(This is a post that was made off subject in another discussion thread, please refer to Lou Hamby's discussion "I am a Creationists with a different view" for the back story)
I'd like to challenge the community to a question in relation to Dr Blake's comments about Biblical errors. Let me go on record and say I am not offering a retort to Dr Blake's previous posts. He affirmed his position and I respect it fully. This is more of a fact finding mission with CC members. :)
I want to pose a scenario and would like to hear perspectives on this point...
If there is no specific version of scripture that we affirm to be inerrant, what justifies our faith? While we may feel our faith is justified by our worldview and is justified to our satisfaction, this is simply an arbitrary justification that is only as true as the individual who reason it to be so. If the very foundation of that faith is questionable, then how do we know what is true and what is not. How can any part of a scripture be justified?
You see if we affirm to an unbeliever that God's Word, God's Word was in its purest form when it was first breathed and inspired into the writers, however, it has been perverted or compromised over the centuries, the obvious question an unbeliever will pose is... on whose authority do we trust that the scriptures that we are abiding in, are relevant and not compromised?
This would be a legitimate question to an unbeliever and one that could not be answered by the Christian absolutely.
Just consider this implication, if the scripture we rest our faith in is flawed or compromised over centuries of edits and translations, then how can we trust (or defend) the very first verse we find in scripture? "In the beginning God"... Scripture teaches us of a 'Certain' God. One that certainly exists. It is the onset of our 'presupposition'. If the very Word of God is viewed by any individual as flawed or containing errors, the very foundation of the character of God is called into question and our very faith suffers fate.
So I am curious of other members here at Creation Conversations and what they are resting their faith in, an inerrant, absolute, inspired Word of God that he has the ability and has preserved through the centuries... or a faith that rests on a possible God, whose very existence can be easily questioned from its foundation and as a result defenseless?
Please feel free to offer ideas, comments, suggestions, I simply want to know what my fellow Brother and Sisters think of God and His Word.
Be Blessed in Him,
Jesus tells us the Word of the Lord endures for ever, and Paul says that ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD and is profitable.
What was Jesus talking about? What was Paul writing about?
Were they referring to only the original documents? Did they accept as inspired the words they were reading? OF COURSE - yet the words that they were repeating and reading from Copies of Copies of Copies, and not the "original autographs."
Jesus, in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-21), was reading from something OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL, yet He identified it as the authoritative revelation of the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD." Then Jesus call this that He just read the "Scripture" and then Paul will come along and tell us that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Paul and Jesus did not have available to the them any such thing as "the original autographs" penned by Moses or Isaiah, yet they acknowledged that what they were reading was fully inspired and profitable and authoritative.
I have written a thorough study of the doctrine of God's Self-Disclosure - and I posted one segment of it here. . .
SEE THE DISCUSSION ON INSPIRATION HERE: http://www.creationconversations.com/forum/topics/the-authority-of-...
Anyone who wants to read more on this, friend me and message me, and I will send it to you.