Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

[dad]

I agree with Soul Searcher. Christians, in my understanding, are opposed to moral relativism, meaning that morals are different in different situations. This would make it hypocritical to say that the status of the morality of incest changes throughout the Bible. According to Christians, if something is wrong it is always wrong and vice versa, so incest cannot be "acceptable" in one case and "unacceptable" in another.

Eating meat became OK. Incest became not OK. The world changed a lot. In this state of the world, and life processes, and cellular realities, incest is no longer OK.

Simple

 

[Cabal]

Eating meat became OK. Incest became not OK. The world changed a lot. In this state of the world, and life processes, and cellular realities, incest is no longer OK.

Simple

So before God legislated against paedophilia, was that "OK" also?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[dad]

So before God legislated against paedophilia, was that "OK" also?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

He did? What verse can I find that? Is a child 21? I think you are being flatulent?

 

[Mobiosity]

No matter where he posts, he's always wrong. It's just amazing.

 

[Cabal]

He did? What verse can I find that? Is a child 21? I think you are being flatulent?

Oh, so He didn't actually prohibit it?

So could you confirm for me whether or not it's ok now then?

 

[Split Rock]

That would be only one of two possible conclusions, the other would be some are interpreting scripture inerrantly. And furthermore that would be an objective observation which shows one proof that people should no longer assume the Bible is the word of God, but as a fact it is the inerrant word of God, for even the scriptures themselves speak that.

"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you..." (2 Pe 2:1)

The "you" being:

"Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone" (Ep 2:19-20)

If no one is inerrant, then no one can inerrantly interpret scripture. You might be right about some interpretations, but you will be wrong about others. It doesn't matter which, since no one can tell the difference anyway. As far as the quotes from scripture, I didn't see how they even implied that scripture itself was inerrant.

 

[Soul Searcher]

IMO anyone who thinks thier interpretation is inerrant not only have already shown that they are in error but also that they will not be able to find the correct answer so long as they hold unto this belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

IMO anyone who thinks thier interpretation is inerrant not only have already shown that they are in error but also that they will not be able to find the correct answer so long as they hold unto this belief.

What's your suggestion?

That we simply quote Scripture in answer to a question?

And if it's an ad hoc question, don't answer it?

I've seen a couple people do nothing but answer questions with Scripture, and eventually they get the, "Can't you answer in your own words?" plea.

I personally have been subjected to both.

I get --- "Chapter and verse, please."
As well as --- "What's your interpretation?"

 

[Soul Searcher]

My suggestion would be that one must be willing to admit that they are capable of error. When people truly believe they know the truth without error they no longer search for truth and they will as a result never find it. No matter what you believe, no matter what you think you know there is always room for error and there is far more that we do not know than that which we do.

 

[AV1611VET]

My suggestion would be that one must be willing to admit that they are capable of error.

Well, I'm not going to stamp that on my forehead or make it my signature.

That should go without saying, and is an 'unwritten rule'.

As my pastor is fond of saying, 'Be careful; the footnotes in your Bible are not inspired text.'

When people truly believe they know the truth without error they no longer search for truth and they will as a result never find it.

I wouldn't know --- I've never been in that situation. I think I've been accused of that at times, but I just dismiss it as "noise".

No matter what you believe, no matter what you think you know there is always room for error and there is far more that we do not know than that which we do.

I've been saying that about science for some time now.

I even have a post on that in my archives that I use quite frequently: 1.

However, I'm not going to get so hung-up on my 'inerrancy' that I have to go looking for Truth outside of the Bible.

I now preface a lot of my remarks with words to the effect of:

• my opinion is
• I think
• in my opinion
• just my opinion
• just a pet theory of mine
• as far as I know
• basic doctrine says...
• etc.

That gets old.

 

[Soul Searcher]

That should go without saying, and is an 'unwritten rule'.

Agreed, but still some people like to claim that thier interpretation is inerrant and that defies this 'unwritten rule'

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed, but still some people like to claim that thier interpretation is inerrant and that defies this 'unwritten rule'

Isn't that what a scientist does with his evidence he presents at Peer Review?

I hear those things are knock-down-drag-outs.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I would hope not but keep in mind I am not talking about a Christian who thinks his/her interpretation of a bible passage is inerrant. I am talking about a person who thinks his/her interpretation of anything is inerrant which would of course include both types.

That said a scientist who is not willing to admit that he/she could have made a mistake is not much of a scientist. Of course someone simply telling them they are wrong will be met with arguement but someone telling them why they are wrong, using evidence is going to be listened to.

 

[Cabal]

Isn't that what a scientist does with his evidence he presents at Peer Review?

I hear those things are knock-down-drag-outs.

No. You heard wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would hope not but keep in mind I am not talking about a Christian who thinks his/her interpretation of a bible passage is inerrant. I am talking about a person who thinks his/her interpretation of anything is inerrant which would of course include both types.

That said a scientist who is not willing to admit that he/she could have made a mistake is not much of a scientist. Of course someone simply telling them they are wrong will be met with arguement but someone telling them why they are wrong, using evidence is going to be listened to.

So all a scientist has to to is eventually acquiesce to the counter-evidence and he's okay; but you're saying a Christian who thinks his/her interpretation of a Bible passage is inerrant won't eventually acquiesce?

I would say that for every Christian who thinks his/her passage is inerrant, there is a scientist who thinks the same about his/her evidence.

 

[Hespera]

Isn't that what a scientist does with his evidence he presents at Peer Review?

I hear those things are knock-down-drag-outs.

you think that any scientist would make a presentation that his ideas are inerrant? Seriously? You so often seem like you are from a totally different world.

I would say that for every Christian who thinks his/her passage is inerrant, there is a scientist who thinks the same about his/her evidence.QUOTE

I guess you would and did say that, and you could hardly be more wrong. Maybe on the planet Zor, not on earth.

 

[Split Rock]

What's your suggestion?

That we simply quote Scripture in answer to a question?

And if it's an ad hoc question, don't answer it?

For the one millionth time, there is no such thing as an "ad-hoc question." All because your only answer to a question is ad-hoc, does not mean there is something wrong with the question... there is instead something wrong with your answer.

I've seen a couple people do nothing but answer questions with Scripture, and eventually they get the, "Can't you answer in your own words?" plea.

I personally have been subjected to both.

I get --- "Chapter and verse, please."
As well as --- "What's your interpretation?"

I think a quote along with an explanation is usually best, if you are going to quote scripture.

Well, I'm not going to stamp that on my forehead or make it my signature.

That should go without saying, and is an 'unwritten rule'.

As my pastor is fond of saying, 'Be careful; the footnotes in your Bible are not inspired text.'

That is an excellent reminder! My opinion of your pastor has just gone up dramatically. Now, why is it that you and other creationists here keep forgetting this?

I wouldn't know --- I've never been in that situation. I think I've been accused of that at times, but I just dismiss it as "noise".

Ahh... we have identified one of your problems. It isn't noise, and you should not assume you have found "truth". Soul Searcher is right on the money here.

I've been saying that about science for some time now.

So do we. You now need to apply this concept to theology.

However, I'm not going to get so hung-up on my 'inerrancy' that I have to go looking for Truth outside of the Bible.

Are you claiming that there is no truth outside of The Bible?

I now preface a lot of my remarks with words to the effect of:

• my opinion is
• I think
• in my opinion
• just my opinion
• just a pet theory of mine
• as far as I know
• basic doctrine says...
• etc.

That gets old.

It is good that you do this, but sometimes you still conflate what the Bible clearly says, and what interpretation says. A good example of this is when you continue to assert that the Bible says Atheists worship nature. The Bible does not say that.. it is your interpretation. Even basic theology is based on interpretation, even if it is not yours personally.

 

[Soul Searcher]

So all a scientist has to to is eventually acquiesce to the counter-evidence and he's okay; but you're saying a Christian who thinks his/her interpretation of a Bible passage is inerrant won't eventually acquiesce?

Perhaps you did not understand. So long as said person truly believes that his/her interpretation is inerrant they will not believe otherwise. When they [if they] do believe otherwsie then they no longer hold onto such belief and are able once again to search for truth.

I would say that for every Christian who thinks his/her passage is inerrant, there is a scientist who thinks the same about his/her evidence.

Evidence does not error, interpretations do.

 

[Split Rock]

So all a scientist has to to is eventually acquiesce to the counter-evidence and he's okay; but you're saying a Christian who thinks his/her interpretation of a Bible passage is inerrant won't eventually acquiesce?

Why would anyone who thinks their conclusions are inerrant ever acquiesce??

I would say that for every Christian who thinks his/her passage is inerrant, there is a scientist who thinks the same about his/her evidence.

There are stubborn scientists just like there are stubborn Christians. However, no matter how stubborn a scientist is, if he/she cannot convince his/her collegues, either because of a counter-argument or counter-indicating data, his/her conclusions will be rejected.

 

[Naraoia]

My suggestion would be that one must be willing to admit that they are capable of error. When people truly believe they know the truth without error they no longer search for truth and they will as a result never find it. No matter what you believe, no matter what you think you know there is always room for error and there is far more that we do not know than that which we do.

That's so beautifully put that it had to be quoted.

Isn't that what a scientist does with his evidence he presents at Peer Review?

I hear those things are knock-down-drag-outs.

Well, I haven't tried publishing anything myself, but from what I've heard, you'd better be prepared to hear (and heed) criticism from reviewers if you want your paper in a journal.

Now, of course, believing you are right is kind of a prerequisite to putting your conclusions forward in a paper... but that's not the same thing as believing you can't be in error (and a discussion of "other things that could've caused these data" is not a rare thing in scientific papers).

P.S.: peer review is not a proper name. No need to capitalise it. (Zircon isn't, either.)