-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So you're saying the bible is inerrant in reporting an inerrancy. Even if you communicate a lie truthfully then it's still a lie no?
Still , the question was, is the bible inerrant? Obviously not in content, arguably in communication.
If we say that the bible interprets the bible, and interprets itself, where exactly does it say that whatever the authors wrote down is without error?
I still say an error reported without error is still an error.
Still , the question was, is the bible inerrant? Obviously not in content, arguably in communication.
If we say that the bible interprets the bible, and interprets itself, where exactly does it say that whatever the authors wrote down is without error?
I still say an error reported without error is still an error.
Last edited:
C
So, if you where called as a witness into court in a case of false testimony, and you were asked to repeat for the court the testimony in question, and you did, repeated word-for-word the lie that the defender gave as testimony, could the defense attorney rise and say, "Objection, this testimony is an error." Of course not.
As for scripture, here is one a bit unusual: II Peter 3:16-17.
As for scripture, here is one a bit unusual: II Peter 3:16-17.
Scripture is useful yes, but no where does it dogmatically declare it all to be inerrant to the degree which most believe it to be. That's where faith comes in that we believe it to be true. But Christ did not place the importance on an inerrant scripture but upon the teaching job of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-13). I can't recall Christ ever speaking about the inerrancy of scripture to prove a point, but to use the existing scripture under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to make a point.
C
You obviously didn't look up the scripture. (II Peter 3:16-17)
The scripture you are recalling is from II Timothy 3:16-17. The part of this scripture that you miss is All scripture is God-breathed. For scripture to be in error, God would have to be in error, since He is the true source.
Your view of inspiration, though crudely stated, is either devotional (based upon the heart felt belief of the authoritative reader) or neo-Orthodox. If you would like to be able to state your view more completely I would suggest perhaps Barth or Brunner.
However, from now on, when you quote scripture, you must first prove that it is inerrant. Each word must be tested and proven that it is neither hearsay nor Satan disguised as inspiration.
(Greatkay: How was that for sarcasm.)
The scripture you are recalling is from II Timothy 3:16-17. The part of this scripture that you miss is All scripture is God-breathed. For scripture to be in error, God would have to be in error, since He is the true source.
Your view of inspiration, though crudely stated, is either devotional (based upon the heart felt belief of the authoritative reader) or neo-Orthodox. If you would like to be able to state your view more completely I would suggest perhaps Barth or Brunner.
However, from now on, when you quote scripture, you must first prove that it is inerrant. Each word must be tested and proven that it is neither hearsay nor Satan disguised as inspiration.
(Greatkay: How was that for sarcasm.)
C
God-breathed is a correct translation of the Greek: pasa graphe theopneumatos kai ophelimos... As for Muslims, their view of the preservation of the Koran is much more strict than mine. Their view of inspiration is closer to dictation than mine. I believe that my view of inspiration is adequated stated in my previous post but so you won't have to wander back (I don't want to keep you from your other pressing matters): The Holy Spirit so guided and superintended the writers of the sacred text, making use of their own unique personalities, that they wrote all that He wanted them to write, without excess or error.
The problem is it can also be translated "every inspired scripture is useful", and as per the view of inerrancy this only applies to the originals not to the copies. The view that it is inerent in its entirety is false, as also explained on carm:
http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidence-and-answers/inerrancy-and-inspiration-bible
In other words really the only thing you can claim to be inspired AND 100% inerrant are the originals, if you happen to have a copy of those on hand?
2 Tim 4:13 and Luke 1:3 are two examples of specifically human statements that warrant no attribution of being "God-breathed" or inspired, so you'd be wrong that it is inspired in its entirety.
http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidence-and-answers/inerrancy-and-inspiration-bible
In other words really the only thing you can claim to be inspired AND 100% inerrant are the originals, if you happen to have a copy of those on hand?
2 Tim 4:13 and Luke 1:3 are two examples of specifically human statements that warrant no attribution of being "God-breathed" or inspired, so you'd be wrong that it is inspired in its entirety.
Last edited:
The founder has a Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary as it says on their website, it's a useful website sometimes that's all I use it for, as for their background who knows?
Now onto my next point, did Paul Himself regard his own writings 2 Tim 4:13 to be inspired? If there were any passages that contained uninspired remarks, comments, or statements of fact it would have to be in Paul's letters. There are times when Paul says he is merely communicating his own opinion, rather than receiving a command from Christ. These are obviously not from God, as the author said so himself! In doing so, Paul himself in his humble nature, does not presume that everything he writes is "from God".
Now onto my next point, did Paul Himself regard his own writings 2 Tim 4:13 to be inspired? If there were any passages that contained uninspired remarks, comments, or statements of fact it would have to be in Paul's letters. There are times when Paul says he is merely communicating his own opinion, rather than receiving a command from Christ. These are obviously not from God, as the author said so himself! In doing so, Paul himself in his humble nature, does not presume that everything he writes is "from God".
C
Peter considered Paul's writings as inspired. Paul is very careful to qualify certain things as godly advice as opposed to absolute instruction. I interpret that distinction as being divine as well as human.
I am surprised that the site doesn't have a statement of faith. The Masters may or may not mean anything, but WTS is a fairly conservative reformed seminary. do you know the name of the founder?
I am surprised that the site doesn't have a statement of faith. The Masters may or may not mean anything, but WTS is a fairly conservative reformed seminary. do you know the name of the founder?
Last edited:
Here's where you can find info about him and others:
http://www.carm.org/matt-slick
I did read somewhere that the seminaries like Fuller, believe in infallaibility but not in inerrancy.
http://www.carm.org/matt-slick
I did read somewhere that the seminaries like Fuller, believe in infallaibility but not in inerrancy.