Which Bible is inerrant and inspired?

[sojourner]

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

How do you know, though, that God inspired Matthew, but not Thomas?

 

[sojourner]

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

Good-Ole-Rebel

They absolutely were. Thomas is a very good example. Maccabees and Esdras don’t appear in your bible. Neither does Wisdom. But they are in the earlier canon.

 

[sojourner]

Go back and read where you plucked my statement from.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Don’t need to do that. i understood it perfectly the first time. My question is valid: By what Apostolic authority?

 

[sojourner]

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

I’m arguing with you over what you said to the poster.

Which “people of God?” Because there are other “people of God” who have come up with different products. So we need specifics. To which people do you refer?

 

[sojourner]

By what I see, the contradictions are imaginary and only in the bad interpretations, not in the Bible.

“By what I see” is the operative term here.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

@Good-Ole-Rebel said : "I gave Bruce as a reference for the canonization of the Bible. It doesn't mean I agree with everything he says." (post #131)

So,..... you suggested a book which proves your own theory of inerrancy in biblical text to be incorrect?

This is another example of illogical thinking. Did you think that referencing a book (that you yourself clearly have not read, or, do not even believe regarding inerrancy) was somehow going to increase the credibility of your claim on the current subject of inerrancy? It makes no logical sense to claim inerrancy in text as a theory and then suggest someone read a book which proves that theory of inerrancy to be incorrect.



EXAGERATED CHRISTIAN CLAIMS TO BIBLICAL PERFECTION OFTEN CAUSE MORE HARM THAN THE GOOD THEY ARE INTENDED TO DO

Good-Ole-Rebel. Please realize that I do NOT think your motives for making the claim that scriptures are “inerrant” (i.e. without error) are evil.

It seems that you feel that God wants you to have faith in the text. I think the motive is a GOOD motive, but the specific application of this desire to please God in this specific way seems misplaced. I think God does want us to have faith in him and in the social and moral principles the ancient individuals who wrote the texts are trying to witness to.

I think the life of Jesus and his death and resurrection as a superlative life and death and resurrection are profound testimonies of profound truths. But, the individuals who wrote the texts were merely individuals who were doing their best and the transmission of the text was also accomplished by imperfect individuals with imperfect language skills and imperfect means of transmission (especially in the age before printing) and even when they made changes to the text on purpose, I think the majority of individuals were trying to do their best. BUT, neither these individuals nor their textual product is perfect and without errors (inerrant).

The past few “back and forth” posts between you who made the claim of “inerrancy” and other posters who see the impossibility of your claim is evidence that such claims are counterproductive to the Christian purpose. When we exaggerate religious claims and our exaggerations are discovered, it decreases credibility rather than enhancing trust in christians who are willing to engage in dubious claims in a misguided attempt to improve the status of a text or a doctrine.

Once christians are perceived as having lost both credibility and relevance, then agnostics and other investigators of religion may turn elsewhere for religious meaning and for religious truth and for credibility in personal witness. I know that christians who claim inerrancy are NOT trying to damage christianity (unless they are anti-christians who are trying to make christianity look silly by making the claim of inerrancy...), but nonetheless, I think the claim to inerrancy in the face of data causes christianity harm.

For example, one harm of inaccurate and inflated Christian claims is that the agnostic investigator of Christianity who discovers the errors of such claims and JUSTIFIABLY dismisses such claims. However they may then UNJUSTIFIABLY dismiss other profound christian truths at the same time he justifiably dismisses a specific christian error. The other harm is that the Christian claim itself loses credibility in the eyes of critics when christians make unjustifiable and erroneous claims.


In any case Good-Ole-Rebel, I honestly hope your spiritual journey is wonderful and insightful and full of joy.

Clear
ειδρσεακω

I gave Bruce as a reference for the canonization of the Bible. It is a good book.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

This is idolatry and self-contracting at the same time.

You have mastered the circular argument and shown significant competence with personal attacks. Time for you to move to more complicated fallacies.

You did not discuss anything with me. You made declarations and then ran. A good ole rebel.

What 'idolatry'?

I'm not worried about 'circular argument'. You are.

Ran from what?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

What 'idolatry'?

I'm not worried about 'circular argument'. You are.

Ran from what?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Many Christians make the error of making a false idol of the Bible.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You understand that the “66 books” represent a revision an earlier canon. Therefore, your precious “66 books” have “taken away” from the “word of God.”

How do you know, though, that God inspired Matthew, but not Thomas?

First off, God wrote nothing. nothing fell out of the sky in “God’s own hand.” Second, which “people of God do you refer to?”

No, I do not understand that. Thus nothing has been taken away from the Word of God.

I have the Bible before me. The God breathed Word of God. Matthew is in it. Thomas is not. Pretty simple.

If God wrote nothing why are you worried about 'Thomas'?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

They absolutely were. Thomas is a very good example. Maccabees and Esdras don’t appear in your bible. Neither does Wisdom. But they are in the earlier canon.

Sorry, but the canon is established. None of the books you mention are in it. If you believe they are from God, then go ahead and read them. Go ahead and pretend they are the Word of God. But, they never were part of the Canon of Scriputure.

Don’t need to do that. i understood it perfectly the first time. My question is valid: By what Apostolic authority?

As I said, go back and reread.

I’m arguing with you over what you said to the poster.

Which “people of God?” Because there are other “people of God” who have come up with different products. So we need specifics. To which people do you refer?

There are only one people of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[McBell]

Sorry, but the canon is established.

Which of the many canons are you referring to?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Which of the many canons are you referring to?

Go back and reread. I have been clear.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[McBell]

Go back and reread. I have been clear.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I have no idea what "Sc" is

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I do not understand that. Thus nothing has been taken away from the Word of God.

I have the Bible before me. The God breathed Word of God. Matthew is in it. Thomas is not. Pretty simple.

If God wrote nothing why are you worried about 'Thomas'?

Good-Ole-Rebel

He is not worried. He used Thomas as an illustration of your error and you confirmed your error by relying upon circular reasoning.

 

[sojourner]

No, I do not understand that. Thus nothing has been taken away from the Word of God

Just because you don’t understand doesn’t make it false. The 66 book version came out in the Reformation. There are older canons.

I have the Bible before me. The God breathed Word of God. Matthew is in it. Thomas is not. Pretty simple.

You have a Bible before you — one that has been expurgated. Thomas is not included — not because it’s “uninspired,” but because it was undiscovered until after the canon was closed. Many reputable scholars and authorities believe it to be on par with the canonical Gospels.

If God wrote nothing why are you worried about 'Thomas'?

I’m not worried about it. I am worried about your circular reasoning; people like you vote, after all.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, but the canon is established. None of the books you mention are in it. If you believe they are from God, then go ahead and read them. Go ahead and pretend they are the Word of God. But, they never were part of the Canon of Scriputure

Yes. They were (with the exception of Thomas).

As I said, go back and reread

I did. No mention of any Apostolic authorities.

There are only one people of God

And that people has a group of Apostolic authorities, none of which agree with you. Therefore, you’re holding to beliefs that go against the Bible, because the Bible exhorts us to “continue in the Apostles’ teaching,” part of which is the canon of scripture, which is larger than 66 books.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What 'idolatry'?

I'm not worried about 'circular argument'. You are.

Ran from what?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Deification of the Bible. Artificially elevated it to godhood. You will deal with that in time.

Pointing out your fallacies is not an indication of worry. It's just fun.

So you have run from so much that you don't even remember one particular streak. Can't say I find that surprising.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Just because you don’t understand doesn’t make it false. The 66 book version came out in the Reformation. There are older canons.


You have a Bible before you — one that has been expurgated. Thomas is not included — not because it’s “uninspired,” but because it was undiscovered until after the canon was closed. Many reputable scholars and authorities believe it to be on par with the canonical Gospels.


I’m not worried about it. I am worried about your circular reasoning; people like you vote, after all.

The only written Word of God consists of the 66 books of the Bible. That is the Canon of Scripture. You can have another book collection somewhere all you want.

Thomas is not in the Bible because it was not inspired by God. You can find 'reputable scholars' anywhere.

You say God wrote nothing. Yet you say Thomas should be in the Bible. The whole point of what is in the Bible is that it is inspired, written, by God. So, why should Thomas be in the Bible? What makes it inspired, written by God?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Yes. They were (with the exception of Thomas).


I did. No mention of any Apostolic authorities.


And that people has a group of Apostolic authorities, none of which agree with you. Therefore, you’re holding to beliefs that go against the Bible, because the Bible exhorts us to “continue in the Apostles’ teaching,” part of which is the canon of scripture, which is larger than 66 books.

No, they were never part of Scripture.

You're confusing canonization with inerrancy. Go back and reread.

What group of Apostolic authorities disagrees with me? 'Us'? You don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. How do you identify with Christians? Again, there is only one written Word of God on earth. The 66 books of the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Reification of the Bible. Artificially elevated it to godhood. You will deal with that in time.

Pointing out your fallacies is not an indication of worry. It's just fun.

So you have run from so much that you don't even remember one particular streak. Can't say I find that surprising.

Recognizing the Bible as the only written Word of God is giving it it's proper place.

Again, I am not worried about 'circular reasoning'. You are. So?

Again, ran from what? It is your claim.

Good-Ole-Rebel