quote:
Premise 1. The bible never claims inerrancy.
(How would that be possible anyway, since each book was individually written before the biblical cannon? Your premise basically states that Ayrton Senna, at the age of 10, didn't claim to be an F1 driver) But as we know, the cannon was later put together. It is a moot point.
It would easily be possible for each book to claim it. But of course you miss the point, The point is that inerrancy is not a Biblical doctrine.
And, of course, the various canons were assembled by fallible humans. Simply being in a canon is no guarantee of inerrancy.
quote:
A spiritual understanding of God's word is received by those who receive spiritual revelation. You don't accept such scriptures, therefore you are the one to be against the bible, because you believe they hold no truth.
And here you're just confused. I don't say that the Bible holds no truth. And your so-called spiritual understandings are not scriptures. So it's hardly clear what you are even trying to say.
quote:
Premise 2. "The doctrine holding otherwise is therefore a human doctrine" ( This wouldn't follow anyway, but you would still have to prove your case, you are saying that it can't be inerrant based on human reasons you have, and because of omission. These are feeble premises, and a "human doctrine" would be that of human reason. A human doctrine would be held by those that don't accept that Christ rose from the dead, but you are saying that because we accept these things as read, we are "anti-biblical". My response to that is; LoL!
In fact that is a conclusion drawn from the preceding point AND the point that you have neglected - that the Bible presents itself as a human and fallible work.
The rest is quite irrational. In Christian terms a doctrine contrary to the Bible surely comes from a human sources and is therefore human.
The rest is too confused to make sense of.
quote:
That doesn't follow anyway. You are simply stating a cynical motive, not proving one.
I'm not stating a motive at all.
quote:
And you are also stating things opposite to the truth. You full well know that people that don't believe in the bible, are anti-biblical, in that they reject it, but those that believe it, are biblical Christians. You are stating that black is white and white is black.
No, I'm saying that so-called "Biblical Christians" reject the Bible and all too often treat it with less respect than unbelievers. And that's a fact.
quote:
This conclusion also assumes the correctness of a premise which you didn't state, your premise would have been;
Pauls' unstated premise writes:
"If the bible omits inerrancy, THEN people, namely Christians, have a motive to establish a doctrine not based on the biblical text"
I didn't say anything about a motive and that is not my argument at all.
quote:
You are basically saying that a biblical position is unbiblical, and that people that take a biblical position, are anti-biblical, and want to put words into the bible that aren't there, because they accept the plain reading of the bible. An argument that holds no water, and doesn't even make sense.
No, I say that people who go against the Bible and want to put words into the Bible that aren't there are taking an anti-Biblical position. And if they say otherwise, they are obviously wrong.
quote:
The scripture itself disqualifies your conclusions because it tells us that the natural man can't "get there" so to speak, by natural intellect.
Yet, if the Bible is to be interpreted simply and literally, it must be accessible to anyone capable of reading for comprehension (which - as you've demonstrated by your mutilation of my argument - would appear to be more a problem for you)
And whether the Bible is factually inerrant or not does not require any special spiritual understanding to see.
quote:
The scriptures are spiritual matters, they themselves claim to be, and it tells us that those who believe, "have the mind of Christ".
Does it really say that merely believing is sufficient to have the "mind of Christ" ? I doubt it very much. But go on, produce chapter and verse and we'll see.
quote:
The only motive we have, is to accept God's word, understand it on a spiritual level, as it says we have been given the ability to do.
That may be your motive - but if it is, you're doing it wrong.
quote:
Those that live to squash things in there, like gay-rights and evolution, and all manner of sins they want to indulge, are motivated by human motives and governed by human reason.
And there you see the fruits of the inerrantist doctrine. Truth and justice rejected as "sins". Thanks for supporting my point.
™ Version 4.2
