No, I'm just telling you that if God is perfect and without error, THEN, neither does His word contain error. How do you reconcile a perfect God inspiring an error-filled word? Your only answer can be that God had little or nothing to do with the Bible, which is the conclusion your arguments lead to. I cannot accept that.
As a matter of principle, as you suggesting now that God revealed His prophesies to someone who is not a prophet of God?!?
No, I don't know what you are referring to. The Bible says Enoch was a prophet.
What constitutes "scriptures," FK? What the Church says? What Luther says? What SBC says?
The original 66 books that God led men to canonize.
How consistent is it to believe that God would be revealing prophesies to anyone except those He considered His prophets? If the author of the Book of Enoch was revealed a prophesy from God, then he is God's prophet and, if you believe the prophesy, then it is scripture, FK!
Scripture is the word God wanted us to have. It does not describe everything God has ever said or done. There are millions of prophecies out there. I believe the ones that are in the Bible BECAUSE they're in the Bible. It is irrelevant if any other prophecies come true or not.
The scripture rule is very simple: if the Bible expresses what the Church believes, then it is scripture. In other words, the biblical canon are those books that reflect the faith, not the other way around, FK! That's how the Church decides.
That is a good summation of Apostolic thought. The Church determines the faith, and then fills in all the holes with what the men of the Church want. The Bible is shaped and formed and interpreted to match what the men want, regardless of the actual words in the books. The will of men trumps the will of God. Man shapes God to match what man wants. It's classic Apostolicism.
First comes the faith, then the Bible, based on faith. The Bible does not give you faith; the faith gives the Bible.
God gives the faith, and God gave us the Bible. Without the Bible as an anchor, then faith quickly mutates into whatever men want to make of it.
This is what I have been harping about for the longest time now: the Bible is a mixture of popular beliefs (myths, legends, narratives) and prophesies believed to be true.
If you do not KNOW that they are true then you have no anchor. By using words like "myths" and "legends" it is evident that the Bible is no anchor for you.
God's word doesn't contain error; man's rendition and interpretation of God's word is subject ot all human errors, unless the original meaning is retained through "tradition and the epistles," as your favorite Apostle says.
God leads, and men follow—imperfectly. God obviously allowed error, just as He allowed man to fall.
No, I don't know what you are referring to. The Bible says Enoch was a prophet.
The Book of Enoch is not scripture. We are talking about quoting from a non-scriptural source in the New Testament as a prophesy. Can we also quote prophesies from the Koran then?
Kosta: What constitutes "scriptures," FK? What the Church says? What Luther says? What SBC says?
FK: The original 66 books that God led men to canonize.
Christian canon is not fixed. Different sects have different canon. Did God lead all of them to canonize different books?
Scripture is the word God wanted us to have
Us, who? Again, that word is not uniform throughout Christianity.
I believe the ones that are in the Bible BECAUSE they're in the Bible. It is irrelevant if any other prophecies come true or not
So, then, you suggest there is a source of truth other than God? I would imagine you'd recognize that all truth is from God.
Kosta: The scripture rule is very simple: if the Bible expresses what the Church believes, then it is scripture. In other words, the biblical canon are those books that reflect the faith, not the other way around
FK: That is a good summation of Apostolic thought.
Which Apostle?
The Church determines the faith, and then fills in all the holes with what the men of the Church want.
So, you admit there are "holes" in the faith? That's progress. How do you know it's not what the HS wants rather than the "men of the Church?" What proof do you have that it is the "men of the Curch" and not the Holy Spirit who determine the faith?