If no Bible translation is perfect then do we really have Gods word?
- Thread starter Complete in Thee
- Start date
- May 14, 2002
- 14,986
- 1,519
- 63
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Utrecht
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Upvote
0
DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Like I said:
Now I'm going to say something, and I don't mean nothing harsh directed at the RCC per se, but...
How can a person, be so passionate, so zealous to a "church" with a "questionable" history?
There are some things that honestly, from the RCC, we could learn from.
From the days when man began sea exploration, the Catholic church went with them.
Some of the first missionaries to China, were Catholics.
Their zeal for missionary work is only now rivaled by the Mormons.
But the history of Catholicism is littered with "violence" and abuse.
And now, we are seeing that becoming revealed more and more within Protestant churches now.
Like I said, I completely understand being passionate to your faith. I understand being passionate for Catholicism. And I understand being zealous for your faith.
But by the same token, instead of being "passionate" or "zealous" for a "church", what if we all became "passionate" and "zealous" about the Savior?
Could you imagine what Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants could accomplish, if became "passionate" and "zealous" about the Savior and His mission for this world, if we set aside denominational differences?
I am by conviction, a Baptist, and a Calvinist. But by the same token, I do not place my "faith", my "passion", or my "zeal" in the "church".
Fact of the matter is, churches are led by men. Well intending men, but led mostly by men.
Men will fail. Your spouse will fail you. Your family will fail you. Because we are man. And man is subject to sin.
But I know one person who absolutely will not fail me.
"A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother." -Prov. 18:24 (KJV)
What a Friend we have in Jesus,
All our sins and griefs to bear!
What a privilege to carry
Everything to God in prayer!
O what peace we often forfeit,
O what needless pain we bear,
All because we do not carry
Everything to God in prayer!
Have we trials and temptations?
Is there trouble anywhere?
We should never be discouraged,
Take it to the Lord in prayer.
Can we find a friend so faithful
Who will all our sorrows share?
Jesus knows our every weakness,
Take it to the Lord in prayer.
Are we weak and heavy-laden,
Cumbered with a load of care?
Precious Savior, still our refuge—
Take it to the Lord in prayer;
Do thy friends despise, forsake thee?
Take it to the Lord in prayer;
In His arms He’ll take and shield thee,
Thou wilt find a solace there.
- Joseph M. Scriven, 1855
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I have said that based upon being involved in many debates here on the forums with the KJV Only crowd, I have been involved in a study that now is starting on its fifth year.
When most people here the term "textual criticism", they often are accused of "criticizing" certain texts. Mainly, and mostly, from the KJV Only advocates.
But that is not, and never has been the goal. Marvin Vincent defines "textual criticism" as:
"...that process by which it is sought to determine the original text of a document or of a collection of documents, and to exhibit it, freed from all the errors, corruptions, and variations which it may have accumulated in the course of its trans- mission by successive copyings."
A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Marvin Vincent, 1899, Part I, Nature and Sources of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Chapter I, Need and Office of Textual Criticism, Definition of a Text.
Another resource one should have, or study is: Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the New Testament, By: James R. Royce
Why? We know for a fact that there were as many as 18 scribes at work in the text of the book of Acts as witnessed in the Codex Bezae.
It is for certain that one scribe was responsible for the primary text of Acts, and that as copying progressed, and more and more it was "edited".
What we can also show is a "pattern" that was particular to each scribe. Now why is this important? If we knew that scribe "a" had a tendency to "edit" a particular word in a particular way, you could go through the text and isolate with relative certainty, all their "edits".
Once each and every "edit" by every scribe are accounted for, it should be relatively easy to see what the beginning text may have been.
But, that is only one part of the process. It is rather complicated, and extremely time consuming.
Again, why is this important?
Probably within or less than 100 years after the Apostle John died. Thus:
"Corruptions of the text appeared at a very early date. Reuss says, "It may be asserted with tolerable certainty that the farther back we go in the history of the text the more arbitrarily it was treated." Differences between New Testament manuscripts appeared within a century of the time of its composition, and additions and alterations introduced by heretical teachers were early a cause of complaint. Tischendorf says, "I have no doubt that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them." Scrivener says that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed, and Hort agrees with him. Unlike the text of the Koran, which was officially fixed from the first and regarded as sacred, — for a century and a half at least, the greatest freedom was exercised in the treatment of the New Testament writings. These writings were not originally regarded as Holy Scripture. Copies of the writings of the Apostles were made for the use of individual communities, and with no thought of placing them on the same level with the Old Testament. Accordingly, there would be little effort at punctilious accuracy, and little scruple in making alterations.
Variants meet us as soon as quotations from the apostolic writings occur at all in later authors, and that both in catholic and heretical writers. Heretics felt the necessity of seeking for their peculiar doctrines a support which should secure for them a place within the church with whose tradition they were, at many points, in conflict. Thus they were driven to interpret the apostolic writings in harmony with their own systems.
Accordingly, we find, in the earlier Apologists, allusions to wilful corruptions and misinterpretations. Thus, Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III, 12) declares that "the others (besides Marcion), though they acknowledge the Scriptures, pervert their interpretation." Tertullian (De Præsc. Hær. XXXVIII) says that Marcion and Valentinus change the sense by their exposition. "Marcion," he continues, "has used a sword, not a pen; while Valentinus has both added and taken away." Marcion mutilated the Gospel of Luke in the interest of his antijudaistic views, although it should be said that some of his variations were doubtless taken from manuscripts in circulation in his time. Both Tertullian and Epiphanius go through his work in detail, indicating the mutilation point by point.
Such perversions called forth attempts at textual criticism. Origen (Comm. on Matthew) remarks on the diversity of copies arising either from the negligence of scribes or the presumption of correctors. He frequently discusses various readings, and comments upon the comparative value of manuscripts and the weight of numerical testimony. He seldom attempts to decide on the right reading, being rather inclined to accept all conflicting readings as contributing to edification. His value is in reproducing the characteristic readings which he found. There is no sufficient evidence of a general revision of the text by him, as maintained by Hug.
Again, minute care was not exercised in the preparation of manuscripts. In some cases they appear to have issued from a kind of factory, where the work of transcribing was carried on on a large scale. Portions of the same manuscript seem to have been copied from different exemplars and by different hands, and it does not appear to have been thought necessary to compare the two exemplars, or to harmonise the disagreements. Moreover, changes of reading were introduced by individual bishops, who had the sole authority over the public reading of Scripture, and these changes, unless very violent, would soon become as familiar as the old readings, and would pass into the versions."
Ibid, Part II, Textual Criticism of the Early Church
So from the start of the 2nd century onwards, textual criticism has shown itself to be needed. So we come to understand why we need "textual criticism". Even though they meant well, if you study this area, there are occasions where a monk, well intending, very well could have been copying a certain text, on a certain line, by candlelight, groggy, his eyes may (I emphasize may) been focused on one line, get sleepy, lose his place, and on another line where the text looks the same, have picked up there.
People, please understand, textual criticism is not an attack on any version of any Bible. Rather it is a method that may allow us to attempt to find the original reading, the original intent, of the authors of the New Testament.
If you look back, Erasmus had perhaps only as little as 8-10 MSS to start. By the 1600's, the KJ translators had about 50 MSS which they used. By the 1970's and even more recently, we now have at our disposal some 5300 Greek MSS, even though some are nothing more than a fragment, a corner of a page, of which to use.
Today, to attempt to do a complete and new work at "textual criticism" of the New Testament would be an extremely daunting task. And for sure, a work that would last 20 plus years.
But even at that, does that mean should stop altogether?
Heaven forbid.
If it wasn't for "textual criticism" and the work done by E.C. Colwell, JW's might be right, and Jesus Christ indeed could be considered as "a god".
So let me repeat, textual criticism is not an attack on the KJV. It is not finding fault with the KJV. So fault me all you wish, say what you will about me, but until God tells me I'm wrong, I will continue to compare my Bible (KJV by the way) with the Greek.
God Bless
Till all are one.
When most people here the term "textual criticism", they often are accused of "criticizing" certain texts. Mainly, and mostly, from the KJV Only advocates.
But that is not, and never has been the goal. Marvin Vincent defines "textual criticism" as:
"...that process by which it is sought to determine the original text of a document or of a collection of documents, and to exhibit it, freed from all the errors, corruptions, and variations which it may have accumulated in the course of its trans- mission by successive copyings."
A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Marvin Vincent, 1899, Part I, Nature and Sources of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Chapter I, Need and Office of Textual Criticism, Definition of a Text.
Another resource one should have, or study is: Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the New Testament, By: James R. Royce
Why? We know for a fact that there were as many as 18 scribes at work in the text of the book of Acts as witnessed in the Codex Bezae.
It is for certain that one scribe was responsible for the primary text of Acts, and that as copying progressed, and more and more it was "edited".
What we can also show is a "pattern" that was particular to each scribe. Now why is this important? If we knew that scribe "a" had a tendency to "edit" a particular word in a particular way, you could go through the text and isolate with relative certainty, all their "edits".
Once each and every "edit" by every scribe are accounted for, it should be relatively easy to see what the beginning text may have been.
But, that is only one part of the process. It is rather complicated, and extremely time consuming.
Again, why is this important?
Probably within or less than 100 years after the Apostle John died. Thus:
"Corruptions of the text appeared at a very early date. Reuss says, "It may be asserted with tolerable certainty that the farther back we go in the history of the text the more arbitrarily it was treated." Differences between New Testament manuscripts appeared within a century of the time of its composition, and additions and alterations introduced by heretical teachers were early a cause of complaint. Tischendorf says, "I have no doubt that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them." Scrivener says that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed, and Hort agrees with him. Unlike the text of the Koran, which was officially fixed from the first and regarded as sacred, — for a century and a half at least, the greatest freedom was exercised in the treatment of the New Testament writings. These writings were not originally regarded as Holy Scripture. Copies of the writings of the Apostles were made for the use of individual communities, and with no thought of placing them on the same level with the Old Testament. Accordingly, there would be little effort at punctilious accuracy, and little scruple in making alterations.
Variants meet us as soon as quotations from the apostolic writings occur at all in later authors, and that both in catholic and heretical writers. Heretics felt the necessity of seeking for their peculiar doctrines a support which should secure for them a place within the church with whose tradition they were, at many points, in conflict. Thus they were driven to interpret the apostolic writings in harmony with their own systems.
Accordingly, we find, in the earlier Apologists, allusions to wilful corruptions and misinterpretations. Thus, Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III, 12) declares that "the others (besides Marcion), though they acknowledge the Scriptures, pervert their interpretation." Tertullian (De Præsc. Hær. XXXVIII) says that Marcion and Valentinus change the sense by their exposition. "Marcion," he continues, "has used a sword, not a pen; while Valentinus has both added and taken away." Marcion mutilated the Gospel of Luke in the interest of his antijudaistic views, although it should be said that some of his variations were doubtless taken from manuscripts in circulation in his time. Both Tertullian and Epiphanius go through his work in detail, indicating the mutilation point by point.
Such perversions called forth attempts at textual criticism. Origen (Comm. on Matthew) remarks on the diversity of copies arising either from the negligence of scribes or the presumption of correctors. He frequently discusses various readings, and comments upon the comparative value of manuscripts and the weight of numerical testimony. He seldom attempts to decide on the right reading, being rather inclined to accept all conflicting readings as contributing to edification. His value is in reproducing the characteristic readings which he found. There is no sufficient evidence of a general revision of the text by him, as maintained by Hug.
Again, minute care was not exercised in the preparation of manuscripts. In some cases they appear to have issued from a kind of factory, where the work of transcribing was carried on on a large scale. Portions of the same manuscript seem to have been copied from different exemplars and by different hands, and it does not appear to have been thought necessary to compare the two exemplars, or to harmonise the disagreements. Moreover, changes of reading were introduced by individual bishops, who had the sole authority over the public reading of Scripture, and these changes, unless very violent, would soon become as familiar as the old readings, and would pass into the versions."
Ibid, Part II, Textual Criticism of the Early Church
So from the start of the 2nd century onwards, textual criticism has shown itself to be needed. So we come to understand why we need "textual criticism". Even though they meant well, if you study this area, there are occasions where a monk, well intending, very well could have been copying a certain text, on a certain line, by candlelight, groggy, his eyes may (I emphasize may) been focused on one line, get sleepy, lose his place, and on another line where the text looks the same, have picked up there.
People, please understand, textual criticism is not an attack on any version of any Bible. Rather it is a method that may allow us to attempt to find the original reading, the original intent, of the authors of the New Testament.
If you look back, Erasmus had perhaps only as little as 8-10 MSS to start. By the 1600's, the KJ translators had about 50 MSS which they used. By the 1970's and even more recently, we now have at our disposal some 5300 Greek MSS, even though some are nothing more than a fragment, a corner of a page, of which to use.
Today, to attempt to do a complete and new work at "textual criticism" of the New Testament would be an extremely daunting task. And for sure, a work that would last 20 plus years.
But even at that, does that mean should stop altogether?
Heaven forbid.
If it wasn't for "textual criticism" and the work done by E.C. Colwell, JW's might be right, and Jesus Christ indeed could be considered as "a god".
So let me repeat, textual criticism is not an attack on the KJV. It is not finding fault with the KJV. So fault me all you wish, say what you will about me, but until God tells me I'm wrong, I will continue to compare my Bible (KJV by the way) with the Greek.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
Jonathan Leo
Well-Known Member
Well since the years the Bible was written in full, and although there are many translations, in a round about way, they all say the same thing, and what they say is Jesus died to save us. They all point to the messiah. Amen
Upvote
0
1213
Disciple of Jesus
I think they all give the same message. And therefore, they are all as trustworthy. Some may just be more difficult to understand. But I think the problem is always in the receiving end, and that people don’t want to understand or have not yet understood all perfectly.
Upvote
0
- Sep 22, 2015
- 4,000
- 1,029
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Q1: Can we trust a Bible with "mistakes"?
A1:
The Bible (Scripture) is the supreme authority when compared to other writings and precepts.
All of the ACTUAL WORDS therein were "Spirit Inspired", and "superintended" by God.
The ~40 authors and their scribes recorded these words in "original manuscripts" (mss) which were without error.
Systematic study of Scripture leads one to the conclusion that it is God's supreme way of speaking to Man.
The "economy" or God's methods of relating to Man changed from Old Testament times to New Testament
due to the historical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth,
The Divine Messiah, The Christ, the God-Man., Son of God, Son of Man, etc
The Bible as a piece of literature is withhout peer, and
it has been MIRACULOUSLY remembered, inspired, dictated, written, copied, translated, preserved, interpreted, and distributed.
RELIABILITY of the 4 Gospels and "Dr." Luke's investigations in at least Acts 1-12:
John 14:26 ....Jesus to his followers: Upper Room Discourse
"But the Counselor, (God) the Holy Spirit, (Spirit of Truth) whom the Father will send in my name,
will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (PERFECT spirit-led RECALL)
Q2: Can we trust any Bible 100%?
A2: YES. FOR all major doctrinal truths if honestly translated from ancient MSS.
Conclusion: The New Testament translations in ANY version have been based on copious, reliable, accurate, authentic words from "authors" who were authorized and accepted "historians".
What the Bible says about itself:
2 Timothy 3: 14-17...All Scripture is God-breathed
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,
15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
John 20:30-31 (NIV); 21:25...that you may BELIEVE...the historical BOOKS!
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples,
which are not recorded in this book.
31 But these are written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and that by believing you may have life in his name.
21:25 Jesus did many other things as well.
If every one of them were written down,
I suppose that even the whole world would not have room
for the books that would be written.
2 Peter 1: 19-21...Bible "produced" by Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
So we have the prophetic WORD (Scripture) made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but
men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Luke 24:27, 32, 44-45...the post resurrection super BIBLE study...He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures
he (Jesus) explained to them (2 Emmaus followers) what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself.
They said to one another,
“Were not our hearts burning within us (Holy Spirit?) while He was speaking to us on the road,
while He (Jesus) was explaining the Scriptures to us?”
(...at the "fish fry" to His followers)
Now He said to them,
“These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
IMO:
The books of the Bible are in GENERAL HARMONY and GENERALLY ACCURATE enough to allow interpretation
and systematic theology AS TO ALL MAJOR DOCTRINAL TRUTHS. Those books were produced by spirit-led menfrom different view points, backgrounds, audiences, intent, etc.The spiritual revelation from God to Man is NOT "flawed".
The Bible can be "nit picked" for INSIGNIFICANT and humanly perceived contradictions.
And as per usual, because the Bible was "produced" by Man, he has succeeded in viewing the work as totally HIS!
Q3:which Bible/s can we trust?.
A2: ANY! FOR all major doctrinal truths if honestly translated from ancient MSS.
Q4: What does it mean when God said he will preserve his word?
Psalm 12: 6-7
The words of the Lord are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
7 You, O Lord, will keep them;
Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
A1:
The Bible (Scripture) is the supreme authority when compared to other writings and precepts.
All of the ACTUAL WORDS therein were "Spirit Inspired", and "superintended" by God.
The ~40 authors and their scribes recorded these words in "original manuscripts" (mss) which were without error.
Systematic study of Scripture leads one to the conclusion that it is God's supreme way of speaking to Man.
The "economy" or God's methods of relating to Man changed from Old Testament times to New Testament
due to the historical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth,
The Divine Messiah, The Christ, the God-Man., Son of God, Son of Man, etc
The Bible as a piece of literature is withhout peer, and
it has been MIRACULOUSLY remembered, inspired, dictated, written, copied, translated, preserved, interpreted, and distributed.
RELIABILITY of the 4 Gospels and "Dr." Luke's investigations in at least Acts 1-12:
John 14:26 ....Jesus to his followers: Upper Room Discourse
"But the Counselor, (God) the Holy Spirit, (Spirit of Truth) whom the Father will send in my name,
will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (PERFECT spirit-led RECALL)
Q2: Can we trust any Bible 100%?
A2: YES. FOR all major doctrinal truths if honestly translated from ancient MSS.
Conclusion: The New Testament translations in ANY version have been based on copious, reliable, accurate, authentic words from "authors" who were authorized and accepted "historians".
What the Bible says about itself:
2 Timothy 3: 14-17...All Scripture is God-breathed
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,
15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
John 20:30-31 (NIV); 21:25...that you may BELIEVE...the historical BOOKS!
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples,
which are not recorded in this book.
31 But these are written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and that by believing you may have life in his name.
21:25 Jesus did many other things as well.
If every one of them were written down,
I suppose that even the whole world would not have room
for the books that would be written.
2 Peter 1: 19-21...Bible "produced" by Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
So we have the prophetic WORD (Scripture) made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but
men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Luke 24:27, 32, 44-45...the post resurrection super BIBLE study...He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures
he (Jesus) explained to them (2 Emmaus followers) what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself.
They said to one another,
“Were not our hearts burning within us (Holy Spirit?) while He was speaking to us on the road,
while He (Jesus) was explaining the Scriptures to us?”
(...at the "fish fry" to His followers)
Now He said to them,
“These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
IMO:
The books of the Bible are in GENERAL HARMONY and GENERALLY ACCURATE enough to allow interpretation
and systematic theology AS TO ALL MAJOR DOCTRINAL TRUTHS. Those books were produced by spirit-led menfrom different view points, backgrounds, audiences, intent, etc.The spiritual revelation from God to Man is NOT "flawed".
The Bible can be "nit picked" for INSIGNIFICANT and humanly perceived contradictions.
And as per usual, because the Bible was "produced" by Man, he has succeeded in viewing the work as totally HIS!
Q3:which Bible/s can we trust?.
A2: ANY! FOR all major doctrinal truths if honestly translated from ancient MSS.
Q4: What does it mean when God said he will preserve his word?
Psalm 12: 6-7
The words of the Lord are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
7 You, O Lord, will keep them;
Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Upvote
0
- Sep 22, 2015
- 4,000
- 1,029
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
The "word of God"...
Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, “It is written,
‘Man shall not live on bread alone,
but on every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”
Revelation 19:13 ...The Rider on the White Horse
He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood,
and His name is called The Word of God.
Revelation 1:2 ...To John the Elder
who testified to the Word of God and
to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
1 Peter 1:23
for you have been" born again"not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is,
through the living and enduring Word of God.
Hebrews 4:12
For the WORD of GOD is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow,
and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
1 John 2:14
I have written to you, fathers,
because you know Him who has been from the beginning.I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the Word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.(satan / followers)
Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and
the sword of the Spirit,
which is the Word of God.
Luke 8:11
“Now the parable is this: the seed is the Word of God
Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, “It is written,
‘Man shall not live on bread alone,
but on every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”
Revelation 19:13 ...The Rider on the White Horse
He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood,
and His name is called The Word of God.
Revelation 1:2 ...To John the Elder
who testified to the Word of God and
to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
1 Peter 1:23
for you have been" born again"not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is,
through the living and enduring Word of God.
Hebrews 4:12
For the WORD of GOD is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow,
and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
1 John 2:14
I have written to you, fathers,
because you know Him who has been from the beginning.I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the Word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.(satan / followers)
Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and
the sword of the Spirit,
which is the Word of God.
Luke 8:11
“Now the parable is this: the seed is the Word of God
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Good. and yes.
Who IS the AUTHOR of SCRIPTURE ?
Who grants understanding of SCRIPTURE when and as HE is well pleased to do so ? (to whom HE WILLS)
Did HE change HIS mind about this ? (no.)
Upvote
0
For the most part, it's people that will try to confuse God's word into being imperfect/not clear, or meaning something other than what it does, because "something other" it's what they prefer to believe.
Take those who want to believe in God and evolution, and this is just an example...to them the bible is all about interpretation, and somehow they find an interpretation that backs evolution, something that is not even suggested in scripture, so the bible is not confusing there, but they are. People that do that make the bible "appear" imperfect/unclear, and in this particular case, say it makes no difference which they believe, evolution, or conventional creation, when in reality, it makes a huge difference. If nothing else (and there are other reasons) their "different interpretations" claim, can make people question the whole bible...it introduces a general problem that causes confusion, that isn't really a problem at all, unless we make it that, or let it be..
God is not a God of confusion, and what business do we have even having faith in God that we assume is almighty, creator of everything, if he can't do something as simple as get his word to us just in exactly the condition he wants it to be? Are any of us thinking God is perfect, er, um, except with one of the most important things he has to do...telling us what we need to do to attain salvation?
Regardless of how he got the word to us, he didn't let it get messed up along the way.
Sure the Bible is a bit confusing in some areas, but that thing that is confusing is made clear in a half dozen other places in the bible. It makes it's over all point just fine.
Again with the evolution example, when people want to mix the worlds point of view with the Bibles or push new selfish doctrine (more world) they "want" the bible to back up, of course it's going to get confusing to pure bible believers. Hopefully they recognize the Master of Confusion at work, ignore it, and stick with the simple truth.
Take those who want to believe in God and evolution, and this is just an example...to them the bible is all about interpretation, and somehow they find an interpretation that backs evolution, something that is not even suggested in scripture, so the bible is not confusing there, but they are. People that do that make the bible "appear" imperfect/unclear, and in this particular case, say it makes no difference which they believe, evolution, or conventional creation, when in reality, it makes a huge difference. If nothing else (and there are other reasons) their "different interpretations" claim, can make people question the whole bible...it introduces a general problem that causes confusion, that isn't really a problem at all, unless we make it that, or let it be..
God is not a God of confusion, and what business do we have even having faith in God that we assume is almighty, creator of everything, if he can't do something as simple as get his word to us just in exactly the condition he wants it to be? Are any of us thinking God is perfect, er, um, except with one of the most important things he has to do...telling us what we need to do to attain salvation?
Regardless of how he got the word to us, he didn't let it get messed up along the way.
Sure the Bible is a bit confusing in some areas, but that thing that is confusing is made clear in a half dozen other places in the bible. It makes it's over all point just fine.
Again with the evolution example, when people want to mix the worlds point of view with the Bibles or push new selfish doctrine (more world) they "want" the bible to back up, of course it's going to get confusing to pure bible believers. Hopefully they recognize the Master of Confusion at work, ignore it, and stick with the simple truth.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Unless I'm mistaken, 100% of the people who have posted here have all agreed that there is nothing wrong, per se, with the KJV. All the core doctrines that hold Christianity together as a whole, are found in it along with other versions.
What most here, including myself, have objected to is the KJV Onlyism that is being fostered.
What most here, including myself, have objected to is the view of the KJV being "the perfectly preserved word of God".
Personally, the KJV is the Bible I was raised on, it is the version I study, I read, I preach, and teach out of. But in preaching and teaching, I'm also wise enough to consult other versions. Simple fact, one version may say something in a better way than another. That's it.
I have in my collection, the LXX and I even have the Vulgate!
As a matter of fact, anybody who has participated in any debating with me knows, when I quote scripture, I quote the KJV.
If it is your personal conviction to use the Revised Standard Version, God Bless you.
If it is your conviction to use the Amplified Standard Version, God Bless you.
If it is your conviction to use the King James, God Bless you.
But, the KJV Only viewpoint goes against the scriptures.
When Jesus said:
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." -Jn. 5:39 (KJV)
Would some be so arrogant as to say Jesus was telling the Pharisees to go consult the KJV?
And here again, what did the church do before the KJV? How many billions were saved prior to the KJV? And on the flip side, how many billions only thought they were saved before the "Perfect preserved word of God" was issued?
I'm sorry, I just cannot, after many a year of study and seminary, hold to the KJV Only belief.
God Bless
Till all are one.
What most here, including myself, have objected to is the KJV Onlyism that is being fostered.
What most here, including myself, have objected to is the view of the KJV being "the perfectly preserved word of God".
Personally, the KJV is the Bible I was raised on, it is the version I study, I read, I preach, and teach out of. But in preaching and teaching, I'm also wise enough to consult other versions. Simple fact, one version may say something in a better way than another. That's it.
I have in my collection, the LXX and I even have the Vulgate!
As a matter of fact, anybody who has participated in any debating with me knows, when I quote scripture, I quote the KJV.
If it is your personal conviction to use the Revised Standard Version, God Bless you.
If it is your conviction to use the Amplified Standard Version, God Bless you.
If it is your conviction to use the King James, God Bless you.
But, the KJV Only viewpoint goes against the scriptures.
When Jesus said:
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." -Jn. 5:39 (KJV)
Would some be so arrogant as to say Jesus was telling the Pharisees to go consult the KJV?
And here again, what did the church do before the KJV? How many billions were saved prior to the KJV? And on the flip side, how many billions only thought they were saved before the "Perfect preserved word of God" was issued?
I'm sorry, I just cannot, after many a year of study and seminary, hold to the KJV Only belief.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
- May 14, 2002
- 14,986
- 1,519
- 63
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Utrecht
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Only God is perfect, the Bible is not God therefore not perfect.
Upvote
0
- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The Bible is inspired by God, but written by men. That allows room for mistakes.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
If there are mistakes then we cannot understand the message, it is garbled. The Bible is free of mistakes because every word is exactly what God intended. These words are in the form written by humans, but they are nevertheless God's word.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
