Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 211 of 2241 (738517)
10-11-2014 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Percy
10-11-2014 7:29 AM


Re: 3 in one
No way could I accept anything I regard as a myth on faith.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 10-11-2014 7:29 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 10-12-2014 8:48 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 212 of 2241 (738518)
10-11-2014 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Percy
10-11-2014 9:29 AM


Re: 3 in one
The internal evidence given by the many authors of the many testimonies that make up the Bible is staggeringly sufficient for supporting faith in what it says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 10-11-2014 9:29 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 213 of 2241 (738519)
10-11-2014 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by jar
10-11-2014 9:32 AM


The reality is that honest God-fearing men who knew the Bible better than most had a fine sense of its truth and therefore of anything that contradicted its truth, argued for its truth against the false ideas, the truth became dogma and the false ideas were branded correctly as heresy.
The Roman Catholic Church, however, rose to power (which in itself shows it is not a Christian institution since worldly power is contrary to the spirit of Christ) without being challenged except by outsider groups, which the RCC periodically slaughtered, for about a millennium, and then the Reformers came along who eventually recognized its false doctrines and its character as Antichrist. It's unfortunate that in the last century their understanding was suppressed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 10-11-2014 9:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by jar, posted 10-11-2014 2:48 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 214 of 2241 (738521)
10-11-2014 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by ringo
10-11-2014 11:41 AM


Re: 3 in one
It is a standard rule of Biblical exegesis to interpret Bible by Bible because you risk developing a false theology based on partial concepts taken out of context if you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ringo, posted 10-11-2014 11:41 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by ringo, posted 10-14-2014 11:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 215 of 2241 (738522)
10-11-2014 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Phat
10-11-2014 11:56 AM


Re: 3 in one
I'm sure you are right as far as human psychology goes, Phat, but in the case of Biblical Christianity we're talking about Truth, not subjective feelings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Phat, posted 10-11-2014 11:56 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 216 of 2241 (738523)
10-11-2014 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Phat
10-11-2014 12:04 PM


Re: Evidence and Belief
That's a fair list of factors that can serve as evidence for belief I think. But of course I think the Bible revelation itself is the foundational evidence for Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Phat, posted 10-11-2014 12:04 PM Phat has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 217 of 2241 (738524)
10-11-2014 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Phat
10-11-2014 12:47 PM


Re: 3 in one
The diagram does a neat job of representing the actual facts of the Trinity as found in the Bible, Phat. Jar, Ringo, Mod, don't have a clue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Phat, posted 10-11-2014 12:47 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Modulous, posted 10-11-2014 2:45 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 218 of 2241 (738528)
10-11-2014 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by dwise1
10-10-2014 11:33 PM


Re: 3 in one
Yes I believe the Trinity comes straight from what is presented in the Bible and the fact that it is all there is the reason able men presented and defended it in the Councils against the Arians. The Arians' beliefs are not supported by the complete testimony of the Bible, and that is why they are understood to be heretics. If the Trinity were not supported by the Bible there is no reason the whole Church would not have become Arian. They had no reason to oppose it except what they found in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by dwise1, posted 10-10-2014 11:33 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 219 of 2241 (738529)
10-11-2014 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by NoNukes
10-11-2014 12:07 AM


Re: 3 in one
There could not have been any motivation to look for the Trinity in the Bible unless it was actually there and it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by NoNukes, posted 10-11-2014 12:07 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 220 of 2241 (738530)
10-11-2014 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
10-11-2014 2:27 PM


Re: 3 in one
The diagram does a neat job of representing the actual facts of the Trinity as found in the Bible, Phat. Jar, Ringo, Mod, don't have a clue.
Are you saying I made an error in my logic? Where?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 10-11-2014 2:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 10-11-2014 2:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 221 of 2241 (738531)
10-11-2014 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
10-11-2014 2:19 PM


Truth?
The reality is that honest God-fearing men who knew the Bible better than most had a fine sense of its truth and therefore of anything that contradicted its truth, argued for its truth against the false ideas, the truth became dogma and the false ideas were branded correctly as heresy.
HUH?
You have any support for that other than the fact that they won?
The goal was and has always been political; our faction is right and your faction are just heretics.
The Roman Catholic Church, however, rose to power (which in itself shows it is not a Christian institution since worldly power is contrary to the spirit of Christ) without being challenged except by outsider groups, which the RCC periodically slaughtered, for about a millennium, and then the Reformers came along who eventually recognized its false doctrines and its character as Antichrist. It's unfortunate that in the last century their understanding was suppressed.
More utter bullshit.
A main purpose of the Authorized King James Bible somewhat more than a century ago was to put aside the nonsense of the Pope as anti-Christ.
AbE:
And remember. The concept of the Trinity predated the Bible. The Nicene Creed is a great example. And there is still no such thing as "The Bible"
Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 10-11-2014 2:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 10-11-2014 2:52 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 222 of 2241 (738532)
10-11-2014 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Modulous
10-11-2014 2:45 PM


Re: 3 in one
I'm saying the Trinity is a counterintuitive concept that is based on consistent revelation of the character of God as Three Persons in the Bible and that kind of logic you presented is just the usual way people misunderstand it and impose human standards on it. Each of the three Persons IS God, and each is a separate independent Person, and one standard mistake is to confuse the Persons with each other. The concept is One God in Three Persons, not three gods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Modulous, posted 10-11-2014 2:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Theodoric, posted 10-11-2014 7:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 233 by Modulous, posted 10-11-2014 9:22 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 223 of 2241 (738533)
10-11-2014 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by jar
10-11-2014 2:48 PM


Re: Truth?
That would be very odd of the King James Bible, which was created four hundred years ago in the time of King James whose life was constantly threatened by the Jesuits because he was a Protestant*, just as Queen Elizabeth I's life had been threatened before him. Dozens of times. They both had to have nearly a battalion of soldiers with them at all times for protection against the Antichrist Pope.
ABE: The Trinity predated the Bible? What absolute ahistorical nonsense. All the books of the Bible were available to all the churches by the time of the Council of Nicea, all of them many times copied and distributed among the hundreds of churches represented at the Council.
*ABE2: The Gunpowder Plot, whose failure was celebrated for four hundred years in England as Guy Fawkes Day, was a plot by the Jesuits to blow up the King and Parliament and destroy the Government of England.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by jar, posted 10-11-2014 2:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 10-11-2014 3:21 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 224 of 2241 (738536)
10-11-2014 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
10-11-2014 2:52 PM


Re: Truth?
That would be very odd of the King James Bible, which was created four hundred years ago in the time of King James whose life was constantly threatened by the Jesuits because he was a Protestant, just as Queen Elizabeth I's life had been threatened before him. Dozens of times. They both had to have nearly a battalion of soldiers with them at all times for protection against the Antichrist Pope.
Not at all Faith. That's just more of your unsupported assertions.
James was very much aware of the facts that the country had suffered under religious intolerance when both Mary and Elizabeth I had ruled and that the real political threat to the Nation (just as it is in the US today) was religious Fundamentalist; whether RCC or one of the many Protestant factions. James position was rightly to look at proximate causes and one obvious one were the number of different Bibles in circulation, some shouting about an anti-Christ while others condemned Protestants as heretics.
The Authorized King James versions tried to address that, removing all references to the Pope as anti-Christ, preserving the liturgy, trying to sideline both the RCC and Protestant fanatics and establishing a basis for his real effort, building a basis for the Divine Right of Kings.
ABE: The Trinity predated the Bible? What absolute ahistorical nonsense. All the books of the Bible were available to all the churches by the time of the Council of Nicea, all of them many times copied and distributed among the hundreds of churches represented at the Council.
Yes Faith, hundreds of different scriptures existed but the idea of creating one book, of creating a Canon, did not and in fact even today there is no universally accepted canon. Yes the different Churches had their selective lists of scripture but as I said, even today there is no single canon.
*ABE2: The Gunpowder Plot, whose failure was celebrated for four hundred years in England as Guy Fawkes Day, was a plot by the Jesuits to blow up the King and Parliament and destroy the Government of England.
But there is no evidence that was a Jesuit plot and Guy Fawkes was definitely not a Jesuit, but it was the kind of violence King James wanted to discourage.
Edited by jar, : added material from Faith
Edited by jar, : fix last entry

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 10-11-2014 2:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 10-11-2014 3:56 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 225 of 2241 (738538)
10-11-2014 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by jar
10-11-2014 3:21 PM


Re: Truth?
There was no need to "remove" anything in the Bible that specifically called the Roman Catholic Church Antichrist, because nothing of the sort exists in the Bible. Perhaps there were marginal notes to that effect but I am not aware of that if so. And the idea that there were political motivations for the translation is idiotic anyway; it was an honest translation from the scriptures.
King James did ask the translators to remove the marginal note -- marginal note, mind you, not anything in the text of scripture itself -- from the Geneva Bible that denounced the idea of the divine right of kings. And just as a sideline, although we disagree with the idea of the divine right of kings now, there was very good historical reason for King James' concern in his day as the Pope constantly claimed to have the right to tell kings what to do, and taking the divine prerogative away from the Pope was but one of many moves necessary to curtail the presumption of the Pope.
Otherwise there was no political motivation to the translation at all, it was done by the best Biblical scholars of the day who were also honest God-fearing men.
There is absolutely no evidence that James had a problem with any supposed "religious intolerance" in the time of Elizabeth, who was more of a nominal Protestant herself anyway, but a very able Queen. She had treasonous Catholics executed but for their treason, not their religion. Whereas Bloody Mary executed Protestants for being Protestants, and THAT was the religious intolerance that England had to cope with time after time when they had a Catholic monarch. Eventually they had to enact a law that no Catholic could sit on the throne of England, because every time they did they had bloody persecutions of Protestants and the papacy breathing down their necks. Unfortunately England has lost their historical perspective, now they seem to think the papal wolf has become a little lamb who wouldn't hurt a fly, so they are modifying and will probably eventually reverse those laws against Catholicism, because the Duchess of Cambridge is a Catholic. And if the world survives long enough (I do have my doubts the way things are going) I think as the papacy regains power in the west we could see a revived Inquisition with bloody fangs and claws. (ABE: Of course Islam may have done away with all of us before that anyway /ABE)
Concerning the canon, the Bible doesn't need to be physically bound together to be inspired scripture, and that is how all the separated books were judged long before Nicea. There were some disputed books, yes, but all those (with an exception or two?) we regard as inspired today were regarded as inspired then too, and the disputes were not as big a deal as you try to make it out to be, and we have a fixed Protestant canon today.
ABE: The Gunpowder Plot was well known as a Jesuit plot until modernday revisionists began doing their best to muddy up the historical facts. The article at Wikipedia is a joke for leaving out the Jesuits and including paragraphs full of incidental information which only distracts from the historical importance of the event. It mentions that the Pope was often targeted in connection with the celebrations without saying one thing about why, just vaguely implying something about religious intolerance and emphasizing George Washington's bad decision to outlaw Pope's Day in the US.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 10-11-2014 3:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by jar, posted 10-11-2014 4:09 PM Faith has replied
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 10-11-2014 10:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024