Those who never Heard the Message

[PaulSacramento]

The problem with debating Neo utilizing Scripture is that it appears there is so much of what it says that he doesn't believe is true or is actually God's word.

Is it possible for someone to believe in God, but not that the bible is the word of God?

Yes, of course.
There was belief in God before the bible and if the bible was to disappear tomorrow, do you think that God would disappear too?

[PaulSacramento]

To know ALL of God's mind would mean to have a complete understanding of ALL there ever was, is, or ever will be.

But while God left some mysteries in Scripture, it was primarily given so as to be instructive and beneficial - meaning, properly studied, most of it CAN be understood and applied. Otherwise, it would be of little good to us. Scripture that is not God-inspired and given, is useless to us. But a study of the history of how the Church received the Bible shows a protected history and continuity that is remarkable. So, while there are false gospels and groups who add to Scripture, there is a protected whole that we can have faith to be God's unified Word. As God is all powerful, as He came to DIE for His Word that points to Christ, would He not find it important to protect and preserve that word? Would He not have the POWER to protect it? Those that assert that many parts of Scripture are not God's actual inspired words are on very dangerous ground. They are picking and choosing what parts to believe and what not to. And if we couldn't know the difference, the Bible would be just a matter of a guessing and debating truths from non-truths that would be meaningless to us. So, is God in control or not? Is His word important to Him or not? If you believe that Scripture is mostly JUST the words of man, that much of it is not God's word, then what does that say about God and how He views its integrity? He created a world and universe of unfathomable detail and complexity, and yet people think He didn't think it important - or COULDN'T - protect His word???!!! Absurd!

Tell me Phillip, do you believe that ALL of the books and letters and poems and so forth in the bible, ALL are God's word? come DIRECTLY from Him and passed on by Man unaltered ?

[Philip]

Paul: Tell me Phillip, do you believe that ALL of the books and letters and poems and so forth in the bible, ALL are God's word? come DIRECTLY from Him and passed on by Man unaltered ?

I believe the 66 books in Protestant Bibles are God's inspired Word - excepting some very minor places, it's what He wanted in the canon. However, that is not to say there aren't many but meaningless copyist errors of a variety of types. There are a couple of places that scholars can reliably show that some scribe added a few verses. Perhaps the most grievous, are the final verses of Mark, people being able to take up snakes, etc. But there are only a few such places, they are well known, the huge number of manuscripts available allow us to see exactly those places when compared to earlier manuscript copies. God has given us a way to see the incredible continuity in Scripture, and where there have been deviations. But not one doctrinal point is in question with the few problematic passages. God protected what was IMPORTANT in the documents and copies to give us a protected canon. This means the minor errors and the tiny few problematic verses (likely added) are discernible and irrelevant. And He gave His word through mortal, failable men. In fact, he uses such failable men to do His work on earth, to spread His Gospel. God doesn't need pristine manuscripts or people to effectively communicate and spread His word.

Here are scholars' insights on this issue: https://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/B ... e_Evidence

[PaulSacramento]

Paul: Tell me Phillip, do you believe that ALL of the books and letters and poems and so forth in the bible, ALL are God's word? come DIRECTLY from Him and passed on by Man unaltered ?

I believe the 66 books in Protestant Bibles are God's inspired Word - excepting some very minor places, it's what He wanted in the canon. However, that is not to say there aren't many but meaningless copyist errors of a variety of types. There are a couple of places that scholars can reliably show that some scribe added a few verses. Perhaps the most grievous, are the final verses of Mark, people being able to take up snakes, etc. But there are only a few such places, they are well known, the huge number of manuscripts available allow us to see exactly those places when compared to earlier manuscript copies. God has given us a way to see the incredible continuity in Scripture, and where there have been deviations. But not one doctrinal point is in question with the few problematic passages. God protected what was IMPORTANT in the documents and copies to give us a protected canon. This means the minor errors and the tiny few problematic verses (likely added) are discernible and irrelevant. And He gave His word through mortal, failable men. In fact, he uses such failable men to do His work on earth, to spread His Gospel. God doesn't need pristine manuscripts or people to effectively communicate and spread His word.

Here are scholars' insights on this issue: https://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/B ... e_Evidence

Protestant bible eh?
What makes THOSE the only ones?

[EssentialSacrifice]

Philip wrote:

Here are some good insights on this issue: https://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/B ... e_Evidence

You must be very wary of your sources here philip. This Ankerberg fellow is not only not a scholar, he perverts the word of God, outright lies and is in denial of biblical morays and scriptural veracity. He is, IMO, a heretic in may ways and will absolutely be called on the carpet, by God, 2 Timothy 4:3, for his teachings that have lead many astray.

[Philip]

You must be very wary of your sources here philip. This Ankerberg fellow is not only not a scholar, he perverts the word of God, outright lies and is in denial of biblical morays and scriptural veracity. He is, IMO, a heretic in may ways and will absolutely be called on the carpet, by God, 2 Timothy 4:3, for his teachings that have lead many astray.

I changed the wording, as Ankerberg himself is not a scholar. HOWEVER, he is merely putting forth what conservative Bible scholars assert. I see you don't argue his evidence, but attack his character. That is very telling, and likely because you either don't like his OEC views or his rebuttal of false Catholic teachings. I have been reading Ankerberg's materials for well over 20 years, and theologically, his teachings and beliefs are right there with many excellent evangelical scholars and teachers. When you know that men like Norman Geisler and Ravi Zacharias have great appreciation and respect for him, what you assert is laughable.

His views are right there with some of them most important and prominent evangelicals of our time - including these that also signed the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy: http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special ... _typed.pdf

[PaulSacramento]

Not sure why the Chicago statement on Inerrancy should mean anything to anyone...

[Storyteller]

Is it not just man's opinion on what is true?

[Philip]

Storyteller: Is it not just man's opinion on what is true?

No! The criteria base of the statement comes from Scripture.

Here's what the statement contains: http://defendinginerrancy.com/chicago-statements/

Here's more on it: http://www.theopedia.com/Chicago_Statem ... _Inerrancy

[PaulSacramento]

Storyteller: Is it not just man's opinion on what is true?

No! The criteria base of the statement comes from Scripture.

Here's what the statement contains: http://defendinginerrancy.com/chicago-statements/

Here's more on it: http://www.theopedia.com/Chicago_Statem ... _Inerrancy

I think the point is that THEIR affirmation means nothing.
The very fact that the bible IS the authoritative written word of God means that it does NOT need man's approval.

[Storyteller]

Storyteller: Is it not just man's opinion on what is true?

No! The criteria base of the statement comes from Scripture.

Here's what the statement contains: http://defendinginerrancy.com/chicago-statements/

Here's more on it: http://www.theopedia.com/Chicago_Statem ... _Inerrancy

Guess what I'm reading tonight?

[Philip]

Storyteller: Is it not just man's opinion on what is true?

No! The criteria base of the statement comes from Scripture.

Here's what the statement contains: http://defendinginerrancy.com/chicago-statements/

Here's more on it: http://www.theopedia.com/Chicago_Statem ... _Inerrancy

Here's the statement with commentary after each point, by Norman Geisler - one of the most important theologians of our time!

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html Read through it - well worth doing!

[PaulSacramento]

People tend to always bring Paul's comment in 2Timothy as proof that the bible is the inerrant word of God BUT it doesn't really matter what Paul thought or anyone for that matter.
It certainly doesn't matter to me.
I hold the bible as sacred and divine because I choose to, period.

Paul's statement, by the way, was simply that because the bible was inspired by God that it IS useful for :
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

That is all that Paul said.

IMO, certain parts of the bible are EXPLICITLY inspired ( Where God actually says something or reveals something in a divine way or when Christ is recorded as speaking) others are IMPLICITLY inspired such as secondary comments about what God said or Christ said and others are simply the writings of inspired men ( the epistles typically).
Look at the Gospel of Luke, does Luke say his writings are inspired?
Nope, what he says is this:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Luke states that He is passing on what was handed down to Him (Us Apostles) from those that were eyewitnesses.

The GOL IS an inspired writing because we have in it the words of Christ and Luke was most certainly inspired by the HS to collect these accounts and pass them on ( Thank the Lord He did).

BUT was Luke under the direct influence of God when He wrote?
He doesn't seem to think so.

This does NOT, IMO, make His writing any less inspired then the others BUT does make them of a different kind of inspiration than the writings of Isaiah for example or John ( Revelation).

[Storyteller]

I know I am not well versed in the Bible and know little about the inerrancy of it (I had to look that word up, btw) but surely no one knows for absolute sure?

I do believe the Bible is the Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit and it is down to us to examine it carefully and to understand it.

When I read it, I do so with an open mind, I pray that God will show me what He wants me to know and I think about what it may mean from every angle possible.

As a side note... I thought it would be dull and boring. How wrong I was! It is quite simply, stunning. It has provoked more thought from me than anything else I have ever read.

[Philip]

The GOL IS an inspired writing because we have in it the words of Christ and Luke was most certainly inspired by the HS to collect these accounts and pass them on ( Thank the Lord He did).

BUT was Luke under the direct influence of God when He wrote?
He doesn't seem to think so.

Well, if God/The Holy Spirit inspired Luke "to collect these accounts and pass them on," why would you think God then entirely left it to Luke without guiding him? That makes little sense. And is God in control of the process of the transmission of Scripture or not?

This does NOT, IMO, make His writing any less inspired then the others BUT does make them of a different kind of inspiration than the writings of Isaiah for example or John ( Revelation).

Did God DICTATE word for word? No. Did God not utilize Luke's own style of writing? Sure. Some of the Bible writers were masters of language - others, not so much.

Many of the same debates are about the Old Testament - and yet Jesus Himself confirmed that the entire writings of the Prophets and The Law were God's Word and that the entirety of it pointed to Him - He was the OT's purpose. Why would we think God got sloppy with the NT? Start doubting it, you have to start doubting Jesus Himself - not to mention God's power to guide the writings and content. Did the NT writers themselves know (at the time) that they were writing Scripture - more often NOT. But that matters little.