Wow, so what do you really believe? ...Statement of Faith

by **Geoffrey** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 8:02 am

My view of the scriptural canon:

1. If a passage is read liturgically in the Eastern Orthodox Church, then it's canonical. If it's not, then it's not.

2. I care not a fig for the autographs. The infallible truth of God is conveyed in the Greek texts as used in the liturgies.

3. The liturgies are the authoritative and inerrant interpretations of the scriptures read therein.

by **Dandelion** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:42 pm

Paidion wrote:The following is for informational purposes only:

It is only in the Old Testament, that the writings vary between the Protestant canon, the Catholic canon, and the Orthodox canon.

The Orthodox Old Testament contains 3rd Maccabees, whereas the RC contains only 1st and 2nd Maccabees.
The Orthodox contains Psalm 151, whereas the other two don't.
Orthodox 2nd Ezra = RC 1st Esdras = Prot Ezra
Orthodox 1st Ezra is a later writing (about 150 BC) containing only 9 chapters. The other two do not contain it.
Orthodox Nehemiah = RC 2nd Esdras = Prot Nehemiah
Orthodox 2 Chronicles includes the Prayer of Manasseh
Orthodox contains "Lamentation of Jeremiah" and "Epistle of Jeremiah" whereas the other two don't.
In the Orthodox, the History of Suzanna is at the beginning of Daniel, and Bel and the Serpent (or dragon) at the end.

This is but a partial list of the differences between the three Bibles. There are also a number of writings found in both the Orthodox and RC Old Testaments which are absent from the Protestant OT.

I obtained my information by comparing the Orthodox Study Bible with the RC Douay.

Here is a site I discovered afterward, that gives a more thorough comparison, and differs a bit from that which I provided above:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html

If you go to the site, please scroll down to compare what the three canons do with the deuterocanonical books (called by Protestants "the Apocrypha").

Thank you, Paidion.

D.

by **pilgrim** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 1:23 pm

I appreciate the time you have given to reply Jeff, Thank you.

by **Paidion** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:13 pm

I'm sorry you felt hurt, Jeff, at Randy's suggestion that your statements of faith are the usual "politically correct" ones. I wouldn't have used those terms, but as a former fundamentalist, I was taught the same things in Bible school, and also heard them from the pulpit. When I began to study the (Protestant) Bible for myself, and referred to the Greek New Testament as edited by Westcott-Hort, I began to see that many of my presuppositions were incorrect. Let me discuss just one of your affirmations:

You wrote: Furthermore, I agree with those who also conclude that inspired words ceased after the New Testament era based on 1 Corinthians 13:8 and Revelation 22:18-19. So the book of Mormon is not inspired, nor does it come close to sharing the same quality as the Christian Scriptures, nor liturgies and commentaries.

Here is the passage to which you referred in Revelation:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19 ESV)

So often, I have heard this passage used in an attempt to show that John gave a dire warning to anyone who adds to or takes away from the words of "the inspired Bible" or "Canon of Scripture" which was not complete in John's day, but is now complete in our day. But, what would John have known about such a Bible or Canon? Clearly by "the words of the book of this prophecy," John was referring to the book of Revelation itself.

And now for the Corinthian passage:

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:8-12 ESV)

You agree with those who say "that inspired words ceased after the New Testament era" based on this passage. But what possible evidence do the people who say that, think that the perfect that is to come is the completed canon? The whole of First Corinthians is not about Scripture; it is about love. Paul is saying that when love is "perfect," that is "complete,"—when we all have complete love for others—there will be no more need for prophecy, tongues, or the gift of knowledge. For these gifts enable us to know other people somewhat, but only partially. God reveals things about people through prophecy, through tongues, and through the gift of knowledge—but only partially. We never fully know others through these gifts. These means of knowing others are childish compared to our knowing them through complete love. When people in Paul's day looked into a mirror (mirrors in those days were polished metal such as shields) they saw a distorted image. That's the way people saw others through prophecy, tongues, or the gift of knowledge. But when we have complete love for others, we will see them as they really are. Through the gifts, we know others partially, but then, when perfect or complete love comes, we will know them fully, just as fully as we are now known by God (who has perfect love for us).

by **Paidion** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:28 pm

In case anyone is interested, here is my personal translation of 1 Corinthians 13 from years back:

1. If I speak in the languages of mankind and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal,
2. And if I have prophecy and know all secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to transfer mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3. And if I feed away all my possessions and deliver my body to be burned and do not have love, it is of no advantage to me.
4. Love is patient; it is kind; it is not envious. Love does not boast or is not arrogant.
5. It does not behave unbecomingly; it is not self-seeking; it does not get irritated; it does not take stock of wrongs suffered.
6. It does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in reality.
7. It covers everyone; it trusts everyone; it expects [the best of] everyone; it endures everyone.
8. Love never falls [from a position that one cannot keep]. As for prophecies, they will become inoperative. As for tongues, they will cease. As for knowledge, it will be rendered inoperative.
9. For we know partially and we prophesy partially.
10. But when the complete comes, the incomplete will become inoperative.
11. When I was a child, I spoke as a child; I thought as a child; I reasoned as a child. When I became a man, I put an end to childish ways.
12. For now we see through a mirror, obscurely, but then face to face. Now I know partially, but then will know thoroughly even as I am thoroughly known.
13. So now, faith, hope, and love remain—these three. But the greatest of these is love.

Note: Mirrors were different in those days. They were metallic, and often gave a dim or distorted image.

by **Holy-Fool-P-Zombie** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:32 pm

Paidion wrote:I'm sorry you felt hurt, Jeff, at Randy's suggestion that your statements of faith are the usual "politically correct" ones. I wouldn't have used those terms, but as a former fundamentalist, I was taught the same things in Bible school, and also heard them from the pulpit. When I began to study the (Protestant) Bible for myself, and referred to the Greek New Testament as edited by Westcott-Hort, I began to see that many of my presuppositions were incorrect. Let me discuss just one of your affirmations:

Actually, Jeff, i was complimenting you. If someone can put theological statements into a "politically correct" format, they really don't offend whoever hears them (even if folks don't agree with them). Including Holy Fools and P-Zombies. I give your responses a thumps up :!:

Both Donald T. and Hilary C., should take some lessons from you.

by **[email protected]** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 8:56 pm

Actually, Jeff, i was complimenting you

.
Super, I'll take it as such and thank you. I wasn't really hurt, but sometimes it seems to me that the holy foolery might lose sight of productive conversation and maybe even love. I am sure it is an appearance only, so no worries.

Clearly by "the words of the book of this prophecy," John was referring to the book of Revelation itself.

Yes good point I stand corrected on that reference. Someone once suggested to me that Revelation is at the end of canonical lists not only because of its timing, but also to neatly place that verse at the end of the canon. I guess that thought stuck in my brain. One certainly cannot make that argument from Scripture and further, I don't think that one can argue there is inspiration to the order of the books. I still hold that the special God-breathed books from God are completed with no more to be added. 1 Cor 13 is enough proof for me.

Paidon, do you believe that God is still breathing inspired works today? How many books do you place on the list?

by **LLC** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 12:01 am

Again, John 21:25 says this: And there are also many other things that Jesus did which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." The definition of inspire is "to fill someone with the urge to do or feel something, especially to do something creative." I find that when it comes to the Bible, people suddenly want to change the normal definitions of the words. I don't understand this. All truth comes from God. So when people write of truths they find in life, I would say they were inspired by God. Open up a hymnal for example. These words are inspired by God. What makes the book of Psalms any different?

by **Holy-Fool-P-Zombie** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:57 am

[email protected] wrote:
Actually, Jeff, i was complimenting you
.
Super, I'll take it as such and thank you. I wasn't really hurt, but sometimes it seems to me that the holy foolery might lose sight of productive conversation and maybe even love. I am sure it is an appearance only, so no worries.
[

"Always smile. Life isn't always full of reasons to smile, but your smile itself is a reason for others to smile too."-- Sebastiano Serafini

Rest assured, "productive conversation" has NEVER been a goal of Holy Foolery. But Love is the essence in Christ and the foolishness of the world, is paramount. We just need Holy Fools (and P-Zombies), to drill in this message - in different ways. :lol:

by **[email protected]** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:59 am

The Psalms are God's word and are without error, hymnals are man's words and are not without error.

by **Geoffrey** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:25 am

LLC wrote:Open up a hymnal for example. These words are inspired by God. What makes the book of Psalms any different?

C. S. Lewis wrote: "I disliked very much their hymns, which I considered to be fifth-rate poems set to sixth-rate music."

by **Paidion** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:10 pm

Jeff wrote:The Psalms are God's word and are without error, hymnals are man's words and are not without error.

Is this Psalm God's word?

O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
blessed shall he be who repays you
with what you have done to us!
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!
(Psalm 137:8,9)

Did God bless those who dashed babies' heads against a rock? Are not those who do so committing a moral error?
None of "man's words" that are in the hymnals that I have examined, ever suggest doing such a thing.

by **[email protected]** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:09 pm

Apparently so.

Let God defend himself on that point for He is the one who also drowned the entire world except for 8 people in time past. God is the one who leveled Jerusalem to the ground for their rejection of Christ bringing unimaginable suffering on man, woman, and child. Josephus writes that mothers killed and ate their children while under Roman siege, all the result of God's punishment upon the unbelieving Jews. So for us death is a very big deal, not so for God. He owns us and who is to say the death by even any means is so tragic. Consider that God ushers 150,000 people through death's door daily. This is routine work for Him. Check out the parable of the Talents. Jesus compares himself to the master who throws a worthless servant outside into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Consider that God also commanded Israel to kill every man woman and child in Canaan as they entered the promised land.

All this and God still remains the all wise God of love. So we see his love burns like a hot iron through our notions of comfort and pain free living in this life. God is serious about holiness and if we disregard him he is perfectly willing to bring pain, suffering, and even death. If any mere mortal did the things God did in these matters he would be a criminal of the worst degree, but God because he is God must be feared because of the tragedies he is perfectly willing to bring about, while still indisputably remaining the God of all love.

We must stop judging God by our own human reasoning and refactor our understanding of God from the words of Scripture. God is not a gray bearded grandfather in the sky who thinks his children can do no wrong while he hands out candies. Instead he is a consuming fire.

Paidon, did you see my previous question? Do you believe that God is still breathing inspired works today? How many books do you place on the list?

by **DaveB** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:54 pm

With that dark portrait in mind, perhaps eternal conscious torment is less than what we deserve. :evil:

by **davo** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:07 am

[email protected] wrote:Instead he is a consuming fire.

Good thing Jesus became humanity’s fire insurance appeasing and he rescued us from an angry God…

by **Holy-Fool-P-Zombie** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:54 am

davo wrote:
[email protected] wrote:Instead he is a consuming fire.

Good thing Jesus became humanity’s fire insurance appeasing and he rescued us from an angry God…

I fully agree :!:

Hey. Come to think of it. Folks embracing ECT, annihilation and universalism - would all agree with that :!:

by **Geoffrey** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:58 am

Surely we must recognize a qualitative difference between canonical scripture on the one hand, and (on the other hand) inspiring writings in general?

by **LLC** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 12:10 pm

[email protected] wrote:The Psalms are God's word and are without error, hymnals are man's words and are not without error.

Jeff, you say that we should not worship the Bible. The Bible was also written by men who were moved (inspired) by God. To me, this does not mean that these writers were merely taking dictation as God was speaking every word. Ecclesiastes 12:9-10 says this: And moreover, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he pondered and sought out and set in order many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find acceptable words; and what was written was upright-words of truth." The word of God is a living and active word, and wisdom is gained through experience. God does not just speak to the few, He speaks to the many in our hearts and minds. And as we continue to go through life and experience these truths, we will continue to write about them in many different ways, through song, poetry, stories, etc. etc.

To say for example, the hymn "Amazing Grace" is somehow of less quality because it is not in the Bible does not make sense to me. Truth is truth and can be found in many places. Stories such as "To Kill a Mockingbird", "The Wizard of Oz" and"East of Eden" travel through time and remain classics because they contain certain truths of life. Can one say these stories are not true because they are not in the Bible?

by **[email protected]** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:04 pm

Can one say these stories are not true because they are not in the Bible?

What? Certainly there are true statements outside the Bible!

If I write 1+1=2 on a slip of paper it is true, and furthermore it is as true as any statement of God inspired word, but that does not then make it the special God-breathed Scriptural message from God! Don't you understand? God gave us special books, not merely dictated, but the Holy Spirit picked up men as His writing instrument, using their personalities and gifts to pen the pages of the these special books, without error in the original autographs, and though he used men to write, He is the author of the Bible and His word is flawless. These special books are then the sum of God's written message to mankind and they contain everything we need to understand God and to learn to please him. The Bible is God's special written message given to mankind.

Of course there are other truthful, valuable, and spiritual written words. The hymn amazing grace is wonderful and and contains no theological error that I am aware. Just because a work is not God-breathed does not mean it has to contain an error, but instead simply that it is not guaranteed to be with out error. So works of men, even if they have no errors are still none-the-less not in the category of God-breathed Scripture and so hymns might contain errors because they are the work of fallible men.

by **Geoffrey** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 5:33 pm

I am in basic agreement with Jeff. My criteria for canonicity and my emphasis on authoritative interpretation go beyond what he's saying, though:

The canonical scriptures (defined as those passages read within the context of the Orthodox liturgy) and their infallible interpretation (i. e., the liturgy itself) are inerrant in their original language (Byzantine Greek). The liturgy contains all the truth that God has communicated to man through language. One can contemplate its words without fear of them containing error. No other writings on earth have that guarantee. Any other writing is, at best, probably correct.

by **Paidion** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:29 pm

Jeff wrote:Don't you understand? God gave us special books, not merely dictated, but the Holy Spirit picked up men as His writing instrument, using their personalities and gifts to pen the pages of the these special books, without error in the original autographs.

But how do you KNOW they are without error in the original autographs? The original autographs do not exist, and so there is no evidence that your statement is true. It's only a theoretical, mental concept.

Again, how do you know which writings are the ones that God preserved from error? You say you don't rely on the decisions of church councils.
You say that, "The Christian Scriptures are documents of a special nature distinct from other human writings." But WHICH writings are "The Christian Scriptures", and how do you KNOW?

The Greek copies we have today do not have a great deal of variation. I can display errors, but I am sure that would not convince you of anything, for you would simply say (without evidence) that the error does not exist in the original autograph, and, of course, because the original does not exist, no one can prove otherwise.

by **Paidion** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:32 pm

Jeff wrote:He is the one who also drowned the entire world except for 8 people in time past.

How do you KNOW that it was God who did it?

God is the one who leveled Jerusalem to the ground for their rejection of Christ bringing unimaginable suffering on man, woman, and child.

How do you KNOW that God did that?

by **davo** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:55 pm

Paidion wrote:
Jeff wrote:Don't you understand? God gave us special books, not merely dictated, but the Holy Spirit picked up men as His writing instrument, using their personalities and gifts to pen the pages of the these special books, without error in the original autographs.

But how do you KNOW they are without error in the original autographs? The original autographs do not exist, and so there is no evidence that your statement is true. It's only a theoretical, mental concept.

Again, how do you know which writings are the ones that God preserved from error? You say you don't rely on the decisions of church councils.
You say that, "The Christian Scriptures are documents of a special nature distinct from other human writings." But WHICH writings are "The Christian Scriptures", and how do you KNOW?

The Greek copies we have today do not have a great deal of variation. I can display errors, but I am sure that would not convince you of anything, for you would simply say (without evidence) that the error does not exist in the original autograph, and, of course, because the original does not exist, no one can prove otherwise.

Paidion wrote:
Jeff wrote:He is the one who also drowned the entire world except for 8 people in time past.

How do you KNOW that it was God who did it?

God is the one who leveled Jerusalem to the ground for their rejection of Christ bringing unimaginable suffering on man, woman, and child.

How do you KNOW that God did that?

Jeff… these ARE legitimate questions Paidion raises which cannot be glibly brushed aside with some mere cavalier wave of the hand.

by **[email protected]** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:01 pm

Regarding God's flawless word I've already point us to Proverbs 30:5. Regarding the works of Moses as prophecy from God and not mere human writing, Deuteronomy 18:15, Luke 24:27, Hebrews 3:5, and many more proofs if you need them. The Pentateuch is prophecy from God through Moses, not mere human wisdom. Regarding God's sovereign acts in punishing evil doers, Genesis 6:7, as prophesied by God through Moses. Regarding Christ's will to destroy Jerusalem in 70ad for Israel's rejection of the Messiah, Luke 20:9-18, spoken directly from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

by **maintenanceman** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:14 pm

LLC said:

To say for example, the hymn "Amazing Grace" is somehow of less quality because it is not in the Bible does not make sense to me. Truth is truth and can be found in many places.

Jeff said:

The hymn amazing grace is wonderful and contains no theological error that I am aware. Just because a work is not God-breathed does not mean it has to contain an error, but instead simply that it is not guaranteed to be with out error.

So a hymn inspired by reading a particular passage of the bible... How can we know a bible passage is inspired but a hymn or paper about that same passage can not possibly be inspired? Even if we know of no error?

This is interesting. I have been working on some musical pieces that are music and spoken word. So if the spoken word is lifted from the authorized version, (public domain

) word for word, will these works (or songs, as I hesitate to call them hymns) be considered inspired?

Just a thought...

Chad

I will say that possibly more folks are moved to tears spiritually week after week by the song Amazing Grace that by the book of Romans!

by **Geoffrey** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:09 pm

I grew up in a world in which the Protestants, who had just proved that Rome did not believe the Bible, were excitedly discovering that they did not believe the Bible themselves.

from chapter 2 ("The Obvious Blunders") of G. K. Chesterton's The Catholic Church and Conversion (1926)

by **DaveB** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:09 am

I still look at it this way.
Click on pic for the whole thing.

by **LLC** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:30 am

[email protected] wrote:
Can one say these stories are not true because they are not in the Bible?

What? Certainly there are true statements outside the Bible!

If I write 1+1=2 on a slip of paper it is true, and furthermore it is as true as any statement of God inspired word, but that does not then make it the special God-breathed Scriptural message from God! Don't you understand? God gave us special books, not merely dictated, but the Holy Spirit picked up men as His writing instrument, using their personalities and gifts to pen the pages of the these special books, without error in the original autographs, and though he used men to write, He is the author of the Bible and His word is flawless. These special books are then the sum of God's written message to mankind and they contain everything we need to understand God and to learn to please him. The Bible is God's special written message given to mankind.

Of course there are other truthful, valuable, and spiritual written words. The hymn amazing grace is wonderful and and contains no theological error that I am aware. Just because a work is not God-breathed does not mean it has to contain an error, but instead simply that it is not guaranteed to be with out error. So works of men, even if they have no errors are still none-the-less not in the category of God-breathed Scripture and so hymns might contain errors because they are the work of fallible men.

The people who wrote the Bible were fallible men as well. The Spirit of God guided them in truth and wisdom just as He continues guide us today.
To me, a lot of what is in the Bible was written to teach and is not to read literally. The best way to communicate spiritual knowledge is through universal languages such as music, poetry, and stories. Take the story of Noah and the Ark for example. This tale is found in books that are much older than the Bible, but they are remembered and passed on from generation to generation. The stories may be told in many different ways but the truths contained in them remain the same.

by **Holy-Fool-P-Zombie** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:49 am

"If you see me talking to myself, don't be alarmed. I'm getting expert advice!" -- Author Unknown

I think this might be useful, so I will share it from Wiki (actually, the whole Wiki article, is relevant to this discussion):

One need only peruse through the Wiki article Internal consistency of the Bible, for various approaches to this topic. It's interesting to look at the topic heading modern:

Modern Christian approaches to biblical consistency are reminiscent of the split between Luther and Osiander, and can be broadly divided between inerrancy and infallibility. The former, followed by the Southern Baptist Convention and by evangelical Christians in general, holds that the original Biblical manuscripts have "God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter", so that "all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy":[23] Its most erudite proponents, such as Gleason Archer, whose reconciliation of difficult texts echoes that of Osiander, allow that textual scholarship and an understanding of the historical context of individual passages is necessary to establish true, original biblical text, but that that text, once discovered, is without error.

The infallibility approach followed by some theologians and scholars, primarily of the Catholic and Anglican churches, and some mainline Protestant denominations, avoids many of the pitfalls of inerrancy by holding that the Bible is without error only in matters essential to salvation,[24] and that guidance is necessary for the correct interpretation of apparent inconsistencies; the latter part being common to all Orthodox and Catholic Christians, regardless of views of Biblical inerrancy, being the primary role of the magisterium.

According to Roman Catholic biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown, this approach found expression in Dei verbum, one of the key documents adopted at the Second Vatican Council, which stated that scripture teaches "...solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation,"[25]—meaning that Scripture is inerrant only "...to the extent to which it conforms to the salvific purpose of God,"[26][27] without necessarily being reliable on matters such as paleontology or political history; this view is challenged by some conservative Catholic scholars.[28][29]

As an aside, I found this discussion interesting on Quora:

How can the alleged miracle of the Holy Fire of Jerusalem be explained?

Holy Fire

Question for Jeff and others:

P.S. for Jeff and others. Look at Left Brain Vs Right Brain. Sometimes, I use the part of my brain, that Mr. Data and Mr. Spock of Star Trek - like to use. Sometimes I use the other part, which Holy Fool Trainees and P-Zombie Wannabees - like to use. Sometimes, I mix them up on purpose. :!:

by **Paidion** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:46 pm

Regarding God's flawless word I've already point us to ...

Is the following "God's flawless word"?

These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever. It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
(Jude 12-15 ESV)

Jude took this quotation from the Book of Enoch. Clearly Jude believed the writer was "the seventh from Adam," that is, the historic Enoch who didn't die, but whom "God took" (Gen 5:24). Other Christians in the first two centuries also thought the book was written by the historic Enoch. But it wasn't. I have a copy of Enoch. The writer claims to be that historic Enoch, the son of Jared. Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria cite the book of Enoch without questioning its sacred character. Origen (A.D. 254) in quoting Hebrew literature assigns to the book of Enoch, the same authority as to the Psalms.

The following is a quote from the introduction to the Book of Enoch, ©COPYRIGHT 1976 BY WIZARDS BOOKSHELF:

In Chapter 54:9 of Enoch,we read, "The chiefs of the East, among the Parthians and Medes, shall remove kings, in whom a spirit of perturbation shall enter. They shall hurl them from their thrones, springing as lions from their dens, and like famished wolves into the midst of the flock." Commenting on the passage, Archbishop Lawrence says, "Now the Parthians were altogether unknown in history until the 250th year before Christ."

So clearly this book was not written by the historic Enoch, "the seventh from Adam" as Jude had written. So was Jude's statement that he WAS the seventh from Adam, "the flawless word of God"? I don't think so.

by **Paidion** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:14 pm

Jeff, you wrote:Regarding God's flawless word I've already point us to Proverbs 30:5.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God proves true.

Jeff, I also believe the truth of this proverb. But this proverb is a far cry from asseverating that every sentence in the Bible is the word of God.

by **[email protected]** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:59 pm

So clearly this book was not written by the historic Enoch, "the seventh from Adam" as Jude had written. So was Jude's statement that he WAS the seventh from Adam, "the flawless word of God"? I don't think so.

I follow this explanation, https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/562-did-jude-quote-from-the-book-of-enoch which answers all your objections.

Jeff, I also believe the truth of this proverb. But this proverb is a far cry from asseverating that every sentence in the Bible is the word of God.

Certainly every sentence, word, jot, and tittle in the God-breathed Scripture is flawless and without error. And so the goal before us is to assemble these Scriptures into God's library, also known as the Bible. And so the Bibles we have are the best efforts of Christians through the centuries to present the inspired word to believers.

@paidon, you've obviously come to some hard-one conclusions, as have I, and so perhaps we may not persuade one another. However, you keep pulling out debated passages as if that were an argument against the claim that God's word is flawless. I think I've already made my point that any communication from God whether direct or God-breathed through the inspired writers of Scripture is flawless. The point is that God cannot err in his communication because he is God. However, the inerrancy only applies to the original autographs. So it is possible that Jude any other Bible book contains an error in the transcription or translation. So finding a debated passage may not further our discussion on the point in question.

Now I am still curious about the answer to my previous question. How many books do you put on your list of God-breathed Scripture?

by **Geoffrey** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:05 pm

[email protected] wrote:Certainly every sentence, word, jot, and tittle in the God-breathed Scripture is flawless and without error.

Amen.

We get flaw and error with our preposterous interpretations of God's precious scriptures. The main point of this message board testifies to this dichotomy: A great many people absurdly believe that God's flawless scriptures teach never-ending damnation, when the truth is that the scriptures clearly teach universalism. Sadly, many unbelievers use the falsehood that the perfect scriptures teach never-ending damnation as a pretext to reject the scriptures.

Scriptures = perfection
our private interpretations = moronic idiocy

by **Paidion** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:28 pm

Jeff, you wrote:However, you keep pulling out debated passages as if that were an argument against the claim that God's word is flawless.

No, I don't. I "keep pulling out" passages to show that the Protestant (and Catholic and Orthodox) "canon of Scripture" contains errors in many places. I didn't make any claim at all against God's word being trustworthy. No "Bible" is tantamount to "God's word."

The point is that God cannot err in his communication because he is God.

No. That is not the point at all. The point is defining precisely what God's word is. You say it's the Protestant Bible without any evidence whatever, and when evidence is brought to the contrary, you feel obligated to defend it anyway, repeating the same old mantra.

However, the inerrancy only applies to the original autographs.

The original autographs of what? The Protestant Bible? It's easy to make a claim for some mental construct that can be neither verified nor disproved. And that is precisely the claim you are making since the original autographs do not exist. In other words, you have no basis for saying the original autographs were inerrant. You seem simply to have the need to believe it. Would your faith in Christ collapse if an original manuscript were discovered that contained a factual error?

by **maintenanceman** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:43 pm

Geoffrey wrote:
[email protected] wrote:Certainly every sentence, word, jot, and tittle in the God-breathed Scripture is flawless and without error.

Amen.

We get flaw and error with our preposterous interpretations of God's precious scriptures. The main point of this message board testifies to this dichotomy: A great many people absurdly believe that God's flawless scriptures teach never-ending damnation, when the truth is that the scriptures clearly teach universalism. Sadly, many unbelievers use the falsehood that the perfect scriptures teach never-ending damnation as a pretext to reject the scriptures.

Scriptures = perfection
our private interpretations = moronic idiocy

WOW

Our preposterous interpretations, I would say, are all predicated on where we are at a given time. Whether we are where we will be at some point in the future remains to be seen or experienced.

But most interpretations... preposterous, possible, or in our mind valid, are ideas that are proposed to us and we shall react to such verbiage. Paul calls it the call... some say it is conversion.

The Idea is valid that the Gospel message will call people. It will make them evaluate their lives and show a finer way. It changes folks!

We need to realize that and acknowledge that as we debate these things.

If we have a document with 66 books, and people are responding to the message, how are we to complain? If we feel the message is wrong, so it may be our call to point that out. If it is more or different books, super duper. My Mom is a huge fan of the book of Jasher. She really likes it for some reason. It is her.

Let's look at this in love and realize that most of us have made theological changes.

Just a thought.

Chad

by **[email protected]** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:45 pm

The original autographs of what? The Protestant Bible?

No Paidon. The original autographs are the actual documents penned by Moses, the prophets, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc as inspired by God. The Protestant Bible simply claims to be a collection of transcriptions and translations of those original documents.

It's easy to make a claim for some mental construct that can be neither verified nor disproved.

What verification would be proof enough for you that the originals are without err? How would you judge God's word to be true? Against what standard? For me the proof is that when God speaks or writes it is impossible for him to err, just as he said.

Would your faith in Christ collapse if an original manuscript were discovered that contained a factual error?

Would my faith collapse if God directly spoke or inspired writing with err? Happily my faith is in a God who does not err.

What did you think of the explanation about Jude in the previous link? I guess I'll stop asking you to share your list of God-breathed Scriptures. However, it seems fair if you do not like my proposition that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are the collection of transcriptions and translations of those original documents... then lets carry the conversation forward and you share your proposed list.

by **Paidion** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:58 pm

Jeff, you wrote:I guess I'll stop asking you to share your list of God-breathed Scriptures.

Good. For it has never occurred to me to construct such a list. I presume from your post above, that your list is "the actual documents penned by Moses, the prophets, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc." Is that correct? Does the "etc." include the letter of Clement (Paul's fellow worker) to the Corinthians? If not, why not? If another letter written by Paul were discovered, would you include that in your list? Paul indicated that he wrote a letter to the Laodiceans.

Colossians 4:16 (NASB) When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.

There is extant a letter purporting to be Paul's letter to the Laodiceans. If that were proved genuine, would you include that in your list of "God-breathed Scriptures"?

It is not your list or my list of "God-breathed Scriptures" that is important. It is what Paul meant in 2 Timothy 3:16. The first thing to understand is that the Greek word "γραφη" (graphā) can simply mean "a writing" and not necessarily some special writing called "Scripture." The second thing to understand, is that if Paul did mean a special list of "inspired writings" he probably referred to the Hebrew writings, as those were the ones that the Jewish Christians consulted. It is highly unlikely that he included the writings of "Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc."

It might also be instructive to be aware that the translators of several versions offer an alternate translation that is also true to the Greek:

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
(2 Timothy 3:16 ASV American Standard Version 1901)

All Scripture that is divinely inspired is also profitable, etc. (Revised Standard Version of 1881)

Every scripture inspired by God is also useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (New Revised Standard Version 1989 given as an alternative reading)

And a less literal translation:

Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind (New English Bible 1970)

by **Paidion** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:06 pm

Jeff, you wrote:What verification would be proof enough for you that the originals are without err? How would you judge God's word to be true? Against what standard? For me the proof is that when God speaks or writes it is impossible for him to err, just as he said.

Again, you are starting with the assumption that particular writings and no others are God's writings. The question is not whether God errs when He speaks or inspires (He doesn't write). The question is whether or not He is the author of every sentence in the works you consider to be God-breathed. It is much more likely that the authors of the writings you listed, though they may have been inspired by God, wrote using their human minds and understanding, and sometimes made errors. There is nothing within these writings that indicates that God preserved them from making mistakes when they wrote.

by **[email protected]** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:37 pm

It is not your list or my list of "God-breathed Scriptures" that is important. It is what Paul meant in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Yes, precisely. What is meant by 2 Timothy 3:16?

The first thing to understand is that the Greek word "γραφη" (graphā) can simply mean "a writing" and not necessarily some special writing called "Scripture."

What? Every New Testament usage of G1124 is obviously Scripture. This is the NT word for Scripture even if it had alternate denotations in the Greek world at the time.

The second thing to understand, is that if Paul did mean a special list of "inspired writings" he probably referred to the Hebrew writings, as those were the ones that the Jewish Christians consulted. It is highly unlikely that he included the writings of "Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc."

Again what? 2 Peter 3:16 makes it plain that the New Testament writers knew they were writing Scripture. You are in error on this point also.

I'll add a third point that the 21st Nestle Greek interlinear translates the phrase, "Every Scripture [is] God-breathed." The sentence structure demands that God-breathed and profitable modifies Scripture, meaning that all Scripture is God-breathed, rather than God-breathed writings being a sub-set of Scripture as the ASV, RSV, and NRSV wrongly translate. Consult with any Greek scholar and they will tell you so.

Does the "etc." include the letter of Clement (Paul's fellow worker) to the Corinthians? If not, why not? If another letter written by Paul were discovered, would you include that in your list? Paul indicated that he wrote a letter to the Laodiceans.

Certainly as Christians assembled the cannon these and other books were evaluated for inclusion in the canon. I haven't studied each case in depth and can hardly answer all your questions in this forum. I suggest that you begin to study the volumes that already exist on the subject. I do understand some of the criterion of apostolic and early church witness to the documents, internal consistency, historical evidence, etc. I have used some similar methods to answer your objections to a Psalm because it seemed out of character with God, as well as your concern about Jude. However, you didn't really seem to consider my answers before raising more questions. Seems like we need to slow down here. Further, I don't think this forum post is going to answer all the objections you seem to have.

You seem to be rattling off a growing list of objections, but your primary objection seems to be that you do not acknowledge that God has give us special unique God-breathed written messages. You say it never even occurred to you construct a list of these documents. Frankly I am not sure what Scripture even means to you then. What is the difference between Paul's writing and my own book? God forbid that I would claim that my works are God-breathed as were his. For myself my heart beat is roused to consider that God gave us his love letters and it is my passion to study even the transcriptions and translations of the lost sources. I have appreciated the debate, but I haven't been persuaded to change my proposed statement after our discussion and need to get back to some pressing projects.

by **LLC** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:51 am

Again, going back to the hymnal example, in putting together such a book, one cannot include every song ever written about God. It would be too voluminous. One must pick and choose which songs to include from amongst that many that were written. This does not mean that those chosen were " God breathed " while the others were not. I'd say they were all inspired by God. There are thousands of people who write about God and give testimony to the works He has done in their lives. I don't see a problem with including this as scripture. If it teaches others about God and leads them to Him, why not?

by **Holy-Fool-P-Zombie** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:58 am

"If you see me talking to myself, don't be alarmed. I'm getting expert advice!" -- Author Unknown

Let's revisit some questions I proposed earlier:

One need only peruse through the Wiki article Internal consistency of the Bible, for various approaches to this topic. It's interesting to look at the topic heading modern, where they discuss inerrancy and infallibility:

Question for Jeff and others:

As an aside, I found this discussion interesting on Quora:

How can the alleged miracle of the Holy Fire of Jerusalem be explained?

Holy Fire

by **[email protected]** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:35 am

Question for Jeff and others: If inerrancy is true, then how to you reconcile the book of Genesis, with modern scientific theories of Evolution, Big Bang, Old Earth, etc.

There is a lot of more recent Christian research finding fault with evolution and so I am a convinced 7 day creation, young earth advocate.

if miracles ceased to exist, then how do you explain away the alleged miracle of the Holy Fire of Jerusalem

I never said miracles ceased to exist. I believe God still works miracles today. 1 Corinthians 13 only says that the gift of tongues will cease and the gift of prophecy fade away. Miracles however still happen! :-)

by **Holy-Fool-P-Zombie** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:44 am

[email protected] wrote:
Question for Jeff and others: If inerrancy is true, then how to you reconcile the book of Genesis, with modern scientific theories of Evolution, Big Bang, Old Earth, etc.

There is a lot of more recent Christian research finding fault with evolution and so I am a convinced 7 day creation, young earth advocate.

if miracles ceased to exist, then how do you explain away the alleged miracle of the Holy Fire of Jerusalem

I never said miracles ceased to exist. I believe God still works miracles today. 1 Corinthians 13 only says that the gift of tongues will cease and the gift of prophecy fade away. Miracles however still happen!

If I go through the Christian site http://www.godandscience.org/ and read through their articles, it appears they don't give much credence to a "7 day creation, young earth" position. And their articles are well put together - with convincing arguments and evidence. What do you say to them?

In fact, they have a whole list of rebuttals, at http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/links.html

by **[email protected]** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:55 am

Sorry no time to discuss the detail on that now... and it might be too for off the trail on the primary 'statement of faith' discussion. Do a google search on 'Creation Science' and it will lead you to the resources that have persuaded me.

by **Holy-Fool-P-Zombie** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:07 am

[email protected] wrote:Sorry no time to discuss the detail on that now... and it might be too for off the trail on the primary 'statement of faith' discussion. Do a google search on 'Creation Science' and it will lead you to the resources that have persuaded me.

Actually, I have read through the presentations, on both sides of the equation. It seems to me that the majority of scientists - who are also Christian - favor one or more non-Creationist positions. Like Old Earth, Big Bang, Evolution, etc. There's even deep theological discussions, by both Jewish and Christian theologians - on how we view "days" in Genesis.

For example:

If science leads down a path, like Carbon-14 dating. Do we follow the scientific leads on aging, or try to find fault with the method - like the creationists, are trying hard to do?

It appears to me that scientists find far more "holes" in the creationist position, then the other way around.

The only way I see to save "inerrancy" with Genesis, is to look at vast parts, either allegorically or symbolically. Otherwise, we need to run with infallibility.

by **davo** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:02 am

[email protected] wrote:
It is not your list or my list of "God-breathed Scriptures" that is important. It is what Paul meant in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Yes, precisely. What is meant by 2 Timothy 3:16?

Quite clearly this refers to the Hebrew Scriptures…

2Tim 3:15 …and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

cf. Lk 24:45

by **Geoffrey** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:29 am

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:The only way I see to save "inerrancy" with Genesis, is to look at vast parts, either allegorically or symbolically. Otherwise, we need to run with infallibility.

I think that Genesis, understood as inerrant and interpreted literally, is 100% compatible with an old earth, a local flood, and biological evolution of all species except for mankind.

by **Holy-Fool-P-Zombie** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:37 am

Geoffrey wrote:
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:The only way I see to save "inerrancy" with Genesis, is to look at vast parts, either allegorically or symbolically. Otherwise, we need to run with infallibility.

I think that Genesis, understood as inerrant and interpreted literally, is 100% compatible with an old earth, a local flood, and biological evolution of all species except for mankind.

Can you elaborate a bit and give some simple examples :?:

Or point me to some links, that looks at an "inerrant " Genesis, along with an "old earth, a local flood, and biological evolution of all species except for mankind." I'm always eager to learn. :!:

In fact, in an article entitled Do Bible Inerrancy and Millions of Years Go Together?, the author says this:

Can someone believe in biblical inerrancy and also believe in evolution and millions of years? In his powerful DVD, Inerrancy and the Undermining of Biblical Authority, Dr. Terry Mortenson (PhD, history of geology) wrestles with this question. He shows how many prominent and rightfully respected Christian leaders affirm and defend biblical inerrancy, but then turn right around and inconsistently use man’s ideas about the past to determine how we should interpret Genesis. For whatever reason, they just can’t see ( or don’t want to see) that they are using two different methods of interpreting Scripture: one for Genesis 1–11 and a different one for the rest of the Bible.

Many of these leaders signed or were involved in creating the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy and the later Chicago Statement of Hermeneutics—two wonderful documents affirming the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Yet these same men who affirmed biblical inerrancy have compromised with man’s ideas in Genesis. Through the use of their own writings, Dr. Mortenson shows that although these leaders claim that the Bible is inerrant in all it says—including in history and science—they deny this belief by their inconsistent treatment of Genesis. They plainly show that they do not accept millions of years, astronomical, geological, or, at times, biological evolution because the biblical text demands it but, rather, because of the supposed scientific data. It’s a clear compromise of God’s Word that undermines biblical inerrancy. Dr. Mortenson shows that while you can believe in biblical inerrancy and millions of years/evolution, to do so is highly inconsistent and even dangerous! For example, the order of events in the Creation account is very different from the proposed order of events in big bang and evolutionary ideas. To accept these old-earth ideas you have to ignore or radically change the details in the biblical text. This puts man’s word as an authority over God’s Word—something that those who believe in inerrancy say never should happen. And yet that’s what they’re doing!

by **[email protected]** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:33 pm

My proposed statement of faith does not engage in the creation evolution debate because it is intentionally brief. However, I myself hold to a non-evolutionary creationist view. Two quick thoughts...

1) Here is an interesting interview with Richard Dawkins. For those that truly understand God's design in the information stored in DNA this interview exposes a fatal flaw in the science of evolution, http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped ... uted-again. The interview is hotly debated because Dawkins is knocked off his feet with the simple question.

2) For myself the deal breaker for evolution is not scientific as much as it is historical / theological. Romans 5:12 makes it plain that sin first entered the world, followed by death. This is a critical observation to conclude that death was not a beginning or end game for our God of life, but a temporal fact in the middle. Universalists ought to especially appreciate this fact. Thus, millions of years of death and evolution leading to the first man is not possible.

by **Paidion** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:31 pm

Hi Jeff, you wrote:
The first thing to understand is that the Greek word "γραφη" (graphā) can simply mean "a writing" and not necessarily some special writing called "Scripture."

What? Every New Testament usage of G1124 is obviously Scripture. This is the NT word for Scripture even if it had alternate denotations in the Greek world at the time.

It may be true that all 51 instances of G1124 happen to refer to Hebrew writings. But that fact does not imply that that is its only use.

The Online Bible Lexicon, the NAS Lexicon, Strong's Greek Lexicon, and Abbott-Smith's Greek Lexicon, all include "a writing" in the definition of ""γραφη".

What about G1125? "γραφω" (I write) is but the verbal form of the noun "γραφη" (a writing).

You could also argue, I suppose, that G1125 (1125 instances) also refers to a special class of writings called "Scripture" from passages such as this:

Luke 3:4 as it is written <G1125> in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight.

But the fact is, the word is frequently used just as we use it today:

John 19:22 Pilate answered, "What I have written <G1125>, I have written <G1125>."
Luke 16:7 "Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ So he said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write <G1125> eighty.’

In conclusion, I affirm that the verbal form "γραφω" means "I write" or "I am writing" and the nounal form of the same word "γραφη" means "a writing". Also, the original meaning of "scripture" was also "a writing". The word comes from the Latin "scriptura" which means "a writing."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scripture

By the way, it may surprise you to know that I, also, believe in a 7-day creation, and that the earth is "young"—that is from six to ten thousand years old.