Christian Denominations - Heaven and Hell

The relevance is, pay attention to what you are writing.In Message 23 you stated:

quote:

---

but as 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." Meaning I can refute your argument with other parts of John, but I can also do it with other books of the Bible.

---

Understand what the author truly has Paul support and use the verse accordingly.Don't put yourself in an untenable situation, such as only errors are not inspired by God.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

So, are you trying to say that the Scripture is not inerrant? That's a tall order. 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly establishes this, but so does John 10:35. 2 Peter 1:21 establishes this as well You can't really say from a Christian perspective that the Bible is not inerrant because
A: The Bible clearly establishes its inerrancy
B: It would be silly to think that an all-powerful God would allow his Scripture to be inconsistent.And here's why I'm arguing this. 2 Corinthians 10:5 That's an initial explanation, but I'll wait until you respond to this to see where this argument is going. Perfect copies and translations are certainly God-inspired. It's the same words He wrote in the original manuscripts. The focus is not on whether or not it is the original manuscripts (that's almost as silly as saying that my church is "better" and "holier" than your church), but whether or not the message from these manuscripts is accurately portrayed.

yes, but if the bible's errant, that's just one more errancy. that's like saying, "but i never lie!" if you do, that's obviously a lie, right? further contributing the case against you. no, what's silly is to think that the bible is consistent. i've read it, and it's full of inconsistencies. FULL. i can't get three chapters in before it starts contradicting itself.now, you can extract what you want from this, but the fact remains that the bible is NOT consistent, and that it was written over a period of a thousand years or so. it is not one book, it is a collection of many books, and those books are often collections themselves -- variation is to be expected.does song of solomon say the same thing about god that leviticus does? no, of course, song of solomon doesn't even talk about god once. does job say the same thing as john? proverbs the same things as... well, itself? no. we don't have original manuscripts. we don't even know which version of jeremiah is older. the overal stylistic and, i dunno, the actual text does not seem to indicate that any of the text was written by god at all, anywhere.in fact, the bible only TWICE says that god physically wrote something that was in the possesion of mankind, and both were the ten commandments.sorry, that belief just does not match up with the reality of the bible (one believer to another).added by edit: about the verse in dispute with purpledawn. what, exactly, is paul refering to as scripture, and what degree of inspiration is paul talking about? christ learly only counted the torah and the nevi'im as scripture of any worth. that's about 2/3 the old testament. do you think paul was referring to his own letters, even in instances when he says there is "no commandment of the lord; yet i give my judgement?" does that sound like he's writing for god?This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-03-2005 02:27 AM

quote:

---

a book NOT in the bible:

​

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

---

if it's in deuteronomy, wouldn't that exclude joshua, let alone matthew, let alone revelation?

Paul believed that what he wrote was not of his own interpretation apart from the spirit. Most Christians who believe in scripture as God inspired would agree with him.

i quoted this one above, but i'll do it formally, with nice bold letters too.

quote:

---

First Corinthians 7:25

​

Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

---

inspired? he said it's his own judgement, not the commandment of the lord. also from the same chapter:

quote:

---

First Corinthians 7:12

​

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.

---

so either all scripture is inspired and the bible is inerrant and god had nothing to do with these two verses, or paul didn't think his own letters to be scripture. take your pick. either way, you lose to the bible on this one.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-03-2005 07:51 AM

Ok. Not every word is God inspired. Taken as it is, 1 Corinthians 7 shows Paul giving wisdom. Some, he writes as inspired from God. The rest, he tells us is his own wisdom. Taken as a whole, this passage shows that Paul is honest enough to inform us of the difference. The passage is still scripture. You are right, though. The Bible wins. Paul did not think that everything he said was from God.

so some words could be in error?ok, keep following. back to this point:

quote:

---

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God

---

now we're presented with three choices:
1. inspiration is much fuzzier, innacurate, and prone to human error than the way in which fundamental christianity is using it, and it really means, you know, inspiration in an artistic sense
2. paul's letters are not scripture, since not all of them are wholely inspired.
3. paul is too stupid to recognize that even his saying the verse is not inspired, is in fact inspired (in which cause neither paul nor god should be trusted). but a lot of christians seem to think that's the case. i think it's a combination of the first two options above: inspiration is not a science. greater truths can be gathered, but details (and sometime major plot elements) are subject to error, distortion, and misrepresentation to convey said great truth. and that paul's letters are not scripture, either by scriptural standards or paul's own standards.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-03-2005 08:26 AM

Interesting points, Arach. You are an intellectual and a scholar of Biblical interpretation. Check out this book briefly:
http://www.bijbel.nl/things_that_differ.htm The author believes in the Bible as the source of proving its own wisdom. If we disagree, we must conclude human wisdom as the source of final interpretation.
Now, given this, what is your source for discernment of spiritual matters?Arach, give this book some attention and answer this:
1. inspiration is much fuzzier, innacurate, and prone to human error than the way in which fundamental christianity is using it, and it really means, you know, inspiration in an artistic sense. So is the author of this book on to something, or is his opinion error prone. If so, how?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-03-2005 06:44 AM

Shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.The Bible is a collection of writings by various authors. To the best of my knowledge, the traditional authors did not help to canonize their own writings.Webster’s Dictionary
Err — 1. to be wrong or mistaken, 2. to deviate from established moral code.
Errant — 2. erring or straying from what is right Inerrant - wholly true or without mistake (Christian definition)

quote:

---

So, are you trying to say that the Scripture is not inerrant? That's a tall order. 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly establishes this, but so does John 10:35.

---

What I have tried to impress upon you is to read each book as a whole, understand what the author is saying. If you believe that God inspired the authors, then read the authors work as a whole, not as inspired one-liners.The verses you shared above do not say that Scripture is inerrant as Christianity defines it. 2 Timothy 3:16 — Is one of the Pastorals, which are not considered to be written by Paul. Paul was an evangelist and the writer of the Pastorals dealt with organization. If you read the link, you will find that the Pastorals had their purpose. The writer was speaking of the OT not NT writings.John 10:35 — Again read the whole answer and you’ll find the author is still speaking of the OT. The statement is actually in Psalm 82:6, which isn’t considered the Law. 2 Peter 1:21 is dealing with prophecy and not Scripture. Prophecy isn’t always written down.

quote:

---

You can't really say from a Christian perspective that the Bible is not inerrant because
A: The Bible clearly establishes its inerrancy
B: It would be silly to think that an all-powerful God would allow his Scripture to be inconsistent.

---

The authors of the writings within the Bible compilation do not establish the Christian definition of inerrancy for the Bible as a compiled work.What’s silly is for people to distort God’s inspired purpose of the writings.How can you understand or know God if you don’t understand the purpose of the writings you believe he inspired?Societies change over time. I would expect an all powerful god to inspire his people to deal with their current situation, not a past one.Bottom line: The authors of your verses did not give their stamp of approval on writings that are deemed scripture after their time. They do not claim that all scripture is without mistakes.No, I do not believe in Bible inerrancy as defined by Christianity.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Well if we can't use the Bible to answer these questions, then what are we supposed to do to support to answer the questions brought up in this topic? I probably should have stated Biblical inerrancy as an assumption (I think I'm going to edit my original message). Your intention is clearly to disprove Biblical inerrancy, as seen from this quote If you want to get into the issue of which Bible we should use (ie: you're Catholic and would like to bring in verses from a book that is only in the Catholic Bible), that's certainly relevant, but this is not a topic to disprove Biblical inerrancy. You could still argue on whether or not a Christian who doesn't believe in Biblical inerrancy would get into heaven, though.

For those of you who only read the most recent posts, I've added Biblical inerrancy as an assumption for this topic. It's just impossible to argue these issues otherwise. Of course, I've made a few exceptions, so go to my edited Message 1 to get a general idea of what is and is not relevant.

yes, well, your assumption has been overturned and disproven. is it important to your argument? i haven't been paying attention. if it's not important, move on, i guess.but no, this is not the place -- the inerrancy forum is.

well, thank you. but that should read "student of bible interpretation." logic, study, thought, and occasionally prayer and gut feeling. hey, some of it IS religious. i'm also biased towards earlier books of the bible being more theologically correct in the cases of disagreement. (this may be my downfall. i'm giving some thought to reversing that, actually, as a way to rectify my christian faith with a bible that no longer seems to support it) all human opinion is error prone. not neccessarily filled with errors, but subject to their effects and the possibility of their occurance. my point is that most (all?) of the bible is human opinion. paul's letters certainly are.sometimes he has good things to say, and sometimes he says things that just seem wrong. but first we have to realize that we have to take the bible with a bit of a grain of salt so that we can actually learn to read it and pick out the bits that are good. (or, like that author said, divide the words of truth)

With great disappointment Purpledawn reads the "General Reply" post from commike37. Sighing she leans back in her chair and ponders their discussion. Her white cat, Lady, jumps into her open lap. As Purpledawn thoughtfully strokes the soft white fur and listens to Lady's soothing purr, she wonders, where did I go wrong? Why didn't he comprehend?"That's it!" she exclaimed outloud. The startled cat leaped from her lap and hid under the desk. Purpledawn quickly clicks back to the opening post and reads the changes. I don't believe I didn't see this before. I must be getting dense in my old age.Quickly she formulates a reply and checks the earlier posts for confirmation. Excitedly she types her reply post. Clicking the preview button, Purpledawn leans back in her chair to read her post. After making a few minor word changes, she reads a final preview.Now maybe he can concentrate on dealing with message 73 which does deal with the thread topic.Finally satisfied with the wording, she clicks the "Submit Reply" button.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 01-04-2005 13:48 AM

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.