Scriptural inerrancy and literalism - is it true?

[polonius]

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."

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 10 by polonius.advice]

Well we have the authoritative record and that is what is in the bible canon, are you here in this subforum to call into question whether it is true?

This bible says it is true, so we have the evidence needed.

JW

[polonius]

[Replying to post 10 by polonius.advice]

Well we have the authoritative record and that is what is in the bible canon, are you here in this subforum to call into question whether it is true?

This bible says it is true, so we have the evidence needed.

JW

RESPONSE: Hardly. Apparently, you have failed to grasp the many facts presented by myself and others identifying errors and contradictions in the Bible.

And by whom and when was the Bible "canon" thought up?

To cite only one example of a Bible blunder:

Matt 16:28 "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.�

Perhaps you overlooked this passage and the generation it specified, that is, “there are some standing here….� That's pretty specific!

But, of course, it just didn't happen.

The Bible is hardly reliable.

But some fundamentalists and literalists evidently think if they keep claiming that the Bible is "an authoritative record," some people might believe them in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[polonius]

[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.

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

RESPONSE:

"According to the Gospels...."?

Please cite the Gospel passage that claims that the Romans believed in the Resurrection. Also, please explain why they did not execute Jesus again to comply with the orders of Pilate.

Also explain to us why the historians Tacitus and Josephus do not report any resurrection.

[JehovahsWitness]

But some fundamentalists and literalists evidently think if they keep claiming that the Bible is "an authoritative record," some people might believe them in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Believe as you like, but we are here to discuss scripture, are you or are you not questioning whether the bible is true?

JW

[polonius]

But some fundamentalists and literalists evidently think if they keep claiming that the Bible is "an authoritative record," some people might believe them in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Believe as you like, but we are here to discuss scripture, are you or are you not questioning whether the bible is true?

JW

RESPONSE:

No. Once again you are in error. Please read the exact topic of the thread. This series of posts is examining if scripture should be regarded as inerrant and if it is to be taken literally.

Myself and others have already pointed out scriptural errors which disprove divine authorship.

These errors also show that one cannot accept everything in scripture as being historically accurate.

So arguing that "its in the Bible" which you seem to make repeatedly isn't really any guarantee of accuracy.

[JehovahsWitness]

No. Once again you are in error. Please read the exact topic of the thread. This series of posts is examining if scripture should be regarded as inerrant and if it is to be taken literally..

Well then yes, the bible should be regarded as inerrant if by that you mean should be viewed as the Word of God contains the truth from that one . Whether a speciefic part of it should be taken literally or not should be assessed on an text by text basis.

You're welcome,

JW


[youtube][/youtube]

[Monta]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

"Well then yes, the bible should be regarded as inerrant if by that you mean should be viewed as the Word of God contains the truth from that one . Whether a speciefic part of it should be taken literally or not should be assessed on an text by text basis."

How can God say something for it to be understood?
In Genesis - 'God said let there be light' did He actually use his mouth to speak the way we do? Hope no one here will say yes.

Simply said, there is no ratio between the divine and the human on any level including the language. It is true for those whose perception is open to the divine to teach the inner, spiritual truths.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 42 by polonius.advice]


"Matt 16:28 "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.�

Perhaps you overlooked this passage and the generation it specified, that is, “there are some standing here….� That's pretty specific!

But, of course, it just didn't happen. "

Simple question, where does it say it did not happen.

[polonius]

But some fundamentalists and literalists evidently think if they keep claiming that the Bible is "an authoritative record," some people might believe them in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Believe as you like, but we are here to discuss scripture, are you or are you not questioning whether the bible is true?

JW

RESPONSE: I'm answering the topic of this thread, pure and simply "Scriptural inerrancy and literalism - is it true?"

[polonius]

[Replying to post 42 by polonius.advice]


"Matt 16:28 "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.�

Perhaps you overlooked this passage and the generation it specified, that is, “there are some standing here….� That's pretty specific!

But, of course, it just didn't happen. "

Simple question, where does it say it did not happen.

RESPONSE:

Common sense shows that no one records what doesn't happen, only what did happen.

Perhaps I should write that the world didn't end yesterday. But those reading my claim already know that so what would be the purpose

Do you really expect Jesus to list a series of thing that obviously did not happen?