let's instead simply say the Bible makes good on its claims and shares with us the truth of God as God set it up to do.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The Pagans atonement theory is a philosophical assault upon the freewillness of God. The crass injustice of sacrificing the Son presupposes that the Father became incapable of forgiving unless someone almost equal to himself die in order to bring forth the Fathers tender mercy.

Jesus spent his entire triumphant life on the cross of human experience. Self centered man thinks everything is about himself, his guilt, his failings, his sins!

"Experience" in doing the will of the Father as a human. That's why the Son volunterely layed down his life and took it up again. We have a God who was both triumphant in human life as well as faithful to the Father in in death.

The Son of God achieved something in his own rite. It was the fathers will that the Son live the incarnate life for all his creation. Not to be tortured and killed as some primitive sacrifice or scapegoat.

Have you ever forgiven someone of something big?

 

[Lazarus Short]

The King James translators had a lot of correcting to do, didn't they?

I see it as sleight of hand and clever trickery.

 

[Colter]

Have you ever forgiven someone of something big?

Yes, and you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I see it as sleight of hand and clever trickery.

Because they didn't write that Moses crossed the Sea of Reeds, instead of the Red Sea? or that the Tabernacle in the Wilderness was made of "durable leather," rather than badgers' skins? or they used instruments of bronze, instead of brass? or Nymphas is a "she"? or ...