Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Poll: The word of God is inerrant.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Some think that infallible means not only without error but also incapable of error although the RCC seems to define infallible as being along the lines of "immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church." For purposes of this thread let's go with something closer to the latter definition of infallible.
    Don't you think the latter definition puts us in a rather unfortunate position with skeptics?
    I cannot blame a skeptic for reading that definition as: "We believe the Bible is immune to fallacy or liability to error in all matters that cannot be tested via the scientific method."
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
      Don't you think the latter definition puts us in a rather unfortunate position with skeptics?
      I cannot blame a skeptic for reading that definition as: "We believe the Bible is immune to fallacy or liability to error in all matters that cannot be tested via the scientific method."
      and?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        Normally I don't speak outside of the inter-varsity, but I'll make an exception here. Let's look at the statement in question.

        “I affirm that the Bible alone, and in its entirety, is the infallible written Word of God in the original text and is, therefore, inerrant in all that it affirms or denies on whatever topic it addresses.”

        I suspect this is Geisler's petition that he put up. Well Craig Blomberg and myself both went and signed the petition because we can agree to it. When we went back and checked, our signatures had been removed. . . .
        The signatures are in the order in which they were signed. Please, what was the Month and year?There are over 900 signature blocks to search for a name. Thanks for this input.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #19
          Found it.

          https://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2...e-inerrantist/

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            First, thank for this information.

            Second, I am, at this time, dumbfounded by this. icon_jawdrop2.gif
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Kinda figured I would since some folks use them interchangeably.

              Inerrancy traditionally means there are no errors whatsoever
              Where "traditionally" means "in the minds of the vast illiterati."
              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

              Beige Federalist.

              Nationalist Christian.

              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

              Proud member of the this space left blank community.

              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

              Justice for Matthew Perna!

              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                There is a petition being signed stating: “I affirm that the Bible alone, and in its entirety, is the infallible written Word of God in the original text and is, therefore, inerrant in all that it affirms or denies on whatever topic it addresses.”
                What exactly does Normie mean by "affirm" and "deny"?

                What books constitute "The Bible"?

                What vault contains the pristine and undefiled "original texts"?

                How is this relevant, given that inerrancy of the alleged original texts does in and of itself guarantee inerrancy of transmission (copying)?

                How is this relevant, given that it is patently obvious to anyone familiar with more than one language that there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation from one language to another?

                How is this relevant, given that even excellent transmission and translation, there is no perfect "inerrant" hermeneutical method?
                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                Beige Federalist.

                Nationalist Christian.

                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Vote for Norm Geisler as First Protestant Pope

                  Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                  Paging Nick:
                  Despite this modern safeguard, ...
                  Incredibly, some notable evangelical scholars began to express their support for Licona’s view, considering it consistent with a belief in inerrancy.
                  Whoops,did you miss something?

                  Inerrancy is an interesting concept. It affirms that God can communicate through special revelation rather than just personally to each one of us or not at all. That he uses words. That he gives these words to men who have the freedom to represent them in ways they see fit. That these words represent the whole panoply of genres. It suggests that the original text had a meaning that God intended and that the original audience would have understood. Further that with hard work we can get to what the original audience understood and the words can be useful across the generations.

                  There will be copying errors leading to 400,000+ variants (and growing). There will be questions of genre (there are 7+ conservative Bible-believing interpretations of Genesis 1 currently).
                  There will be additions by copiest who were also editing to help their readers.

                  The magisterium of the Catholic Church is the authority or office of the Church to establish its own authentic teachings. That authority is vested uniquely by the pope and by the bishops who are in communion with the correct and true teachings of the faith. Sacred scripture and sacred tradition "make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church",and the magisterium is not independent of this, since "all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is derived from this single deposit of faith. (Wikipedia)

                  This move by Geisler is nothing more than establishing a magisterium in the Protestant church, and proclaiming himself Pope. He and his ilk are creating doctrine based on traditional understanding held by Fundamentalist (tradition).

                  He has made textual criticism, hermeneutics, and exegesis of the scriptures as moot in the Protestant churches as it has been for 1500 years in the Catholic Church. And I for one am glad as that stuff is complex and hard work.

                  I want to take a poll.

                  How many people would like to just repeat what the Protestant Pope (Norm Geisler) says, and then gatekeep those positions to the death?

                  And how many want to adopt the difficult uncertain work of textual criticism, hermeneutics and exegesis, to get at what the original audience would have understood?

                  A side question, do we really need the Holy Spirit to "Lead us I to all truth," or has the Holy Spirit given us Norm and his magisterium to do that function? Perhaps the Holy Spirit took the last train to the coast?

                  For a more detailed look at why Geisler is damning the majority of the ETS, and the EPS and impugning even some of the original framers of the Chicago Statement see:

                  http://youtu.be/4RkpCAOvEGQ

                  Remember to vote in my poll

                  Vote 1 for Norm Geisler should be the first Protestant Pope

                  Vote 2'for Paternalism and arguments from authority be damned, Jesus was a marvelous intellect and I will stop being lazy and do the hard intellectual work in a respectful manner.

                  So no one ever accused my polls of being pithy.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    What you seemed to have missed is the fact that in 1978, while on the campus of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Norm Geisler was met by an angel Moroni (translated means "Little Moron") and he showed Norm Geisler where the original text of the New Testament had been kept in a stone box for 1880+ years.

                    Originally Norm was going to publish this book as the Book of Norman, but both Baker and Zondervan refused to publish it saying it reminded them of another title that they couldn't put their fingers on just then.

                    Needless to say it is clear, to me anyways, that Norman Geisler does have the original autograph, and he also has the original commentary.

                    We should stop "kicking against the goads," and accept that the Holy Spirit, textual criticism, hermeneutics, and exegesis are no longer necessary, and just ask, "What Would Norman Say?"

                    Uber

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Ubergenius View Post
                      What you seemed to have missed is the fact that in 1978, while on the campus of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Norm Geisler was met by an angel Moroni (translated means "Little Moron") and he showed Norm Geisler where the original text of the New Testament had been kept in a stone box for 1880+ years.

                      Originally Norm was going to publish this book as the Book of Norman, but both Baker and Zondervan refused to publish it saying it reminded them of another title that they couldn't put their fingers on just then.

                      Needless to say it is clear, to me anyways, that Norman Geisler does have the original autograph, and he also has the original commentary.

                      We should stop "kicking against the goads," and accept that the Holy Spirit, textual criticism, hermeneutics, and exegesis are no longer necessary, and just ask, "What Would Norman Say?"

                      Uber

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                        What exactly does Normie mean by "affirm" and "deny"?
                        The Chicago Statement was drafted in 1978. To "affirm" means that which is believed to be true. To "deny" means that which is believed to be false.

                        What books constitute "The Bible"?
                        In American (USA) English without qualification refers to the 66 book Book.

                        What vault contains the pristine and undefiled "original texts"?
                        Question: Are you that gullible?

                        How is this relevant, given that inerrancy of the alleged original texts does in and of itself guarantee inerrancy of transmission (copying)?
                        No. Who says it does?

                        How is this relevant, given that it is patently obvious to anyone familiar with more than one language that there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation from one language to another?
                        Can you read the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic copies? How do you tell if what you are reading was not altered?

                        How is this relevant, given that even excellent transmission and translation, there is no perfect "inerrant" hermeneutical method?
                        People are not inerrant, God is.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          The Chicago Statement was drafted in 1978. To "affirm" means that which is believed to be true. To "deny" means that which is believed to be false.
                          I don't care what the Chicago Statement says, unless there is some explicit, overt linkage between Normie's quote in the poll and said Statement.

                          As to the substance of my question, your response is too vague to be useful. Is "affirm" limited to "explicitly state"? If it is more broadly defined, such that what is "affirmed" is a matter of hermeneutics, then who is the infallible arbiter of said hermeneutics? Same for "deny."


                          In American (USA) English without qualification refers to the 66 book Book.
                          Could you cite a source for that? I mean, as a Protestant, that is normally what *I* think of when I hear "the Bible," but I suspect an RC or OC may not.



                          Question: Are you that gullible?
                          Question: Are you so dim that you can't recognize sarcasm?


                          No. Who says it does?
                          Sorry, typo. I thought I'd typed "does NOT guarantee..." Kind of messed up the whole point of the question, in a "Thou shalt commit adultery" kind of way.


                          Can you read the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic copies? How do you tell if what you are reading was not altered?
                          I don't understand how this is a meaningful response to my question.

                          People are not inerrant, God is.
                          I don't understand how this is a meaningful response to my question.
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          Nationalist Christian.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                          Justice for Matthew Perna!

                          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                            I don't care what the Chicago Statement says, unless there is some explicit, overt linkage between Normie's quote in the poll and said Statement.

                            As to the substance of my question, your response is too vague to be useful. Is "affirm" limited to "explicitly state"? If it is more broadly defined, such that what is "affirmed" is a matter of hermeneutics, then who is the infallible arbiter of said hermeneutics? Same for "deny."

                            Your question was way too vague. Norman Geisler is not the topic of this thread. If there is a specific issue regarding inerrancy address it, not the person. Nick Peters issue with Geisler was specific. Ad hominem attacks means the one using that has nothing of substance to say.

                            Either one believes God and His written word is inerrant or one does not.
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              As soon as we talk about ICBI, Geisler becomes central to the issue of this thread.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                                I don't care what the Chicago Statement says, unless there is some explicit, overt linkage between Normie's quote in the poll and said Statement.
                                I believe there is. He mentions the Statement throughout the website, and specifically in the top border with a link to "The Statement".

                                As to the substance of my question, your response is too vague to be useful. Is "affirm" limited to "explicitly state"? If it is more broadly defined, such that what is "affirmed" is a matter of hermeneutics, then who is the infallible arbiter of said hermeneutics? Same for "deny."
                                Unless I'm missing something I think by "affirm" Dr. Geisler is simply using the standard definition of the word: "to state or assert positively; maintain as true:" "to express agreement with or commitment to; uphold; support:". It doesn't occur to me while reading the word "affirm" in context that Geisler is defining it more broadly in the sense you're asking about. I'm not even really sure how that would work exactly.

                                Could you cite a source for that? I mean, as a Protestant, that is normally what *I* think of when I hear "the Bible," but I suspect an RC or OC may not.
                                It looks like the Defending Inerrancy website is mainly directed to Evangelical Protestants, and since the issue is between Evangelical Protestants, it's probably a safe bet that a Protestant position is what's in mind. But specifically, Article I of the Chicago Statement reads:

                                WE AFFIRM: that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
                                WE DENY: that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.


                                While recognizing the potential for irony in the above, the DENY section is something the RCC and the EO are unlikely to agree with.

                                I don't understand how this is a meaningful response to my question.

                                I don't understand how this is a meaningful response to my question.
                                I think what he's getting at is that the statement in the petition doesn't have anything to do with the inerrancy of the hermeneutical method, but in the inerrancy of the Bible.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                1 response
                                24 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                61 responses
                                290 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                299 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 02-15-2024, 11:52 AM
                                74 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 02-06-2024, 12:46 PM
                                60 responses
                                337 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X