How much of Scripture is inspired?

[oldsailor29]

I think a person should learn what the documentary hypothesis is before they say it is wrong, and that no SDA believes it.

[John317]

Second, the letter of 2 Peter. This is from the book "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene" by Bart D. Ehrman. Oxford University press 2006 Page 77

"One other writer who tried to show that Peter and Paul were on the same wavelength was the author of the so-called Second Letter of Peter in the New Testament. In this particular case there is less disagreement among critical scholars: Who ever wrote 2 Peter, it was not Simon Peter the disciple of Jesus.

Unlike 1 Peter, the letter of 2 Peter was not widely accepted, or even know, in the early church. The first time any author makes a definitive reference to the book is around 220 CE, that is, nearly 150 years after it was allegedly written. It was finally admitted into the canon somewhat grudgingly, as church leaders of the later third and fourth centuries came to believe that it was written by Peter himself. But it almont certainly was not."

Wayfinder, why do you put so much faith in Bart Ehrman? Are you willing to trust that he is giving you the truth about the Bible? When you accept his view of these things rather than allow the Bible to interpret itself, you are essentially letting him think for you. For one thing, it's important to realize that many excellent Bible scholar don't agree with Ehrman. For instance, A.T. Robinson.

[wayfinder]

My faith/trust is in God, not Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman is a "biblical scholar" with excellent credentials. What he says about the manuscripts used for the Bible is absolutely correct, his own spiritual beliefs I find exception to, but I understand how he came to be where he is now in his spirituality. He could not seperate Paul from Christianity and because of the problems with Paul and the early "Messianic Christians", he concluded that all of Christianity is suspect. I finally was able to seperate Pauline Christianity from the teachings of the Son of God and my trust is secure in the Son of God.

[Musicman1228]

My faith/trust is in God, not Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman is a "biblical scholar" with excellent credentials. What he says about the manuscripts used for the Bible is absolutely correct, his own spiritual beliefs I find exception to, but I understand how he came to be where he is now in his spirituality. He could not seperate Paul from Christianity and because of the problems with Paul and the early "Messianic Christians", he concluded that all of Christianity is suspect. I finally was able to seperate Pauline Christianity from the teachings of the Son of God and my trust is secure in the Son of God.

AMEN and AMEN.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

My faith/trust is in God, not Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman is a "biblical scholar" with excellent credentials. What he says about the manuscripts used for the Bible is absolutely correct, his own spiritual beliefs I find exception to, but I understand how he came to be where he is now in his spirituality. He could not seperate Paul from Christianity and because of the problems with Paul and the early "Messianic Christians", he concluded that all of Christianity is suspect. I finally was able to seperate Pauline Christianity from the teachings of the Son of God and my trust is secure in the Son of God.

AMEN and AMEN.

Aren't either of you gentlemen the least bit bothered by the fact that this man's views have led him to essentially reject Christianity?

It was Jesus who said, "By their fruits, you shall know them." OK, what are the fruits of Bart's views of the NT? Do they lead to greater trust or less trust in Christ and in His church? Do his views lead people to greater commitment to Christ or to doubt?

Actually, I can see why his views would lead him to that point. I think he is only following his reasonings to their logical conclusion.

Once a person starts down the slippery slope of questioning virtually everything in the Scriptures, and rejecting a good portion of the NT, if he is consistent, he will go ahead and question all of it, including the trustworthiness of the Gospels of John and Matthew. Once that is done, the book of Revelation is certainly questionable also. If the same skepticism and questions you have about the letters of Paul and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and Mark are also directed toward John's Gospel, you won't have good reason to trust it, either. Bart Ehrman evidently doesn't. There's no valid, logical reason to exempt John's Gospel. It's like a last straw.

For instance, you say that John was an eyewitness of everything he wrote. Was he an eyewitness of Jesus Christ being "in the beginning with God"? Did John witness Jesus creating the universe and the world? Did John witness Jesus being "in the bosom of the Father"? Such statements are not based on logic and human reasoning or eyewitness observation but on trust that this book as well as others in the NT are the inspired Word of God.

[Guest]

If you hadn't played around with the tool of the devil in the first place, that so called "higher criticism", you wouldn't have to separate anything, and you wouldn't be so deceived.

[wayfinder]

John317, you asked why I don't use someone like A.T. Robertson, here is why.

The capitulation to modern textual criticism, which began with Broadus, was carried to fruition by Robertson.

In 1925 he published An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. It was dedicated to B.B. Warfield, who, in turn, had been influenced by Charles and A.A. Hodge at Princeton. The following quotes from the Introduction reveal Robertson’s entire capitulation to Westcott and Hort: “It is today the text that is used by scholars all over the world. These two Cambridge scholars have produced a text that is not final, but that is infinitely superior to all others that preceded it since the first printed Greek New Testament in 1514” (Introduction to the Textual Criticism, p. 36).

4. In his teaching at Southern Seminary, A.T. Robertson left out many things that he should have taught.\

I have read his Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament and he did not deal with the following important matters, and many others could be mentioned.

a. A.T. Robertson did not even mention the essential doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture in the context of his course on modern textual criticism.

b. A.T. Robertson did not introduce his students to the works of the critics of textual criticism, such as Frederick Nolan, John Burgon, Edward Miller, Frederick Scrivener, and Herman Hoskier. He mentions Burgon, Miller, and Scrivener in passing, but only to dismiss their work out of hand. He gives his students no serious overview of the vast number of facts and arguments that these and many other men had marshaled against the critical Greek text.

c. A.T. Robertson did not explain to his students how it would be possible, from a divine perspective, for the apostolic text of the New Testament to become corrupted by the 3rd and 4th century and to be replaced then by a corrupt, man-made, conflated edition that became the standard text of the churches for 1,500 years until the apostolic text was “recovered” through the principles of scientific textual criticism in the 19th century. A.T. Robertson did not explain to his Baptist students how this foundational principle of modern textual criticism could be true from a believing viewpoint and why God would allow the apostolic text to be lost for most of the church age. He never explains, for example, how this theory could be reconciled with Matthew 28:18-20.

d. A.T. Robertson did not give any weight to the fact that textual criticism, so-called “lower criticism,” was coming from the same sphere as “higher criticism” and that the most influential names in this field were skeptics. For example, in “An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” Robertson mentions the following men in a positive light: Johann Griesbach, Westcott and Hort, Caspar Gregory, Frederick Kenyon, Eberhard Nestle, Ezra Abbott, Hermann von Soden, Alexander Souter, Ernest von Dobschutz, Bernhard Weiss, Francis Burkitt, and Kirsopp Lake. He calls such men “heroes of scholarship” (p. 30). He writes as if these men are friends of the truth and does not even hint to his readers that they were skeptics who denied the infallible inspiration of Holy Spirit and other cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. In my estimation, this is a criminal omission.

e. A.T. Robertson viewed Origen in an almost wholly positive light and did not tell his students that he was a rank heretic who considered Jesus Christ a created being. This omission is the more calamitous because Robertson calls Origen “this greatest ancient biblical scholar” (p. 138) and tells his students that “no scholar has exerted so much influence on the text than he” and admits that Origen had a major role in the Greek text that was preferred by Robertson.

f. A.T. Robertson did not explain to his students how that heresy raged in Egypt in general and in Alexandria in particular during the early centuries following the apostles and that any manuscript from that part of the world and from that time period would naturally be suspect. He mentions the work of heretics in that period but only in passing; he gives this no emphasis whatsoever in regard to his textual theories. In fact, he downplays the possibility of widespread heretical attack upon the manuscripts, calling it “rare” (p. 160). He takes the strange position, instead, that Received Text readings such as the Ethiopian eunuch’s testimony in Acts 8:37 and “God” in 1 Tim. 3:16 and the Trinitarian statement in 1 Jn. 5:7 were introduced by orthodox Christians to defend sound doctrine, thus presenting to his students, as fact and without serious discussion, the amazing phenomena of regenerate, Bible-believing Christians corrupting their own Scriptures! Robertson does mention that Burgon and Miller looked upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus” as having “skeptical tendencies,” but he dismisses this without documenting their reasons for doing so and without giving it any serious consideration.

g. A.T. Robertson did not explain to his students how the textual principles that he taught (such as conjectural emendation, intrinsic and transcriptional probability) are compatible with God’s foundational principle of faith (Rom. 14:23b; Heb. 11:6).

h. A.T. Robertson taught his students the principles of textual criticism as facts (such as the Lucian Recension, Conflation, and the existence of a Neutral text and Western text), without proving that such things are indeed facts.

Taken from "A.T. Robertson: Evangelical Popularizer of Modern Textual Criticism"

[John317]

Bart Ehrman is a "biblical scholar" with excellent credentials.

But I'm sure you realize that even the best scholars can and do make huge mistakes, no matter how excellent their credentials. There are examples all around us in academia.

Quote:

What he says about the manuscripts used for the Bible is absolutely correct,

In all due respect, do you have the expertise in the field of textual criticism to know this for certain on the basis of independent research? Many outstanding Bible scholars do not agree with his conclusions or his underlying assumptions. It is not as if you are dealing with someone whose findings regarding the apostle Paul and the NT are supported by a consensus of NT scholars.

Quote:

his own spiritual beliefs I find exception to, but I understand how he came to be where he is now in his spirituality.

In my own mind, your point here would cause me to wonder whether this man is under the influence of the Holy Spirit or of another power. Why? Because you are telling me that his views have led him in a wrong direction. He is evidently not siding with Christ and with the kingdom of God. It is no accident. He was led there by his views.

Quote:

He could not seperate Paul from Christianity and because of the problems with Paul and the early "Messianic Christians", he concluded that all of Christianity is suspect.

Not a good indication of where his views will eventually take those who adopt them, is it?

[John317]

John317, you asked why I don't use someone like A.T. Robertson, here is why.

The capitulation to modern textual criticism, which began with Broadus, was carried to fruition by Robertson.

In 1925 he published An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. It was dedicated to B.B. Warfield, who, in turn, had been influenced by Charles and A.A. Hodge at Princeton. The following quotes from the Introduction reveal Robertson’s entire capitulation to Westcott and Hort: “It is today the text that is used by scholars all over the world. These two Cambridge scholars have produced a text that is not final, but that is infinitely superior to all others that preceded it since the first printed Greek New Testament in 1514” (Introduction to the Textual Criticism, p. 36).

Could you explain what your objection is to what A.T. Robertson (which should read "Robinson") said in 1925?

He speaks positively of the Westcott and Hort Greek NT. What do you have against the WH text?

I am positive that Bart Ehrman also uses a Greek text very similar to that edited by WH.

Don't you use the New American Standard Version? (I myself use both the NASV and the KJV.)

[John317]

John317, you asked why I don't use someone like A.T. Robertson, here is why.

The capitulation to modern textual criticism, which began with Broadus, was carried to fruition by Robertson.

In 1925 he published An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. It was dedicated to B.B. Warfield, who, in turn, had been influenced by Charles and A.A. Hodge at Princeton....

4. In his teaching at Southern Seminary, A.T. Robertson left out many things that he should have taught.....

.....Taken from "A.T. Robertson: Evangelical Popularizer of Modern Textual Criticism"

None of the above has anything to do with A.T. Robinson. (This confusion is my fault, Wayfinder. I gave you the wrong name, as I explain in my next post.)

A.T. Robinson was well known around the world as one of the top NT scholars. He specialized in textual criticism.

Here is what the wikipedia says about him and his views of the NT:

Quote:

Although Robinson was firmly within the camp of liberal theology, he did challenge the work of colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Dr Robinson examined the New Testament's reliability, because he believed that very little original research had been completed in the field during the period between 1900 and the mid-1970s. Concluding his research, he wrote in his work, Redating the New Testament that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost willful blindness".

Robinson concluded that much of the New Testament was written before AD 64, partly based on his judgement that there is little textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the Temple's AD 70 destruction. In relation to the four gospels' dates of authorship, Robinson placed Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65.[8] Robinson also argued that the letter of James was penned by a brother of Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus’ death, that Paul authored all the books that bear his name, and that the apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel. Robinson also opined that due to his investigations, a rewriting of many theologies of the New Testament was in order.

C. H. Dodd, in a frank letter to Robinson wrote: "I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton, the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic's prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud." Robinson's call for redating the New Testament was echoed by subsequent scholarship such as John Wenham's work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Other subsequent works calling for redating of some or all of the gospels were written by such scholars as Claude Tresmontant, Gunther Zuntz, Carsten Peter Thiede, Eta Linnemann, Harold Riley, Bernard Orchard.

[John317]

John317, you asked why I don't use someone like A.T. Robertson, here is why.

The capitulation to modern textual criticism, which began with Broadus, was carried to fruition by Robertson.

....

Taken from "A.T. Robertson: Evangelical Popularizer of Modern Textual Criticism"

In my original post where I mentioned "Robertson," I should have written "Robinson." Both were great NT Greek scholars but Robinson was the one I had reference to. He was one of the foremost NT scholars in the twentieth century. He died in 1983 and was involved and highly influential in modern debates on the origin and dating of the NT.

Robertson wrote some very good books also but he died about 1930.

See wikipedia on Robinson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._T._Robinson

[wayfinder]

Ok that makes more sense. As far as Bart Ehrman, I understand why he became an Agnostic, if that is what he is, because of the disparity between Pauline and Messianic followers of Christ (followers of the Way), also the plethora of extant copies of the NT and the 300,000 differences when all copies are compared. He does not believe or understand that God will preserve the truth for those who search and research for it. I do believe, and this is my own personal belief, that Bart Ehrman is fair in his assessments but maybe not so much in his conclusions. His work has been very helpful for my research.

I had arrived at my understanding about Paul before I read anything from Ehrman, but reading his material added support for my conclusions.

[Guest]

DEPARTING FROM THE WORD

PART III

The Bible – Fully or Partially Trustworthy?

Objective. In this section we shall explore to what extent higher-critical assumptions are influencing Seventh-day Adventist views on the reliability of the Bible writers' accounts,

Ellen White's position on the Bible's trustworthiness, the New Testament's use of the Old Testament, and the alleged contradictions in parallel accounts in the Bible.

[Guest]

Key Issue. Is the Bible fully or partially trustworthy?

Traditional Adventist Belief.

Bible-believing students accept the Bible's full reliability in

matters of salvation as well as on any other subject the Bible touches upon. When the Bible writers describe an account as actually taking place, we are to believe it as trustworthy. The apostle Peter wrote: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made

known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet 1:16; cf. 1 Cor 2:10-13). John wrote: "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that

you also may believe" (John 19:35 NIV); and Luke stated: "Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you. . ." (Luke 1:3 NIV).

Mainstream Adventism believes that the biblical accounts--including those touching upon science, history, geography, and other matters--are fully reliable and trustworthy. When the Bible says that the creation took six literal days, that there was a universal flood in Noah's day, an exodus of some 600,000 men from Egypt, and that the sun stood still in Joshua's day, we are to believe that the events actually took place. When the New Testament writers pointed to events in their day as fulfilling Old Testament prophecies, they were not mistaken,

nor did they read the Old Testament out of context.

The first article of Seventh-day Adventists' "Fundamental Beliefs" emphasizes the trustworthiness of Scripture by stating: "The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer

of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history." Ellen G. White wrote that the Holy Scriptures "are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His [God's] will" (The Great Controversy, p. vii; cf. pp. 68, 102); they are "the only infallible authority in religion" (ibid., p. 238; see also pp. 89, 177), and "the only sufficient, infallible rule" (ibid., p. 173).

For Ellen White, Scripture shares in the infallibility of God. "God and heaven alone are infallible" (Selected Messages, 1:37; cf. Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 30, 105). "Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible" (Selected Messages, 1:416). She left no doubt that the

Bible is "an unerring counselor and infallible guide" and the "perfect guide under all circumstances of life";1 "an unerring guide," "the one unerring guide," "the unerring standard," "a unerring light," "that unerring test," and "the unerring counsel of God."

[wayfinder]

She also said that where she differed with God's Word, take God's Word. The NT is a collection of documents selected by a commitee, the same commitee which gave us the Catholic church. Why would you think that God would work with this commitee to insure that the whole of the NT is His word and then step back and let them institute, from these same documents, an apostate religion? The NT contains the words of God, but are not the word of God in total.

[Guest]

Effect of the Liberal Approach

While our scholars who subscribe to contemporary higher criticism reject some of the anti-supernatural presuppositions of "radical" liberals and hence give an appearance of being Bible-believing Adventists, they maintain nonetheless that the Bible is not fully reliable since it contains some "mistakes" or "exaggerations." The alleged "mistakes" include so-called

"discrepancies," "inconsistences," and "inaccuracies" in its statements about chronology, numbers, genealogy, history, geography, and science. Believing that they can use the historical-critical method without adopting the skeptical and naturalistic assumptions on which it is based, proponents of the method resort to reconstructing or reinterpreting the biblical accounts.

First, they downgrade biblical certainties into probabilities and probabilities into possibilities. Then they upgrade the possibilities of their reconstructed accounts into probabilities and probabilities into certainties. They present the result of this "objective" or

"scientific" historical inquiry to unsuspecting church members as a mark of scholarly enlightenment. And anyone who does not accept these reconstructions is classified as "narrow-minded," "literalistic," or "fundamentalistic" in thinking!

[Guest]

The Biblical Accounts.

The book Inspiration, for example, denies the trustworthiness of

certain scriptural accounts. In it (a) the author makes a dichotomy between saving acts and factual statements, so that in scriptural accounts some things are "essential" and others are "debatable"; ( he rejects the Bible's claim that the original sanctuary in the wilderness was constructed as a copy of the heavenly (Ex 25:40), suggesting that the idea was borrowed from surrounding Canaanites and that the book of Hebrews interprets the "heavenly" sanctuary in

terms of Platonic dualism; © he accepts the miracle of the Exodus but maintains that the exact "number of people involved in the Exodus is not that crucial"; (d) he acknowledges a miraculous flood in Noah's day but holds that the biblical flood was "less than [a] universal event"; (e) he believes in biblical history and yet argues that information on numbers, genealogies, and dates may have been "distorted." Do Seventh-day Adventist interpreters do

well to deny or question the trustworthiness of Scripture?

[jasd]

>>Excellent and VERY important point. If we conclude that the Scriptures are culturally conditioned, it would mean that such things as homosexuality or bestiality may be perfectly fine with God or that the resurrection and Second Coming may be just an idea of the ancient societies.<<

Umm, sir, you appropriate my hyperbole! actually, it seems that the NT books were written from within a basically Jewish culture (albeit, at times to a Gentile audience) and I don’t believe that practicing homosexuality and bestiality were representative of the culture. Moreover, a great portion of the culture believed in a resurrection – though I believe you’re correct re the Second Coming and that they still look to a first ‘Coming’.

>>So, too, the concept that God wants males to serve as leaders in the local congregations.<<

The major arguments against a woman serving in the capacity of leadership are privily interpreted dogmas that are based on a reading of 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Timothy 2.

Your above quote, by all evidence – together with a past verbal tense is true of the patriarchal society of the OT; however, Jesus Christ told us that He gave us a NEW covenant. How new ought new to be in light of Jesus Christ’s selection of women to first testify of Him upon the most salient junctions of His ministry and His resurrection. Moreover, what must one make of St Paul’s letter to the Galatians? I question the correctness of interpretations re women in the church – where there has been a reticence to avail the use of textual criticism in seeking the utmost in discernment re the matter.

It may not be that Writ supports women in the pastoral role; however, one cannot cleave to that position whilst holding to the ‘teachings’ of EGW, minister to ministers, pastor to the ‘remnant’. It is schizoid. Quixotic, at best.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Textual criticism accepts that St Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians.

>>It's then anyone's guess what REAL truth is.<<

How much of REAL truth is subjective? I mean, how does one subscribe to real truth whilst embracing ‘truths’ developed from the book of Daniel centuries ago? Is one correct to assume that “men ran to and fro and knowledge was increased” some five centuries ago? If the answer is ‘NO’, then almost the entirety of present exegeses re the book has to be discarded as untruths...

>>We certainly see it expressed on this and other SDA Forums.<<

I was under the impression that definition and a significant purpose of a Forum is the pursuit of adversarial dialogue – that ‘chaff’ might be separated from that, which might prove intrinsic.

[jasd]

>>A Warning.

Because the entire Scripture is inspired, Ellen White warned: "Do not let any living man come to you and begin to dissect God's Word, telling what is revelation, what is inspiration and what is not, without a rebuke. . . . We call on you to take your Bible, but do not put a sacrilegious hand upon it, and say, 'That is not inspired,' simply because somebody else has said so. Not a jot or tittle is ever to be taken from that Word. Hands off, brethren! Do not touch the ark. . . . When men begin to meddle with God's Word, I want to tell them to take their hands off, for they do not know what they are doing" (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 7:919-920). Again she wrote: "Brethren, cling to your Bible, as it reads, and

stop your criticisms in regard to its validity, and obey the Word, and not one of you will be lost" (Selected Messages, 1:18).<<

Which Bible? Doesn’t the same author referenced above adjure her readers to understand the Apocrypha? Does your Bible contain the Apocrypha?

[jasd]

>>Do you believe that the God of truth allowed the lies of Satan to enter into the Old Testament?<<

“Ye shall not surely die.”

[Guest]

>>Which Bible? Doesn’t the same author referenced above adjure her readers to understand the Apocrypha? <<

No she dosn't.

>>Does your Bible contain the Apocrypha?<<

No. I mainly use the KJV and the NKJV. I also discovered recently that I like the "King James 2000"

[jasd]

>>To many the Bible is as a lamp without oil, because they have turned their minds into channels of speculative belief that bring misunderstanding and confusion.<<

Am I the only one who finds that the author of this quote all too frequently reaches for the acerbic and the negative in her prose? It puts one to mind of the bad penny. Perhaps, it is just – that those who consider her writings The Deutero Canon v the canon – pick and choose the most egregious contretemps to post.

>>The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God's word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives. {AA 474}<<

What destroys faith as much as that purported above – are the expositional loops that purport dogmas re the Day of Atonement, depending entirely upon the principle of types and antitypes, without first providing a proper exegesis upon the Blowing of the Trumpets (should it be that types and antitypes still obtain in the instance). Moreover, the incorporation of the fact that the current High Priest of our salvation is from the tribe of Judah rather than from that of Levi – and that He is of the Order of Melchisedec - is neglected. Etc. Ought that to

influence our hermeneutics? It should, as

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” (Heb 7:12)

The “priesthood has been changed”..

[jasd]

>>For Ellen White, [...] She left no doubt that the Bible is "an unerring counselor and infallible guide" and the "perfect guide under all circumstances of life"; "an unerring guide," "the one unerring guide," "the unerring standard," "a unerring light," "that unerring test," and "the unerring counsel of God."<<

That is largely so; however, of all the examples that might suffice, one need only refer to

the Comma Johanneum.

It may be that we ought approach Writ as ‘sufficient’ – leading unto salvation.

[Guest]

>>Do you believe that the God of truth allowed the lies of Satan to enter into the Old Testament?<<

&#147;Ye shall not surely die.&#148;

"Ye shall not surely die" is not presented as truth in the OT. It is shown as being excactly what it is. A lie.

[jasd]

>>For Ellen White, [...] She left no doubt that the Bible is "an unerring counselor and infallible guide" and the "perfect guide under all circumstances of life"; "an unerring guide," "the one unerring guide," "the unerring standard," "a unerring light," "that unerring test," and "the unerring counsel of God."<<

That is largely so; however, of all the examples that might suffice, one need only refer to

the Comma Johanneum.

It may be that we ought approach Writ as ‘sufficient’ – leading unto salvation.