The problem with the bible.

[crystalonyx]

That's not what he said. He said it wasn't his church. But I'm still not at all convinced that "answers" are what we need. The ability to question is what we need. Because religion isn't goal-oriented. It's process-oriented. The seeking (not the finding) is the important activity.

Your opinion of religion is quite lofty, that has not been my experience, religion tends to spoon feed answers quite willingly, no questions asked. Few Christians I have ever met have researched the history of their own religion.

 

[sojourner]

Your opinion of religion is quite lofty, that has not been my experience, religion tends to spoon feed answers quite willingly, no questions asked. Few Christians I have ever met have researched the history of their own religion.

So let's just throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your opinion of religion is quite lofty, that has not been my experience, religion tends to spoon feed answers quite willingly, no questions asked. Few Christians I have ever met have researched the history of their own religion.

The University of Chicago School of Divinity is but one of many.

Perhaps the defect lies in your limited experience and your casual willingness to generalize from it.

 

[Nessa]

Few Christians I have ever met have researched the history of their own religion.

Studying the Canon of the Bible should be a prerequisite to accepting the Bible as the inerrant word of God. But I've had the same experience as you.

 

[sojourner]

Studying the Canon of the Bible should be a prerequisite to accepting the Bible as the inerrant word of God. But I've had the same experience as you.

Why should we accept the Bible as "the inerrant word of God?" Why can we not accept it as the witness of the Church to God's revelation?

 

[Nessa]

Why should we accept the Bible as "the inerrant word of God?" Why can we not accept it as the witness of the Church to God's revelation?

I'm not suggesting any such thing but why are you suggesting that many Christians do not accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God?

 

[Nessa]

I'm not suggesting any such thing but why are you suggesting that many Christians do not accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God?

I worded that poorly, let me try again. There are many Christians that accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God that have not studied the Canon of the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not suggesting any such thing but why are you suggesting that many Christians do not accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God?

Because many do not. The RC's don't. The Mormons don't. The Orthodox don't. The Anglicans don't. The United Methodists, Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutherans, Disciples of Christ don't. I'm sure there are others.

 

[Nessa]

Because many do not. The RC's don't. The Mormons don't. The Orthodox don't. The Anglicans don't. The United Methodists, Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutherans, Disciples of Christ don't. I'm sure there are others.

Agreed, I worded it poorly, I corrected myself while you were probably responding. Though I know MANY Mormons and United Methodist that believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

 

[sojourner]

I worded that poorly, let me try again. There are many Christians that accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God that have not studied the Canon of the Bible.

OK. Once again, why should it be accepted as such at all? I can almost guarantee that those who do accept it as such do study the canon and have their explanations for why it is the way it is. Because God wanted it that way, and any who accept a different canon other than theirs are just wrong.

 

[Nessa]

Because many do not. The RC's don't. The Mormons don't. The Orthodox don't. The Anglicans don't. The United Methodists, Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutherans, Disciples of Christ don't. I'm sure there are others.

The Roman Catholics were heavily involved in the canon of the Bible it's hard to argue they don't believe in it's inerrancy.

Here is a link describing their thought process..Skim down to Scripture.

 

[Nessa]

OK. Once again, why should it be accepted as such at all? I can almost guarantee that those who do accept it as such do study the canon and have their explanations for why it is the way it is. Because God wanted it that way, and any who accept a different canon other than theirs are just wrong.

Christians that believe the Bible is the word of God quote II Peter 3:14-16 and Timothy 3:16 as proof of its inerrancy.

The problem with II Peter is most Biblical Scholars doubt Peter was the author.

"The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity of the epistle is almost universal."

Bible.org: Is 2 Peter Peter’s?

And the problem with Timothy is that Paul wrote it several centuries before his letters were assimilated into the Bible. At the time that Paul wrote his letters, accepted scripture was the Old Testament. That's taking Paul so far out of context it's disingenuous.

And I've never stated that Christians have to believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

I said,

Studying the Canon of the Bible should be a prerequisite to accepting the Bible as the inerrant word of God. But I've had the same experience as you.

I was referring to the Christians that believe it's infallible.

 

[Kcnorwood]

The "problem" with the bible is the reader ...

Thats a bit like calling someone a liar isn't it? Just because someone doesn't get what you do from reading a book does that make them wrong?

A bit off topic here but knowing that the OT is the Jewish bible isn't it a bit messed up for the Christians to go around saying that those laws do not apply anymore? The OT is their bible what gives Christians the right to say such a thing?

 

[McBell]

The OT is their bible what gives Christians the right to say such a thing?

For some: The Bible.
For others: Tradition
For other others: "common sense"
For other other others: God said so

I suspect that there are several other exc...I mean...justifications for it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The "problem" with the bible is the reader ...

Thats a bit like calling someone a liar isn't it?

No, as you clearly demonstrate.

Just because someone doesn't get what you do from reading a book does that make them wrong?

Often.

 

[Kcnorwood]

No, as you clearly demonstrate.

Often.

So they are wrong & your right?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So they are wrong & your right?

In my opinion, often.

 

[Kcnorwood]

In my opinion, often.

So your are calling them a liar just because you do no agree does not make you right nor does it make them wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So your are calling them a liar just because you do no agree does not make you right nor does it make them wrong.

What ludicrous and incoherent drivel! Where do I call 'them' a liar?

 

[Kcnorwood]

What ludicrous and incoherent drivel! Where do I call 'them' a liar?

I'm sorry you said that you were right & they are wrong how silly of me...