bible

[glen]

So, if it is inerrant, do you accept the "Apocryphal" books?
How can it be inerrant when they were included for about 1,000 years?
Was it inerrant then, or only after Luther proposed removing them, or both?

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Yah, I guess we haven't had one of these flame wars in a while. Time for another it would seem.

 

[datalink7]

Yes! We've never had a discussion about Religion before in ATOT!

And with the high level of maturity around here, I'm sure this discussion will be full of merit and be absent of flames.

 

[glen]

I can't recall one on this topic.

 

[imported_Mike]

Originally posted by: glen
I can't recall one on this topic.

They might start off different, but they all end in the same way..

flame war & a lock.

 

[glen]

I hope not.
This is really interesting to me.
I think it is impossible to hold the idea that the Bible is inerrant.

 

[Gyrene]

The Old Testament was passed down through oral means, thus there are bound to be human inaccuracies in the Bible. Thus, one must look at the greater picture, and not take the Bible word for word. Also, many books were omitted due to space constraints. This does not even included translation errors. It is safe to say that we will never be able to take the Bible seriously word for word, but it's the overall image that matters.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: dtyn
The Old Testament was passed down through oral means, thus there are bound to be human inaccuracies in the Bible. Thus, one must look at the greater picture, and not take the Bible word for word. Also, many books were omitted due to space constraints. This does not even included translation errors. It is safe to say that we will never be able to take the Bible seriously word for word, but it's the overall image that matters.

Right, but that won't prove anything to folks who think it is inerrant.
Most folks who think it is inerrant are Protestant.
To be Protestant, you have to believe that the Bible was not inerrant for the first 1,500 years.
So, it is absurd to simultaneously hold the view that it is inerrant and not inerrant.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: glen
So, if it is inerrant, do you accept the "Apocryphal" books?
How can it be inerrant when they were included for about 1,000 years?
Was it inerrant then, or only after Luther proposed removing them, or both?

It can only be innerrant if you believe it is. Is belief enough?

Just because something was written down 100s of years ago and a lot of people believe it does not mean it is true.

 

[MAME]

religion sucks

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: dtyn
The Old Testament was passed down through oral means, thus there are bound to be human inaccuracies in the Bible. Thus, one must look at the greater picture, and not take the Bible word for word. Also, many books were omitted due to space constraints. This does not even included translation errors. It is safe to say that we will never be able to take the Bible seriously word for word, but it's the overall image that matters.

Right, but that won't prove anything to folks who think it is inerrant.
Most folks who think it is inerrant are Protestant.
To be Protestant, you have to believe that the Bible was not inerrant for the first 1,500 years.
So, it is absurd to simultaneously hold the view that it is inerrant and not inerrant.

Ok, so let me see if I've got this right here. You're trying to get people to deffend a position which you've clearly already decided is indefensible. So basiclly you thread here is nothing more than a not to subtle attempt to start an argument about something which has already been the subject of a hundred arguments here. Do I have this correct?

 

[udonoogen]

Jesus loves you. that is all.

 

[Gravity]

When I first became a Christian I was intent on intellectually convincing others about the validity of the foundational concepts of the faith. After I had walked in my faith for a few years it was clear that people that don't believe are seldom convinced by academia. Their lives have to be at the point where they can hear and accept what is true and eternal.

I do believe that the bible is the inerrant Word of God. However, that shouldn't be a stumbling block to those that may be in need of salvation.

The main points for many are:

God created us to be with Him. (Gen 1:26)
Our sin seperates us from God. (Gen 6:5,6)
Sin cannot be removed by good deeds. (Titus 3:5)
Paying the price for sin, Jesus died and rose again. (1 Cor 15:3-4)
Everone who trusts in Him alone has eternal life. (John 6:47)
Life that's eternal means we will be with Jesus forever in heaven (Rev 22:5)

Does that make sense? If you died after reading this post, where would your soul go? Can you say for sure?

Gravity

 

[przero]

Gravity - Well said!

 

[Danman]

Originally posted by: MAME
religion sucks

Wow, thanks for the influential post.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: przero
Gravity - Well said!

Very well said.

ups

 

[Amorphus]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: przero
Gravity - Well said!

Very well said.

ups

We are here to tell people of Grace - not to prove to them that it is correct, or that it exists, or that the manifesto, for lack of better word, it true. That is left to the Holy Spirit; all we do when we try to convince people is that we make a muck out of things.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gravity
When I first became a Christian I was intent on intellectually convincing others about the validity of the foundational concepts of the faith. After I had walked in my faith for a few years it was clear that people that don't believe are seldom convinced by academia. Their lives have to be at the point where they can hear and accept what is true and eternal.

I do believe that the bible is the inerrant Word of God. However, that shouldn't be a stumbling block to those that may be in need of salvation.

The main points for many are:

God created us to be with Him. (Gen 1:26)
Our sin seperates us from God. (Gen 6:5,6)
Sin cannot be removed by good deeds. (Titus 3:5)
Paying the price for sin, Jesus died and rose again. (1 Cor 15:3-4)
Everone who trusts in Him alone has eternal life. (John 6:47)
Life that's eternal means we will be with Jesus forever in heaven (Rev 22:5)

Does that make sense? If you died after reading this post, where would your soul go? Can you say for sure?

Gravity

Soo...you don't believe (as most of academia does) that the Bible is a compendium of stories and accounts from various cultural sources?

 

[conjur]

damn fusetalk has it out for me today! :|

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Gravity
When I first became a Christian I was intent on intellectually convincing others about the validity of the foundational concepts of the faith. After I had walked in my faith for a few years it was clear that people that don't believe are seldom convinced by academia. Their lives have to be at the point where they can hear and accept what is true and eternal.

I do believe that the bible is the inerrant Word of God. However, that shouldn't be a stumbling block to those that may be in need of salvation.

The main points for many are:

God created us to be with Him. (Gen 1:26)
Our sin seperates us from God. (Gen 6:5,6)
Sin cannot be removed by good deeds. (Titus 3:5)
Paying the price for sin, Jesus died and rose again. (1 Cor 15:3-4)
Everone who trusts in Him alone has eternal life. (John 6:47)
Life that's eternal means we will be with Jesus forever in heaven (Rev 22:5)

Does that make sense? If you died after reading this post, where would your soul go? Can you say for sure?

Gravity

Soo...you don't believe (as most of academia does) that the Bible is a compendium of stories and accounts from various cultural sources?

No, I believe that it is an inerant work ordained by God himself and assembled by men that were filled with His spirit. From Contents to maps...I believe it all. Of course, my faith in it doesn't make it true...but I can use it to shape my life with. 1 Timoth 3:16 says that All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Faith is confidence in things unseen. However, after 40 years of this life, and 26 of them in darkness, I can say that what was done for me was undeserved and for that I am humbly and eternally thankful.

Gravity

 

[conjur]

Wow.....just.....wow.



At least tell me you're not one of those types pushing to get "Creation Science" taught in schools.

 

[Eli]

It's so hard to say what you have in your head in text.

I wish we could all read minds. There would be so much more compassion and understanding in the world if we could just understand eachother; regardless of the fact that what we believe is different from person to person.

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: conjur
Wow.....just.....wow.



At least tell me you're not one of those types pushing to get "Creation Science" taught in schools.

Nah, my kids go to public school, they laugh when the teachers can't talk intelligently about the "theory of evolution." Kids learn from parents mostly. I'm not concerned about what's taught there. When they are older they can draw their own conclusions. I believe they will be able to look back and see God's work in their lives, like their dad.

Gravity

 

[Crypticburn]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: dtyn
The Old Testament was passed down through oral means, thus there are bound to be human inaccuracies in the Bible. Thus, one must look at the greater picture, and not take the Bible word for word. Also, many books were omitted due to space constraints. This does not even included translation errors. It is safe to say that we will never be able to take the Bible seriously word for word, but it's the overall image that matters.

Right, but that won't prove anything to folks who think it is inerrant.
Most folks who think it is inerrant are Protestant.
To be Protestant, you have to believe that the Bible was not inerrant for the first 1,500 years.
So, it is absurd to simultaneously hold the view that it is inerrant and not inerrant.

Hrmmm, to be Protestant, wouldn't you have to believe the the protestant bible was innerrant for the first 1500 years, while the rest of it was not inerrant?

eg. The parts accepted by Protestants have always been inerrant, while the rest weren't.

Crypticburn

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Crypticburn

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: dtyn
The Old Testament was passed down through oral means, thus there are bound to be human inaccuracies in the Bible. Thus, one must look at the greater picture, and not take the Bible word for word. Also, many books were omitted due to space constraints. This does not even included translation errors. It is safe to say that we will never be able to take the Bible seriously word for word, but it's the overall image that matters.

Right, but that won't prove anything to folks who think it is inerrant.
Most folks who think it is inerrant are Protestant.
To be Protestant, you have to believe that the Bible was not inerrant for the first 1,500 years.
So, it is absurd to simultaneously hold the view that it is inerrant and not inerrant.

Hrmmm, to be Protestant, wouldn't you have to believe the the protestant bible was innerrant for the first 1500 years, while the rest of it was not inerrant?

eg. The parts accepted by Protestants have always been inerrant, while the rest weren't.

Crypticburn

As if anyone has a copy of that 'inerrant' bible?

It's words on paper and people are willing to base their entire lives upon their belief that EVERY word was spoken to men by some supreme being...and not that's it's a collection of stories culled from various cultures over centuries.

Astounding....simply astounding.

Even in the somewhat strict Catholic upbringing I had I never once thought the Bible was completely true.