# Biblical errors....



## jmharris23 (Mar 5, 2012)

Since there has been so much talk of this topic lately, thought I'd share these articles.

http://www.gospelcentereddiscipleship.com/what-to-say-when-someone-says-the-bible-has-errors/

http://austincitylife.org/sites/default/files/Is the Bible Inerrant__sermon.pdf


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 5, 2012)

Thank you for the post.


.


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 5, 2012)

Good info. 
Not one thousand, but 1000 X...


> "There are 1000 times more manuscripts of the Bible than the most documented Greco-Roman historian by Suetonius."


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 5, 2012)

Great post, thanks JM.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2012)

As soon as I read in the article that a first century copy of Mark has been found I knew the rest was suspect also. Great post indeed.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> As soon as I read in the article that a first century copy of Mark has been found I knew the rest was suspect also. Great post indeed.



Why do you find that suspect?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2012)

You guys know me when it comes to this topic, but I can say that I don't disagree with anything said in the first link. The second link, I disagree with some things. So, I'm thinking that we are getting much closer on this issue. I like Wallace, he takes some hard stands against his own. That takes guts. But I do find it incomplete in regards to what he seems to be calling copy mistakes. Many, are not copy mistakes but oral transmission issues. Such as the question of "which came first? the quail or the manna? Copy mistakes show themselves usually in a word or two. Context mistakes come from the accuracy being lost through the verbal passing of one to another. Such as is the case with the quail. But regardless of which it is, the bible is reliable in regards to the intended context


----------



## Mako22 (Mar 5, 2012)

The King James Bible has no errors and is perfect in every way.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 5, 2012)

Woodsman69 said:


> The King James Bible has no errors and is perfect in every way.



Well I'll be....


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 5, 2012)

Woodsman69 said:


> The King James Bible has no errors and is perfect in every way.



Which one?

op2:


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 5, 2012)

What I love about this forum is how we can argue about anything


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 5, 2012)

Woodsman69 said:


> The King James Bible has no errors and is perfect in every way.



From Cover to Cover and It's my Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice. 

And from whom ever ask which one ..... the one printed in the basement of First Baptist Church in Milford Ohio and because it has no Copyright ,  the money that I payed for it does't go to unsaved men making money off the Word of God. Instead the money goes to missions that save souls.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> What I love about this forum is how we can argue about anything



Isn't it great?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 5, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> From Cover to Cover and It's my Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice.
> 
> And from whom ever ask which one ..... the one printed in the basement of First Baptist Church in Milford Ohio and because it has no Copyright ,  the money that I payed for it does't go to unsaved men making money off the Word of God. Instead the money goes to missions that save souls.



So...like my question to Woodsman...which version?


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 5, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> So...like my question to Woodsman...which version?



I answered it for you in my first post .... but I will being willing to go down that road, if we can have honest debate and you are willing to put as much time into the issue as I have.(Trust me I was you times ten before I made the decision to pray and really find the answer myself ) I have 7 books on the issue I will send you if you will pray every night after you read them for God to show you wisdom. But you can't just repeat what you've heard if you have not spent the time looking for truth. 

So my answer stands ..... my question to you is "What is your Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice that you can put your hands on and read?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 5, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> ..... my question to you is "What is your Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice that you can put your hands on and read?



I think virtually everyone who frequents this forum would say "the Bible".  I certainly would.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 5, 2012)

Isn't this thread tip toeing around a banned subject? In that spirit, I will try also........ I think, if a man finds Jesus reading "Billy Bob's Spirit Guide for Troubled Eskimos" it is no different than finding Jesus anywhere else. I mean, he still finds Jesus right?


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 5, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I think virtually everyone who frequents this forum would say "the Bible".  I certainly would.



Which One ?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 5, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I think, if a man finds Jesus reading "Billy Bob's Spirit Guide for Troubled Eskimos" ...



That's a GREAT book.  Put it on your "to read" list.


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 5, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Isn't this thread tip toeing around a banned subject? In that spirit, I will try also........ I think, if a man finds Jesus reading "Billy Bob's Spirit Guide for Troubled Eskimos" it is no different than finding Jesus anywhere else. I mean, he still finds Jesus right?



Yep .... I was in Gas Station yesterday and someone had written John 3:16 on the wall with stuff not so scriptural  ( funny everyone all ways quote's the KJV) So can I bathroom wall have scripture YES !!! But the question I ask is what is  your Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice you can put your hands on and read? This question baffles everyone that doesn't have one.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 5, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Isn't this thread tip toeing around a banned subject?



Oh, yeah!


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 5, 2012)

To the new guys, please read this thread concerning the subject of which version is God breathed:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=641610

I would advise not to tip toe around the issue.  Like it or not!


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 5, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> That's a GREAT book.  Put it on your "to read" list.



I would, but you guys really gave me a long enough list, still working on the first order....some of your suggestions are in line for the next round, 'Ol Billy Bob will have to wait a bit.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 5, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> You guys know me when it comes to this topic, but I can say that I don't disagree with anything said in the first link. The second link, I disagree with some things. So, I'm thinking that we are getting much closer on this issue. I like Wallace, he takes some hard stands against his own. That takes guts. But I do find it incomplete in regards to what he seems to be calling copy mistakes. Many, are not copy mistakes but oral transmission issues. Such as the question of "which came first? the quail or the manna? Copy mistakes show themselves usually in a word or two. Context mistakes come from the accuracy being lost through the verbal passing of one to another. Such as is the case with the quail. But regardless of which it is, the bible is reliable in regards to the intended context


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> What I love about this forum is how we can argue about anything


I had an appointment at an Argument Clinic this morning. I made my appointment on time and said "I'm here for my argument." The receptionist said "no you're not." I said yes I am, I have an appointment. She said "no you don't."


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Isn't this thread tip toeing around a banned subject? In that spirit, I will try also........ I think, if a man finds Jesus reading "Billy Bob's Spirit Guide for Troubled Eskimos" it is no different than finding Jesus anywhere else. I mean, he still finds Jesus right?



I agree and disagree with this. Yes a man can find Jesus anywhere, but I don't believe a man can come to KNOW Jesus without KNOWING what the bible says about Him. 

Of course, I believe that the bible is the revealed word about the WORD.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 6, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> To the new guys, please read this thread concerning the subject of which version is God breathed:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=641610
> 
> I would advise not to tip toe around the issue.  Like it or not!



X2

We don't need to discuss the issue of which version is better any further.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 6, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I agree and disagree with this. Yes a man can find Jesus anywhere, but I don't believe a man can come to KNOW Jesus without KNOWING what the bible says about Him.



When you say "KNOW," are you referencing a deeper understanding, or a redemptive belief?

The reason I asked the original question is that there seems to be a lot of hang-ups relevant to what version we read, how we read it, what we see when we read it.  When I was a kid I had to pass out little pamphlets about salvation as part of the youth group I was in.  Not sure what the effect was, but it seemed the author of the literature did not believe the revealed word was a necessary tool in the salvation process.  It was the message within.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 6, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> So my answer stands ..... my question to you is "What is your Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice that you can put your hands on and read?


El Biblioteca



BrowningFan said:


> Which One ?



The one that goes from Genesis through Revelation.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> When you say "KNOW," are you referencing a deeper understanding, or a redemptive belief?
> 
> The reason I asked the original question is that there seems to be a lot of hang-ups relevant to what version we read, how we read it, what we see when we read it.  When I was a kid I had to pass out little pamphlets about salvation as part of the youth group I was in.  Not sure what the effect was, but it seemed the author of the literature did not believe the revealed word was a necessary tool in the salvation process.  It was the message within.




Deeper understanding is mostly what I am referring to......but really the answer is both for me...as I am not sure how one could come to Know Christ without scripture for scripture is the revealing of Christ. 

By that I do not mean everyone comes to Christ while holding a bible in their hand, but that the Christ you and I proclaim we proclaim based on what we know of Him from the bible.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 6, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> By that I do not mean everyone comes to Christ while holding a bible in their hand, but that the Christ you and I proclaim we proclaim based on what we know of Him from the bible.



I agree with that.  I guess what I am saying is that I believe the Bible is the messenger of the gospel, not the source of the gospel, if that makes sense.  Jesus is the source.  I do not view the Bible as part of the trinity, but a revelation of God.  For these reasons I don't get too caught up in the errors and translations debate.  I want to know what it is trying to tell me about the source.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 6, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> I answered it for you in my first post .... but I will being willing to go down that road, if we can have honest debate and you are willing to put as much time into the issue as I have.(Trust me I was you times ten before I made the decision to pray and really find the answer myself ) I have 7 books on the issue I will send you if you will pray every night after you read them for God to show you wisdom. But you can't just repeat what you've heard if you have not spent the time looking for truth.



No thanks.  I've studied the issue...read several books on how we got what we have.  Sure, there's more I could learn on the subject, but I don't think it would be a wise use of my time.



BrowningFan said:


> So my answer stands ..... my question to you is "What is your Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice that you can put your hands on and read?





centerpin fan said:


> I think virtually everyone who frequents this forum would say "the Bible".  I certainly would.



X2




BrowningFan said:


> Which One ?





stringmusic said:


> The one that goes from Genesis through Revelation.



I'll further clarify...the one with 66 books.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 6, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Deeper understanding is mostly what I am referring to......but really the answer is both for me...as I am not sure how one could come to Know Christ without scripture for scripture is the revealing of Christ.
> 
> By that I do not mean everyone comes to Christ while holding a bible in their hand, but that the Christ you and I proclaim we proclaim based on what we know of Him from the bible.



I think I can agree with that.  I'm not sure though.  I think that based on scripture in Acts and elsewhere, God's Word and His message is laid upon our hearts.  We see it through creation, we see it throughout our lives.  I think that like the Ethiopian Eunich, God will provide a way for someone to hear the gospel with or without the Bible.  I guess the Eunich did have a portion read to him....

All that to say...if the Lord has chosen someone out of the rainforest to be saved, He will provide a way for them to hear His message.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 6, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I had an appointment at an Argument Clinic this morning.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 6, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> I think I can agree with that.  I'm not sure though.  I think that based on scripture in Acts and elsewhere, God's Word and His message is laid upon our hearts.  We see it through creation, we see it throughout our lives.  I think that like the Ethiopian Eunich, God will provide a way for someone to hear the gospel with or without the Bible.  I guess the Eunich did have a portion read to him....
> 
> All that to say...if the Lord has chosen someone out of the rainforest to be saved, He will provide a way for them to hear His message.



I don't disagree with this either. I just try to be very careful that the Jesus I personally proclaim is the Jesus presented to me in God's word. That's the only Jesus I know and the scripture is how God revealed Him to me.

I am always fearful that if we don't know the Jesus of the bible we will just make one up, and that is dangerous.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 6, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I don't disagree with this either. I just try to be very careful that the Jesus I personally proclaim is the Jesus presented to me in God's word. That's the only Jesus I know and the scripture is how God revealed Him to me.
> 
> I am always fearful that if we don't know the Jesus of the bible we will just make one up, and that is dangerous.



Very true....very true.  And the made up gospel that goes with the made up Jesus.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 7, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> "What is your Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice that you can put your hands on and read?



Ok, I know I’m being argumentative.
Since this was posted it has bothered me.  When we qualify our “Final Authority” to the extent that it must be such that we can put our hand on it and read it, do we not bring into the picture the same “error” factor that is the basis of this thread; that being the fallibility of man.  Granted, our life in the flesh seems to require such sensual input, but are we not in a better place, given that “God is spirit”, if we include the spirit in our claim of “Final Authority”, i.e. Scripture and Spirit.

Does not the varied life experiences that we bring into our corporate life as believers, and the differences in interpretation that result, require a Spiritual factor to bring about the result which Scripture instructs.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2012)

hummerpoo said:


> Ok, I know I’m being argumentative.
> Since this was posted it has bothered me.  When we qualify our “Final Authority” to the extent that it must be such that we can put our hand on it and read it, do we not bring into the picture the same “error” factor that is the basis of this thread; that being the fallibility of man.  Granted, our life in the flesh seems to require such sensual input, but are we not in a better place, given that “God is spirit”, if we include the spirit in our claim of “Final Authority”, i.e. Scripture and Spirit.
> 
> Does not the varied life experiences that we bring into our corporate life as believers, and the differences in interpretation that result, require a Spiritual factor to bring about the result which Scripture instructs.



GREAT point.

He might say that the Spirit only works in one reading the KJV though.


----------



## formula1 (Mar 7, 2012)

*Re:*



hummerpoo said:


> Ok, I know I’m being argumentative.
> Since this was posted it has bothered me.  When we qualify our “Final Authority” to the extent that it must be such that we can put our hand on it and read it, do we not bring into the picture the same “error” factor that is the basis of this thread; that being the fallibility of man.  Granted, our life in the flesh seems to require such sensual input, but are we not in a better place, given that “God is spirit”, if we include the spirit in our claim of “Final Authority”, i.e. Scripture and Spirit.
> 
> Does not the varied life experiences that we bring into our corporate life as believers, and the differences in interpretation that result, require a Spiritual factor to bring about the result which Scripture instructs.



Indeed, sir.  Thanks for posting that.  I was thinking it, but I never posted it.  Scripture points us to this truth. We learn this by the recorded Word of God, that the Spirit of God that dwells in us gives life to the Truth contained in the written word and brings us to a full life in Christ.  Here are just some I thought of but there are many more.  The scriptures are so wonderful but without the Holy Spirit bringing them alive in us, how can we truly understand our Lord!

John 6:63
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 15:26
But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

John 16:12-14
12 I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Romans 8:14
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 Corinthians 2:9-11
9 But, as it is written,
“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
    nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him”—
10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

Ephesians 1:16-18
16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18  having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

1 John 5
6 This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 7, 2012)

hummerpoo said:


> Ok, I know I’m being argumentative.
> Since this was posted it has bothered me.  When we qualify our “Final Authority” to the extent that it must be such that we can put our hand on it and read it, do we not bring into the picture the same “error” factor that is the basis of this thread; that being the fallibility of man.  Granted, our life in the flesh seems to require such sensual input, but are we not in a better place, given that “God is spirit”, if we include the spirit in our claim of “Final Authority”, i.e. Scripture and Spirit.
> 
> Does not the varied life experiences that we bring into our corporate life as believers, and the differences in interpretation that result, require a Spiritual factor to bring about the result which Scripture instructs.



I know many believers don't put as much clout on the Bible as I may. I know believers are saved and going to heaven that don't even open their Bible. I believe God wrote a book, many may think that is extreme. In my mind God speaks to you through his WORD. Christ was called the WORD. So I put a lot of clout on his word. I believe my Final Authority is the WORD of God. So I don't care what Bible (NIV ASA NASAV ect)someone uses  just as long as they have ONE that is their Fianl Authority . If you use all the versions plus the greek text and keep some verses you like and through out other because that Bible doesn't agree with you , then YOU become the Final Authority. So I don't know how the Holy Spirit can work if YOU are the Final Authority and not the WORD of God. 

So if my preacher doesn't match my Bible I choose my Bible  over what he says , If another version doesn't match my Bible I choose mine over that version. I first sin in the Bible is not Eve eating fruit. It's Eve changing the word of God , compare Gen 2:16 with Gen 3:3 

The first question I ask a JW, Mormon , 7dayer ect ..... What is their Final Authority their Watchtower , Elders ???? It's amazing the look on their face. But if we are going to have honest debate we have to be using the same Final Authority or they will say something different. I will let them use The New World Translation (I have read it 2 times so I have not issue debating using their Bible it's from the Westcott and Hort greek text just like the ( NIV ASV NASV) so I know the areas to focus on.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 7, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> I believe my Final Authority is the WORD of God. So I don't care what Bible (NIV ASA NASAV ect)someone uses  just as long as they have ONE that is their Fianl Authority . If you use all the versions plus the greek text and keep some verses you like and through out other because that Bible doesn't agree with you , then YOU become the Final Authority.



This is the first time I've ever heard that argument.  I don't think that the differences between the NIV, NASB, KJV change the text enough to be able to say that one verse in one version means something different than the verse in another translation. 

I do agree that anytime you start deeming some scripture as valid scripture and other as not (see debate we've had with gr8bldr), you get yourself into a world of mess.



BrowningFan said:


> I first sin in the Bible is not Eve eating fruit. It's Eve changing the word of God , compare Gen 2:16 with Gen 3:3



Interesting thought.  Not sure I agree/disagree with it, but interesting thought.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 7, 2012)

hummerpoo said:


> When we qualify our “Final Authority” to the extent that it must be such that we can put our hand on it and read it, do we not bring into the picture the same “error” factor that is the basis of this thread;



We also set up a standard that would have been virtually impossible for the early church to live by.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 7, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> But if we are going to have honest debate we have to be using the same Final Authority or they will say something different.



People on this forum use the exact same final authority and still have radically different interpretations.  The same has been true since the church began.


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 7, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> This is the first time I've ever heard that argument.  I don't think that the differences between the NIV, NASB, KJV change the text enough to be able to say that one verse in one version means something different than the verse in another translation.
> 
> I do agree that anytime you start deeming some scripture as valid scripture and other as not (see debate we've had with gr8bldr), you get yourself into a world of mess.
> 
> ...



Good post and Thanks. I just want you and everyone else on the forum to know I draw I hard line on the Bible issue (but I could care less what someone else uses). But as far as my Christian life I'm not legalistic like most KJV guys. They can be the most legalistic guys I have ever met and most are man made rules (long dresses for women, no facial hair ect. I'm just a normal guy , I will drink a beer or 2 , I love  hunting ,fishing and I play or practice golf everyday. I have been blessed to learn the Bible from some of the greatest minds on Bible Doctrine and I study from mostly pre 1950 works like Clarence Larkin as far as Bible Doctrine Clarence is hands down the best. The one thing I have learned from all these guys is the Word of God is the Final Authority. I said all this so you know I'm not here to debate Bible versions to use ,that was settled for me years ago.


----------



## tell sackett (Mar 7, 2012)

After a long period of chewing on my tounge and debating with myself (to be honest, I'm breaking my word), I just can't stand it any more. All of this "stuff" about which came first the manna or the quail is driving me nuts. Read what both chapters (Ex.16 & Num.11) say. It's really very simple, manna then quail.

Ex.16:4 - the promise of manna
Ex.16:7 - in the morning
Ex.16:8 - flesh in the evening, bread in the morning. Please note carefully that it does not say the next morning.
Ex.16:12&13- the same as v.8, it does not say the next morning. Yes, the order is reversed, but that does not make it the next day.

Num.11:1-5 - The people complain and lust for flesh to eat.
Num.11:6 - ..there is nothing at all besides this manna before our eyes!
Num.11:31-32 - quail come.

Note also Ps.78:23-28 - manna first and then quail (especially v.27- also)

The tactics of the adversary haven't changed since Gen.3:1, he just finds new helpers.

Okay, I've said what I needed to say, now I'm returning to lurk in my self imposed exile. 

Be blessed my brothers.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2012)

tell sackett said:


> After a long period of chewing on my tounge and debating with myself (to be honest, I'm breaking my word), I just can't stand it any more. All of this "stuff" about which came first the manna or the quail is driving me nuts. Read what both chapters (Ex.16 & Num.11) say. It's really very simple, manna then quail.
> 
> Ex.16:4 - the promise of manna
> Ex.16:7 - in the morning
> ...



Thanks for the imput. Come around more often.


----------



## WELLS8230 (Mar 7, 2012)

Gonna split the sky in the east!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 7, 2012)

tell sackett said:


> After a long period of chewing on my tounge and debating with myself (to be honest, I'm breaking my word), I just can't stand it any more. All of this "stuff" about which came first the manna or the quail is driving me nuts. Read what both chapters (Ex.16 & Num.11) say. It's really very simple, manna then quail.
> 
> Ex.16:4 - the promise of manna
> Ex.16:7 - in the morning
> ...


Sorry dude, but your out on a limb. First off, if you think it did not mean "the next morning" then when was he telling them this? LOL. And to compound the situation, Numbers has the Israelites complaining about all they ever get is this manna. From this we assume that it was more than one day of eating manna. This unlike the Ex. verse that says Quail one day, manna in the morning. Sorry, but your ship has sank. I might have let you slide if it had not been for what I highlighted


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 7, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> I know many believers don't put as much clout on the Bible as I may. I know believers are saved and going to heaven that don't even open their Bible. I believe God wrote a book, many may think that is extreme. In my mind God speaks to you through his WORD. Christ was called the WORD. So I put a lot of clout on his word. I believe my Final Authority is the WORD of God. So I don't care what Bible (NIV ASA NASAV ect)someone uses  just as long as they have ONE that is their Fianl Authority . If you use all the versions plus the greek text and keep some verses you like and through out other because that Bible doesn't agree with you , then YOU become the Final Authority. So I don't know how the Holy Spirit can work if YOU are the Final Authority and not the WORD of God.
> So if my preacher doesn't match my Bible I choose my Bible  over what he says , If another version doesn't match my Bible I choose mine over that version. I first sin in the Bible is not Eve eating fruit. It's Eve changing the word of God , compare Gen 2:16 with Gen 3:3
> 
> The first question I ask a JW, Mormon , 7dayer ect ..... What is their Final Authority their Watchtower , Elders ???? It's amazing the look on their face. But if we are going to have honest debate we have to be using the same Final Authority or they will say something different. I will let them use The New World Translation (I have read it 2 times so I have not issue debating using their Bible it's from the Westcott and Hort greek text just like the ( NIV ASV NASV) so I know the areas to focus on.



That’s a very big “If”, leading to a very weak “straw man”.  It leans on the incompatibility of flesh and Spirit, then denies the promises of the Spirit (see the opening paragraph of F1’s post #39, as well as his supporting scripture and so many more).


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 7, 2012)

hummerpoo said:


> That’s a very big “If”, leading to a very weak “straw man”.  It leans on the incompatibility of flesh and Spirit, then denies the promises of the Spirit (see the opening paragraph of F1’s post #39, as well as his supporting scripture and so many more).



I don't disagree with what  F1 posted


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 7, 2012)

Where do I start?

I don't believe the Bible is the final authority?  I believe Jesus the Christ is the final authority.

I believe(know) that the Bible is a compilation of writing of the apostles, and others from the 1st century church.

The four gospels were written to different groups of people for different purposes.  One is even address to a specific individual.  I need to realize that as I study them.

Acts is a second volume to Luke's Gospel.  Both were written to a man named Theophilus.  Acts records the history of the establishment of the church, along with being, for us, the writing that connects today's church to Judiasm.  I need to remember those things as I study from this writing.

The apostle Paul wrote many letters to churches that he had already visited, or was planning to visit.  In these very specific letters we're able to learn through the things that the inspired Paul wrote to those individual churches

Paul's letters, and all the other letters, were written to, and for, Christians.

In Acts, Luke writes of unbelievers coming into the kingdom.  Being added to the kingdom.  Unbelievers are taught and brought into the kingdom in Acts.
It also provides a historical perspective.  And all those things are important to us today.  And I need to realize those things as I read.

All of these writings are given and are useful today to lead us to, and into Christ.  They tell us about life in Christ.

But the Bible is not my Savior.  The Bible is not my salvation.
It is given to me so that I might know.

It is all that I have, for I cannot trust anything else as truth.


----------



## chadair (Mar 10, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> This is the first time I've ever heard that argument.  I don't think that the differences between the NIV, NASB, KJV change the text enough to be able to say that one verse in one version means something different than the verse in another translation.


I don't think so either, but I do believe that it's translation from Greek to english or Hebrew to English can be takin outta text in small ways.
I'm copying and pasting from from a Catholic Apologetics site and it does mention the translation difference in certain bibles. and this may be way off topic, but it still shows the translation differences 
"The term "born again" may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated "born again" (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the Bible—John 3:3 and 3:7—and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated "again," but in the New Testament, it most often means "from above." In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated "again" are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering. "


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 10, 2012)

chadair said:


> I don't think so either, but I do believe that it's translation from Greek to english or Hebrew to English can be takin outta text in small ways.
> I'm copying and pasting from from a Catholic Apologetics site and it does mention the translation difference in certain bibles. and this may be way off topic, but it still shows the translation differences
> "The term "born again" may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated "born again" (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the Bible—John 3:3 and 3:7—and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated "again," but in the New Testament, it most often means "from above." In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated "again" are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering. "





So which Greek Text are you studying. 

Erasmus
Colinaens
Stephanus
Beza
Elzevir
Bentley
Hug
Doecel
Mattaei
Mace
Griebach
Semlar
Harwood
Alter
Birch
Lachmann
Tregelles
Hort
Wotswoth
Nestle
Souter
Aland Methmar


They are all a little different and some are way different.


----------



## chadair (Mar 10, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> So which Greek Text are you studying.
> 
> Erasmus
> Colinaens
> ...


where did I say I was studying Greek???  I said I copied it from an Apologetic site I visit


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 10, 2012)

chadair said:


> where did I say I was studying Greek???  I said I copied it from an Apologetic site I visit



I'm Sorry ..... I thought in post # 52 you said the Greek to English  was takin outta text in small ways : I was just trying to say they are not the same text. 

You can't do what you trying to do , It like try to use the Rule Book for Little League Baseball and Major League Baseball , both baseball but not the same. 


Textus Receptus (KJV)


Erasmus
Colinaens
Stephanus
Beza
Elzevir



Westcott and Hort (Catholic Bible , Jehovah Witness bibles and many others )

Elzevir
Bentley
Hug
Doecel
Mattaei
Mace
Griebach
Semlar
Harwood
Alter
Birch
Lachmann
Tregelles
Hort
Wotswoth
Nestle
Souter
Aland Methma

If you are trying to find a better meaning of a verse from  a Catholic site for a KJV verse it's not possible . They come form different Greek Text . Sorry they will differ.


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 11, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Where do I start?
> 
> I don't believe the Bible is the final authority?  I believe Jesus the Christ is the final authority.
> 
> ...



Your not the only one to not believe in the  Final Athority of the Bible 

Westcott and Hort didn't either I wished all Christians would study these two guys works and beliefs. 

  Their skepticism does, in fact, go even deeper. They have both become famous for being able to deny scriptural truth and still be upheld by fundamental Christianity as biblical authorities! Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith.

    Hort denies the reality of Eden: "I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden'(I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues."90

    Furthermore, he took sides with the apostate authors of "Essays and Reviews."

    Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."91

    We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated:

    "As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces 'groundless,' on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did 'recognize' 'Providente' in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it; but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment."
    And further commented to a colleague:

    "But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."92


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 11, 2012)

More on Westcott and Hort in their own words. 

  Though unimpressed with the evangelicals of his day, Hort had great admiration for Charles Darwin! To his colleague, B.F. Westcott, he wrote excitedly: "...Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book."

    And to John Ellerton he writes: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period."93

    Dr. Hort was also an adherent to the teaching of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. His son writes: "In undergraduate days, if not before, he came under the spell of Coleridge."94

    Coleridge was the college drop-out whose drug addiction is an historical fact. "The opium habit, begun earlier to deaden the pain of rheumatism, grew stronger. After vainly trying in Malta and Italy to break away from opium, Coleridge came back to England in 1806."95

    One of Coleridge's famous works is Aids to Reflection. "Its chief aim is to harmonize formal Christianity with Coleridge's variety of transcendental philosophy. He also did much to introduce Immanual Kant and other German philosophers to English readers."96

    This man, Coleridge, had a great influence on the two scholars from Cambridge.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 11, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> Your not the only one to not believe in the  Final Athority of the Bible.



I don't think that's exactly what Ronnie's saying, but I'm sure he'll answer for himself.




BrowningFan said:


> I wished all Christians would study these two guys works and beliefs.



Some of us have studied them.  You can't read as much KJV-only material as I have and not be familiar with W&H.


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 11, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't think that's exactly what Ronnie's saying, but I'm sure he'll answer for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think I understand what Ronnie is saying , I don't agree with all of it , but he doesn't have to answer to me.


I was pointing out W & H didn't believe the Bible or Christ had any Authority. That just seems odd for 2 Christians that wrote the Greek Text of many bibles.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 11, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't think that's exactly what Ronnie's saying, but I'm sure he'll answer for himself.
> .



You're correct.
And I'm not sure I'll answer for myself or not.  Maybe.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 11, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> That just seems odd for 2 Christians that wrote the Greek Text of many bibles.



I think "compiled" is a better description of what they did.  They didn't write _Vaticanus_ and _Sinaiticus_.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 11, 2012)

"What is your authority" has come up several times. I assume that the bible is the traditional answer. But ponder the fact that the Bible was not in circulation until many, many years after the church had established itself. What was their authority?


----------



## thedeacon (Mar 11, 2012)

Where man is involved there is bound to be errors, but when the Holy Spirit is involved there will always be truth.

I know that in translating the word of God man has made mistakes. Do I think these mastakes can be so extreme that they can end up making a differance in my or your salvation? I don't think so.

God would not let that happen. The whole essence of Christianity is Love, Love in many directions and one of those directions is to make sure we have the total truth written down so we can know what God wants us to do to be saved.

I am much more concerned in the way that men and women of today seem to want to change the things that we have recorded to suit their own agenda's.

I can't believe some of the arguments on here about the subject.
I think I could relay the information on here that Jesus wore sandels and his feet got dirty and someone would take the opposite view.

We are missing the the true dept of what is in the word of God and keying in on the humanity of the translators that held the pins.

God is still looking after me, yes me, even when the word was written down and I know beyound doubt that he has the ability to affect a mans reasonable thinking when writing something down.

Arn't we looking at this from the wrong direction when we talk about errors in the word? Shouldn't we be looking for the truth in the word?

It's close enough for me.

God Bless


----------

