http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/ ... red-by-god
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
“Theologians speak of inspiration as the mysterious process by which God worked through the authors of Scripture to produce inerrant and divinely authoritative writings. Inspiration is a mystery because Scripture doesn't explain specifically how it occurred�.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm
Absolute inerrancy: If God controlled the writers' words directly or indirectly, then he would not have led them into error. Deceit and error are not normally attributes expected of God.
Limited inerrancy: the Bible is without error in certain matters such as faith, morals and the criteria for salvation. However, the Bible contains errors when describing other matters, such as scientific observations and historical events.
No inerrancy: They interpret it as containing much legend, myth, historical and scientific inaccuracies, religious propaganda, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
The term "biblical literalism" is often used as a pejorative to describe or ridicule the interpretative approaches of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians. A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God."
Scriptural inerrancy and literalism - is it true?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
[Replying to Tomas]
"Unless you are blessed with "faith" in anything, one ends up sitting in the "open to interpretation" mode indefinitely, it seems. A sort of Babel scenario with instead of language being the problem, but interpretation. Like what we are doing here. Ha!
I just finished a book that was almost scary in its profound summation of humanity and its current state: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. Here's a quote I thought apt for the situation:
"In 1620 Francis Bacon published a scientific manifesto titled The New Instrument. In it he argued that ‘knowledge is power’. The real test of ‘knowledge’ is not whether it is true, but whether it empowers us."
Francis Bacon said it brilliantly and so much truth in it: "the real test of 'knowledge' is not whether it is true, but whether it empowers us'.
People who find grains of pure gold in the Bible do not have to argue whether it is this or that. If it opens your soul to something higher, nobler - 'when I "consider" the heavens...' or 'love thy neighbor as thyself'.. whether Jesus said it or not it is certainly empowering and in this case spiritualy empowering.
"Unless you are blessed with "faith" in anything, one ends up sitting in the "open to interpretation" mode indefinitely, it seems. A sort of Babel scenario with instead of language being the problem, but interpretation. Like what we are doing here. Ha!
I just finished a book that was almost scary in its profound summation of humanity and its current state: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. Here's a quote I thought apt for the situation:
"In 1620 Francis Bacon published a scientific manifesto titled The New Instrument. In it he argued that ‘knowledge is power’. The real test of ‘knowledge’ is not whether it is true, but whether it empowers us."
Francis Bacon said it brilliantly and so much truth in it: "the real test of 'knowledge' is not whether it is true, but whether it empowers us'.
People who find grains of pure gold in the Bible do not have to argue whether it is this or that. If it opens your soul to something higher, nobler - 'when I "consider" the heavens...' or 'love thy neighbor as thyself'.. whether Jesus said it or not it is certainly empowering and in this case spiritualy empowering.
Re: Scriptural inerrancy and literalism-is it true?
Post #32RESPONSE:Tomas wrote: [Replying to post 17 by a better world]
Wasn't Marcion declared a heretic by the church fathers in 140 AD?
And Galileo was declared a heretic in 1633 for suggesting that the earth might revolve around the sun. The Church Fathers noted that this contradicted two passages of scripture. Of course, we know now he was correct and it was scripture that was in error.
Post #33
[Replying to post 30 by hoghead1]
"I'm afraid I don't understand what this has to do with the OP."
Scriptural inerrancy and literalism - is it true? Basically what I took Bacon saying is that true or not, who cares. Does it work as a solution to the problem is the thing that counts.
The problem Christ is said to have solved is Death.
If you are a Christian blessed with the gift of faith and able to ignore any doubts about contradictions and such, you will take that faith and use it as your day to day ideology and comfort when faced with our inevitable mortality.
If you are an agnostic or atheist that can't ignore the obvious lack of consistency and blatant discrepancies in the stories, or just can't believe in a god that would create billions of conscious beings knowing full well only a few of them will escape eternal suffering, free will or not, then this religion is not going to do much for you.
"I'm afraid I don't understand what this has to do with the OP."
Scriptural inerrancy and literalism - is it true? Basically what I took Bacon saying is that true or not, who cares. Does it work as a solution to the problem is the thing that counts.
The problem Christ is said to have solved is Death.
If you are a Christian blessed with the gift of faith and able to ignore any doubts about contradictions and such, you will take that faith and use it as your day to day ideology and comfort when faced with our inevitable mortality.
If you are an agnostic or atheist that can't ignore the obvious lack of consistency and blatant discrepancies in the stories, or just can't believe in a god that would create billions of conscious beings knowing full well only a few of them will escape eternal suffering, free will or not, then this religion is not going to do much for you.
Post #34
[Replying to post 33 by Tomas]
Well, let's be careful here, shall we? Not all Christians think alike. I am a Christian theologian and I hold that God is essentially loving; and when you love others, you do not seek to coerce them with threats. Therefore, I don not believe in eternal punishment, or really any form of punishment, for that matter. I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, but not in such a way as to prevent errors and major contradictions.
Well, let's be careful here, shall we? Not all Christians think alike. I am a Christian theologian and I hold that God is essentially loving; and when you love others, you do not seek to coerce them with threats. Therefore, I don not believe in eternal punishment, or really any form of punishment, for that matter. I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, but not in such a way as to prevent errors and major contradictions.
Post #35
[Replying to post 33 by Tomas]
"If you are an agnostic or atheist that can't ignore the obvious lack of consistency and blatant discrepancies in the stories, or just can't believe in a god that would create billions of conscious beings knowing full well only a few of them will escape eternal suffering, free will or not, then this religion is not going to do much for you."
I do not believe in that kind of a god either,
does that mean I am an atheist/agnostic?
"If you are an agnostic or atheist that can't ignore the obvious lack of consistency and blatant discrepancies in the stories, or just can't believe in a god that would create billions of conscious beings knowing full well only a few of them will escape eternal suffering, free will or not, then this religion is not going to do much for you."
I do not believe in that kind of a god either,
does that mean I am an atheist/agnostic?
Post #36
You begin by saying that Christ solved death and you end by claiming that he saved very few. It all depends on how carefully you read it, I suppose. I disagree that he saved very few--he is said to have died for the sin of the whole world. I think the difference is in whether we live into faith in this life and enrich the life we have in the here and now.Tomas wrote: [Replying to post 30 by hoghead1]
"I'm afraid I don't understand what this has to do with the OP."
Scriptural inerrancy and literalism - is it true? Basically what I took Bacon saying is that true or not, who cares. Does it work as a solution to the problem is the thing that counts.
The problem Christ is said to have solved is Death.
If you are a Christian blessed with the gift of faith and able to ignore any doubts about contradictions and such, you will take that faith and use it as your day to day ideology and comfort when faced with our inevitable mortality.
If you are an agnostic or atheist that can't ignore the obvious lack of consistency and blatant discrepancies in the stories, or just can't believe in a god that would create billions of conscious beings knowing full well only a few of them will escape eternal suffering, free will or not, then this religion is not going to do much for you.
Post #37
[Replying to catnip]
"You begin by saying that Christ solved death and you end by claiming that he saved very few. It all depends on how carefully you read it, I suppose. I disagree that he saved very few--he is said to have died for the sin of the whole world. I think the difference is in whether we live into faith in this life and enrich the life we have in the here and now."
Agree, it has been provided and it is free.
"You begin by saying that Christ solved death and you end by claiming that he saved very few. It all depends on how carefully you read it, I suppose. I disagree that he saved very few--he is said to have died for the sin of the whole world. I think the difference is in whether we live into faith in this life and enrich the life we have in the here and now."
Agree, it has been provided and it is free.
Post #38
QUESTION: Jesus (and two others) were crucified for insurrection by the Romans between 30-33 AD.Monta wrote: [Replying to catnip]
"You begin by saying that Christ solved death and you end by claiming that he saved very few. It all depends on how carefully you read it, I suppose. I disagree that he saved very few--he is said to have died for the sin of the whole world. I think the difference is in whether we live into faith in this life and enrich the life we have in the here and now."
Agree, it has been provided and it is free.
It was 20 years later that Paul, trying to avoid the shame that Jesus followers felt, wrote the story that Jesus had really died to atone for men's sins. And the story caught on.
If there really was a Resurrection, don't you think the story would have been recorded earlier and been a major topic of conversation?
Was it kept a secret from the Romans?
When was it first claimed that Jesus was divine?
Post #39This was taken from Peter’s sermon. It is found in Acts of the Apostles written by Luke about 80 AD, 50 years after Jesus’ Resurrection.
Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2:22-24
“You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.j23This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.k24 But him up God raised, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it!
Note: Thus Peter is telling us that Jesus did not work miracles by his own power. And he is “raised,� he does not rise from the dead by his own power.
Why? Because Jesus was viewed as the Messiah but not yet as divine himself. That belief started about 85 AD. Until then the Christians were members of the Jewish congregations. After that they were expelled as “minim� (heretics). See also John’s gospel c. 95 AD.
Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2:22-24
“You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.j23This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.k24 But him up God raised, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it!
Note: Thus Peter is telling us that Jesus did not work miracles by his own power. And he is “raised,� he does not rise from the dead by his own power.
Why? Because Jesus was viewed as the Messiah but not yet as divine himself. That belief started about 85 AD. Until then the Christians were members of the Jewish congregations. After that they were expelled as “minim� (heretics). See also John’s gospel c. 95 AD.
Post #40
[Replying to polonius.advice]
"It was 20 years later that Paul, trying to avoid the shame that Jesus followers felt, wrote the story that Jesus had really died to atone for men's sins. And the story caught on.
If there really was a Resurrection, don't you think the story would have been recorded earlier and been a major topic of conversation?
Was it kept a secret from the Romans?"
According to the Gospels Romans were very much aware of everything that went on.
Paul trying to avoid shame? Sounds like anti Paul propaganda.
"It was 20 years later that Paul, trying to avoid the shame that Jesus followers felt, wrote the story that Jesus had really died to atone for men's sins. And the story caught on.
If there really was a Resurrection, don't you think the story would have been recorded earlier and been a major topic of conversation?
Was it kept a secret from the Romans?"
According to the Gospels Romans were very much aware of everything that went on.
Paul trying to avoid shame? Sounds like anti Paul propaganda.
