Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Bible Guild

Back to Guilds

What if Jesus meant every word He said? 

Tags: God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit, The Bible, Truth, Love, Eternal Life, Salvation, Faith, Holy, Fellowship, Apologetics 

Reply Questions & Answers
Question: "What is sola scriptura?" Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Garland-Green

Friendly Gaian

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:35 am
It is important to remember that the biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99% agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes. No important theological or biblical issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. Biblical manuscripts from the 15th century agree completely with manuscripts from the 3rd century. We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2000+ years ago.  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:55 am
Garland-Green
False Dichotomy
While I understand and support the message of the anti-establishment reformation, I will draw my line at sola scriptura.

You say the bible itself claims it is god-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative, but this is a lie. No book in the bible directly claims this (although the Torah is close). Look for it all you want, you won't find it.

It is not the word of God, it is the word of man. Where Martin Luther was right was that the Catholic establishment was also founded on the word of man. Where he erred was in saying the bible was the word of God. He had no proof, biblical or otherwise.

I go further than Martin Luther would've ever gone. While I respect and revere the Bible, it is not infallible. To say so is dangerous to the faith itself. It is our most powerful instrument for teaching, but it is not flawless.

You must walk honest, and uncertain. Simplicity and blind faith do not hold ground against reason. If you want to hang on to some infallible pillar of truth, you would do wise not to fall into this trap. If you truly must know what is authoritative, then you must pray.

It says all scripture is God-Breathed. It doesn't say just scripture that is in the original language. You go way too far. Once you eat away the trustworthiness of the Bible where does that leave the gospel? Can we trust that it was delivered to us as God intended because it was delivered to us by fallible men? You forget that though man did translate and pen the Bible they didn't do so on their own initiative. Assuming this is denying what Bible history, archaeology, and an incredibly wast number of manuscripts tells us.

The Bible is comprised of 66 books, it had about 40 writers. What is so remarkable about it is that it tells a consistent story from Genesis to Revelation. Written by different men, in vastly different time periods who perhaps did not know that their book would be a part of a collection of books called the Bible.

Through out the Bible, and I would dare to say through out history God has enabled people to do his will. In the Old Testament he made it so that there would be people who were competent to make the various equipment needed in the tabernacle, just one example. I would say that his will is more important than any tabernacle, and I don't see why He would not want to be involved in the creation of the Bible.

“This book had to be written by one of three people: good men, bad men or God. It couldn’t have been written by good men because they said it was inspired by the revelation of God. Good men don’t lie and deceive. It couldn’t have been written by bad men because bad men would not write something that would condemn themselves. It leaves only one conclusion. It was given by divine inspiration of God.”
John Wesley

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

‘The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth, and can be trusted. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.’ (Charles C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy, p. 16). At the Chicago meeting in October 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy issued the following statement on inerrancy: ‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’ (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)
You are such a rambler. I can hardly even reply to this text wall of irrelevant information that didn't address my post. What did you do, copy paste this from some apologetic site? It's riddled with lies, false statistics, and quotes by men who have no authority.

If you want to have any meaningful conversation, how about you address what I actually said?  

Aporeia

Shameless Mystic


jack0076970

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:05 pm
False Dichotomy
Garland-Green
False Dichotomy
While I understand and support the message of the anti-establishment reformation, I will draw my line at sola scriptura.

You say the bible itself claims it is god-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative, but this is a lie. No book in the bible directly claims this (although the Torah is close). Look for it all you want, you won't find it.

It is not the word of God, it is the word of man. Where Martin Luther was right was that the Catholic establishment was also founded on the word of man. Where he erred was in saying the bible was the word of God. He had no proof, biblical or otherwise.

I go further than Martin Luther would've ever gone. While I respect and revere the Bible, it is not infallible. To say so is dangerous to the faith itself. It is our most powerful instrument for teaching, but it is not flawless.

You must walk honest, and uncertain. Simplicity and blind faith do not hold ground against reason. If you want to hang on to some infallible pillar of truth, you would do wise not to fall into this trap. If you truly must know what is authoritative, then you must pray.

It says all scripture is God-Breathed. It doesn't say just scripture that is in the original language. You go way too far. Once you eat away the trustworthiness of the Bible where does that leave the gospel? Can we trust that it was delivered to us as God intended because it was delivered to us by fallible men? You forget that though man did translate and pen the Bible they didn't do so on their own initiative. Assuming this is denying what Bible history, archaeology, and an incredibly wast number of manuscripts tells us.

The Bible is comprised of 66 books, it had about 40 writers. What is so remarkable about it is that it tells a consistent story from Genesis to Revelation. Written by different men, in vastly different time periods who perhaps did not know that their book would be a part of a collection of books called the Bible.

Through out the Bible, and I would dare to say through out history God has enabled people to do his will. In the Old Testament he made it so that there would be people who were competent to make the various equipment needed in the tabernacle, just one example. I would say that his will is more important than any tabernacle, and I don't see why He would not want to be involved in the creation of the Bible.

“This book had to be written by one of three people: good men, bad men or God. It couldn’t have been written by good men because they said it was inspired by the revelation of God. Good men don’t lie and deceive. It couldn’t have been written by bad men because bad men would not write something that would condemn themselves. It leaves only one conclusion. It was given by divine inspiration of God.”
John Wesley

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

‘The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth, and can be trusted. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.’ (Charles C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy, p. 16). At the Chicago meeting in October 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy issued the following statement on inerrancy: ‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’ (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)
You are such a rambler. I can hardly even reply to this text wall of irrelevant information that didn't address my post. What did you do, copy paste this from some apologetic site? It's riddled with lies, false statistics, and quotes by men who have no authority.

If you want to have any meaningful conversation, how about you address what I actually said?

Actually it reads pretty well and addressed your previous comments clearly. Are you concerned that there are errors throughout or that it contradicted your own assertions?

Referring back to texts that supposedly don't exist...
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20,21)  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:29 pm
jack0076970

Actually it reads pretty well and addressed your previous comments clearly. Are you concerned that there are errors throughout or that it contradicted your own assertions?
It addressed them lightly with unsupported statements made by groups so biased, they named themselves things like "The Institute for Biblical Inerrancy," which should raise some flags to begin with. Then it rambled on forever about unrelated things before ever making a conclusive argument.

And my concern is that we treat these books as infallible for no reason, and therefore base huge religious constructs around this unsupported idea. It ignores obvious biblical contradictions, and causes people to become irrationally paranoid and defensive whenever these contradictions are ever discussed instead of making way for intelligible discussion.

Instead of constructive debate and the admission of uncertainty, the followers are taught to not ask harsh questions, ignore contradictions, and overall grow up as a sheltered child who's never known what it is to deal with lack of knowledge. It turns people into idiots who spout memish fabrications to justify constructs all based around the lie of biblical infallibility. It causes people to have absolutely no understanding of what the world is if the bible becomes fallible, so all they see is some false dichotomy of either "it's all right, or all wrong, and if it's wrong why follow it?" I know what it is like to be trapped in this lie, I've been there.

It's probably turned countless people away from the faith because they see a contradiction, and have no precedence for dealing with it if the strongest pillar they've built their faith on is biblical infallibility instead of honest uncertainty.


Quote:
Referring back to texts that supposedly don't exist...
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
In context, what is scripture? It certainly isn't the new testament, as most of it consists of personal letters, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the gospels weren't even written before most of the epistles. Sounds to me like "scripture" is probably the majority of the old testament, given when it was written.

I also don't consider Paul to be the infallible mouthpiece of God, regardless of context.

Quote:
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20,21)
Once again, he's referring to the old testament, not everything we refer to as scripture today.

I agree fullheartedly that there was a proper intent for each author that is skewed by interpretation, but I also think that ascertaining that intent is a matter of interpretation. How they read it back then is not how we always read it now, so careful steps must be made to correct our flawed approach.  

Aporeia

Shameless Mystic


Garland-Green

Friendly Gaian

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:09 am
False Dichotomy
Garland-Green
False Dichotomy
While I understand and support the message of the anti-establishment reformation, I will draw my line at sola scriptura.

You say the bible itself claims it is god-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative, but this is a lie. No book in the bible directly claims this (although the Torah is close). Look for it all you want, you won't find it.

It is not the word of God, it is the word of man. Where Martin Luther was right was that the Catholic establishment was also founded on the word of man. Where he erred was in saying the bible was the word of God. He had no proof, biblical or otherwise.

I go further than Martin Luther would've ever gone. While I respect and revere the Bible, it is not infallible. To say so is dangerous to the faith itself. It is our most powerful instrument for teaching, but it is not flawless.

You must walk honest, and uncertain. Simplicity and blind faith do not hold ground against reason. If you want to hang on to some infallible pillar of truth, you would do wise not to fall into this trap. If you truly must know what is authoritative, then you must pray.

It says all scripture is God-Breathed. It doesn't say just scripture that is in the original language. You go way too far. Once you eat away the trustworthiness of the Bible where does that leave the gospel? Can we trust that it was delivered to us as God intended because it was delivered to us by fallible men? You forget that though man did translate and pen the Bible they didn't do so on their own initiative. Assuming this is denying what Bible history, archaeology, and an incredibly wast number of manuscripts tells us.

The Bible is comprised of 66 books, it had about 40 writers. What is so remarkable about it is that it tells a consistent story from Genesis to Revelation. Written by different men, in vastly different time periods who perhaps did not know that their book would be a part of a collection of books called the Bible.

Through out the Bible, and I would dare to say through out history God has enabled people to do his will. In the Old Testament he made it so that there would be people who were competent to make the various equipment needed in the tabernacle, just one example. I would say that his will is more important than any tabernacle, and I don't see why He would not want to be involved in the creation of the Bible.

“This book had to be written by one of three people: good men, bad men or God. It couldn’t have been written by good men because they said it was inspired by the revelation of God. Good men don’t lie and deceive. It couldn’t have been written by bad men because bad men would not write something that would condemn themselves. It leaves only one conclusion. It was given by divine inspiration of God.”
John Wesley

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

‘The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth, and can be trusted. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.’ (Charles C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy, p. 16). At the Chicago meeting in October 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy issued the following statement on inerrancy: ‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’ (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)
You are such a rambler. I can hardly even reply to this text wall of irrelevant information that didn't address my post. What did you do, copy paste this from some apologetic site? It's riddled with lies, false statistics, and quotes by men who have no authority.

If you want to have any meaningful conversation, how about you address what I actually said?

Ok. Why is the Torah God's word, but the Tanakh (minus the T) the word of men?

Usually you point out lies by providing the truth. I haven't seen you provide anything to counter what I have said. Regardless of it being copied and pasted it was relevant to your post. It goes to show reliability, and that the Bible is not just any other book written by some guys.  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:42 pm
Garland-Green
False Dichotomy
Garland-Green
False Dichotomy
While I understand and support the message of the anti-establishment reformation, I will draw my line at sola scriptura.

You say the bible itself claims it is god-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative, but this is a lie. No book in the bible directly claims this (although the Torah is close). Look for it all you want, you won't find it.

It is not the word of God, it is the word of man. Where Martin Luther was right was that the Catholic establishment was also founded on the word of man. Where he erred was in saying the bible was the word of God. He had no proof, biblical or otherwise.

I go further than Martin Luther would've ever gone. While I respect and revere the Bible, it is not infallible. To say so is dangerous to the faith itself. It is our most powerful instrument for teaching, but it is not flawless.

You must walk honest, and uncertain. Simplicity and blind faith do not hold ground against reason. If you want to hang on to some infallible pillar of truth, you would do wise not to fall into this trap. If you truly must know what is authoritative, then you must pray.

It says all scripture is God-Breathed. It doesn't say just scripture that is in the original language. You go way too far. Once you eat away the trustworthiness of the Bible where does that leave the gospel? Can we trust that it was delivered to us as God intended because it was delivered to us by fallible men? You forget that though man did translate and pen the Bible they didn't do so on their own initiative. Assuming this is denying what Bible history, archaeology, and an incredibly wast number of manuscripts tells us.

The Bible is comprised of 66 books, it had about 40 writers. What is so remarkable about it is that it tells a consistent story from Genesis to Revelation. Written by different men, in vastly different time periods who perhaps did not know that their book would be a part of a collection of books called the Bible.

Through out the Bible, and I would dare to say through out history God has enabled people to do his will. In the Old Testament he made it so that there would be people who were competent to make the various equipment needed in the tabernacle, just one example. I would say that his will is more important than any tabernacle, and I don't see why He would not want to be involved in the creation of the Bible.

“This book had to be written by one of three people: good men, bad men or God. It couldn’t have been written by good men because they said it was inspired by the revelation of God. Good men don’t lie and deceive. It couldn’t have been written by bad men because bad men would not write something that would condemn themselves. It leaves only one conclusion. It was given by divine inspiration of God.”
John Wesley

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

‘The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth, and can be trusted. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.’ (Charles C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy, p. 16). At the Chicago meeting in October 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy issued the following statement on inerrancy: ‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’ (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)
You are such a rambler. I can hardly even reply to this text wall of irrelevant information that didn't address my post. What did you do, copy paste this from some apologetic site? It's riddled with lies, false statistics, and quotes by men who have no authority.

If you want to have any meaningful conversation, how about you address what I actually said?

Ok. Why is the Torah God's word, but the Tanakh (minus the T) the word of men?

Usually you point out lies by providing the truth. I haven't seen you provide anything to counter what I have said. Regardless of it being copied and pasted it was relevant to your post. It goes to show reliability, and that the Bible is not just any other book written by some guys.
The bible isn't a book, to begin with. The Torah, being a collection of books, as well. Anyways, there is some internal claim as to the Torah being the infallible word of God. I remain carefully skeptical of that claim. If you want me to start pointing out the truth behind things, then let's get started.

Although I'll likely be attacked on this forum for this, and have no desire to argue this point for hours on end, I'll go ahead and note the creation story. To anyone intellectually honest, it becomes apparent that not only are we the product of evolution, but the world itself was a product of far different circumstances than the prescribed story at the start of Genesis. This fact is starting to become accepted more among the protestant world, and certainly pokes a large hole in the idea of an inerrant bible. I really don't care if you accept this as a fact or even a possibility, but here it is.

Another obvious one would be the flood story, which has no worldwide evidence, and works on a timeline that is impossible/inconsistent with even written history (the egyptians, for example, have written history of dynasties and kings spanning back thousands of years before even the literal biblical age of the earth, let alone the flood).

Instead of accepting scientific evidence, people frequently cling to this false notion of biblical inerrancy, and make terribly illogical and fallacious arguments to discredit honest science, archaeology, and natural history as if there were some evil malicious force at work with an agenda to slander God at any cost.

With a simple google search, you can find tons of (usually very angsty) compilations of minor biblical errors. Not all of them are actually errors, but there are certainly quite a few that are. This one was actually compiled by a Christian.

If this isn't enough, I can go on.  

Aporeia

Shameless Mystic


Garland-Green

Friendly Gaian

PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:22 am
False Dichotomy
Garland-Green
False Dichotomy
Garland-Green
False Dichotomy
While I understand and support the message of the anti-establishment reformation, I will draw my line at sola scriptura.

You say the bible itself claims it is god-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative, but this is a lie. No book in the bible directly claims this (although the Torah is close). Look for it all you want, you won't find it.

It is not the word of God, it is the word of man. Where Martin Luther was right was that the Catholic establishment was also founded on the word of man. Where he erred was in saying the bible was the word of God. He had no proof, biblical or otherwise.

I go further than Martin Luther would've ever gone. While I respect and revere the Bible, it is not infallible. To say so is dangerous to the faith itself. It is our most powerful instrument for teaching, but it is not flawless.

You must walk honest, and uncertain. Simplicity and blind faith do not hold ground against reason. If you want to hang on to some infallible pillar of truth, you would do wise not to fall into this trap. If you truly must know what is authoritative, then you must pray.

It says all scripture is God-Breathed. It doesn't say just scripture that is in the original language. You go way too far. Once you eat away the trustworthiness of the Bible where does that leave the gospel? Can we trust that it was delivered to us as God intended because it was delivered to us by fallible men? You forget that though man did translate and pen the Bible they didn't do so on their own initiative. Assuming this is denying what Bible history, archaeology, and an incredibly wast number of manuscripts tells us.

The Bible is comprised of 66 books, it had about 40 writers. What is so remarkable about it is that it tells a consistent story from Genesis to Revelation. Written by different men, in vastly different time periods who perhaps did not know that their book would be a part of a collection of books called the Bible.

Through out the Bible, and I would dare to say through out history God has enabled people to do his will. In the Old Testament he made it so that there would be people who were competent to make the various equipment needed in the tabernacle, just one example. I would say that his will is more important than any tabernacle, and I don't see why He would not want to be involved in the creation of the Bible.

“This book had to be written by one of three people: good men, bad men or God. It couldn’t have been written by good men because they said it was inspired by the revelation of God. Good men don’t lie and deceive. It couldn’t have been written by bad men because bad men would not write something that would condemn themselves. It leaves only one conclusion. It was given by divine inspiration of God.”
John Wesley

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

‘The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth, and can be trusted. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.’ (Charles C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy, p. 16). At the Chicago meeting in October 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy issued the following statement on inerrancy: ‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’ (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)
You are such a rambler. I can hardly even reply to this text wall of irrelevant information that didn't address my post. What did you do, copy paste this from some apologetic site? It's riddled with lies, false statistics, and quotes by men who have no authority.

If you want to have any meaningful conversation, how about you address what I actually said?

Ok. Why is the Torah God's word, but the Tanakh (minus the T) the word of men?

Usually you point out lies by providing the truth. I haven't seen you provide anything to counter what I have said. Regardless of it being copied and pasted it was relevant to your post. It goes to show reliability, and that the Bible is not just any other book written by some guys.
The bible isn't a book, to begin with. The Torah, being a collection of books, as well. Anyways, there is some internal claim as to the Torah being the infallible word of God. I remain carefully skeptical of that claim. If you want me to start pointing out the truth behind things, then let's get started.

Although I'll likely be attacked on this forum for this, and have no desire to argue this point for hours on end, I'll go ahead and note the creation story. To anyone intellectually honest, it becomes apparent that not only are we the product of evolution, but the world itself was a product of far different circumstances than the prescribed story at the start of Genesis. This fact is starting to become accepted more among the protestant world, and certainly pokes a large hole in the idea of an inerrant bible. I really don't care if you accept this as a fact or even a possibility, but here it is.

Another obvious one would be the flood story, which has no worldwide evidence, and works on a timeline that is impossible/inconsistent with even written history (the egyptians, for example, have written history of dynasties and kings spanning back thousands of years before even the literal biblical age of the earth, let alone the flood).

Instead of accepting scientific evidence, people frequently cling to this false notion of biblical inerrancy, and make terribly illogical and fallacious arguments to discredit honest science, archaeology, and natural history as if there were some evil malicious force at work with an agenda to slander God at any cost.

With a simple google search, you can find tons of (usually very angsty) compilations of minor biblical errors. Not all of them are actually errors, but there are certainly quite a few that are. This one was actually compiled by a Christian.

If this isn't enough, I can go on.


Why do you accept evolution as truth, are not scientists also fallible men? Is consensus always an indicator of truth?

I don't see what you said in an earlier post; "not taught to ask questions, ignore contradictions, and overall grow up as sheltered children." The existence of apologetic is proof enough that what you are saying is a sweeping generalization.

I can explain why I don't believe in evolution, and that the geologic strata are what they are claimed to be; layers indicating million of years.

What can we expect to find if there was a world wide flood?

1. Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.
We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

2. Rapid burial. We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial. Even in the sea there are scavengers and bone eating worms. Whale Fall

3. Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areasWe find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days. (Google transcontinental Rock Layers)

4. Sediment transported long distances
We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years” water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.
5. Rapid or no erosion between strata
We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing” millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

For something to stand as a contradiction it can't have any possible answers. It must be obvious and be conflicting with something previously stated. There are no such contradictions in the Bible. Everything has a plausible answers. I am going to be brave here and say that most alleged contradictions have been answered at one point or another already. And the right approach to what you think may be a contradiction is considering your own fallibility when coming across something you believe to be a contradiction.

Alleged Contraditions from the site you provided.

Contradiction 1.
The Earth is a flat disk in shape, like a dinner plate, and rests upon mountain pillars.

This false idea is not taught in Scripture!
In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space—the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. By 150 B.C., the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes had already measured the 25,000-mile circumference of the earth. The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth’s spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. Some people may have thought the earth was flat, but certainly not the great explorers. Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four corners” of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun’s rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the “language of appearance,” just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.

Contradiction 2.
The sun revolves around the flat Earth.

The passages used to defend the biblical basis of geocentricity was Joshua 10:12-14, and later references to the same event, in which Joshua prayed, “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; And thou, Moon, in the valley of Aijalon” (v. 12), that he might defeat the numerous armies assembled against his people. God immediately answered Joshua’s prayer, and in the following verse he wrote: “And the Sun stood still, and the Moon stayed.” Keil and Delitzsch have suggested that either the day appeared long to the warriors of Israel because of the greatness of the task they performed (i.e., defeating the enemy), or that God miraculously caused the day to be lengthened so the Lord’s army could perform its task. The former is consistent with similar language in other parts of the Old Testament, and the latter explanation is totally consistent with God’s infinite power over the Universe (1982, 2:106-112). In any case, as Joshua goes on to say in verse 14, “there was no day like that before it or after it.” Thus, whether miraculous or not, to say that these verses teach that the Earth continues to stand still, and that the Earth is the center of the Universe, is both a gross misinterpretation and a misapplication of the verse. This passage does not teach geocentricity.

3. A metal dome, translated the “firmament” in the KJV, separates the sky from the chaos waters beyond. Holes in the metal dome let rain in — in other words, the sky is a giant, upside-down colander.

It is claimed by some that the firmament (KJV) or expanse (NASB, NIV) was a solid dome in which the stars and sun were placed. However, the Hebrew word, raqia, translated "firmament" is definitely not a solid structure, as indicated in Genesis 1:20, since birds cannot fly through solid material. The only verse in which the word "dome" is used is an obscure verse from the book of Amos, only in the NASB translation. The Hebrew word in question is aguddah, meaning a band:- band(1), bands(1), bunch(1).7 The other translations use the word "foundation" (NIV) and troop" (KJV). A Hebrew colleague indicated that the word refers to human beings (His gathering).
Another example given for the claim that the Bible teaches there is a dome that holds the stars comes from the book of Job:

"Can you, with Him, spread out the skies, Strong as a molten mirror?" [Job 37:18]

Out of context, it seems like an open and shut case that the Bible teaches that the skies are solid. What the atheists don't want to tell you is who was talking (Elihu, one of Job's "friends") and what was God's response to these teachings. In fact, in the next chapter, God answers Job's "friends" teachings with this comment:

"Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2)

In other words, God tells Job that his friends don't know what they are talking about. So much for the claim that the Bible endorses the idea that the skies are a solid dome. Since God Himself answered Job in the next 5 chapters, atheists would have a valid point if they found an error in any of those chapters. However, you won't find any complaints about the content of chapters 38-42. In fact, chapter 38 accurately establishes the initial conditions of the earth (covered with a thick layer of clouds):

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?... When I made a cloud its garment And thick darkness its swaddling band" (Job 38:4, 9)



http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/dome_of_heavens.html

The Bible Teaches That the Heavens Were a Solid Dome, Embedded with Stars?

4.The stars are little lights in the sky that are capable of falling to Earth like meteorites.

First of all; Immediately after the suffering of [66-70 C.E.] the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken [Matthew 24:29].” Matthew here doesn't say that stars will fall to earth.

Revelation 6:13-14 is talking about an event yet to come, and as such cannot be proven or disproved from science. In fact the book indicates that the events are not natural, but supernatural. To say that they describe something that is not naturally possible is to state what the book already tells us. Revelation is the book of the Bible, which the apostle John received in a vision. As in many visions given to men by God, the receiver was not always able to explain or understand exactly what he saw. The description of the events are those as perceived by John. The Greek word, astayr, besides being translated "star" can also have the meaning "comet," "meteor" or "asteroid", since there is no Greek word having this meaning. Even our English language refers to meteorites as "falling stars."

5. One day can last 930 years

In English, context determines the exact meaning of a particular use of the word "day" (or any word with more than one meaning for that matter).

As for the former, yes "day" can be used to refer to a longer period of time than 24 hours.


6. Noah killed off all the okay-to-eat (“clean”) species of animal.

I propose a solution: He limited his diet to grains, and plants.
The Bible doesn't specifically mention their diet.

7. Flying insects walk on all fours.

There are several verses that are translated in our English Bibles to imply that insects have four legs. In reality, the Hebrew word sherets, translated as "insect" is not nearly as specific as the term "insect" would imply. The word really refers to crawling or swimming creatures that tend to swarm together. For example, in Genesis, sherets refers to swarming sea creatures, in the flood account (Genesis 7) sherets refers to rodents, and in Leviticus, sherets refers to crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles. The term sherets was never intended as a biological classification system, so to say that it specifically refers to "insects" is deceptive.
8. Rabbits and hares chew their cuds, just as cows do.
the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and haresdo ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense.

9. Moses had body odor that was strong enough to kill.

“Then Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim. Moses said to Joshua, ‘Choose some men for us and go out, fight with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand.’ So Joshua did as Moses told him, and fought with Amalek, while Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed; and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses' hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady until the sun set. And Joshua defeated Amalek and his people with the sword.” — Exodus 17:8-13

Misreading the text intentionally. It is because of his staff that Amalek is defeated.

10. Comets are evil.

“They are wandering stars, for whom the deepest darkness has been reserved forever.” — Jud. 1:14

This was a methaphor for the fallen angels.

11. Ahaziah was two years older than his father, Jehoram.

The simple answer to these queries is that a copyist, not an inspired writer, made these mistakes. In the case of Ahaziah, a copyist simply wrote twenty instead of forty, and in Jehoiachin’s situation (2 Chronicles 36:9), the scribe just omitted a ten, which made Jehoiachin eight instead of eighteen. This does not mean the Bible had errors in the original manuscripts, but it does indicate that minor scribal errors have slipped into some copies of the Bible. [If you have ever seen the Hebrew alphabet, you will notice that the Hebrew letters (which were used for numbers) could be confused quite easily.] Supporting this answer to the “number problems” in Chronicles are various ancient manuscripts such as the Syriac, the Arabic, at least one Hebrew manuscript, and a few of the Septuagint manuscripts—all of which contain the correct ages for these kings in 2 Chronicles [22 and 18 rather than 42 and 89]. Based upon this evidence, and from the fact that the ages of Ahaziah and Jehoiachin given in the Massoretic text of Chronicles are incorrect, the translators of the NIV decided to translate 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 36:9 as “twenty-two” and “eighteen” rather than the way most other English versions of the Bible read (“forty-two” and “eight”).

Although history records that copyists were meticulously honest in handling the text of the Bible, they, like all humans, made mistakes from time to time. Yet, even though technical mistakes in copying the text were made by these scribes of old, three important facts remain: (1) accurate communication still is possible; (2) many times one can find the correct reading by investigating ancient manuscripts such as those listed above; and (3) errors incopies of the Bible do not mean that those errors were in the original manuscripts written by inspired men

12. Pi equals exactly three.

From time to time sceptics have used these verses to ridicule the accuracy of the Bible by claiming that, if one uses the figures stated, the circumference of the vessel divided by its diameter gives 3.0, instead of the value pi π, 3.14159…).1

Closer examination shows there are at least two possible explanations.

The first concerns the meaning of the word cubit, and how it would have been used in measuring the vessel. A cubit was the length of a man’s forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips. The Hebrew cubit was about 45 centimetres (18 inches). It is obvious that a man's forearm does not readily lend itself to the measurement of fractions of a forearm. In the Bible half a cubit is mentioned several times, but there is no mention of a third part of a cubit or a fourth part of a cubit, even though these fractions of ‘a third part’ and ‘a fourth part’ were used in volume and weight measurements.2 It therefore seems highly probable that any measurement of more than half a cubit would have been counted as a full cubit, and any measurement of less than half a cubit would have been rounded down to the nearest full cubit.

From 1 Kings 7:23 (‘a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about’), it appears that the circumference was measured with ‘a line’, i.e. a piece of string or cord on which the distance was marked, and this length would then have been measured off in cubits by the measurer, using his own or someone else’s forearm, or possibly a cubit-long rod. Similarly the diameter would have been marked on a line and ‘cubitized’ in the same way.

If the actual diameter was 9.65 cubits, for example, this would have been reckoned as 10 cubits. The actual circumference would then have been 30.32 cubits. This would have been reckoned as 30 cubits (9.6 cubits diameter gives 30.14 circumference, and so on). The ratio of true circumference to true diameter would then have been 30.32÷ 9.65 = 3.14, the true value for pi, even though the measured value (i.e. to the nearest cubit) was 30 ÷ 10 = 3.

While the above seems reasonable, and the Ask ‘Dr Math’ Forum agrees that there is no error in the Bible here, we have no way of knowing for certain whether the measurements were approximated in this way. However, even if it is assumed that the measurements given were precisely 10 and 30 cubits, the following appears to provide a definitive answer.

Verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 says that the vessel in question had a brim which ‘was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies’ (KJV), or a rim ‘like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom’ (NIV), i.e. the brim or rim turned outward, suggesting the curvature of a lily.


Let us consider the details given in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2. These are:

The diameter of 10 cubits was measured ‘from brim to brim’ (v. 23), i.e. from the topmost point of the brim on one side to the topmost point of the brim on the other side (points A and B in the diagram).

The circumference of 30 cubits was measured with a line, ‘round about’ (v. 23), i.e. the most natural meaning of these words is that they refer to the circumference of the outside of the main body of the tank, measured by a string pulled tightly around the vessel belowthe brim. It is very obvious that the diameter of the main body of the tank was less than the diameter of the top of the brim. And it is also obvious that the circumference of 30 cubits could have been measured at any point down the vertical sides of the vessel, below the brim. For a measured circumference of 30 cubits, we can calculate what the external diameter of the vessel would have been at that point from the formula:

diameter =
circumference ÷ pi
=
30 cubits ÷ 3.14
=
9.55 cubits.
Thus the external diameter of the vessel at the point where the circumference was measured must have been 9.55 cubits.5

It is thus abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of pi, and in particular it does not say that pi equals 3.0. Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take into account all the data. The Bible is reliable, and seeming discrepancies vanish on closer examination.


11. Zechariah and Jeremiah were the same person.

Who was Matthew Quoting?

Sorry about the long post, but I am not quite done yet.
Because of time restraint, and personal issues it may take me
a while to respond.  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:42 pm
Garland-Green
False Dichotomy
While I understand and support the message of the anti-establishment reformation, I will draw my line at sola scriptura.

You say the bible itself claims it is god-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative, but this is a lie. No book in the bible directly claims this (although the Torah is close). Look for it all you want, you won't find it.

It is not the word of God, it is the word of man. Where Martin Luther was right was that the Catholic establishment was also founded on the word of man. Where he erred was in saying the bible was the word of God. He had no proof, biblical or otherwise.

I go further than Martin Luther would've ever gone. While I respect and revere the Bible, it is not infallible. To say so is dangerous to the faith itself. It is our most powerful instrument for teaching, but it is not flawless.

You must walk honest, and uncertain. Simplicity and blind faith do not hold ground against reason. If you want to hang on to some infallible pillar of truth, you would do wise not to fall into this trap. If you truly must know what is authoritative, then you must pray.

It says all scripture is God-Breathed. It doesn't say just scripture that is in the original language. You go way too far. Once you eat away the trustworthiness of the Bible where does that leave the gospel? Can we trust that it was delivered to us as God intended because it was delivered to us by fallible men? You forget that though man did translate and pen the Bible they didn't do so on their own initiative. Assuming this is denying what Bible history, archaeology, and an incredibly wast number of manuscripts tells us.

The Bible is comprised of 66 books, it had about 40 writers. What is so remarkable about it is that it tells a consistent story from Genesis to Revelation. Written by different men, in vastly different time periods who perhaps did not know that their book would be a part of a collection of books called the Bible.


Eh? If you really consider all scripture to be God-breathed, that would also include the seven deuterocanonical books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, plus parts of Esther and Daniel that were found in the Septuagint, which was the official Greek translation of the Old Testament. Jesus and/or the Apostles have quoted or alluded to the deuterocanonical books: Matthew 27:42-43 makes a reference to Wisdom 2:12-20, St. Paul alludes to Wisdom in Romans 1:19-25, Hebrews 11:35 refers to 2 Maccabees 7, and Jesus himself has made references to Sirach. Since the Protestant Reformation didn't come around until 1517 with Martin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses, I think that there was probably a really long period of time where the deuterocanonical books were considered to be full of good Christian stuff.

While I don't believe any book in the Bible was written by God directly such that he dropped it out of the sky, faxed it to Earth or whatever as they were all written by humans that were inspired by the Holy Spirit, I do not believe that Martin Luther was similarly inspired or guided by the Holy Spirit when he just started tossing books out of the bible. It wasn't just the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament either as he also considered Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the New Testament to be non-canonical books and tried to have them all tossed them out as well due to having passages that conflicted with his preaching of sola fide and/or sola gratia. If he was similarly guided by the Holy Spirit when it came to tossing books out, I think he would have been more successful at getting those New Testament books permanently tossed out of Protestant Bibles and more importantly, that he would have been guided towards some form of conversion of faith that would have resulted in Luther never going around preach antisemitic rhetoric.  

Sachie Whitby

King Vampire

18,200 Points
  • Cat Fancier 100
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
  • Cool Cat 500
Reply
Questions & Answers

Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum