PDA

View Full Version : Followup to another question posed in this thread on inerrancy



rizdek
April 12th 2008, 08:00 AM
I realize I chance ridicule for being thick, but how does "Inerrancy is a doctrine made from logic, not from direct Biblical statements. That said, one would put together I Timothy 3:16 with Titus 1:2, and it is hard to see anything but inerrancy." answer the question of inerrancy. Since i can't make a response within the thread, I have to make a new thread. Please indulge me by explaining more thoroughly the interpretation of these two scriptures. Perhaps I looked them up incorrectly, but here is what I found:

Titus 1: 2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

If it is the statement "which God, that cannot lie" then why add 1 Timothy?

ApologiaPhoenix
June 5th 2008, 10:17 AM
I realize I chance ridicule for being thick, but how does "Inerrancy is a doctrine made from logic, not from direct Biblical statements. That said, one would put together I Timothy 3:16 with Titus 1:2, and it is hard to see anything but inerrancy." answer the question of inerrancy. Since i can't make a response within the thread, I have to make a new thread. Please indulge me by explaining more thoroughly the interpretation of these two scriptures. Perhaps I looked them up incorrectly, but here is what I found:

Titus 1: 2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

If it is the statement "which God, that cannot lie" then why add 1 Timothy?

They're added because they're both relevant. Paul was writing to different people but said two things that both speak of the inerrancy of Scripture based on the nature of God in them.