Steven Avery

In its modern version, you would have to add, "Inerrancy does not mean...that any tangible text today is actually inerrant, only unknown and unknowable 'original autographs'"

True, in a 'Christian scholarship' sense, however the TR/KJB folks are the only ones offering a consistent and tangible inerrancy, ergo their position is far more salient and significant in representing an authentic challenge to infidel errantist skepticism, and other ism's that make Gospel errancy a primary component, such as islamism. Sometimes a minority position can be the authentic position, as well as being more the historic position.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

mdarus

Nope. That is not in the definition of inerrancy or inspiration. Verbal, yes. Verbatim, no.

Different topic. Not related. Smells like a vermilion fish.

mdarus

The Bible contains a lot of variety, some debates of different points of view, a small variety of cultures. Sure, differences are there but so is a central unity. You can wish for more but it becomes a glass half full / half empty issue.

mdarus

I fear it is just fodder for the infidels. It may be easier to defend, but I suspect that easy here may not be best. We are on the same side.

sharon45

No, no central unity and that is what is sorely missing. Not asking for anywhere near perfection, just a consistency. I don't need to want more because it doesn't help or hurt me, but christians surely should.

Chili

Small centre sharon, very small. Extremely consistent as metaphor.

Johnny Skeptic

I am not sure what you mean. Let me put it another way: How can we reliably know which scriptures were inspired by God, and which scriptures were the result of innocent but inaccurate revelations, or were outright lies. Surely you will agree that innocent but inaccurate revelations and outright lies exist in other religious books.

It most certainly is related because no book can ever be on any value to anyone, whether it is true or false, if people haven't heard about it. At any rate, if I start a new thread on this issue, will you participate? I doubt it.

mdarus

I think that is a great question. Too many people depend on the judgments of others to answer that question for them. Some blindly follow a preacher or a denomination or a seminary. Others believe what the skeptics say. The Bible claims to be written by people under the direction of God. The question requires a good deal of faith. It requires 1) belief in God, 2) belief that God communicates to us 3) belief that certain people are able to hear and understand this communication 4) belief that this communication can be or has been accurately recorded 5) belief that we can discern what writings fit into this category and which do not. It is only then that the discussion of the criteria for sorting it out can be considered.



Here are some thoughts for your new thread:
1) There is potentially great value to being able to read such a book.
2) It is not necessary to personally read the book for the book to have value to you. You can receive value if others have read the book and you are treated better as a result.
3) It is not even necessary to know how to read to understand the message of a book. Others can read it to you.
4) You may even be able to get the message of the book from another source. The information may be generally available or available from another source other than the book.
5) It may be better to not have the book if the book contains a great deal of extraneous information. If the essential information can be gained from another source, it may be beneficial if I never read the book.

I think the Bible clearly teaches that people can know about God from general revelation, that the content of this revelation is sufficient for them to participate in advancing the kingdom of God, depending on God to be rescued from their brokeness, and looking forward to eternity in God's presence. Faith is realizing our need for God can only be filled by his provision of salvation.

mdarus

This issue is similar to innerancy because it too is a debate that rages between Christians. The Reformed tradition sees unity between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Salvation by faith is a consistent theme. The dispensationalists see at least seven different periods where God did things very differently. So you are right, there is an issue here. There are several different approaches by Christians to deal with it. I prefer to see the consistency and acknowledge the differences.

Imnotspecial

The bible says somewhere: "Cursed is the man who puts his trust in another man!" "but blessed is he who puts his trust in God."
That is a blatant contradiction since the bible was written by men. The bible also says that all have sinned and that our hearts are full of deceit. How could god expect us then to believe this book?