New Testament Inerrancy

[Still Alive]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Peter, who lived and died at the same time as Paul referred to Paul's letters as Scripture (II Pet. 3:16) and Peter was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when noted that Paul's writings were Scripture.   And Paul referred to Luke 10:7 as Scripture.  

So the fact that the Holy Spirit, who knew what the NT canon would be, stated in II Tim. 3:16, that ALL Scripture  (even the NT Scriptures that had not yet been written at that particular point in time) are inspired by God.   

This silly, shallow and intellectually vacuous notion that II Tim. 3:16 only applies to the OT is nothing but garbage to those who know and love the Scriptures.

You refer to this: "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. ¹⁶ He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

The key points are these:

1. Peter and Paul agree that the Lord's patience means salvation.

2. God gave Paul wisdom. And it is from this wisdom that Paul writes.

3. Some things Paul writes are difficult to understand and people who are instable or ignorant of the principles on which Paul bases his writings will misunderstand the point he's making.

4. These same people do this with other writings as well.

5. These same people will go do their destruction due to this ignorance/instability.

I think you and I would agree with all of those points, but where we differ is in the details. i.e. the bible clearly teaches that God chooses us and not the other way around. So, what is that scripture saying about the ignorant and unstable? Is it saying we should tell them they are ignorant and unstable? Or perhaps you and I were ignorant and unstable at one time, but we "got better" through Christ.

Etc.

And "all scripture" simply means "all things written down". Is my pastor inspired by God? How about C. S. Lewis, or any Pope you may choose?  How about you and me? We both seem to be fairly knowledgeable about the content of the bible, though I believe I could spend my entire life studying it and never fully understand every word. I won't speak for you on that one, though.

We should discuss this in love.

[Still Alive]

24 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

When I say "Scripture"  I mean the 66 books of the Christian Bible and only those 66 books.  This is not an interpretation issue.  It is an issue about inspiration and the authority of Scripture.   You keep trying to make this about interpretation which demonstrates that you don't have a firm. basic grasp on the matters of inerrancy, infallibility and what the Bible means when it says that all  Scripture is God-breathed.

OK. Now I know what YOU mean when you say Scripture. I notice the bible sometimes says "scripture", and other times says "holy scripture".

The first means "something written down"

The second means, something written down that is set apart (usually set apart "in or for God"). For what it's worth, I don't consider The Acts of Andrew to be holy scripture, but I most definitely I see it as Scripture. Likewise the writings of Josephus, though I consider them far more useful. Same with anything produced by Plato.

And for the record, since Plato was created by God and in God's image, I think that any wisdom he acquired was from God. Where else would it come from (and still be considered wisdom)?

Edited July 10, 2018 by Still Alive

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Still Alive said:

 

4. These same people do this with other writings as well.

No, The same people do with the "other Scriptures."    You are trying to get around the fact that Christians were already recognizing the NT canon of Scripture early on and they included Paul's writings as Scripture, just as inspired as the "other Scriptures (Old Testament).

Quote

I think you and I would agree with all of those points, but where we differ is in the details.

And you would be wrong.  We disagree on a lot of major points.  

Quote

And "all scripture" simply means "all things written down"

No, it doesn't, not the way we use the term in Christian circles.   In Christian parlance, Scripture is the 66 books of the Bible.  We never refer to anything other than the 66 books of the Christian Bible as Scripture.  And that is the ONLY correct way to look at it.  

Quote

Is my pastor inspired by God? How about C. S. Lewis, or any Pope you may choose?  How about you and me?

When we say that the Bible is inspired by God, it means that it is God-breathed, that is super-intended upon a person and is transmitted from God to that person.   It is not the same concept as when we say that someone was "inspired" to write a novel or some other human writing.   It is the same as when some feels inspired to write a poem or a song or whatever.   

You are trying to apply the secular concept of human inspiration incorrectly to the Bible.  The Bible is unique because it is 100% infallible at every point, and it is wholly inerrant at every point and there is no mixture of any kind of error in what it teaches and the history it includes.

No other document rises to that level.  Poetry can be wrong, sinful and so can music, and so can anything we feel "inspired"  to say or write.   The inspiration that we speak of concerning the Bible ONLY applies to the human writers of the Bible and no one else.  None of us are "inspired" in the same manner and to the same degree as those who wrote the Bible as God transmitted it to them.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Still Alive said:

OK. Now I know what YOU mean when you say Scripture. I notice the bible sometimes says "scripture", and other times says "holy scripture".

The first means "something written down"

They both mean the same thing and only apply to the contents of the Old and New Testaments.

Quote

 

The second means, something written down that is set apart (usually set apart "in or for God"). For what it's worth, I don't consider The Acts of Andrew to be holy scripture, but I most definitely I see it as Scripture. Likewise the writings of Josephus, though I consider them far more useful. Same with anything produced by Plato.

And for the record, since Plato was created by God and in God's image, I think that any wisdom he acquired was from God. Where else would it come from (and still be considered wisdom)?

 

Yeah, that is just nonsense and his wisdom didn't come from God.  And besides, the books that God wants to read and understand as coming from Him are the 66 books of Scripture.

[Still Alive]

25 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You keep trying to make this about interpretation which demonstrates that you don't have a firm. basic grasp on the matters of inerrancy, infallibility and what the Bible means when it says that all  Scripture is God-breathed.

What it demonstrates is that you and I disagree on what the phrase "God-breathed" really means. It is from the greek theopneustos (transliteration) and means more literally "given by inspiration of God".  And I believe the bible IS given by inspiration of God. But I believe it is written by men given this inspiration of God and one must focus on the core message of each verse, and not take it literally. Otherwise you find yourself having to defend one gospel speaking of the rooster crowing twice and the other three saying once. God inspires men to speak write - he doesn't make them stenographers.

Think of it this way: A man can be inspired by the beauty of God's creation what he sees when, say, he sets foot on the moon for the first time. It doesn't mean that any of those words are literally "God's words", though they may be inspired by God.

One takes the bible, word for word, literally at their peril. You can really get twisted to try to make it all fit together. e.g. "God knew that the NT canon would be what it is today therefore II Timothy is speaking about the NT too." That doesn't hold water and, in all seriousness, misses the point anyway.  

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Still Alive said:

What it demonstrates is that you and I disagree on what the phrase "God-breathed" really means. It is from the greek theopneustos (transliteration) and means more literally "given by inspiration of God".  And I believe the bible IS given by inspiration of God. But I believe it is written by men given this inspiration of God and one must focus on the core message of each verse, and not take it literally.

There is absolutely no rational reason to interpret Scripture non-literally.   The whole point behind interpretation is to get at the literal meaning the author wants us to take from what he has written.    Seriously, am I free to take your words and interpret them apart from what you mean?   Or do you intend for  me to interpret you literally?   No one operates in the manner you suggest in ANY other context.    We always read for a literal interpretation if we are reading book, a news paper, whatever.

Quote

Otherwise you find yourself having to defend one gospel speaking of the rooster crowing twice and the other three saying once. God inspires men to speak write - he doesn't make them stenographers.

Which takes us back to your inability to understand what "literal" means in a literary sense.   It has nothing  to do with how many times a rooster crowed.  No one said that inspiration means "dictation." 

Quote

Think of it this way: A man can be inspired by the beauty of God's creation what he sees when, say, he sets foot on the moon for the first time. It doesn't mean that any of those words are literally "God's words", though they may be inspired by God.

And that is not the form of inspiration that is meant when talking about the Bible. 

Quote

One takes the bible, word for word, literally at their peril.

You are confusing "literal"  with "face-value."   The danger is in taking the Bible at face value.  

Quote

You can really get twisted to try to make it all fit together. e.g. "God knew that the NT canon would be what it is today therefore II Timothy is speaking about the NT too." That doesn't hold water and, in all seriousness, misses the point anyway.  

Actually, it holds water perfectly when a person understand the issue.   You really don't know what you're talking about and lack a lot of understanding on this matter.   And since Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what he was writing in II Tim. 3:16 was Scripture at the time he wrote it.  The Church doesn't decide the canon, the Church discovers.   All of Paul's writings were Scripture even before they were declared to be such.

[Still Alive]

11 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, The same people do with the "other Scriptures."    You are trying to get around the fact that Christians were already recognizing the NT canon of Scripture early on and they included Paul's writings as Scripture, just as inspired as the "other Scriptures (Old Testament).

And you would be wrong.  We disagree on a lot of major points.  

No, it doesn't, not the way we use the term in Christian circles.   In Christian parlance, Scripture is the 66 books of the Bible.  We never refer to anything other than the 66 books of the Christian Bible as Scripture.  And that is the ONLY correct way to look at it.  

When we say that the Bible is inspired by God, it means that it is God-breathed, that is super-intended upon a person and is transmitted from God to that person.   It is not the same concept as when we say that someone was "inspired" to write a novel or some other human writing.   It is the same as when some feels inspired to write a poem or a song or whatever.   

You are trying to apply the secular concept of human inspiration incorrectly to the Bible.  The Bible is unique because it is 100% infallible at every point, and it is wholly inerrant at every point and there is no mixture of any kind of error in what it teaches and the history it includes.

No other document rises to that level.  Poetry can be wrong, sinful and so can music, and so can anything we feel "inspired"  to say or write.   The inspiration that we speak of concerning the Bible ONLY applies to the human writers of the Bible and no one else.  None of us are "inspired" in the same manner and to the same degree as those who wrote the Bible as God transmitted it to them.

 

Sorry. There is not a single English translation that is 100% infallible at every point. Not one. It is easily demonstrated.

I say that the invention of the printing press, by drastically increasing the ease with which information can be assimilated and shared, gave us the reformation. I consider that a very good thing. For starters, there is a lot less Mary worship going on now.

The invention of the internet and search engines is like the invention of the printing press - but on steroids. Just as we were cleansed from a lot of the nonsense being taught before the printing press, we are being cleansed of a lot of the nonsense being taught between that time and now. This is why ECT is dying and being replaced by CI and, with some folks, even Universalism (based on learning that English bibles are in error in many places where they use the word "forever").

Information is powerful. But it is powerful like the ability to split the atom is powerful You can make nuclear power plants or you can make nuclear bombs. Great power must be handled with care.

One of the truths that is being spread like wildfire is that English translations of the bible are not just translations. They are interpretations. This is why aion is translated "forever" in one place and "world" in another. This is why iēsous (transliteration) Is sometimes translated "Jesus", and other times Joshua. Sure, the interpretation may be clear to us, but it is an interpretation, nonetheless, not merely a translation.

There is a motto for the game "Othello": A minute to learn. A lifetime to master.

It's how I see the bible and the Gospel. The gospel is so simple that a child could understand it, and it's right there all over the place. But the nuances within every word in the bible will keep a student of the bible busy with every waking hour of their life, for the rest of their life, and they still would not understand the deep or nuanced meaning of every word.

It's why we all have those moments where we read a verse for the hundredth time and suddenly see something there that we never saw before. It's like it was changed - but it wasn't. This is part of the uniqueness of the bible. There is nothing else like it in our aion, though some try to sound the same. e.g. The book of Mormon and the quran.

[Still Alive]

13 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

There is absolutely no rational reason to interpret Scripture non-literally.   The whole point behind interpretation is to get at the literal meaning the author wants us to take from what he has written.    Seriously, am I free to take your words and interpret them apart from what you mean?   Or do you intend for  me to interpret you literally?   No one operates in the manner you suggest in ANY other context.    We always read for a literal interpretation if we are reading book, a news paper, whatever.

Which takes us back to your inability to understand what "literal" means in a literary sense.   It has nothing  to do with how many times a rooster crowed.  No one said that inspiration means "dictation." 

And that is not the form of inspiration that is meant when talking about the Bible. 

You are confusing "literal"  with "face-value."   The danger is in taking the Bible at face value.  

Actually, it holds water perfectly when a person understand the issue.   You really don't know what you're talking about and lack a lot of understanding on this matter.   And since Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what he was writing in II Tim. 3:16 was Scripture at the time he wrote it.  The Church doesn't decide the canon, the Church discovers.   All of Paul's writings were Scripture even before they were declared to be such.

I think we've beat this horse pretty well. I believe you and I have both made our points pretty well. I'll invoke Titus 3:9 at this point.

 

Edit: I will throw this out: https://www.thoughtco.com/all-scripture-is-god-breathed-701984

The answer there sums up my position, especially when comparing the original manuscripts to the English translations. I'd like to think we both at least agree on what is contained at that link, but I suspect you will find some tiny point there on which we disagree. Since no two people agree on every single thing, that would make sense.

I also should be clear: When I say "scripture" is just something written down, I'm actually referring to the greek word from which it is derived (graphé) rather than the word "scripture". After all, "scripture" is just a translation/interpretation of graphé. And graphé means:

Definition

a writing, thing written the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents a certain portion or section of the Holy Scripture

Edited July 10, 2018 by Still Alive

[enoob57]

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

You infer way too much that is not true. It's best to focus on the lines I type and be judicious in your inferences regarding what is contained between the lines.

It would be fascinating to you, I suspect, if you were to have a conversation about me with someone that actually knows me. Your perceptions would change.

Your comment about calling my words the "age old lie of demons" reminds me of those folks who, every time you come up with a "modern" teaching with which they disagree will claim you are just tickling people's ears with what they want to hear. But I would say that one could argue that that is a good description of the grace message. I mean, let's be honest. Who wouldn't want to hear that they are saved even though they've done bad stuff?

And I strongly agree regarding knowing a tree by its fruit. The great thing is that the bible is pretty clear regarding our salvation and our walk. As Peter said, "To God’s elect,... who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,...to be obedient to Jesus Christ..."

Get that? The "elect" are not chosen because they are obedient. They are chosen TO BE obedient. Reminds me of Mary. She wasn't chosen because she was blessed. She was blessed because she was chosen. That "God chooses us, rather than the other way around" meme is pretty common in the bible. I'd say that is something worth being thankful for!

I responded to only what you have written and no need between line stuff... you out n out claim Scripture to be in error and I, by that, stand by what I have replied to you.... that, by the way of your  response, tells me you don't interpret written material very well because no where did I write what you claimed I wrote.... be that as it may there is no profit in our further dialogue...

Edited July 10, 2018 by enoob57

[Still Alive]

2 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

I responded to only what you have written and no need between line stuff... you out n out claim Scripture to be in error and I, by that, stand by what I have replied to you.... that, by the way of your  response, tells me you don't interpret written material very well because no where did I write what you claimed I wrote.... be that as it may there is no profit in our further dialogue...

Ok.