Is the Bible Without Error?

[AV1611VET]

Lazarus ... simple question I ask of all non-KJVOs:

What is God the Father's name?

Will you tell me that, please?

 

[Lazarus Short]

I don't care if SHEOUL means PEPTO BISMOL.

I'm not the one who sat in the seat of a King James translator and wrote the word HELL.

The King James Bible says it, that settles it.

You must, then, believe that the KJV translators with their single-denomination outlook, were more inspired than Moses and all the rest of the Biblical writers. If you believe in the Anglican KJV so strongly, should you not convert to the Anglican church, or at least to the Episcopal?

 

[Lazarus Short]

Lazarus ... simple question I ask of all non-KJVOs:

What is God the Father's name?

Will you tell me that, please?

OK, but first tell me why the KJV hides the name of the Father behind "LORD."

 

[AV1611VET]

You must, then, believe that the KJV translators with their single-denomination outlook, were more inspired than Moses and all the rest of the Biblical writers.

Not exactly ... but I do believe that God superintended the work of the KJB.

If you believe in the Anglican KJV so strongly, should you not convert to the Anglican church, or at least to the Episcopal?

No.

OK, but first tell me why the KJV hides the name of the Father behind "LORD."

Its a reference to the deity of Christ.

Ever notice this?

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Notice all capital letters?

JESUS of the New Testament is the LORD of the Old Testament.

 

[Lazarus Short]

JESUS of the New Testament is the LORD of the Old Testament.

OK, we are in agreement there, but I got clued in by the "YHVH" as in my avatar, which the KJV hides. You still have not admitted why the KJV translators hid the fact of the pre-incarnate Christ being the God of the OT by using "LORD." It seems to me that they gave us only an obscure hint.

I thought of this, this morning, before I logged on: When the KJV translators penned "unicorn" in the text, did said unicorns pop into existence? Are you constrained to believe it because they wrote it? It's just like they wrote "hell," so you believe it, and science can take a hike...scholarship too?

 

[ViaCrucis]

"Borrowed"!?

Try again.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

If the King James translators wrote HELL over the word SHEOUL, then more power to them.

Why?

The King James Bible says it, that settles it.

Why?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pescador]

Lazarus ... simple question I ask of all non-KJVOs:

What is God the Father's name?

Will you tell me that, please?

His name is "I am!"

 

[rjs330]

Gentlemen, this arguing smacks a little of the warning in principle Titus.

Avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, and fights about the Law, because they are useless and worthless. - Titus 3:9 Bible Gateway passage: Titus 3:9 - Common English Bible

KJV is a good translation. So is the RSV and others. None are perfect. As a Greek studier the NASB is one of the best Greek translations. Let's not argue over translations shall we. They are all fairly decent and can lead us to truth.

 

[sparow]

The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is foundational to evangelical faith...
Or is it????!!

I think this is a wrong question; the correct question should be "is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, a form of idolatry"? The only people who would need a inerrant Bible would be a legalist; the Bible or scripture is a living entity and editing's and extras do not have life; from scripture is an endless stream of understanding and wisdom; if one understood first go the endless stream would not be present. Seriously, what better place for Satan to attack than to interfere with the scriptures; changing Laws and times.

 

[greenguzzi]

Thanks for you response. I just wondered how someone could know about what Jesus had done to save them without hearing the scriptures, the message, that relates to salvation.

In the same way that the human authors of the scriptures knew.

 

[greenguzzi]

I think this is a wrong question; the correct question should be "is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, a form of idolatry"? The only people who would need a inerrant Bible would be a legalist; the Bible or scripture is a living entity and editing's and extras do not have life; from scripture is an endless stream of understanding and wisdom; if one understood first go the endless stream would not be present. Seriously, what better place for Satan to attack than to interfere with the scriptures; changing Laws and times.

Wow, thank you @sparow . I now consider my mind officially blown!
I'd love to hear more about your ideas.

 

[greenguzzi]

I do not know about evangelical faith, but it is foundational for TRUE Christianity. There are some who like to call themselves Christian but are far from being Christian. Either the Bible is God's Word and is without error or it is not God's Word and is in error. God is Perfect and without error, his Word must also be without error or it is not from him. There are false teachers and false Christians ( who are really not Christian ) who embrace an idea of God but not the true nature of God, and therefore are diluted in their thinking and except falsehood.( Romans 1:18-32 ) These people have no fellowship with the one true God, and his people the Church. John 1:1-5 states that Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh and blood. Jesus Christ is without error and so is the Word that he became one with.

Now I'm not talking about the English Bibles that we have, but the Original Word in the Original language of Hebrew and Greek, of which we have over 5000 copies. More than any other ancient document of History. The Original Word has been well Preserved.

OK, but the Faith is called "Christ-ianity", not "Bible-ianity". So why do you worship the Book rather than the Man? Isn't worshipping the book a form of idolatry? Or is it a mystical-magical inerrant book?

Surely to rely on The Book is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit.

I agree that there are some who like to call themselves Christian but are far from being Christian, but that has to do with what they do, not what they think.

Your theory about the original language is interesting. It would carry some weight if there were native speakers of those original languages. Are there any?

Romans 1 is a wonderful expression of why the Bible is not necessary. Very Meta - thank you!
John 1... Why do you assume the "Word" is the Canon? It might be, but it probably isn't.
No, it really isn't.

 

[greenguzzi]

Scripture nowhere indicating those who would later translate the Bible into different languages were lead by the Holy Spirit.

Where does scripture indicate (in every instance) that the original words were lead by the holy Spirit?

 

[greenguzzi]

Well you would be wrong. God does not like to be called a Liar, and that is what your doing when you say his Word is in error.

I'm not saying that God's Word is in error, I'm saying that the Bible has errors.
That might be the same to you, but it isn't to everyone.
Not all Christians worship the Bible. Some Christians just worship Christ. (That's what the word "Christian" means.)

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Where does scripture indicate (in every instance) that the original words were lead by the holy Spirit?

2 peter 1:20-21
2 timothy 3:16-17

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Not all Christians worship the Bible. Some Christians just worship Christ. (That's what the word "Christian" means.)

Who is Jesus? Why is he of any significance?

 

[Hank77]

In the same way that the human authors of the scriptures knew.

They were there.

 

[greenguzzi]

2 peter 1:20-21
2 timothy 3:16-17

When those words were written, the New Testament cannon didn't exist. So this only refers to the Tanakh.

 

[greenguzzi]

They were there.

A perfect answer!
That wasn't what I was leading to, but it's so much a better answer than what I had in mind that I just have to agree.