The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Wow, so what do you really believe? ...Statement of Faith

But how do you KNOW they are without error in the original autographs? The original autographs do not exist, and so there is no evidence that your statement is true. It’s only a theoretical, mental concept.

Again, how do you know which writings are the ones that God preserved from error? You say you don’t rely on the decisions of church councils.
You say that, “The Christian Scriptures are documents of a special nature distinct from other human writings.” But WHICH writings are “The Christian Scriptures”, and how do you KNOW?

The Greek copies we have today do not have a great deal of variation. I can display errors, but I am sure that would not convince you of anything, for you would simply say (without evidence) that the error does not exist in the original autograph, and, of course, because the original does not exist, no one can prove otherwise.

How do you KNOW that it was God who did it?

How do you KNOW that God did that?

Jeff… these ARE legitimate questions Paidion raises which cannot be glibly brushed aside with some mere cavalier wave of the hand.

Regarding God’s flawless word I’ve already point us to Proverbs 30:5. Regarding the works of Moses as prophecy from God and not mere human writing, Deuteronomy 18:15, Luke 24:27, Hebrews 3:5, and many more proofs if you need them. The Pentateuch is prophecy from God through Moses, not mere human wisdom. Regarding God’s sovereign acts in punishing evil doers, Genesis 6:7, as prophesied by God through Moses. Regarding Christ’s will to destroy Jerusalem in 70ad for Israel’s rejection of the Messiah, Luke 20:9-18, spoken directly from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

LLC said:

Jeff said:

So a hymn inspired by reading a particular passage of the bible… How can we know a bible passage is inspired but a hymn or paper about that same passage can not possibly be inspired? Even if we know of no error?

This is interesting. I have been working on some musical pieces that are music and spoken word. So if the spoken word is lifted from the authorized version, (public domain :smiley: ) word for word, will these works (or songs, as I hesitate to call them hymns) be considered inspired?

Just a thought…

Chad

I will say that possibly more folks are moved to tears spiritually week after week by the song Amazing Grace that by the book of Romans! :smiley:

from chapter 2 (“The Obvious Blunders”) of G. K. Chesterton’s The Catholic Church and Conversion (1926)

I still look at it this way.
Click on pic for the whole thing.


The people who wrote the Bible were fallible men as well. The Spirit of God guided them in truth and wisdom just as He continues guide us today.
To me, a lot of what is in the Bible was written to teach and is not to read literally. The best way to communicate spiritual knowledge is through universal languages such as music, poetry, and stories. Take the story of Noah and the Ark for example. This tale is found in books that are much older than the Bible, but they are remembered and passed on from generation to generation. The stories may be told in many different ways but the truths contained in them remain the same.

I think this might be useful, so I will share it from Wiki (actually, the whole Wiki article, is relevant to this discussion):

One need only peruse through the Wiki article Internal consistency of the Bible, for various approaches to this topic. It’s interesting to look at the topic heading modern:

As an aside, I found this discussion interesting on Quora:

How can the alleged miracle of the Holy Fire of Jerusalem be explained? Also see Holy Fire

What does Jeff and others here think, of the alleged miracle of the Holy Fire of Jerusalem :question:

Question for Jeff and others: How to you reconcile the book of Genesis, with modern theories of Evolution, Big Bang, Old Earth, etc. :question:

P.S. for Jeff and others. Look at Left Brain Vs Right Brain. Sometimes, I use the part of my brain, that Mr. Data and Mr. Spock of Star Trek - like to use. Sometimes I use the other part, which Holy Fool Trainees and P-Zombie Wannabees - like to use. Sometimes, I mix them up on purpose. :exclamation: :laughing:

Is the following “God’s flawless word”?

These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever. It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
(Jude 12-15 ESV)

Jude took this quotation from the Book of Enoch. Clearly Jude believed the writer was “the seventh from Adam,” that is, the historic Enoch who didn’t die, but whom “God took” (Gen 5:24). Other Christians in the first two centuries also thought the book was written by the historic Enoch. But it wasn’t. I have a copy of Enoch. The writer claims to be that historic Enoch, the son of Jared. Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria cite the book of Enoch without questioning its sacred character. Origen (A.D. 254) in quoting Hebrew literature assigns to the book of Enoch, the same authority as to the Psalms.

The following is a quote from the introduction to the Book of Enoch, ©COPYRIGHT 1976 BY WIZARDS BOOKSHELF:

So clearly this book was not written by the historic Enoch, “the seventh from Adam” as Jude had written. So was Jude’s statement that he WAS the seventh from Adam, “the flawless word of God”? I don’t think so.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God proves true.

Jeff, I also believe the truth of this proverb. But this proverb is a far cry from asseverating that every sentence in the Bible is the word of God.

I follow this explanation, christiancourier.com/articles/562-did-jude-quote-from-the-book-of-enoch which answers all your objections.

Certainly every sentence, word, jot, and tittle in the God-breathed Scripture is flawless and without error. And so the goal before us is to assemble these Scriptures into God’s library, also known as the Bible. And so the Bibles we have are the best efforts of Christians through the centuries to present the inspired word to believers.

@paidon, you’ve obviously come to some hard-one conclusions, as have I, and so perhaps we may not persuade one another. However, you keep pulling out debated passages as if that were an argument against the claim that God’s word is flawless. I think I’ve already made my point that any communication from God whether direct or God-breathed through the inspired writers of Scripture is flawless. The point is that God cannot err in his communication because he is God. However, the inerrancy only applies to the original autographs. So it is possible that Jude any other Bible book contains an error in the transcription or translation. So finding a debated passage may not further our discussion on the point in question.

Now I am still curious about the answer to my previous question. How many books do you put on your list of God-breathed Scripture?

Amen.

We get flaw and error with our preposterous interpretations of God’s precious scriptures. The main point of this message board testifies to this dichotomy: A great many people absurdly believe that God’s flawless scriptures teach never-ending damnation, when the truth is that the scriptures clearly teach universalism. Sadly, many unbelievers use the falsehood that the perfect scriptures teach never-ending damnation as a pretext to reject the scriptures.

Scriptures = perfection
our private interpretations = moronic idiocy

No, I don’t. I “keep pulling out” passages to show that the Protestant (and Catholic and Orthodox) “canon of Scripture” contains errors in many places. I didn’t make any claim at all against God’s word being trustworthy. No “Bible” is tantamount to “God’s word.”

No. That is not the point at all. The point is defining precisely what God’s word is. You say it’s the Protestant Bible without any evidence whatever, and when evidence is brought to the contrary, you feel obligated to defend it anyway, repeating the same old mantra.

The original autographs of what? The Protestant Bible? It’s easy to make a claim for some mental construct that can be neither verified nor disproved. And that is precisely the claim you are making since the original autographs do not exist. In other words, you have no basis for saying the original autographs were inerrant. You seem simply to have the need to believe it. Would your faith in Christ collapse if an original manuscript were discovered that contained a factual error?

WOW :slight_smile:

Our preposterous interpretations, I would say, are all predicated on where we are at a given time. Whether we are where we will be at some point in the future remains to be seen or experienced.

But most interpretations… preposterous, possible, or in our mind valid, are ideas that are proposed to us and we shall react to such verbiage. Paul calls it the call… some say it is conversion.

The Idea is valid that the Gospel message will call people. It will make them evaluate their lives and show a finer way. It changes folks!

We need to realize that and acknowledge that as we debate these things.

If we have a document with 66 books, and people are responding to the message, how are we to complain? If we feel the message is wrong, so it may be our call to point that out. If it is more or different books, super duper. My Mom is a huge fan of the book of Jasher. She really likes it for some reason. It is her. :slight_smile:

Let’s look at this in love and realize that most of us have made theological changes.

Just a thought.

Chad

No Paidon. The original autographs are the actual documents penned by Moses, the prophets, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc as inspired by God. The Protestant Bible simply claims to be a collection of transcriptions and translations of those original documents.

What verification would be proof enough for you that the originals are without err? How would you judge God’s word to be true? Against what standard? For me the proof is that when God speaks or writes it is impossible for him to err, just as he said.

Would my faith collapse if God directly spoke or inspired writing with err? Happily my faith is in a God who does not err.

What did you think of the explanation about Jude in the previous link? I guess I’ll stop asking you to share your list of God-breathed Scriptures. However, it seems fair if you do not like my proposition that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are the collection of transcriptions and translations of those original documents… then lets carry the conversation forward and you share your proposed list.

Good. For it has never occurred to me to construct such a list. I presume from your post above, that your list is “the actual documents penned by Moses, the prophets, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc.” Is that correct? Does the “etc.” include the letter of Clement (Paul’s fellow worker) to the Corinthians? If not, why not? If another letter written by Paul were discovered, would you include that in your list? Paul indicated that he wrote a letter to the Laodiceans.

Colossians 4:16 (NASB) When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.

There is extant a letter purporting to be Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans. If that were proved genuine, would you include that in your list of “God-breathed Scriptures”?

It is not your list or my list of “God-breathed Scriptures” that is important. It is what Paul meant in 2 Timothy 3:16. The first thing to understand is that the Greek word “γραφη” (graphā) can simply mean “a writing” and not necessarily some special writing called “Scripture.” The second thing to understand, is that if Paul did mean a special list of “inspired writings” he probably referred to the Hebrew writings, as those were the ones that the Jewish Christians consulted. It is highly unlikely that he included the writings of “Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc.”

It might also be instructive to be aware that the translators of several versions offer an alternate translation that is also true to the Greek:

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
(2 Timothy 3:16 ASV American Standard Version 1901)

All Scripture that is divinely inspired is also profitable, etc. (Revised Standard Version of 1881)

Every scripture inspired by God is also useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (New Revised Standard Version 1989 given as an alternative reading)

And a less literal translation:

Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind (New English Bible 1970)

Again, you are starting with the assumption that particular writings and no others are God’s writings. The question is not whether God errs when He speaks or inspires (He doesn’t write). The question is whether or not He is the author of every sentence in the works you consider to be God-breathed. It is much more likely that the authors of the writings you listed, though they may have been inspired by God, wrote using their human minds and understanding, and sometimes made errors. There is nothing within these writings that indicates that God preserved them from making mistakes when they wrote.

Yes, precisely. What is meant by 2 Timothy 3:16?

What? Every New Testament usage of G1124 is obviously Scripture. This is the NT word for Scripture even if it had alternate denotations in the Greek world at the time.

Again what? 2 Peter 3:16 makes it plain that the New Testament writers knew they were writing Scripture. You are in error on this point also.

I’ll add a third point that the 21st Nestle Greek interlinear translates the phrase, “Every Scripture [is] God-breathed.” The sentence structure demands that God-breathed and profitable modifies Scripture, meaning that all Scripture is God-breathed, rather than God-breathed writings being a sub-set of Scripture as the ASV, RSV, and NRSV wrongly translate. Consult with any Greek scholar and they will tell you so.

Certainly as Christians assembled the cannon these and other books were evaluated for inclusion in the canon. I haven’t studied each case in depth and can hardly answer all your questions in this forum. I suggest that you begin to study the volumes that already exist on the subject. I do understand some of the criterion of apostolic and early church witness to the documents, internal consistency, historical evidence, etc. I have used some similar methods to answer your objections to a Psalm because it seemed out of character with God, as well as your concern about Jude. However, you didn’t really seem to consider my answers before raising more questions. Seems like we need to slow down here. Further, I don’t think this forum post is going to answer all the objections you seem to have.

You seem to be rattling off a growing list of objections, but your primary objection seems to be that you do not acknowledge that God has give us special unique God-breathed written messages. You say it never even occurred to you construct a list of these documents. Frankly I am not sure what Scripture even means to you then. What is the difference between Paul’s writing and my own book? God forbid that I would claim that my works are God-breathed as were his. For myself my heart beat is roused to consider that God gave us his love letters and it is my passion to study even the transcriptions and translations of the lost sources. I have appreciated the debate, but I haven’t been persuaded to change my proposed statement after our discussion and need to get back to some pressing projects.

Again, going back to the hymnal example, in putting together such a book, one cannot include every song ever written about God. It would be too voluminous. One must pick and choose which songs to include from amongst that many that were written. This does not mean that those chosen were " God breathed " while the others were not. I’d say they were all inspired by God. There are thousands of people who write about God and give testimony to the works He has done in their lives. I don’t see a problem with including this as scripture. If it teaches others about God and leads them to Him, why not?