Original Sin, I was wrong.

[golgotha61]

But Jesus is the 'seed' of David, or so God informs us, through the Scripture. How then do you exclude Him from such an 'inheritance'?

Rom 1:13
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Again I submit that the term "seed of David" is covenantal relating to the Davidic covenant.

You are aware the error of Gnostic teaching includes flesh as being 'inherantly' sinful?

Man is inherently sinful by the imputation of Adam's sin. Gnostic teaching states that matter is evil and spirit is good. This is built on Greek philosophy.

 

[golgotha61]

Depends on what you mean by total depravity. If you mean that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, that not one is able to live a sinless life, then yes. If you mean no one is capable of ever doing anything good, then no, I know the proof texts Calvinists use but I don't think it fits what we see though out scripture Gen 6:9 Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Luke 8:15 As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart.

The definition of "total depravity" in the Calvinistic Theology is there is nothing man can do to merit saving with God and that the depravity has extended to all aspects of man's nature, to his entire being.

I think the key is the word flesh, and the natural human desires that come with it. These desires are good in themselves, part of God's creation that he declared very good Gen 1:31. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made Psalm 139:14. The problem comes when we have to choose between following our natural desires and following God's higher call. We just can't do it, certainly not consistently. It is why Eve fell. Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. It is how we all fall into sin too. James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

It is not that our flesh was corrupted by the fall, but that flesh and blood simply incapable of following God's higher call 1Cor 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It is why we need to be born again John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

I disagree by my belief on imputed sin. You still need to address the subject of the transference of sin originating at some point with some source.

I much prefer the biblical term inspired to infallible. Inspired calls us to look at what the Spirit of God was saying and is saying through his word. Infallible, on the other hand is too easily used to justify our misunderstandings of what God was saying and how God was saying it, and give our misunderstandings the claim of infallibility too. God's word is living and active, I don't think it ties down that well. Calvin understood that God often speaks to the human race in baby talk we could understand, like a nursemaid lisping to an infant. It is too easy to miss what God was saying through the baby talk and think it is the baby talk itself that was infallible.

Both terms inspired and infallible are necessary in order for the Word of God to have authority. If His Word is inspired then it is also infallible. To claim His Word is not infallible gives man the ability to challenge the authority of His Word and it diminishes God's character. We have the responsibility to study and search for the truth and not take the way out by saying His Word is not infallible.

Was there such a thing? Isn't this making pretty major, and unsupported, assumptions of how God's word was inspired and composed.

Inspiration: The Holy Spirit's superintending over the writers so that while writing according to their own styles and personalities, the result was God's Word written-authoritative, trustworthy, and free from error in the original autographs.

Logically there must have been an original autograph by the superintended writer.

Remember in Jeremiah 36 when God told Jeremiah to write out all the prophecies he had been given, which Jeremiah got Baruch to write out as he dictated it. Except the king promptly chopped the scroll up and burnt it. Jeremiah then gave Baruch another scroll and dictated it all out again with a lot more like it added in. Which was the original autograph?

Was Jeremiah inspired for both? Since he was a prophet of God and was undoubtedly inspired for the rest of the book of Jeremiah, he was inspired for both texts. We have the one passed down to us that God intended, there are epistles from the apostles that we do not have but God has chosen and protected the word he intends us to have.

 

[holyrokker]

Man is inherently sinful by the imputation of Adam's sin. Gnostic teaching states that matter is evil and spirit is good. This is built on Greek philosophy.

I really can't understand how we can be held guilty of Adam's sin when the Bible teaches that we are each responsible before God for our own sin; that we are not condemned for the sins of others.

 

[Zeena]

As I study the interpretation of this verse I see in the Greek that to "take" is for a purpose and the purpose is to '"help" the "seed of Abraham", which goes back to the Abrahamic Covenant.

The context is the incarnation of Christ, look again;

Heb 2:14-18
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

 

[Assyrian]

As I study the interpretation of this verse I see in the Greek that to "take" is for a purpose and the purpose is to '"help" the "seed of Abraham", which goes back to the Abrahamic Covenant.

It probably does refer to those Jesus helps here, however in Galatians Paul refers to Christ specifically as the seed of Abraham Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He doesn't say, "To seeds," as of many, but as of one, "To your seed," which is Christ. You also have all the descriptions of Jesus as the son of David.

 

[Zeena]

It probably does refer to those Jesus helps here, however in Galatians Paul refers to Christ specifically as the seed of Abraham Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He doesn't say, "To seeds," as of many, but as of one, "To your seed," which is Christ. You also have all the descriptions of Jesus as the son of David.[/font]

Son of Man

AND

Son of God

 

[Assyrian]

The definition of "total depravity" in the Calvinistic Theology is there is nothing man can do to merit saving with God and that the depravity has extended to all aspects of man's nature, to his entire being.

That is what salvation by faith through grace mean too. We are saved by Christ's death on the cross not our own works. You don't need to add a doctrine of total depravity to that, because even if we have done things that aren't totally depraved, they are not what our salvation is based on. It is Christ and his death and resurrection that saves us not anything we have done.

I disagree by my belief on imputed sin. You still need to address the subject of the transference of sin originating at some point with some source.

Sin isn't transferred. We are all responsible with our own sins.

Both terms inspired and infallible are necessary in order for the Word of God to have authority. If His Word is inspired then it is also infallible. To claim His Word is not infallible gives man the ability to challenge the authority of His Word and it diminishes God's character. We have the responsibility to study and search for the truth and not take the way out by saying His Word is not infallible.

It is much better to stick to the inspired description 'inspired' than put our trust in the uninspired and fallible description 'infallible'. The bible had more than enough authority back when it only said it was inspired by God. God's word does not need our added labels to defend it.

Inspiration: The Holy Spirit's superintending over the writers so that while writing according to their own styles and personalities, the result was God's Word written-authoritative, trustworthy, and free from error in the original autographs.

Logically there must have been an original autograph by the superintended writer.

It is not the inspiration of the original writers that is the issue but the presumption of how the text was written and put together, that the writer sat down with a scroll and wrote out the original autograph and that it is the copies that come after it that that are open to mistakes and copying errors. That is not what we see in the book of Jeremiah.

Was Jeremiah inspired for both? Since he was a prophet of God and was undoubtedly inspired for the rest of the book of Jeremiah, he was inspired for both texts. We have the one passed down to us that God intended, there are epistles from the apostles that we do not have but God has chosen and protected the word he intends us to have.

Undoubtedly Jeremiah was inspired, it isn't the inspiration I am questioning but the process. The first time the prophecies were given the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah saying... you can read that description again and again in his prophecies. When he wrote the first scroll the word of the Lord came to him alright, but not to dictate all the prophecies again, God simply told Jeremiah to right down all the prophecies he had been given. Jer 36:2 "Take a scroll and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah until today." Jeremiah had to remember them all and tell them to Baruch to right down. With the second scroll God just told to write it out again. Jeremiah had to rely on his memory. Perhaps you could claim God inspired Jeremiah to remember it exactly, but it doesn't say that. What is more, we know the second scroll was different because we are told Jeremiah add more besides. Jer 36:32 Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who wrote on it at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them. Are the inspired writer given infallible memories? If you look in the NT you will see writers quoting the Old Testament from memory, but if you compare them with the OT, the quotations are not exact. They are still inspired, still tell message the Lord God Almighty is speaking to his people, but God seems quite happy to speak through people relying on fallible memories of scripture or the first copy of their own scroll.

 

[golgotha61]

It probably does refer to those Jesus helps here, however in Galatians Paul refers to Christ specifically as the seed of Abraham Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He doesn't say, "To seeds," as of many, but as of one, "To your seed," which is Christ. You also have all the descriptions of Jesus as the son of David.[/font]

I agree, I am not sure of your point but I agree with the assessment you just made here.

 

[golgotha61]

That is what salvation by faith through grace mean too. We are saved by Christ's death on the cross not our own works. You don't need to add a doctrine of total depravity to that, because even if we have done things that aren't totally depraved, they are not what our salvation is based on. It is Christ and his death and resurrection that saves us not anything we have done.

I think you are missing the definitions intent, but be that as it may, our salvation is based on Christ's death and resurrection, I agree.

Sin isn't transferred. We are all responsible with our own sins.

Original sin is inherited and that makes it impossible for us not to sin (non posse non peccare). Then, of course, we sin because of the "sin nature" and we then are accountable for our committed sin. The only payment for original sin is death. Let us agree on this disagreement.

It is much better to stick to the inspired description 'inspired' than put our trust in the uninspired and fallible description 'infallible'. The bible had more than enough authority back when it only said it was inspired by God. God's word does not need our added labels to defend it.

No, they must go together for the given reason. By necessity, if the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit (I think we agree on that), then the Bible is also infallible.

It is not the inspiration of the original writers that is the issue but the presumption of how the text was written and put together, that the writer sat down with a scroll and wrote out the original autograph and that it is the copies that come after it that that are open to mistakes and copying errors. That is not what we see in the book of Jeremiah.

Now you are entering form and textual criticisms. This came about in the 1700's and was a result of the enlightenment. I did a paper in college on this Documentary Hypothesis and it is a dangerous methodology to place faith in.

Undoubtedly Jeremiah was inspired, it isn't the inspiration I am questioning but the process. The first time the prophecies were given the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah saying... you can read that description again and again in his prophecies. When he wrote the first scroll the word of the Lord came to him alright, but not to dictate all the prophecies again, God simply told Jeremiah to right down all the prophecies he had been given. Jer 36:2 "Take a scroll and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah until today." Jeremiah had to remember them all and tell them to Baruch to right down. With the second scroll God just told to write it out again. Jeremiah had to rely on his memory. Perhaps you could claim God inspired Jeremiah to remember it exactly, but it doesn't say that. What is more, we know the second scroll was different because we are told Jeremiah add more besides. Jer 36:32 Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who wrote on it at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them. Are the inspired writer given infallible memories? If you look in the NT you will see writers quoting the Old Testament from memory, but if you compare them with the OT, the quotations are not exact. They are still inspired, still tell message the Lord God Almighty is speaking to his people, but God seems quite happy to speak through people relying on fallible memories of scripture or the first copy of their own scroll.

Your fears are unfounded. This is partially why to claim inspiration separate from infallible is illegal. God saw to it that all we have in the original autographs were just as He intended. His Word is inspired and infallible since they were superintended by the Holy Spirit. I think if you would reconsider your stance of infallibility, you would solve some of your questioning of interpretation.

 

[golgotha61]

I really can't understand how we can be held guilty of Adam's sin when the Bible teaches that we are each responsible before God for our own sin; that we are not condemned for the sins of others.

I am not referring to being guilty of Adam's sin. We inherited two things from Adam. One is death since Romans 5:12 makes that statement. Also we inherited the sin nature where we are unable not to sin. We are held accountable for our own sins, this is without doubt, but we can not help but to sin when we are not in Christ.

 

[Assyrian]

I agree, I am not sure of your point but I agree with the assessment you just made here.

The idea of Jesus avoiding a sin nature by not having a father is at odds with the emphasis in scripture of Jesus being the seed of Abraham and the son of David.

 

[Assyrian]

I think you are missing the definitions intent, but be that as it may, our salvation is based on Christ's death and resurrection, I agree.

ok

Original sin is inherited and that makes it impossible for us not to sin (non posse non peccare). Then, of course, we sin because of the "sin nature" and we then are accountable for our committed sin. The only payment for original sin is death. Let us agree on this disagreement.

This is a thread on Original Sin, but ok

No, they must go together for the given reason. By necessity, if the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit (I think we agree on that), then the Bible is also infallible.

I think you are limiting the Holy Spirit there, how he speaks in the hearts of men and how he speaks to men. The problem is, you start talking about infallibility and you start asking all the wrong questions about scripture, you start looking at scripture the wrong way, interested in whether each phrase if factually accurate, and forgetting the life of God breathed through the living and active word. You know the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds, it wasn't even the smallest seed in first century Judea. Infallibility gets you completely tied up in trying to prove Jesus' statement was factually accurate and ignoring what Jesus was really saying using a common illustration to tell us deep truths about faith.

Now you are entering form and textual criticisms. This came about in the 1700's and was a result of the enlightenment. I did a paper in college on this Documentary Hypothesis and it is a dangerous methodology to place faith in.

Because God cannot inspire editors too? I realise the documentary is a pretty scary and shocking concept, but if that is the way the Pentateuch was composed, why ever couldn't that be how the Holy Spirit gave us the books? Have you look at Mark and John and see the way they have two different endings? It is a problem for the idea autograph, but not a problem if we see inspiration of the Holy spirit guiding the whole process of writing the book not simply dictating it from verse 1 to the end. Or look at the book of Psalms which contains a Psalm written by Moses, others written by David you even have psalms written during the exile. All of these were copied and copied again, subject to all of the copying errors the the original autographs are supposed to avoid, before finally, sometime during the exile or shortly after, an editor got together and put all of the different psalms together in a single book. Personally when I look at how he arranged them and which ones he put after another, I think he was inspired by the Holy Spirit too. It wrecks the idea of an original autograph - which was the original autograph of Psalm 23, David's original composition in a cave on a hillside? A more polished version when it was finally written down years later in David's palace? Or the version written down many copies later in the book of Psalms? Remember, God's word is living and active it can handle rewrites copyists and post exilic redactors.

Your fears are unfounded. This is partially why to claim inspiration separate from infallible is illegal.

Illegal?

God saw to it that all we have in the original autographs were just as He intended.

Apart from not having the original autographs, which is odd if the original autographs are so important. Nor do we have any indication that every book in the bible was written the same way.

His Word is inspired and infallible since they were superintended by the Holy Spirit. I think if you would reconsider your stance of infallibility, you would solve some of your questioning of interpretation.

No. Everything I have said to you has been based on what scripture says, or at least, my understanding of it. My rejection of Original Sin and inheriting a 'sin nature' from Adam are based on the fact that the bible simply does not say that. How would thinking scripture is infallible change that? There is a connection though, I don't like infallibility for the same reason I don't like Original Sin and sin nature. They are not biblical.

 

[golgotha61]

The idea of Jesus avoiding a sin nature by not having a father is at odds with the emphasis in scripture of Jesus being the seed of Abraham and the son of David.

No as I said before the reference to the "Seed of Abraham" is covenantal and not in any way a seminal reference.

 

[golgotha61]

ok

This is a thread on Original Sin, but ok

I think you are limiting the Holy Spirit there, how he speaks in the hearts of men and how he speaks to men. The problem is, you start talking about infallibility and you start asking all the wrong questions about scripture, you start looking at scripture the wrong way, interested in whether each phrase if factually accurate, and forgetting the life of God breathed through the living and active word. You know the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds, it wasn't even the smallest seed in first century Judea. Infallibility gets you completely tied up in trying to prove Jesus' statement was factually accurate and ignoring what Jesus was really saying using a common illustration to tell us deep truths about faith.

Infallibility and also inerrancy simply mean that the Bible tells the truth. Truth can an does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict. With this clarity in definition I think it is apparent that to consider the Bible infallible or inerrant would not necessarily lead to a pedantic treatment of each word of the Bible.

Because God cannot inspire editors too? I realise the documentary is a pretty scary and shocking concept, but if that is the way the Pentateuch was composed, why ever couldn't that be how the Holy Spirit gave us the books? Have you look at Mark and John and see the way they have two different endings? It is a problem for the idea autograph, but not a problem if we see inspiration of the Holy spirit guiding the whole process of writing the book not simply dictating it from verse 1 to the end. Or look at the book of Psalms which contains a Psalm written by Moses, others written by David you even have psalms written during the exile. All of these were copied and copied again, subject to all of the copying errors the the original autographs are supposed to avoid, before finally, sometime during the exile or shortly after, an editor got together and put all of the different psalms together in a single book. Personally when I look at how he arranged them and which ones he put after another, I think he was inspired by the Holy Spirit too. It wrecks the idea of an original autograph - which was the original autograph of Psalm 23, David's original composition in a cave on a hillside? A more polished version when it was finally written down years later in David's palace? Or the version written down many copies later in the book of Psalms? Remember, God's word is living and active it can handle rewrites copyists and post exilic redactors.

I whole heartedly agree that the editors could and were inspired as well. This does not negate the original autographs existence and importance, not that we look for those autographs but because they were inspired and breathed out by God (Rom. 3:4) they must be recognized in order to help validate the authenticity and dependability of His Word. And also to fend off those who would attack the Bible based on this very accusation: that we have contradictions in the present scripture. But I know that because God inspired the scripture it is true and so the original autographs must be accounted as having existed and as infallible. The Bible must be defended as free from error.

Illegal?

Yes, only because of Romans 3:4. If God breathed it, then the Word is infallible.

No. Everything I have said to you has been based on what scripture says, or at least, my understanding of it. My rejection of Original Sin and inheriting a 'sin nature' from Adam are based on the fact that the bible simply does not say that. How would thinking scripture is infallible change that? There is a connection though, I don't like infallibility for the same reason I don't like Original Sin and sin nature. They are not biblical.

The infallibility and original sin are not in Scripture directly but I believe they are taught in the Bible, however I do think Romans 5:12 does address death and the original sin imputation. I think we have batted this issue back and forth enough, let us agree to disagree.

 

[Zeena]

No as I said before the reference to the "Seed of Abraham" is covenantal and not in any way a seminal reference.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.- Matthew 1:1
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.- Luke 3:38
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.- Romans 1:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh-Rom. 8:3
God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.- Gal. 4:4
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels…But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels.- Heb. 2:6-7, 9
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.- Heb. 2:11
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.- Hebrews 2:14
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.- Hebrews 2:16
Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren.- Hebrews 2:17
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.- Hebrews 4:15
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.- Hebrews 2:14
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.- Hebrew 2:16
Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren.- Hebrews 2:17
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.- Hebrews 4:15
Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.- I John 4:2-3
Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.- II John 7-11
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.- John 1:14
Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.- Hebrews 2:14

 

[Assyrian]

No as I said before the reference to the "Seed of Abraham" is covenantal

And Son of David was covenantal too? Why would God refer to Jesus in his covenantal by the very thing that you think transmits sin nature?

and not in any way a seminal reference.

Seed is seminal. It may not be referring to literal seed, in Galatians Paul's refer to those who have faith as the seed of Abraham. But you still have this bizarre analogy if sin nature is inherited through the father, why ever would Paul use such an ugly analogy a reference to all that is ugly handed down from father to child, and use it to describe faith.

But there is a bigger problem with this idea, how far off are we from newspaper headlines announcing that a lesbian couple have just had a baby that is completely their own, made from the genetic material in their own eggs. No men involved. Will the little baby girl be without a sin nature?

 

[golgotha61]

And Son of David was covenantal too? Why would God refer to Jesus in his covenantal by the very thing that you think transmits sin nature?

Yes, because God is not referring to the physical seed but rather the covenantal seed. This lineage reference is used to show the progression from Abraham Joseph to satisfy the covenant promise. If you look at KJV Matthew chapter one verses 2-16, you will see that the word "begat" is used : (Abraham begat Isaac vs 2 KJV). In verse 16, however, there is a deliberate change to the passive form in describing the birth of Jesus. The verb in the phrase "by whom Jesus "was born" is passive and emphasizes that in contrast to all the preceding men who sired their sons, Joseph did not beget Jesus. This I believe is intentional to demonstrate that Christ had no sin nature imputed sin, however you want to phrase it.

I should have included in my last post that along recognizing the Bible is inerrant and infallible is the proper use of hermeneutics and exegesis and that is where we seem to be having a problem with this discussion. Proper hermeneutics protects against the damage you feel is caused by the terms infallible or inerrant.

Seed is seminal. It may not be referring to literal seed, in Galatians Paul's refer to those who have faith as the seed of Abraham. But you still have this bizarre analogy if sin nature is inherited through the father, why ever would Paul use such an ugly analogy a reference to all that is ugly handed down from father to child, and use it to describe faith.

God is not referring to the physical seed, He is referring to the spiritual seed through the covenant.

But there is a bigger problem with this idea, how far off are we from newspaper headlines announcing that a lesbian couple have just had a baby that is completely their own, made from the genetic material in their own eggs. No men involved. Will the little baby girl be without a sin nature?

I have tried to check this out and all links concerning this in the UK are dead links. We have done other things in science that have presented theological issues, like cloning and stem cell science. In Mark 13:22, Christ warns us of signs and wonders that if it were possible would lead the elect into doubts.

I would rather keep this discussion in the realm of fact and not obfuscate the issue any more than is necessary. I am not trying to win an argument here as much as I am trying to present a doctrine that is not new and is viable. If you don't agree with what I am saying, that is fine but I think we are headed into an area of futility and I don't want to create hard feelings with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[golgotha61]

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.- Matthew 1:1
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.- Luke 3:38
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.- Romans 1:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh-Rom. 8:3
God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.- Gal. 4:4
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels…But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels.- Heb. 2:6-7, 9
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.- Heb. 2:11
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.- Hebrews 2:14
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.- Hebrews 2:16
Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren.- Hebrews 2:17
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.- Hebrews 4:15
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.- Hebrews 2:14
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.- Hebrew 2:16
Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren.- Hebrews 2:17
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.- Hebrews 4:15
Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.- I John 4:2-3
Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.- II John 7-11
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.- John 1:14
Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.- Hebrews 2:14

In the flesh is referring to the physical biological body and the translation allows for that. The post I gave you before on why Christ could not have sinned makes clear He had no sin nature nor propensity to sin. He was impeccable.

He was tempted like we are and He did come in the flesh, what I am saying is He did not have the sin nature that is transferred to us by the man because He had no earthly father.

 

[Zeena]

In the flesh is referring to the physical biological body and the translation allows for that. The post I gave you before on why Christ could not have sinned makes clear He had no sin nature nor propensity to sin. He was impeccable.

He was tempted like we are and He did come in the flesh, what I am saying is He did not have the sin nature that is transferred to us by the man because He had no earthly father.

Jesus was born in the normal way. No matter if you choose to reject the fact that He is the 'seed' of David and the 'nature' of Abraham. He has the DNA of Mary, did Mary have original sin?

 

[Assyrian]

Infallibility and also inerrancy simply mean that the Bible tells the truth. Truth can an does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict. With this clarity in definition I think it is apparent that to consider the Bible infallible or inerrant would not necessarily lead to a pedantic treatment of each word of the Bible.

I agree the bible tells us truth, I suppose what I dislike most about inerrancy is it tries to look at facts instead of Truth and concentrates on proving the bible is factually accurate. Except it can't and your exceptions show this.

Look at the language of appearance. The bible says something happened, but it didn't actually happen it only appeared that way. If you want to look at factual accuracy, that is simply wrong. The bible says the sun stopped when Joshua commanded it to. Problem is the sun doesn't move. It is the earth rotating that determines the length of the day. Saying the sun stopped when it didn't, or that it hurried along to the place it sets after the miracle, when the sun still didn't move is not an accurate description. There is no point in saying the bible is inerrant and infallible except for a list of exceptions where the bible is allowed be inaccurate. You don't even know you have the complete list of exceptions, which make inerrancy as useless as the supposed original autographs.

I much prefer the way the church handled the geocentric passages like Joshua when Copernicus showing us it is the earth that moves not the sun. That God spoke his truth to people in terms they understood, As Calvin and Augustine said before them, God speaks to us as a nursemaid lisping to an infant. When Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, which in the cosmology of the day made perfect sense, God didn't say ''wait Joshua I need to explain some astronomy to you first''. God doesn't seem that interested in teaching us science, he wants to teach us how to behave towards each other and to him. So when we read the bible we see God speaking to people in terms of the cosmology they knew and understood, accommodating his message to them. Which is isn't a problem, because the Truth he is communicating isn't about cosmology.

I whole heartedly agree that the editors could and were inspired as well. This does not negate the original autographs existence and importance, not that we look for those autographs but because they were inspired and breathed out by God (Rom. 3:4) they must be recognized in order to help validate the authenticity and dependability of His Word. And also to fend off those who would attack the Bible based on this very accusation: that we have contradictions in the present scripture. But I know that because God inspired the scripture it is true and so the original autographs must be accounted as having existed and as infallible. The Bible must be defended as free from error.

Not sure the bible needs defending, it is the living and active word of God isn't it? It seem even stranger to stand your ground on a made up idea of original autographs to defend an unbiblical description of scripture. It you want to defend the bible defend it on its own terms. Not ones people made up, and cannot stand. Personally I have always loved the contradictions in the bible. It have always thought they they can bring lead us to a better way of understanding the passages where the seeming contradiction fall way, though not the simplistic solutions that twist the meaning one or both passages out of all recognition. Or better still, the contradiction can totally undercut our misinterpretation of scripture and lead us into a much better understanding of how God speaks to us.

But if you go and say the contradictions weren't there in the original autographs, that can't have been because the original autographs were inerrant, then you are left with your misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

illegal?

Yes, only because of Romans 3:4. If God breathed it, then the Word is infallible.

Rom 3:4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged." Nothing about illegal there, let alone inerrancy or infallibility, but it does say God's word is true, which I totally agree with.

The infallibility and original sin are not in Scripture directly but I believe they are taught in the Bible, however I do think Romans 5:12 does address death and the original sin imputation. I think we have batted this issue back and forth enough, let us agree to disagree.

ok.