Are there any verses that address this? Yes I know that II Tim 3:16 says that all scripture is given by inspiration, but some people I've talked to say that "well it was still written by man, so it's not perfect". Is there a verse that deals with this? I am wondering. Thanks!!!
Verses that say that the Bible is infallible, and perfect?
- Thread starter Athlon4all
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps the relationship between inspiration and infallible is a good starting point. The Scriptural emphasis is on inspiration. And the 2 Timothy 3:16 passage refers to the Hebrew Scriptures. In 2 Peter 3;15-16 we see that Peter puts Paul's writings on the same level as the "scriptures" (Old Testament).
A second point of discussion is whether infallibility applies to every word/phrase as evidenced in the manuscripts or whether that applies to the effect of the Scriptures or whether the infallibility applies to the doctrinal presentation or in everything that it presents (but not to the specific text(s)).
A second point of discussion is whether infallibility applies to every word/phrase as evidenced in the manuscripts or whether that applies to the effect of the Scriptures or whether the infallibility applies to the doctrinal presentation or in everything that it presents (but not to the specific text(s)).
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,914
- 1,529
- 18
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Wouldn't we want something *OTHER* than the Bible which said that the Bible was perfect?
If some guy handed you a book, and the first sentence in the book was "everything in this book is 100% literally true", would you believe everything in the book because the book itself said it was true?
Mostly, though, you'll run into the questions filosofer pointed at - what exactly do we mean by "perfect"? Do we mean that, in some particular translation, every last word, taken at face value, is perfect and literal truth? This would be hard, because, if you take everything at face value, you end up with a few apparent contradictions.
Once we admit that we have to fall back on interpretation to resolve some apparent contradictions, we've pretty much lost the "totally inerrant" point, and we're stuck with "infallible". In the end, you have to read the whole thing, and be guided by the Holy Spirit... and, I suspect, even then you can miss the point, because it's *hard* to lead us to truth.
If some guy handed you a book, and the first sentence in the book was "everything in this book is 100% literally true", would you believe everything in the book because the book itself said it was true?
Mostly, though, you'll run into the questions filosofer pointed at - what exactly do we mean by "perfect"? Do we mean that, in some particular translation, every last word, taken at face value, is perfect and literal truth? This would be hard, because, if you take everything at face value, you end up with a few apparent contradictions.
Once we admit that we have to fall back on interpretation to resolve some apparent contradictions, we've pretty much lost the "totally inerrant" point, and we're stuck with "infallible". In the end, you have to read the whole thing, and be guided by the Holy Spirit... and, I suspect, even then you can miss the point, because it's *hard* to lead us to truth.
Upvote
0
Thanks guys, I was thinking about that on the relationship between infallible and Inspiration, and I think that because it says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and I emphasize the all part of it,inspiration of God means God-Breathed, and I do think that this says that the entire Bible is given by inspiration of God, and to me that says that it all has God's perfection. Now, I will agree that some issues in modern society do need interperatation, I'm not disputing that, I was just wondering if there were any major verses other that.
EDIT: I just wanted to add, that one thing that we need to remember is that we can't expect non-believer's to interperate the Bible correctly, ya know what I mean because they dont have the holy spirit.
EDIT: I just wanted to add, that one thing that we need to remember is that we can't expect non-believer's to interperate the Bible correctly, ya know what I mean because they dont have the holy spirit.
Upvote
0
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Ps. 12:6-7 (KJV)
Proverbs 30:5 - "Every word of God is Pure..."
Psalm 119:140 - "Thy word is very pure..."
Psalm 19:7 - "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul."
2 Tim. 3:15-17 - " ...the holy scriptures...that the man of God may be perfect..."
Neh. 9:5 - "...blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise."
Phil. 2:9 - "...and given him a name which is above every name."
Psalm 138:2 - "...for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
****************************************
What is meant by the term "inspiration"?
This question is best answered by Scripture itself! See 2 Tim. 3:16! For an in depth study of the word Scripture, see Matt. 22:29; Mk. 12:10,24; 15:28; Lk. 4:21, 24:27; Jn. 2:22, 5:39, 7:38, 10:35; Acts 17:11; Rom. 1:2, 4:3; Gal. 4:30; 2 Tim. 3:15; 2 Pet. 1:20, 3:16.
A careful study of the above verses will reveal information about the Scriptures without even consulting the Greek!!
Proverbs 30:5 - "Every word of God is Pure..."
Psalm 119:140 - "Thy word is very pure..."
Psalm 19:7 - "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul."
2 Tim. 3:15-17 - " ...the holy scriptures...that the man of God may be perfect..."
Neh. 9:5 - "...blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise."
Phil. 2:9 - "...and given him a name which is above every name."
Psalm 138:2 - "...for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
****************************************
What is meant by the term "inspiration"?
This question is best answered by Scripture itself! See 2 Tim. 3:16! For an in depth study of the word Scripture, see Matt. 22:29; Mk. 12:10,24; 15:28; Lk. 4:21, 24:27; Jn. 2:22, 5:39, 7:38, 10:35; Acts 17:11; Rom. 1:2, 4:3; Gal. 4:30; 2 Tim. 3:15; 2 Pet. 1:20, 3:16.
A careful study of the above verses will reveal information about the Scriptures without even consulting the Greek!!
Upvote
0
Didaskomenos
Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Well, this is a point in which I think knowledge of Greek is helpful. The word we translate as "scripture" (a Latin word) is a general word for "writing" (Gr. graphe). This was not a technical term for "the Bible." In fact, when the NT uses that word as a techical term, it's referring to the OT (since the NT wasn't around as a body of writing yet).
If the Greeks were going to talk about "writings" in general, they'd say graphe. If there were going to talk about the OT Scriptures, they'd say graphe. That's the strange thing about inspiration and the NT - it doesn't link them together in any particular verses. This is not to say that the NT isn't on par with the OT, but it does make it difficult to proof-text (which is fine, because that's a bad practice anyway).
The OT talking about the "word of the Lord/God" (especially in Ps 119) usually either refers to the Law or God's promises (e.g., to Abraham, David). In the NT, the Word of God refers to Jesus, Jesus' words from God, or the same thing the OT referred to; the scriptures are the OT, in whole or in part.
Upvote
0
Since 1611, with the printing of the King James Bible, there have been more than three hundred English translations of the Bible published. Each translation implying that its predecessors are in some way inferior and that it has finally filled the great need for reliable truth. Fortunately, the great majority of these translations has drifted into obscurity.
In 1 Corinthians 14:33, we are told that "God is not the author of confusion," and yet it is obvious that all the Bibles weren't written by the same author. In Psalm 12:67 God has promised to preserve His words forever. "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Then again in Proverbs 30:5 the Bible says that "Every word of God is pure."
In Revelation 22:1819 we are warned about adding words to the Bible or taking words out; but we are told by "godly" men that those passages only mean the message. Who's right? Is each word important? Can we change them if we leave the message? How can man become qualified to rewrite the words of God? Is it through scholastic achievement, extensive study, or abnormally high intelligence?
In Matthew 22:29 Jesus says, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." Also in 2 Timothy 3:16 it says "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Yet modern scholarship says only the originals were inspired. Do the Scriptures still exist for our profit? Are all the Bibles of today only the "private interpretations" of the once inspired Scriptures (2 Peter 1:20-21)? Only in the KJV are we told that we must study or be ashamed, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth," 2 Timothy 2:15. Will we really be ashamed if we don't study? Eternity is too important to trust someone else completely with these answers.
In 1 Corinthians 14:33, we are told that "God is not the author of confusion," and yet it is obvious that all the Bibles weren't written by the same author. In Psalm 12:67 God has promised to preserve His words forever. "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Then again in Proverbs 30:5 the Bible says that "Every word of God is pure."
In Revelation 22:1819 we are warned about adding words to the Bible or taking words out; but we are told by "godly" men that those passages only mean the message. Who's right? Is each word important? Can we change them if we leave the message? How can man become qualified to rewrite the words of God? Is it through scholastic achievement, extensive study, or abnormally high intelligence?
In Matthew 22:29 Jesus says, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." Also in 2 Timothy 3:16 it says "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Yet modern scholarship says only the originals were inspired. Do the Scriptures still exist for our profit? Are all the Bibles of today only the "private interpretations" of the once inspired Scriptures (2 Peter 1:20-21)? Only in the KJV are we told that we must study or be ashamed, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth," 2 Timothy 2:15. Will we really be ashamed if we don't study? Eternity is too important to trust someone else completely with these answers.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
Well, I would agree that the Bible is inspired... But as far as infailible and perfect? There is where a fine line has to be drawn...
Is it infailible and perfect as a science book? No, not even close.
Is it infailible and perfect as a history book? It's a little better with history than it is with science, but it still is lacking a little there, some events happened at different times than suggested by the Bible and some may have not happened at all.
Is it infailible and perfect as a "How to come to a relationship with God" book? Yes and no... What some verses may mean to one person may not mean the same to another due to cultural differences that are hard to understand. Further one verse may mean something different to you each time you read it because of things going on in your own life.
How would I rate the Bible? With the same rating that God rated the rest of creation... Good, not perfect but good.
Is it infailible and perfect as a science book? No, not even close.
Is it infailible and perfect as a history book? It's a little better with history than it is with science, but it still is lacking a little there, some events happened at different times than suggested by the Bible and some may have not happened at all.
Is it infailible and perfect as a "How to come to a relationship with God" book? Yes and no... What some verses may mean to one person may not mean the same to another due to cultural differences that are hard to understand. Further one verse may mean something different to you each time you read it because of things going on in your own life.
How would I rate the Bible? With the same rating that God rated the rest of creation... Good, not perfect but good.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
I had a friend that was a professor and had a Phd in biology that was also a Christian. He had the patience to slowly teach me the real sciences rather than the "Creationist Science" that I was spoon feed since my first conversion to Christianity. I started reading the real scientific papers and text books instead of relying on what a speaker at church told me to think about science.
At first it was a painful lesson when I saw how much that a Creationist Speaker I had trusted fully had misrepresented what science and evolution were realy all about. I almost lost all of my faith, I probably would have if it had not been for that professor and a few others that helped me see that it was not God's word that was lying but a man's interpretation of that word.
I learned many things about myself and my faith at that time. One being that science, all of it, even evolution, did not take away from Gods glory but added to it. The universe to me became a much larger and grander place, much more befitting a great creator.
I am much closer to God after learning what science said, so don't be sad but rejoyce for me!
At first it was a painful lesson when I saw how much that a Creationist Speaker I had trusted fully had misrepresented what science and evolution were realy all about. I almost lost all of my faith, I probably would have if it had not been for that professor and a few others that helped me see that it was not God's word that was lying but a man's interpretation of that word.
I learned many things about myself and my faith at that time. One being that science, all of it, even evolution, did not take away from Gods glory but added to it. The universe to me became a much larger and grander place, much more befitting a great creator.
I am much closer to God after learning what science said, so don't be sad but rejoyce for me!
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
Julie,
Don't forget the English Bibles before the KJV. I wonder what they say for the Timothy quote? (I don't have a copy of any, so I can't check)
-Divinus
Don't forget the English Bibles before the KJV. I wonder what they say for the Timothy quote? (I don't have a copy of any, so I can't check)
-Divinus
Upvote
0
Ioustinos
Veteran
- Feb 6, 2002
- 1,719
- 175
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I go to a church where some people hold the KJV Only position. The KJV is not the standard to "judge" other bibles, our standard is the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Even the translators of the KJV stated that they didn't deem their translation as the "best" as well they said that many translations were good and necessary.
I would like to provide an example of how a KJV Only view can lead to trouble:
Job 7:20
I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? Why hast thout set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself? (KJV)
Now my pastor "preached" a sermon on Job confessing his sin to God, because it was his sin that was the cause of his tribulation. There, it says it plain as day, Job said "I sinned.". But this is where the problem lies, does this fit the passage as well as the theme of the entire book of Job? No! Four times within the first two chapters God claims that Job is a righteous man! The whole point of the book of Job was to show that the faith that God places within man will be true even through harsh trials! Job had done nothing to cause these things to happen to him, it was all a part of God's sovereigen plan!
Yet if we stick with the KJV as the only authority we have conflicting scriptures and bad theology! Most of the newer translations have the correct wording for Job 7:20, which is "Have I sinned?" This seems to fit the passage and the theme of Job correctly compared to the KJV translation. But how do we know which translation is correct? By referring to the Greek/Hebrew manuscripts from which our English bibles were translated.
I just wanted to show an application of the KJV Only view.
I would like to provide an example of how a KJV Only view can lead to trouble:
Job 7:20
I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? Why hast thout set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself? (KJV)
Now my pastor "preached" a sermon on Job confessing his sin to God, because it was his sin that was the cause of his tribulation. There, it says it plain as day, Job said "I sinned.". But this is where the problem lies, does this fit the passage as well as the theme of the entire book of Job? No! Four times within the first two chapters God claims that Job is a righteous man! The whole point of the book of Job was to show that the faith that God places within man will be true even through harsh trials! Job had done nothing to cause these things to happen to him, it was all a part of God's sovereigen plan!
Yet if we stick with the KJV as the only authority we have conflicting scriptures and bad theology! Most of the newer translations have the correct wording for Job 7:20, which is "Have I sinned?" This seems to fit the passage and the theme of Job correctly compared to the KJV translation. But how do we know which translation is correct? By referring to the Greek/Hebrew manuscripts from which our English bibles were translated.
I just wanted to show an application of the KJV Only view.
Upvote
0
What an interesting discussion! How wonderful! I would like to share several points here:
1. It would be very unfair of God to send us Christ and then leave us without guidance for centuries until He comes back again. That guidance is in the form of a book called the Bible. There might be contradictions in this Book, but one has to look at the essence and believe that God would not allow for His Word to be polluted to such a degree to be unuseable and untrustworthy.
2. The Bible (the KJV) is not the exclusive source of scrpitures from God. After all the different books in it were chosen by men to be compiled in this form. The Jewish people use several scriptures that are not in the Bible as we know it. Are we not to trust these scriptures? Where would one find this prophecy attributed to Enoch in Jude 1-14
<SUP>14</SUP> It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, " Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,
There is no mention in the OT that Enoch made such a prophecy.
3. I believe that everybody agrees that God is not prejudice and loves all of us equally as His children. Does God love the people living in Judea any more than the aboriginies living in Australia or the native americans living here in US. No! Does He not care for the Chinese, Japanese, Samoans... equally and as much He cares for others? Yes, He does! How about the people living in South America? Are they not His children?
We all are His children and He cares for all of us equally. So why did an Inca indian have to wait for thousands of years for guidance to arrive by the missionaries? I submit to you that these people also received guidance in the same way the people in Judea did. It would have been very unjust of God to have left His children totally without guidance! The fact these OTHER prophets are not mentioned in the Bible does not negate their existence and their teachings. A good example would be the followers of the Zoroasterian faith who live in India and Persia. There is a common understanding that the wise men (Magi) who looked for our Lord had come from Persia. Where did they get their guidance from?
4. With regard to what LEWISWILDERMUTH believes regarding science, one has to understand that God has created the whole universe and the laws that govern it. He has also given us His Word. Both of them have to agree with each other. In the words of Marthin Luther King, and I am paraphrasing here, "...science without religion is madness and religion without science is superstition...". Science is progressing day by day and leaping forward quite rapidly. The mere fact that we cannot explain scientifically certain events in the Word of God should not negate their occurrance. Perhaps we have not discovered the science yet. By the same token, the people had to abandon such absurdities as the flatness of the earth, because for the earth to have four corners as the Bible tells us, it must necessarily be flat and possess a rectangular shape. But, guess what! They had to abandon it when it was proven to them by science.
I believe that science and religion must agree. They are the two wings intended to elevate mankind from igorance. The two wings must work in harmony.
5. Let us also be ever mindful that the most prominent people who rejected our Lord when He declared His mission were the ones who had really studied the scriptures and thought to have known their meaning: The saducees and pharisees. Let us not get tangled up in the Greek and Hebrew and... Let us look for the purport of the scriptures and what they signify. Let us be like the fisherman who followed the Lord when He told him, "get up and follow me." Let us study the scriptures diligently however way we can, but be careful that the final authority on how the Word is to be understood rests with God. As an example, why a Jewish person has to accept the interpretation of Exodus 34 given by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:
<SUP>15</SUP> But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
<SUP>16</SUP> but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
<SUP>17</SUP> Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
<SUP>18</SUP> But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
A literal reading of Exodus 34 would not reveal this profound meaning. Only the Word of God revealed through an inspired Paul can dare give such meaning to the passage in Exodus 34. Who could have imagined that the "veil on Moses' face" is to be understood as "veil on the hearts of the jews"? Are we to reject Paul's interpretation because it runs contrary to a literal reading of the passage in Exodus 34? Definitely not! Because the final authority on how to understand the Word rests with God.
Another example is Luke 3 and how the prophecy of Isaish 40 was fulfilled. To begin with the text as it appears in Isaiah 40
<SUP>3</SUP>
A voice is calling,
"Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness;
Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
<SUP>4</SUP>
"Let every valley be lifted up,
And every mountain and hill be made low;
And let the rough ground become a plain,
And the rugged terrain a broad valley;
<SUP>5</SUP>
Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed,
And all flesh will see it together;
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."
is misquoted in Luke 3:
Luke 3
<SUP>4</SUP> as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,
"THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,
'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD,
MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.
<SUP>5</SUP>
' EVERY RAVINE WILL BE FILLED,
AND EVERY MOUNTAIN AND HILL WILL BE BROUGHT LOW;
THE CROOKED WILL BECOME STRAIGHT,
AND THE ROUGH ROADS SMOOTH;
<SUP>6</SUP>
AND ALL FLESH WILL <SUP>(4)</SUP> SEE THE SALVATION OF GOD.'"
Are we to say that Luke made a mistake? No! I submit again that God has the final authority on how to use and interpret His Word. Moreover, did all flesh see Jesus? Obviously not! Only those who had eyes to see and ears to hear. You see that a literal reading of the text does not hold any water here and that there is a lot of symbolism used here.
Examples such as these abound in the Bible!
I wanted this to be a quick note. I better stop!
1. It would be very unfair of God to send us Christ and then leave us without guidance for centuries until He comes back again. That guidance is in the form of a book called the Bible. There might be contradictions in this Book, but one has to look at the essence and believe that God would not allow for His Word to be polluted to such a degree to be unuseable and untrustworthy.
2. The Bible (the KJV) is not the exclusive source of scrpitures from God. After all the different books in it were chosen by men to be compiled in this form. The Jewish people use several scriptures that are not in the Bible as we know it. Are we not to trust these scriptures? Where would one find this prophecy attributed to Enoch in Jude 1-14
<SUP>14</SUP> It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, " Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,
There is no mention in the OT that Enoch made such a prophecy.
3. I believe that everybody agrees that God is not prejudice and loves all of us equally as His children. Does God love the people living in Judea any more than the aboriginies living in Australia or the native americans living here in US. No! Does He not care for the Chinese, Japanese, Samoans... equally and as much He cares for others? Yes, He does! How about the people living in South America? Are they not His children?
We all are His children and He cares for all of us equally. So why did an Inca indian have to wait for thousands of years for guidance to arrive by the missionaries? I submit to you that these people also received guidance in the same way the people in Judea did. It would have been very unjust of God to have left His children totally without guidance! The fact these OTHER prophets are not mentioned in the Bible does not negate their existence and their teachings. A good example would be the followers of the Zoroasterian faith who live in India and Persia. There is a common understanding that the wise men (Magi) who looked for our Lord had come from Persia. Where did they get their guidance from?
4. With regard to what LEWISWILDERMUTH believes regarding science, one has to understand that God has created the whole universe and the laws that govern it. He has also given us His Word. Both of them have to agree with each other. In the words of Marthin Luther King, and I am paraphrasing here, "...science without religion is madness and religion without science is superstition...". Science is progressing day by day and leaping forward quite rapidly. The mere fact that we cannot explain scientifically certain events in the Word of God should not negate their occurrance. Perhaps we have not discovered the science yet. By the same token, the people had to abandon such absurdities as the flatness of the earth, because for the earth to have four corners as the Bible tells us, it must necessarily be flat and possess a rectangular shape. But, guess what! They had to abandon it when it was proven to them by science.
I believe that science and religion must agree. They are the two wings intended to elevate mankind from igorance. The two wings must work in harmony.
5. Let us also be ever mindful that the most prominent people who rejected our Lord when He declared His mission were the ones who had really studied the scriptures and thought to have known their meaning: The saducees and pharisees. Let us not get tangled up in the Greek and Hebrew and... Let us look for the purport of the scriptures and what they signify. Let us be like the fisherman who followed the Lord when He told him, "get up and follow me." Let us study the scriptures diligently however way we can, but be careful that the final authority on how the Word is to be understood rests with God. As an example, why a Jewish person has to accept the interpretation of Exodus 34 given by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:
<SUP>15</SUP> But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
<SUP>16</SUP> but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
<SUP>17</SUP> Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
<SUP>18</SUP> But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
A literal reading of Exodus 34 would not reveal this profound meaning. Only the Word of God revealed through an inspired Paul can dare give such meaning to the passage in Exodus 34. Who could have imagined that the "veil on Moses' face" is to be understood as "veil on the hearts of the jews"? Are we to reject Paul's interpretation because it runs contrary to a literal reading of the passage in Exodus 34? Definitely not! Because the final authority on how to understand the Word rests with God.
Another example is Luke 3 and how the prophecy of Isaish 40 was fulfilled. To begin with the text as it appears in Isaiah 40
<SUP>3</SUP>
A voice is calling,
"Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness;
Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
<SUP>4</SUP>
"Let every valley be lifted up,
And every mountain and hill be made low;
And let the rough ground become a plain,
And the rugged terrain a broad valley;
<SUP>5</SUP>
Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed,
And all flesh will see it together;
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."
is misquoted in Luke 3:
Luke 3
<SUP>4</SUP> as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,
"THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,
'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD,
MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.
<SUP>5</SUP>
' EVERY RAVINE WILL BE FILLED,
AND EVERY MOUNTAIN AND HILL WILL BE BROUGHT LOW;
THE CROOKED WILL BECOME STRAIGHT,
AND THE ROUGH ROADS SMOOTH;
<SUP>6</SUP>
AND ALL FLESH WILL <SUP>(4)</SUP> SEE THE SALVATION OF GOD.'"
Are we to say that Luke made a mistake? No! I submit again that God has the final authority on how to use and interpret His Word. Moreover, did all flesh see Jesus? Obviously not! Only those who had eyes to see and ears to hear. You see that a literal reading of the text does not hold any water here and that there is a lot of symbolism used here.
Examples such as these abound in the Bible!
I wanted this to be a quick note. I better stop!
Upvote
0
- Jun 6, 2002
- 19,745
- 3,719
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
And the problem that many people have is identifying what is scripture and what is not This is, I think, an issue that will eventually be raised in the larger Christan faith. Should we include/exclude books/chapters/verses just because the church fathers of 400 AD did? Should we not let the Spirit identify these?
Then what parts of scripture is God speaking to us and what parts are the opinions of the characters. Job said "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away..." Many good believers quote this as if God said it.
What parts are parables/stories and which are actual events.
Upvote
0
The truth is, every split in the Body of Christ over doctrinal matters from Acts 15:1-20 on, comes from professing Christians doing one of the four things :
1. Subtracting from the words of God (Gen 3:2)
2. Adding to the words of God (Gen 3:3)
3. Taking verses out of their context (I Cor 9:27, for example)
4. Refusing to study because of the fear of man or fear that the Book may contradict some cherished belief or "historical position" (Bibliophobia).
Reading a verse, or quoting a verse is interpreting NOTHING; unless, of course, you have a guilt complex (Bibliophobia) about what the verse SAYS because you don't like it or don't agree with it. In that case, you pretend the man who read it or quoted it is "interpreting" it because YOU interpreted it.
1. Subtracting from the words of God (Gen 3:2)
2. Adding to the words of God (Gen 3:3)
3. Taking verses out of their context (I Cor 9:27, for example)
4. Refusing to study because of the fear of man or fear that the Book may contradict some cherished belief or "historical position" (Bibliophobia).
Reading a verse, or quoting a verse is interpreting NOTHING; unless, of course, you have a guilt complex (Bibliophobia) about what the verse SAYS because you don't like it or don't agree with it. In that case, you pretend the man who read it or quoted it is "interpreting" it because YOU interpreted it.
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
But the church fathers of AD 400 did not decide to include or exclude books, chapters. Rather they recognized what the churches had come to recognize as the Scripture throughout the first 350 years of the Christian era. That is the difference between what happened in 394 and 1546-1564 at the Council of Trent (for RC) and Westminster (for Reformed). The latter two decreed what is or is not Scripture. The Council in 394 did not decree, but rather publicly affirmed what had already been decided by the Holy Spirit through the Christian churches.
This, of course, is a different issue. Just because a parable is spoken (Isaiah 5 or Matthew 13) does not negate it from being inspired and Scripture. Rather, it requires a principle of interpretation that understands the genre of the literature and interprets it appropriately.
Upvote
0
Yea, hath God said...?
IF the Bible has mistakes in it, then how can we be sure that it is correct in those passages on which we base our convictions?
IF the Bible has mistakes in it, then how can we be sure that it is correct in those passages on which we base our convictions?
Upvote
0
MatthewDiscipleofGod
Senior Veteran
- Feb 6, 2002
- 2,992
- 267
- 47
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
"but it do the TRANSLATIONS have mistakes"
They sure can. I'm not a KJV only, in fact I perfer NKJV since in many cases is a better tranlation from the manuscripts (yes I know KJV is better with others though) and my Hebrew/Greek bible that also comes with literal interpertation with it to help if you don't know all the Greek or Hebrew meanings. Some translations though like to cut out many passages and whole chapters even though there was nothing wrong with the manuscripts that those came from. Very complicated issue which I still am studying and working on.
They sure can. I'm not a KJV only, in fact I perfer NKJV since in many cases is a better tranlation from the manuscripts (yes I know KJV is better with others though) and my Hebrew/Greek bible that also comes with literal interpertation with it to help if you don't know all the Greek or Hebrew meanings. Some translations though like to cut out many passages and whole chapters even though there was nothing wrong with the manuscripts that those came from. Very complicated issue which I still am studying and working on.
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
The Question is what, where or who is your final authority concerning the words of God?
How many authorities can one have seeing that they all differ?
How many authorities can one have seeing that they all differ?
Upvote
0
- Status
