Results 681 - 700 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
681 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220006 | ||
Dodoy, A few points. 1. Unless I missunderstand what you've posted, you didn't actually engage or interact with anything I said. You simply stated that I was wrong. Perhaps I didn't follow what you said well enough. 2. If you will allow me to paraphrase what I'm suggesting the passage says: Verse 10: For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, (Who is the only hope of any salvation for any man), especially of believers who he saves in the greatest of possible ways, from eternal judgement. Now, I you may certainly think that is not what Paul is saying. All well and good. But, you can not argue with any success that based on only the immediate context and basic grammer, that he can NOT be saying that. 3. Are you actually trying to argue that the Bible CAN NOT be using the word savior in any sense other than of eternal salvation, simply because we know that Christ saves? Simply use any Bible search tool and you will see the word is used to refer to being saved on a smaller scale quite fequently, as in being saved from armies, or disease, or hunger, etc. You can argue that he means otherwise if you wish, but you can't simply say because we know Jesus saves from sins, therefore a reference to God being a savior is only and always limited to that sense. 4. Finally, you said "In what context did Paul say God is teh Savior (NOT just a Savior) of all men?" I'm not sure what you are asking, best I can tell you are asking a rhetorical question that you answer in the following line suggesting the context is 1 Tim 1:15. But are you honestly suggesting that 1 Tim 1:15, something stated three chapters earlier is undeniably what Paul has in mind with no unpacking of the things said in between? And saying that as if it should seal the case with no question? My final point is this. Given the immediate context and grammer alone, and if we read it with no other theology in mind, both are completely possible interpretations of the passage. That being said, I would argue that the wider Biblical context (all of scripture) rules out a universal salvation interpretation. I'm not presumming to convince you of that, however. I'm only trying to argue that my interpretation fits the passage. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
682 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220000 | ||
1 Tim 4:10 "because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." If we are to understand this passage rightly we are going to have to think carefully. First, lets honestly observe what is said. It says that God is a savior. This is qualified by all men, certainly. But at the end of the day it does NOT specifically say, that all men are saved. It simply affirms that God is a savior, and that of all men. Now, the question we must then try to answer is: In what sense is God the savior of all men? It is very important that you understand what I've just said. The verse rightly leads us to this question, and we must strive to answer it, but we must also be honest enough to say that it has not explicitely told us. It has affirmed that God is a Savior of all men, but not how so. Second, whatever interpretation we come up with, it must be in a different sense or in a different degree than how God is a savior to believers. If not, then we render the phrase "especially of those that believe" to be meaningless. So we will not be surprised when we come to a conclusion that does not see unbelievers with the same blissful rewards that accompany believers. Now, consider that for many times and places the name of the LORD was not known. In how many tragedies, and in how many sea voyages, and in how many battles in such places and times have men cried out to heaven to be delivered from their temporal and immediate plights? How many people, who have sternly denied the existence of God, has in those moments found themselves crying out to heaven in hopes that they were wrong, and somebody was hearing who was able to deliver them? Now, who has answered them if we are thinking according to the Christian view? Whether any man ever, has cried out to the name of some strange God, or has cried out with no name but only a desperate hope that "maybe somebody hears," if any deliverance has ever been granted from above to any man of any time, that deliverance has came only from the One True God. Now, don't leap to fast to insert this into the passage, but first contemplate it. From this can we not all here today agree that in this sense God is indeed the savior of all men everywhere of all time. You may think this is not the intent of what Paul is saying here, but if I was to say that God is the savior of all men, and if I meant it in this sense, would you disagree? I would expect most wouldn't. Now, if I were to make such an assertion, that God was in this way the savior of all men. I would then be making a statement about God being a savior, without making any statement of the eternal destiny of those being saved in this fashion. Which is all that we know for certain the text is saying. That God is a savior. But, then we assert that God is much more than just a savior from our temporary plights! To those that believe God is much more. He is the one who saves for all eternity from the wrath of that terrible day of the Lord, in which all men are judged. He is the one who washes us clean of our sin. So not only is He the savior of all men from their temporal plights, He is much more in a special way the savior of those who believe. Now, I find this to be a reading of the text that fits all the pieces of the puzzle. If we claim this is the proper reading we have robbed or slighted no portion of what Paul has stated. But at the end of the day, let us at least admit that what assures us that a reading of this type is the proper one is the rule of faith. What I mean that ofcourse there are other possiblities that while would seem to fit this passage just fine, those readings do make this passage the enemy and at odds with the rest of scripture. Therefore, if we have two possible interpretations of a single passage and both of them are equally fitting yet one contradicts the whole of scripture and one is in harmony with all of scripture, are we not bound to choose the interpretation in harmoney with scripture? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
683 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219976 | ||
Light, Let me clarify my thoughts in a few concise statements, so that any further statements I make in a less organized way aren't misunderstood. 1. I believe that none who come to saving faith and repentance through Christ will ever loose their salvation. 2. I believe all scripture when rightly understood agrees with itself, therefore this passage can not be teaching the elect loosing their salvation. 3. I believe that this is a difficult passage, and therefore we can not simply say it says one thing without a strong defense, and then wonder why people don't just "believe it" to be the right interpretation. 4. Anytime, anywhere in scripture that I can not see -why- an author said what he did when he did, then I assume there is something I have not fully understood yet, even though I might understand the passage for the most part. Some of the best insights I've gleaned in the past why preparing sermons, was when I refused to stop until I knew why the train of thought went from one subject to the next the way it did. 5. I do not see why at this point in time, the author of Hebrews decided to present a hypothetically impossible situation about loosing salvation. I can understand somebody doing that, and I can understand the values of it as Spurgeon presented it, though I can not understand how that particular thing fits into what the author of hebrews was saying before and after he said it. 6. Because I can not see how it fits with that context, I assume there is something I do not yet grasp about the passage. That could mean that Spurgeon is right, and I just need to figure out how it fits. Or, that could mean Spurgeon is wrong. But what it certainly means is that I haven't fully figured it out yet and therefore I must keep questioning my understanding of the passage and putting it to the test. That sums up my thoughts on it, I hope it helped clarify what I am thinking. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
684 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 219950 | ||
Dodoy, I apologize for my other post where I asked about your take on the sabbath/first day debate. Had I read your profile the answer would have been obvious. My bad. Also, I do think you have been taught wrongly on a great many things. However, please let me hold off to write you why, and give scriptual support this coming week. I ask this because I do believe you ask for this in sincerity and from scripture rather than my opinion. As a result, I think you deserve a quality, scripture supported answer. This I can not give such as you and the question deserver at 10:30 PM before I preach the next morning. So, be patient and this week I will write you an answer on this that is fitting. If I think it is too long to trouble the forum with I'll send it to the address in your profile. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
685 | Is there a reason to debate? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 219949 | ||
Dodoy, I have one question. In your mind what are the implications of what you are saying? Is it just a minute of accuracy in a detail? Or is there some practice or doctrine of the Church that you think this weighs on? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
686 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219947 | ||
Light, I've finally managed to read part 10 and 11 of Spurgeon's sermon, and I must say I was hoping for more on how this fits into the context. I am not saying he is wrong or right, but due to the great contention over this passage I was hoping he would make his case stronger. Basically I think if one was to debate the issue and argue his view (not that we are debating) two things would need to be established in light of what he said. 1. First it would need to be established that the notion of unshakeable salvation was so imbedded into the author and reader's thinking, that they would have understood an impossible situation was being discussed as Spurgeon is suggesting. My point being that there is no such assertion in the text. The only way you can put it there is to consider it "a given." For those who might find this alarming, once again I do not believe you can loose your salvation. 2. Second, Spurgeon adressed what would be the point of stating an impossible situation, but he did not explain the point trying to be accomplished by telling us this in Hebrews chapter 6. In other words, how does this reading of the passage fit with what comes both before and after it in the book of Hebrews. Once again, I'm not saying he was wrong. I'm just saying that I'd like to hear somebody explain those things. Once again, thank you for posting it. I enjoyed it very much. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
687 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 219946 | ||
Dodoy, Absolutely. So many think of salvation as a momentary transaction. But you have clearly come across the fact that scripture does not see it so. We have been saved. Scripture teaches that at the cross of Christ the atonement was made for all the elect of all time. Salvation was accomplished. Beyond this when we through faith received Christ we are justified. I say this to mean that at that time our sin is forgiven and the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us. We have been saved. We are being saved. Even now though we are being saved through God's constantly holding us to Him through faith. We are continually being sanctified and made more like Christ. 2 Peter 1:4 says that we not are only saved from final judgement but from the corruption of this world. This is a process going on now. Philippians 2:12,13 says even now we are to be working out our salvation because God is working in us both to will and to do this. We are being saved now. We will be saved. Our salvation will be fully realized on that day we stand before the judgement seat of Christ, and while all those who do not know Christ will be judged and found guilty, we will be pronounced as innocent as the Lamb who bore our sins. We will be saved. Praise God for what He has done in Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
688 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219883 | ||
Light, Thank you for posting this! I very much enjoyed reading it. However, I can't say for certain I agree with him. Help me think through this to make sure I understand his point. (I say this sincerely with no sarcasim.) His point is that the author is in reality presenting an impossible scenario. He is talking about true saved people, he is talking about real falling away of saved people, and he asserts that such a situation would render salvation impossible for that individual. Only the author of Hebrews point is that this could never happen. Now, to me the real crucial point of such a take on the passage, is that you must show a reason the author of Hebrews would have said this. It has to contribute to his arguement in some way or form. In other words, why would the author of Hebrews have ever brought up a situation that will never happen? It has to have some contribution to the larger context. Now, if I understand correctly, Spurgeon would have asserted that the contribution to the larger context would be as follows... In verses 1-3, the author is stating a desire to push on to things of maturity. Stating in verse 3 that, "this we will do if God, Permits." That being said, our text under scrutiny is the reason he is so confident that they will be able to push on to maturity. His arguement being thus... The recipients would push on to maturity Because if they were to have finally fallen away, Then there would be no hope of salvation for them, Yet none of us would believe such a thing, So therefore we have confidence they will press on And finally in verse 9 he reasserts his confidence and presses on with the discussion. Is this how you would understand this passages contribution to the greater context, as simply the reason we can push on with confidence? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
689 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219867 | ||
Justme, Yes, it does indeed go right along with what I was trying to say. I regret to hear that you have such a vivid example. God is still saving soul's though, and the day may come that he knows Christ in truth. I'll join you in praying to that end. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
690 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219833 | ||
Am I to understand that you are saying that the IF is connected to everything that comes before rather than to the IF they fall away? Such that the passage reads more along the lines of, if they are all these things, they can not fall away? I'm not certain this is what you are saying, but in the greek the word IF is not present at all. It is how a particular translation chooses to translate the participle "falling away." In other words if that is what you are saying it is literally an impossible interpretation of the passage. Since the IF is literally coming from the word "fall away" itself. What translation are you quoting? The NASB doesn't insert the IF. Basically your dealing with the participle form of "fall away." Which could be translated many different ways. It could be "after falling away" "when falling way" "since they fell away". The only way you get the if into the sentence at all, is if you choose to translate that participle as conditional, which would render it "if they fall away." Therefore you could not translate it conditional and then say the if was with another part of the passage. The very insertion of the word if is tied to how "falling away" connects to the sentence. Hope that made sense. Regardless, I wasn't intending to discuss your interpretation of Hebrew, only to interact with the discussion it prompted. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
691 | Holy vs. Unholy | John 3:16 | Beja | 219826 | ||
Scripture is true, because scripture is true. All scripture is true because all scripture is true. This is what it means when it says all scripture is inspired by God. The given, is that scripture is true. God's Holy Spirit does not affirm some scripture as true, and other scripture is not true. God's Holy Spirit confirms the truth of scripture in its entirety as a whole category. Now, that being said can scripture be preached wrongly, to where it misses what a passage was saying and therefore be preached wrongly? Absolutely. So, the way I'm going to take your question is as if you had said, "Given that scripture is true, how do we know we are interpreting it correctly?" First, the Holy Spirit does indeed guide us through this. As Paul says in 1st Corinthians spiritual things are indeed discerned by the guidance of the Spirit. Second though we know that scripture does not contradict itself. How do we know this? Because all scripture is inspired by God, and God is not going to give contradictory messages when they are rightly understood. So whenever we look at any single passage, we have every other scripture in the Bible to guide us in what it can be saying, because it is informed in light of them, and it can not be contradictory to any of them. So how do we know? We study it hard in light of scripture, we pray for guidance, and it is this which God will be present with to guide us to all truth. So what we are armed with for telling the truth of scripture is the scripture. In 1 John 4, John tells us that we are to test the spirits, because many false ones have gone out. What does this mean? It means, as you have stated, many have false spirits guiding their reading rather than the Holy Spirit. But how do we know which is leading us, Holy or false? John here says we are to know by whether it matches what we know and confess to be true, that Jesus is God in the flesh. Now, I do not think he means here to limit it only to that one test, God in flesh. Rather he is giving us an iron principle, that we test the spirtual guidance in us, by the truth of scripture. The Holy spirit will not lead us contrary to Christ and the apostles' teaching. So how this plays out, is that we constantly pray and test everything as to whether it matches scripture, and in the midst of this the Holy Spirit will guide us to do so. It does not guide us in a vacuum, it guides us as we interpret scripture with other scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
692 | Inspired to Understand and Recognize | John 3:16 | Beja | 219823 | ||
I'm not sure I caught an answer in that. Perhaps you did, let me recap and see if I read you correctly. Timothy already knew it, and when he came to this scripture he found it to be true with what he already knew, or perhaps recognized it for the first time though its truth was already hidden in his heart? Is that correct? If that is correct then what you are saying is that what this passage says IS TRUE, and timothy recognized it as such. Therefore if the passage is true that has certain implications does it not? That means that the scriptures were inspired by God, is true. I disagree with you as to how Timothy came to it, but even if Timothy was recognizing a truth he already knew then it is still a truth, and it says something that we are affirming as true. And that something it is saying is that all scripture is true and trustworthy! If THAT is true, then we need not test all scripture by Holy Spirit given feelings, but we must rather try to understand it, knowing that a right reading of scripture yields trustworthy authoritative truth. Because that is the truth Timothy discovered, attested to, or found true, etc. In Christ Beja |
||||||
693 | wednsday or friday Jesus died | NT general Archive 1 | Beja | 219821 | ||
Just a note. Protei does indeed mean "first." Its not hard to understand how this could extend to mean "chief" in certain contexts. Such as when we say the phrase "first among equals." At such times it takes on the idea of foremost, or cheif. Also, Sabbatou does indeed mean sabbath as in saturday, but it also can be used to refer to the entire period of time of a sabbath and in that sense basically takes on the meaning of "a week." So when it says "protei sabbatou" it is completely legitimate to translate it "first of the week" which would be sunday. Which is how all the translations, of which I am aware, translated it. So that being said I think we'd need great reason to state that every translation committee ever formed wrongly translated this text while we ourselves have discovered the right meaning. The very first flag that I have gotten it wrong, for me in my personal translating, is that no translation agrees with me. However, that is just food for thought. The person you are responding to wrote his post in 2003 if I saw correctly, so you may not get a response depending on if he still frequents these forums. All that said, welcome to the forums and I hope you are benefited greatly by it! In christ, Beja |
||||||
694 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219818 | ||
Val, You've stated that these refer to proofs of salvation, not means of salvation. To that I say a hearty amen. I'm sorry if what I typed sounded like I meant otherwise. Though I would prefer the term evidence rather than proof but I think we are of the same mind in that. The point I was trying to make is that these are evidences that God brings about in us, and not from our own doing. Not only this, but these evidences (continuing to trust in Christ via the gospel) are things that God always work in us. Therefore in situations where there is a lack of them, we say no salvation has occurred. Not because they are necessary as a means, but they always flow as a result. This is the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. That those whom God saves, He also keeps in the faith throughout their life. Summing it up: Saving faith is a life long faith. I hope this helps to clarify, my first response didn't go through but perhaps that was God's mercy. It was written hastily before church this morning and this one has a bit more organization to it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
695 | Truth or Consequences | John 3:16 | Beja | 219815 | ||
Colton, you have stated that when you read scripture, your practice is to pray and see if it agrees with the Holy Spirit inside you. I would submit this scripture to you for you to pray over. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." I would ask you to ask a few questions as you pray over this passage. From where does it say that Timothy has learned the things he is sure of? Isn't it the sacred writings? Does this teach that all scripture is inspired? Or does it teach some of it is mixed with error? Where does this teach that we learn all the things we ought about walking in life as a Christian? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
696 | stay connected to thevine | John 15:5 | Beja | 219813 | ||
A good look at this passage will show a clear answer I think. First, we need to understand all the vine imagery is a rich metaphor for what Christ is trying to teach in this passage. And what he is trying to teach is in verse 4 where He says, "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch can not bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me." So staying connected to the vine is abiding in Christ. So, lets shift the question. How do we abide in Christ? Continuing in the same passage two verses are key. Verse 10 states, "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." So first, we abide in Him by keeping His commandments, by doing the things He taught us to do. Another important verse in the text is verse 7. It states, "If you abide in me, and My word abides in you..." Now, this is not as expressely stated as in verse 10, but Christ seems to be saying the two go hand in hand. We in Him, and His word in us. So another part of abiding is that we let His word richly dwell in us. We cling to His teaching, we meditate on it, and we especially cling to the gospel. I think this answers how we stay connected to the vine. We obey Christ, doing the things He taught us to do, and we cling to the gospel. Hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
697 | Is these quotations contradictions? | John 15:19 | Beja | 219810 | ||
This in fact is not a contradiction. And to prove this we need go no further than the passages themselves. Simply read previous verses in John 7 to see who he is talking to in that passage. In john 15:19 the problem is resolved if you simply read the verse in its entirety. Please do look these up yourself, and it would be beneficial to develop that habit of looking at context, but to finally answer...The world cannot hate its own who do not believe, but will certainly hate Christ's who do believe. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
698 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219808 | ||
I think we need to be slow with this issue. Our modern time has taken a biblical concept, "once saved always saved," and added some very unbiblical thoughts to this. This is often used to argue that a person who is completely devoid of any fruits of the spirit, most notably repentance, is saved because we remember them making a profession early in life. Sometimes it is foolishly even applied to those who once professed faith but no longer even believe the gosple. What has happened is that we have striped the doctrine away from "the perseverance of the saints." Those who are saved are indeed saved eternally, but they are also kept in the faith by the power of God. Consider passages like the one in Hebrews, but also Colossians 1:21-23, Galatians 5:2-5, Hebrews 3:5-6,14. This list could be expanded but if you look up these passages you get the point. We can not simply explain away all of these. We must finally reach the point that we admit that turning from the gospel is indeed fatal. And by fatal I mean eternally damning unless there is later repentence and faith. Keep in mind the issue here is not that we sin, but that we turn from the gospel. Once saved always saved? Yes, but saving faith is life long faith. To have a faith that only lasts a certain season is to show it was not true faith at all. Is this not in harmony with Johnn when he says in 1 John 2:19 that they went out from us but weren't really of us? And that they went out from us for the purpose of showing that they were not really of us? Is this not what Jesus is portraying in the parable of the soils when he shows two soils that apparently received the gospel quickly but then later showed that they weren't the good soil? So, it would be far better that we hold tightly to the "Perseverance of the Saints" rather than to "Once saved always saved." Both teach that salvation can not be lost, but one clings fast to the doctrine of perseverance at the same time, and assures that new Christians are not ambushed by the passages I listed, and as a result think eternal security is refuted. Brother John, just for clarification I don't lay any of this at your feet personally, but only used your post as an excuse to preach. God bless you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
699 | Love is not a feeling | John 13:1 | Beja | 219719 | ||
Dear Yen, Its with a bit of hesitancy that I've chosen to write this in response, and to be perfectly honest my primary motive in writing it is so that John does not have to respond in the midst of being offended at what you just wrote, but rather another brother may respond. To be to the point, I've watched a series of your posts, scripture references, sarcasms and subtle statements all be ment for a single purpose, to insult somebody. Rather than recap other posts lets simply let this post speak for itself. First, you put things into John's mouth that he never said. You claimed you found other quotes from "your favorite Author, and Psychiatrist." Second you said that you can see, "that he is in your estimation, a perfect example of the type of person that could truly express the kind of love as taught by Jesus, in the Bible." Did John make either of these assertions? No, rather you inserted them into his own mouth simply because he stated one quote by the man which he thought to be well phrased. But more than that, why did you put these words into his mouth? So that you could then attack John via shaming the man he quoted. Perhaps you would respond that your intentions were purely noble and only that you intended to gently teach the lesson that we should be careful who we quote. But anybody who intended to do that could have easily pointed out the flaws in the man he quoted with kindness and simply offered that John not tie himself too tightly to this man's thinking. That is not what you did, rather you worded your post so that when you refuted Scott Peck, you could do the greatest possible shame to John. Your "politeness" that you paint your posts with does not hide the venom they contain. To my brother, John. You have every right to be offended. So does Christ each and every time we offend him with our sin. Yet his glorious grace overlooks our sin, and so let us immitate him by ignoring our own right to be offended, and loving in kind where it is not deserved. Let your peace be that your brothers see clearly such posts for what they are, but more importantly that our Lord does. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
700 | John Mills 30k inconsistancies in the NT | Rom 10:17 | Beja | 219624 | ||
Hello Kevo, While you've been given some good words on this question. I felt it might build your faith to hear a bit more of what is actually going on with these errors in the manuscripts. First of all we need to take an honest look at what was going on when they were copied. Most have heard stories about how reverently the Hebrew text was copied and how carefully they preserved it from error. This was done by professional scribes and even the slightest error found would cause the copy to be burned. However, when you come to the new testament documents this isn't what you see. What is happening then is largely uneducated people are copying letters written from the various apostles and evangelists. They are using very cheap materials and they don't have the training or financial means to just scrap them if one letter is wrong so that they can start again. So we would expect many errors in these manuscripts. However, also consider the nature of these errors. As you said something like 90 percent is in perfect agreement, but there is a more remarkable statistic. Of the errors, the vast vast majority are of what we would call a negligible nature. In other words its something like this: Four manuscripts read as follows... Jesus is the Son of God Jesus is the Sun of God Jeus is the Son of God Jesus is the Son of God This is a made up example, but bear with me. In these four "manuscripts" now we have already counted two errors. But look at the nature of the errors. Their source is so obvious (a mistaken letter, and somebody hearing and writing a phonetically identical word) that there is literally no doubt whatsoever as to what is the original author's writiing. This is the nature of the huge majority of "errors" in the manuscripts. Now, if one of these errors occur within a passage on the virgin birth, we can rightly say there is error in such passages, but they mean to make it sound like there is a significant variance in which one manuscript teaches something crucially different. Do you see how their words are true yet deceiving? Are there errors that can affect the sense of a passage? Yes, rare but yes. But even in these there are no errors that affect a passage's teaching of a doctrine that doesn't have ample teaching to show the error for what it is in other areas of scripture, or more often just in other copies of that manuscript. Most expect God to have preserved his word through one copy with no errors. But if that was the case how would we know it had never been tampered with? No shortage of wicked men have tried to alter scripture I suspect. But God has preserved his word by a sudden amazing spread of copies throughout all the known world at the time, so that if in any place and in any passage wicked men have altered his word, or have translated it carelessly through tired eyes, manuscripts throughout the world shout out corrections to it. So we have many errors, but many witnesses to the true writing of God's word, showing us clearly what it is. Such is the wisdom of God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ] Next > Last [40] >> |