On Inerrancy

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

How tolerant, respectful, and open-minded you are. So, dear lady, please tell me what books by evangelical scholars discussing biblical inerrancy you have read (Prov. 18:13)? There are some, you know.

I can't believe that even a lay person who has done any degree of reading on the issue would still believe in Biblical inerrancy, nor anyone who has actually studied the books themselves would believe that nothing more could be revealed. One truly has to have his head in the sand, or to take the theme of another thread, have faith that is not only blind but deaf and dumb.

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You wrote:

There's considerable evidence to support this view and negate Rob's claim that even if Mark is a source for the other synoptic writers that Matthew and Luke never alter the earlier account.

Apparently, you simply misunderstood me. Perhaps you could go back and read what I said again.

[Ahab]

MADB is interesting-- but preaching Christ to nudist Wiccan priests in the mountains of the Pacific Northwest-- with bigfoot lurking-- nothing beats that!

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Being with some naked guys in some mountains isn't my cup of tea, even if there is someone with some big feet around.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Your argument presupposes an understanding of inerrancy other than the one you are claiming to refute. In short, you are knocking down a straw man.

You still don't seem to get the argument. You claim the earliest Christians were inerrantists. If so, then the earliest Christians believed the Gospel of Mark was inerrant. Then why did they feel free to change it, add to it, and take away from it?

[ElfLord]

Irenaeus (late second century): "We must believe God, who has given us the right understanding, since the Holy Scriptures are perfect, because they are spoken by the Word of God and the Spirit of God" (Adv. Haer. 2.47).

Ironically, this same man draws our attention to scripture corruption happening in his very own time (or shortly before), and much like the Book of Mormon, it's miraculous preservation throught being translated/preserved by the "gift and power of God", 2 different times.

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 21)

A vindication of the prophecy in Isa. vii. 14against the misinterpretations of Theodotion, Aquila, the Ebionites, and the Jews. Authority of the Septuagint version. Arguments in proof that Christ was born of a virgin.

1. God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:]

[Bill Hamblin]

The text of the original scroll wasn't changed. New material was added to it. This is no different in principle than Paul dictating a couple of chapters of Philippians, taking a coffee break, then coming back and dictating the rest.

No. It is like Paul writing an inerrant letter to the Philippians, then rewriting the same letter later. Why couldn't God inspire Jeremiah to write an inerrant scroll the first time?

PS Paul didn't drink coffee!

[Vance]

The autographs per se do not, so far as we know, exist. Therefore, the technically precise thing to say is that they were inerrant. But that does not make the issue pointless.

It does make the issue pointless. Claiming inerrancy for something that doesn't exist is pointless. Whether it is inerrant or not is irrelevant, because it doesn't exist. You could just as easily claim that the autographs were written with purple ink. It doesn't matter what you claim about them, they don't exist.

[Deborah]

Keep reading--eventually the Bible as the Word of God will be revealed to you.

It has, thank you. That doesn't mean I don't see that there are things that men changed. Of course the basic themes of Christianity survived which speaks to the power of the message. That doesn't mean some things weren't changed to fit man's understanding, rather than man trying to understand what God was saying.

[Vance]

I can't believe that even a lay person who has done any degree of reading on the issue would still believe in Biblical inerrancy, nor anyone who has actually studied the books themselves would believe that nothing more could be revealed. One truly has to have his head in the sand, or to take the theme of another thread, have faith that is not only blind but deaf and dumb.

Very well said!

[ElfLord]

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Being with some naked guys in some mountains isn't my cup of tea, even if there is someone with some big feet around.

I'd really be scared of the naked man with big feet.

[Hick Preacher]

Coffee ("KAVE") and Jewish People

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_drugs

A popular Hasidic saying relates coffee to the Psalmic verse "Hope in God". The Hebrew word for "hope" ("Kave") sounds identical to the Yiddish word for coffee. Coffee is believed to have power to awaken the soul to the worship of God.

[Deborah]

How tolerant, respectful, and open-minded you are. So, dear lady, please tell me what books by evangelical scholars discussing biblical inerrancy you have read (Prov. 18:13)? There are some, you know.

What do evangelical works have to do with the fact that there have been changes, which other Biblical scholars can testify to and which appear obvious given the many interpretations and misunderstandings of scriptures today. Of course disrespectful, intolerant and closed-minded views of the Book of Mormon obviously aren't held to the same standard.

[Hick Preacher]

I'd really be scared of the naked man with big feet.

Yes me too I did not stay long among the nudists, but politely excused ourselves-- so we left the pool and made tracks out of there.

[Hick Preacher]

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Being with some naked guys in some mountains isn't my cup of tea, even if there is someone with some big feet around.

I have not returned to the area---but one has to roll with the punches from time to time. I am sure LDS missionaries have encountered some pretty wild situations too.

[ElfLord]

I have not returned to the area---but one has to roll with the punches from time to time. I am sure LDS missionaries have encountered some pretty wild situations too.

:blush: Bishops wife and breast feeding in the middle of sacrament meeting my first sunday in Europe.

[Vance]

Deborah,

How tolerant, respectful, and open-minded you are. So, dear lady, please tell me what books by evangelical scholars discussing biblical inerrancy you have read (Prov. 18:13)? There are some, you know.

13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Sounds like nearly all of the anti-Mormons that pass by here.

So reading the Bible is insufficient to establish inerrancy. You need to go to outside sources to get it.

No wonder it is the minority position in the Christian world.

[Hick Preacher]

It has, thank you. That doesn't mean I don't see that there are things that men changed. Of course the basic themes of Christianity survived which speaks to the power of the message. That doesn't mean some things weren't changed to fit man's understanding, rather than man trying to understand what God was saying.

Glad to hear of your endeavors.

Since the time of the Saviors earthly mission several informational revolutions have taken place. These change the way that information is transmitted and preserved.

In the third century, the fifth century, the 16th--19th -- and our present age too. And more. Yet the written word has survived with its critical message intact.

In the third century ritual initiations became more uncommon for information transmission- and by the fifth became extinct in Christianity. The fifth century was an age were creeds were applied instead of ritual initiations. in the 16th the printing press made copies of the Bible accessible to more people--and the creeds became archaic. In the 19th century came restorationism and rejection of creeds-- and in our current time electronic IP networking is creating another massive change. The logos of the gospel has survived.

[Hick Preacher]

:blush: Bishops wife and breast feeding in the middle of sacrament meeting my first sunday in Europe.

Oh my

---humm congers up images of the Madonna and Child-- or Isis and Horus.

Have you ever considered that this experience may have been a sign--a revelation of something greater a kind of epiphany? Did this happen on a January 6th by chance?

Afterall you were there to deliver the milk of the gospel to new born babes--.

[maklelan]

It seems my concerns are being largely ignored.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Rob,

David,

You wrote:

Apparently, you simply misunderstood me. Perhaps you could go back and read what I said again.

Here is your quote:

"Matthew and Luke did not alter the text of Mark."

I provided evidence that in the production of his gospel, Matthew did alter Mark. Also, for clarification, see Bill's comment:

"You still don't seem to get the argument. You claim the earliest Christians were inerrantists. If so, then the earliest Christians believed the Gospel of Mark was inerrant. Then why did they feel free to change it, add to it, and take away from it? "

Now, no pressure, but are you going to respond to my questions regarding your definition of inerrancy and its relationship to the Bible/Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

--DB

[Hick Preacher]

Very well said!

Well it does speak to the Mormon viewpoint about the Bible. Its a classic statement in a category of Mormon thought. It is related to a Big idea.

And we are here to discuss BIG ideas.

As some point as more people come to discuss such BIG ideas-- actions will be taken and or worlds of religious thoughts will merge and surge. Probably angels are taking notes from this board. And Vance is being noted right now among the bene elohim.

[Hick Preacher]

It seems my concerns are being largely ignored.

I am sorry mak-- I was just greesing the wheels a little.

[Nathair/|\]

Oh my

---humm congers up images of the Madonna and Child-- or Isis and Horus.

Have you ever considered that this experience may have been a sign--a revelation of something greater a kind of epiphany? Did this happen on a January 6th by chance?

Afterall you were there to deliver the milk of the gospel to new born babes--.

I really like your perspective here.

[Hick Preacher]

Ironically, this same man draws our attention to scripture corruption happening in his very own time (or shortly before), and much like the Book of Mormon, it's miraculous preservation throught being translated/preserved by the "gift and power of God", 2 different times.

How do we know Ezra got it right? According to this the entire OT was really penned by Ezra!?

Hey, I have been telling people about Ezra doing that for over 30 years-- and this is the first time anyone on a www board that anyone has noted this in a positive way! This Ezra's editing can be seen in the third person voice in the Torah-- through the Chronicles-- and repeated again in the Book of Ezra. We know Ezra got it right by Christ's orientation to those scriptures ( and His Apostles too).

[Hick Preacher]

I really like your perspective here.

Well I believe in ongoing revelation--