- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I think we can agree that the Gospel message as presented in Holy Scriptures is both infallible and inerrant in presentation?
Upvote
0
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.
I think we can agree that the Gospel message as presented in Holy Scriptures is both infallible and inerrant in presentation?If someone is basing their faith in Christ upon the inerrancy of the Bible, rather than on the Gospel, then they are building their faith upon a foundation of sand.
-CryptoLutheran
According to the secrets of the Bible, which is a show that I watched, there are mistranslations and it contradicts itself.
Direct revelation. God dealt directly with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses. After them God dealt directly with judges, prophets and in some cases kings. All of the above wrote down their encounters with God whether by direct revelation, dream, vision etc.If Moses wrote the scripture, what scripture was guiding people before Moses? What was the law in Egypt? What were the customs and "Word of infallible scripture" of Abrams religion?
The written word is human, it becomes a replacement for faith in the Living God.
What is the exact question?I question the veracity of this statement.
Prove it.The truth is that the Bible represents the opinions and viewpoints of the men who wrote it, colored by the age in which they lived. It contains many great truths, but also includes many falsehoods.
That article is interesting only because it exposes the group think of post-modernism.I think that some people don't realize that what they are saying is that it is the translators that are innerant.
Interesting article:
Why the Bible Doesn't 'Clearly Say' Anything
We can conclude the above is accurate. The OT and NT are both God's revelation to mankind. Is the Bible the exhaustive knowledge of God. No of course not and the Bible makes no such claim.I would say that the Bible isn't the whole story though. I am absolutely certain that bits have been left out that nowadays could be useful to know.
Well let's stick to fundamentalism then. What does "thou shalt not kill" mean to you, exactly that? Does that include armies or do some translations allow for armies to kill enemies? Does that include the death penalty, or do some translations allow for that too? Does it include being supportive of building up a military arsenal, nuclear bombs, drones to kill others? Funny how "thou shalt not kill"...simple enough right?....yet it is understood in different ways.That article is interesting only because it exposes the group think of post-modernism.
Don't know why you posted a cartoon on a theology thread, but...Well let's stick to fundamentalism then. What does "thou shalt not kill" mean to you, exactly that? Does that include armies or do some translations allow for armies to kill enemies? Does that include the death penalty, or do some translations allow for that too? Does it include being supportive of building up a military arsenal, nuclear bombs, drones to kill others? Funny how "thou shalt not kill"...simple enough right?....yet it is understood in different ways.
How does "love your enemy" translate into prejudice and judgement for some and not for others?
How convienient.Direct revelation. God dealt directly with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses. After them God dealt directly with judges, prophets and in some cases kings. All of the above wrote down their encounters with God whether by direct revelation, dream, vision etc.
In all encounters with God the prophet, king, patriarch or judge received not only the words of God but demonstrations of His Power and Glory.
Gee thanks for the definition of "kill".Don't know why you posted a cartoon on a theology thread, but...
If you apply exegesis to each one of your assumptions above, it would be a good start.
First, please explain to me what you mean by fundamentalism? As you use it above has absolutely no bearing on the subject nor historical context of fundamentalism. Perhaps this would be a good start.
Exodus 20:13--Thou shalt not kill
Hebrew: ratsach רָצַח
râtsach, raw-tsakh'; a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, kill, (man-) slay(-er), murder(-er).
The KJV translates Strong's H7523 in the following manner: slayer (16x), murderer (14x), kill (5x), murder (3x), slain (3x), manslayer (2x), killing (1x), slayer (with H310) (1x), slayeth (1x), death (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage
Source Blue Letter Bible: Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)
- to murder, slay, kill
- (Qal) to murder, slay
- premeditated
- accidental
- as avenger
- slayer (intentional) (participle)
- (Niphal) to be slain
- (Piel)
- to murder, assassinate
- murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
- (Pual) to be killed
How convienient.
If you look at in detail the rendering is 'murder.'Gee thanks for the definition of "kill".
Could you say one for example?
Don't know why you posted a cartoon on a theology thread, but...
Indeed. CF has their own political cartoon section. Such is not for theology threads. Thanks for the backup.Sad to see posts like this. Some people have eyes but cannot see.
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?