New Testament Inerrancy

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

With freedom comes risk and responsibility, no doubt about it. But it's worth it

If you're a Christian you'd know it is not worth it because doubting God's word is a risk that will never pay off in a good way.   Those of us out there who are Christians understand that.   Some day, you might.

[Still Alive]

23 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

If you're a Christian you'd know it is not worth it because doubting God's word is a risk that will never pay off in a good way.   Those of us out there who are Christians understand that.   Some day, you might.

Seems you are making the claim that if I don't agree with you, I'm therefore not a Christian. Mkay.

I'll not do the same. I think we have a disagreement on the nuances of what the bible actually is. Let me say it: It is 66 separate books and letters by many different authors put together over many centuries. It contains much useful information about the history of Israel as well as the life, times and teachings of Jesus, the son of God, as well as teaching from those who had had direct contact with him. I consider it highly useful in learning the personality of our Creator as well as instruction on how to live life in a way most enjoyable to me and pleasing to my creator.

But I've found all sorts of flaws in every English translation I've ever picked up. It doesn't mean they are not useful. They are very useful. But when I see something that doesn't make sense, or doesn't fit the personality and teaching of the God of the rest of the bible, I find I need to search further into the lexicons to ensure i'm not seeing an incorrect interpretation. It's been very helpful. It's why I'm no longer an adherent of ECT but now embrace CI. It is why I am no longer an adherent of Pre-trib rapture.

Etcetera.

Sir, it is fine that we disagree. Even the apostles disagreed on some issues. But when you get into the area of implying or saying outright someone here is not a Christian simply because they disagree with your viewpoint on something other than the death and resurrection of Jesus and its meaning, you've crossed a line into a very bad place.

I have a thick skin and am not the least bit offended by your post. However it harms your reputation and respectability by making such a statement regarding another brother in the Lord. I'm presenting this in love. Seriously.

[Guest shiloh357]

8 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I'll not do the same. I think we have a disagreement on the nuances of what the bible actually is. Let me say it: It is 66 separate books and letters by many different authors put together over many centuries. It contains much useful information about the history of Israel as well as the life, times and teachings of Jesus, the son of God, as well as teaching from those who had had direct contact with him. I consider it highly useful in learning the personality of our Creator as well as instruction on how to live life in a way most enjoyable to me and pleasing to my creator.

But I've found all sorts of flaws in every English translation I've ever picked up. It doesn't mean they are not useful. They are very useful. But when I see something that doesn't make sense, or doesn't fit the personality and teaching of the God of the rest of the bible, I find I need to search further into the lexicons to ensure i'm not seeing an incorrect interpretation. It's been very helpful. It's why I'm no longer an adherent of ECT but now embrace CI. It is why I am no longer an adherent of Pre-trib rapture.E

No, this is not about translations, nor is it about your CT hobby horse, either.   Of greater importance is your outright rejection of the authority of Scripture.   Religionists are good about talking about the Bible as inspiring, useful, and how much they admire it.  Christians talk about how the Bible is their final authority.    You cannot commit to the Bible in that way.

The problem and the disconnect in your position is that it is useful even if it is not really true.  You don't really trust the Bible and what's worse, you view the Bible as a book that you can customize to your suit what you want to believe, which is really pointless because if what you believe isn't really true to start with.  You may find a way to believe in the Bible in a manner that is enjoyable to you, but that isn't a very good standard to operate by.  People hold religious views that they find enjoyable, but are not true.

The fact that someone can reject the resurrection of Jesus and the stories of God's faithfulness and you call that a "good thing"  and say that it's "worth the risk demonstrates a fundamental and irreconcilable contradiction with what it means to be a Christian.   Pointing that out does not harm my respectability or reputation.  

[Still Alive]

5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

 

The fact that someone can reject the resurrection of Jesus and the stories of God's faithfulness and you call that a "good thing"  and say that it's "worth the risk demonstrates a fundamental and irreconcilable contradiction with what it means to be a Christian.   Pointing that out does not harm my respectability or reputation.  

What it demonstrates is that I consider free choice to be a good thing. Then again, some would argue we don't have free choice. In which case, we don't choose, but God chose.

Feel free to butter whichever side you prefer. But to suggest that I am not a Christian because I disagree with your position regarding the inerrancy of our English translations, well, to be blunt, opens a window to who you are, not who I am.

But then, opinions vary.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Still Alive

[enoob57]

11 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Seems you are making the claim that if I don't agree with you, I'm therefore not a Christian. Mkay.

I'll not do the same. I think we have a disagreement on the nuances of what the bible actually is. Let me say it: It is 66 separate books and letters by many different authors put together over many centuries. It contains much useful information about the history of Israel as well as the life, times and teachings of Jesus, the son of God, as well as teaching from those who had had direct contact with him. I consider it highly useful in learning the personality of our Creator as well as instruction on how to live life in a way most enjoyable to me and pleasing to my creator.

But I've found all sorts of flaws in every English translation I've ever picked up. It doesn't mean they are not useful. They are very useful. But when I see something that doesn't make sense, or doesn't fit the personality and teaching of the God of the rest of the bible, I find I need to search further into the lexicons to ensure i'm not seeing an incorrect interpretation. It's been very helpful. It's why I'm no longer an adherent of ECT but now embrace CI. It is why I am no longer an adherent of Pre-trib rapture.

Etcetera.

Sir, it is fine that we disagree. Even the apostles disagreed on some issues. But when you get into the area of implying or saying outright someone here is not a Christian simply because they disagree with your viewpoint on something other than the death and resurrection of Jesus and its meaning, you've crossed a line into a very bad place.

I have a thick skin and am not the least bit offended by your post. However it harms your reputation and respectability by making such a statement regarding another brother in the Lord. I'm presenting this in love. Seriously.

2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
That which is imperfect cannot bring perfection... God says the Scriptures are abled to bring man into perfection... anyone who stands against this reality stands outside of Scripture and is subject to judgment of such...

[Still Alive]

8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

 Christians talk about how the Bible is their final authority.    You cannot commit to the Bible in that way.

 

Change "Christians" to "some Christians" and I'd agree with you. I don't worship the bible. I worship God. I see the bible as the words of men inspired by God. I see the words of some preachers as inspired by God, but I don't think their sermons should be stapled to the back of my bible.

My final authority is God, with whom I have a personal relationship through Jesus. And I strengthen that relationship through prayer and bible reading/study.

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Change "Christians" to "some Christians" and I'd agree with you. I don't worship the bible.

No, Christians hold the Bible as their final authority.   That is not worshiping the Bible.  The Bible is our final authority because it is fully vested in the authority of God.   To hold the Bible as one's final authority means that  we recognize by extension the authority of God's authority.  They are His words.

Quote

I worship God. I see the bible as the words of men inspired by God.

Wrong, the Bible presents itself as God's words transmitted to men who heard from Him.  

 

Quote

My final authority is God, with whom I have a personal relationship through Jesus. And I strengthen that relationship through prayer and bible reading/study.

Which is pretty impossible since you don't feel the Bible is wholly trustworthy.

[Still Alive]

2 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
That which is imperfect cannot bring perfection... God says the Scriptures are abled to bring man into perfection... anyone who stands against this reality stands outside of Scripture and is subject to judgment of such...

I almost quoted 2 Timothy but figured everyone here knew about it. I take it very seriously. That being said, I do not live by the Torah. I do not sacrifice animals, I do not abide by the feasts, etc.

And 2 Timothy is speaking of writings that pre-date the NT. But I still believe it applies.

I use the rooster crowing example. One gospel said it crowed twice, the other three said once. The number of times the rooster crowed is not the point, though. The point is that Jesus told him he would deny him three times, and SOON. REALLY SOON.

Same thing here.

I focus on this:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

I believe the bible is full of the wisdom of God and is the key to learning the mind and personality of God, as well as learning my place in His Kingdom. I believe that the more familiar I am with its words, the stronger my understanding in those areas.

But I understand that opinions vary on the nuances of this. Don't worry. God will get His way in this.

[Still Alive]

5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, Christians hold the Bible as their final authority.  

Well, I'll give you that Christians hold the bible as their final WRITTEN authority.

Since what we are dealing with is spiritual, that is only a part of the story though.

[Still Alive]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Bible as one's final authority means that  we recognize by extension the authority of God's authority.  They are His words.

Can't argue with that, with the exception of things like Matt. 4:6 or 1 Cor 7:12.

There is nothing in the bible I disagree with. I think that would be a huge mistake. However, I disagree with many on interpretation. But a lot of church leaders disagree with each other in that way quite often.