New Testament Inerrancy

[Willie T]

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

That right there sums it up. But it's not that I don't understand inerrancy. It is that I don't understand how some people are trying to use the word when discussing the bible. There is a "special" definition of the word in such circles, apparently. I come across that a lot. I remember one guy, when we were talking about the word death said, "that's not how the bible defines the word." I thought that was funny and said to him "Dictionaries define words. The bible uses words."

He actually got really angry because of what that meant to his doctrine.

I'm a binary thinker (black and white). It has its advantages and disadvantages. In my job it is a huge plus. In discussions like this it has tremendous advantages but also disadvantages. Take this thread, for example. Whenever anyone uses the word inerrancy, I use my steadfast belief that words have meaning and those meanings must be well defined if effective communication is to take place. so Whenever I see someone say the English translation of the old and new testaments are inerrant, this is where my mind goes (in it I suspect you can see the problem I'm having):

in·er·rant

[inˈerənt]

 

ADJECTIVE

1. incapable of being wrong.

You're making about the only good sense in this whole thread.  How in the world can people say some of these "double-talk" things?  They sound like they were taken right off the pages of George Orwell's novel, 1984.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Willie T

[Still Alive]

Just now, Davida said:

Seems deceptive to me. 

You just accused me of lying, with no evidence other than to say "seems".

I'm not angry or hurt, but I'm getting a better feeling for your argument style.

Davida, et-al. I break issues in to tiny logical "puzzle pieces", work out my belief in what each puzzle piece means, and then put them together to form a complete picture, all the while ensuring that they DO, in fact, fit together. This is also a huge benefit in my occupation.

My post was addressing a key piece of the puzzle. And once I worked it out, many other pieces started fitting together. Not all of them, but enough to understand why we seemed to be at such odds when we shouldn't have been.

Being a black and white thinker, when I find a "gray issue" It means I see it as an old newspaper "gray" picture. i.e. it's not really gray. It's made up of black dots on white paper (black and white). It means I need to form an opinion on all the dots and, presto, the issue is no longer gray. For me, there is no such thing as "gray" issues. There are only issues which seem gray because they have not been fully analyzed from a biblical perspective.

[Guest shiloh357]

12 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Sorry, dude. I only paid for the half hour argument. I'm way over my allotted time on this one. My answer to that one is in my previous posts.

Well, then you were deceptive in your previous response. We are not in agreement.   You don't understand the doctrine, but you are not going to let that ignorance get in the way.

[Still Alive]

3 minutes ago, Willie T said:

You're making about the only good sense in this whole thread.  How in the world can people say some of these "double-talk" things?  They sound like they were taken right off the pages of the novel, 1984.

Yeah, but I'm trying to be nice. I posted this list from 2 Timothy earlier. We are supposed to exhibit the following. I'm working hard to exhibit especially the bolded ones in this thread.

Faith

Goodness

Knowledge

Self Control

Perseverance

Godliness

Mutual affection

Love

[Still Alive]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Well, then you were deceptive in your previous response. We are not in agreement.   You don't understand the doctrine, but you are not going to let that ignorance get in the way.

I think you just like to argue.:D

Edit: FWIW, calling someone else a liar is not really the high road in any debate/discussion. And watering it down with phrases like "you were deceptive" doesn't water it down at all.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Still Alive

[Willie T]

I love the perennial claim that someone is "IGNORANT" because they do not see something the way the detractor does.  As if the complainer's view HAS to be the only possible one to consider.

[Still Alive]

6 minutes ago, Davida said:

Listen, every time you are pinned down in this conversation you will jump back and forth & then deny that was what you were saying and tell us when we press you further that  "we all are in agreement"  when your previous statements have been completely contradictory to that conclusion. I really don't know quite what to make of you - there is a chameleon quality that keeps happening.  Whether it is that you are not certain what you actually believe or that you don't know what the words mean according to Biblical doctrines, or that you are trying to sidestep, or that you are just talking superficially ....etc.....I am not quite certain.  

I can tell you at least partly what was happening: People were making incorrect inferences. That may have been because I wasn't clear, or it may have been because they were not reading my posts. Every word I've said in this thread uses, as it's foundation, my core beliefs. That has been my salvation when discussing highly controversial political subjects with highly argumentative and emotional people that vehemently disagree with me and are always laying traps to get me to say something I don't mean. And I've been doing that since 2005. It is a learned skill.

I always say exactly what I mean - even in real life when I'm actually angry (i.e. I never have to take back what I said), but I also always try to get along and be as respectful as possible to those with whom I disagree. It's about being Christ like.  But that means I acknowledge that every now and then you DO have to fashion a whip and turn over a few tables (though nothing here has reached that point. :))

Also, I said "was happening" because, although I may post a few more times on this thread, I've said all I need to say on the subject of the OP. It's all in my previous posts.  

 

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, Willie T said:

I love the perennial claim that someone is "IGNORANT" because they do not see something the way the detractor does.  As if the complainer's view HAS to be the only possible one to consider.

I didn't say he was "ignorant."  I am saying that he has an ignorance of the subject matter.   Used that way, it is not a pejorative.  

But yes, inerrancy has ONE meaning and only ONE meaning as a doctrine.  That is not my view; that is just how it is.   There are things like this that are simply true because they are true.   

It would be like me rejecting the truth that the earth revolves around the sun.   There are some things that true and if they are rejected, it is the product of a willful ignorance.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Still Alive said:

I can tell you at least partly what was happening: People were making incorrect inferences.

No, you said that you and I were in agreement, but you purposefully left out what you still disagree with me about.  

Quote

That may have been because I wasn't clear, or it may have been because they were not reading my posts. Every word I've said in this thread uses, as it's foundation, my core beliefs. That has been my salvation when discussing highly controversial political subjects with highly argumentative and emotional people that vehemently disagree with me and are always laying traps to get me to say something I don't mean. And I've been doing that since 2005. It is a learned skill.

No one here is laying any traps for you.  When you said were in agreement and I sought clarification, I could tell by your response that your claim that were "in agreement" was purposefully dishonest. 

 

 

[Still Alive]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But yes, inerrancy has ONE meaning and only ONE meaning as a doctrine.  

That further clarifies to me the confusion. I don't get into doctrinal labels. I remember a couple of years ago someone asked me if I was a Calvinist and I said, "what is a calvanist". I mean, it's not in the bible so I really didn't care.  But his response was kinda funny. I wanted to deride me for not caring or knowing about it. So I did study the subject and found out that I don't buy the TULIP thingee but agree with some of it.

For me, at the end it was an irrelevance other than a label for a particular set of beliefs.

I see now that you are using the "bible doctrine club" interpretation of "Inerrancy" with a capital "I". It doesn't just have a definition. I suspect it has a multi paragraph explanation.

Thing is, I'm not part of that club. Doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about regarding the bible and the teachings of Christ. It just means I don't know the secret hand signals of that particular club. I think the disciples had a similar problem with folks like Saul of Tarsus in their day as well.