Does this article propagate idolatry?

[Ransom]

That Ransom guy seems to have made similar statements before also:

I guess that if your point is to advertise that you are too clueless to know the difference between a contradiction and differing circumstances, then you have one.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I said I believe the 66 book canon is the Word of God.
I said I attribute the characteristics of God's word to the 66 book canon.
I said if you don't agree with what's written in the 66 book canon, you disagree with the Bible (which I define as the 66 book canon). That was in response to your asking 'if I disagree with the Bible do I disagree with God'?
If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, then the rest is semantics...

Here, let me just fix it for you in a simple way.

"I believe the 66 Book canon is the word of God containing all attributes of Gods Word. If you disagree, you are disagreeing with me."

FIFY

Perhaps you can find someone to sign on to YOUR statement.
as for me...thanks, but no thanks....I'm good!

 

[rsc2a]

That Ransom guy seems to have made similar statements before also:

I guess that if your point is to advertise that you are too clueless to know the difference between a contradiction and differing circumstances, then you have one.

Ahh...I guess when I state that it is possible for two people to come to different conclusions and still both be right, it's a contraction. When you do it, it's a different circumstance. Got it!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Possibly. . . .
Possibly. . . .
Possibly. . . .
Possibly. . . .

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, there is no profit in attempting to reason with someone who denies the most fundamental law of logic. No point in listening any further, really.

Are you saying he's purposely obtuse or really, really dumb?
A conclusion(s) others here have drawn as well....

 

[rsc2a]

Possibly. . . .
Possibly. . . .
Possibly. . . .
Possibly. . . .

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, there is no profit in attempting to reason with someone who denies the most fundamental law of logic. No point in listening any further, really.

Are you saying he's purposely obtuse or really, really dumb?
A conclusion(s) others here have drawn as well....

Not my fault you've insisted on worshiping a God that you've crammed into a really, really tiny box.

 

[Ransom]

Got it!

Um, no, but you're not worth correcting.

 

[Stephen]

In addition, the Bible DOES NOT claim divine inspiration of a 66-book canon.

and this proves what exactly?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

An article/video on the subject at hand:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/07/25/why-you-can-rely-on-the-canon/

 

[Smellin Coffee]

In addition, the Bible DOES NOT claim divine inspiration of a 66-book canon.

and this proves what exactly?

Believing in a 66-book canon (whether it is correct or not) is an extra-biblical doctrinal stance. So if the Bible is the source for all doctrines of the faith, there is a big one missing.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

In addition, the Bible DOES NOT claim divine inspiration of a 66-book canon.

and this proves what exactly?

Believing in a 66-book canon (whether it is correct or not) is an extra-biblical doctrinal stance. So if the Bible is the source for all doctrines of the faith, there is a big one missing.

As opposed to a cherry picking, I arbitrarily choose this as scripture, but that isn't scripture.
Why? because I choose it to be so....

Thanks, but no thanks. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

In addition, the Bible DOES NOT claim divine inspiration of a 66-book canon.

and this proves what exactly?

Believing in a 66-book canon (whether it is correct or not) is an extra-biblical doctrinal stance. So if the Bible is the source for all doctrines of the faith, there is a big one missing.

As opposed to a cherry picking, I arbitrarily choose this as scripture, but that isn't scripture.
Why? because I choose it to be so....

Thanks, but no thanks. 

The acceptance of a 66-book canon is also a practice of "cherry picking", just from a different "basket". 

 

[Castor Muscular]

In addition, the Bible DOES NOT claim divine inspiration of a 66-book canon.

and this proves what exactly?

Believing in a 66-book canon (whether it is correct or not) is an extra-biblical doctrinal stance. So if the Bible is the source for all doctrines of the faith, there is a big one missing.

As opposed to a cherry picking, I arbitrarily choose this as scripture, but that isn't scripture.
Why? because I choose it to be so....

Thanks, but no thanks. 

Your choice is not arbitrary, but it is subjective.  Not everyone agrees with your choice of 66 books, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong.  They made their subjective choice and they disagree.  That's all.  We won't know this side of heaven what was truly inspired, except maybe those books referenced by Jesus with authority. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

In addition, the Bible DOES NOT claim divine inspiration of a 66-book canon.

and this proves what exactly?

Believing in a 66-book canon (whether it is correct or not) is an extra-biblical doctrinal stance. So if the Bible is the source for all doctrines of the faith, there is a big one missing.

As opposed to a cherry picking, I arbitrarily choose this as scripture, but that isn't scripture.
Why? because I choose it to be so....

Thanks, but no thanks. 

Your choice is not arbitrary, but it is subjective.  Not everyone agrees with your choice of 66 books, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong.  They made their subjective choice and they disagree.  That's all.  We won't know this side of heaven what was truly inspired, except maybe those books referenced by Jesus with authority.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

In addition, the Bible DOES NOT claim divine inspiration of a 66-book canon.

and this proves what exactly?

Believing in a 66-book canon (whether it is correct or not) is an extra-biblical doctrinal stance. So if the Bible is the source for all doctrines of the faith, there is a big one missing.

As opposed to a cherry picking, I arbitrarily choose this as scripture, but that isn't scripture.
Why? because I choose it to be so....

Thanks, but no thanks. 

Your choice is not arbitrary, but it is subjective.  Not everyone agrees with your choice of 66 books, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong.  They made their subjective choice and they disagree.  That's all.  We won't know this side of heaven what was truly inspired, except maybe those books referenced by Jesus with authority.

The same can be said for the Koran, Book of Mormon, The Rigveda etc...
Except for those referenced by Jesus?!
He referenced them in Scripture, so they're out as well...

You know what you know and believe what you believe by something referenced in the 66 book canon....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

In addition, the Bible DOES NOT claim divine inspiration of a 66-book canon.

and this proves what exactly?

Believing in a 66-book canon (whether it is correct or not) is an extra-biblical doctrinal stance. So if the Bible is the source for all doctrines of the faith, there is a big one missing.

As opposed to a cherry picking, I arbitrarily choose this as scripture, but that isn't scripture.
Why? because I choose it to be so....

Thanks, but no thanks. 

Your choice is not arbitrary, but it is subjective.  Not everyone agrees with your choice of 66 books, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong.  They made their subjective choice and they disagree.  That's all.  We won't know this side of heaven what was truly inspired, except maybe those books referenced by Jesus with authority.

Winner?
We'll both know in a hundred years or so....

 

[Smellin Coffee]

In addition, the Bible DOES NOT claim divine inspiration of a 66-book canon.

and this proves what exactly?

Believing in a 66-book canon (whether it is correct or not) is an extra-biblical doctrinal stance. So if the Bible is the source for all doctrines of the faith, there is a big one missing.

As opposed to a cherry picking, I arbitrarily choose this as scripture, but that isn't scripture.
Why? because I choose it to be so....

Thanks, but no thanks. 

Your choice is not arbitrary, but it is subjective.  Not everyone agrees with your choice of 66 books, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong.  They made their subjective choice and they disagree.  That's all.  We won't know this side of heaven what was truly inspired, except maybe those books referenced by Jesus with authority.

The same can be said for the Koran, Book of Mormon, The Rigveda etc...
Except for those referenced by Jesus?!
He referenced them in Scripture, so they're out as well...

You know what you know and believe what you believe by something referenced in the 66 book canon....

You know what you know and believe what you believe by something referenced in the 75 book canon....

 

[Castor Muscular]

The same can be said for the Koran, Book of Mormon, The Rigveda etc...

Exactly!  Now you're getting it.  I happen to reject those.  There are millions of people who believe the Koran is divinely inspired.  I believe they're all wrong.  You think 2 Peter is divinely inspired.  I believe you are wrong.  See? 

 

[Castor Muscular]

Except for those referenced by Jesus?!
He referenced them in Scripture, so they're out as well...

This one you don't get at all.

There is a mountain of internal and external evidence that the gospels are historically accurate (although I believe Luke could be a little mixed up due to "the phone game" syndrome). 

In other words, there is a mountain of rational evidence to support the fact that Jesus existed and said and did the things recorded in the Gospels.  I also believe Jesus is God on earth, and therefore what he says is truth.  So when Jesus refers to Deuteronomy as an authoritative work, then I take Deuteronomy to be authoritative and inspired.  Same with Genesis, Daniel, etc. 

It's not about assuming all scripture verifies other scripture.  That's the mistake people make when they use 2 Peter to authenticate Paul's writings as scripture. 

 

[rsc2a]

Actually, one major difference in the Quran and Book of Mormon when compared to the writings of the NT (particularly the Gospels and Acts) is the answer to the question of historical verifiability. A basic historical analytical approach to those three differing collections would put the NT writings FAR above either the Quran or the Book of Mormon in terms of reliability.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Actually, one major difference in the Quran and Book of Mormon when compared to the writings of the NT (particularly the Gospels and Acts) is the answer to the question of historical verifiability. A basic historical analytical approach to those three differing collections would put the NT writings FAR above either the Quran or the Book of Mormon in terms of reliability.

So... you don't buy that stuff about gold tablets nobody has ever seen and reading them from a hat or whatever?