James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

[Bill Hamblin]

This may be the question that you wanted me to answer. Below is my post that likely prompted your question

I believe that Scripture IS God Breathed and internally consistant in the original manuscripts. The big problem is that we do not have the original manuscripts. That is why in my post I said there "should be" internal consistency, which I think is true for the majority of the Bible. But I do believe that there are a few inconsistencies in the Bible that we have today.

Since we don't have a single original manuscript of any book of the Bible, your entire claim is an unverifiable assertion. So why I should believe you?

[Bill Hamblin]

"The Golden Rule of Interpretation

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

The Footsteps of the Messiah Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

Of course, you yourself are not doing this. The Bible says both Adam and Satan (and Christ for that matter) are sons of God. Yet you insist, rather than following the plain sense, that the nature of the sonship of Adam, Christ and Satan should each be seen as fundamentally different, solely because it does not match your theology which you are imposing on the text. This is very unimpressive.

[Bill Hamblin]

Which one?

From #325

But would at least you recognize that if Adam is a son of God and Satan is a son of God, then it might be possible to interpret the text by understanding them as brothers in some way? [in other words, is such an interpretation internally consistent with the Bible, even if this in case it might be the wrong, as you believe?]

As to the the Jews as sons of Satan; since some use of sonship the Bible is metaphorical, would you agree that one can be a Christian and maintain that the sonship of Jesus is metaphorical? In other words, the problem is which passage of scripture should be interpreted literally, and which metaphorically.

[Bill Hamblin]

So lets test your theory.

Who is the father of the Jews that Jesus was speaking to in John 8:44?

John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.

It is not at all clear to me why you think that this is some type of cogent response. Yes, the Bible uses terms metaphorically. So? Some passages are clearly metaphorical, some are clearly literal. And some passages are ambiguous. So? The fact that "father" is used metaphorically in one verse does not mean it is used metaphorically in every verse, and it certainly doesn't mean that you get to decide when it should be taken metaphorically and when it should be taken literally.

[Billy]

Since we don't have a single original manuscript of any book of the Bible, your entire claim is an unverifiable assertion. So why I should believe you?

A of F 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . .

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Proverbs 30

5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

[Bill Hamblin]

A of F 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . .

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Proverbs 30

5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

So you're not going to answer my questions. Well, I didn't think so. You're back on my "do not respond" list.

By the way, none of the passages you cite says either that scripture is inerrant, nor that we should expect no inconsistency. Your theology is showing. As for Prov 30:5, the Hebrew term is ṣĕr

[Billy]

Of course, you yourself are not doing this. The Bible says both Adam and Satan (and Christ for that matter) are sons of God. Yet you insist, rather than following the plain sense, that the nature of the sonship of Adam, Christ and Satan should each be seen as fundamentally different, solely because it does not match your theology which you are imposing on the text. This is very unimpressive.

If there were no other verses in the Bible than the ones that you provided that spoke about Angels/Satan and the nature of man, then I would agree with you on this point. But you are missing my point, if you take the Bible as the whole word of God, if something does not seem to fit, then you need to rely on other verses to help sort out what is meant. Satan is called a son of God, Jesus is called the Son of God, a person can be called a son of God. Without any other scriptures you may come to the conclusion that these three are brothers. But this is not the case, there are many other scriptures that describe the nature of each. Jesus is God. Satan is a fallen angel. And people are sons of Adam, but can become adopted sons of God by faith.

Just look at Hebrews 1:4-5

4having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

5For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"?

If Jesus, Satan, and you are all spirit brothers, these verses do not really make a lot of sense, because you all would be sons.

[Bill Hamblin]

If there were no other verses in the Bible than the ones that you provided that spoke about Angels/Satan and the nature of man, then I would agree with you on this point. But you are missing my point, if you take the Bible as the whole word of God, if something does not seem to fit, then you need to rely on other verses to help sort out what is meant. Satan is called a son of God, Jesus is called the Son of God, a person can be called a son of God. Without any other scriptures you may come to the conclusion that these three are brothers. But this is not the case, there are many other scriptures that describe the nature of each. Jesus is God. Satan is a fallen angel. And people are sons of Adam, but can become adopted sons of God by faith.

Just look at Hebrews 1:4-5

4having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

5For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"?

If Jesus, Satan, and you are all spirit brothers, these verses do not really make a lot of sense, because you all would be sons.

Still didn't answer my questions. Last chance.

Taking this passage as you understand it, it would mean that Christ "became" superior to the angels (meaning he wasn't always that way), and that he inherited his name (meaning he didn't always have it.) Is that what you intend?

I agree, however, that Christ's sonship is superior to that of humans or angels. So? That doesn't tell us that the rest of us aren't sons, anymore than one son of a king becoming king means that the rest of the sons aren't really sons at all.

[Bill Hamblin]

If there were no other verses in the Bible than the ones that you provided that spoke about Angels/Satan and the nature of man, then I would agree with you on this point. But you are missing my point, if you take the Bible as the whole word of God, if something does not seem to fit, then you need to rely on other verses to help sort out what is meant. Satan is called a son of God, Jesus is called the Son of God, a person can be called a son of God. Without any other scriptures you may come to the conclusion that these three are brothers. But this is not the case, there are many other scriptures that describe the nature of each. Jesus is God. Satan is a fallen angel. And people are sons of Adam, but can become adopted sons of God by faith.

I agree with you that the information from the Bible on this point is insufficient and ambiguous. My point is simply that the Bible unequivocally speaks of Satan, Adam and Christ all as sons of God, and thus they could be understood as brothers in some sense. It may be an incorrect interpretation, but it is a reasonable interpretation of the limited biblical data.

[Billy]

Taking this passage as you understand it, it would mean that Christ "became" superior to the angels (meaning he wasn't always that way), and that he inherited his name (meaning he didn't always have it.) Is that what you intend?

Christ was God in the beginning as noted in John 1:1, then he emptied himself to become a servant and being made in human likeness. This word likeness is like, not the same.

Philippians 2

6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to deathâ?? even death on a cross!

Hebrews 2

7You made him a little lower than the angels;

That doesn't tell us that the rest of us aren't sons, anymore than one son of a king becoming king means that the rest of the sons aren't really sons at all.

Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"?

If you, me, Jesus and the Devil were all spirit children from God the Father, wouldn't we all be spiritual sons and begotten by our Heavenly Mother? (I am not speaking of the physical begotten of Jesus)

[Billy]

The fact that scripture is revealed from God does not necessitate it be inerrant, since it is revealed through errant men, in ambiguous human language, and read and interpreted by fallible readers.

If scripture is given to man that contains errors (in the original manuscripts) how can you know what parts are true and which parts are false? And how can God hold you accountable for your actions if what He has given you is not all truth?

I don't see how you can fall back on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, because you have just said that men are errant, and if you don't think that God can inspire men to give you accurate scripture, I don't see how you can expect men to receive an accurate spiritual witness.

[Bill Hamblin]

If scripture is given to man that contains errors (in the original manuscripts) how can you know what parts are true and which parts are false? And how can God hold you accountable for your actions if what He has given you is not all truth?

I don't see how you can fall back on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, because you have just said that men are errant, and if you don't think that God can inspire men to give you accurate scripture, I don't see how you can expect men to receive an accurate spiritual witness.

You can't know. That's why it's called faith.

Seeing how you consistently refuse to answer my questions, we're done. Bye.

[urroner]

You can't know. That's why it's called faith.

Seeing how you consistently refuse to answer my questions, we're done. Bye.

Bill, Billy has had a difficult time answering your questions because of his faulty paradigm of scriptures. You see, Billy believes the scriptures are inerrant, totally consistent internally, and complete and there is only one way to interpret those scriptures, his way. I realize I might be wrong here, but this is what I have been able to conclude from his past posts.

He pulls out a scripture that says X, yet you pull up a scripture that says Xnot, and now Billy is in a bad predicament. Either he has to admit that the Bible is not inerrant nor internally consistent, he can either give a token defense by citing a few more scriptures that he believes agrees with his argument and move on, or he can simply move on and talk about how Mormons believe that God has multiple wives and some other silly thing to redirect the argument.

There could also be another reason for his inability to stay focus and that is because his paradigm is one where the Bible is inerrant, complete, and internally totally consistent, if you show a scripture or logic that disputes the scriptures he has used, then you have simply misstated the truth, either by ignorance or by sophistry, and you know Mormon scholars like you are full of sophistry and cow manure, and simply by restating the scriptures he had used earlier and restating his argument, maybe the forcefulness of his argument will open a small crack in that thick skull of yours and let some true light in. An aside: Little does he know that many have tried doing that before for you and all have failed.

You tried Bill, but like all those who have gone before you, you have failed in trying to get Billy into a serious, focused discussion.

[Billy]

Bill, Billy has had a difficult time answering your questions because of his faulty paradigm of scriptures. You see, Billy believes the scriptures are inerrant, totally consistent internally, and complete and there is only one way to interpret those scriptures, his way. I realize I might be wrong here, but this is what I have been able to conclude from his past posts.

He pulls out a scripture that says X, yet you pull up a scripture that says Xnot, and now Billy is in a bad predicament. Either he has to admit that the Bible is not inerrant nor internally consistent, he can either give a token defense by citing a few more scriptures that he believes agrees with his argument and move on, or he can simply move on and talk about how Mormons believe that God has multiple wives and some other silly thing to redirect the argument.

There could also be another reason for his inability to stay focus and that is because his paradigm is one where the Bible is inerrant, complete, and internally totally consistent, if you show a scripture or logic that disputes the scriptures he has used, then you have simply misstated the truth, either by ignorance or by sophistry, and you know Mormon scholars like you are full of sophistry and cow manure, and simply by restating the scriptures he had used earlier and restating his argument, maybe the forcefulness of his argument will open a small crack in that thick skull of yours and let some true light in. An aside: Little does he know that many have tried doing that before for you and all have failed.

Urroner, are you totally clueless? Have you even bothered to read any of my last several posts before you go on a tirade about something that is totally false? It just shows that you have an axe to grind, rather than discuss our differences.

To reframe your claim: do you believe if there are any internal inconsistency, then the Bible is not "God-breathed"?

This may be the question that you wanted me to answer. Below is my post that likely prompted your question

If you believe that scripture is God breathed, then there should be internal consistency.

I believe that Scripture IS God Breathed and internally consistant in the original manuscripts. The big problem is that we do not have the original manuscripts. That is why in my post I said there "should be" internal consistency, which I think is true for the majority of the Bible. But I do believe that there are a few inconsistencies in the Bible that we have today.

[urroner]

If scripture is given to man that contains errors (in the original manuscripts) how can you know what parts are true and which parts are false? And how can God hold you accountable for your actions if what He has given you is not all truth?

I don't see how you can fall back on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, because you have just said that men are errant, and if you don't think that God can inspire men to give you accurate scripture, I don't see how you can expect men to receive an accurate spiritual witness.

Billy, are you saying the Bible is all of the following:

1. Complete
   
2. Inerrant
   
3. Totally internally consistent
   

From everything I have read from you, it seems to me that this is what you believe. But apparently I was mistaken.

[Hoops22]

Billy, are you saying the Bible is all of the following:

1. Complete
   
2. Inerrant
   
3. Totally internally consistent
   

From everything I have read from you, it seems to me that this is what you believe. But apparently I was mistaken.

Note how he has set up the question so that no matter which way you answer he will have some objection. He doesn't really want to discuss it, he wants to "getcha". He's more interested in groveling at the feet of dcp then discussing anything.

As evidenced by how he phrased this question - answers to which, btw, he knows.

[Bill Hamblin]

If scripture is given to man that contains errors (in the original manuscripts) how can you know what parts are true and which parts are false? And how can God hold you accountable for your actions if what He has given you is not all truth?

I don't see how you can fall back on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, because you have just said that men are errant, and if you don't think that God can inspire men to give you accurate scripture, I don't see how you can expect men to receive an accurate spiritual witness.

Since I'm not responding to Billy anymore, I'll ask this of Evangelicals in general. Since, as is obvious, we have no original manuscript for any part of the Bible, what difference does it make in practical terms whether the lost original Bible was inerrant or not? If the only manuscripts we have are, in fact, susceptible to error and inconsistency, what practical difference does it make if there is theoretically an unknown lost inerrant text? In other words, Billy's question "how can you know what parts [of the Bible] are true and which parts are false?" is, in fact, a question that needs to be answered by those who believe in a lost inerrant text, since they have already admitted the text we actually posses is not inerrant. The question is irrelevant to those, like me, who don't believe it is logically possible to have such a thing as an inerrant book.

[cksalmon]

Billy, are you saying the Bible is all of the following:

1. Complete
   
2. Inerrant
   
3. Totally internally consistent
   

From everything I have read from you, it seems to me that this is what you believe. But apparently I was mistaken.

Hey urroner--

I'd affirm (as I have in the past) each of your descriptors as applying to the original autographs.

It looks like the thread has picked up some more steam since I last checked. I'll have to go back and see why we're discussing inerrancy now, I suppose.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

(1) Since I'm not responding to Billy anymore, I'll ask this of Evangelicals in general. Since, as is obvious, we have no original manuscript for any part of the Bible, what difference does it make in practical terms whether the lost original Bible was inerrant or not?

...

(2) The question is irrelevant to those, like me, who don't believe it is logically possible to have such a thing as an inerrant book.

(1) I don't personally hold to belief in autographical inerrancy because it yields practical benefits. (My belief in that regard is a faith-based presuppositional claim, not an evidential one.) In a similar vein, I am Christian because I believe that the truth claims of Christianity are, in fact, true, not because they are useful.

(2) Why do you find the claim illogical?

Best.

cks

[Notquitewetyet]

If scripture is given to man that contains errors (in the original manuscripts) how can you know what parts are true and which parts are false? And how can God hold you accountable for your actions if what He has given you is not all truth?

I don't see how you can fall back on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, because you have just said that men are errant, and if you don't think that God can inspire men to give you accurate scripture, I don't see how you can expect men to receive an accurate spiritual witness.

Billy-- Elisha and the bears. I can see that as an Israelite folktale, told to little kids by their mothers, so that they wouldn't make fun of people with strange appearances. I really can't see God inspiring that. Plus, it's very clear to see where errors are if you go back and look at the Hebrew original of Jeremiah 10:11.

[Bill Hamblin]

(1) I don't personally hold to belief in autographical inerrancy because it yields practical benefits. (My belief in that regard is a faith-based presuppositional claim, not an evidential one.) In a similar vein, I am Christian because I believe that the truth claims of Christianity are, in fact, true, not because they are useful.

(2) Why do you find the claim illogical?

Best.

cks

1- That's because you're more cogent than Billy

2- A- God reveals things in ambiguous human language

B- Texts are recorded and transmitted by fallible humans

C- Texts are read and interpreted by fallible humans

Basically I don't think human language is capable of saying anything in an inerrant way because of the ambiguous nature of human language.

[urroner]

Hey urroner--I'd affirm (as I have in the past) each of your descriptors as applying to the original autographs. It looks like the thread has picked up some more steam since I last checked. I'll have to go back and see why we're discussing inerrancy now, I suppose. Best.cks

Suppose the autographs were error free and totally consistent with all other scripture revealed by God, but errors were introduced along the way intentionally, accidentally, by translation, or by lack of understanding context. Personally, if we don't have the autographs, then how are we to find out where the errors are?Also, I have seen translations of the same Greek verse and the translations said very different things. What then?

Note how he has set up the question so that no matter which way you answer he will have some objection. He doesn't really want to discuss it, he wants to "getcha". He's more interested in groveling at the feet of dcp then discussing anything.As evidenced by how he phrased this question - answers to which, btw, he knows.

You know the right answers also, but don't want to say them. I don't blame you.

[Billy]

Since I'm not responding to Billy anymore

Why? were my questions too tough for you?

And don't pull that I did not answer your questions line!

[urroner]

Why? were my questions too tough for you?

And don't pull that I did not answer your questions line!

You answered anything but the question and then you tell us that you did answer the questiona and then you expected us to believe you. For example, look in my thread about the definition of "works." You gave a definition, but it wasn't really a working definition.

[Bill Hamblin]

Why? were my questions too tough for you?

And don't pull that I did not answer your questions line!

Ha ha ha!!!!! heh heh ho ho!!!

I actually don't recall any questions from you that I did not engage. I recall a lot of asserting, pontificating, and posturing.

At any rate, if you want to answer my questions, do so, if not, don't.