Is all the Bible scripture?

Responding to post by Redeemed1

So, you are saying that only the 4 Gospels can actually be believed as scripture? ". I say no such thing. Much of what is written is repeated by different authors, in individual verses or passages. Anything of significance certainly, and particularly when it is a matter that impacts upon doctrine (in support) will have more than one witness. Nor do I make a fetish of demanding two witnesses. If a claim is made, in the absence of conflicting claims, I will accept it - if only on proviso.

And I think the fact that Paul clarifies in Corinthians that a statement he is making is from him and not God, should show that the rest of his letters ARE of God's inspiration, otherwise why would he have to clarify it to them? I could as easily use this same claim, given that one paragraph, between the two that I mentioned, states specifically "I say, yet not I, but God", to show that the rest of his letters are NOT from God. One claim is as valid as the other - and either claim is wholly invalid.

And you are telling me that the instructions for the church then are not instruction for the church today. How do you come up with that? Where does it say that? What year was the cutoff date for those instructions? Well now, the claim that everything that Paul wrote is scripture is the same as a claim for Papal infallibility - assuming that the Pope is in fact a man of God. I do not subscribe to the concept of Papal infallibility. But even the concept of Papal infallibility only extends to matters directly involving faith and morals - and maintaining good order in a church does not fall under that umbrella. You will note that Paul ascribes as one of the reasons for his instructions regarding women - the man was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression . Doesn't it strike you as strange that in support of his edicts, Paul resorts to the Hellenistic (Greek) account of the fall, not the Biblical account - which latter ascribes fault for the fall to both the man and the woman? My claim is based simply on the fact that even Paul acknowledged the existence of a woman who was an apostle (highest human authority in the church), Acts recognises four women who were prophetesses (second highest human rank) and Acts makes mention of a woman who actively engaged in teaching a man who himself was already active as an evangelist. Prophetesses were known in the Old Testament times, and a woman (Deborah) was appointed by God as a judge in Israel (equivalent in rank to an apostle), this same woman, being stated in the Bible to have given orders to a man, himself a prophet.

I apologize for seeming contentious, I am not offended but you most likely feel absolutely no contrition for what you have posted. You do not SEEM contentious about this matter, you ARE contentious. Nor are these statements a criticism of your attitude - being contentious and challenging my statements is entirely noteworthy as being right and proper. given the circumstances.

what I am hearing from you is that you will pick and choose which scriptures you will believe to be from God, in order to justify your position. My dear sir, you seem to be wholly unaware that in saying "everything in the Bible is scripture" - or - "everything in the Bible is scripture except when the Bible says outright that it is not scripture" you are yourself deciding what you will believe to be from God. Deciding for one's self what one will accept as being from God is inescapable. To wit, your claim that what one witness says is from God ignores the reiterated Biblical declaration that every fact is established on the testimony of two or more reliable witnesses How can you say that you believe everything in the Bible is scripture (with the codicil of course) and then ignore the Biblical declaration of how a matter is shown to be factual?

I think this subject has been debated enough. My position is clear, as is yours. I will not move from "should women be pastors" into "the Word of God isn't REALLY the Word of God". Can you support your belief with anything concrete from the Bible, that "everything in the Bible is scripture, except when the Bible itself declares that a thing is not from God."?

Jo 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Jo 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
I say the whole King James vs. Holy Bible is scripture kivver to kivverr. It is also in this Bible that Jesus states that "in the volume of the Book it is written of Him"

The thing we must learn and pray for is to rightly divide the Word of Truth-- of the Old and of the New and of the same God today and yesterday and forever, and Salvation only in and through His Son Jesus.

__________________
Gil Sheridan "Troop."

I believe that the King James Version is the words of God without error or contradiction. Preserved pure by God Himself.

Psalm 12
6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Sorry if this is off the subject, but I'm always curious to hear why people feel that the only scripture is KJV. Please enlighten me edjones.

Can I ask why you say that? That's not something I have heard a lot of...so I was wondering if you were taught that or read it somewhere.

__________________
Qui-Gon Jenn

If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
-"Old City Bar" by The Trans-Siberian Orchestra

I gather that you are a 'KJV Only' advocate?
I disagree with your thesis. The KJV or any other version is not inerrant as the autographa was. We can be certain we have God's word today, but it is not perfect in the sense you are expounding. I believe that the NKJV is more accurate than the KJV is, but it is not worth dividing over. Textual criticism is a huge hornet's nest to get into.

God Bless

__________________
"Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established, that unless we love the truth, we cannot know it." -Blaise Pascal

If I may Doc, I'll give you a quick rundown.
There are people who are, "KJV Only" advocates and they believe the Byzantine manuscripts which were used in the translation of the KJV are more "pure" than the Alexandrian manuscripts and others used in the translation of the NASB, NIV and others. There are some that take this 'KJV Only' position to the point of being cultic and say that other versions are of the devil, etc. I think it's rediculous.

God Bless

__________________
"Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established, that unless we love the truth, we cannot know it." -Blaise Pascal

Thanks for the message. I've just recently studied up on the whole debate so I know a little. I am always curious to hear the response of the KJV only people though. I like to hear personal reasons for things instead of assuming their beliefs are formed for one reason or another.

Hey foks.

This is my first post on this board, so I'll be commenting with absolutely no idea of what was previosly discussed. I'm a Parlor transfer as many others appear to be.

I noticed in your OP Thunder a tendancy to equate "scripture" with the literal "Word of God". It is not. Before I get banned before I really start, let me clarify.

Scripture is:
1. a) A sacred writing or book.
b) A passage from such a writing or book.
2. The sacred writings of the Bible. Often used in the plural. Also called Holy Scriptures.
3. A statement regarded as authoritative.

The "Word of God", perhaps words of God to be more concise, were spoken be Jesus, and on the odd occasion when He need something really important communicated in the OT.

It seems to me that your contention is that not all the Bible is "Word of God". That is true if the above is taken to be foundational to your posite. However, all scripture is inspired (God breathed if the aramaic concerns you) by God and profitable...

Again if the above is the basis for your arguement, then that also is true. Unless you believe that that specific reference is not in itself inspired.

Was all the scripture writ by the hand of God? No.
Is all the Bible scripture? If you accept the definition of scripture, then Yes.

As to the KJ only debate, I have neither the time nor the patience to comment. It is the folly of man, the quibling over words.

Matt.

__________________
were it for me to convict man of sin, I'd have given up long ago.

Do we accept that all scripture is inspired by God? So it is written, so I believe.

Are there errors, contradictions, eyewitness accounts, and personal opinion in the Bible? Personal opinion is stated by the Bible itself to be included. Errors and contradictions (few though they are) are easily demonstrated to exist - and as for eyewitness accounts - Is there a Biblical commentator who does not ascribe at least some of the contradictions to the fact that these are only the variations to be expected of eyewitness accounts?

But surely errors and contradictions would not be inspired by God. Or so I believe, anyway.

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The truth is out there? Where is "out there"?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.