"David V." <spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:5bCdnR5g3J7s8LbcRVn-sw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jude & Sandra wrote:
> > "St. Jacknapes" <blowe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> >
> >> In alt.christnet.prayer, Jude & Sandra said...
> >>> The bible says that God misleads on occasion. I
> >>> didn't say that.
> >>
> >> That makes God a lair.
> >
> > Not so. It ONLY means that the bible is inerrant and
> > contradicts itself. God is NOT limited by some book
> > people have written.
>
> The claim is that that book was *INSPIRED*, in other words;
> dictated, by this god of yours. If it's in error and
> contradicts itself, then your god is a liar. Now, if you
> wish to claim that humans messed up the bible, why do you
> only pick out the parts you like and toss the rest? How do
> you know which parts are true and which are false? While
> you're making up some lie to answer those questions,
> remember that the whole book is a lie.
Geez, I NEVER claimed that the book was inspired. Christians have been
handed a big booby prize by making them believe the bible has NO errors.
Most Christians believe in the inerrancy but some of us DO NOT. Plus, it
is
better to NOT make assumptions like "why do you only pick out the parts
you
like and toss the rest?" If that is not true, the one you're debating
will
begin to not take you seriously.
What I had was a personal chuckle with that one because during the
canonization of the bible, THAT'S exactly what was done. Out of hundreds
of
letters and papers, a group of people got together to pick and choose
which
would be considere "inspired of God." Thus, we have today what is called
the New Testament. They only picked those papers which they deemed as
non-contradictory to their beliefs.
Let's say we're brothers and I write a book about a uncle of ours. Do you
KNOW our uncle though my writing? No, you don't. You or other members of
our family may think thjey know our uncle but they ONLY know my perception
of him. If my made a mistake about some facts of my uncle, does that make
it so that our uncle doesn't exist? Does that mean I got EVERYTHING wrong
about our uncle? No. If I claim my book has NO errors, does that make
it
so? No. If I say you HAVE to believe everything I've written to believe
we
have a uncle, does that make it so? No. I could go on and on.
I believe the false teaching of the inerrancy of the New Testament
probably
began because the Jews claimed the OT was inerrant. Later on, so called
"church fathers" believed that inerrancy must be a fact and also wanted to
get rid of papers being circulated that has false teachings in them. Who
got to say what was false and true? Very FEW people today know who these
individuals were, what beliefs they held or just why they rejected some
over
others. They futhermore don't research enough to read what papers were
rejected. They blindly follow a false teaching. If anybody took the time
to research the beginning of the "bible" they would just start to begin to
realize how ridiculous the concept of inerrancy is. However, to bring
fundamentalists to the point of believing that the bible has errors is
very
difficult. I WAS a fundamentalist and I was the one who studied hard
enough
to start seeing things. It took me years to be able to accept it's
inerrancy and it nearly ruined my faith. I definately no longer put my
faith in other's interpretations or thier personal beliefs.
I understand your post better than you think I do. You can continue to
have
your opinion that if one doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the bible,
then
they're just picking and choosing. If that book didn't exist at all, the
message of Jesus Christ would continue JUST as it did prior to the
canonization of the books we know as the New Testament. I believe in God
and in Jesus Christ as Savior. ANYTHING else is superfluous. It worked
well enough before canonization of books.
> --
> David V.
>
> UDP for WebTV
>
|
