Biblical Inerrancy

[Midwestguy]

There are times when people talk about the "inerrancy" of the Bible. Is there a commonly agreed definition of the word? Does it mean the Bible is without error? If so, which manuscript does one rely on to arrive at this conclusion?

For example, in Revelation chapter 13 the number of the beast is stated as 666 while other manuscripts have 616. Which is inerrant and why?

I remain that curious but confused Midwest Guy.

[perplexed101]

The physical MAKING of Adam from the dust of the ground becoming a natural living soul (Genesis 2:7) was entirely DIFFERENT event from the CREATION Adam and Eve the image and likeness of God, spiritually (Gen. 5:1-3; 1:26-27).

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

LORD translated in hebrew is Jehovah
God translated in hebrew is Elohim (uppercase by implication) meaning Gods

That would seem to indicate someone who is co-equal creating the first man from the dust of the earth.
---------------------------------------

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

God translated in hebrew is Elohim (uppercase by implication) meaning Gods


-------------------------------------

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

That seems to indicate He wasnt created first from the dust of the earth.
-------------------------------------

[hiramabbi2]

Dear perplexed101:

You need to find someone who can read and comprehend to help you understand the Scripture. Here's what you failed to learn.

Once again you have failed to distinguish symbolic gesture and figurative language given within the term "light". Why dont you let the scripture speak openly without your circular intervention? agreed? the following is an example:

NOTE: The WORD (LIGHT) was spoken in the BEGINNING, before anything was made or the world was.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

LORD as translated from hebrew

יהוה
yehôvâh
Total KJV Occurrences: 6528
lord, 6412

that verse is beyond debate towards your literal assertion.

That is just based on your flawed religious view and distorted reasoning which is out of context.

Again, what you failed to understand even to this date - Jesus WAS the TRUE LIGHT (John 1:9) that shinneth in darkness in the BEGINNING. Unfortunately, people like you, would not comprehend unless you are born again. (ref. John 1:5)

[perplexed101]

That is just based on your flawed religious view and distorted reasoning which is out of context.

im sorry you feel that way but you have not put forth anything beyond debate and obviously from every scripture you have put forth thus far, it is flawed.

Again, what you failed and could not understand to this date - Jesus WAS the TRUE LIGHT (John 1:9) that shinneth in darkness in the BEGINNING (ref. John 1:5), which unfortunately, you still could not comprehend in your own capacity.

i truly hope you are beginning to see the "light".

[perplexed101]

The physical MAKING of Adam from the dust of the ground becoming a natural living soul (Genesis 2:7) was entirely DIFFERENT event from the CREATION Adam and Eve the image and likeness of God, spiritually (Gen. 5:1-3; 1:26-27).

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

LORD translated in hebrew is Jehovah
God translated in hebrew is Elohim (uppercase by implication) meaning Gods

That would seem to indicate someone who is co-equal creating the first man from the dust of the earth.
---------------------------------------

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

God translated in hebrew is Elohim (uppercase by implication) meaning Gods


-------------------------------------

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

That seems to indicate He wasnt created from the dust of the earth.
-------------------------------------

is the creation of the first man from the dust of the earth the best "evidence" you have so far"? Please tell me you have more than figurative "light" as an example for even Isaiah refutes what you presented then all of the other passages consistent with it refutes the "light" show and goes further in indepth.

Isaiah 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Redeemer the Holy One of Israel is also the true light, cant you see that?
....and again the LORD is translated from the hebrew term Jehovah
... and again 'The God' is translated from the hebrew term Elohim (uppercase by implication); Gods

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

...and again God is translated from the hebrew term Elohim (uppercase by implication); Gods


1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

If you cant see the obvious then perhaps you need someone to interpret the verse for you as follows, it's elementary:

1. the first man was Adam of signifigance and was created from the dust of the earth

2. who represents man? the Lord does

3. the Lord would have to be the second to be born as a man for an earthily life from the quickening Spirit (you know who that is) within Mary's womb.

quickening

ζωοποιέω
zōopoieō
dzo-op-oy-eh'-o
From the same as G2226 and G4160; to (re-) vitalize (literally or figuratively): - make alive, give life, quicken.

4. the Lord lived only once as a man and it wasnt until He was born from Mary, by the quickening Spirit (Father, Jehovah), that He could then be the second (Adam) man as referenced

5. that would leave:

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

to remain true regardless of the "evidence", elementary my dear watson.

[Cephus]

So, this could be applied to Biblical stories. For example, the real, historical events are God's creation of the world, paradise, and the fall of man. Stories, though not literally true, convey a true meaning behind the picture. It might not have been seven 24-hour periods, but God created the world; it might not have been a literal Garden, but it would have been a paradise; it might not have been Adam, Eve, and a snake, but humanity did turn from God and thus "fell".

That's fine, if that's what you want to believe, but that still doesn't make any of it 'true'. There is no evidence that God created anything. There is no evidence that God exists, period. All of this is religious faith, not fact. It's no better than someone from another belief system claiming that their deity created the world. I doubt you'd accept that as a 'real historical event', would you?

[Tilia]

Dear Tilia:

The physical MAKING of Adam from the dust of the ground becoming a natural living soul (Genesis 2:7) was entirely DIFFERENT event from the CREATION Adam and Eve the image and likeness of God, spiritually (Gen. 5:1-3; 1:26-27).

In the day they were Born Again or Created Spiritually (not physically) in the image and likeness of God, A&E have already committed their first sin and Cain had already killed Abel - Genesis 5:1-3.

Where does the Bible say that?

Are you able to explain, hiramabbi2, how it is that a second paragraph has become interposed between my question and the statement it related to? Altering the debate record is not an offence officially in this forum, but it may well become the subject of complaint unless you can provide a satisfactory explanation.

[hiramabbi2]

First of all Tilia, I believe you are the one intentionally "altering the debate" (?) by EDITING the thrust of my quote. The second paragraph was the completion of my answer to your question, therefore, you should not edit it when it is part of the main subject matter or contention.

Second, based on my experience, it is a courtesy to complete and present the entire quote of your rival's contrasting view, especially, when you are questioning his/her position of that particular matter.

Finally, I believe it is my privilege to present the "quote" again whenever a person is distorting my position - by EDITING the thrust of the recorded stand.

Now, please tell me Tilia, are you expecting to see all my responses written in the Bible VERBATIM?

PS. Honestly, I did not know that you are already "debating" my position. In fact I thought you were asking me a question for your own learning.

[perplexed101]

PS. Honestly, I did not know that you are already "debating" my position. In fact I thought you were asking me a question for your own learning.

Speaking of debate, please address the following interpretation that fully explains your mistaken interpretation in the pertaining verse :

1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1. the first man was Adam of signifigance and was created from the dust of the earth

2. who represents man? the Lord does, His name isnt Adam so it is used figuratively.

3. the Lord would have to be the second Adam (figurative for being first)to be born as a man for an earthily life from the quickening Spirit (you know who that is) within Mary's womb. This is why He is also portrayed as the Son of Man foreordained.

quickening

ζωοποιέω
zōopoieō
dzo-op-oy-eh'-o
From the same as G2226 and G4160; to (re-) vitalize (literally or figuratively): - make alive, give life, quicken.

4. the Lord lived only once as a man and it wasnt until He was born from Mary, by the quickening Spirit (Father, Jehovah), that He could then be the second (Adam-figurative for first) man as referenced

5. that would leave:

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

as being true regardless of your irrational interpretation.

The following depicts a symbolic gesture much similar to your interpretation of the true light.

Isaiah 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Redeemer the Holy One of Israel is also the true light, cant you see that?

where is your position now?

[otseng]

That is just based on your flawed religious view and distorted reasoning which is out of context.

This comment is another violation of the rules. The moderating team has decided to place you on probation. Further violations will result in a ban from the forum.

[hiramabbi2]

PS. Honestly, I did not know that you are already "debating" my position. In fact I thought you were asking me a question for your own learning.

Speaking of debate, please address the following interpretation that fully explains your mistaken interpretation in the pertaining verse :

1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1. the first man was Adam of signifigance and was created from the dust of the earth

2. who represents man? the Lord does, His name isnt Adam so it is used figuratively.

3. the Lord would have to be the second Adam (figurative for being first)to be born as a man for an earthily life from the quickening Spirit (you know who that is) within Mary's womb. This is why He is also portrayed as the Son of Man foreordained.

4. the Lord lived only once as a man and it wasnt until He was born from Mary, by the quickening Spirit (Father, Jehovah), that He could then be the second (Adam-figurative for first) man as referenced

5. that would leave:

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

as being true regardless of your irrational interpretation.

Once again, your assumption is only based on your flawed religious view.

Unfortunately, not only you are combining apples and oranges but you also failed to read between the lines "A" quickening spirit vs. THE quickening Spirit that could have made difference to your capacity. The text specifically did NOT use the definite article "the" to described the last Adam was THE (?) quickening Spirit.

1 CORINTHIANS 15
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam (the same person is being spoken here) was made a quickening spirit.

Therefore, the text was referring to Adam during his spiritual creation in the image of God. Jesus is THE source or provider of the quickening Spirit. He was NOT made A quickening spirit.

The following depicts a symbolic gesture much similar to your interpretation of the true light.

Symbolic? Perhaps, you really need to pray for more wisdom and understanding. I have provided you with the actual text showing literally your error, yet, you still did not learn Please read it again (below) very slowly.

REVELATION 21
23 And the city had no need of the sun (literal), neither of the moon(literal), to shine in it (literally) : for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof (literal).

Isaiah 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall (present progressive tense) he be called.

Redeemer the Holy One of Israel is also the true light, cant you see that?

where is your position now?

Very Solid contrary your distorted view. Here's why...

Jesus is YHWH - the Son of the Invisible Father (name- unknown)!

Who do you think is thy Maker? The Holy One of Israel or thine Husband?

Answer: Jesus, known as YHWH in the Old Testament!

Is YHWH the Invisible Almighty God Father?

Answer: No, YHWH (or Jesus) is the Son of invisible God Father.

Note: Insertions are mine.

Now try to refute that if you can.