Does the Bible claim to be inerrant?

[Dino246]

How can you walk after the Spirit apart from God's word?

That's a fair question, but it also involves a misrepresentation of what Hungry claimed. He did not claim that we should walk "apart from God's word" but rather "by the Spirit". The Holy Spirit takes the Scripture and shows us how to apply it specifically in our lives. That isn't identical for everyone.

 

[James37]

That's a fair question, but it also involves a misrepresentation of what Hungry claimed. He did not claim that we should walk "apart from God's word" but rather "by the Spirit". The Holy Spirit takes the Scripture and shows us how to apply it specifically in our lives. That isn't identical for everyone.

Jesus did not say walk in the Bible, He said walk in the Spirit.

I misinterpreted nothing. The Bible says "walk" in the Spirit (Romans 8:1, 4; Galatians 5:16; Galatians 5:25)

Jesus said to walk in the light and not in the darkness. (John 8:12; John 11:9-10; John 12:35)

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path" (Psalm 119:105)

"The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple." (Psalm 119:130)

"Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me." (Psalm 119:133)

In cased you missed it THE BIBLE SAYS TO WALK IN THE SPIRIT!!!!
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[preston39]

and yet God says we should fear Him and not what man can do to us

maybe read the KJV a little more then

7...,

G-d may use man as a stand in for His plan. It is not man we should fear.

 

[trofimus]

Your just playing word games in order to avoid answering the question.

[FONT=&]"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

How about that which you heard and the result was a new birth! (1 Peter 1:23)

I do not have to define the word of God because the Bible has already defined it for us!




[/FONT]

If you want my answer, I need your definition what is meant by your question. If you are unable to define what is the word of God, I cannot respond if or which manuscript it is.

 

[James37]

If you want my answer, I need your definition what is meant by your question. If you are unable to define what is the word of God, I cannot respond if or which manuscript it is.

For me personally it is the Bible because without it I would no nothing about God or His word. What is your definition?

 

[trofimus]

For me personally it is the Bible because without it I would no nothing about God or His word. What is your definition?

Full Bible? Or just some biblical books? Or even just pages, fragments?

Some manuscripts are complete, some not. Some are just small fragments with few verses.

---

My definition is that the Word of God is Jesus Christ.

The word of God (small w) is what God says in prophecies or direct sayings (for example what Christ said). In general, it can mean "the will of God", presented for example by inspired authors.
Depends on how technical we want to be when using this term or on what is the context.

 

[James37]

The word of God has what MarcR says.

the word of God as given in Greek.

Did you not say this? I asked a simple question of which manuscript? Did my response to MarcR say "Word of God?" Was Jesus Christ given in the Greek? You have been stumbling around this question for several days now.

 

[trofimus]

Did you not say this? I asked a simple question of which manuscript? Did my response to MarcR say "Word of God?" Was Jesus Christ given in the Greek? You have been stumbling around this question for several days now.

I was responding to your posts where you used the term "word of God" equating it to your Bible print. I took it further and used it for the Greek text.

That is what I was responding to. I was not defining the term or even agreeing with your use of the term.

So again, as I already said, the use of the term depends on context.

 

[trofimus]

I asked a simple question of which manuscript?

And I already answered - probably all manuscripts having that verse from Luke are having also the word MarcR said.

 

[James37]

I took it further and used it for the Greek text.

I know, that is why I asked the question.

the use of the term depends on context.

Yeah, the discussion we were having. Are you saying you responded and did not know the context of the discussion?

probably all manuscripts having that verse from Luke

Probably? You seemed a lot more sure in your initial response!

the word MarcR said.

What word? Fulfilled, accomplished, completed, or πεπληροφορημένον because he mentions all of them.

 

[trofimus]

Probably? You seemed a lot more sure in your initial response!

Nestlé Aland 27 has no variant reading in this verse.

Iam not a god knowing every existing manuscript, so I say "probably". Also, there is a possibility that its in some not important manuscript. For example, you can create one today, but it will not be important for textual criticism.

You are too technical.

 

[trofimus]

What word? Fulfilled, accomplished, completed, or πεπληροφορημένον because he mentions all of them.

Greek πεπληροφορημένον can be translated to English like fulfilled, accomplished, completed.

 

[notuptome]

Men strive over the bible as translated being inerrant. Kind of silly when you consider it. Gods word is perfect converting the soul. I am quite satisfied that what we have in the preserved word of God is blessed of God and those who place their trust in it will be blessed.

Any translational drifting is more than compensated for by the Holy Spirit acting through and on the word as we have it. It seems that men do not argue over what they do not know about Gods word but they argue with God over what they do know.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[James37]

Nestlé Aland 27 has no variant reading in this verse.

Iam not a god knowing every existing manuscript, so I say "probably". Also, there is a possibility that its in some not important manuscript. For example, you can create one today, but it will not be important for textual criticism.

You are too technical.

At least you didn't say Codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. On to the next subject?

 

[James37]

It seems that men do not argue over what they do not know about Gods word but they argue with God over what they do know.

Or think they know

"...[FONT=&quot]let God be true, but every man a liar..." Romans 3:4

[/FONT]I will be the first to say that this includes me!

 

[Hungry]

I misinterpreted nothing. The Bible says "walk" in the Spirit (Romans 8:1, 4; Galatians 5:16; Galatians 5:25)

Jesus said to walk in the light and not in the darkness. (John 8:12; John 11:9-10; John 12:35)

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path" (Psalm 119:105)

"The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple." (Psalm 119:130)

"Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me." (Psalm 119:133)

In cased you missed it THE BIBLE SAYS TO WALK IN THE SPIRIT!!!!

This is kind of my point. What words did you just use as “directives”? David’s songs! I don’t argue David loved God but he wasn’t a prophet. He wrote songs under the stars. If he was a prophet I think God would have spoke directly to him instead of sending Nathan to rebuke him. We include them in the Bible but does that make them the inerrant Word of God? I take serious every word Christ uttered, as well the prophets and the apostles but I know most people's understanding of scripture is interpreted and was taught by unbelievers. God never said I will keep my words unblemished for all time. The pope said that papacy is infallible and has the authority to change meanings and text. This is where we get the Bible from. Those who seem to care so much about every detail, are often less concerned with application. I’m saying learn, then walk. Don’t learn, debate, debate, debate.

 

[trofimus]

At least you didn't say Codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. On to the next subject?

I am not sure if I understand your note. Nestlé Aland is a Greek text edition with as many manuscript readings as possible. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are also considered.

But NA shows no variant in this verse, meaning that all known/relevant manuscripts are in agreement there.

 

[James37]

I am not sure if I understand your note. Nestlé Aland is a Greek text edition with as many manuscript readings as possible. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are also considered.

But NA shows no variant in this verse, meaning that all known/relevant manuscripts are in agreement there.

Well they are in the 28th edition of the NA so you may want to update your library! Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are 2 texts that disagree between themselves quite a bit so committing to one or the other is fatal as far as debate is concerned. As far as I know NA and the newer Bibles are in agreement for the most part since they tend to be based on that text.

 

[James37]

This is kind of my point. What words did you just use as “directives”?

The words found in the bible.

God never said I will keep my words unblemished for all time.

“For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (1 Peter 1:24-25)

David’s songs! I don’t argue David loved God but he wasn’t a prophet. He wrote songs under the stars. If he was a prophet I think God would have spoke directly to him instead of sending Nathan to rebuke him.

"Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.……..For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." (Acts 1:16, 20) Is this prophecy?

"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." (Acts 13:33) How about this?

Then why were they (the Psalms) quoted almost a hundred times in the New Testament? David was a king but his writings were prophetic.

The pope said that papacy is infallible and has the authority to change meanings and text. This is where we get the Bible from.

So the Bible came from the Pope? Even Dino246 would probably disagree with that.

 

[MarcR]

I know, that is why I asked the question.



Yeah, the discussion we were having. Are you saying you responded and did not know the context of the discussion?



Probably? You seemed a lot more sure in your initial response!



What word? Fulfilled, accomplished, completed, or πεπληροφορημένον because he mentions all of them.

I doesn't really matter which one because they are all sufficiently close in meaning that any of the 3 will convey the same truth.