Does this article propagate idolatry?

ALAYMAN said:
...that whatever Scripture is identified and determined to be, rsc2a is contending that it <the Scriptures> is still not a final authority in the faith and practice of the Christian (even going so far as to call such belief "bibliolatry").  That's a simply preposterous notion on its face.

God is not bound by the "rule of law". He created it. So whatever "rule of law" there might be, Jesus was given authority over as He said at his ascension. So rsc2a is correct that there is an authority BEHIND the "rule of law".
 
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
...that whatever Scripture is identified and determined to be, rsc2a is contending that it <the Scriptures> is still not a final authority in the faith and practice of the Christian (even going so far as to call such belief "bibliolatry").  That's a simply preposterous notion on its face.

God is not bound by the "rule of law". He created it. So whatever "rule of law" there might be, Jesus was given authority over as He said at his ascension. So rsc2a is correct that there is an authority BEHIND the "rule of law".

Not only that, but Jesus pointed out that the "rule of law" is actually an imperfect representation of God.  For example, the "rule of law" on divorce did not represent God's righteousness, but was watered down to suit the weakness of fallen men. 

 
Castor Muscular said:
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
...that whatever Scripture is identified and determined to be, rsc2a is contending that it <the Scriptures> is still not a final authority in the faith and practice of the Christian (even going so far as to call such belief "bibliolatry").  That's a simply preposterous notion on its face.

God is not bound by the "rule of law". He created it. So whatever "rule of law" there might be, Jesus was given authority over as He said at his ascension. So rsc2a is correct that there is an authority BEHIND the "rule of law".

Not only that, but Jesus pointed out that the "rule of law" is actually an imperfect representation of God.  For example, the "rule of law" on divorce did not represent God's righteousness, but was watered down to suit the weakness of fallen men.

Good point.
 
rsc2a said:
You are not claiming that Scripture is God itself?

Not anymore than I would claim your head is you.  It is part of you, but it is not all of you.  That simple explanation aside, we are talking about God's authority.  You are attempting to separate His authority from His word.  That is a logical fallacy.  His word has meaning, and that meaning imports his purpose/expectations to us.  To separate his word from his being is asinine.

rsc2a said:
No reason to pretend that you worship Scripture anymore since you plainly stated it here.

No need to assert you are an idiot when you prove it incessantly in writing.  Tis true that it's better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.


rsc2a said:
Whoo hoo! So all three are authoritative insomuch as He has revealed Himself (which would be perfectly, but not necessarily completely, in two of the three cases).

Two of the three are subjective.  That's the difference.  The word is objective.

rsc2a said:
You just said it...what (or Who) does the transforming? Scripture, by itself, is just words on a page. The Holy Spirit, by Himself, is fully God.

Again, you separate that which should not be separated.  Distinctions are fine, undue separations are problematic.  Next you will separate the the persons of the Godhead into tritheistic beings.  Distinctions are good, separations, not so much.

rsc2a said:
"The gospel", not "Scripture".

You wouldn't know the gospel without Scripture.  Distinctions, not separations padawan.
 
Castor Muscular said:
ALAYMAN said:
It's logically inconsistent to separate God (and His authority) from His word.  You may disagree as to what constitutes His word, or you may claim He hasn't revealed Himself in written form,  but to claim that His revealed and inscripturated word are on different planes of authority is simply incoherent gobblety-gook and a false dichotomy.

It is not logically inconsistent.  The written word we have today contains errors.  Minor errors, but errors.  God does not contain errors. 

The written word we have today is a collection of books chosen by men, and men just as Godly as those who chose the 66 books disagree on which books belong in the canon.  God did not decree that these 66 books are his complete and perfect word.  As difficult as it may be for you, consider the possibility that one - just ONE book doesn't really belong in the Bible, or one book that was rejected is actually inspired and is missing.  In that case, you had better be darn sure to separate God from you think his word is, because they don't match up.

Are those errors Scripture? 

All Scripture is God-breathed.  Whatever is Scripture is actually and really without error.  Where there <hypothetically> are "errors", it is not Scripture, else the Bible is lying about God inspired words, unless you think God breathed out errors.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
God is not bound by the "rule of law". He created it. So whatever "rule of law" there might be, Jesus was given authority over as He said at his ascension. So rsc2a is correct that there is an authority BEHIND the "rule of law".

God's word is true, else you're the worst kind of postmodernist there is.  He may appear and appeal to humankind in different manners throughout dispensations, but His word is always true.  There is a father of lies, but God/Jesus ain't it/him.
 
ALAYMAN said:
rsc2a said:
You are not claiming that Scripture is God itself?

Not anymore than I would claim your head is you.  It is part of you, but it is not all of you.  That simple explanation aside, we are talking about God's authority.  You are attempting to separate His authority from His word.  That is a logical fallacy.  His word has meaning, and that meaning imports his purpose/expectations to us.  To separate his word from his being is asinine.

So when I tell my kids to clean their room, my words suddenly become me?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
No reason to pretend that you worship Scripture anymore since you plainly stated it here.

No need to assert you are an idiot...[/quote]

As always, you model the very nature of Jesus...


[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
Whoo hoo! So all three are authoritative insomuch as He has revealed Himself (which would be perfectly, but not necessarily completely, in two of the three cases).

Two of the three are subjective.  That's the difference.  The word is objective.[/quote]

Yes, the Son is an objective measure. Now, we just need to look (subjectively) at the other ways we have to learn about Him (word and nature) to grow to be more like Him.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
You just said it...what (or Who) does the transforming? Scripture, by itself, is just words on a page. The Holy Spirit, by Himself, is fully God.

Again, you separate that which should not be separated.  Distinctions are fine, undue separations are problematic.[/quote]

Just to re-iterate, you have again explicitly stated that Scripture is God. Those times when I talk about people who elevate Scripture to be a fourth member of the Trinity...that would be you.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Next you will separate the the persons of the Godhead into tritheistic beings.  Distinctions are good, separations, not so much.[/quote]

I really don't try to explain exactly how the Trinity works exactly because it's well beyond my understanding.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
"The gospel", not "Scripture".

You wouldn't know the gospel without Scripture.  Distinctions, not separations padawan.[/quote]

So you acknowledge that you deliberately misquoted that "final and solely authoritative" Scripture to prove a point that wasn't actually in the text?
 
rsc2a said:
So when I tell my kids to clean their room, my words suddenly become me?

The issue is authority, and God's essence.  He Has ultimately authority, and it is infallible.  Any communication of his must be heeded by creation as it applie to his purpose for them in the communication.  That's true whether it is in person in the Garden, a burning bush, voice from heaven, or the inscripturated word.  Your authority is limited, not final.  When you tell your kids to butcher the neighbor's baby then you're authority is illegitimate.  God doesn't have illegitmate authority.

rsc2a said:
As always, you model the very nature of Jesus...

have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?

You knowingly make outlandish claims and erroneously call good Christians bibliolaters, so don't expect to be treated with kid gloves.

rsc2a said:
Yes, the Son is an objective measure. Now, we just need to look (subjectively) at the other ways we have to learn about Him (word and nature) to grow to be more like Him.

The word of God is not objectively true?

rsc2a said:
Just to re-iterate, you have again explicitly stated that Scripture is God. Those times when I talk about people who elevate Scripture to be a fourth member of the Trinity...that would be you.

Sure thing idiot.  So was Criswell, the Puritans, most evangelical Christians.  Pretty much everybody but you and Rob Bell.


rsc2a said:
I really don't try to explain exactly how the Trinity works exactly because it's well beyond my understanding.

Because you fail to understand something doesn't make it untrue or suspect. 

And if we could just compile all the things you don't know about theology we could make a gargantuan encyclopedia.

rsc2a said:
So you acknowledge that you deliberately misquoted that "final and solely authoritative" Scripture to prove a point that wasn't actually in the text?

I acknowledge you're obtuse, and an idiot, nothing more.
 
I have a new co-worker who believes that yellow/lake perch are trash fish and not worth eating! Unbelievable!  :o
 
subllibrm said:
I have a new co-worker who believes that yellow/lake perch are trash fish and not worth eating! Unbelievable!  :o

Heretic!  Burn him/her!
 
ALAYMAN said:
All Scripture is God-breathed. 

Look at the KJV for II Timothy 3:16:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The KJV shows that the word "is" in italics meaning both times, it was put in by the translators and not found in the original text. In essence, the original does not say that all Scripture IS God-breathed but rather all Scripture God breathes is profitable.

Wycliff translation:

For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness

ASV 1901 says,

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

And when you take in the historical context where "Scriptures" meant "writings" and were not deemed on par with the Law or Prophets, that is a concern because much of the Apocryphal works which you do not hold to, were a part of "Scripture" at that time in history.

Upon becoming a Christian, Paul must have given up the Pharisaical view that the Ketuvim section too was entirely inspired, but after becoming a Christian Paul adopted Jesus’ view that the “Law and the Prophets” are what have a 100% validity that will never expire. (Matt. 5:17.)

To realize this, we must observe that one of the most often mistranslated verses in the NT canon is 2 Tim. 3:16. The mistranslation gives an exaggerated sense of what the term “Scripture” (Writings/graphe) distinct from “Holy Writings” (2 Tim. 3:15, grammata) meant in Paul’s usage. The way 2 Tim. 3:16 typically reads is: “All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and is profitable.” 

However, the word “is” has been put in italics or brackets in various translations because it is not found in the original Greek text. It was added to our Bible text by the translators, believing it was understood at that juncture but was inadvertently unexpressed. The American Standard Version of 1901, however, realizes this was improperly adding to Paul’s words, and drops the “is” at that point, thereby dramatically giving us a new perspective. Now we see the “is” only appears before the word profitable, but not also before “God-breathed.” The corrected translation, and the literally accurate one, is:


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

The scholar George Ricker Berry, in his Interlinear KJV New Testament (1993) likewise renders it literally as saying “Every Scripture God inspired is profitable.”  Today, it is a recognized alternative rendering.

Hence, as expressed, Paul implies not every Scripture is inspired,i.e., only some places within the KEVUTIM are inspired by God. But those which are entirely inspired, i.e., the Torah and Prophets, and some portions of Kevutim, are profitable for correction, etc.

This implication means we should prefer to see Paul recognized, consistent with Jesus never affirming the entire validity of the Ketuvim section, that the word graphe we translated as “Scripture” was broad enough to include the entire Jewish canon which had one part — the Ketuvim — which at moments was inspired but at other moments was not inspired. Thus, you could have Scripture that was not God-breathed and some God-breathed — when speaking of the “Writings” (Ketuvim) section of the Jewish canon.

Hence, Paul’s statement fits precisely that understanding when we refuse to add to Paul what he does not say. By deleting the “is” where it was not expressed in 2 Tim. 3:16, we see in Paul’s language an understanding that not every “graphe” (Scripture) is inspired of God, but instead that “Scripture inspired by God is profitable,” etc. In other words, Paul is only saying “all God-breathed scripture is profitable.” This implies that if it is not God-breathed Scripture (certain Kevutim portions), then such “scripture” — even though accepted in the Writings / Scripture section of the Bible’s three-fold canon of that era — is not necessarily profitable.

Source of quote: http://standfordrives.wordpress.com/article/writings-section-of-original-bible-of-g6z6g2l2q6zj-26/

 
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
All Scripture is God-breathed. 

Look at the KJV for II Timothy 3:16:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The KJV shows that the word "is" in italics meaning both times, it was put in by the translators and not found in the original text. In essence, the original does not say that all Scripture IS profitable but rather all Scripture God gives is profitable.

Wycliff translation:

For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness

ASV 1901 says,

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

And when you take in the historical context where "Scriptures" meant "writings" and were not deemed on par with the Law or Prophets, that is a concern because much of the Apocryphal works which you do not hold to, were a part of "Scripture" at that time in history.

Upon becoming a Christian, Paul must have given up the Pharisaical view that the Ketuvim section too was entirely inspired, but after becoming a Christian Paul adopted Jesus’ view that the “Law and the Prophets” are what have a 100% validity that will never expire. (Matt. 5:17.)

To realize this, we must observe that one of the most often mistranslated verses in the NT canon is 2 Tim. 3:16. The mistranslation gives an exaggerated sense of what the term “Scripture” (Writings/graphe) distinct from “Holy Writings” (2 Tim. 3:15, grammata) meant in Paul’s usage. The way 2 Tim. 3:16 typically reads is: “All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and is profitable.” 

However, the word “is” has been put in italics or brackets in various translations because it is not found in the original Greek text. It was added to our Bible text by the translators, believing it was understood at that juncture but was inadvertently unexpressed. The American Standard Version of 1901, however, realizes this was improperly adding to Paul’s words, and drops the “is” at that point, thereby dramatically giving us a new perspective. Now we see the “is” only appears before the word profitable, but not also before “God-breathed.” The corrected translation, and the literally accurate one, is:


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

The scholar George Ricker Berry, in his Interlinear KJV New Testament (1993) likewise renders it literally as saying “Every Scripture God inspired is profitable.”  Today, it is a recognized alternative rendering.

Hence, as expressed, Paul implies not every Scripture is inspired,i.e., only some places within the KEVUTIM are inspired by God. But those which are entirely inspired, i.e., the Torah and Prophets, and some portions of Kevutim, are profitable for correction, etc.

This implication means we should prefer to see Paul recognized, consistent with Jesus never affirming the entire validity of the Ketuvim section, that the word graphe we translated as “Scripture” was broad enough to include the entire Jewish canon which had one part — the Ketuvim — which at moments was inspired but at other moments was not inspired. Thus, you could have Scripture that was not God-breathed and some God-breathed — when speaking of the “Writings” (Ketuvim) section of the Jewish canon.

Hence, Paul’s statement fits precisely that understanding when we refuse to add to Paul what he does not say. By deleting the “is” where it was not expressed in 2 Tim. 3:16, we see in Paul’s language an understanding that not every “graphe” (Scripture) is inspired of God, but instead that “Scripture inspired by God is profitable,” etc. In other words, Paul is only saying “all God-breathed scripture is profitable.” This implies that if it is not God-breathed Scripture (certain Kevutim portions), then such “scripture” — even though accepted in the Writings / Scripture section of the Bible’s three-fold canon of that era — is not necessarily profitable.

Source of quote: http://standfordrives.wordpress.com/article/writings-section-of-original-bible-of-g6z6g2l2q6zj-26/

Well, I'm going to have to give the "Winner Winner Chicken Dinner" shirt back to you now. 

 
ALAYMAN said:
Smellin Coffee said:
God is not bound by the "rule of law". He created it. So whatever "rule of law" there might be, Jesus was given authority over as He said at his ascension. So rsc2a is correct that there is an authority BEHIND the "rule of law".

God's word is true, else you're the worst kind of postmodernist there is.  He may appear and appeal to humankind in different manners throughout dispensations, but His word is always true.  There is a father of lies, but God/Jesus ain't it/him.

"God's Word" is not a set of words found on paper, written in ink. "God's Word" is His character, His promises, His laws. Now putting that word on paper might be a means of revelation but that is not the authority. So those who want to follow God must try to figure out what exactly in what canon is what He actually said and distinguish what was interpolated thoughout history. IOW, God's Word and any canon are not the same at all. The canon may reveal some of "God's Word" but cannot all be "God's Word" nor can it contain ALL of "God's Word". 
 
ALAYMAN said:
rsc2a said:
So when I tell my kids to clean their room, my words suddenly become me?

The issue is authority, and God's essence.  He Has ultimately authority, and it is infallible.  Any communication of his must be heeded by creation as it applie to his purpose for them in the communication.  That's true whether it is in person in the Garden, a burning bush, voice from heaven, or the inscripturated word.  Your authority is limited, not final.  When you tell your kids to butcher the neighbor's baby then you're authority is illegitimate.  God doesn't have illegitmate authority.

That bolded part. That's what I've been saying all along. You keep trying to plant it into Scripture, not the Godhead itself.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
As always, you model the very nature of Jesus...

have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?

You knowingly make outlandish claims and erroneously call good Christians bibliolaters, so don't expect to be treated with kid gloves.[/quote]

You're not my enemy and I don't think "idiot" is a very Christ-like attitude to have towards someone.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
Yes, the Son is an objective measure. Now, we just need to look (subjectively) at the other ways we have to learn about Him (word and nature) to grow to be more like Him.

The word of God is not objectively true?[/quote]

Sure, but only those who are deceiving themselves (or others) think they examine (and interpret) Scripture from a completely objective perspective.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
Just to re-iterate, you have again explicitly stated that Scripture is God. Those times when I talk about people who elevate Scripture to be a fourth member of the Trinity...that would be you.

Sure thing idiot.  So was Criswell, the Puritans, most evangelical Christians.  Pretty much everybody but you and Rob Bell.[/quote]

No...they very clearly delineate between God and His method(s) of revelation.

(And, I've come to realize that your name-calling is pretty much what you do when you don't actually have a reasonable rebuttal. Frankly, it's kind of immature.)

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
I really don't try to explain exactly how the Trinity works exactly because it's well beyond my understanding.

Because you fail to understand something doesn't make it untrue or suspect.  [/quote]

I never said otherwise.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]And if we could just compile all the things you don't know about theology we could make a gargantuan encyclopedia.[/quote]

Strange...you were the one rejecting Christus Victor solely on the basis that the Orthodox church believes it without even knowing what this major view on the atonement actually stated...

...but you are also right. I have much to learn of (and from) God about Himself.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
So you acknowledge that you deliberately misquoted that "final and solely authoritative" Scripture to prove a point that wasn't actually in the text?

I acknowledge you're obtuse, and an idiot, nothing more.[/quote]

Are you denying now that you misquoted Scripture? Why is it that whenever you cannot adequately explain yourself in a manner that makes any type of logical sense, I suddenly become "obtuse" and an "idiot"?
 
[quote author=Smellin Coffee]"God's Word" is not a set of words found on paper, written in ink. "God's Word" is His character, His promises, His laws. Now putting that word on paper might be a means of revelation but that is not the authority. So those who want to follow God must try to figure out what exactly in what canon is what He actually said and distinguish what was interpolated thoughout history. IOW, God's Word and any canon are not the same at all. The canon may reveal some of "God's Word" but cannot all be "God's Word" nor can it contain ALL of "God's Word". [/quote]

This cannot be true. If it were, we couldn't keep god on a leash.
 
WHAT method would be used/acceptable/authoritative enough to supersede Scripture.

When and in what way has God revealed Himself to anyone here that overturned a principle, precept or instruction given in Scripture?
 
ALAYMAN
No need to assert you are an idiot when you prove it incessantly in writing.

Now that you mention it, every village need an emergent or two.  :)
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
WHAT method would be used/acceptable/authoritative enough to supersede Scripture.

When and in what way has God revealed Himself to anyone here that overturned a principle, precept or instruction given in Scripture?

...while keeping in mind that every revelation of God is true and therefore must be in agreement. - Me

Does it encourage us to love God and love others? Is it in agreeance with or opposed to accepted revelations of God including (or especially) Scripture? Does it agree with the teachings of the overall community of faith or is it opposed? (I am not necessarily referring to capital "T" Tradtion.) - Me earlier

As far as purely equal, it could be any number of things. But they are authoritative in different respects. - Me even earlier

This part would be correct. God does not lie, nay...He cannot lie...in all of His revelations of Himself to His creation whether that is through Scripture, experience, natural law, visions, or any other means He may use to inform us. If any of these revelations contradict another revelation then either our understanding of one (or both) is inaccurate or the revelation isn't from God but other sources. - Me yet earlier

There are many other ways in which God reveals Himself to us, each as authoritative as Scripture. God cannot lie and these other self-revelations of Himself are as authoritative and true as the revelation we have in Scripture. - Me even earlier than that

Now, would you like me to keep going or acknowledge that I maintained that Scripture would not be superceded by any other revelation of God (with the exception of Jesus Himself)? Our understanding of what Scripture teaches may be superceded, but insomuch as God is revealed in Scripture, that will always be true...regardless of how right or wrong we get it.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
WHAT method would be used/acceptable/authoritative enough to supersede Scripture.

When and in what way has God revealed Himself to anyone here that overturned a principle, precept or instruction given in Scripture?

I don't think people are talking about overturning principles, precepts, or instructions (although I'm not saying a couple couldn't be overturned).  We're talking about the sacrosanct assumption that the 66 books of the canon are God-breathed. 

EDIT: I'm sure I could find somewhere a Christian book whose contents of principles, precepts, or instructions were unassailable.  That doesn't mean the book is God-breathed and belongs in the Bible, though. 

 
Smellin Coffee said:
....Look at the KJV for II Timothy 3:16:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The KJV shows that the word "is" in italics meaning both times, it was put in by the translators and not found in the original text. In essence, the original does not say that all Scripture IS God-breathed but rather all Scripture God breathes is profitable....

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

Whatever Scripture actually is, whether the 66 books, the Apocrypha, the prophets + law, or only the red letter, rsc2a is saying that to make the claim that such rightly defined Scriptures are the Christian's final authority is enough to make one a bibliolator.  Hogwash.
 
Back
Top