Yet “trustworthy” does not require “inerrant”.
The only people who have a problem with that are those stuck in a modern materialistic worldview.
It is most certainly defined in the terms important here: it is never about vocables or scientific/material details, it is always about concepts.
Just because it doesn’t have a dictionary built in or an appendix that states things in modern, linear, and binary propositional truth does not mean it is not defined.
1 Like
Any Hebrew scholar would be baffled at your claim because it most certainly is! It’s a stark difference in the Hebrew scriptures; when a prophet specifically states “Thus saith the LORD” it’s saying “These are God’s words”.
It can appear as in Isaiah 44:6, “כֹּֽה־אָמַ֨ר יְהֹוָ֧ה מֶֽלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל וְגֹֽאֲל֖וֹ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת”, “Thus says YHWH king of Israel and YHWH of Hosts” (this is an interesting verse since there are two distinct entities here both called “YHWH”), or as found repeatedly in Jeremiah, e.g. 3:12, “כִּֽי־חָסִ֚יד אֲנִי֙ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֔ה”, “For I am gracious, declares YHWH”.
If the writer was not asserting “this is God speaking” then there would be no point in putting “thus says YHWH” or “declares YHWH”.
That is pretty off into the deep end, isn’t it?
Being that clear from the start would have helped!
Christians should define error the way the scriptures do, not by the thinking of modern materialism. A good example of how the scriptures define error can be found in Paul’s statement about “a different Gospel”: he doesn’t mean a confusion over whether Jesus was crucified on the Passover or the day before, he doesn’t mean a disagreement over what Jesus said about the one who would betray Him, he means a different message, one that changes the meaning of the Incarnation and/or the Atonement.
1 Like
Interesting question, depending on how you mean it.
Origen distinguished several different meanings of the term “word of God” as it applies to the scriptures, starting with the Incarnate Word of whom all the scriptures speak and working down to statements of unbelievers who are quoted in the text. His point was that we rightly call it all “the word of God”, it’s just that the term doesn’t always mean the same thing, and he used the example of preachers; since their job was to “preach the word”, then sermons could be called “the word of God” – and yet preachers were known to make mistakes!
Ah, back to the question of how much of the Old Testament is just the writer’s opinion!
That’s why the Psalms, for example, must be read carefully, since so much is a writer declaring his view of something, including of God.
1 Like
You either missed or ignored the clarification and then quoted it.
Strange.
Yet the scriptures never define error, despite your assertions—unsupported by evidence from scripture.
[quote="Dale, post:
I thought you said God allowed the writers to write and kept them free from mistakes? That means that the Psalms represent the writers inerrant view of something. Unless you think God only inspired parts of scripture?
I would say opinion in the Bible about God applies to way more than just the Psalms. God sanctioning Israelite genocide and rape comes to mind for me. The Pastorals putting women in their place due to the created order is another.
Vinnie are you saying inerrancy is a natural result of inspiration?
If so, why?
God inspired Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt, yet Moses made errors.
God inspired Peter to lead the early church, yet Peter made errors.
No, I’m asking about St Roymond’s view.
If I thought God wrote the Bible from a heavenly perspective then of course whatever it says would be elevated over any other mode of knowledge in the world.
1 Like
Read these and try again.
I haven’t given a view other than that the modern meaning of “inerrant” is biblically unfounded and irrelevant.
I did. They still imagine things that aren’t in scripture.
The Bible does not define “inerrant.”
The Bible is not a dictionary
It comes from scripture. Or didn’t you notice what I actually said?
You seem to want the scriptures to be a list of linear, binary, materialist propositions. It isn’t. As long as you insist on treating it that way you will never see most of what it actually says.
I give up on your reading comprehension.
And I give up on your imagining scripture says things that it does not.
But you do have an imagination!
What exactly do you think the Psalms are?
In terms of purpose, why were they written?
I will give you a clue. Would you expect to look at MTV for religious inspiration?
Richard
They’re psalms – ancient poetry.
Different ones were written for different reasons.