O so you beleive the bible is not the infalliable word of God?
No, I don't hold up to 100% infalliability. There are places where there are allegories, there are a few minor places where theres differences in manuscripts like the ending of Mark or Daniel, and there are places that have the opinions of man (like when Paul said it was his personal opinion).
I believe it contains the message of salvation and the minor issues of this or that doesn't affect the main points. If I hinged my salvation in the 100% of everything or 0% of nothing position that too many folks take I would have walked away a long time ago when I studied how the cannon was formed, why there are different sets of manuscripts (not major differences, but it still torpedos the fundamentalist position on it), or when NT authors made minor memory to paper mistakes in referencing OT prophecies or NT stories.
It doesn't shake my faith on how many angels were at the tomb, how Judas died, or any of the other minor easy to understand memory to story to manuscript issues that exist.
No, I don't hold up to 100% infalliability. There are places where there are allegories, there are a few minor places where theres differences in manuscripts like the ending of Mark or Daniel, and there are places that have the opinions of man (like when Paul said it was his personal opinion).
I believe it contains the message of salvation and the minor issues of this or that doesn't affect the main points. If I hinged my salvation in the 100% of everything or 0% of nothing position that too many folks take I would have walked away a long time ago when I studied how the cannon was formed, why there are different sets of manuscripts (not major differences, but it still torpedos the fundamentalist position on it), or when NT authors made minor memory to paper mistakes in referencing OT prophecies or NT stories.
It doesn't shake my faith on how many angels were at the tomb, how Judas died, or any of the other minor easy to understand memory to story to manuscript issues that exist.
God's word is completely infallible. To believe otherwise is heretical and apostacy.
God's word is completely infallible. To believe otherwise is heretical and apostacy.
God's word is absolute and infallible without question. Man's word can be, and is, full of error and misunderstanding. Knowing and discerning the difference between the two is life's great challenge and where many are mislead. Only those who "study" will "rightly divide" the word of truth! II Timothy 2:15
Raven
No, I don't hold up to 100% infalliability. There are places where there are allegories, there are a few minor places where theres differences in manuscripts like the ending of Mark or Daniel, and there are places that have the opinions of man (like when Paul said it was his personal opinion).
I believe it contains the message of salvation and the minor issues of this or that doesn't affect the main points. If I hinged my salvation in the 100% of everything or 0% of nothing position that too many folks take I would have walked away a long time ago when I studied how the cannon was formed, why there are different sets of manuscripts (not major differences, but it still torpedos the fundamentalist position on it), or when NT authors made minor memory to paper mistakes in referencing OT prophecies or NT stories.
It doesn't shake my faith on how many angels were at the tomb, how Judas died, or any of the other minor easy to understand memory to story to manuscript issues that exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by holinesspk
God's word is completely infallible. To believe otherwise is heretical and apostacy.
The holy one has a good point. If one admits that there are any mistakes in the Bible (whether by transcription errors, or mistranslations, or "edits", or misquotes of Jesus or of anyone else, or contradictions, or historical errors, or in the canon selection), one must wonder if one's important doctrines may be derived from mistakes. Mustn't one?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
The holy one has a good point. If one admits that there are any mistakes in the Bible (whether by transcription errors, or mistranslations, or "edits", or misquotes of Jesus or of anyone else, or contradictions, or historical errors, or in the canon selection), one must wonder if one's important doctrines may be derived from mistakes. Mustn't one?
Dude, dont do that to me. I knew I shouldnt be on AFF during lunch hour. *wiping off mouth, shirt ans computer screen*
God's word is completely infallible. To believe otherwise is heretical and apostacy.
The "infallibility Debate" is actually much more complex than that. To say otherwise would actually do harm to the the standing of the Bible as the Word of God.
For example Matthew 27:9, quotes a passage - or at least purports to quote a passage from "Jeremy (Jeremiah) the prophet..." Then, Matthew proceeds to quote from Zechariah 11:12-13.
Either Matthew fails the "Infallibility test" and is to be considered one of your "heretics and apostates," or there's something amiss with your understanding of the "Infallibility of the Scripture."
There are many important manuscripts which have added "in Isaiah the prophet" to Mark 1:2. The only problem I see with this is that Mark 1:2 is quoting Malachi.
The oldest manuscripts all leave out the ending of Mark 16. Only you new fangled types really insist upon retaining it. Erasmus could not find a single manuscript that included 1 John 5:7, until someone brought him a manuscript from the 11th century (1,000 years after John had died) with the "missing words" written in the column.
Several different manuscripts - D ((E) S 1006 1424marg with asterisks, possibly indicating a questionable passage) (L P omit 7:53-8:2 and place the rest in asterisks) Fvid G H K M U G 28 180 205 579 597 700 892 1009 1010 1071 (1077 1443 1445 184 211 387 514 751 773 890 1780 include 8:3-11 only) 1079 1195 1216 1243 1292 1342 1344 1365 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz aur c d e (ff2 omits 7:53) j r1 vg peshmss harkmss pal bopt slavmss-marg eth Ambrosiaster Ambrose Jerome [(UBS in [[ ]]) (Soden) (Vogels in [[ ] ]) Merk Bover (Souter in [ ]) Hodges-Farstad TR] -
... all include the story of the adultress after John 7:52 as you're accustomed to seeing it. Most, however place the story elsewhere in the Gospels or omit portions of the story.
James 2:20 - is "faith without works" - 1) "unproductive," 2) "dead" or 3)"empty?"
H PISTIS CWRIS ERGWN ARGH ESTIN -- "faith without works is unproductive" -- B C* 322 323 945 1175 1243 1739 am** cav colb dem div dubl ful harl hub sang tol val sa arm [UBS WH Tischendorf Soden Merk Bover Vogels NEB Souter]
H PISTIS CWRIS ERGWN NEKRA ESTIN -- "faith without works is dead" -- A C** K L P Y 049 056 0142 33 81 88 104 436 614 629 630 1067 1241 1505 1611 1735 1852 2138 2298 2344 2412 2464 2492 2495 Byz p t am* pesh hark bo eth slav [Hodges-Farstad TR]
H PISTIS CWRIS ERGWN KENH ESTIN -- "faith without works is empty" -- P74 ff?
This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Of the tens of thousands of variant readings among the manuscripts - most don't really affect major doctrines all that much - but which of the tens of thousands are THE INFALLIBLE ones?
The "infallibility Debate" is actually much more complex than that. To say otherwise would actually do harm to the the standing of the Bible as the Word of God.
For example Matthew 27:9, quotes a passage - or at least purports to quote a passage from "Jeremy (Jeremiah) the prophet..." Then, Matthew proceeds to quote from Zechariah 11:12-13.
Either Matthew fails the "Infallibility test" and is to be considered one of your "heretics and apostates," or there's something amiss with your understanding of the "Infallibility of the Scripture."
There are many important manuscripts which have added "in Isaiah the prophet" to Mark 1:2. The only problem I see with this is that Mark 1:2 is quoting Malachi.
The oldest manuscripts all leave out the ending of Mark 16. Only you new fangled types really insist upon retaining it. Erasmus could not find a single manuscript that included 1 John 5:7, until someone brought him a manuscript from the 11th century (1,000 years after John had died) with the "missing words" written in the column.
Several different manuscripts - D ((E) S 1006 1424marg with asterisks, possibly indicating a questionable passage) (L P omit 7:53-8:2 and place the rest in asterisks) Fvid G H K M U G 28 180 205 579 597 700 892 1009 1010 1071 (1077 1443 1445 184 211 387 514 751 773 890 1780 include 8:3-11 only) 1079 1195 1216 1243 1292 1342 1344 1365 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz aur c d e (ff2 omits 7:53) j r1 vg peshmss harkmss pal bopt slavmss-marg eth Ambrosiaster Ambrose Jerome [(UBS in [[ ]]) (Soden) (Vogels in [[ ] ]) Merk Bover (Souter in [ ]) Hodges-Farstad TR] -
... all include the story of the adultress after John 7:52 as you're accustomed to seeing it. Most, however place the story elsewhere in the Gospels or omit portions of the story.
James 2:20 - is "faith without works" - 1) "unproductive," 2) "dead" or 3)"empty?"
H PISTIS CWRIS ERGWN ARGH ESTIN -- "faith without works is unproductive" -- B C* 322 323 945 1175 1243 1739 am** cav colb dem div dubl ful harl hub sang tol val sa arm [UBS WH Tischendorf Soden Merk Bover Vogels NEB Souter]
H PISTIS CWRIS ERGWN NEKRA ESTIN -- "faith without works is dead" -- A C** K L P Y 049 056 0142 33 81 88 104 436 614 629 630 1067 1241 1505 1611 1735 1852 2138 2298 2344 2412 2464 2492 2495 Byz p t am* pesh hark bo eth slav [Hodges-Farstad TR]
H PISTIS CWRIS ERGWN KENH ESTIN -- "faith without works is empty" -- P74 ff?
This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Of the tens of thousands of variant readings among the manuscripts - most don't really affect major doctrines all that much - but which of the tens of thousands are THE INFALLIBLE ones?
Mouth hanging open in awe... Pel, when I grow up, I want to be as smart as you are...
Oh great. Now I have to take it all back, you are NOT the smartest person I "know"... JK, you have obviously studied it out, so... you're still pretty smart! lol, thanks for sharing!
Dude, dont do that to me. I knew I shouldnt be on AFF during lunch hour. *wiping off mouth, shirt ans computer screen*
184 
A C** K L P Y 049 056 0142 33 81 88 104 436 614 629 630 1067 1241 1505 1611 1735 1852 2138 2298 2344 2412 2464 2492 2495 Byz p t am* pesh hark bo eth slav [Hodges-Farstad TR]
Linear Mode
