Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Morant61 | 205116 | ||
Greetings Tam! How can Scripture be inerrant yet contain discrepancies? :-) I believe that all the particulars can be reconciled as soon as we get people to understand what is and is not a contradiction. For illustrative purposes, lets imagine that the following letters represent different aspects of a Gospel narrative: A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. Matthew might record events A, C, E, and G. Mark might record events B, D, and F. Luke might record events A, D, F, and G. These would not be contradictory. They would only be contradictory is one of the authors said, 'Not A', 'Not B', ect... People misuse the word 'contradiction' all the time when it pertains to the Gospel narrative. One author mentioning an angel, while another author mentions two is not a contraction. One author mentioning an angel, while another author specifically states that there were no angels would be a contradiction. We do not find this in Scripture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205207 | ||
Dear Tim, I did not say contradictory, as in 'Not A', 'Not B', here is what I said in light of the fact that Mark and Luke differed as to whether the spices were prepared before the Sabbath day, or on the Sabbath, which was the original question, and which is not a contradiction, but is a discrepancy a true undenialable discrepancy that cannot as a detail about the act occuring on two different days be reconciled, but can in substance be reconciled; The accounts cannot be reconciled in their particulars but can in their substance and that is how you reconcile an account like this one. The Bible is indeed the innerrant word of God and contains some discrepancies at points, but not at any major points and not doctrinally ever. Quote; Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg. 252, par. 2 - AVOIDING TWO EXTREMES Two extremes are to be avoided when describing the Bible: Either denying of diminishing its devine characteristics while affirming its human traits, or else affirming its divine properties while denying or diminishiing its human elements. Most liberals do the former (see DeWof, CTLP, 58-66) and many fundamentalists fall into the latter (Rice, OGBBB, 265-285-87). These two errors are the bibliological equivalents of arianism and docetism, respectively (see F.L. Cross, ODCC, 87, 413). Quote Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg. 257, par. 3-5); THE BIBLE IS WITHOUT ERROR There is one human characteristic of the Bible does not have: errors. Although a more extended discussion of the innerrancy of the Bible is found later (see chapter 27), the basic outline of its errorlessness will be stated here. The Original Text Is Without Error The logic of inerrancy is straight forward: 1)God cannot err. 2)The Bible is God's Word. 3)Therefore, the Bible cannot err. Since Scriptures are breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16-170, and since God cannot breathe out falsehood, if follows that the Bible cannot contain any falsehood. The Copies Are Not Without Error Christians only claim that God breathed out everythign in the original text, not everything in the copies. Divine inspiration and innerrancy, therefore, applies to the original text, not to every detail of every copy. The copies are without error only insofar as they are copied correctly, and they were copied with great care and a very high degree of accruracy. Christians believe that God in His providence preserved the copies from all substatial error; in fact, the degree of accuracy is greater than that of Quote, Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg. 258, par. 3-4); any other book from the ancient world, exceeding 99 percent (see Geisler and Nix, GIB, chapter 22). The reasons for this amazing accuracy are: (1) we have many more manuscripts of the Bible than any other books form the ancient world, (2) the manuscripts date more closely to the originals, and (3) they were copied accurately. more to come, Tamara |
||||||