Of course He had. :) What you are implying is that He actually wrote it!
But He didn't. The authors wrote it. They wrote what was revealed to them, but we all believe in imperfect manner.
If, however, the scriptures are ACTUALLY HOLY, then it would be a much different story. In the latter case there would be no issue of what the authors perceived and got right or wrong. Holy is Holy
Holy is holy because it's from God. Our faith is holy too, but we don't believe or wroship in a perfect manner. It's not God's truth that is imperfect; it's our perception that is.
Since you are clear that you think that the OT strongly conflicts with the NT it appears you equate "incomplete" with untruth.
No, incomplete is just that. A story you read can be true but incomple. If you hear there is a forest fire, but you are not told where, that doesn't make the story untrue. :)
We know that even the Holy Apostles didn't fully grasp who Jesus was and what His mission was. He revealed Himself to them, and they didn't fully grasp it until later.
"Holy" cannot be untrue
Agreed. :) But Holy can be misunderstood, or incompletely grasped.
Of course He had. :) What you are implying is that He actually wrote it! But He didn't. The authors wrote it. They wrote what was revealed to them, but we all believe in imperfect manner.
My understanding was that your view of God's entire participation in the writing of the Bible amounted to: "Hey, John, it might be a good idea to go over there and write whatever you want about what you have seen and heard. The leaders of Kosta's Church will decide if it's any good a few hundred years from now." :) If that is not correct, then what sort of revelation are you referring to?
FK: If, however, the scriptures are ACTUALLY HOLY, then it would be a much different story. In the latter case there would be no issue of what the authors perceived and got right or wrong. Holy is Holy.
Holy is holy because it's from God. Our faith is holy too, but we don't believe or worship in a perfect manner. It's not God's truth that is imperfect; it's our perception that is.
That would appear to confirm a belief that the scriptures are not from God, but are only from men. That's what I thought you thought.
FK: Since you are clear that you think that the OT strongly conflicts with the NT it appears you equate "incomplete" with untruth.
No, incomplete is just that. A story you read can be true but incomplete. If you hear there is a forest fire, but you are not told where, that doesn't make the story untrue. :)
But Kosta, that is not the approach you take. Especially regarding the OT, you say that when there is a story of a forest fire that it is patently FALSE and a lie and that it never happened. You say there was never a forest fire and that the story was made up as myth in order to make some point. That makes the story untrue, and it also makes Jesus complicit in the untruth since He referred to these stories matter-of-factly, as though they were literally true.
But Holy can be misunderstood, or incompletely grasped.
One cannot claim a story is being misunderstood when one claims that it is manifestly FALSE. :) Part of the very nature of God is given to us plainly in the OT and you reject it entirely. That's not a misunderstanding.