??? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. When did I ever say that? What I have said, though, is the Bible states that there are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). I have also said that the Bible doesn't state anywhere that it is to be taken literally word for word. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook."
No I am not.
When did I ever say that?
Some time ago, when wideawake was still here. You said that the Bible contradicts itself and invoked the "new testament" to prove it. Something about Matthew saying the sermon was on a "mount" and Luke saying it was in a "valley." And wideawake called you on it. Unfortunately, he isn't here any more. If you give me time I may be able to find the post and quote it verbatim (or link to it).
What I have said, though, is the Bible states that there are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25).
I have said the same thing. Unfortunately, this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the Word of G-d (or the supposed "word of G-d" in the case of the "new testament") containing mistakes or untruths, which has nothing whatsoever to do with rejecting sola scriptura.
I have also said that the Bible doesn't state anywhere that it is to be taken literally word for word.
Then why do you quote it? Is the reader of your posts supposed to interpret the verses you quote "literally" or to ask you what it "really" means? This is the whole point of my question. Why do you quote a book that can't be interpreted literally to prove anything? Please respond. And btw, since you don't believe in sola scriptura, why would the Bible have to say that about itself for it to be true?
The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages.
Actually, the Torah was written entirely by G-d in Hebrew (with the exception of two words in Genesis, which are in Aramaic), the Nevi'im were written entirely under the spirit of Prophecy in Hebrew (with the exception of a single verse in Jeremiah), and the Ketuvim were written entirely under Divine Inspiration mostly in Hebrew (with the exception of brief passages in Ezra and Daniel). The action of G-d prevents contradictions and errors, though of course I understand that your concept of incarnationism means that G-d's Word is adulterated with human errors.
Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook."
Why does it have to be a scientific or history "texbook" in order to be free from error? What makes you think that G-d is incapable of inspiring a "religious book" that is absolutely free from error? Please answer this as well.
It seems I don't have to look up that old post of yours after all, as you've just confirmed everything I said (right after denying it). Why deny something if you're going to immediately confirm it?