Biblical Inerrancy and/or infallibility

[preachinjesus]

isn't the view of the scriptures form the "Fundamentalist" approach though the valid one?

No, it is not.

One way to help you with this, study the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Its kinda complicated but you can handle it. Look at how the NT uses the OT in its quotations and interpretations.

I take from some here that they do not wish to ascribe full inerrancy/infallibility to the Bible, as they wish it to be able to accomodate better to "scientific facts/truths", such as old age and evolution..

Am i seeing it wrong
here?

Now, to read to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy to help you understand these issues.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, it is not.

One way to help you with this, study the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Its kinda complicated but you can handle it. Look at how the NT uses the OT in its quotations and interpretations.



Now, to read to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy to help you understand these issues.

Understand that some would see the NT uses OT quotes not in a literal word for word quote, but at times more of a summary, or else use the LXX text as the source...

But can you just state that what is wrong about holing to the verbal plenary inspiration view of the scriptures?

Or for trying to see genesis as to be read and understand in a literal fashion?

 

[preachinjesus]

Understand that some would see the NT uses OT quotes not in a literal word for word quote, but at times more of a summary, or else use the LXX text as the source...

Well the NT never quotes the LXX. My point is that the examples of interpretation and hermeneutical approach used by the NT authors provides us with such a range of diverse interpretive options, many of which fundamentalist have unknowingly critiques, that it shows the limitations of fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture.

One of the most startling studies anyone can do is how the NT uses and interprets the OT. It won't shake your faith but it will challenge your assumptions. And frankly, brother, you need your assumptions challenged.

But can you just state that what is wrong about holing to the verbal plenary inspiration view of the scriptures?

I don't have any problems with folks who hold to verbal plenary inspiration.

Or for trying to see genesis as to be read and understand in a literal fashion?

Well I don't think Genesis 1:1-2:3 is meant to be read literally, but I don't have problems with folks who do.

This being said, I do have problems with people who attempt to malign and castigate scholars without actually having engaged them through their works. I do have a problem with people who apply labels and libels to God-fearing, Jesus loving academics who provide substantive answers to difficult questions that actually help in answering the hard questions. I do have a problem with people who make sweeping statements about someone's position without understanding their position first. But I find that there are these kinds of people in all the respective theological parties.

So, why not endow yourself with the time and patience to go and read a man's work before condemning him?

 

[quantumfaith]

Well the NT never quotes the LXX. My point is that the examples of interpretation and hermeneutical approach used by the NT authors provides us with such a range of diverse interpretive options, many of which fundamentalist have unknowingly critiques, that it shows the limitations of fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture.

One of the most startling studies anyone can do is how the NT uses and interprets the OT. It won't shake your faith but it will challenge your assumptions. And frankly, brother, you need your assumptions challenged.



I don't have any problems with folks who hold to verbal plenary inspiration.



Well I don't think Genesis 1:1-2:3 is meant to be read literally, but I don't have problems with folks who do.

This being said, I do have problems with people who attempt to malign and castigate scholars without actually having engaged them through their works. I do have a problem with people who apply labels and libels to God-fearing, Jesus loving academics who provide substantive answers to difficult questions that actually help in answering the hard questions. I do have a problem with people who make sweeping statements about someone's position without understanding their position first. But I find that there are these kinds of people in all the respective theological parties.

So, why not endow yourself with the time and patience to go and read a man's work before condemning him?

A mark of maturity and wisdom. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

Well the NT never quotes the LXX. My point is that the examples of interpretation and hermeneutical approach used by the NT authors provides us with such a range of diverse interpretive options, many of which fundamentalist have unknowingly critiques, that it shows the limitations of fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture.

One of the most startling studies anyone can do is how the NT uses and interprets the OT. It won't shake your faith but it will challenge your assumptions. And frankly, brother, you need your assumptions challenged.



I don't have any problems with folks who hold to verbal plenary inspiration.



Well I don't think Genesis 1:1-2:3 is meant to be read literally, but I don't have problems with folks who do.

This being said, I do have problems with people who attempt to malign and castigate scholars without actually having engaged them through their works. I do have a problem with people who apply labels and libels to God-fearing, Jesus loving academics who provide substantive answers to difficult questions that actually help in answering the hard questions. I do have a problem with people who make sweeping statements about someone's position without understanding their position first. But I find that there are these kinds of people in all the respective theological parties.

So, why not endow yourself with the time and patience to go and read a man's work before condemning him?

I think that the big problem is that many see no problems with trying to reconcile "scientific facts" with a verbal plenary view of the scriptures!

And aren't some of the quotations carried over from the Lxx to the NT?

And what would be those "assumptions" that I need to get rid of?