The most trenchant observation was made in the final minute of ithe video. That the church grew for fifteen years after the death of Jesus without so much as a catechism or a Require brochure says much, in my opinion. The weight of responsible action was left to the discretion of each believer. The presumption that establishing a governor of doctrines makes for model churches, model christians is knocked all to hell.
DEBATE: Reliability of BIBLE TRUTH
by Terry 14 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Terry
The most trenchant observation was made in the final minute of ithe video. That the church grew for fifteen years after the death of Jesus without so much as a catechism or a Require brochure says much, in my opinion. The weight of responsible action was left to the discretion of each believer. The presumption that establishing a governor of doctrines makes for model churches, model christians is knocked all to hell.
Indeed, the very thing we are warned about today: solo christianity! Man with God and no tweening.
Revolutionary. No sacrifices, no clergy. No prophets and no ritual.
-
B_Deserter
Limitations of inerrancy
Many who believe in the Inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible but not inerrant. Those who subscribe to infallibility believe that what the scriptures say regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of its phenomenological nature, not just with strict, clinical literality, which was foreign to historical narratives. [3]
Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality. [30]
Infallibility and inerrancy refer to the original texts of the Bible. And while conservative scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation, modern translations are considered to "faithfully represent the originals". [31]
So essentially, the Bible is absolutely right (infallible) in matters of "faith" and the supernatural where it cannot be tested, but is not inerrant in matters where it can be tested. How very convenient.
-
Terry
Limitations of inerrancy
Many who believe in the Inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible but not inerrant. Those who subscribe to infallibility believe that what the scriptures say regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of its phenomenological nature, not just with strict, clinical literality, which was foreign to historical narratives. [3]
Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality. [30]
Infallibility and inerrancy refer to the original texts of the Bible. And while conservative scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation, modern translations are considered to "faithfully represent the originals". [31]
So essentially, the Bible is absolutely right (infallible) in matters of "faith" and the supernatural where it cannot be tested, but is not inerrant in matters where it can be tested. How very convenient.
As Amazing as it may appear, that is the default position of more and more Christian denominations!
What we can't prove IS TRUE.
What can be tested is NOT.
Since the Age of Enlightenment and the Renaissance, more and more discoveries of how the world really works has driven superstition back into the shadows. Religion and Superstition keep fighting back for what few scraps of turf remain in darkness but the fight goes on.
The scoundrels in the Watchtower Headquarters have no choice but to slam the door on outside research, pull the curtains on education, turn down the lights on curiousity and demand unquestioning loyalty to the Governing Body.
What choice does a Jehovah's Witness have today??
1. Blind Obedience to untestable claims of inerrancy
or
2. Self-actualizing independant search for facts, documentation and provable assertions.
The Watchtower frames this in a more sinister way:
1. Life on a paradise earth
2.Death at Armageddon and an eternity of non-existence
My my, what a contrast!
-
dgp
I think I smell bullshit here. Let's see, according to the Webster's,
Inerrant Main Entry: in·er·rant Pronunciation: \-?nt\ Function: adjective Etymology: Latin inerrant-, inerrans, from in- + errant-, errans, present participle of errare to err Date: 1837
: free from error
Infallible
Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble Pronunciation: \( ? )in- ' fa-l?-b?l\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallible Date: 15th century
1: incapable of error :unerring <an infallible memory>
2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint :certain <an infallible remedy>
3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or moralsThe difference seems to be that now they are claiming to be even better than inerrant. The mere possibility of error has been taken away. And we have to believe this because they say so. The Bible is infallible because those who benefit from its interpretation claim it's infallible.
As to what can be proved or not, the position sounds like "I say horses fly, and I will say it (perhaps not believe it) until you prove otherwise"
Now I know how they know God inspired someone. They just know.