Which Bible is inerrant and inspired?

[sojourner]

Because I have the Bible sitting in front of me that was accepted as the inspired Word of God by the people of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Which people? Certainly not the RCs or the Jews. FWIW, why is Matthew “inspired” but not Thomas? You see, the original concept of canon had very little to do with inspiration. But of course you wouldn’t know that.

 

[sojourner]

That's too bad. Are you a Christian or just a Methodist?

That’s a cheap shot.

Canonization and inspiration are more the same.

No. They’re not. When the canon was set, some inspired books were left out, because the canon isn’t about “what’s inspired.”

 

[sojourner]

I have perfect confidence

In what? In whom? By what Apostolic authority?

 

[sojourner]

You certainly don't believe as a Christian

How do you know what the poster believes? I suppose you’re “just taking it on faith” without evidence.

You don't believe the Bible

That’s not what the poster said. The poster simply acknowledged errors.

My faith in God and Christ leads me to knowledge and confidence that the Bible I have is the Word of God. And the Bible I have was accepted by the people of God as the inspired Word of God

Which people?

Oh, you are Christian, but you don't believe the Bible?

That’s not what the poster said. Acknowledging errors does not constitute lack of belief. It does constitute reality.

There are no parts of the Bible that are not true

Incorrect. The sky is not a rigid dome, as a Genesis asserts.

 

[sojourner]

@Clear

If I wanted to read a book, I would just get one. I am not interested in your voluminous smoke screen. If you want a book to read, get (The Canon Of Scripture, F.F. Bruce, IVP,). When you're finished reading it, let me know how you like it. It is short, only 334 pages. But it is direct and to the point.

Good-Ole-Rebel

...because you disagree with the facts of it. And because you disagree with it doesn’t make it a “smokescreen.” It does make you wrong.

 

[Audie]

The contradictions are there and they’re real.

Except that many of the letters were written before the Gospels.

“ I think so because I don’t know”
was such a great line!

 

[whirlingmerc]

Not quite. The canon was never meant to be “the last word in inspiration.” It was intended to be a baseline for “stuff that’s ok to read in church.”

According to what Apostolic authority?


How do you know? Proof, please.
God inspired the scriptures
God cannot lie
This was validated by Jesus resurrection from the dead
as seem by over 500 eye witnesses


How? And how do you know?

 

[sojourner]

“ I think so because I don’t know”
was such a great line!

can you repost your reply, plz? I think there was a problem with the quotation parameters. I’m confused as to what you’re addressing, and I’d like to give you a reply.

 

[Clear]

REGARDING THE THEORY THAT THE BIBLICAL TEXT IS INERRANT

@Clear offered multiple examples in post #85 and 86 where the translators and creators of bibles, themselves, list many of the mistakes they themselves found in the biblical text and some, which they, created in the biblical text.

In response to these examples

@Good-Ole-Rebel replied : “I am not interested in your voluminous smoke screen.” (post #93)

The dictionary tells us the "smokescreen" metaphor is "something that hides the truth". This is not what I did. I gave multiple examples of errors in the biblical text which translators and creators of bibles themselves described. The examples I gave were not at all “voluminous”, but merely a few. There are actually hundreds and hundreds of such examples of errors in the biblical texts.

It is ironic that you are trying to convince forum members of your theory that the biblical texts are completely free of error ('inerrant') when you cannot read the Greek or Hebrew texts you are claiming are inerrant.. While pure dogmatic claims could be made with less scrutiny in the middle ages, the sheer volumes of data available to readers nowadays means this theory of inerrancy cannot survive among the educated because they can simply look at the evidence and examples for themselves. To those familiar with early texts, the inerrancy theory is quite irrelevant and, perhaps, disingenuous. There is nothing to fear from data and education about the biblical text and errors in it.


@Good-Ole-Rebel said : "If you want a book to read, get (The Canon Of Scripture, F.F. Bruce, IVP,). " (post #93)

I'm surprised you bring up F.F. Bruce since he also tells us that your theory of inerrancy is in error. Bruce points out many errors in the biblical text in his books.

For example Bruce points out that Masoretic Judges 18:30 reads that Gershon was the son of Manasseh. Bruce reminds us this is an error since Gershon was actually the son of Moses. bruce discusses many such errors and he describes reasons for such errors in the text.

Bruce even discusses more modern textual errors. For example Bruce says “There are several places where the 1952 RSV adopts readings of ‘Isaiah A’. One is Isa 21:8 “Where the puzzling Masoretic reading (A.V., ‘And he cried, A lion’: R.V., ‘And he cried as a lion) is replaced by ‘Then he who saw cried’ – a reading hitherto known from no Hebrew manuscript., but frequently suggested as an emendation…”

Bruce also discusses irreconcilable differences between multiple manuscripts. For example, even the 10 commandments are different between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic text and even Luther changed the set of 10 commandments in his first translation since he purposefully left out the prohibition against graven images. (Luther split the ninth commandment into two in order to retain 10 as the number of great commandments.) This is why the 10 commandments were different for Catholics and Protestants in Europe for a time.

Bruce also describes scribal errors. For example, My avatar in the forum is a picture of a famous error from the greek of Codex Vaticanus.

Bruce also describes expansion variants. Codex D for example, Adds to luke 6, between verses 4 and 5, the phrase “The same day, beholding a certain man working on the Sabbath, He said to hi : “Man if indeed thous knowest what thou art doinig, blessed art thou. But if thou knowest not, accursed art thou and a transgressor of the law”.

Yes, I’ve read F.F. Bruce. He also feels that your theory of inerrancy is a bizarre theory that does not and cannot exist in the educated world of textual historians.

Clear
ειτωσεακω

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are also contradictions in the Tanakh.

The contradictions of i.e. how many years passed between this and that is nothing compared to the differences in theology between the Tanakh and the Christian scriptures.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The contradictions of i.e. how many years passed between this and that is nothing compared to the differences in theology between the Tanakh and the Christian scriptures.

Quantity has nothing to do with inerrancy. ANY error refutes the dogma that the text is inerrant.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Quantity has nothing to do with inerrancy. ANY error refutes the dogma that the text is inerrant.

I didn't say anything about quantity. I made a statement about the quality of the contradictions.

I have never claimed inerrancy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

...because you disagree with the facts of it. And because you disagree with it doesn’t make it a “smokescreen.” It does make you wrong.

He was confused by his inability to progress a competent argument.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You are satisfied that the ancients could build
and measure precisely to an infinite number of
decimal places.

To quote Bob Dylan...”get a couch, the boy’s
insane!”

I am satisfied that the sea of bronze was built exactly as it was said to be built.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

In what way is it “correct?” What are the agreed-upon standards? Who sets them?

The standard is the 'inspiration of God'. The written Word of God carries with it that inspiration. A writing is not inspired because man declares it inspired. It is inspired because God wrote it. No matter what standards or rules man may apply to determine the inspired writings, they would find their place in the Bible because they were recognized as inspired by God by the people of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Not quite. The canon was never meant to be “the last word in inspiration.” It was intended to be a baseline for “stuff that’s ok to read in church.”

According to what Apostolic authority?

Scripture, the Bible, warns of adding to or taking away from the written Word of God.

According to the collection of the 66 books we have in the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Which people? Certainly not the RCs or the Jews. FWIW, why is Matthew “inspired” but not Thomas? You see, the original concept of canon had very little to do with inspiration. But of course you wouldn’t know that.

A book or writing is inspired because God has inspired it's writing. It is not inspired because man decides it is. Inspiration, being God breathed, had everything to do with the books that would find their way into the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

That’s a cheap shot.


No. They’re not. When the canon was set, some inspired books were left out, because the canon isn’t about “what’s inspired.”

No books were left out. God's writings carry their own inspiration.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

In what? In whom? By what Apostolic authority?

Go back and read where you plucked my statement from.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

How do you know what the poster believes? I suppose you’re “just taking it on faith” without evidence.


That’s not what the poster said. The poster simply acknowledged errors.


Which people?


That’s not what the poster said. Acknowledging errors does not constitute lack of belief. It does constitute reality.


Incorrect. The sky is not a rigid dome, as a Genesis asserts.

If you want to argue with what another poster has said, take it up with him. I have already discussed it with him.

Concerning 'which people': As I said, the people of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel