The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Partial Inerrancy - working definition

(I had some technical difficulties with my old login, and am trying this again... so, as I understand it, my previous login in and post via “Kathy2” will be removed)

RE: God Speaking: I realize words written on hearts in something of the form of convictions counts, or can be considered in the topic of God speaking, but also realize this can just as much become a gray area within the context of things stated in this thread. Certain Scripture verses might come to mind – over others. Regarding William’s statement of what the main message of the Bible is, I think it would be difficult to make one single statement as being the Bible's message, over others.

This thread was started on the topic of Biblical Inerrancy. As a definition of what is “Inerrancy”, I don’t see how a literalist, 100% error-free stance is supported. There are many articles that address this topic, citing incidences of inconsistencies and problems with a literalist view of inerrancy. Many of the inconsistencies can be explained, as merely that... different accounts – but not error, actually lending favor of credibility of the text, by observing it would be less believable if they matched perfectly. I can understand that logic, but can’t in some instances where such an explanation doesn’t fit. The belief that the writers were infallible via the Spirit to not make any errors whatsoever, be they punctuation, or grammar... why would this infallibility stop with the translations? Or interpretations for that matter. It is a poor argument to say the Bible is error free because it says it is, as the basis for faith, even though on one level a believer is asked to agree with this... the Gospel accounts were written to provide verifiable (checkable) accounts, such that provide assurances... such that books are written on this topic to ‘make a case’ for Christ.

Hi Kathy,

I am curious which statement I made concerning what the main message of the Bible is?




Actually this single statement would be the Bible's message over all others.

<span style="background-color:#FFFF00">Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.</span>

This means not all people shall be saved. He came unto his own and his own received him not.


William

.

William,

I misunderstood your previous post, I apologize. Where your last paragraph was expounding on that "there is none righteous" and after that pargagraph stated this being the emphasis of scripture, which is not what you meant. What I was trying to say was tying back into the discussion of "Does God Speak to us?" and that different individuals in their contemplation/thought lives might find different verses have emphasis. I think I was trying to say "Which verse would sum it up?" and if it came to... who's right? Which I don't think it would come to, btw.

Kathy