Posted on 02/20/2015 1:52:28 PM PST by drewh
That was my point exactly ... In regards to someone saying “it does not say that”.
Now ... that is an easily recognizable point, whether any other person thinks the Bible is more like “Moby Dick” or the next person says it’s authoritative. All people can easily recognize “what it says”.
Which one? There are about a hundred versions of this “inerrant” book. The point you keep backing up from is it was YOU who introduced the completely relevant description of the deity from an irrelevant source document. Neither I nor the priest referenced a biblical description of the deity. You seized upon the discussion to bloviate about your beliefs.
We were not talking about the Doctrine of Inerrancy, but, if you want information about it ... I’ll give you the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”. But, as I said, about all other side issues, it doesn’t apply to what was said up above. I only include it here because you mention it.
And ... by the way ... the Doctrine of Inerrancy applies to the original language, not translations. But the translations are able to be examined and verified, one way or another, as to whether it does say what the original says.
Here’s the link for that other subject, but I have no idea why you would want to go into it, although you did just mention it. It’s kinda silly to go into a subject where you don’t believe the base document itself ... LOL ...
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
Background
The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. The following text, containing the “Preface” by the ICBI draft committee, plus the “Short Statement,” “Articles of Affirmation and Denial,” and an accompanying “Exposition,” was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219. The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
Clarification of some of the language used in this Statement may be found in the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Preface
The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.
The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God’s own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstandings of this doctrine in the world at large.
This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.
We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God’s grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.
We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God’s Word we shall be grateful.
— The Draft Committee
A Short Statement
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
[The actual “core document” follows this introduction, and you can see it at the link]
Maybe because he wasn’t TOTALLY dead he experienced ONLY one of the 72 virgins awaiting you. /s
So we’ve reached the point where cut-and-paste is all you’ve got. I reject the bible, all its various forms and conflicting statements and 2500 documented errors of fact. Unlike the bible, you cannot find any error of logic or fact in my original response. That’s the response you took issue with. Highlight an error in it. You can’t.
I think you already established you rejected it a long time ago, even though that was not what I was bringing up. The issue that was raised was that it did not say that God was male, some saying it really didn’t say anything about it.
BUT indeed it does say, because, as we all know (in what it says), it clearly says that God created it all in the beginning. And then it also says that Jesus is the Creator of everything that was made, seen and unseen. AND it says that Jesus is a male.
HOWEVER, for some reason, you seem to be STUCK “somewhere else” in another place in your head, other than what was said in that God is either not male or female, or that he is, according to what is written.
I have no idea why you’re obsessing on a subject that was not being discussed in this thread,
I’m not obsessing. I simply won’t back down in the face of unreason. I am trying to bring logic and reason in defense of my original response which you took exception to. Instead of logic and reason, it seems I should have brought a rock borer. It seems impossible to get through to you that the biblical description of the deity has no significance in the discussion of a non-biblical description. You seem intent upon injecting your (to me, laughable) description of the deity. I means nothing to me and your use of it is an invalid and irrelevant critique of my original response.
You invited yourself into a discussion of my original response and have yet to make a meaningful or reasonable response to it. You seem sort of thick.
My only issue from the beginning of this thread was simply that the Bible actually “does say” that God is male.
I would suggest that if you have another issue you want to discuss, then posting a thread on that issue will then generate a discussion specifically to what you’re interested in discussing.
I’m only interested in this particular thread and the fact that the Bible “does say” that God is male.
Then why did you choose to critique my response which didn’t have anything to do with your bible? You’re simply bloviating.
Guy must hang out at the same Club Apostasy that the pope does. Pope says all atheists will be in Heaven. This guy says God is a chick. Man, where do these guys get their theology training, Apostasy University of Rome??? Good grief.
You are correct. God is a male. Otherwise, why would He (the Father) call Jesus Christ, His Son?? Wouldn’t He have called Jesus by another name, like Jane, and said my daughter? No. He did call Jesus His Son. Thus the Godhead is of the male species. Woman came from man in Genesis when God took Adam’s rib. That made Eve, the female species.
I’ve only talked about the issue of The Bible saying that God is male.
Anything else I may have said to you has only been related to what you’ve raised, apart from this thread.
I would suggest you raise an issue you want to talk about on a thread and then you may get some answers.
I do not need any suggestions from someone so immersed in irrelevancies that logic needs to be pounded into their skull. You simply are beyond the reach of reason. I raised an unassailable point of logic and you critiqued it with irrelevant superstitious nonsense. You lack the maturity to admit this and continue to raise the same irrelevant non sequiturs.
As I have already pointed out, the issue raised on this thread of the Bible stating that God is male, is easily seen by anyone, from references already given.
If you want to raise other issues that have nothing to do with what the thread is about ... the way you do that is create a thread discussing another issue.
It’s a simple procedure, so I would suggest doing that.
You responded to my response. That was your choice and you did so with irrelevancies. Try to assail the logic of my original response or engage someone else in a biblical discussion. I have no use for that mass of silly superstitious nonsense.
The thing about that ... is that you’re wanting to discuss an issue that has nothing to do with this thread and the issue raised here ... and THAT was what was responded to by me. I’m merely answering what was spoken to directly — which was ... very simply ... does the Bible say that God is male. And the fact of the matter is (from what was shown up above), the Bible does.
Now ... you’re off on another tangent from the point of the thread ... which might be okay for a thread you want to start somewhere else.
SO ... if you want to raise an issue and have a discussion on another subject matter ... simply start the thread on it. It’s that simple.
As for me, I answered the issue being addressed here on this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.