Gradually I have become less inclined to contribute to forums because of the irreconcilability of “This is what God has said, and this is what he means by it” versus “No, what he has really said is this, and this is what he actually means by it”.
To most readers this conflict must surely be regarded as being inevitable, sad, laughable, or even pathetic. To me it all pivots around the degree of one’s dependence on ‘plenary verbal inspiration’.
It seems to me that mankind has a propendency to afford documentary credibility that increases exponentially to the age and mysticism the source. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls is one such example and Joseph Smith’s claim to have discovered the Book of Mormon buried deep amongst the roots of an old pine tree is another, albeit less widely acclaimed, example.
“The Law and the Prophets” is the oldest of Christian documentation, through to the writers of present day hymns and sermons (you might even add yourself to the latest list). But along that line of writings verbal inspiration is accorded gradually reducing inerrancy, until you get to the likes of you and I, some of whom might well be considered to be 100% lacking in inerrancy.
The post Reformation denominational explosion is one enormous seed bed of conflicting degrees of inerrancy. If one out of 100 Reformers was totally innerrant then 99 were at least partially errant, and more likely so too were all 100.
So, to those of you who present what you believe on the basis of its plenary verbal inerrancy I challenge you to document just what it is that you consider to be that basis. You might say that it is the ‘Bible’. but how can 100 different English versions each be totally verbally inerrant?….that would be an utter contradiction of terms.
There are those who claim to be of the ‘KJV only’ persuasion, but do they not not know that the ‘V’ stands for ‘Version’, and do they not know the meaning of that word?
Beam me up Scottie….I want to get off the bus.
To most readers this conflict must surely be regarded as being inevitable, sad, laughable, or even pathetic. To me it all pivots around the degree of one’s dependence on ‘plenary verbal inspiration’.
It seems to me that mankind has a propendency to afford documentary credibility that increases exponentially to the age and mysticism the source. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls is one such example and Joseph Smith’s claim to have discovered the Book of Mormon buried deep amongst the roots of an old pine tree is another, albeit less widely acclaimed, example.
“The Law and the Prophets” is the oldest of Christian documentation, through to the writers of present day hymns and sermons (you might even add yourself to the latest list). But along that line of writings verbal inspiration is accorded gradually reducing inerrancy, until you get to the likes of you and I, some of whom might well be considered to be 100% lacking in inerrancy.
The post Reformation denominational explosion is one enormous seed bed of conflicting degrees of inerrancy. If one out of 100 Reformers was totally innerrant then 99 were at least partially errant, and more likely so too were all 100.
So, to those of you who present what you believe on the basis of its plenary verbal inerrancy I challenge you to document just what it is that you consider to be that basis. You might say that it is the ‘Bible’. but how can 100 different English versions each be totally verbally inerrant?….that would be an utter contradiction of terms.
There are those who claim to be of the ‘KJV only’ persuasion, but do they not not know that the ‘V’ stands for ‘Version’, and do they not know the meaning of that word?
Beam me up Scottie….I want to get off the bus.
