Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | ALL Scripture Inspired by God? | OT general | ischus | 116041 | ||
Hank- This is not a matter of choice for me- All scripture truly is inspired by God. Have I said otherwise? No- What I have said is that when you look at the english bible that you have on your desk right there, you are looking at a product of man. What I am saying is that the LARGE MAJORITY of that book is a translation of a copy of a copy...... of the word of God. It has Human errors in it. You are blind to not admit that the scripures have never been without error. When you get to heaven, ask a scribe if he ever messed up. He will tell you that he did. OR better yet, why don't you learn Hebrew and read ALL of the exstant MSS and tell me which one is the inspired, authoritative word of God. Guess what- No one knows because they all have little differences, and a lot of them have big differences, and the bible that is right there on your desk is the collection of material by people who, by picking and chosing from different manuscripts which all say different things, have decided to give you their translation in english. I don't understand how you can see the difference between KJV and NASB, but you can't see the difference between current english translations and ancient documents. Sorry to burst your "God wouldn't let the bible say something he didn't want it to" bubble, but its true. Humans have free will- even the ones who write and copy and translate the bible. They mess up all the time, and its time that you realized that. ischus |
||||||
2 | ALL Scripture Inspired by God? | OT general | Hank | 116043 | ||
Frankly, ischus, I don't like your pert attitude. You tell me, a man going on 70 years old who has been a believer in Jesus Christ for over 55 years that "it's time you realized that." Do you think I fell off the turnip truck last Saturday? Who granted you the authority, young man, to speak to me in such a disrespectful manner? You come on this Forum and speak not only to me but to EdB, BradK and others who have been active on this Forum since very near its beginning as if they didn't know whether they were pitching or catching. You are not winning friends or influencing people very favorably, I tell you frankly. Pardon the candor, but I believe you have it coming. --Hank | ||||||
3 | ALL Scripture Inspired by God? | OT general | ischus | 116046 | ||
Hank, When did I ever ask for someone to get mad at me or take my view of scripture so personally? It is ultimately up to you whether or not you agree with me. This Forum is about sharing different ideas, not staying where you are without any growth. As Someone has said, you always know who is losing when someone begins to get angry or call names.... Sorry to make you upset Hank. If this has become too personal and too hard for your faith to handle, then don't read my posts. Especially don't reply to them, because you know you will just get more upset, and you will keep living in fear. I know you think I am young, Mr. Hank, but I tell you that the things I speak to you I have learned from people much older than myself (and much older than you). Perhaps they are the ones with whom you are upset, and not me. You, EdB, BradK.... You guys are always jumping on me and correcting me like I am a Jehovah's Witness or something. Relax people. The world is not going to end just because ischus has a different view..... I am sorry that you don't have room in your heart for change, Hank. It's not such a bad thing. I guess some people are just afraid of what happens when you think things through without starting with your own assumptions first... but who am I to disagree with you. You have the real truth, the real bible, and the real faith. You know Hank, the best part about all of this is that IT DOESN'T MATTER. WE are both going to heaven for the same reason, and it has nothing to do with the way we see the bible. It has to do with the way we see the one spoken about in the bible. Whoever wrote it, whoever edited it, the story of Jesus is there, and it is supported by the most scientific, logical, critical scholars, as well as the most postmodern 8th grader that you know, This is what the bible is for, Hank. Not to argue over, but to agree over. I agree with you about Jesus. I don't want you to agree with me about the other stuff- this would be bad for you right now. Just stay with what you know, and Jesus Christ will have mercy on both of us. God Bless you, Hank (you too EdB and BradK) ischus |
||||||
4 | ALL Scripture Inspired by God? | OT general | EdB | 116048 | ||
ischus I ask this in all honesty and without any agenda other than a real curiosity. I’m not asking this to trap you or to find fault. If you really believe portions of the English Bible are altered, added too, modified, something different than what God intended, how do you determine what is true and what is not? If as an example you don’t believe Mark 16:9-20 was penned under the inspiration of God how do you know John 3:16 was? Think about what I’m asking and don’t jump to a quick defense. If we can’t be sure on one verse how can we be sure enough of the others to stake our life on it? Maybe John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” , had a very significant addendum that said, whosoever believes in Him and likewise dies for God should not perish but have everlasting life, and it was removed in all manuscripts or written out by the “grace only” crowd. How can you say for certain this hasn’t happened if you can question another section? Tell me how you make the distinction between ‘its of God’ and ‘its not of God.’ EdB |
||||||
5 | ALL Scripture Inspired by God? | OT general | ischus | 116052 | ||
As someone has said earlier, there are not any textual variants on theological statement or passage in the bible. I "know" what is true the same way I know what is false... by determining what other manuscripts say something different, and if that difference really says something important or just says the same thing in a different way. PLEASE understand that I believe in all of the theology and nature of God that the bible has in it. Let me take your examples here and show you the difference: Mark 16:9ff is generally accepted as not being part of the actual manuscript for several reasons: -This account does not exist in the most ancient and reliable manuscripts that are available to us (sinaiticus and vaticanus) nor is it regarded as scripture by Clement, Origen, Eusebius, or Jerome.) - The Greek here is very different from the rest of the gospel -It contains fanciful/mystical references to many beleivers doing miraculous things, when in fact only the apostles did these things (which is intersting, since even they didn't drink poison) - Matthew and Luke, whose gospels were based on Mark's material, include nothing like this in their endings. John 3:16 -Not one manuscript differs from the other in this statement. It is supported by every extant manuscript, both the oldest ones and the younger ones. -This verse is written in a way that is very familiar to John's style, and is in tact with everything else that is said about Jesus in this gospel, as well as in the rest of the bible. |
||||||
6 | ALL Scripture Inspired by God? | OT general | EdB | 116064 | ||
ischus Your right Mark 16:9-20 isn't in the two oldest manuscripts but it is in 99.5 percent of all the other Greek manuscripts we have in our possession. While it is not in the Codex Vaticanus there is room left between the end of Mark 8 and the beginning of Luke 1. It is as if the copyist knew of the passage but didn’t have it before him and left room for it’s addition at a later time. In the Codex Sinaiticus again it is missing but Mark 14:54-16:8 and the beginning of Luke 1:1-56 were written on cancel leaf and not by the same copyist. It appears some one removed the original pages and re did them. As for some you say rejected it, Jerome included the verses in his translation and Eusebius later acquiesced to Mark 16:9-20 saying they could be reconciled to Matthew with the right punctuation. Irenaeus a man discipled by Polycarp who himself was directly discipled by John quoted Mark 16:19. Clement and Origen were both silent on the issue and their silence proves nothing. It contains fanciful/mystical references to many believers doing miraculous things, when in fact only the apostles did these things (which is interesting, since even they didn't drink poison) While it does mention drinking of poisons we have no knowledge that attempts to poison the disciples didn’t occur. They tried everything else to shut them up including sawing them into pieces. For us to say no one attempted to poison the disciples which God then miraculously preserved is beyond human knowledge. All the other “fanciful/mystical” are record to have occurred in the Book of Acts. Or was that added too. You have parroted the words of the famous liberal teachers yet neither you nor they can offer substantial proof that Mark 16:9-20 is anything other than what it claims to be. I have gone further into this subject that I think it worth. Again I stand on the firm foundation that the scripture is the living word of God inspired, recorded and perfectly preserved through the generations. And I still say to hold the scripture in any lower regard is to cast doubt on the capability of God to preserve his word. EdB |
||||||