What is Authoratative?

[Extirpated Wildlife]

I believe that the Bible is Authoratative. Anything else is not and is subject to opinion.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by quizzler
I believe that the Bible is Authoratative. Anything else is not and is subject to opinion.

Quizz,

The Books and letters in our Bible today were assembled by Church councils in the 4th century and "canonized" into what we call "The Holy Bible".

Do you believe that the process the Church used to select only those books was authoritative , or was that subject to opinion as well?

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by parousia70

Do you believe that the process the Church used to select only those books was authoritative , or was that subject to opinion as well?

It is my contention that God, creator of all there has been, is presently and is to come has the power to ensure that His Word is inerrant and authoratative. The Lord of Lords and Kings, The Alpha and Omega has had no problem ensuring His Word has remained pure throughout the years.

The very God that brought existence into being has made sure His Word has been preserved regardless of those that scoff at the very Word of God continously.

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by parousia70 Quizz,

The Books and letters in our Bible today were assembled by Church councils in the 4th century and "canonized" into what we call "The Holy Bible".

Do you believe that the process the Church used to select only those books was authoritative , or was that subject to opinion as well?

Ya got any proof?

 

[fieldsofwind]

If you believe that God inspired the "books and letters" in the first place, then why can't you believe that God would "inspire" what He desired to be in His word at the "canonizing"?

I believe my Father, and any attempt to discredit His word has always resulted in the Spirit saying "Believe"

I will continue to believe to the day of my death, and beyond

take care

FOW

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
If you believe that God inspired the "books and letters" in the first place, then why can't you believe that God would "inspire" what He desired to be in His word at the "canonizing"?

I believe my Father, and any attempt to discredit His word has always resulted in the Spirit saying "Believe"

I will continue to believe to the day of my death, and beyond

take care

FOW

• 
  Not challenging the "IF", challenging the "WHEN" and the "WHO"

 

[fieldsofwind]

meaning what?

I believe the Bible as I'm sure you do as well. The 'challenge' was to parousia. He said that while the "original" letters and books were "inspired", that perhaps the "canonizing" did not include everything that God would have wanted to include. (or something to that end)

Now, if one believes that God inspired the "originals", then why on earth would he not be able to (or not want to... seeing as how the purpose for His inspiration was to teach us in the future) keep the "canonizing" (that is if it every happened) "inspired" as well.

I believe the Bible. Every attempt to discredit it in any fashion is met with the Spirit of God saying "believe". So this I will do.

take care

FOW

 

[parousia70]

I was simply challenging the original posters contention that no authority outside scripture is "authoritative", for if one believes scripture authoritative, one is automatically appealing to an authority "outside" of scripture to tell him what is scripture and what isn't scripture, for the Bible itself provides no such information.

 

 

[franklin]

When Jesus told the Pharisees, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39), he was not talking about the King James Bible, the NIV, or any version of any bible, for bibles were not in existence at this time. The scriptures Jesus was referring to were the original Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint).

Most bible translations today are copyrighted which proves the true motives of the Revision Committees of those particular translations (240 and counting); To change God's Word!

The Derivative Copyright Law (partial). "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes."

So in other words, for the bible to copyrighted, it must be substantially different from the original texts!  No wonder there are so many different doctrines going around today. No wonder there are so many contradictions in bibles! They must be substantially different from one another in order to be copyrighted! The bible you have in your possession is not the Holy Scripture, it is a translation which is substantially different from the scripture!

 

 

 

[Gunny]

Is This Authoratative?


What do the
Christadelphians Teach?

Though they acknowledge many truths found in the Bible, they deny many others.

They believe the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God. (The Christadelphians: What They Believe and Preach, p. 82)
They teach there is only one God. (Isaiah 43-45)
They teach that Jesus had a sin nature (What They Believe, p. 74)
They teach that Jesus needed to save himself, before he could save us. (Christadelphian Answers, p. 24)
They teach that Jesus will return and set up his kingdom on earth. (What They Believe , p. 268)
They believe that there has been an apostasy and that Christianity is a false religious system. (A tract titled “Christendom Astray Since the Apostolic Age, Detroit Christadelphian Book Supply)
They believe annihilation of the wicked. (What They Believe, p. 187).
They believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. (What They Believe , p. 71,72, 207-210)
They believe that it is possible to lose one’s salvation. (What They Believe , p. 212)
They deny the doctrine of the Trinity. (What They Believe, p. 84-87)
They deny that Jesus is God in flesh. (Answers, p. 22)
They deny that Jesus existed prior to his incarnation. (What They Believe , p. 85,86)
They deny the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit. (What They Believe , p. 115)
They deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ. (Answers, p. 25; What They Believe, p. 71)
They deny salvation by grace through faith alone. (What they Believe, p. 204)
They deny immortality of the soul. (What They Believe , p. 17).
They deny that a person exists after death. (What They Believe, p. 17)
They deny the existence of hell and eternal punishment. (What They Believe, p. 188-189)
They deny the existence of the fallen angel Lucifer as the devil. (Answers, p. 100)


CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by gunnysgt
Is This Authoratative? What do the
Christadelphians Teach?

How about staying on the topic Sarge! you are really obsessed with this Christadelphianism aren't you? 

 

[fieldsofwind]

Posted by franklin: "The Derivative Copyright Law (partial). "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes."


Once again.. franklin... if you believe that the "originals" are good, then what is keeping God from having the "after originals" pure as well? Nothing is... thats the answer you are looking for. And the "contradictions": any contradictions are always explained after... Believing. There is a reason for everything... (and you might want to start by showing the "contradictions" that should be everywhere... since it's 66 differet books)

Apart from all of this... the whole entire "copywrite" thing... has (I betcha) more to do with the comentary involved than with anything else. And, if it isn't, and it is within the words themselves... the differences are ones of dialect that do not "change" the word itself. The message is the same... regardless of what you use. If you need support for this, ask the Spirit of God.

take care

FOW

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
the whole entire "copywrite" thing... has (I betcha) more to do with the comentary involved than with anything else. And, if it isn't, and it is within the words themselves... the differences are ones of dialect THAT DO NOT "CHANGE" THE WORD ITSELF. The message is the same... regardless of what you use.

Oh really? What about these examples?:

Daniel 12:4a

KJV:

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:

Compared to the NAS:

 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time;

Call me quirky, but I find that "the time of the end" means something completely different than "the end of time"

Here's another:

Matthew 24:3

KJV

 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Compared to the NKJV:

 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

Again, call me quirky, but the "end of the Age, and the "end of the world" are 2 different things entirely. Ages come and go. The world dosen't have to end for an age to end.

FOW,

Your claim appears to be that it is impossible for a Human being to error when translating the Bible, even if he tried.

Is there scriptural support for such a claim?

 

 

[fieldsofwind]

yes... I will call you "quirky"

And... If my claims cannot be backed by scripture... your's surely cannot. I betcha you won't find... "and this book can be changed" in any of the translations. And... how about this one for ya... (call me "reaching out on this one")... but I betcha can glean two completely good meanings out of the "end of the world" and the "end of the age"

take care

FOW

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by franklin
How about staying on the topic Sarge! you are really obsessed with this Christadelphianism aren't you? 

No Franklin, I believe it may be the other way around, quite possibly.

It's just an odd thing that every doctrinal position that you post is in complete accordance with that of the Man founded, Christadelphian religious movement.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
yes... I will call you "quirky"

And... If my claims cannot be backed by scripture... your's surely cannot. I betcha you won't find... "and this book can be changed" in any of the translations. And... how about this one for ya... (call me "reaching out on this one")... but I betcha can glean two completely good meanings out of the "end of the world" and the "end of the age"

take care

FOW

FOW,

What claim exactly do you believe I am making that can not be supported by scripture?

What point is it you were making with the above anyway? Are you saying that because the Bible dosen't instruct people to "change" it, it hasn't happened?

And what do you mean by "2 completely good meanings"?

Do you mean to say that any meaning that I can derrive from a given pasage that "feels good" or "sounds  plausible" may be taken as the correct and inerrant meaning conveyed by the author?

I suppose I'll ask directly to aviod further confusion.

Do you believe it is impossible for a human being to err when translating the Bible? Even if he tries?

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by gunnysgt
No Franklin, I believe it may be the other way around, quite possibly. It's just an odd thing that every doctrinal position that you post is in complete accordance with that of the Man founded, Christadelphian religious movement.

....and every doctrinal position you post is un-scriptural Sarge!  now, back to the topic at hand OK?  Why don't you just start your own thread instead of always trying to derail this one!  End of story!  The subject has to do with the Authority of scripture, now what part of that are you having a problem understanding ?  I think the authority you depend on is the authority of traditional teaching!  Which is opposed to scripture!  As usual your arguments are very weak and the sword that you are using is made of wood! BTW, your continuing Christadelphian guilt trip is not working and is beginning to wear us all out! It is not working sarge, so why don't ya give it a rest !    

 

[fieldsofwind]

Parousia... thankyou for your direct post... keeps things simple doesn't it.

About "gleaning two perfectly fine meanings from the end of the world and the end of the age"... just use your noggin on that one. It's not that hard.

About human error... how about those scriptures that Christ quoted... were they not written by men? And if so then why do you not think that they could be "tainted"? Christ said that scripture could not be broken. I believe Christ... and I believe the Bible now. I believe that God has kept His word clean from any error that He would deam unholy. I believe the Living God, and He has told me to believe in His word. I will not doubt Him, or His word.

I just recently was privilaged enough to find that the "general apologetics" board had two threads on "contradictions"... well...those were cleared up in a jiffy right at the end... (didn't really see them till the end)

God always prevails... with belief.

take care

FOW

 

[PastorFreud]

Originally posted by quizzler
I believe that the Bible is Authoratative. Anything else is not and is subject to opinion.

I believe the Bible is authoritative.  Other things may not be authoritative, but God tells us to learn from them.  Things like, Consider the lillies of the field, Paul's argument that God can be seen in the work of creation, in the multitude of counselors is found wisdom, etc.  When truth is found in different disciplines it should resonate with other truth.

Now, I accept the Bible as authoritative, but I do not accept any fool interpretation of what the Bible says.  I reject the "plain sense" of the text, as to read the Bible this way ignores the time, form, and human tools he used to pen it.  Understanding Scripture requires understanding history, culture, language, and literary form.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
Christ said that scripture could not be broken. I believe Christ... and I believe the Bible now. I believe that God has kept His word clean from any error that He would deam unholy. I believe the Living God, and He has told me to believe in His word. I will not doubt Him, or His word.

FOW,
With your permission, I'd like to engage you in an exegetical excercise.
First, I need to know your position on Matt 24.

Future or Fulfilled?