Is the Bible Without Error?

[greenguzzi]

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?

Non Sequitur notwithstanding.
"Jesus" is the transliteration of "Yeshua" which is the Romanisation of ישוע

 

[jimmyjimmy]

"Jesus" is the transliteration of "Yeshua" which is the Romanisation of ישוע

Who is this person, and what is his significance?

 

[greenguzzi]

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

What is God the Father's name?

Will you tell me that, please?

Well "God the Father" or something like that is probably adequate when addressing Him. I'm pretty sure He knows who you are talking to.
My name is Steven, but when people call me "Steve" or when I get emails that say "Dear Stephen" I'm usually sensible enough to get that it's me who they are addressing. God the Father is much smarter than me, I'm sure He can work it out.

If one's goal is to be respectful, then YHWH is probably sufficient. It might not be quite right, but even my humble Queen Elizabeth is above such petty breaches, so I'm sure that my Father in Heaven is.

 

[greenguzzi]

Who is this person, and what is his significance?

We have documents (in the form of "scripture") from people who were there. These people testify to what happened in the way that people do.
That's good enough! That has been good enough for studies of History for always. I don't need to believe that the news reels about Churchill are the "word of god" to believe and appreciate that all the good (and bad) things that Churchill did were significant.

The New Testament is a bunch of really important historical documents that show that a man who claimed to be the Son of God came to Earth and did some remarkable things.
That is enough for me to become a follower of Christ.
I don't need these documents to be magical for me to be Born Again.

 

[greenguzzi]

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

No, He didn't.
It's just a translation into a language that isn't used any more.
It is a wonderful historical document, and it has great value.
But it isn't the Word of God any more than your ramblings are.

 

[sparow]

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

All 2 Perter 1:20-21 is saying is that the Prophets of old did not make their prophesies up but received them directly from God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17, refers to the OT; did Paul consider Jer 8:8 God breathed
Jeremiah 8:8-10 (NKJV)
8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood.
9 The wise men are ashamed, They are dismayed and taken. Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD; So what wisdom do they have?
10 Therefore I will give their wives to others, And their fields to those who will inherit them; Because from the least even to the greatest Everyone is given to covetousness; From the prophet even to the priest Everyone deals falsely.

 

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

All 2 Perter 1:20-21 is saying is that the Prophets of old did not make their prophesies up but received them directly from God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17, refers to the OT; did Paul consider Jer 8:8 God breathed
Jeremiah 8:8-10 (NKJV)
8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood.
9 The wise men are ashamed, They are dismayed and taken. Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD; So what wisdom do they have?
10 Therefore I will give their wives to others, And their fields to those who will inherit them; Because from the least even to the greatest Everyone is given to covetousness; From the prophet even to the priest Everyone deals falsely.

all this is applied to the new testament apostles which the LORD inspired to speak His Word to His people(ephesians 2:19-20 ephesians 3:3-7).

just as the OT prophets spoke the Word's of God, so did the NT apostles.

 

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

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

ephesians 2:19-20, ephesians 3:3-7

the Holy Spirit inspired the NT apostles in the same way they inspired the OT prophets.

 

[Hillsage]

1 Timothy 4: NKJV

4 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

The clincher for me is this:

“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4)

Big Bold Red Letters there.

I was trying to catch up having just found the thread, and got hung up on your above quote in your post #33. So, maybe someone else has already mentioned it, I am way back on this fast burning topic. But if no one else has caught it; it should say 2 Timothy 4: and not 1Timothy 4: NKJV.

The reason I caught this mistake was because I was checking to see what 'Greek word' was used for "word" in the quoted verses. Your 2Timothy quote is LOGOS and your Matt 4:4 quote is RHEMA. Two words which many/most say mean the same thing. I don't.


EDIT; Just posted and two more pages added. I may not try to catch up. I'll just skip to the end and see what you guys are up to.

 

[Hillsage]

No, He didn't.
It's just a translation into a language that isn't used any more.
It is a wonderful historical document, and it has great value.
But it isn't the Word of God any more than your ramblings are.

Why you heretic. Are you trying to tell me that when the wise men approached the beaming young mother Mary, she didn't with joy go to the crib and pull back the covers declaring; "Behold the Word of GOD .....A BOOK!!!!"

 

[Hillsage]

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

The word "as they were 'moved'", is translated into 22 different NT English words....and only once as "moved". Contextually I wouldn't put as much credibility in this verse proving your POV as you seem to be.

And as for the 2 Tim verse I would just like to say; "If I was 'inspired of God' to write, concerning last night's rainbow, and someone else was also likewise 'inspired of God' to do the same; I would not expect the occultic practice of automatic handwriting to make us both write 'word for word' what God was saying. I think this POV also helps explains verses such as;


1CO 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

1CO 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Seems to be a pretty funny couple of verses if 'every word is spoke from the mouth of God and then penned as a literal word in scripture'.

 

[sparow]

all this is applied to the new testament apostles which the LORD inspired to speak His Word to His people(ephesians 2:19-20 ephesians 3:3-7).

just as the OT prophets spoke the Word's of God, so did the NT apostles.

I cannot even imagine what "inspired " means to you; When Jesus said to each apostle, "follow me", this was the Rabbi selecting an apprentice, Jesus selected 12 apprentices, and they received three and a half years training.

 

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

The word "as they were 'moved'", is translated into 22 different NT English words....and only once as "moved". Contextually I wouldn't put as much credibility in this verse proving your POV as you seem to be.

can't see the significance on this unless you're going to say the translation is in error. lexicons tend to recognize different meanings for words according to the context in which they are used.

And as for the 2 Tim verse I would just like to say; "If I was 'inspired of God' to write, concerning last night's rainbow, and someone else was also likewise 'inspired of God' to do the same; I would not expect the occultic practice of automatic handwriting to make us both write 'word for word' what God was saying.

what you would expect however is for both statements to be true and consistent with one another as they would both be from God.

I think this POV also helps explains verses such as....

two things here:

first, the context is better understood when we start at verse 10 where Paul references Jesus' own words in matthew 5 and matthew 19 that a wife is not to depart from her husband and a husband is not to divorce his wife. Paul then gives further instruction on a different circumstantial matter that Jesus did not personally speak on. the former was not a "thus says the LORD" situation but rather a "let me remind of what Jesus said" situation.

second, when he does speak on this other matter he is doing this with the authority given to him by Christ Himself to speak the Words that are binding on the Church of God. this is not Paul going off on his own but rather Paul utilizing his God given apostolic authority guided by the Holy Spirit. Paul certainly does have the Spirit of God(galatians 1:1).

 

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

I cannot even imagine what "inspired " means to you; When Jesus said to each apostle, "follow me", this was the Rabbi selecting an apprentice, Jesus selected 12 apprentices, and they received three and a half years training.

are you now saying the OT prophets were not inspired to pen God's Word as 2 timothy 3:16-17 and 2 peter 1:20-21 says? up until the time of Pentecost when they received the Holy Spirit in power, the 12 were quite confused about things. Jesus had to help much to get them up to speed. I don't think this had much to do with training but rather the power of God to lead them on the right path.

 

[Phantasman]

How can the Holy Spirit have written the OT if it wasn't given to us until Christ was glorified? John 7:39

John 14:17
John 15:26
John 16:13

The word Christ means christened. Jesus accepted the Chrism of the Father. No man had ever experience this action. No man had ever heard the words of God the Father. The Jews had been following a "liar and a murderer".

John 8
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

John 10
7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Truth sets you free. Holding all truth in a box (Bible) is a religion of it's own. Be lead by the Spirit, not by men, or you suffer their same fate (Blind leading blind).

 

[Hillsage]

can't see the significance on this unless you're going to say the translation is in error. lexicons tend to recognize different meanings for words according to the context in which they are used.

What did you do to check "the significance" of what I shared? Did you see how the word was used in the 57 other verses it was in? Did you compare different translations?

NIV 2PE 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

YLT 2PE 1:21 for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

Both of these two translations, certainly seem to translate the Greek in a way, that to me, represents 'inspired' writings as I would think of being inspired.

what you would expect however is for both statements to be true and consistent with one another as they would both be from God.

I would agree with this statement, but that certainly doesn't mean every word written by the original author was verbatim either IMO.

two things here:

first, the context is better understood when we start at verse 10 where Paul references Jesus' own words in matthew 5 and matthew 19 that a wife is not to depart from her husband and a husband is not to divorce his wife. Paul then gives further instruction on a different circumstantial matter that Jesus did not personally speak on. the former was not a "thus says the LORD" situation but rather a "let me remind of what Jesus said" situation.

You miss the point I'm making, and what you say actually adds to my position. The words spoken by Paul were not even inspired of the Holy Spirit they were his agreement with the words of Jesus which he'd never heard because he never wrote the book of Matt. According to your logic, we can all write original scripture, if we read it before. I say not.

second, when he does speak on this other matter he is doing this with the authority given to him by Christ Himself to speak the Words that are binding on the Church of God. this is not Paul going off on his own but rather Paul utilizing his God given apostolic authority guided by the Holy Spirit. Paul certainly does have the Spirit of God(galatians 1:1).

You are entitled to your opinion, but Luke was not an apostle and he wrote scripture. So you're entitled to your opinion, but to me it's just 'that' scripturally. Many have the Spirit of God but that's certainly not a caveat to write scripture in the general Christian realm.

 

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

What did you do to check "the significance" of what I shared? Did you see how the word was used in the 57 other verses it was in? Did you compare different translations?

NIV 2PE 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

YLT 2PE 1:21 for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

Both of these two translations, certainly seem to translate the Greek in a way, that to me, represents 'inspired' writings as I would think of being inspired.

how do these different renderings contradict The Holy Spirit leading the apostles to write God's Words?

I would agree with this statement, but that certainly doesn't mean every word written by the original author was verbatim either IMO.

so you would also deny that the OT prophets spoke the Words of God as they were lead by the Holy Spirit?

You miss the point I'm making, and what you say actually adds to my position. The words spoken by Paul were not even inspired of the Holy Spirit they were his agreement with the words of Jesus which he'd never heard because he never wrote the book of Matt. According to your logic, we can all write original scripture, if we read it before. I say not.

why would you conclude that because Paul references what Jesus said that he was not lead by the Spirit to do so?

 

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

You are entitled to your opinion, but Luke was not an apostle and he wrote scripture.

luke and mark were close companions with the apostles and wrote under their guidance. luke specifically was sort of a reporter. while they may not have been inspired as the apostles were, they're writings were indeed accurate because of them being under the apostles.

 

[Hillsage]

so you would also deny that the OT prophets spoke the Words of God as they were lead by the Holy Spirit?

I've never said that anyone writing scripture wasn't led by the Holy Spirit. I've said that being led by the Holy Spirit doesn't mean every word they wrote was verbatim from God. And since man has absolutely no copy of an original this all becomes a mute argument. Since many of the every oldest manuscripts ever found, vary in what's written, no one knows which 'one' is best or worst.

Scripture and whatever translation one likes all provide enough guidelines to walk in the truth. But Man has tried to become a theological attorney and chew it up into a jot and tittle thing, and has fought 'tooth and nail' over it for centuries causing multiple divisions. What should be the staff of life from God has been turned into a club of death from religious men.

why would you conclude that because Paul references what Jesus said that he was not lead by the Spirit to do so?

Already told you, but it went past you I guess.

1CO 7:12 But to the rest speak I (PAUL), NOT the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

1CO 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my (PAUL) judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

If you think Paul was led to say either of the above statements I see no reason to continue further dialogue.

 

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

I've never said that anyone writing scripture wasn't led by the Holy Spirit. I've said that being led by the Holy Spirit doesn't mean every word they wrote was verbatim from God. And since man has absolutely no copy of an original this all becomes a mute argument.

so you'll just ignore 2 peter 1:20-21 that says people didn't write on their own but were lead by the Spirit? what did the Spirit lead these people to write, their own thoughts or the LORD's? Scripture says the LORD(Hebrews 1:1, ephesians 2:19-20)

Jesus seemed to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God( matthew 19:4-6, luke 4:1-13). notice our Savior quoted Scripture as if it were the very Word of God.

Already told you, but it went past you I guess.

1CO 7:12 But to the rest speak I (PAUL), NOT the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

1CO 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my (PAUL) judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

and I already explained that he was utilizing his apostolic authority in making a judgement which is binding on the church. this is not Paul going off on his own apart from the Spirit of God.


yeah, I think it is time for you to go.