Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How is the Bible the Word of God? | Ezra 9:2 | Morant61 | 115718 | ||
Greetings Ischus! Thanks for the response my friend! I've noticed in your posts that your big into logic. This is not a put down, as I respect a logical mind! :-) The verbal plenary view of Scripture is very much a logical conclusion. Allow me to illustrate. You said in your previous post: "I think that it is very much a human work, but that it is all God's will." If God is perfect and without error, how can the Bible, which you freely admit is a product of God's will, contain errors? Now, I would agree that this only applies to the original autographs. But, no matter how one envisions the process of inspiration taking place, because of God's character and nature, the resulting revelation must be without error. There is also a practical concern with no believing in verbal plenary inspiration. How does one determine what is and is not from God? Would God give us a Bible which contained some of His words, some false words, some words of man, and then expect us to sort out which was which without any kind of guidance? Sorry this is so short, but I have to run. My summary would be: 1) The verbal plenary view is both logical and consistent with God's character and nature. 2) The verbal plenary view is also consistent with the self claims of Scripture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | How is the Bible the Word of God? | Ezra 9:2 | ischus | 115733 | ||
Tim, I know that there is much logic in verbal plenary, but I do not think it matches up to what we currently have as a text. The reason that textual criticism is a part of exegesis is because, although God is involved, he can not compromise our free will (I really hope you believe in free will, or else you are really going to have a problem with my theory). Man is involved in the copying, and translation process- God chose this method. He is fine with a couple errors in the text. He could have given the bible to us all written out like he did to Joseph Smith (just kidding), but the fact is that he didn't. He wanted to use humans, and all that this would entail, including mistakes. I know that you are aware of the problems in the bible...so I think this should make some sense. I have to apologize for any wierdness and inconsistency today- I am very ill and it is all I can do to type these messages. |
||||||
3 | How is the Bible the Word of God? | Ezra 9:2 | Morant61 | 115740 | ||
Greetings Ischus! I pray that you get to feeling better my friend. When you do, perhaps we can discuss this further. I don't know of anyone who claims inerrancy for the copies or the translations of the text, but I believe that one can make a strong logical case for the original autographs, and I believe that Scripture makes this case concerning itself. So, I would contend that the Bible doesn't just contain God's Word, but that it is God's Word. For instance, 2 Peter 2:20-21 makes this statement about Scripture: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The fact that copyist may have intentionally or unintentionally added or deleted a few things here and there doesn't change the status of the original. And, as youself pointed out, we can be almost certain that the text we have now is in agreement with the original. This was an issue that I have spent much time studying. And, it has been my experience that the importance of and frequency of the variants readings has been vastly overblown. The majority of the texts are in agreement with one another. Get better! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | How is the Bible the Word of God? | Ezra 9:2 | ischus | 115870 | ||
Tim- I agree totally with all of this. my case is strickly for our english bible today, certainly not for the original autographs! I do take 2 Peter to be referring to "prophesy" and not "all scripture"(as in Tim.) I know the definition of prophesy and I know that it is not just "prediction and foretelling," but I take this to be the "thus says the Lord" comments of scripture. clearly there are many scriptures that were the interpretation or commentary of men about a particular situation, especially in the OT. ischus |
||||||