Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom Car Owners

On Aug 28, 3:04 pm, Arkalen <arka...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(2011/08/29 1:34), Suzanne wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:23 pm, Arkalen<arka...@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
(2011/08/24 11:58), Suzanne wrote:
On Aug 22, 9:08 am, Arkalen<arka...@xxxxxxxxx>    wrote:
On 15/08/11 06:12, Suzanne wrote:

On Aug 14, 7:38 pm, Earle Jones<earle.jo...@xxxxxxxxxxx>    wrote:
In article
<5793824c-88a2-4fd3-91cb-1fdd38bb9...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

   Suzanne<leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx>    wrote:

[...]

I'm sorry, I was not seeking to minimize any contributions
you have made. I think you have contributed some really
nice things.

Suzanne

*
Suzanne:  Do you believe that the Bible has no errors?

I believe that I do. I believe that I fit within the things said in
the first two chapters of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

What is the difference between believing you believe something and
actually believing it ?

(not a rhetorical question, I'm interested in why you phrased your
answer the way you did)

The difference between believing you believe something and actually
believing it....means when you decide to trust in (something).

The Bible says the devils believe. They believe that Jesus is the
Son of God. But they do not "rely" upon him for salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9:
8. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves:
it is the gift of God:
9. Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Someone can believe intellectually about something, without
having put their trust in it. The word "faith" in these verses
is talking about trusting in the Lord, rather than just passively
believing a thing "about" something. The verse that says
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,"
is not a command to suddenly "Belieeeeeeeeve" like some
kind of hocus pocus. It's simply a plea for a person to decide
to trust in and rely upon something, rather than just having
only a passive intellectual ascent to a fact. You can believe
something without relying upon it.

That's interesting but I'm not sure I understand still. I'm curious as
to why when Earle Jones asked whether you believe the Bible has no
errors, you answered "I believe I do" instead of "Yes". Was it a
meaningless formula, or are the two answers different in your mind ?
Which one would you say is the stronger statement and why ?

"I believe I do" means that I accept on faith that the Bible is not
any mixture of error, and that it is straight from God to men who
received inspiration from God to write what they wrote.
In other words, saying that the story of Noah's ark was only a
metaphor then that would be incorrect, since the Bible says that
it was something that happened. Jesus also confirmed that it is
a thing that really happened.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand. What you're saying sounds as if you
believe that the Bible is inerrant - so why didn't you just say "yes, I
believe the Bible in inerrant" instead of "I believe I do [believe that
the Bible is inerrant]" ?

I am not sure if you are familiar with the term that I would use, but
I am saying that I believe the Bible is "true without any mixture of
error." That means that I believe it is "God-breathed." The word
"inspire" means just that. In other words, that God had the men
write what he wanted them, to write, and he breathed into it
some of himself, as he breathed into Adam the breath of life and
he became alive. The Bible doesn't get up and walk around on
legs like a man, but when people read it, it speaks to them and
comes alive in their minds in that it begins to define itself to the
reader who reads it enough.



No, I'm sorry. I got it wrong when you were trying to tell me that
language and alphabet are two different studies. Burkhard explained
it in the previous post, which I answered before this one.You were
right and I was wrong about that.

About the Bible being inerrant, I believe the Bible is inerrant.
I tried to show that this could mean several different things,
though. Some people mean one thing by it, and someone
else believes something else by that. I believe that God gave
what he wanted the writers to write and that it was from him,
and rightfully should be called "God's word." If you mean
by "inerrant" that there are no textual problems, I don't think
it means that. But when I say that I believe the Bible is
inerrant, I mean by that, that when it says there was a global
flood, then that is what it means and not that it is a metaphor.
It means that it is true there was a global flood..

If it's a meaningless distinction there's little point in harping over
it of course. It's just not clear to me whether you think it's a
meaningless distinction or not.

LOL...when I said "I believe I do," I was saying that I accept it on
faith that the Bible is without error. : ) I realize that sounds like
I was saying "I think that I do." Yes, I do believe that it is
inerrant.
There, I said it.


So, when you ask do I believe the Bible has no errors in it, you
need to qualify exactly what you are meaning, and even give
an explanation for what you think might be an error, so that I
can see what you are meaning. Are you meaning do I think that
it is inspired? Do you mean do I think it has grammar errors?
Do you mean that the science of the Bible is wrong? Do you
mean that when it says that there was a global flood of Noah,
that there really was a global flood of Noah?

That may be true, but I don't see what it has to do with saying "I
believe I believe that X" vs just "I believe that X".

No, I'm just trying to be careful to explain what I mean.




You could mean that you see verses that seem to conflict with
one another. I've so often seen people make those claims, and
often they miss what the scriptures actually say because they
are reading the claim on someone else's web page.

I believe that the Bible tells the truth and that it comes from God.

Suzanne

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Justification
    ... was it Voltaire who said something like "If God did not ... existence, character and preferences for us to make an adequately ... I was saying I don't see how any reasonable person can claim God's ... meaning on it; but I would suggest that others should think carefully ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom Car Owners
    ... Son of God. ... believe that the Bible is inerrant - so why didn't you just say "yes, ... and also the one about the meaning of the usage of the ... references to a gate calling it "eye of the needle" in the Bible or some ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom Car Owners
    ... Son of God. ... believe that the Bible is inerrant - so why didn't you just say "yes, ... and also the one about the meaning of the usage of the ... mean that when it says that there was a global flood of Noah, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom Car Owners
    ... Son of God. ... What you're saying sounds as if you ... believe that the Bible is inerrant - so why didn't you just say "yes, ... was a meaningless formula there's no need to look further. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Orthodox Bahais Growing MUCH faster than the AO
    ... The simple meaning is saying if you kill someone they ... is from God. ... The above passage from the Qur'an about fitnah clearly referred to ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)