New Testament Inerrancy

[Guest shiloh357]

7 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

You're getting into the weeds here. I believe Jesus walked with Adam. I believe that Jesus dislocated Jacob's hip. I believe that Jesus was in the furnace with the three Jewish boys.

I believe Jesus' body was "created" out of God and Mary's egg.

I believe that Jesus is in "eternity", which is outside of our linear time line, and he can enter it whenever he sees fit. e.g. with Adam, with Jacob, etc.

 

Nothing you assert matters if the Bible doesn't have the authority to tell us those things.  You have rely on the Bible to know those things; the same Bible whose authority you reject.   

[Still Alive]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

There is no irony at all.  

I disagree.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Still Alive said:

Do you discuss from this, um, attitude when you talk to people face to face? Just curious. It is clear that my posts are frustrating you. It's one reason I chose to stop. I'm not trying to get on people's nerves. I was just trying to have an "iron sharpening iron" discussion. But I'm also trying to be civil. It's pretty easy for me, though. Maybe it's because I'm old and I've been through this stuff a lot.

No, you are not frustrating me at all.   You aren't capable of that.  The fact is you used Bible verses to claim that this was a "foolish controversy" and it isn't.  And then you try to deny that you meant it was as foolish controversy.   Just pointing out the internal inconsistency.

[Still Alive]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

Nothing you assert matters if the Bible doesn't have the authority to tell us those things.  You have rely on the Bible to know those things; the same Bible's whose authority you reject.   

I agree except I don't reject the authority of the bible. I reject that English translations are without error. I'm in very good company, but even if I weren't, it is an opinion God gives me the freedom to develop and hold.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Still Alive said:

I agree except I don't reject the authority of the bible.

Yes, you pretty much do. 

Quote

I reject that English translations are without error.

That is not an inerrancy issue, though.   You are applying that concept to things like scribal or differences in translations and the stuff you are talking about are not actual "errors."

 

Quote

I'm in very good company, but even if I weren't, it is an opinion God gives me the freedom to develop and hold.

It's an opinion that is not rooted in fact or truth. It's rooted in a lack of understanding of fundamental doctrine.

[Still Alive]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

No, you are not frustrating me at all.   You aren't capable of that.  The fact is you used Bible verses to claim that this was a "foolish controversy" and it isn't.  And then you try to deny that you meant it was as foolish controversy.   Just pointing out the internal inconsistency.

I clarified that. I mean that it was foolish for me to continue to participate. Sometimes it is adult to agree to disagree and move on.

One of my pastor friends had a discussion with some "church of Christ" folks at his door. They argued with him about musical instruments in church. They LITERALLY made motions like they were "shaking the dust off their feet" when they left his porch. People are funny. Self righteous religious people, especially so.

I lose interest when people, on virtually (if not literally) any belief issue on which we disagree, start questioning my salvation or literally claiming I'm not saved, or not Christian, or of the devil. I got a lot of that from members of small churches here in the bible belt that could not use the bible to support a single one of their arguments, though they were positive I was wrong, or worse...

[Still Alive]

1 minute ago, Davida said:

That is where you have Lost it. 

I understand that there are a few that believe that. I just disagree with them and can back it up easily. It's no secret to anyone delving into the original text. It's kinda funny. The first inkling I got of this was in discussing this issue with someone getting a degree at a Christian college in ancient texts. I asked them which version was best if you REALLY wanted to know what the bible said.

Their response: The only way to REALLY understand the bible is to become fluent in the language and within the context of the culture in which it was created.

Plenty of good (and some not so good) stuff here:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=errors+in+english+translations+of+the+bible

 

[Still Alive]

10 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, you pretty much do. 

That is not an inerrancy issue, though.   You are applying that concept to things like scribal or differences in translations and the stuff you are talking about are not actual "errors."

The KJV has a lot of stuff that was simply added by scribes. And some of it very much doesn't belong there. I've gotten to the point that it is not very practical for me to study the bible without a lexicon handy. Sure, I can listen to the bible on my three hour commute, but it often brings out confusing stuff that I end up having to verify with a lexicon, like I did with the very beginning of 1 Peter this morning 1:25 to be exact).

Edited July 10, 2018 by Still Alive

[Still Alive]

44 minutes ago, Davida said:

The WORD of GOD is not a fool's opinion it is GOD's INSTRUCTION to us.

You are misapplying my post.

[Guest shiloh357]

4 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

The KJV has a lot of stuff that was simply added by scribes. And some of it very much doesn't belong there. I've gotten to the point that it is not very practical for me to study the bible without a lexicon handy. Sure, I can listen to the bible on my three hour commute, but it often brings out confusing stuff that I end up having to verify with a lexicon, like I did with the very beginning of 1 Peter this morning 1:25 to be exact).

The stuff they added was put in italics to distinguish it from the rest of the text.  The italicized material was added to help smooth out the grammatical differences between original Greek/Hebrew and English so that the English text better expresses the precision of the original languages.

So they didn't really "add" anything to the text.  They were honest and trustworthy so that the reader knew which words were from the original languages and which words  were put there to smooth out the text and make it more readable.

There is very, very little in the way of problems with mainstream translations and the original languages.  The problem is people use those arguments to justify their desire to not be under the authority of the parts of the Bible they don't agree with.