Inerrancy defined

Thought of another church.
*Shenadoah Bible Baptist Church (Martinsburg, West Virginia)

 

Well great stuff, its a start. Hey I am a Christian like you. I think the most important thing is a personal relationship with God, dealing with our sin and getting closer to God and agreeing with the basics of Christianity.

As long as churches, no matter what denomination are not in an attitude of change, maybe not change but to conform to basic Christian teaching without putting stumbing blocks in the way...the church will not unite and unity is the most important thing. Tell me why did Jesus wish ( wish hmmm ) for unity...he said why....somebody qoute me the Scripture of the result of unity.

If nobody quotes it I will.

David
<°)))><

 

Hey got another one!
*Independent Baptist Church (Orlando, FL)

 

Do you believe that “someone with the hindsight of Israel's long past and glorious future, someone like Ezra in the OT or Simeon in Luke 2, went through and revised, with God's superimposition, all 39 OT books and produced the final canonical product we now call the TORAH” because of the internal evidence, or because of your presupposition that because God is perfect the Old Testament must be inerrant down to the most minute detail and therefore all of the redactions must have been performed with “God's superimposition”?

</font>[/QUOTE]I believe the latter. I start with the concept that God exists, because the idea of just nothing ever existing is impossible. Then God's everlasting features and creation necessitate that he is good, wise, and the ability of us to even comprehend a perfect God necessitates that God must be perfect. His revelation must also be perfect. The Bible I believe does not prove this but nevertheless supports this inevitable truth.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

God bless you Bluefalcon, he who believes......

David
&lt;°)))&gt;&lt;

 

Go ahead and quote!

 

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.

May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me
and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me.

I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.

 

So that the world may know.....thats what unity brings about, your unsaved friend, mother, father, child....

anybody got a righteous anger smiley !

David
&lt;°)))&gt;&lt;

 

Here Mt. 26:6-13 = Mk. 14:3-9 = Jn. 12:1-8. I'm not certain Lk. 7:36-50 necessarily narrates the same event. It seems the time, event, circumstances and characters are different enough to suggest a categorically different pericope altogether in Luke. Also, usually Luke's pericopes parallel the synoptics to such an extent that differences as bold as are present here would suggest non-parallel material. What do you think?

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

I believe that it is best to study what the Bible says about the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

</font>[/QUOTE]You are right. However, just because one says that Moses may not have written every word does not mean they do not believe in the innerancy of Scripture. I was not even trying to defend it because there was no need. Icthus stated he believed in the innerancy of Scripture as do I. What I was trying to get across is that eventhough our view was different does not make one any weaker in their stance of the innerancy of Scripture, therefore I agreed that we need to agree to disagree.

In Christ,

Untangled

 

Sometimes very differently. Such as the Gadarene demoniac in Mt. Mk. and Lk. and the roof tiles in Luke 5:19 and Mk. 2:4.

 

The fact is that Proverbs and Acts-Luke is a compilation. How about Psalms too?

It is highly likely that Ecclesiastes was also a later compilation because it has Persian lone words in it. </font>[/QUOTE]MERE SPECULATION, NO HARD FACTS! </font>[/QUOTE]Read your Bible at the point of Acts 1:1. Study the other books for yourself in the Hebrew text.

 

Wasn't Peter's amanuensis, Mark?

Who wrote most of Paul's epistles? An amanuensis.

 

Get a hold of Gleason Archer's A Survey of Old Testament Introduction wherein he gives several pages over to the question of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

 

The post messed itself up.

[ April 15, 2005, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Marcia ]

 

Those are just some of the biblical quotes that give support to Moses writing the Pentateuch -- there's many more I don't have time to copy here. In additon, Archer brings up and gives arguments against the Welhausen theories against Mosaic authorship. Geisler does this as well in Baker's Encyclopedia of Apologetics . In other words, the people who cling to the higher critics need to get acquainted with the responses by the many scholars who have refuted these theories (and not just on Mosaic authorship but the Deutero-Isaiah (and multi-Isaic authorship) hypothesis, and other such theories, and presented sound responses to these type of claims.

 

There are no overwhelming literary probabilities that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. There are overwhelming probabilities that he did - read Archer and others. Read Geisler. Some of those who have refuted various claims of the higher critics are scholars such as Haevernick, Hengstenberg, Keil, Rupprecht, Moeller, C. L. Woolley, W. F. Albright, A. Parrot, Petrie, Breasted, E. Chiera, C. F. A. Schaeffer, R. D. Wilson, Gleason L. Archer, Merrill Unger, R. Laird Harris, and R. K. Harrison.

I'm finishing up my OT2 course in the next 6 weeks or so, and both in OT1 and in this course, we were presented with the claims of higher critics and the many sound responses to them. I want to post this to encourage those who reject those mostly spurious claims which originally came out of a school of thinking that rejected the supernatural. The higher critics do not have the final word -- it's just that they are promoted the most today since so many Christian seminaries have departed from seeing God's word as his word.

 

In Matthew 13, particularly the parable of the wheat and the tares, Christ has forewarned us that this would be so, that there would be apparent failure that there would be a mixed bag, that there would be counterfeits, etc, etc.

Don't worry, He promised to take care of it.
He will have the last word.

Matthew 13
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

HankD