Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: paulj@b8.ingr.com (Joey Paul x4129 ) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Attempting Inerrancy's Salvation Message-ID: Date: 7 Jan 90 02:50:04 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Intergraph Corporation Huntsville, AL Lines: 59 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie @ U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742) writes: [various text deleted] > Note that I am not saying God was incapable of giving us flawless > Scriptures; I am only pointing out that he apparently decided not to, for > whatever reasons. Far be it from me to second-guess God's decisions on > delivering us the Bible. (Note that, having read all the verses which No, you're saying he gives us flawed, unreliable words to base our beliefs on, sort of a "practical joke" type of guy? Kinda like me telling my 3 yr old son, "Go ahead and stick your finger in the light socket, it won't hurt". In other words, 2 Timothy 3:16,17 doesn't really mean what it says, just one of God's jokes on the human race. > are usually used to claim that Scripture says it is perfect, I find that > interpretation often strained: I do not believe that the Bible claims to > be perfect, and therefore I am not contradicting it.) So, a question is posed to all the net-theologians - which parts of scripture do you accept as the Word of God (because they are "correct") and which parts do you reject (because they are "incorrect")? What criteria do you use to determine inspired words of God vs. questionable words of men? Since there are so many different versions ( or should we say PERversions) which one do you feel is the "real" Bible, or do they all fit this description, or maybe we don't even have the real one, just a book called the Bible that contains parts of the Word of God? Sheesh, and thought I had finally found something I could rely on...but who'd walk across a bridge with so many cracks and holes in it? -- . | Joey Paul (205) 730-4129 . . "Ye must be born again." | uunet!ingr!dj4104!paulj (UUCP) . . | dj4104!paulj@ingr.com (INTERNET). [This one comes near the border of personal attack... I'm concerned that you're so busy with the sarcasm that you might not have had a chance to think about what was being said. The situation Darren describes is a flaw only if you assume that Scripture is intended to contain information and instructions that are unambiguous, and is intended to be used without any further analysis. Many Christians believe that God -- for reasons known only to himself -- preferred not to give us all the answers, but insists that we put a certain amount of work into the process ourselves. I understand the disadvantage of this view: it means that we can't be confident that we've got The Answer. But there are some of us who think God may prefer it that way. Note that the choices for Scripture are not limited to inerrancy or worthlessness. A middle position says - on historical matters it is a reliable but human witness. There are multiple accounts of many events partly so we can see the amount of variation present among the witnesses. - it contains writings from many perspectives, so that we can see the variety of possible responses to God's actions. II Tim 3:16-17 implies inerrancy only when combined with the assumption that "useful" means inerrant. I understand that attractiveness of that assumption, but it would help dialog if you realized that not everyone finds it equally attractive. --clh]