Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Experiments versus Experience... A Philosophy Thread

You ask Ringman.

carbon12 posted:

“Note that there is no question of Ehrman's critical examination of the text. His examinations raised the unavoidable questions to the claim that the Bible is the invariant word of a perfect God. At the most basic level, inconsistencies in the text (identified for anyone to see for themselves) are inconsistent with a perfect God.”

Two comments here: First, “inconsistencies in the text…. are inconsistent with a perfect God.” How would you know or how could you know what a “perfect God” would deliver to his church? Are you supposing to know what a “perfect God” would give? Or, is the product, not something YOU think a “perfect God” would provide? One should take care in judging God because He does something WE don’t like or agree with.

Second: Consider this comment by another .scholar:

New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential -- spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time. Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.

So, if choose to believe the opportunist selling books to those who want to discredit the Bible, you are free to do so. But you do so in error.

TF

That's not a big question. That's a silly question desperate to demean, or abjectly ignorant of history. The big question, then, is, how does anyone know so little about the creation of islam in this decade?

Your assaults on Christianity do no damage but to yourself. No one's ever does. That might tell you something, if you can utilize intellect, rather than agenda.

Why no. It should be celebrated everyday. Particularly, in defiance of those who would curtail such essential liberties.

I meant my commentary to be more about the Bible than about God and should be read as such.

My concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God does not include a Holy Bible of God's words fraught with the serious problematic textual issues as outlined by Ehrman and others.

The textual evidence more strongly indicates that the Bible is not the word of God but a collection of text written, translated, rewritten ad nauseum by men and eventually contrived to be the word of God.



Consider: When should one logically equate imperfection with perfection?

Am I in error if I say never?

You and I are standing on common ground.

Are you saying that you believe in God, but you do not believe God's word, the holy bible, to be true?

Thank you, Bigbuck215, for the compliment.

Christ's message is true, parts of the bible has some of that message ... the HS more.

Or is God's word limited to the bible.

Kent

"Are you saying that you believe in God, but you do not believe God's word, the holy bible, to be true?"

I think you would find that the vast majority of Christians do not believe in a LITERAL interpretation of the bible all the way thru.

Common sense dictates that its poetry be read as poetry and that allowances be made for a certain amount of hyperbole and other literary devices.

Once it is established that choices must be made between competing interpretations, claims of infallibility are ridiculous.

Good analogy, Kent. I doubt that even the known universe could contain God's Word.

You nailed it, Kent.

Some forum members may not know that at least one denomination has as a tenet that there is no communication with God apart from study of the bible.

Luke 9:26 Jesus says,
"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My Words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels."

I appreciate the other replies here but, yes, my inquiries were directed specifically to Ringman. It was an attempt to fathom any effective reasoning power on his part (was not seeking more of his persistent quoting of Scripture). No compliments indicated - the attempt has gone begging.

Is he actually that delusional to think that was a compliment?

Well, it certainly wasn't meant to be a compliment and Ringman knows that. I hope everybody else does too.

Personally, I believe all scripture is given by God and is profitable to the hearer, which also means I like to read my Bible aloud, unless I'm stand hunting.

I've noticed, for a long time, that if I have encountered an issue in working through a problem at work or home, if I start describing the problem to another, those audible words sort the thing out for me and provide the solution. I can't say how often that has been true, because it's been a lot of times.

Similarly, I believe reading the Bible out loud does the same thing for understanding.

I can't ever recall reading a passage and thinking, it didn't belong in the Bible. I appreciate Thomas Jefferson for the smart man he was, but believe the Jefferson Bible shows all men have fallacies.

I also believe everything the Holy Spirit will lead us in, can be backed up in the Bible. If it's extra-Biblical, it may be from a spirit, but not a Holy one.

John 21:25 (HCSB)
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written.

You confuse delusional with intractable. He knows it wasn't meant to be a compliment, but takes the high road in a passive-aggressive manner.

Wouldn't the "high road" be ignoring the comment all together?