Yes, see? There! It is always possible to reconcile "apparent" contradictions!
Ha, I see this "works" thing endlessly debated, "do you need works to be saved," etc. Personally, I never saw a contradiction, even as a neo; "faith w/o works is dead" how simple can it be?
So is the bible THE "Word of God"? Or is it "merely" inspired by God? One would think if it is THE "Word of God" there would be ZERO errors EVER. I mean, IF it is THE "Word of God" than each and every bible we hold in our hands is a living breathing entity.
I never thought of it in those terms Randy. Perhaps we use the term "Word of God" too loosely? We think in terms that since scripture is given by inspiration of God, it must be the Word of God.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Timothy 3:16)
I never thought of it in those terms Randy. Perhaps we use the term "Word of God" too loosely? We think in terms that since scripture is given by inspiration of God, it must be the Word of God.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Timothy 3:16)
And surely THE "Word of God" is much much bigger then what we see in the printed Word. And "In the Beginning" what language did God speak and how could any human dialect possibly convey it?
Perhaps in absolute terms the "Word" and His "Will" are one and the same and what we know of as the Bible is something altogether separate?
And surely THE "Word of God" is much much bigger then what we see in the printed Word. And "In the Beginning" what language did God speak and how could any human dialect possibly convey it?
Perhaps in absolute terms the "Word" and His "Will" are one and the same and what we know of as the Bible is something altogether separate?
I quote this, agreeing largely with subsequent points made by Nitehawk and Aquila, and you as well, I think, here. While they should not disagree with a proper interpretation of the Bible, other manifestations of the Word exist for verification of it; indeed, the Bible even alludes to its becoming a relic, while at the same time "these words shall never entirely pass away."
I believe that the original texts of the Bible were without error. Translations are often unclear and some are mistaken. For example:
Genesis 49:6 (KJV)
O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.
Genesis 49:6 (ESV)
6 Let my soul come not into their council;
O my glory, be not joined to their company.
For in their anger they killed men, and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen.
Even the OT Hebrew on which the KJV is based clearly states that they gored or "hamstrung oxen". The phrase was obviously a problem with the KJV translators.
I tend to think of "inspired" as God moved a man to write somethign God dealt with him to write. I don't take "Inspired" to mean God took control fo the man and made him write precise things like he was taking dictation from the Almighty.
Another interesting discussion I liek to think about is whether the canon is all the scripture we were really meant to have. After all, it was the majority who defined orthodox and heretical and decided what was apocryphal. Yes some of the apocryphal stuff is nonsense and completely contradicts the overall body of scripture, but others fit well. Some, such as Enoch, are quoted by our own Bible. Paul seems to have felt Enoch's writings were authoritative, yet it is left out of canon. It has some hard to believe stuff in it, but only becase we are conditions to refuse to believe that angels corrupted themselves by mating with women and teaching them "charms" or spells.
I tend to think of "inspired" as God moved a man to write somethign God dealt with him to write. I don't take "Inspired" to mean God took control fo the man and made him write precise things like he was taking dictation from the Almighty.
Another interesting discussion I liek to think about is whether the canon is all the scripture we were really meant to have. After all, it was the majority who defined orthodox and heretical and decided what was apocryphal. Yes some of the apocryphal stuff is nonsense and completely contradicts the overall body of scripture, but others fit well. Some, such as Enoch, are quoted by our own Bible. Paul seems to have felt Enoch's writings were authoritative, yet it is left out of canon. It has some hard to believe stuff in it, but only becase we are conditions to refuse to believe that angels corrupted themselves by mating with women and teaching them "charms" or spells.
I was told by an Evangelist that some of those writings might be "inspired" by God but not meant for the general population or for "preaching". But rather they are for those who wish to personally delve deeper into spiritual understanding. He believes angels took physical form and took human women, breaking God's ordinance of separation between man and angel. He might believe Enoch is authorative.
He believes angels took physical form and took human women, breaking God's ordinance of separation between man and angel. He might believe Enoch is authorative.
I tend to think of "inspired" as God moved a man to write somethign God dealt with him to write. I don't take "Inspired" to mean God took control fo the man and made him write precise things like he was taking dictation from the Almighty.
Another interesting discussion I liek to think about is whether the canon is all the scripture we were really meant to have. After all, it was the majority who defined orthodox and heretical and decided what was apocryphal. Yes some of the apocryphal stuff is nonsense and completely contradicts the overall body of scripture, but others fit well. Some, such as Enoch, are quoted by our own Bible. Paul seems to have felt Enoch's writings were authoritative, yet it is left out of canon. It has some hard to believe stuff in it, but only becase we are conditions to refuse to believe that angels corrupted themselves by mating with women and teaching them "charms" or spells.
True. The canon was determined essentially by "majority rules". BTW, it's not really the canon, as even today there are several canons in use by Christian denominations. Enoch is included in the Ethiopian canon, e.g.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Hybrid Mode
