Inerrancy is one of my biggest doubts, and by that I dont mean that what God is quoted as saying is in doubt.... But I do have a problem saying that everything in the OT canon is inerrantly God's Word. When God / Jesus are quoted as speaking, that is God's Word; but I have doubts about the rest of the canon... maybe because He would have shown us if we had gotten it right, or proven His hand in giving us the NT... but nothing is there but people debating it.
@Cousinsjay So far in all my dealings with anti Bible folk and Atheists...I have observed that rarely do they offer a real challenge on this matter...most of these supposed discrepancies are easily answered if one follows the principles of Interpretation applied to any piece of literature. Context being the most important!
@TheGizmoskate Inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts..not the copies...that is another matter entirely...which is called "transmission". After all the dust settles...we have in our hands..with all intents and purpose...the original in good bible translations! There is only 1% that is debated among Bible scholars as to which reading in any particular manuscript copy best reflects the original. No doctrine is affected by such minor variations.
all he's doing is changing the definition of inerrancy from "100% error free", to just "reliable". The New Testament cannot be inerrant if it is anything less than 100%, which it is. It's like peeing a little in someone's drink and saying, "well it's mostly still your drink"
@Cousinsjay Yes, yes, he intimates that he accepts inerrancy - and he does. Here he's just explaining it.
The thought provoked by your comment - which I thank you for - is if we say that "God wouldn't say that" (remember this is a issue for Christians), how do we know? What would He say? No matter what God says - if God speaks - would be subject to that.
very disturbing...how he takes all the contradictions, errors and outright claims of gods ridiculous alleged statements and explains them all away. intellectually dishonest and immoral....
very disturbing...how he takes all the contradictions, errors and outright claims of gods ridiculous and explains them all away. intellectually dishonest and immoral....
Inerrancy is one of my biggest doubts, and by that I dont mean that what God is quoted as saying is in doubt.... But I do have a problem saying that everything in the OT canon is inerrantly God's Word. When God / Jesus are quoted as speaking, that is God's Word; but I have doubts about the rest of the canon... maybe because He would have shown us if we had gotten it right, or proven His hand in giving us the NT... but nothing is there but people debating it.
EarnestLamb 4 weeks ago
@swandike :)
kenpca 1 month ago
@Cousinsjay So far in all my dealings with anti Bible folk and Atheists...I have observed that rarely do they offer a real challenge on this matter...most of these supposed discrepancies are easily answered if one follows the principles of Interpretation applied to any piece of literature. Context being the most important!
kenpca 1 month ago
@Cousinsjay What evidence do you have that God didn't speak to Jeremiah?
kenpca 1 month ago
@TheGizmoskate Inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts..not the copies...that is another matter entirely...which is called "transmission". After all the dust settles...we have in our hands..with all intents and purpose...the original in good bible translations! There is only 1% that is debated among Bible scholars as to which reading in any particular manuscript copy best reflects the original. No doctrine is affected by such minor variations.
kenpca 1 month ago
all he's doing is changing the definition of inerrancy from "100% error free", to just "reliable". The New Testament cannot be inerrant if it is anything less than 100%, which it is. It's like peeing a little in someone's drink and saying, "well it's mostly still your drink"
TheGizmoskate 1 month ago
double talk...... amazing people buy this. he actually believes that god spoke to Jeremiah just cause it says that in the bible......
Cousinsjay 3 months ago
@Cousinsjay Yes, yes, he intimates that he accepts inerrancy - and he does. Here he's just explaining it.
The thought provoked by your comment - which I thank you for - is if we say that "God wouldn't say that" (remember this is a issue for Christians), how do we know? What would He say? No matter what God says - if God speaks - would be subject to that.
iMentieth 3 months ago
very disturbing...how he takes all the contradictions, errors and outright claims of gods ridiculous alleged statements and explains them all away. intellectually dishonest and immoral....
Cousinsjay 4 months ago
very disturbing...how he takes all the contradictions, errors and outright claims of gods ridiculous and explains them all away. intellectually dishonest and immoral....
Cousinsjay 4 months ago