Skip to main content

87 replies

Is the Bible Really inerrant?

FM Former Member
You know, it just struck me, as someone, I don't remember who, said that the "death penalty is biblical".
Ok.
So "Thou Shalt not Kill" is also Biblical.

Now, these contradictions are impossible to reconcile if one truly takes the Bible IN ITS ENTIRETY as inerrant.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant, really, only when interpreted by the Church Herself. This brings me comfort, because really and truly? If you got down to the nitty-gritty and really tried to reconcile the entire text? It clearly gets a little nutty. Now, I am not calling the Word of God nutty, so don't jump on me.
I am saying honestly and truly, how in the world can every translation and every version, edition, etc. be inerrant.
It makes my head spin a bit to think about it.
So I was reading up, and found a pretty good explanation that I can live with.
Just food for thought...


Early church fathers: David Bennett, a member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars and co-owner of the Ancient and Future Catholics web site comments on the the early church fathers' beliefs about inerrancy.
Bennett writes:
"The early Fathers held that the Bible was inerrant. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches affirm this as well. However, this is the case only when the Bible is properly understood, interpreted by the Church. This is inerrancy by ancient standards and not modern, fundamentalist standards. The early Fathers did not think that minor contradictions rendered the Bible errant, nor did they insist all stories were meant to be interpreted literally. For instance, the creation stories were often allegorized, interpreted in ways so as to prefigure Christ, or interpreted through the lens of the science of the day (or all three!). Thus St. Augustine could say each day in the Genesis creation story was equal to a thousand years, or that the science of the day should shape our understanding of the creation stories, without ever denying the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. So when a Catholic affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, the idea has far less baggage than the fundamentalist understanding."

"For example, many early Christian writers were well aware of minor contradictions within the Scriptures, even in the gospels, and did not seem too bothered by it. Tertullian (AD 200) said, "Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of the [gospel] narratives. What matters is that there is agreement in the essential doctrine of the Faith" (Against Marcion, IV:2). St. John Chrysostom (AD 390) was even bolder (at least to modern ears) to suggest that contradictions in the gospels actually strengthen the conviction that Christianity is true. If the gospel authors agreed in every small detail, then it was obvious that the stories were forgeries by a group of dishonest early Christians in collusion with one another. He even says, "the discord which seems to be present in little matters shields [the authors] from every suspicion and vindicates the character of the writers" (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, I:6). Even today, we Christians are far more credible if we admit to minor Biblical contradictions rather than trying come up with absurd, non-realistic stories designed to make the gospel accounts completely harmonize. So without denying the Bible's inspiration or essential accuracy, many Church Fathers recognized minor contradictions and variants in the text."
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
VP, Good luck. A 12 page sermon is coming, and you belong to a cult.

Hi B,

No, not a cult church -- just one that, long ago, chose to follow men and their teachings -- instead of God, His Written Word, and Jesus Christ.

But, in spite of all this -- many Roman Catholics do find a way to becomes Christian believers. I think it is when they learn that the Bible is really the true Word of God, and not the Traditions.

I have to go check my mail (real snail mail!) and eat dinner now. Please try not to miss me too much.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SOLA_Outline
AWillowBreezeAWillowBreezeSmall Talker
quote:
Originally posted by tigrtrek:
Hey VP

Your post got me to thinking. Does the Bible itself ever claim to be inerrant? I believe it to be God inspired in its original but I am skeptical of claims of translational perfection. I need to do some study thanks for the idea.


I have always leaned toward believing the same. The original may have been inspired by God,but there have been many tranlations since and then
multiple interpretations of those as well..this is why there are so many denominations of christianity and often a diversity of beliefs even within one denomination.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by AWillowBreeze:
quote:
Originally posted by tigrtrek:
Hey VP

Your post got me to thinking. Does the Bible itself ever claim to be inerrant? I believe it to be God inspired in its original but I am skeptical of claims of translational perfection. I need to do some study thanks for the idea.


I have always leaned toward believing the same. The original may have been inspired by God,but there have been many tranlations since and then
multiple interpretations of those as well..this is why there are so many denominations of christianity and often a diversity of beliefs even within one denomination.


Same here as proven by the posts on Lucifer and Satan, in the 'Hell Real' thread.

If you think that all those mistakes of translations were supposed to happen, as some do, then the originals were flawed. If the originals are flawed, then God's word is flawed. That can't be to a believer, so I go with the translations are flawed.
thenagelthenagelPost Master
just my thoughts.. i'll try and be brief Smiler

while Bill think ' inspired by' means that He guided their hands as they wrote every word.

i think 'inspired by' means the same thing it does in books today.

someone sees something or reads something or meets someone who touches them and they write a book about the thing person place or event that insired them to take pen in hand.
there's a book out not that was insired by the german who came to the US, became a citizen, just so he could join the navy and fight in vietnam. he was captured, escaped, captured, escaped, and finally made it back to his ship 2 weeks before the ship was to set sail. the ship lost 15 pilots, and he was the only one to make it back.

the german didn't write the book, but his courage and actions inspired another guy to write it.

i think some old dudes so loved the lord, they felt inspired to write down what they knew of oral history and oral tradition, to make sure it wasn't lost in time.

along the way, some other old dudes saw an oopotunity, and since they so loved the power, they were inspired to write down some stuff of their own, to get what they wanted preserved through history as well.

and i think things like that are the reasons for any conflict and discrepency in the bible.
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by tigrtrek: Hey VP

Your post got me to thinking. Does the Bible itself ever claim to be inerrant? I believe it to be God inspired in its original but I am skeptical of claims of translational perfection. I need to do some study thanks for the idea.

Hi Tigr,

But, ask yourself this question: Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring the forty men to write exactly what He wanted written as His revelation to man -- and then, turn His back and allow it to be corrupted by other men?

Don't you agree that He is a big enough God to protect what He has authored?

And, if He was going to allow His Bible to be corrupted -- why bother authoring it in the first place?

I think we can all agree that He did not author it just for the first century Christians -- and then allow it to be trashed for all subsequent believers. That would not make sense.

And, VP will tell us -- He did that so that the apostles and other church leaders could write their oral Traditions to replace the Bible.

That doesn't make sense either. If He were going to do that -- why not just start with the Traditions and don't bother with the Bible?

As you can see -- a God authored Bible, and God protected copying and translating -- is the only answer which makes sense. And, He is a big enough God to make this happen.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
b50mb50mOld Faithful
quote:
God protected copying and translating

To have found know differences means it was not copy protected. That is that free will again.
Either we have it or we don't. If God made the men change the wording, we don't have free will.

I'll go with what I said before,
If you think that all those mistakes of translations were supposed to happen, as some do, then the originals were flawed. If the originals are flawed, then God's word is flawed. That can't be to a believer, so I go with the translations are flawed.
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by thenagel:
just my thoughts.. i'll try and be brief. while Bill think ' inspired by' means that He guided their hands as they wrote every word. i think 'inspired by' means the same thing it does in books today.

Hi Nagel,

Not true, my Friend. Yet, it is funny, maybe ironic -- that you make this claim today. For, just today, I was studying this exact subject in the book "Know Why You Believe" written by Paul E. Little who was on the staff of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship and was Associate Professor of Evangelism at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois.

2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

In the phrase "All Scripture is inspired by God" -- the English word "inspired" is the Greek word "theopneustos" which means literally God-breathed. If we break the Greek word into its root components, we find: "theos" which means God, and we find "pneustos" which is from the root word "pneo" meaning "breathed."

Dr. Little tells us this in his book, (page 51), The Bible describes itself as "given by inspiration of God and. . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16 kjv). The word inspired, here, is not to be confused with the common usage of the word, as when we say Shakespeare was inspired to write great plays, or Beethoven was inspired to compose great symphonies.

Inspiration, in the Biblical sense, is unique. The word translated inspired actually means God-breathed as it has been translated in the New International Version. It refers, not to the writers, but to the words that have been written. This is an important point to grasp. "That which is breathed out by God" clearly tells us where the Bible originated.

So, Nagel, my Friend -- the Bible is very special, for it is God-breathed, God-authored -- and it IS the inspired, inerrant, literal Written Word of God.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
Last edited by Bill Gray
thenagelthenagelPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Nagel,

Not true, my Friend. Yet, it is funny, maybe


Bill, i believe that you believe that.

i'll respect the fact that you believe it, if you can bring yourself to respect that i don't.

Billy Joe doesn't believe any of it, and yet he and i respect each others beliefs on the issue, and while we don't agree, we don't hurl insults at each other or try to belittle each other for our differences.
we've even reached the point where we can good naturedly poke fun at each other without malice. just a little fridnly ribbing..

is it impossible for you to just agree to disagree with me and a couple other people on this?
or do you find it necessary to continue insulting belittleing, mocking and ignoreing us just because we can't agree 100%?

there are to many things that just don't make sense without completly throwing out logical thought - like the thing about the tree i brought up. that wasn't done to try and sucker you into an unwinnable situation, it was done because i genuinely wanted an anwser that made logical sense.

i never got one. the closest i could find on the internet was' god wanted it that way, so who are we to question god?'
that's not an answer, that's a cop out.

the tree is just one of the problems i have with accepting the bible as written by god.... He wouldn't have made mistakes.
and yet, the mistakes are there without acceptable answers.

find me an answer to the tree that acctually makes sense, and we can talk. without it, there's just no way i'm going to believe that you're correct, so there's no further point in discussing it.
FM Former Member
"And, VP will tell us -- He did that so that the apostles and other church leaders could write their oral Traditions to replace the Bible. "

1. I can speak for myself
2. You don't know what I will tell you. Unless you have ESP.
3. oral Traditions do not replace the Bible.
4. For the umpteenth time, Tradition and Scripture work together to bring the fullness of God's work, and Jesus' example.
5. Sacred Tradition is never contrary to the Bible. Ever.

You should really read up on Catholicism, as you still have a poor understanding. You probably won't care to do that, but before you make statements against the Church, you should educate yourself.
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
I think we can all agree that He did not author it just for the first century Christians -- and then allow it to be trashed for all subsequent believers. That would not make sense. And, VP will tell us -- He did that so that the apostles and other church leaders could write their oral Traditions to replace the Bible. That doesn't make sense either. If He were going to do that -- why not just start with the Traditions and don't bother with the Bible?

1. I can speak for myself
2. You don't know what I will tell you. Unless you have ESP.
3. oral Traditions do not replace the Bible.
4. For the umpteenth time, Tradition and Scripture work together to bring the fullness of God's work, and Jesus' example.
5. Sacred Tradition is never contrary to the Bible. Ever.

You should really read up on Catholicism, as you still have a poor understanding. You probably won't care to do that, but before you make statements against the Church, you should educate yourself.

Hi VP,

In the past year or so, I have most likely read more about Roman Catholicism than you or most Roman Catholics. But, that is beside the point.

You tell me, "Sacred Tradition is never contrary to the Bible. Ever."

Then, please show us where we can find where Mary is Mother of God and Queen of Heaven in Scripture. Show us the Rosary Prayers in Scripture, particularly the Hail Mary. Show us purgatory in Scripture. Show us the infallibility of the Pope and Bishops in Scripture. Show us the Scripture passage which tells us that Mary is the Co-Redeemer of all mankind.

Then, you can show us the Scripture passage that tells us the Mary was born without sin -- and that Mary was taken into heaven without dying. Show us in Scripture where it tells us that we have committed a mortal sin by not attending mass or worship service. As a matter of fact, show us in Scripture were it tells us about mortal and venial sins. Show us in Scripture where it tells us to confess to a priest. Show us in Scripture where it tells us that if we die without confessing to a priest -- we will go to hell.

These are a small sample of the differences between Roman Catholic Traditions and the Bible. So, I would say there is a VAST chasm between the two.

Then, you tell me, "For the umpteenth time, Tradition and Scripture work together to bring the fullness of God's work, and Jesus' example."

Okay, let's say I accept that statement. Now, when there is a difference of opinion between Tradition and Scripture -- which takes precedence? Which has the higher authority when speaking of the Christian faith and our Christian life -- Tradition or Scripture?

You must answer that question by saying that Tradition trumps Scripture. Otherwise, you would not disagree with Sola Scriptura -- "By Scripture Alone."

But, when you tell me, "Oral Traditions do not replace the Bible" -- here we agree. The two are not even in the same game. Traditions hold no Scripturally binding position for any Christian believer. The only thing binding upon Christians is the Written Word of God, the Bible.

And, finally, you tell me, "I can speak for myself. You don't know what I will tell you. Unless you have ESP."

Then, maybe I do have some sort of ESP -- for you have responded EXACTLY as I said you would. How would you account for that?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SOLA_Outline
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by thenagel:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Nagel,

Not true, my Friend. Yet, it is funny, maybe ironic -- that you make this claim today. For, just today, I was studying this exact subject in the book "Know Why You Believe" written by Paul E. Little who was on the staff of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship and was Associate Professor of Evangelism at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois.

2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

Bill, i believe that you believe that. i'll respect the fact that you believe it, if you can bring yourself to respect that i don't.

Billy Joe doesn't believe any of it, and yet he and i respect each others beliefs on the issue, and while we don't agree, we don't hurl insults at each other or try to belittle each other for our differences. we've even reached the point where we can good naturedly poke fun at each other without malice. just a little fridnly ribbing.. is it impossible for you to just agree to disagree with me and a couple other people on this? or do you find it necessary to continue insulting belittleing, mocking and ignoreing us just because we can't agree 100%?

Hi Nagel,

Personally, I thought the post to which you have responded is pretty civil. You are always making these same accusations. Please show me ONE insult, belittling, mocking, etc., in that post. This is always your response when you have no Scriptural answer -- "You are mocking me!" Not so. I am giving you a Scriptural answer -- and because you cannot respond to it, you get upset.

You bring Deep in as your expert in this subject of Scriptural Inspiration. I am not mocking you -- but, do you see how ridiculous it is to bring in an atheist whose only use for the Bible is to spit on it -- to answer a question pertaining to Biblical inspiration?

In my previous post I have given you both Scriptural and scholarly references to prove the Biblical meaning of "inspire." And, you only response is, "I don't believe it!"

That is fine. But, if you are going to intelligently refute a statement -- just saying, "I don't believe it!" -- doesn't cut the mustard.

If you don't believe the Biblical meaning of "inspiration" -- then, give us your facts to support your position. Otherwise, you have no position -- only an opinion. Your opinion and two dollars will get you a cup of coffee.

Wow! I remember when we could say, "Your opinion and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee." No, not old! Just maturing and seasoned!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb-TEXT
FM Former Member
quote:
Then, please show us where we can find where Mary is Mother of God and Queen of Heaven in Scripture. Show us the Rosary Prayers in Scripture, particularly the Hail Mary. Show us purgatory in Scripture. Show us the infallibility of the Pope and Bishops in Scripture. Show us the Scripture passage which tells us that Mary is the Co-Redeemer of all mankind.

Then, you can show us the Scripture passage that tells us the Mary was born without sin -- and that Mary was taken into heaven without dying. Show us in Scripture where it tells us that we have committed a mortal sin by not attending mass or worship service. As a matter of fact, show us in Scripture were it tells us about mortal and venial sins. Show us in Scripture where it tells us to confess to a priest. Show us in Scripture where it tells us that if we die without confessing to a priest -- we will go to hell.


I have already shown you ALL the Scripture passages relating to Mary and the Rosary, her Blessed Life. If you didn't pay attention, please just go back and read. There are more than 3 separate topics on these issues, and the Scripture has been well documented in each.
It is all there.
It is not true that a Catholic believes we will go to hell if we die without confessing to a priest. another lie....
I seriously doubt that you and I have done the same kind of reading on Catholicism.
I rely on Catholic websites and authors for information. You probably google "101 ways to deny Sacred Tradition" or "anti-catholic documents".

Try some GOOD Catholic reading- I suggest Dr. Scott Hahn for starters. Once you can get rid of your anti-catholic baggage, that is rooted in mistruths, then perhaps we can talk.....
FM Former Member
quote:
And, VP will tell us -- He did that so that the apostles and other church leaders could write their oral Traditions to replace the Bible.


To which I replied....
1. I can speak for myself
2. You don't know what I will tell you. Unless you have ESP.
3. oral Traditions do not replace the Bible.
4. For the umpteenth time, Tradition and Scripture work together to bring the fullness of God's work, and Jesus' example.
5. Sacred Tradition is never contrary to the Bible. Ever.

You should really read up on Catholicism, as you still have a poor understanding. You probably won't care to do that, but before you make statements against the Church, you should educate yourself.


And YOU reply...

"And, finally, you tell me, "I can speak for myself. You don't know what I will tell you. Unless you have ESP."

Then, maybe I do have some sort of ESP -- for you have responded EXACTLY as I said you would. How would you account for that? "

Mr. Gray, reread this. I did not reply in the same manner- kindly stop putting words in my mouth. If I have something to say, I do say it, and believe I make myself quite clear.
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
Mr. Gray, reread this. I did not reply in the same manner- kindly stop putting words in my mouth. If I have something to say, I do say it, and believe I make myself quite clear.

Hi VP,

No, this is how I responded to your previous post:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi VP,

In the past year or so, I have most likely read more about Roman Catholicism than you or most Roman Catholics. But, that is beside the point.

You tell me, "Sacred Tradition is never contrary to the Bible. Ever."

Then, please show us where we can find where Mary is Mother of God and Queen of Heaven in Scripture. Show us the Rosary Prayers in Scripture, particularly the Hail Mary. Show us purgatory in Scripture. Show us the infallibility of the Pope and Bishops in Scripture. Show us the Scripture passage which tells us that Mary is the Co-Redeemer of all mankind.

Then, you can show us the Scripture passage that tells us the Mary was born without sin -- and that Mary was taken into heaven without dying. Show us in Scripture where it tells us that we have committed a mortal sin by not attending mass or worship service. As a matter of fact, show us in Scripture were it tells us about mortal and venial sins. Show us in Scripture where it tells us to confess to a priest. Show us in Scripture where it tells us that if we die without confessing to a priest -- we will go to hell.

These are a small sample of the differences between Roman Catholic Traditions and the Bible. So, I would say there is a VAST chasm between the two.

Then, you tell me, "For the umpteenth time, Tradition and Scripture work together to bring the fullness of God's work, and Jesus' example."

Okay, let's say I accept that statement. Now, when there is a difference of opinion between Tradition and Scripture -- which takes precedence? Which has the higher authority when speaking of the Christian faith and our Christian life -- Tradition or Scripture?

You must answer that question by saying that Tradition trumps Scripture. Otherwise, you would not disagree with Sola Scriptura -- By Scripture Alone.

But, when you tell me, "Oral Traditions do not replace the Bible" -- here we agree. The two are not even in the same game. Traditions hold no Scripturally binding position for any Christian believer. The only thing binding upon Christians is the Written Word of God, the Bible.

And, finally, you tell me, "I can speak for myself. You don't know what I will tell you. Unless you have ESP."

Then, maybe I do have some sort of ESP -- for you have responded EXACTLY as I said you would. How would you account for that?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SOLA_Outline
paw-pawpaw-pawHall of Famer
And------- still no answer about the tree!

Bill, by not answering the question about the tree you are proving everyone else to be right about you.

I know, this is one of those "second-grade" questions that you will not stoop so low to answer. I don't expect an answer by now.

You only answer the ones worthy of your response. Nice!
FM Former Member
Show us the Scripture passage which tells us that Mary is the Co-Redeemer of all mankind.

Really? Again??????
Please go back to the thread entitled "Mary's role in the life of a Christian".
It explains fully the Scripture, and the meaning behind the term co-redemptrix.
You can ask the same old questions a hundred times, and the answer will not change.
Here it is on a 3rd grade level.
Co" means "with".
Jesus redeemed the world BECAUSE MARY SAID YES.
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Sofa King:
quote:
Originally posted by tigrtrek: Your post got me to thinking. Does the Bible itself ever claim to be inerrant? .

Nope. Not a single reference to anything even hinting at the assertion. Thus, any claim that it is "inerrant" is wholly non-biblical and a matter of doctrinal interpretation.

Hi Tigr and Sofa,

Actually, the Bible does indeed teach its inerrancy. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

God is perfect; God does not make mistakes. "Oops!" is not in His vocabulary. All Scripture is "inspired" -- i.e. -- God breathed. God is the Author of the Bible. So, since God inspired and authored the Bible; and since God does not make mistakes -- the Bible in its original manuscripts is inerrant.

Now, since God was powerful enough to inspire those 40 men, over a period of 1600 years, living in many different geographical locations -- to write an inerrant Bible; don't you suppose He is powerful enough to protect it from copy and translation errors? Or, did God suddenly lose His divine power after authoring the Bible -- and allow the Bible to be corrupted?

Therefore, yes, the Bible does, indeed, tell us it is inerrant.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by paw-paw:
And------- still no answer about the tree!

Bill, by not answering the question about the tree you are proving everyone else to be right about you.

I know, this is one of those "second-grade" questions that you will not stoop so low to answer. I don't expect an answer by now.

You only answer the ones worthy of your response. Nice!

Paw,

I have no idea what you are talking about. But, if it is one of those childish "My daddy can spit farther than your daddy" kind of questions -- I would just as soon not know.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
Billy Joe Bob GeneBilly Joe Bob GeneHall of Famer
If I might intrude, just for a moment, to inject a note of reality into this festive occasion.

It's BS.

You can't justify the truthfulness of the bible with the bible.

Frankly, you can't justify anything with the bible. It's bad history, bad philosophy, and bad morality.

Is the Bible Really inerrant? I surely hope so. I'd hate to think it's true. Even if anyone could figure it out.
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
quote:
PLEASE SHOW US THAT IN SCRIPTURE.

Gladly. Read Luke chapter 1:38

"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her

So MARY brought to us the Redeemer of the World because she said YES at the Anunciation.

Hi VP,

Sorry, but that is almost laughable. Yes, Mary was the mortal womb through which the Human Nature of Jesus Christ was born. But, how in the world do you relate that to Jesus declaring her a Co-Redeemer?

My Friend, you are reaching so far -- you may lose your arm.

VP, Mary is an ordinary mortal woman who was greatly blessed by God. She is not deity! She is not divine! She is not a Co-Redeemer! She is not the Mother of God! She is not the Queen of Heaven.

Mary is an ordinary saint in heaven waiting like billions of other saints in heaven -- for her glorified, immortal body. Nothing more, nothing less.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
If I might intrude, just for a moment, to inject a note of reality into this festive occasion. It's BS. You can't justify the truthfulness of the bible with the bible.

Frankly, You can't justify anything with the bible. It's bad history, bad philosophy, and bad morality.

Is the Bible Really inerrant? I surely hope so. I'd hate to think it's true. Even if anyone could figure it out.

Hi Deep,

Why not? You base your atheist religion upon the writings of your gods -- Dawkins and Darwin. So do we. It is just that our God is real -- and yours are just fakes.

But, you just keep on reading your Dawkins and Darwin bibles. As a matter of fact, maybe you can use them like cardboard to speed your slide down the "slippery slope." Oh, I forgot, you ARE using them for that.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • Bear-on-Branch_LINK
GC Gifted ChildHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:

If I might intrude, just for a moment, to inject a note of reality into this festive occasion. It's BS. You can't justify the truthfulness of the bible with the bible.

Frankly, You can't justify anything with the bible. It's bad history, bad philosophy, and bad morality.

Is the Bible Really inerrant? I surely hope so. I'd hate to think it's true. Even if anyone could figure it out.


bjbg--All that you say is true,( except the bad history,philosophy and morality part)
The inerrant is left to faith. The interpretation is left to discretion.
The end results is the blood left by the fools who know exactly what it means.
I know you would hate for it to be true. If not true I'm still safe, if it is
true, start lying as best you can.
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Gifted Child:
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:

If I might intrude, just for a moment, to inject a note of reality into this festive occasion. It's BS. You can't justify the truthfulness of the bible with the bible.

Frankly, You can't justify anything with the bible. It's bad history, bad philosophy, and bad morality.

Is the Bible Really inerrant? I surely hope so. I'd hate to think it's true. Even if anyone could figure it out.

bjbg--All that you say is true,( except the bad history,philosophy and morality part)
The inerrant is left to faith. The interpretation is left to discretion.
The end results is the blood left by the fools who know exactly what it means.
I know you would hate for it to be true. If not true I'm still safe, if it is
true, start lying as best you can.

Hi Child,

No, in the Roman Catholic ONLY the priest can interpret the Bible. The lay people are obviously not smart enough to understand the Bible -- unless the priest tell them what it means.

In the Roman Catholic church -- traditions trumps Scripture -- so, the Bible is useful only as a door stop. Or, am I wrong?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SOLA_Outline
buffalobuffaloPost Master
Bill G.

Let’s be at least realistic.

Not to make a rellie big list, but select one trespass by the Catholic Church inherently wrong when judged by the Bible, with the axiom it is your interpretation, with the many liberties in mind taken by any other denomination of Christian religion as they go about paying homage, being fruitful, charitable, being comfortable, and the petition to any entity imagined, dead or real for assistance in frailties, involving sadness, death, weaknesses, on behalf of themselves or others that we can discuss singularly for the purpose of staying focused that would allow without prejudice by you or anyone their being in peril while the rest of religion somehow remain un-indicted and allowed to pillage expediency at will.
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by semiannualchick:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
The lay people are obviously not smart enough to understand the Bible -- unless the priest tell them what it means.
Bill

Bill, is this not what you are forever doing on this forum? Telling us what you think the Bible means???

Hi Chick,

There is a huge difference which you have not noticed. Yes, I do tell you what I think the Bible is teaching us.

However, the priest of the Roman Catholic church tell them what they MUST believe the Bible teaches.

Do you see the difference? I say what I believe the Bible means. The priest do not allow the Roman Catholics to even consider what they think the Bible means -- the priest tell them what they MUST believe. A huge, huge difference.

In the Protestant churches, we are encouraged to study the Bible and interpret it.

In the Roman Catholic church the people are told they CANNOT interpret the Bible.

Would you want a priest telling you what you MUST believe? I would not.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
Bill GrayBill GrayOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by buffalo:
Bill G. Let’s be at least realistic. Not to make a rellie big list, but select one trespass by the Catholic Church inherently wrong when judged by the Bible, with the axiom it is your interpretation, with the many liberties in mind taken by any other denomination of Christian religion as they go about paying homage, being fruitful, charitable, being comfortable, and the petition to any entity imagined, dead or real for assistance in frailties, involving sadness, death, weaknesses, on behalf of themselves or others that we can discuss singularly for the purpose of staying focused that would allow without prejudice by you or anyone their being in peril while the rest of religion somehow remain un-indicted and allowed to pillage expediency at will.

Hi Buffalo,

Did you ever bother to take a breath while you were typing? That is one sentence -- in paragraph form! Since I cannot understand what you are asking in all that rambling -- I will take the first line and respond to that. If there is any other question important to you in all the rest of your long rambling paragraph -- please break it out and let me know.

You ask me to "select one trespass by the Catholic Church inherently wrong when judged by the Bible."

Well, their doctrine of Mariology, i.e, all the Mary teachings and worship, is not in the Bible -- their doctrine of Purgatory is not in the Bible -- their doctrine of Popes and Pope infallibility is not in the Bible -- their doctrine of Special Saints is not in the Bible -- their doctrine of the Eucharist, as they interpret it, is not in the Bible -- their reliance upon man-made Traditions and having those Traditions trump the teaching of the Bible is not Biblical -- their Prayers for the Dead is not in the Bible -- their Confessing to another man is not in the Bible -- their Indulgences is not in the Bible -- their Rosary is not in the Bible.

I will stop there so that my list does not grow too long, as you requested.

God bless, have wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb-TEXT
Next

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×