Ivellious - some corrections :)

[Jac3510]

Ah so only Christ gets to speak for God, not the Bible? And where do you find the words of Christ?

Not only are you a biblical errantist, but you are also neo-orthodox, at least fundamentally.

Well that's the beauty of discussion boards. Our positions become clear rather quickly. Now your theological relativism is making some sense. Barth would be proud.

As for me, I'll simply point out that I'm affirming just what Scripture says and you are denying the very words of Scripture. Men were not inspired to write the Bible. The Bible itself is inspired. I'm sorry that you don't believe that, but you should be honest enough with the board to tell people the position you are arguing from.

[PaulSacramento]

Ah so only Christ gets to speak for God, not the Bible? And where do you find the words of Christ?

Not only are you a biblical errantist, but you are also neo-orthodox, at least fundamentally.

Well that's the beauty of discussion boards. Our positions become clear rather quickly. Now your theological relativism is making some sense. Barth would be proud.

As for me, I'll simply point out that I'm affirming just what Scripture says and you are denying the very words of Scripture. Men were not inspired to write the Bible. The Bible itself is inspired. I'm sorry that you don't believe that, but you should be honest enough with the board to tell people the position you are arguing from.

I don't think that I have ever suggested that I was an bible inerrantist.
I was very clear from the very beginning, heck one of my first posts was to discuss Kenton Sparks book: God's word in Human words.
Hardly the view of a bible inerrantist.

You seem to be imply that if a person is not a bible inerrantist in the way YOU think they must be, they don't value the bible.
I do.
I do NOT believe that the bible has any theological errors at all and I believe that the bible was inspired by the HS.
I just don't think that WE believe that in the same way.
Look at WLC view:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/men-move ... e-from-god

In conclusion, it seems to me that the traditional doctrine of the plenary, verbal, confluent inspiration of Scripture is a coherent doctrine, given divine middle knowledge. Because God knew the relevant counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, He was able to decree a world containing just those circumstances and persons such that the authors of Scripture would freely compose their respective writings, which God intended to be His gracious Word to us. In the providence of God, the Bible is thus both the Word of God and the word of man.

by William Lane Craig

I deny no words of scripture, I simply state that they may not mean what YOU think they mean or perhaps what you may WANT them to mean.
I stated that I believe the bible is accomodated to us and to quote WLC once more:

We should not sell the doctrine of accommodation short. After all, in choosing to inspire the biblical books at all, God has already accommodated Himself to speaking in the languages of Hebrew and Greek and has thus limited His expression to what the grammar and vocabulary of those languages permit. Having stooped so low, is it incredible that He should also take account of the further limitations and idiosyncrasies of each individual author, so that through one He speaks in the language of a shepherd, through another in the language of a civil servant, and so on?

[Byblos]

Ah so only Christ gets to speak for God, not the Bible? And where do you find the words of Christ?

Not only are you a biblical errantist, but you are also neo-orthodox, at least fundamentally.

Well that's the beauty of discussion boards. Our positions become clear rather quickly. Now your theological relativism is making some sense. Barth would be proud.

As for me, I'll simply point out that I'm affirming just what Scripture says and you are denying the very words of Scripture. Men were not inspired to write the Bible. The Bible itself is inspired. I'm sorry that you don't believe that, but you should be honest enough with the board to tell people the position you are arguing from.

I don't think that I have ever suggested that I was an bible inerrantist.
I was very clear from the very beginning, heck one of my first posts was to discuss Kenton Sparks book: God's word in Human words.
Hardly the view of a bible inerrantist.

You seem to be imply that if a person is not a bible inerrantist in the way YOU think they must be, they don't value the bible.
I do.
I do NOT believe that the bible has any theological errors at all and I believe that the bible was inspired by the HS.
I just don't think that WE believe that in the same way.
Look at WLC view:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/men-move ... e-from-god

In conclusion, it seems to me that the traditional doctrine of the plenary, verbal, confluent inspiration of Scripture is a coherent doctrine, given divine middle knowledge. Because God knew the relevant counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, He was able to decree a world containing just those circumstances and persons such that the authors of Scripture would freely compose their respective writings, which God intended to be His gracious Word to us. In the providence of God, the Bible is thus both the Word of God and the word of man.

by William Lane Craig

I deny no words of scripture, I simply state that they may not mean what YOU think they mean or perhaps what you may WANT them to mean.
I stated that I believe the bible is accomodated to us and to quote WLC once more:

We should not sell the doctrine of accommodation short. After all, in choosing to inspire the biblical books at all, God has already accommodated Himself to speaking in the languages of Hebrew and Greek and has thus limited His expression to what the grammar and vocabulary of those languages permit. Having stooped so low, is it incredible that He should also take account of the further limitations and idiosyncrasies of each individual author, so that through one He speaks in the language of a shepherd, through another in the language of a civil servant, and so on?

Paul, none of what you quoted supports your position in any material way. The fact remains if you believe scripture contains errors then fundamentally none of it can be relied upon. That's the position you ultimately box yourself into, there is no middle ground.

[neo-x]

FWIW I understand what paul is saying and I do agree with him.

[PaulSacramento]

I do NOT believe that scripture contains error per say.
I believe that if scripture is not interpreted as per its genre, that there will be errors.
I do believe that scripture contains minor errors of transmission and such BUT that there are no theological errors.
I fall in with the likes of Bruce Metzger and company.
ex:
https://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy

Thanks for your understanding neo.