Is the bible word perfect? (infaliable? is that the right word?)

[kmkemp]

Kmkemp is using a rather subtle form of ad hominum on you right now Dream Angel---speculating on your motives, your background, disqualifying your quailifications to make ascertions you haven't actually made---it's just a way of getting you off balance so he wont have to deal with your questions head on.

Don't fall for it.

Rather ask; why would someone feel they needed to resort to these tactics?

Special Rev is doing the same thing to Sojourner. It's a pretty standard ploy and it usually works.

Huh? I am speculating motives and background? I already know the background... I've seen enough posts to indicate that Dream Angel came to this website without a faith and is now LDS. That is not speculation... that is what I've read. You are the one speculating that I am speculating lol. I am making a logical argument from the information I can gather from Dream Angel's posts. Dream Angel has not yet refuted any of these, so I assume them to be correct.

Fact: Dream Angel had no religion (in the Trinity thread, for example, it was said that Dream Angel had no concept of the Trinity at all.. had never heard of it until one year ago) until coming to this site.
Fact: Dream Angel did not know how the NT was adopted.
Fact: Dream Angel doesn't think that the NT is the word of God.

Without having any more information than this, I can tell that Dream Angel has no basis to talk about the credibility of the NT if (s)he does not know how it was conceived. I speculate (due to Dream Angel's recent finding of religion) that the understanding of the NT was told by another source, which is almost always one sided. Dream Angel has stated that the source of the information s/he has on the NT was from part of a programme. If you think that that qualifies as a knowledgeable assessment of the validity of the NT, then we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

According to Biblical revelation, faith pleases God. If we walk by faith and not by sight, we walk by faith by trusting in the promises of God. If you are not able to trust the copies of the Bible that you own, how can you trust God? Do you have another source of authority above the Scriptures? Do you lean on your own understanding, or believe in some type of magisterum, or a modern apostolic authority that you submit to? Have you rejected the doctrine of the immutability of God?

Simple.

God is not the Bible.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Ironic that you are supposing that you know my background when you just said I was doing the same thing, don't ya think?

I have been a Christian for little more than a year, however I have been exposed to a Christian setting for my entire life. I grew up thinking I was a Christian without ever actually reading the Bible (well, at least not seriously). These are the lies I was fed. I went to college away from home and no longer had these influences. I stopped all belief in a God. I lived like this for several years. By God's grace, I have given my life to him. That was January 4, 2006. Praise God. ~

Were just giving you a piece of your own medicine! I dont mind having debates, I quite like them. I dont mind people having different views. What I dont like is narrowminded so called christians who tell me I am only seeing one side and I have been TOLD one side when they dont know my religious background. Every single post you will get from me, will be what my brain tells me - not what I am told to say or what others think I should say! I will say what i think is logical, reasoned and understandable! If you want to give us a lecture on what you have been taught - then go ahead, but it will not interest me... I like people who can speak for themselves. It is after all between them/me and God not anyone else!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is of no consequence if they longer exist.

Assuming omnipotence, why would the 'protection from error' end with the originals? That is, why wouldn't the same power that supposedly allowed Moses and the gang to get it perfectly right work on the translators too? Not extending the same protection has only downside risk and no advantage whatsoever.

I like A_E's analogy calling it a human blog.

Thanks, but that's Pete's analogy, and he uses it often. My approach is incarnation: God and human beings both at work.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Huh? I am speculating motives and background? I already know the background... I've seen enough posts to indicate that Dream Angel came to this website without a faith and is now LDS. That is not speculation... that is what I've read. You are the one speculating that I am speculating lol. I am making a logical argument from the information I can gather from Dream Angel's posts. Dream Angel has not yet refuted any of these, so I assume them to be correct.

Someone hasnt read the link I posted them... and I spent so long writing my history out for you! I am not fully LDS yet. LDS doctrine so far has fitted the conclusions that I have come up with on my own. What i logically think is right and the truth. I am not LDS I am prenatal LDS - ie It is the LDS faith I am now fully interested in and will spend time looking into (for my own religion) -

Fact: Dream Angel had no religion (in the Trinity thread, for example, it was said that Dream Angel had no concept of the Trinity at all.. had never heard of it until one year ago) until coming to this site.
Fact: Dream Angel did not know how the NT was adopted.
Fact: Dream Angel doesn't think that the NT is the word of God.

What do you mean I didnt know the NT was adopted? where did you get that idea from, I havent mentioned the NT?!

Fact: Dream Angel doesn't think that the NT is the word of God.

Actually thats fiction! I do think the bible is the word of God, I think it was inspired by God - However I refuse to say that God literally wrote the bible. He didnt! Men did and men put the bible together. Men chose to add some gospels and leave others out for whatever reasons they were!

Why am I bothering explaining myelf to you? :areyoucra

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Request to kmkemp - is it possible we stop talking about my life now - and get back to the thread! To be honest I find it exceptionally rude to specualte what someone believes and assume you know what I believe and how I have come to that belief! I have listened to everyones side on RF - most people have manners on here and we get along great! I have formed my own conclusions on verses and some of the stories I knew from child hood from the bible - and joining this forum, I found some of those beliefs can be found in the LDS doctrine! (although it did disappoint me as here i was thinking I was being original!)

 

[Bishka]

Hey Becky! So would you say that the bible was infaliable or prone to some *differences*? personally I think there is difference between saying the bible is the word of God - inspired by God and was actually written by God? What do you think?

IT is the word of God written by fallibable men. Like it says, "as far as it is translated correctly."

 

[Scuba Pete]

Hey, the Blog concept WAS mine! Thanks for setting the story straight there, AE.

Here is the real issue.

The scriptures NEVER EVER claim to be the word of God or to be perfect. It never even implies such blasphemy.

They do claim to be "sufficient" and I think that this is a GREAT description of them. If they are sufficient, then why do so many INSIST that they are perfect. Don't you think God would have MADE IT CLEAR if that's what he wanted us to believe?

 

[Quagmire]

Ironic that you are supposing that you know my background when you just said I was doing the same thing, don't ya think?

I think it's ironic that you're still dissembling. I don't know anything about your background but I can glean a bit about your reading style from the way you respond to people's posts; ie,. selective editing, creative interpretation, agenda motivated assumptions...

Note:

1. I said "usually". You seem to have missed that.

2. I was relating a couple of typical scenarios that, in my experience, usually apply to sola scripturalists. How does this equate to my "supposing I know" your background?

I have been a Christian for little more than a year, however I have been exposed to a Christian setting for my entire life. I grew up thinking I was a Christian without ever actually reading the Bible (well, at least not seriously). These are the lies I was fed. I went to college away from home and no longer had these influences. I stopped all belief in a God. I lived like this for several years. By God's grace, I have given my life to him. That was January 4, 2006. Praise God. ~

3. I don't see how your bio disqualifies you for either scenario. Personally, if some elements of my post didn't apply to you I doubt that you would have responded to it.


All you're doing is proving my point, ie, sola-scripturalists have this tendency to see what they want to see rather than what's there, which doesn't do much to endorse your interpretation of scripture.

 

[Scuba Pete]

All you're doing is proving my point, ie, sola-scripturalists have this tendency to see what they want to see rather than what's there, which doesn't do much to endorse your interpretation of scripture.

So, what is your definition of a sola scripturist? Having been erroneously deemed that by many on this forum, I would like to know how you assign this label.

 

[Quagmire]

So, what is your definition of a sola scripturist? Having been erroneously deemed that by many on this forum, I would like to know how you assign this label.

When I say it I'm refering to anyone who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

Don't know if that's an accurate usage, but using big words makes me feel smart.

anyway it's much kinder than some of the words I used to use.

Actually I should amend this: To me a sola-scripturalist is anyone who thinks the Bible is meant to be read literally and is the inerrant word of God in every aspect including historically.

 

[kmkemp]

Request to kmkemp - is it possible we stop talking about my life now - and get back to the thread! To be honest I find it exceptionally rude to specualte what someone believes and assume you know what I believe and how I have come to that belief! I have listened to everyones side on RF - most people have manners on here and we get along great! I have formed my own conclusions on verses and some of the stories I knew from child hood from the bible - and joining this forum, I found some of those beliefs can be found in the LDS doctrine! (although it did disappoint me as here i was thinking I was being original!)

I'm sorry, I was only bringing it up to make a point that I only felt the need to make due to your post. I don't think I did it in any kind of way that someone would think rude. I was not speculating... you have an LDS tag (I assumed prenatul meant that you just recently decided) below your name. I didn't assume how you came to that belief. I was only using the recency of it to make a point.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I'm sorry, I was only bringing it up to make a point that I only felt the need to make due to your post. I don't think I did it in any kind of way that someone would think rude. I was not speculating... you have an LDS tag (I assumed prenatul meant that you just recently decided) below your name. I didn't assume how you came to that belief. I was only using the recency of it to make a point.

Apology excepted! I can assure you I am not the type of person to be easily swade by what other people say. I make up my own decisions and always have. I used prenatal as it means pre-birth! (as in pre-born again christian!).

 

[Scuba Pete]

Actually I should amend this: To me a sola-scripturalist is anyone who thinks the Bible is meant to be read literally and is the inerrant word of God in every aspect including historically.

I feel that this is way, way off. A sola Scripturist, by definition needs ONLY the scriptures and no interpretations by an outside influence. Where they become extra scripturalists is when they choose to believe doctrines that are NOT found in the scriptures, but are in themselves heresies devised by men. In this case, the heresies of inerrancy and literalism mark them as needing something MORE than what the scriptures afford us. In their zeal they have attempted to deify the Scriptures in a most unholy manner. It is my belief that God is not pleased with their distortions.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I feel that this is way, way off. A sola Scripturist, by definition needs ONLY the scriptures and no interpretations by an outside influence. Where they become extra scripturalists is when they choose to believe doctrines that are NOT found in the scriptures, but are in themselves heresies devised by men. In this case, the heresies of inerrancy and literalism mark them as needing something MORE than what the scriptures afford us. In their zeal they have attempted to deify the Scriptures in a most unholy manner. It is my belief that God is not pleased with their distortions.

Well done Pete.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I forgot to point out that I depart from this in that I use the Holy Spirit to interpret the Scriptures for me.

 

[Special Revelation]

I feel that this is way, way off. A sola Scripturist, by definition needs ONLY the scriptures and no interpretations by an outside influence. Where they become extra scripturalists is when they choose to believe doctrines that are NOT found in the scriptures, but are in themselves heresies devised by men. In this case, the heresies of inerrancy and literalism mark them as needing something MORE than what the scriptures afford us. In their zeal they have attempted to deify the Scriptures in a most unholy manner. It is my belief that God is not pleased with their distortions.

Hey Scuba,

I think you misrepresented all Christians who embrace Scripture as final authority (pertaining to all things in regards to faith, doctrine, and life). Sola Scriptura Christians know that truth is revealed by God the Holy Spirit through His illuminating work of the Scriptures. Christians cannot understand spiritual truths of Scripture apart from the work of God the Holy Spirit (doctrine of illumination).

So, how do you personally discern truth from error? I strongly believe God the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself from His work in the Scriptures. This is why I reject personal revelation endorsed by LDS members and others on this site. What is your view of personal revelation?

 

[Quagmire]

I feel that this is way, way off. A sola Scripturist, by definition needs ONLY the scriptures and no interpretations by an outside influence. Where they become extra scripturalists is when they choose to believe doctrines that are NOT found in the scriptures, but are in themselves heresies devised by men. In this case, the heresies of inerrancy and literalism mark them as needing something MORE than what the scriptures afford us. In their zeal they have attempted to deify the Scriptures in a most unholy manner. It is my belief that God is not pleased with their distortions.

Oh allright then, hows "Literalist"?

*Looks around to see who that's going to offend*.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What is your view of personal revelation?

What do the scriptures say about it?

 

[Katzpur]

A translation is a translation. No one claims perfect translations.

Sorry, since I don't read Greek myself, I have to rely on a translation. I was just wondering which one is infallible, but if none of them are (as you seem to be saying), we don't disagree after all.

The books that were left out were left out because they were contradictory and thus, not God-breathed. They were not of apostolic origin.

Not of apostolic origin? What about Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans? Why was it less authoritative than his other epistles? It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. What makes you so sure that it was so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?

I am aware that everyone here probably knows the criteria that the Council used, so please clarify what you are talking about.

Well, apparently you're much more well-informed about it than I am, so maybe you would be so kind as to bring me up to speed -- that is, after you've answered the questions I posed in my last paragraph.