SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Evan Roberts Quote
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Please don't get mad at me for this-

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next Page )
PosterThread
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2401


 Re:

The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, is eternal and eternal basically means out of time. The Spirit transcends time in His omniscient knowledge. Its hard to see how the omniscient Spirit of truth could be engaged in someone speaking "by the Spirit" yet being factually incorrect in their supposedly inspired speaking.


_________________
David Winter

 2017/7/4 14:35Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5916
NC, USA

 Re:

David-- then what do you do with the various obvious inaccuracies in scripture? (e.g. Salt can lose its saltiness; there were nephilim before and after the flood, rainwater does not return to the sky, a bat is a bird, to name a few off the top of my head)

Again, I am not saying the Bible is not inspired as far as vital points and Gods purposes are concerned. I just don't think it requires that we accept inaccurate statements as true in order to preserve the truth that the Bible is inspired.

Obviously, inspiration does not require 100% accuracy because there are inaccuracies.


_________________
Todd

 2017/7/4 16:07Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2401


 Re:

/Obviously inspiration does not requires 100% accuracy./

That's a new one for as far as the inspiration of the Spirit of truth is concerned.

It took me about 30 seconds to look up the verse about rainwater (and snow) not returning to the sky and I saw immediately it doesn't say it in the way you implied. I wonder about the others. It's easy to determine what the word means when it says salt can lose its saltiness.

If the Bible says there were nephilim before the flood and after the flood I would wager a potful of faith that the Spirit of truth correctly men to accurately record that there were nepbilim before and after the flood.


_________________
David Winter

 2017/7/4 16:21Profile
Martyr
Member



Joined: 2012/6/10
Posts: 225
United States

 Re:

Proud papa, you say "They are wrong about the origins of life and creation, because they refuse to think outside the box.
They are stuck in a paradigm that they created with there own imaginations."

I think this describes you more than them. They are willing to look at the world around them, analyze it and come to conclusions based on solid reasoning. It's not all right but they are not in a box, they don't all have secret agendas. I praise God that men forsook the idea that God will heal every illness we have if you cry hard enough or sacrifice enough and instead sought medicinal plants and herbs that can heal the body. We live in this world and are subject to the order within.

Evolution is a good logical theory based on the evidence. It is easy to see why someone would believe that. I personally don't have a problem with evolution though I do not believe it. My thinking is if evolution is true what order guided that evolution to this state? What told the cells in the neck of the giraffe to grow in order to get food from the top? Yes, I think there is something to the theory, I just don't think its the origin of man.

To those on the forum who are confused about how the bible could be wrong on scientific matters I again ask: have you ever spoken by the Spirit? And if yes did you know everything about science, physics, math, history, etc? Or did God speak through YOU using YOUR mind and understanding to convey a relevant message to the people around you according to THEIR understanding?

Evangelical biblical inerrancy is so messed up, people cannot see the truth in front of them because of it. Instead they do these ridiculous illogical leaps of thought to make them seem right. Ridiculous. They think they are defending the bible but they are not (It makes no difference! We are a SPIRITUAL people it is THAT message that is important). They are not defending the bible they are defending a doctrine they hold on to that the bible is 100% correct about everything. They ignore the age of it, the understanding of the time, the context and the people who wrote it and read it through a 21st century mans eyes who must believe every word is literally true or he's an infidel. I would rather read it according to logos (logic, reason, Christ) and see the things for what they are and to know the truth of what I'm reading because Christ is truth and His words are spirit and life. I do not fear truth because it is of Christ and speaks of Him.


_________________
Tyler

 2017/7/4 16:30Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2401


 Re:

I also remember martyr you recently said you won't find a explanation of the atonement in the scriptures because the Bible is not for that. That's obviously not true.

Meanwhile, I would be a bit careful with the syncretism you espouse.


_________________
David Winter

 2017/7/4 16:39Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5916
NC, USA

 Re:

//It's easy to determine what the word means when it says salt can lose its saltiness.//

What does it mean?? I am just quoting what it says; specifically that salt that loses it saltiness is no good and should tossed out in the street to be trampled on by men.

If you are saying Jesus didn't mean that salt could literally lose its saltiness, you are proving my point. Inspiration does not require 100% accuracy when poetry and exaggeration and metaphors are employed.


_________________
Todd

 2017/7/4 16:59Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2401


 Re:

Well you've got your view obviously and that is played but I have never been taught to quibble over things like this in the word of the Lord inspired from cover to cover by the Spirit of truth.




_________________
David Winter

 2017/7/4 17:17Profile
drifter
Member



Joined: 2005/6/6
Posts: 785
Campbell River, B.C.

 Re:

If the Bible says that a bat is a bird then it is. I would rather trust God's word than trust a twenty-first century classification system of animals.

Seriously, evolution is a viable theory? The evolutionary hypothesis suggests that all plants and animals evolved from a common ancestor.So far as I know, there is no mechanism in nature that can add information to a genome, be it plant or animal. The single cell organism life supposedly evolved from would have to contain the totality of information for every genome. A bacteria, or a crocodile, or a human's genome only has the information to be that specific thing. No natural process can add new information.


_________________
Nigel Holland

 2017/7/4 17:21Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2401


 Re:

If you Google the question about Jesus and the salt it takes about two minutes to find and read a adequate explanation. Let God be true!


_________________
David Winter

 2017/7/4 17:23Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5916
NC, USA

 Re:

David I agree with you 100%. Of course there is an explanation. But in so doing you must accept the fact that Jesus was not being literal. Bring the creator of NaCl he knew this molecule could not lose its saltiness. But he suggested that it could. Why? Rhetoric.

The very same can be true for problematic passages about the cosmos in Genesis, Psalms and elsewhere.


_________________
Todd

 2017/7/4 18:48Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy