Extention of inerrancy of Scripture?....

Frank wrote:

Frank, It is not the case of making it real simple. As you've tried that tact by directly avoiding the answer to my questions. Should I treat all of your questions as rhetorical?

Here are some more questions for you to avoid:

Since you accept the miracles denoted in the Bible as "proof", of the validity of the devinely inspired message (Something that I do as well)how have you corroborated these miracles?

Since we are obviously dealing in the rhetorical here allow me here to presume your answer.

This presumption would go something like:

The Bible account of the miracles Jesus and his Apostles performed are corroborated by the other various Biblical accounts of these same miracles. (that one's a given, the next one you may or may not subscribe to.) And by the constant witness of the Christian lives that the message itself has had an impact on for two millenia.

The problem with the the first part of your presumed answer is you're using the claimant as the witness, judge and jury.

That is: It is within the pages of the Bible that the claim of miracles is presented (the claim);

within the pages of the Bible that you have "the static standard" revealed (the witness);

within the pages of the Bible that you assure the usuage of "the standard" (the judge)

and by the pages of the Bible that you issue the verdict (the jury).

Apply that tact to any other book and its' claims (such as the Koran, BOM etc)and tell them they can't do what you have done.

If you accept the second part of the presumed answer you are accepting an extra-biblical source as proof.

And since this thread is specifically looking for peoples' input on whether the canon is to be considered inerrant along with scripture, and how specifically we know this to be factual or not, the whole process of how we know the Bible is inerrant from cover to cover is indeed pertinent.

The funny thing about the presummed answer above is that it is in fact correct. The reasons we know it is true is where you and I will differ. You MUST use your own interpretation of the Bible itself and will have to solely depend on the Bible or your own personal effect of the Bible, as your proof.

Which sets you up to the accusations of circular reasonings and the claims that other books and individuals have the equal right, and are logically valid in doing so, to make identical claims. That is precisely why we have the BOM. Protestants fought hard for the right of self-interpreting scripture and we have thousands of differing opinions masquerading as churches as the result.

Catholics accept the presumed answer above, because an outside authority with the assurance of infallibility to make such binding pronouncements has provided it for us. By our humble defering to this authority in this regard allows for the impetus to be taken off the individual and the Bible to substantiate the Bibles' claims. It puts the emphasis on the Church's authority and allows for a symbiotic relationship between the divinely inspired scripture and the Church that sought to incoporate scripture; a sort of joint endeavor. That is as a guide for the Body of Christ.



Frank continues:

There's that "unsubstantiated" tactic of your's again. And still without providing any substantiated answer to my simple questions!

Frank, I know that no matter how many independent sources confirm something; unless you are somehow personally involved, you will remain a Doubting Thomas.
That's fine. But the question I've asked previously, (still unanswered) is what personal miracles corroborated your acceptance of the Gospel message?
After all, as you've said the raising of the dead, healing of the lame, making the blind see etc.. are the "static standard" God used to prove the message.
That message was delivered to the first century Jews and Gentiles, yet you yourself two thousand years later accept them to be true, and do so because the same book that makes the claim of these miracles occurring tells you that you can. ("Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe..")
Yet no other book may do this. Can you say circular reasoning?!

Franks writes:

Easy, Look up the terms Ex Cathedra, and Nihil Obstat and see if you can appreciate the difference. I won't answer these easy questions in any more depth until you provide me the same courtesy of treating my questions as more than rhetorical.

God Bless
Stephen