The Bible claims Inerrancy

[Briguy]

Ahhhh BW now I get it. Paul was inspired to write all of his NT writings the same as Amy Grant is inspired to write her songs. Wow what a revelation, I can't believe I have been missing that all these years - can't wait for Amy's next song, maybe it will have a new commandment for us in it! or maybe it will clear up some of the great mysteries of our time! --- Oh Brother!!!


BW, God wrote the Bible using mens hands. Men did not write it as a tribute to God they were just a tool of God!!!!!!!

BTW, I used Amy because I think she is an example of someone who thinks shes a Christian but is really a mess.

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: The Briguy ]

 

[BWSmith]

PL wrote:
> Only one question BW: How do you know this is not a part that is errant?

That's where properly placed faith comes in. If all we used was reason, we wouldn't believe anything. Eventually, we have to assume that the gospel writers got it right with regard to salvation. We don't have to assume that they didn't make any mistakes at all, though.

> It is the words of Jesus, the same Jesus who attributed Mosaic authorship to the Pentatuech.

No He didn't.

> You say Christ was wrong on one and right on the other. How do you know which is which?

I didn't say Christ was wrong. I said He didn't address the issue.

 

[BWSmith]

Briguy wrote:
> Ahhhh BW now I get it. Paul was inspired to write all of his NT writings the same as Amy Grant is inspired to write her songs...can't wait for Amy's next song, maybe it will have a new commandment for us in it!

God's revelation was complete when Christ rose from the grave, so there can't be any new commandments that contradict what God has revealed.

> BW, God wrote the Bible using mens hands. Men did not write it as a tribute to God they were just a tool of God!!!!!!!

Amy Grant isn't a tool of God?

> BTW, I used Amy because I think she is an example of someone who thinks shes a Christian but is really a mess.

Sorry you feel that way.

 

[John Wells]

BW said, "God's revelation was complete when Christ rose from the grave, so there can't be any new commandments that contradict what God has revealed."

I didn't know the NT had been completed prior to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eventually, we have to assume that the gospel writers got it right with regard to salvation. We don't have to assume that they didn't make any mistakes at all, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? This sounds pretty arbitrary, kind of like the JEDP theory. We have to believe certain things but not others and you call that reasonable? It smacks of, "I like what John 3:16 teaches so I will believe that; I don't like what Gen 1-11 teaches so I won't believe that." What is the objective criteria on which you judge which is true and which is not. You call it properly place faith. I call it arbitrary with no hint of reason behind it. Biblical faith is well reasoned faith. It has an objective basis for inerrancy and for believing the truth of Scripture. It does not reject out of hand those things which do not sit well in our minds.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PL: It is the words of Jesus, the same Jesus who attributed Mosaic authorship to the Pentatuech. BW:No He didn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See Mark 12:18; Luke 16:29;, 31; Luek 20:37; 24:27, 44; John 1:45; plus more. In the Jewish Scriptures, there were the books of Moses (also known as the Pentateuch or the Law), the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets, and the Writings. Christ confirmed that such was indeed the case. He affirmed what Jews believed -- that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch.

&gt;PL:You say Christ was wrong on one and right on the other. How do you know which is which? BW:I didn't say Christ was wrong. I said He didn't address the issue.[/QUOTE]

He did address the issue (see above) and of necessity you must say that he was wrong on Mosaic authorship and write on salvation. It is only a failure to read Scripture for what it says that enables you to miss this.

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Briguy]

Briguy wrote:
&gt; Ahhhh BW now I get it. Paul was inspired to write all of his NT writings the same as Amy Grant is inspired to write her songs...can't wait for Amy's next song, maybe it will have a new commandment for us in it!
Bw answered: God's revelation was complete when Christ rose from the grave, so there can't be any new commandments that contradict what God has revealed.

BW, now we are making progress. You believe that God operated in a different way with the Bible writers then he does with the average man (or woman as above)
So--- God gave the Bible writers his revelations and commandments but he wasn't able to control them enough to write it down properly, that is what you are saying BW, think seriously about that. Take care.

BTW, Amy Grant once said something like, "Just because I don't talk about God at my conserts anymore doesn't mean I'm not a Christian". Why would she stop? So I stand by my statement that she is a mess, however never to far for God to reach though.

 

[BWSmith]

Wells wrote:
&gt; I didn't know the NT had been completed prior to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Not the NT, the revelation of God.

 

[BWSmith]

PL wrote:
BWS: The gospel writers got it right on salvation.

&gt; Why? This sounds pretty arbitrary, kind of like the JEDP theory.

That makes no sense.

&gt; We have to believe certain things but not others and you call that reasonable?

Let me give you an example that you might understand: ask Emeril Legasse two questions, one about 1) how to make linguine pescatore, and one about 2) rocket science. Emeril gives two answers. Which question does he have the authority to answer? It is the same with the writers of the Bible, who are authorities on matters of faith and practice.

&gt; It smacks of, "I like what John 3:16 teaches so I will believe that; I don't like what Gen 1-11 teaches so I won't believe that." What is the objective criteria on which you judge which is true and which is not.

Very simple. What is the purpose of the Bible? It is a book on the nature of God, man, and our salvation through Christ.

&gt;&gt;&gt; PL: It is the words of Jesus, the same Jesus who attributed Mosaic authorship to the Pentatuech.

&gt;&gt; BW:No He didn't.

&gt; See Mark 12:18; Luke 16:29;, 31; Luek 20:37; 24:27, 44; John 1:45; plus more. ...Christ confirmed that such was indeed the case. He affirmed what Jews believed -- that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch.

All Christ verified was that Moses wrote "something", which I don't deny. Moses wrote the law itself and the basis for the first-person speeches in Deuteronomy. The Mosaic material forms the original core of Deuteronomy.

Now, show me the verse where Jesus says, "Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch". That's what I deny.

&gt;&gt;&gt;PL:You say Christ was wrong on one and right on the other. How do you know which is which?
&gt;&gt;BW:I didn't say Christ was wrong. I said He didn't address the issue.
&gt;He did address the issue

No he didn't. He simply referred to the books by their standard name, "Moses".

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why? This sounds pretty arbitrary, kind of like the JEDP theory.

That makes no sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JEDP and other critical theories are arbitrary, driven by words counts, vocabulary, and presuppositions. It is not based on fact. It makes perfect sense except you operate from different presuppositions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let me give you an example that you might understand: ask Emeril Legasse two questions, one about 1) how to make linguine pescatore, and one about 2) rocket science. Emeril gives two answers. Which question does he have the authority to answer? It is the same with the writers of the Bible, who are authorities on matters of faith and practice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cute, very cute. Let me ask you a question: Is the creator of the world qualified to answer a question about the world? You seem to be suggesting that there are things that the God of the Bible is not qualified to comment on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What is the purpose of the Bible? It is a book on the nature of God, man, and our salvation through Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The purpose of the Bible is to give us the revelation of God. It includes truth about beginning and ending, sin and salvation, God, etc. It reveals the nature of God as one who cannot lie. Therefore, by virtue reason and faith, his revelation cannot be untruthful. What you are doing is denying that Scripture is the revelation of God. You are right that it is not a textbook on certain things, but by necessity, since it is the revelation of the God who cannot lie, it must be truthful about whatever it comments on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All Christ verified was that Moses wrote "something", which I don't deny. Moses wrote the law itself and the basis for the first-person speeches in Deuteronomy. The Mosaic material forms the original core of Deuteronomy. Now, show me the verse where Jesus says, "Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch". That's what I deny.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Jew believed that Moses only wrote "something." He was the author of the first five books of the OT canon. The Pentatuech exists as a whole. When Christ talks of the author of the Pentateuch, he is talking about the author of the whole thing.


Let me just address what you said concerning revelation ending with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Gal 1, Paul speaks of being taught by God in the desert. That was revelation after the time of Christ. John writes the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" in AD 95, clearly after the resurrection. Peter had a dream in Acts 10, clearly after the resurrection. Your statement is out of bounds with Scripture.

Having read you this far, I suspect that you are probably a fan of Barth and the existentialist camp of theology. There are a number of problems with the views you are espousing when it comes to the nature of God and revelation. It will not be solved in this forum likely, since you are not interacting with Scripture as it stands. Every verse you read, you read in light of your presuppositions that it is not inspired and inerrant and therefore you are permitted to either posit it as true or as false depending on what you think about what it teaches. Boy, if I had to sit down and decide if Scripture was true or not verse by verse, it would add hours upon hours to my study time. I am glad I am not fettered with your brand of "intellectualism."

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Interestingly, Larry, even many of the inerrantists whom I've read go through just the exegetical process you describe. They believe, for instance, that Jesus was clearly speaking metaphorically when he talked of chopping off offensive body parts; not because of anything in the text to state otherwise. They believe that "stopping the sun" in Joshua is just a metaphor because, of course, that part isn't meant literally (since the Sun doesn't go around the earth). They believe that Paul's radical statement of racial and gender equality (in Galatians) should "only be interpreted in context."

In my experience, any time an "inerrantist" runs up against something they disagree with, it's a "metaphor."

Joshua

 

[John Wells]

BW,

For the sake of not stringing out (with 50 posts) where I’m going with this questioning, I’m going to make some assumptions of your beliefs based on your previous responses. If I make a wrong assumption, please correct me. Here goes:

If there was no scientific evidence one way or the other (or equally convincing evidence for both) as to the age of the earth and universe, would you accept the 6-days of creation / young earth teaching of Genesis?

I assume you would say yes because you believe the parts of the Bible that that are obviously true.

Based on that then, what that reveals is that since you perceive there to be overwhelming evidence, appealing to your fleshly senses, for a universe billions of years old, you believe that instead. The problem this creates for you is two-fold:

1) You must take an errancy stance with regard to the Bible, because the Bible clearly contradicts what you believe. Now you will most likely answer no it doesn’t, but that’s denying the truth, pure and simple.
2) It means you are walking by sight and not by faith. You believe what your eyes, ears, and human reasoning are telling your heart, rather than what the Word of God is telling your heart. But the Bible says of the saved “We live by faith, not by sight. (2 Cor 5:7 NIV)

Now I’m not accusing you of not being saved, although you have jumped to that conclusion on several occasions from what many of us have shared with you. But . . . your stance on inerrancy is required to justify your believe in theistic evolution, because you choose to walk by sight, looking for the answers to God’s creation in science rather than the Bible.

I said it once before that God has “confounded the wisdom of the wise” to which you responded “why would God purposely deceive His children (or something to that effect)?” That’s just the point. Those who walk by faith are not deceived by science and the visible world; only those who are walking by sight are!

 

[Pastor Larry]

I think the situation you refer to is called reading with the normal use of language and interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture. For instance, cutting off body parts would violate other things in
Scripture. The sun in Joshua refers probably to YHWH extending the day through supernatural means. Paul's statement on racial and gender equity must be interpreted in context, just like every other communication known to man ... just like the communication between you and I here. In other words, the use of metaphors is something we all do everyday and there is no reason to assume that Scripture does not use metaphors. By the same token, we all use language that is not metaphorical and we should not assume that Scripture always uses metaphors. We all know from everyday life that it is pretty clear for the most part when metaphors are being used and when they are not.

In my experience, everytime a non-inerrantist runs up against something they disagree with it is a late redaction, not meant to be taken truthfully, etc.