The Greek Expert who lost The Book

[brandplucked]

You should at least use the proper terms.

"Infallible" means that something or someone cannot lead someone away from the truth. It is possible to interpret the Bible incorrectly, look at what the JW's do.

"Inerrant" means that something or someone is never wrong.

The Bible is "Inerrant". It is never wrong. The Bible however is not "Infallible" because anyone can formulate wrong beliefs with it.

Hi HC. Since you are so interested in the proper use of language, would you mind telling us exactly what you are referring to when you say "The Bible is "Inerrant". It is never wrong." Do you have any particular Bible in mind that you think actually exists, or do you just like the way the philosophical concept sounds? You know, something like "IF there actually WERE an infallible Bible it would never be wrong". Do you have any substance to your words or are they just empty phrases?

Thanks,

Will K

[Guest Guest]

Hi HC. Since you are so interested in the proper use of language, would you mind telling us exactly what you are referring to when you say "The Bible is "Inerrant". It is never wrong." Do you have any particular Bible in mind that you think actually exists, or do you just like the way the philosophical concept sounds? You know, something like "IF there actually WERE an infallible Bible it would never be wrong". Do you have any substance to your words or are they just empty phrases?

Thanks,

Will K

Yes, if there were an infallible Bible, it also would be inerrant. My point is that the Bible is inerrant, but not infallible. Everything the Bible says is correct, that doesn't mean that everyone can interpret it correctly.

[Jerry]

The Bible itself is infallible - your interpretation is not. Don't cast doubt on the Bible because the lost world twists what it says.

[Guest Guest]

Wow... that's just dumb logic. You can't blame the Bible for people misinterpreting it. The Bible won't fail... but men fail the Bible. It's just plain and simple.

If it wasn't so sad that holdencaulfield really believes what he's saying is true, I'd be laughing right now.

Good posting, Jerry... I don't know why you keep putting up with this guy though. He's not really worth messing with.

[Jerry]

He was warned and has backed off from the direct push for Catholicism. Hopefully he will start listening to the Bible.

[Calvary]

If that's true, how did the JW's formulate all of their doctrine. I think they read the Bible originally, sure they later changed it to better suit themselves, however why do they teach wrong things. Surely they looked hard enough?

One might say the same thing about the Catholic - i.e sinlessness of Mary, the Asumption, works for salvation, infallibility of the Pope, etc.
Or the 7th Day Adventists - i.e Spiritual Israel, 1874 Opening of the books in heaven, the 10 commandments are to be kept for salvation etc
Or the Church of Christ - i.e no instruments allowed in congregational worship, the baptismal water regenerates the sinner, salvation is not eternally secure


The real question is this; do you go to the Bible to learn or do you go to merely confirm what you already believe? If the latter is the case, you will never be taught by anyone you do not already agree with. If the former be true, then you might learn from many peoples and by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, the truth sought will be found.

God bless,

Calvary

[Guest Guest]

One might say the same thing about the Catholic - i.e sinlessness of Mary, the Asumption, works for salvation, infallibility of the Pope, etc.
Or the 7th Day Adventists - i.e Spiritual Israel, 1874 Opening of the books in heaven, the 10 commandments are to be kept for salvation etc
Or the Church of Christ - i.e no instruments allowed in congregational worship, the baptismal water regenerates the sinner, salvation is not eternally secure

The Catholic Church wrote the Bible, sorry. Unfortunately for you they and the Orthodox Church are the only Churches who teach absolute truth.

The real question is this; do you go to the Bible to learn or do you go to merely confirm what you already believe? If the latter is the case, you will never be taught by anyone you do not already agree with. If the former be true, then you might learn from many peoples and by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, the truth sought will be found.

I read the Bible, realized that the Catholic Church is the only completely correct Church.

[Kubel]

Before everyone gangs up on holdencaulfield and beats him up, lets just respectfully go over history:

Even going by Catholics view of history and interpretation of scripture, the Catholic church did not start until Matthew 16:18 at the very earliest. Most of the Bible was written by Jews prior to Christ being born, not Catholics. I think what he meant to say was that the NT was canonized by the Catholic church, which, technically he is correct. The Catholic church was the first to officially declare certain books to be written under inspiration. But these books were already canonized the instant they were written, and were generally accepted to be scripture well before various councils declared them to be.

Catholic teachings are no more authoritative than Baptist teachings, and vice versa, simply because they are "Catholic" or "Baptist". What defines a denomination as the true church is not its self declaration of authority or even its long history. It's the doctrine, and whether or not that doctrine is consistent with the Bible. I challenge everyone, even Baptists, to read the Bible and compare their doctrine with other denominations interpretations. Even if you go into this not intending to 'reform' your beliefs, you can still gain a great deal of understanding and insight into various teachings, and why you do or do not believe them. In other words, don't just know what you believe, know why you believe it. And know why the other interpretations cannot possibly be correct.

Anyway, that was sort of off topic... but my respect goes out to Pastor Tim for standing up to the insults and hate thrown at him. It's sad to see so many of us so wrapped up in what we believe that we allow our passion (or more precisely- our hate, disrespect, ridicule, etc...) to taint what we believe is preaching of the truth. And somehow, we feel it's justified?

[Jerry]

but my respect goes out to Pastor Tim for standing up to the insults and hate thrown at him. It's sad to see so many of us so wrapped up in what we believe that we allow our passion (or more precisely- our hate, disrespect, ridicule, etc...) to taint what we believe is preaching of the truth. And somehow, we feel it's justified?

No Tim in this thread. If you are referring to Holdencaulfield, please give us a break. It is not hatred to stand up to someone pushing false teachings.

Feel it is justified? Do you feel embracing heretics and heresy is loving and justified?

[Kubel]

No Tim in this thread.

1) Tim is the subject of the OP, he is "The Greek Expect who lost The Book", whom I think was treated with total disrespect and hate.

2) My post was in two parts.

Part A: First three paragraphs are responding to holdencaulfield's post which directly preceded mine.
Part B: Forth paragraph is responding to the original post.

Part B had nothing to do with Part A or anyone responding to him. I was referring specifically to Pastor Tim and Will Kinney in the thread that this OP was discussing.

But to answer your question, we should avoid embracing heresy (and we should confront heresy and explain why it's wrong if we choose not to separate), but we should never avoid embracing someone in love and respect, no matter who that person is or what they believe, when we are confronting their heresy.

[Jerry]

Sorry, I missed that. I was skimming back through the thread, looking at the posters. We are to love our enemies - does the Bible teach we are to respect those who teach and promote error?

[qwerty guy]

Sorry' date=' I missed that. I was skimming back through the thread, looking at the posters. We are to love our enemies - does the Bible teach we are to respect those who teach and promote error?[/quote']

Who brought a mirror to this forum?

[Kubel]

We are to love our enemies - does the Bible teach we are to respect those who teach and promote error?

Disrespect is not a characteristic of love. In fact, I would say disrespect and love are incompatible with each other. Perhaps a better question would be, does the Bible teach that we are to disrespect them?

Ephesians 4 is an excellent chapter explaining how our attitudes should be. I don't see how our attitudes should change when someone teaches error, except in the most extreme situation, Biblical separation, or, I suppose you could ask the Lord to rebuke that person like Jude 1:9 examples, but it is very clear that we are not to use violent words against these people.

I had an encounter with a few cult members once' date=' and a friend who was with me proclaimed the truth, but he did not do so with gentleness or respect. In fact, the cultists were far more "Christ-like" in their attitude and demeanor than my friend was. [u']We may have won the battle for the truth, but we lost the war for the souls of those whom we were seeking to reach.

I think that last sentence summarizes of my point here.

http://www.gotquestions.org/cult-evangelism.html - good article.

[kevinmiller]

Disrespect is not a characteristic of love. In fact, I would say disrespect and love are incompatible with each other. Perhaps a better question would be, does the Bible teach that we are to disrespect them?

Ephesians 4 is an excellent chapter explaining how our attitudes should be. I don't see how our attitudes should change when someone teaches error, except in the most extreme situation, Biblical separation, or, I suppose you could ask the Lord to rebuke that person like Jude 1:9 examples, but it is very clear that we are not to use violent words against these people.



I think that last sentence summarizes of my point here.

http://www.gotquestions.org/cult-evangelism.html - good article.

:goodpost:

[John the Baptist]

Dear Pastor Tim:

Pastor Tim: ?The aorist tense says absolutely NOTHING about results flowing from the action of the verb, OR ENTRANCE INTO A STATE.?

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basic, by Daniel B. Wallace Ingressive (Inceptive, Inchoative) Aorist - The aorist tense is often used to stress the beginning of an action OR THE ENTRANCE INTO A STATE.? (Caps are mine.)

The Use of the Aorist Tense in Holiness Exegesis by Randy Maddox - ?The question which now arises is how one determines which of these three shades of meaning is to be understood in a particular passage. Robertson sums it up by saying that we must consider the "total result of word context and tense." That is, the context and the meaning of the word are the primary categories (assuming the tense is aorist). Here Burton is helpful when he points out that the ingressive aorist belongs primarily to verbs which DENOTE THE CONTINUANCE OF A STATE.?

I would say that neither you nor brandplucked have given a clear definition of the Aorist Tense. The describe not so much the time as the kind of action in a verb. The Present Tense describes the action as linear or continuing, the Aorist tense describes the action as punctiliar, that is pointed action. The aorist tense no where means continuing action. "All that the aorist tense does is represent the action as punctiliar" (A.T. Robertson) This pointed action can represent the action in Romans 6:2 " that are dead to sin" (KJV) ?????????? It is second Aorist active indicative. It says "we died" to sin pointed action. we died, one time.
The idea of time is mainly in the indicative mood. The aorist tense with the indicative mood means past time. In other moods it can simply be kind of action. This punctiliar action can involved 46 years as in John 2:20, " The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in building," the verb to build is in the aorist tense. In the aorist this event is still look at as pointed action. The Aorist tense looks at the forty six years of building as a whole or snap shot, as a point in history.

The ingressive Aorist is punctiliar or pointed action, "He became poor" (2Cor. 8:9). The emphasis is on the entrance into the action discribed. so the Aorist tense here is still pointed action, not continuing.

I don't know if Pastor Tim has had intermediate Greek or advance Greek. You learn a deeper knowledge of the tenses in these higher level courses.

God Bless
John