"Silly" does not begin to accurately characterize your nonsense. Now, once again, where do I call "them" a liar? (Or is it you who is lying?)I'm sorry you said that you were right & they are wrong how silly of me...
Last edited:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Silly" does not begin to accurately characterize your nonsense. Now, once again, where do I call "them" a liar? (Or is it you who is lying?)I'm sorry you said that you were right & they are wrong how silly of me...
"Silly" does not begin to accurately characterize your nonsense. Now, once again, where do I call "them" a liar? (Or is it you who is lying?)
I disagree.Which means some how they are lying about how they see things...
What a joke! :slap:You made a statement saying that if they do not agree with you they are wrong & your right. Which means some how they are lying about how they see things...
Just because one is involved in setting the canon doesn't necessarily mean that one thinks the scriptures that are thus canonized are "inerrant."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.
Right. I understand what you're saying. My reply is that studying the canon has very little to do with one's perception of the Bible as either "inerrant" or "inspired." It usually has everything to do with a belief that "God wanted it this way."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.
Bible.org: Is 2 Peter Peters?
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.