The bible

PostmodernProphet said:
you have fucked up your mission......
Click to expand...

"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive."
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry.....actually read the article this time......they are completely different things......
Click to expand...

From the Wikipedia section on "Biblical Inerrancy": "Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not."

From "Biblical Infallibility": "It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose.""

Now, as others have noted "Infallibility" can, indeed, be a larger concept than "inerrant". that "Infallible" (qua infallible) is the idea that it is incapable of making an error which would result in the outcome being "inerrant" (without error).

However perhaps your sect wishes to maintain that the Bible is ONLY valuable in terms of "salvation" topics. That it is infallible on SALVATION but could contain errors in other areas?

Is that why you differentiate it?
 
Perry Phimosis said:
From the Wikipedia section on "Biblical Inerrancy": "Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not."

From "Biblical Infallibility": "It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose.""

Now, as others have noted "Infallibility" can, indeed, be a larger concept than "inerrant". that "Infallible" (qua infallible) is the idea that it is incapable of making an error which would result in the outcome being "inerrant" (without error).

However perhaps your sect wishes to maintain that the Bible is ONLY valuable in terms of "salvation" topics. That it is infallible on SALVATION but could contain errors in other areas?

Is that why you differentiate it?
Click to expand...

why do you refuse to read the link provided?......

here....read this....
https://postbarthian.com/2017/03/05/the-errors-of-inerrancy-8-the-protestant-reformers-would-not-affirm-biblical-inerrancy-martin-luther-john-calvin/
 
Perry Phimosis said:
From the Wikipedia section on "Biblical Inerrancy": "Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not."

From "Biblical Infallibility": "It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose.""

Now, as others have noted "Infallibility" can, indeed, be a larger concept than "inerrant". that "Infallible" (qua infallible) is the idea that it is incapable of making an error which would result in the outcome being "inerrant" (without error).

However perhaps your sect wishes to maintain that the Bible is ONLY valuable in terms of "salvation" topics. That it is infallible on SALVATION but could contain errors in other areas?

Is that why you differentiate it?
Click to expand...

Some people devote their time and education to microscopic word-parsing of the most trivial nature.

The take away message for me is that the framework of Protestant theology generally adopts a type biblical literalism and disregards any interpretation or religious tradition that is outside the canonical scripture
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why do you refuse to read the link provided?......

https://www.logos.com/grow/inerrancy-of-scripture/?campaignid=18467614031&adgroupid=142254639065&keyword=&device=c&utm_source=google&utm_medium=advertising_cpc&utm_campaign=google_search-keyword_dsa_logos_us_en&gclid=Cj0KCQiA-oqdBhDfARIsAO0TrGEMM7bsqPSXjyFSwPWLS9DN72AUvSjaYKgtw_A0xP2yCKYXr9Grhz0aAoUiEALw_wcB
Click to expand...

I think I addressed this point in my post. I noted that not all people agree with the differentiation and I provided an example to show the differentiaion.

So let's talk about your article there:

"The word “infallible” means “will not fail” or “trustworthy.” So to say Scripture is infallible signifies its full trustworthiness “as a guide that is not deceived and does not deceive.”2 Infallibility does not mean the Bible cannot contain errors—but rather that it cannot fail."

I can understand this, but it IS very much a non-standard definition of the word as it is used in common parlance. But I'm a scientist so I'm no stranger to that sort of thing. I can accept that and it does seem to comport EXACTLY with what I said in my post.

That the Bible, per your cult, can contain errors, but that it will not fail in its mission to provide information about salvation.

Now it honestly feels like differentiating between the two is a little bit on the meaningless side. Since a book that CAN contain errors could EASILY fail to provide someone with the route to salvation.

Some of a weaker faith may see the Bible as containing a LOT of God commanding murder and genocide (Old Testament) and would find it hard to worship such a being, let alone feel that such is appropriate to the all-loving creator of the universe. And because of what MIGHT be an error in the Bible (stories of genocide and murder commanded by God) it results in the Bible being less valuable for that person. They fail to believe (since this God of the Bible often beggars the theological imagination). So the Bible would fail.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
good for you.......John Calvin knew the same thing centuries ago.......yet you lie and say he believed the Bible to be inerrant.....obviously you are NOT inerrant.....
Click to expand...

The Wikipedia entry says they way I framed the topic was playing well within the fair and accepted boundaries religious discourse:

From the Wikipedia section on "Biblical Inerrancy": "Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not."
Click to expand...
 
What makes a "good" Christian: knowing every passage in the Bible by heart...or practicing Christ's very basic message of love every day? Or at least trying to put it into practice?
 
BartenderElite said:
What makes a "good" Christian: knowing every passage in the Bible by heart...or practicing Christ's very basic message of love every day? Or at least trying to put it into practice?
Click to expand...

OH, 100% "practicing Christ's very basic message". Not necessarily the thing we were talking about but I wholly agree with it.

And that's why, as an atheist, I can still greatly appreciate much of the Gospel teachings. There's a lot of good stuff in there.
 
The winter solstice has a big influence on Christmas and Christianity. We all should be able to agree on something that basic.
 
Defender of Honor said:
The Bible is worthless to a nonbeliever
Click to expand...

The Jewish histories in the Old Testament are one of the most valuable surviving texts from antiquity for the history of the Near Eastern Levant.

Many European languages only became literary languages because of the Bible. Translations of the Bible were almost always the first time most vernacular European languages were ever written down in literary prose or verse form.

In some cases, biblical scholars had to invent an alphabet cold turkey for a vernacular European language to accomplish the bible translation.

There is a direct line from Saint Cyril inventing a Cyrillic alphabet to translate the bible into Old Russian (Slavonic), and the Russian literary art of Tolstoy.

--> No vernacular bibles, no Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy or Goethe.

Monasteries, bible manuscripts, and the monastic tradition were the centers of literacy and learning in Medieval Europe.

No monasteries, and no bibles = no literacy in Europe in the dark ages. Our literary and intellectual output today would probably be lagging several centuries behind without biblical scholarship and the monastic tradition in Medieval Europe.
 
Cypress said:
The Jewish histories in the Old Testament are one of the most valuable surviving texts from antiquity for the history of the Near Eastern Levant.

Many European languages only became literary languages because of the Bible. Translations of the Bible were almost always the first time most vernacular European languages were ever written down in literary prose or verse form.

In some cases, biblical scholars had to invent an alphabet cold turkey for a vernacular European language to accomplish the bible translation.

There is a direct line from Saint Cyril inventing a Cyrillic alphabet to translate the bible into Old Russian (Slavonic), and the Russian literary art of Tolstoy.

--> No vernacular bibles, no Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy or Goethe.

Monasteries, bible manuscripts, and the monastic tradition were the centers of literacy and learning in Medieval Europe.

No monasteries, and no bibles = no literacy in Europe in the dark ages. Our literary and intellectual output today would probably be lagging several centuries behind without biblical scholarship and the monastic tradition in Medieval Europe.
Click to expand...

If you read the Bible and don't gain salvation, you wasted your time
 
BartenderElite said:
What makes a "good" Christian: knowing every passage in the Bible by heart...or practicing Christ's very basic message of love every day? Or at least trying to put it into practice?
Click to expand...

you've missed the basic message.......First, you need to believe........loving people is the result, not the cause......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top