God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden in a Fury.
Posted on 03/18/2016 9:19:10 AM PDT by Sam's Army
“The Bible is the Word of God, which errs.” From the advent of neoorthodox theology in the early twentieth century, this assertion has become a mantra among those who want to have a high view of Scripture while avoiding the academic liability of asserting biblical infallibility and inerrancy. But this statement represents the classic case of having one’s cake and eating it too. It is the quintessential oxymoron.
Let us look again at this untenable theological formula. If we eliminate the first part, “The Bible is,” we get “The Word of God, which errs.” If we parse it further and scratch out “the Word of” and “which,” we reach the bottom line:
“God errs.”
The idea that God errs in any way, in any place, or in any endeavor is repugnant to the mind as well as the soul. Here, biblical criticism reaches the nadir of biblical vandalism.
How could any sentient creature conceive of a formula that speaks of the Word of God as errant? It would seem obvious that if a book is the Word of God, it does not (indeed, cannot) err. If it errs, then it is not (indeed, cannot be) the Word of God.
To attribute to God any errancy or fallibility is dialectical theology with a vengeance.
Tweet this
To attribute to God any errancy or fallibility is dialectical theology with a vengeance.
Perhaps we can resolve the antinomy by saying that the Bible originates with God’s divine revelation, which carries the mark of his infallible truth, but this revelation is mediated through human authors, who, by virtue of their humanity, taint and corrupt that original revelation by their penchant for error. Errare humanum est (“To err is human”), cried Karl Barth, insisting that by denying error, one is left with a docetic Bible—a Bible that merely “seems” to be human, but is in reality only a product of a phantom humanity.
Who would argue against the human proclivity for error? Indeed, that proclivity is the reason for the biblical concepts of inspiration and divine superintendence of Scripture. Classic orthodox theology has always maintained that the Holy Spirit overcomes human error in producing the biblical text.
Barth said the Bible is the “Word” (verbum) of God, but not the “words” (verba) of God. With this act of theological gymnastics, he hoped to solve the unsolvable dilemma of calling the Bible the Word of God, which errs. If the Bible is errant, then it is a book of human reflection on divine revelation—just another human volume of theology. It may have deep theological insight, but it is not the Word of God.
Critics of inerrancy argue that the doctrine is an invention of seventeenth-century Protestant scholasticism, where reason trumped revelation—which would mean it was not the doctrine of the magisterial Reformers. For example, they note that Martin Luther never used the term inerrancy. That’s correct. What he said was that the Scriptures never err. Neither did John Calvin use the term. He said that the Bible should be received as if we heard its words audibly from the mouth of God. The Reformers, though, not using the term inerrancy, clearly articulated the concept.
Irenaeus lived long before the seventeenth century, as did Augustine, Paul the apostle, and Jesus. These all, among others, clearly taught the absolute truthfulness of Scripture.
The church’s defense of inerrancy rests upon the church’s confidence in the view of Scripture held and taught by Jesus himself. We wish to have a view of Scripture that is neither higher nor lower than his view.
The full trustworthiness of sacred Scripture must be defended in every generation, against every criticism. That is the genius of The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives. We need to listen closely to this recent defense.
The Bible is the word of God? Perhaps we can say The Holy Bible contains “Words of God”.
The Bible is Holy, that is not so say The Bible is perfect. We know it is not perfect, how did Judas die?
We don’t have any “original” Biblical writings, we have from the memories of men what has been said and what may have been written but no original.
Is perfection in The Holy Bible important? I would say that the ideas prescribed in The Holy Bible are important and certainly all the words of God are important but do we have all the words of God? I think not.
In the various councils trying to unify the early church into what we call the Universal or Catholic church today many books were destroyed and didn’t make the cut. Were all the books that didn’t make it into what we now have illegitimate? Who knows? Is it important.
Today for the most part most Christian churches use the same Holy Bible yet have different doctrines, so just how important is every “jot and tittle”. We don’t have jots and tittles any more because we don’t read the scriptures in Hebrew. Since there are no extant Aramaic scriptures we don’t really have Jesus’ words, we only have translations of what people thought they were generations later.
We don’t teach The Bible anymore anyway, we teach philosophy and mix it with a few scriptures here and there and call it religion. I think it odd that at church the preacher will get up or have someone get up and read a verse or two of scripture and then spend the next 40 minutes telling us what he thinks it means while next door at another church it will have an entirely different meaning.
We are not all in the “unity of faith”, hardly because in our world “the Church” has become more important than our faith. It is sad. Churches compete for each other members based on the different beliefs in what the words of The Holy Bible mean.
The Bible is the word of God as far as it was recorded and translated correctly. There are some ideas written in one language that simply cannot be properly translated into some other languages. There are many more concepts and ideas that cannot be conveyed simply by translating the words in one culture to those of another.
The fact is that unless you read The Bible yourself and have The Holy Ghost as your guide while reading you will not get what you want from it. If you don’t do some study to try to understand the culture and history of the writers you will not understand what is written.
The words of God are perfect. All the words of God will be fulfilled. I suspect that The Holy Bible is mostly The Words of God, but that book as wonderful as it is, is not perfect.
Flame on!
Both Joseph and Mary were of the lineage of David. The Gospel of Matthew shows it through Joseph’s and Luke shows Mary’s. Jesus’ humanity came through Mary (as a person’s blood “Jewishness” is through their mother). As such, he is the heir to David both legally and physically.
What made them holy was because, “Holy men of God spoke as they were moved/carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21). That same Spirit allows those who diligently seek God’s truth to recognize His word.
It doesn’t say “ Mary” in Luke 3:23. Show us “Mary” in Luke 3:23.It says “JOSEPH THE SON OF HELI” . Where do you get “Mary”. I hear this from intelligent people. It does not say Heli was the father of Mary. . What happens is that Joseph’s father in Matthew 1 is “Jacob”. There is an error somewhere. No one can prove Mary’s father was Heli. We have documented statement that Heli was the father of Joseph. The apologists run in with “OH !! the father of Joseph is different in the two histories. Who ever wrote Matthew must have meant Heli was the father of Mary”. But that is not what it says so it is an obvious error. This is like trying to prove the sky is blue. The two lineages are different and neither one is relevant because the Father of Jesus is GOD.
Joseph was a step father. Did you know you can’t inherit from your step father? We have no clue what happened to him . He wasn’t even at the crucifixion.
God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden in a Fury.
How about the book of Batholomew? He was an actual eye witness and disciple. All the other books were written 50 to 110 year after the resurrection many by writers adopting pseudonyms. John may actually been John .Most are total hearsay accounts passed down for decades. Luke never knew Christ. Batholomew did know Christ and witnessed the post resurrection event. Why would this “holy “ scripture be left out. I’m just sayin.
You cannot inherit without the bloodline. You know that.
There were none that were left out. The vast majority of the canon was already decided before this council. This council confirmed what was already known by the church.
From:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus
Maternal ancestry in Luke
A more straightforward and the most common explanation is that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, with Eli being her father, while Matthew’s describes the genealogy of Joseph.[40] This view was advanced as early as John of Damascus (d.749).
Luke’s text says that Jesus was “a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli”.[41] The qualification has traditionally been understood as acknowledgment of the virgin birth, but some instead see a parenthetical expression: “a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli.”[42] In this interpretation, Jesus is called a son of Eli because Eli was his maternal grandfather, his nearest male ancestor.[40] A variation on this idea is to explain “Joseph son of Eli” as meaning a son-in-law,[43] perhaps even an adoptive heir to Eli through his only daughter Mary.[44] An example of the Old Testament use of such an expression is Jair, who is called “Jair son of Manasseh”[45] but was actually son of Manasseh’s granddaughter.[46] In any case, the argument goes, it is natural for the evangelist, acknowledging the unique case of the virgin birth, to give the maternal genealogy of Jesus, while expressing it a bit awkwardly in the traditional patrilinear style.
According to R. A. Torrey, the reason Mary is not implicitly mentioned by name is because the ancient Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.[47]
Lightfoot[43] sees confirmation in an obscure passage of the Talmud,[48] which, as he reads it, refers to “Mary daughter of Eli”; however, both the identity of this Mary and the reading are doubtful.[49] Patristic tradition, on the contrary, consistently identifies Mary’s father as Joachim. It has been suggested that Eli is short for Eliakim,[40] which in the Old Testament is an alternate name of Jehoiakim,[50] for whom Joachim is named.
See also:
http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html
Far be it for anyone to reconsider basic premises. The wise of this world are way too smart to embrace the simple meanings. Otherwise this one would be obvious:
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Why point out the obvious when scholarly carvings from etymologies (or genealogies as it were) can be sold at the craft fair.
Not true.
Of Course its true. Only through adoption— right?
I understand the baseless charade. I am more interested in the actual words in Luke 3:23
You talking about the carpenters son? Matthew 13:55?
Wow really? Where can I find that? There were over 100 priests at the Council. Did they know they were there for nothing? Actually,they made several errors in admitting books that were total contradictions. James— Hebrews, 1&2 Peter— 1 & 2 John . Others. James is advocating legalism over atonement. That is contradictory with Romans although Paul contradicts himself repeatedly. Doesn’t he?
In summary, this has nothing to do with our Savior. I trust John (eye witness) and in 3:16 he tells us who Jesus was. I think it is an act of the devil to worship the bible. I think it is a false idol. I think the actual original words were intentionally mistranslated in 1611 in the King James for institutional and governmental control reasons. The bible is a history book— pure and simple. I will stop now . I love all of you and I love the Truth. Praise Jesus ,our savior. Thank you God for your Son and not Joseph . IMO
The Bible should be read as the Constitution is. It means what it says.
God is the ultimate “Carpenter” — isn’t he? Where did Joseph go? He just disappeared?
God is the ultimate “Carpenter” — isn’t he? Where did Joseph go? He just disappeared?
bttt
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.