Is the Bible perfect? [Archive] - Page 2

christian73

1st September 2006, 06:38 PM

First, if study and not simple passive reading is to be aplied it will readily be discovered that the Revelation passage refers ONLY to John's Revelation and in no way says, implies nor infers the entire bible.

Think about it for a moment, when John wrote those words the bible was still years off in the future yet to be argued even about which writings to include into what would eventually become what we now refer to as 'the bible'.

Second, Jesus, as sinless as He was, is not those words on plain paper that some modern publisher last year smeared some ink on. And it is in error to limit God to some dried goo we call ink. God and His Son, Jesus Christ, are far greater and way beyond all that.

And for anyone to imply there is a likeness is not only dangerous it is at best sacriligious and at worst blasphemous because, first, to make such a physical analogy is patently pantheistic and, second, God did not run the tree through the mill poisoning the water and air in the milling processes that eventually turned it into paper, man did.

And God did not pollute the environment mixing chemicals together to make the ink, man did.

Nor did God kill the cow that was used to make the cover, man did.

And God did not translate and retranslate only to make revision after revision after version correcting errors, man did.

Since God said it perfect the first time then why all the translations and revisions correcting all the errors and adding all the alterations to appeal to the ever-increasing humanist and universalist wannabe Christians in the world whose sole desire is a one world religion?

God has not done all that, man has.

Why? Because man is evil from the heart and his desire is ever and always to supplant God with his own sin-ridden will, desires, wishes and evil intents and developing a bible that reads the way man wants it to read makes him 'feel' good having replaced God's word with his own palatable versions.
First, it has to be translated because God gave man different languages. Not everyone can speak the same language, therefore it has to be translated. God provided the Scriptures to give His people something to go by. If people can't read it in their own language, how are we to read it?

Second, it is possible for man to make mistakes in translating. However, since I can't read the original manuscripts, I'm in no position to question the translators.

Third, any technology that man has created, God allowed him to discover. Since He allowed us to discover the technology, don't you think God can use that technology for His Purposes?

Fourth, God had all those authors write all those books so we would have something to go by. Something those authors didn't have. How in the world can we question the validity and the correctness of the Scriptures if it was inspired by God Himself in the first place?

Fifth, As stated in my previous post. John wrote those verses at Jesus' instructions. Since Jesus is all-knowing, and He is God, don't you think He knew the Bible would come into existence? Could that be the reason those verses are in there?

Sixth, think about this. If the Bible hadn't been translated into English, how would you have known to use 1 Timothy 6:13-16 as a Scripture reference in another post on another topic?

And finally, are you questioning the validity of the Bible in its entirety? If that is the case, you are on dangerous ground not by me, but by God.

JacobHall86

1st September 2006, 06:47 PM

A lot of good that does Protestant Christendom! :help:

If you dont hate Catholics its fine. They let Scholars use them to translate. I dont see a problem.

christian73

1st September 2006, 06:54 PM

The second place is...where?

Putting words into God's mouth is, at the least, worse than adding words to the scriptures.
Deuteronomy 4:2 says "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands the Lord your God that I give you." (NIV)

Says the samething. And look, it's in the Old Testament to. What a coincidence. I'd say it's pretty important if it's in there in more than one place, wouldn't you say?

HypoTypoSis

1st September 2006, 07:13 PM

Deuteronomy 4:2 says "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands the Lord your God that I give you." (NIV)

Says the samething. And look, it's in the Old Testament to. What a coincidence. I'd say it's pretty important if it's in there in more than one place, wouldn't you say?

What say we add a little more context to this?

Deuteronomy 4:1-2, "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Seems pretty evident all the you's and ye's and your's refers specifically to the Jews, ie Israrel and pertains to what they must do when they entered into the Promised Land.

Next verse?

christian73

1st September 2006, 07:37 PM

What say we add a little more context to this?

Deuteronomy 4:1-2, "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Seems pretty evident all the you's and ye's and your's refers specifically to the Jews, ie Israrel and pertains to what they must do when they entered into the Promised Land.

Next verse?
Like I said. God saw the big picture and knew the Bible would come into existence.

Based on all of your arguments, it seems to me that your interpretation of the Scripture is literal. It's another example of how we need the Holy Spirit to help us interpret the Scriptures.

Furthermore, I gave two biblical references of the same thing at your request that say the same thing. Why do you insist on a third. Is it so you can get the last word?

If God gave us the Bible, which He did, and he put a command in it in more than one place, He did so because it's very important.

You see, you have to stop looking at this from a historical context. Yes, the Scripture was written many centuries ago. But let me ask you soimething. Does God change? Would He change the commands written in His Word just to satisfy us? No. Man does that, not God. We can't understand that because we're human, he's not. God gave us His Word to live by. The words were written by men, but inspired by God. You can read the KJV, NIV, and other translations and come to the conclusion that it says the same thing.

It's apparent that I'm getting to you, so I'll close this discussion for tonight. My guess is, you didn't expect me to come up with that second reference. If you want the last word, that's fine. It doesn't bother me at all. Let's agree to disagree and move on. I'm not going to get into a heated debate, it's not worth it. Truce.

HypoTypoSis

1st September 2006, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26389335#post26389335)
What say we add a little more context to this?

Deuteronomy 4:1-2, "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Seems pretty evident all the you's and ye's and your's refers specifically to the Jews, ie Israrel and pertains to what they must do when they entered into the Promised Land.

Next verse?

Like I said. God saw the big picture and knew the Bible would come into existence.

So? That is irrelevent to your misquoting an out of context verse to substantiate and unsubstantiable assertion.

Based on all of your arguments, it seems to me that your interpretation of the Scripture is literal. It's another example of how we need the Holy Spirit to help us interpret the Scriptures.

More important, and this is something that, so it would seem, practically all that graduate high school today have absolutely no understanding at all of proper grammar, figures of speech and so much else of the English language. Being able, as so many can only do, type on a keyboard is no indication even in the least of English mastery just as being able to read words is no indication of understanding.

True, the Holy Spirit teaches but if we cannot rightly divide the word of God then all those unlearned people have is the Holy Spirit, which is a very good guess why God sent His Holy Spirit to indwell poor, dumb, ignorant animalistic natured mankind.

Furthermore, I gave two biblical references of the same thing at your request that say the same thing. Why do you insist on a third. Is it so you can get the last word?

Both were unrelated and out of context to your unfounded assertion.

If God gave us the Bible, which He did, and he put a command in it in more than one place, He did so because it's very important.

Nope, He neither is the publisher of the KJV nor are the two verses you quoted relevant to the argument you seek to defend.

You see, you have to stop looking at this from a historical context.

In the first place, the Revelation passage you misquoted is prophetic and, in the second, the Deuteronomy quote you also misquoted, again out of context, is historical wherein God said to Israel and they, as a matter of history, recorded what He told them.

Yes, the Scripture was written many centuries ago. But let me ask you soimething. Does God change? Would He change the commands written in His Word just to satisfy us? No.

So if God does not change you are saying all, Jew and non-Jew alike must ever and always, even today, abide by all 600+ Levitical laws, even the one that says if I want I can sell my daughter! Context context context. Not everything written is specifically written TO you.

Man does that, not God. We can't understand that because we're human, he's not. God gave us His Word to live by. The words were written by men, but inspired by God. You can read the KJV, NIV, and other translations and come to the conclusion that it says the same thing.

Nope, again; there are subtle differences that make make certain sins that are abhorrent to God acceptable to man so he can claim Christ and continue without repentance but Jesus will tell them begone, that He never knew them.

It's apparent that I'm getting to you, so I'll close this discussion for tonight. My guess is, you didn't expect me to come up with that second reference. If you want the last word, that's fine. It doesn't bother me at all. Let's agree to disagree and move on. I'm not going to get into a heated debate, it's not worth it. Truce.

Perhaps it is I that is getting to you, eventually you will have to relinquish and actually read these words and realize there is more to it than what you've always just assumed was so and was based on what everyone around you always said was so; like you said man cannot know all this and that includes those that told you so as you so aptly quoted above.

Neither of your two references affirm your assertion since they are both out of context and were used specifically for altogether different reasons that you assume.

arunma

1st September 2006, 09:39 PM

The Bible Has been translated many times by man,So yes I think it is possible that it has be altered In my
bible all the words that Jesus said are in Red,so I pray
that has not been changed:

If I may ask, why do you say that the Bible has been translated "many times?" All modern translations are made from the original Greek. So unless you are reading the King James Bible, your Bible was translated once, not many times.

(The King James is an exception because the Textus Receptus comes in part from manuscripts that were translated from Hebrew and Greek into Latin, then back into Hebrew, and finally into the English of the King James text. Even here, it is remarkable that the Scriptures have survived so well, because there are surprisingly few mistakes in the King James.)

Historical Context is important.

I believe the Bible is Perfect, but that verse isnta good one to use as a proof text. John wrote that in when he finished Revelation because at the time (the end of the first century) people would take the works of others and add things to them and not see a problem with it. John was referring to the Book of the Revelation in that passage, not hte Bible as a whole, since the Bible wasnt cannonized until the third century.

That's an excellent point. It's important to remember that the Bible is a library of books, and not a book itself. Obviously it is not proper for us to add to the word of God, but nonetheless it is important to properly understand why John wrote as he did.

If I may also make a friendly correction, I'm fairly certain that the canonical Bible, as we have it today, was first put forth in the fourth century. It was the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) which affirmed the canon recorded by Bishop Saint Athanasius in his Festal Epistle of 367 AD (which records the canon as used by modern Christians, with a distinction between Scripture and Apocrypha). Curiously, neither of these councils were ecumenical. So it appears that the proper canon had already been in use for many years previous to these councils.

Emperor Constantine, at one point in his reign, ordered the writing of Bibles for several churches throughout the Eastern Roman Empire, and this was over half a century before these two councils. But I am not aware of what books were included.

christian73

1st September 2006, 09:44 PM

Perhaps it is I that is getting to you, eventually you will have to relinquish and actually read these words and realize there is more to it than what you've always just assumed was so and was based on what everyone around you always said was so; like you said man cannot know all this and that includes those that told you so as you so aptly quoted above.

Neither of your two references affirm your assertion since they are both out of context and were used specifically for altogether different reasons that you assume.
But don't you see. That's where you're so far off base, you can't see clearly. Those verses apply to you and me. You can't say otherwise---unless---unless you don't believe in the Bible at all. Maybe you're seeing only what you want to see. Coluld that be it? Hmmmmmm? Why else would you argue so much about this?

Both of those verses, which apply directly to me AND you, say exactly the same thing. You can not add to nor take away from the Undisputable, PERFECT Word of God. Man could have made a miistake translating. As long as the meaning is the same, it doesn't matter.

All Christians, true Christians, must obey ALL commands. You can't pick and choose which ones to obey and which ones to dismiss and say it's not valid. To do so is a sin. Why do you think other religions try to change it? They see what they've changed isn't working, so they change it again. Why is that? And answer me this. Why is it that Israel is on the news as the top story so often (even before the recent war)? Could it be that deep down they know the Bible to be true?

Friend, I know the truth. I know what those verses say in context. That's why you can't get to me. And that's why you're so determined to argue. Deep down, you know I'm right. Why else would you keep this going?

Friend, I can see that you're theories of the Bible are mixed up. I will pray for you and ask God to reveal to you the truth of what His PERFECT Word says.

JPPT1974

1st September 2006, 10:24 PM

The Bible is perfect and that
If the Bible is perfect, so should
God be perfect!

christian73

1st September 2006, 10:28 PM

The Bible is perfect and that
If the Bible is perfect, so should
God be perfect!
That's what I've been trying to say. Thanks.

HypoTypoSis

2nd September 2006, 01:38 AM

You can not add to nor take away from the Undisputable, PERFECT Word of God. Man could have made a miistake translating. As long as the meaning is the same, it doesn't matter.

Then it wouldn't be "the Undisputable, PERFECT Word of God", would it?

And if men did make mistakes in translating then it wouldn't have the same import as it would have had were it perfect for it would be a work of man and not the sole perfect product of God.

If only the meaning were retained and all the rest were in error it still would (as you have finally admitted above as possible and I have maintained all along) contain the perfect word of God in between the covers surrounded with an assortment of man's errors.

So where should we go from here if we've apparently reached some minimally tacit understanding? Examine some of those 'errors'?

holdon

2nd September 2006, 08:15 AM

Not at all. The Levitical law specifically grants me permission that if I want to I can sell my daughter. If you're poor enough, you could do that..... in those days. (in today's society you can't because it's illegal; but that doesn't mean it always is/was that way) But her rights are at least preserved by the laws of the Bible that you don't seem to understand.

christian73

2nd September 2006, 09:08 AM

If you're poor enough, you could do that..... in those days. (in today's society you can't because it's illegal; but that doesn't mean it always is/was that way) But her rights are at least preserved by the laws of the Bible that you don't seem to understand.
Very good point, holdon. I was ignoring that statement, but I agree with you. As far as Hypotyposis' attempt to argue about whether man could have made a mistake in translating the Bible, it's really, when you get down to it, a mute point. Unless, of course, you can read the original manuscripts yourself. If you can't, well, you have no leg to stand on. And that's where faith comes in. Having faith in God is the only way to understand the Scripture. The Bible has no errors sir. Plain and simple.

By the way, this forum is not a debate forum. It's a place where Chiristians can communicate. If you would like to contine this debate, then let's do it in the proper forum. I refuse to let this debate be a stumbling block to others. If you want to contnue this debate, I will happily do so in the proper forum. Thank you.

HypoTypoSis

2nd September 2006, 12:46 PM

If you're poor enough, you could do that..... in those days. (in today's society you can't because it's illegal; but that doesn't mean it always is/was that way) But her rights are at least preserved by the laws of the Bible that you don't seem to understand.

But doesn't that mean that everything in the bible is not for us, that not everything in the bible must be observed, that not everything is specifically to us to be followed to the letter. Correct?

If so, then that means there are a lot of places even in the New Testament, even in the words that Jesus spoke as well as Paul and others, that are not to us today, that they were speaking of specific issues and situations of the times? Do you agree?

Flynmonkie

2nd September 2006, 01:13 PM

By the way, this forum is not a debate forum. It's a place where Chiristians can communicate. If you would like to contine this debate, then let's do it in the proper forum. I refuse to let this debate be a stumbling block to others. If you want to contnue this debate, I will happily do so in the proper forum. Thank you.

:wave: ummmmmmm... this is a Baptist forum, and everything that implies -- this is normal:scratch:

Discussion of different POV via a forum constructed that shares a basis of belief IS the place to discuss our perspectives. A debate such as you speak of I believe is between different denominations.......(unless the rules have changed again?):)

holdon

2nd September 2006, 02:20 PM

christian73

2nd September 2006, 02:38 PM

christian73

2nd September 2006, 02:40 PM

:wave: ummmmmmm... this is a Baptist forum, and everything that implies -- this is normal:scratch:

Discussion of different POV via a forum constructed that shares a basis of belief IS the place to discuss our perspectives. A debate such as you speak of I believe is between different denominations.......(unless the rules have changed again?):)
I stand corrected. I just don't want to break the rules, that's all. Thanks.

christian73

2nd September 2006, 02:47 PM

Then it wouldn't be "the Undisputable, PERFECT Word of God", would it?

And if men did make mistakes in translating then it wouldn't have the same import as it would have had were it perfect for it would be a work of man and not the sole perfect product of God.

If only the meaning were retained and all the rest were in error it still would (as you have finally admitted above as possible and I have maintained all along) contain the perfect word of God in between the covers surrounded with an assortment of man's errors.

So where should we go from here if we've apparently reached some minimally tacit understanding? Examine some of those 'errors'?
Since it's legal to debate here, Hypotyposis, let's hear it. What errors are you referring to?

HypoTypoSis

2nd September 2006, 04:34 PM

But doesn't that mean that everything in the bible is not for us, that not everything in the bible must be observed, that not everything is specifically to us to be followed to the letter. Correct?

That's right: all is for our instruction.

If so, then that means there are a lot of places even in the New Testament, even in the words that Jesus spoke as well as Paul and others, that are not to us today, that they were speaking of specific issues and situations of the times? Do you agree?

Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;

Hello Holden,
Well, we seem to be getting somewhere then. We appear to agree that while all of the scriptures are FOR all of us but not all of the scriptures are specifically TO all of us.

For example, some of it is Hebrew history concerning things Hebrew just as there are places in both the Old and New Testaments that are directed TO the Jews regarding their own salvation while, in other places, there are issues directed specifically TO the in grafted Gentiles regarding their own salvation. So, from there it would seem there are two issues to then sort out.

First, which is TO the Jews and which is TO the in grafted Gentiles, i.e. the Christians.

Second, is the issue regarding the errors or inconsistencies that have appeared in (our case) the English versions that have resulted over the past two thousand years as a result of many formulating beliefs of many individuals translating and retranslating from and back to an assortment of languages and then into numerous versions and revisions.

Mankind has been corrupted by Satan many times throughout history as he has tried to destroy and pollute the line Jesus was to come from. We know this from the scriptures. In fact, while Satan tried to destroy the paternal line it never occurred to him that God was, in fact, using another royal line, Mary's line, from which Jesus was to come from. All the more frustration for Satan.

The reason for the Flood and other events were also related to Satan's desire to pollute the human race thereby destroying that all important royal line. In each case, however, God was always ahead of him. Still more frustration for him.

It has been stated on many times by numerous biblically eminent scholars that Satan knows the scriptures better than any man alive; indeed, he knows them well enough that he deceived many since Eve endlessly through the millennia.

It has also been suggested by some that Satan is a charter member of all church denominations for it is through him that all dissensions and disagreements arise and that it is not the people out in the world he has to worry about (he already, by default, has them anyway) but, rather, it is those within the church he needs to attack and bring down and what better place to start than in each and every church!

We would be much deceived if we were to believe that what we today regard as the bible did not also have evidences of Satan's tampering. All the more that we should not accept everything on faith-faced value in the bible as true, right and undeniably perfect. Better that we should do as we are instructed and be as the Bereans daily examining and studying to prove if these things are indeed so.

Jesus Christ, alone and only, and nothing and no one else are we to take on unquestioning and uncritical faith. All else is open for debate and proving. He and He alone is the source of all life and He and He alone can give life everlasting and abundantly. It is God, The Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, that we place our faith, hope and trust in.

We do not place our faith, hope and trust in old manuscripts, words and volumes by a multitude of others that have long since died and turned to dust, not the Apostle Paul, nor our ministers and pastors, nor angels and not the bible for none of those can save us. To attempt to do so is to worship the creation and not the Creator, it is a demonic ploy to refocus our attention from Who it should be focused on. Every true and sincere person and being listed in this paragraph would be among the first to direct our attention, instead, to Jesus Christ just as the angels delivering messages affirmed to the prophets of old.

Faith does not save. All have faith but it alone saves no one. It is but the vehicle for salvation. Only the true, correct and proper Object of one's faith can save. And that Object is Jesus Christ and no one and nothing else. The radical Islamists have faith. The object of their faith is Allah. But we know this is the wrong faith object for Allah cannot and will not in the end save them. Like Yul Brynner, in the role of Pharaoh, said to his wife in the movie after watching his country and his people destroyed and his armies all drowned, "the God of the Hebrews is God!"

As I have stated numerous times before, we need all the bible, we cannot live without even one word but, at the same time, not all of what is between those covers today is a perfect repeat of God's Word, although the perfect Word of God is in there between those covers. And it is up to us to study, truly study devoid of simple rote passive reading, thereby rightly dividing the Word of God that we may not be ashamed now and in the tomorrow when we stand before God Almighty, Himself.

Jesus made the gospel message of salvation so simple that even little children can understand it. That much is, in my estimation, totally and completely inviolable for without that there is no Jesus, no death, no resurrection and no salvation.

All else amounts to history, custom, tradition and prophecy--and that is all up for grabs, for discussion, debate, questioning and even doubt to be determined through long in-depth study proving, along the life's way, that which is so and that which is not

HypoTypoSis

Worship: verb: to love unquestioningly and uncritically. :idea:

salida

2nd September 2006, 10:00 PM

I have always been told and believed that the Bible is perfect. However a couple of days ago I saw a website called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and it points out hundreds of inconsitancies and other bad things about the Bible. I had never read much of the Bible, so I was surprised when I did check and found that the website seems to be right. Has anyone else seen that website and if so, what do you think about it?
Grink -

The Bible is perfect. No, there are no inconsistencies. Only man who accuses it of being these things is truly misguided and doesn't understand it or its history obviously. They are clueless indeed. But the Bible is the most true book in the world - no kidding. I strongly suggest you read Examine the Evidence by Muncaster and Evidence Demands A Verdict Vol I and II by Josh McDowell. I believe both of these authors were athiests and now christian. They did the research of us.

When you really investigate what the "skeptics say" - you will find that they got it wrong with half truths. Do the homework and research yourself and you won't be disappointed. Skeptics will always try to discredit the Bible because they don't like what it says and it reflects their own sin in their life. What it says doesn't appeal to them or make them feel good.

holdon

3rd September 2006, 09:20 AM

For example, some of it is Hebrew history concerning things Hebrew just as there are places in both the Old and New Testaments that are directed TO the Jews regarding their own salvation while, in other places, there are issues directed specifically TO the in grafted Gentiles regarding their own salvation. So, from there it would seem there are two issues to then sort out.

First, which is TO the Jews and which is TO the in grafted Gentiles, i.e. the Christians. There is no doubt that some stuff in the Law for example does not apply to us Christians today. But that is not to say that there is no significance of even those ordinances for us. We can learn important lessons out it. We would be much deceived if we were to believe that what we today regard as the bible did not also have evidences of Satan's tampering. All the more that we should not accept everything on faith-faced value in the bible as true, right and undeniably perfect. Better that we should do as we are instructed and be as the Bereans daily examining and studying to prove if these things are indeed so. And what were the Bereans studying to see if things were so: the Scriptures!

Jesus Christ, alone and only, and nothing and no one else are we to take on unquestioning and uncritical faith. All else is open for debate and proving. He and He alone is the source of all life and He and He alone can give life everlasting and abundantly. It is God, The Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, that we place our faith, hope and trust in. That's right. But how do we know about Jesus Christ, how can He be the object of our faith: through the Scriptures!
"Ye search (file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Willem%20Laptop/My%20Documents/Mijn%20stuff/darby/other%20version/bdbl/BDB/n_joh.html#5:39) the scriptures, for ye think that in them ye have life eternal, and they it is which bear witness (file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Willem%20Laptop/My%20Documents/Mijn%20stuff/darby/other%20version/bdbl/BDB/n_joh.html#5:39a) concerning me; "
We do not place our faith, hope and trust in old manuscripts, words and volumes by a multitude of others that have long since died and turned to dust, not the Apostle Paul, nor our ministers and pastors, nor angels and not the bible for none of those can save us. To attempt to do so is to worship the creation and not the Creator, it is a demonic ploy to refocus our attention from Who it should be focused on. Every true and sincere person and being listed in this paragraph would be among the first to direct our attention, instead, to Jesus Christ just as the angels delivering messages affirmed to the prophets of old. Again, there is nothing you can know about Christ and salvation if you don't have the Scriptures.

Faith does not save. All have faith but it alone saves no one. It is but the vehicle for salvation. Only the true, correct and proper Object of one's faith can save. And that Object is Jesus Christ and no one and nothing else. The radical Islamists have faith. The object of their faith is Allah. But we know this is the wrong faith object for Allah cannot and will not in the end save them. Like Yul Brynner, in the role of Pharaoh, said to his wife in the movie after watching his country and his people destroyed and his armies all drowned, "the God of the Hebrews is God!" Of course it is not just "faith" but "faith in Jesus Christ". Again, faith needs an object: Jesus Christ. But we learn about that Person in and through the Bible. It (the bible) is called the Word of God. Faith comes through hearing that Word.

As I have stated numerous times before, we need all the bible, we cannot live without even one word but, at the same time, not all of what is between those covers today is a perfect repeat of God's Word, although the perfect Word of God is in there between those covers. And it is up to us to study, truly study devoid of simple rote passive reading, thereby rightly dividing the Word of God that we may not be ashamed now and in the tomorrow when we stand before God Almighty, Himself. Yes, there are undoubtedly flaws in the bibles we read and even more in its interpretation. Overall though we can be sure we something closer to the originals than the writings of Homerus. This is because it has been mostly reverently and carefully copied and translated and it has been the object of many criticisms and has withstood them.

All else amounts to history, custom, tradition and prophecy--and that is all up for grabs, for discussion, debate, questioning and even doubt to be determined through long in-depth study proving, along the life's way, that which is so and that which is not The bible can be read in 3 ways: historical; typological/prophetical; spiritual. All 3 are valid and very profitable.

christian73

3rd September 2006, 02:52 PM

We do not place our faith, hope and trust in old manuscripts, words and volumes by a multitude of others that have long since died and turned to dust, not the Apostle Paul, nor our ministers and pastors, nor angels and not the bible for none of those can save us. To attempt to do so is to worship the creation and not the Creator, it is a demonic ploy to refocus our attention from Who it should be focused on. Every true and sincere person and being listed in this paragraph would be among the first to direct our attention, instead, to Jesus Christ just as the angels delivering messages affirmed to the prophets of old.

I see where you're coming from. You're right in the fact that we should not place our faith in the "Book" itself, but you are to place your faith in the words in the "Book" And what do those words tell us? They tell us that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, died on the cross for our sins, that He rose again on the third day, and we are to place our faith in Him. How would you know all that if you didn't have "The Book"?

HypoTypoSis

3rd September 2006, 03:04 PM

We do not place our faith in 'the book' but in Jesus.

christian73

3rd September 2006, 03:10 PM

We do not place our faith in 'the book' but in Jesus.
Right, but you are to place your faith in "the words" in the Book. In other words, place your faith in what the Bible teaches. How else would you know or hear about Jesus?

HypoTypoSis

3rd September 2006, 04:10 PM

I do not recall any verses to that effect.

I place my place my faith in no book, no words, no person but Jesus Christ.

We have no guarantees that everything in the bible is so perfect that we can place our eternal security entirely on it.

I am assured, however, that my eternal security is eternally secured in Jesus Christ.

Books and words and people cannot save. Jesus saves.

christian73

3rd September 2006, 07:06 PM

I am assured, however, that my eternal security is eternally secured in Jesus Christ.

And how would you know of that assurance if you didn't have the Bible?

If you read the four Gospels, you'll find that people used the Scriptures (obviously they didn't have the New Testament. That goes without saying.) Even Jesus Himself quoted the greatest commandment and referred to other Scripture in His teachings. If Jesus used the Scriptures, shouldn't we? He set the example.

I see what you're saying, you shouldn't place your faith in the physical book. It's the message of the Book that we should focus on and place our faith in.

christian73

3rd September 2006, 07:10 PM

We have no guarantees that everything in the bible is so perfect that we can place our eternal security entirely on it.

Would that include the story of Jesus, the One we all place our faith in?

JacobHall86

3rd September 2006, 07:30 PM

We do not place our faith in 'the book' but in Jesus.

In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

christian73

3rd September 2006, 09:45 PM

In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Excellent reply, JacobHall86. Now why didn't I think of that?:D

Is that John 1:1?

arunma

3rd September 2006, 10:46 PM

In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

But wouldn't you say that that refers to Christ himself? After all, the Bible is not God, and it has not existed for all of eternity.

HypoTypoSis

3rd September 2006, 10:54 PM

Would that include the story of Jesus, the One we all place our faith in?
A 'story' is not Jesus. Ink on paper pressed between dead animal hide is not Jesus. To worship or have faith in a story or ink and paper between dead animal hide is to worship the creation not Creator. Only Jesus is Jesus and only Jesus can be worshipped and salvation is only for those who place their faith in Jesus. Nothing else counts.

arunma

3rd September 2006, 10:59 PM

A 'story' is not Jesus. Ink on paper pressed between dead animal hide is not Jesus. To worship or have faith in a story or ink and paper between dead animal hide is to worship the creation not Creator. Only Jesus is Jesus and only Jesus can be worshipped and salvation is only for those who place their faith in Jesus. Nothing else counts.

I agree...mostly. I say "mostly" because I don't understand your argument as to why it is idolatrous to have faith in a story. It is idolatry to worship the Gospel, but I do not see why you object to having faith in it. On a daily basis, we place our faith in many things, but we do not worship these things.

HypoTypoSis

3rd September 2006, 11:14 PM

I agree...mostly. I say "mostly" because I don't understand your argument as to why it is idolatrous to have faith in a story. It is idolatry to worship the Gospel, but I do not see why you object to having faith in it. On a daily basis, we place our faith in many things, but we do not worship these things.

Having faith in a story is not the same as having faith in the person of Jesus Christ. The world has faith in all kinds of stories. The story written by Mohommed; the story of the Hindus and the Buddhists; the New Age, humanist and evolutionst stories; the list is endless. They are all stories and none of them can or will save. Praying to a story, like praying to a Pope or an Imman (sp?) or omming or seeking your 'higher power' will not forgive nor save. To liken Jesus to nothing more than a story like all the other stories is another method by which to strip Him of His deity equating Him with all the other characters in all the other stories. We worship, pray to and knowingly anticipate without a shred of doubt our salvation only through the person of Jesus Christ and this is accomplished by reason of our faith and trust being unquestioningly and uncritically placed in and upon Him and Him alone.

worship: verb: to love unquestioningly and uncritically.

arunma

3rd September 2006, 11:38 PM

Having faith in a story is not the same as having faith in the person of Jesus Christ. The world has faith in all kinds of stories. The story written by Mohommed; the story of the Hindus and the Buddhists; the New Age, humanist and evolutionst stories; the list is endless. They are all stories and none of them can or will save. Praying to a story, like praying to a Pope or an Imman (sp?) or omming or seeking your 'higher power' will not forgive nor save. To liken Jesus to nothing more than a story like all the other stories is another method by which to strip Him of His deity equating Him with all the other characters in all the other stories. We worship, pray to and knowingly anticipate without a shred of doubt our salvation only through the person of Jesus Christ and this is accomplished by reason of our faith and trust being unquestioningly and uncritically placed in and upon Him and Him alone.

I more or less agree with what you've written here, though I still believe that the Bible is infallible.

But a few trivial corrections. Catholics do not pray to their Pope, nor do Muslims pray to their imams (I believe an imam is the equivalent of a pastor or rabbi). As for Hindus and Buddhists, they don't really have a story, per se.

HypoTypoSis

4th September 2006, 03:34 AM

I more or less agree with what you've written here, though I still believe that the Bible is infallible.

What say we try a different approach starting with, what do you regard as 'the bible' and what is your best understanding of the word 'infallible' and, if by chance, instead, you meant 'inerrant'?

For example:

Do you mean all bibles, versions and revisions or only a specific and certain one?

Do you mean to say, in its (your 'bible' of choice) printing it is 100% complete, total, only and without any error, improper changes, additions or deletions whatsoever and that it is without doubt the same as though God, Himself, had personally printed it? And, if not, what, if any differences might there be?

If there is so much as even one comma missing or out of place it cannot be considered infallible or inerrant. We may be able to properly deduce what it should be but it is still not perfect. Just like a brand new car right off the show room floor, if it has even one tiny scratch it is no longer 'perfect' for it is, in fact, blemished regardless of the fact that it can be 'touched up'. And for man to be able to 'touch up' the bible makes it even further still less than perfect, further still from being infallible and inerrant.

What say we start with those four questions so we got us some idea where we're coming from and then we have us a little look-see at some of them 'touch ups' that ain't s'posed to be there?

arunma

4th September 2006, 10:04 AM

What say we try a different approach starting with, what do you regard as 'the bible' and what is your best understanding of the word 'infallible' and, if by chance, instead, you meant 'inerrant'?

For example:

Do you mean all bibles, versions and revisions or only a specific and certain one?

Do you mean to say, in its (your 'bible' of choice) printing it is 100% complete, total, only and without any error, improper changes, additions or deletions whatsoever and that it is without doubt the same as though God, Himself, had personally printed it? And, if not, what, if any differences might there be?

If there is so much as even one comma missing or out of place it cannot be considered infallible or inerrant. We may be able to properly deduce what it should be but it is still not perfect. Just like a brand new car right off the show room floor, if it has even one tiny scratch it is no longer 'perfect' for it is, in fact, blemished regardless of the fact that it can be 'touched up'. And for man to be able to 'touch up' the bible makes it even further still less than perfect, further still from being infallible and inerrant.

What say we start with those four questions so we got us some idea where we're coming from and then we have us a little look-see at some of them 'touch ups' that ain't s'posed to be there?

That's a perfectly valid question. I consider the Bible to be both infallible and inerrent in the original autographs of the prophets and Apostles. I recognize that almost no manuscript available today is entirely perfect, which is why I do have some reliance on the science of textual criticism.

christian73

4th September 2006, 10:14 AM

Having faith in a story is not the same as having faith in the person of Jesus Christ.

On what basis? Let me ask you this. If we did not have the Bible, if nothing was ever recorded about Jesus Christ, how would people learn about Him? By passing the story down by word of mouth? There're more errors doing it that way than having it down on paper. The Gospels were written by men who were there, who knew Jesus personally. Who are we to doubt what they wrote?

And think about this. John 1:1 states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

HypoTypoSis

4th September 2006, 10:15 AM

uhh, which question do you find perfectly valid?

arunma

4th September 2006, 10:17 AM

On what basis? Let me ask you this. If we did not have the Bible, if nothing was ever recorded about Jesus Christ, how would people learn about Him? By passing the story down by word of mouth? There're more errors doing it that way than having it down on paper. The Gospels were written by men who were there, who knew Jesus personally. Who are we to doubt what they wrote?

And think about this. John 1:1 states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I think we're both on the same side of this issue, but please allow me to offer two commentaries here. First, oral traditions aren't quite as bad as they sound. We've all played the telephone game, where a short message becomes distorted with each person who tells it. But this is biased by the fact that our culture is literate. In societies where there is no written language, messages passed by word of mouth tend to be retained much better.

As for St. John 1:1, do you believe that the Word is the Bible, or Jesus Christ? I realize that's a question rather than a commentary, but we must remember that if the Word is the Bible, then this means that the Bible is God. And that certainly cannot be true.

christian73

4th September 2006, 10:53 AM

I think we're both on the same side of this issue, but please allow me to offer two commentaries here. First, oral traditions aren't quite as bad as they sound. We've all played the telephone game, where a short message becomes distorted with each person who tells it. But this is biased by the fact that our culture is literate. In societies where there is no written language, messages passed by word of mouth tend to be retained much better.

As for St. John 1:1, do you believe that the Word is the Bible, or Jesus Christ? I realize that's a question rather than a commentary, but we must remember that if the Word is the Bible, then this means that the Bible is God. And that certainly cannot be true.

I see your point. However, one question if I may. Why, then, do we refer to the Bible as the Word of God, or God's Word?

christian73

4th September 2006, 10:55 AM

uhh, which question do you find perfectly valid?
Which one do you find valid?

arunma

4th September 2006, 11:30 AM

I see your point. However, one question if I may. Why, then, do we refer to the Bible as the Word of God, or God's Word?

I think the issue is that we're using the same word, and that it means different things. English has the advantage of capital letters, so I generally refer to the Bible as God's words, and Christ as the Word of God. But no matter the case, the phrase "God's word" is a human tradition. The Bible does not refer to itself as God's word, nor does it refer to itself at all. If the phrase causes confusion, it may be a good idea to abandon it if it causes us to believe that the Bible is God. You need only to ask yourself: do you believe that the Bible is God?

2 Timothy 3:16 calls the inspired Scriptures "God-breathed." I'm guessing this is where we came up with "God's word." But perhaps it may be more appropriate to call the Bible God's breath. I don't personally mind calling the Bible God's word. But I think it's important for us to recognize that Jesus Christ, and not the Bible, is the Word of God.

HypoTypoSis

4th September 2006, 11:53 AM

By passing the story down by word of mouth? There're more errors doing it that way than having it down on paper.

Well, if you consider the Old Testament true, absolutely correct and perfect in every detail how do you account for the fact that there was no writing at all for about 2500 years when everything was orally passed down before Moses finally wrote the first five books (the Pentateuch)? That's a lot more time than from Jesus until now! More errors than on paper?

Not to mention that from there on it still took some time to catch on for writing to get into full swing for the rest of the OT books to begin to get written. More errors than on paper?

And, then, let's not forget that for the first 1600 years between Adam and the Flood it was Adam, Seth and Enoch who are credited with writing the entire story from the beginning of creation to its end in pictures in the stars where no man could twist it out of whack (which the Pagans did end up doing after the Flood anyway!)? More errors than on paper?

In all likelihood it was probably far more accurate in a time before writing was invented when it was far beyond man's capability to alter, change translate, retranslate, publish ad infinitum ad nauseum versions and revisions after revisions than in the 2000 years from Jesus until now! More errors than on paper?

Go figger.

HypoTypoSis

4th September 2006, 11:54 AM

Which one do you find valid?
um, the question is not for you; it was intended for arunma.

christian73

4th September 2006, 12:55 PM

um, the question is not for you; it was intended for arunma.
Sorry about that. My mistake.

christian73

4th September 2006, 01:12 PM

Well, if you consider the Old Testament true, absolutely correct and perfect in every detail how do you account for the fact that there was no writing at all for about 2500 years when everything was orally passed down before Moses finally wrote the first five books (the Pentateuch)? That's a lot more time than from Jesus until now! More errors than on paper?

Not to mention that from there on it still took some time to catch on for writing to get into full swing for the rest of the OT books to begin to get written. More errors than on paper?

And, then, let's not forget that for the first 1600 years between Adam and the Flood it was Adam, Seth and Enoch who are credited with writing the entire story from the beginning of creation to its end in pictures in the stars where no man could twist it out of whack (which the Pagans did end up doing after the Flood anyway!)? More errors than on paper?

In all likelihood it was probably far more accurate in a time before writing was invented when it was far beyond man's capability to alter, change translate, retranslate, publish ad infinitum ad nauseum versions and revisions after revisions than in the 2000 years from Jesus until now! More errors than on paper?

Go figger.
Why do you focus on just the Old Testament? There is another part to the Bible---the part about Jesus.

It's a written fact that the Gospels were written by men who actually knew Jesus personally. They themselves wrote the Gospel not too many years after Jesus ascended to Heaven. And what about the Book of Acts, which was written by the same person who wrote Luke. He knew Paul personally.

However, since you brought up the Old Testament, let me ask you this. Since Moses wrote the first five books, and since God spoke to people audibally (sp?), don't you think He could have told Moses what to write? All of the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament was inspired by God. Since that's true, would God allow a mistake to be put in the Bible? If He would, then Jesus couldn't have been perfect either. And He is the one we believe can save us.

And without the Bible, how could we learn about Jesus and His teachings? If we believe in Jesus, don't we have to obey God's commands? Where are those commands found?

christian73

4th September 2006, 01:20 PM

wmc1982

4th September 2006, 01:23 PM

come on people...

"The Law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple" (Psalm 19:7).

HypoTypoSis

4th September 2006, 01:29 PM

Why do you focus on just the Old Testament? There is another part to the Bible---the part about Jesus.

It's a written fact that the Gospels were written by men who actually knew Jesus personally. They themselves wrote the Gospel not too many years after Jesus ascended to Heaven. And what about the Book of Acts, which was written by the same person who wrote Luke. He knew Paul personally.

However, since you brought up the Old Testament, let me ask you this. Since Moses wrote the first five books, and since God spoke to people audibally (sp?), don't you think He could have told Moses what to write? All of the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament was inspired by God. Since that's true, would God allow a mistake to be put in the Bible? If He would, then Jesus couldn't have been perfect either. And He is the one we believe can save us.

And without the Bible, how could we learn about Jesus and His teachings? If we believe in Jesus, don't we have to obey God's commands? Where are those commands found?

The problem is that none of the people you listed wrote the bible. Please search the internet on the history of the bible.

HypoTypoSis

4th September 2006, 01:35 PM

come on people...

"The Law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple" (Psalm 19:7).
That's a good verse, for sure; though, it doesn't cover any of the history, poetry, customs or traditions.

:idea: hmm, could that be the problem with the devil's advocates, the lawyers, that all they ever learned was how to be cold heartless lawyers and missed out on how to be compassionate living breathing human beings? :P

christian73

4th September 2006, 01:59 PM

The problem is that none of the people you listed wrote the bible. Please search the internet on the history of the bible.
But they wrote the books which later became the Bible. The Bible was compiled of these old writings that were uncovered. Remember, theGreek and Hebrew Bible came before English Biblle. The Bible was compiled, not written by a committee. They decided which writings to include, some of which were written by the people I mentioned. Therefore, they did write part of the Bible. Research it.

HypoTypoSis

4th September 2006, 02:13 PM

But they wrote the books which later became the Bible. The Bible was compiled of these old writings that were uncovered. Remember, theGreek and Hebrew Bible came before English Biblle. The Bible was compiled, not written by a committee. They decided which writings to include, some of which were written by the people I mentioned. Therefore, they did write part of the Bible. Research it.

no-no, not one of them spoke English much less wrote English; in fact, English did not even exist at the time. A lot transpired in that almost millennia and a half. It didn't just go from, say, Paul writing Hebrews to the 1611 KJV. There was a lot of translating, copying, recopying, re-recopying, retranslating and so forth long before English ever became a language and that went through considerable changes before it even came close to the written language of the 1611 version. Actually, I believe, the Hebrew made the transition a lot easier than the NT texts did.

christian73

4th September 2006, 02:19 PM

no-no, not one of them spoke English much less wrote English; in fact, English did not even exist at the time. A lot transpired in that almost millennia and a half. It didn't just go from, say, Paul writing Hebrews to the 1611 KJV. There was a lot of translating, copying, recopying, re-recopying, retranslating and so forth long before English ever became a language and that went through considerable changes before it even came close to the written language of the 1611 version. Actually, I believe, the Hebrew made the transition a lot easier than the NT texts did.
You may have read my statement wrong. Or maybe I worded it poorly. I said that the Hebrew and Greek Bibles came before the English Bible did. Therefore, the Bible had to have been compiled before the English language came into existance. Sorry if I didn't make my post clear.

RobinD69

4th September 2006, 05:23 PM

Yes the Bible is perfect,its our personal interpritations that are flawed,this is why we must rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance.

christian73

4th September 2006, 06:06 PM

Yes the Bible is perfect,its our personal interpritations that are flawed,this is why we must rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance.
I agree with you, but just to warn you, you better be ready to debate that. Again, I'm on your side. This has been a hot topic all weekend.

RobinD69

4th September 2006, 06:55 PM

I agree with you, but just to warn you, you better be ready to debate that. Again, I'm on your side. This has been a hot topic all weekend.
Thank you,but I do not mind debate so long as they do not mind waiting till I get online,I am usually just on on weekends.

HypoTypoSis

5th September 2006, 12:30 AM

You may have read my statement wrong. Or maybe I worded it poorly. I said that the Hebrew and Greek Bibles came before the English Bible did. Therefore, the Bible had to have been compiled before the English language came into existance. Sorry if I didn't make my post clear.
Unlike the Jews, that have always preserved their "OT" in a rather continually updated fashion, what we know of as the NT took quite some time to assemble and even then it was argumentive since considerable portions were not even composed of the original autographs.

If we could point to the original works of each of the NT authors much of the present day confusion and disagreements that exist would not be. Instead, considerable of what we do have are passed down retellings and recopying of those originals.

Deducing what someone meant by what someone else heard someone else say about what that first person said is always open to conjecture and must then be compared to the whole of what that person said as well as the collection of other works by the other writers as well.

As a case in point, Universalism was already well in existence as were the beginnings of Replacement Theology in Paul's time and to which he spoke against in a number places. Still, this did not quash these beliefs and gradually from then through the institution of the state church and later into Catholicism and on into Protestantism until its gradual decline over the last two hundred years resulting in its considerable comparative decreased appeal today. But that does not mean their effects did not over that two thousand year period find the inclusion of some of those concepts and their evidences into what today we regard as the bible.

This does not make the works of, say, Paul in anyway incorrect or with error; it does, however, call into question the retelling and re-writing of his works by those who followed him as their own biases, understandings, beliefs and leanings regarding, as in the examples above, Universalism and Replacement Theology, for these, as with others, were hotly contested issues of the time just as Christians today have numerous hotly contested contemporary issues of our own that show evidences of their influences as evidenced by virtue of their tacit introduction into modern day liberal bible versions.

christian73

5th September 2006, 09:37 AM

Unlike the Jews, that have always preserved their "OT" in a rather continually updated fashion, what we know of as the NT took quite some time to assemble and even then it was argumentive since considerable portions were not even composed of the original autographs.

If we could point to the original works of each of the NT authors much of the present day confusion and disagreements that exist would not be. Instead, considerable of what we do have are passed down retellings and recopying of those originals.

Deducing what someone meant by what someone else heard someone else say about what that first person said is always open to conjecture and must then be compared to the whole of what that person said as well as the collection of other works by the other writers as well.

As a case in point, Universalism was already well in existence as were the beginnings of Replacement Theology in Paul's time and to which he spoke against in a number places. Still, this did not quash these beliefs and gradually from then through the institution of the state church and later into Catholicism and on into Protestantism until its gradual decline over the last two hundred years resulting in its considerable comparative decreased appeal today. But that does not mean their effects did not over that two thousand year period find the inclusion of some of those concepts and their evidences into what today we regard as the bible.

This does not make the works of, say, Paul in anyway incorrect or with error; it does, however, call into question the retelling and re-writing of his works by those who followed him as their own biases, understandings, beliefs and leanings regarding, as in the examples above, Universalism and Replacement Theology, for these, as with others, were hotly contested issues of the time just as Christians today have numerous hotly contested contemporary issues of our own that show evidences of their influences as evidenced by virtue of their tacit introduction into modern day liberal bible versions.
But doesn't that mean we should rely on the Holy Spirit to accurately interpret the Scriptures. If the retelling of the stories is inaccurate, then how do we know Jesus is the Son of God? And why would we place our faith in Him if the story is inaccurate? It all goes back to having faith that what is in the Bible (not the physical book itself) is true. Otherwise how do we find out who Jesus really is?

And think about this. Since humans have to have physical proof in order to believe in something, could that be the reason God gave us the Bible? I mean, we like to research things to find out if what we've been told is true. How could we research about Jesus without the Bible?

HypoTypoSis

5th September 2006, 11:06 AM

1...But doesn't that mean we should rely on the Holy Spirit to accurately interpret the Scriptures.

2...If the retelling of the stories is inaccurate, then how do we know Jesus is the Son of God?

3...And why would we place our faith in Him if the story is inaccurate?

4...It all goes back to having faith that what is in the Bible (not the physical book itself) is true.

5...Otherwise how do we find out who Jesus really is?

6...And think about this. Since humans have to have physical proof in order to believe in something, could that be the reason God gave us the Bible?

7...I mean, we like to research things to find out if what we've been told is true.

8...How could we research about Jesus without the Bible?
1...The Holy Spirit does not study, research and interpret the scriptures. We do.

2...It is by faith that we know Jesus is the Son of God, not as a result of knowledge based on study, research and interpretation.

3...Placing our faith in Jesus no matter what (ex. errors or not in the bible) is the whole point of faith.

Take, for example, the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

Is it a real story or a parable?
What is its point, what was its purpose?
What, if any historical relevance is there in it?
Does it have anything to do with salvation?
If so, for who and how?
Is it eschatological in nature or not?
Is it generally understood by the whole of Christendom or are they misled into believing it means something else entirely?Please, think on and answer these questions for this is important, for it is a demonstrable case in point to this entire subject.

4...If humans have to have something physical to believe in, ie the bible or anything else, then it is no longer faith but belief based upon what is seen and physically verifiable, on what is known.

5...Is this a question interested nonbelievers would ask or is it something believers would ask?

Nonbelievers must act like little children not questioning and asking proof for to provide such is, again, not faith but belief based on evidences of proof.

If this is a question for believers then it should not be a faith issue necessary to believe in Jesus but to learn more about Him and how to be like Him after they have been saved which, in this case, is neither faith or belief but, instead, an exercise of that faith. "Show me thy faith without they works and I will show you my faith by my works", James wrote.

6...Having physical evidence (ie the bible) and researching to prove Jesus is no longer faith, ie the belief in things unseen, but, again, it is belief based upon what we've learned, seen, concluded and proven to ourselves as so.

7...The bible should not be our source of faith for to do so is to make it a belief which is then not faith; the bible should, at best, be a verification of our faith and an instruction into the deeper mysteries and teachings of God beyond the saving grace of Jesus Christ made possible by our evidence-less faith in Him.

8...If one is truly willing to be led by the Holy Spirit, then after being explained the gospel by another believer and accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour as long as they have a submissive will the Holy Spirit will always be able to guide, lead and teach them how to become Christ-like even without the bible. Even with the bible, without a submissive will it will do them little good, for all the study they do it will profit them little. A head full of knowledge and a heart empty of spiritual understanding and discernment will profit no man.

JPPT1974

5th September 2006, 01:27 PM

There are some Bible Teachers that
Teach in universites but what is wierd is that
They don't believe in Christ as the Messiah nor Savior & Lord! Which really bugs me a lot!

christian73

5th September 2006, 02:10 PM

1...The Holy Spirit does not study, research and interpret the scriptures. We do.

Wrong again my friend. The Holy Spirit knows more about the Scriptures than we do. Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not have to study or research. And if we ask Jesus into our hearts, it's the Holy Spirit that dwells within us. That's Who helps us understand the Bible.

2...It is by faith that we know Jesus is the Son of God, not as a result of knowledge based on study, research and interpretation.

Again, how would you know that without the Bible? If it's that important (which it is), why would people not write it down?

3...Placing our faith in Jesus no matter what (ex. errors or not in the bible) is the whole point of faith.

Take, for example, the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

Is it a real story or a parable?
What is its point, what was its purpose?
What, if any historical relevance is there in it?
Does it have anything to do with salvation?
If so, for who and how?
Is it eschatological in nature or not?
It is generally understood by the whole of Christendom or are they misled into believing it means something else entirely?Please, think on and answer these questions for this is important, for it is a demonstrable case in point to this entire subject.

To say that Jesus did not raise Lazarus from the dead is to say that Jesus is not Who He says He is. Therefore, if you believe Jesus is Who He Says He is, then you have to believe the story. Faith, my friend, faith. :)

4...If humans have to have something physical to believe in, ie the bible or anything else, then it is no longer faith but belief based upon what is seen and physically verifiable, on what is known.

I'll give you that. But you keep missing the point. I never once said put your faith in the physical book itself. I said put your faith in the message of the book. You can't have it both ways.

5...Is this a question interested nonbelievers would ask or is it something believers would ask?

Nonbelievers must act like little children not questioning and asking proof for to provide such is, again, not faith but belief based on evidences of proof.

If this is a question for believers then it should not be a faith issue necessary to believe in Jesus but to learn more about Him and how to be like Him after they have been saved which, in this case, is neither faith or belief but, instead, an exercise of that faith. "Show me thy faith without they works and I will show you my faith by my works", James wrote.

If you believe the Bible is not perfect, then why quote from it? Besides, faith without works is nothing, but works without faith is nothing.

6...Having physical evidence (ie the bible) and researching to prove Jesus is no longer faith, ie the belief in things unseen, but, again, it is belief based upon what we've learned, seen, concluded and proven to ourselves as so.

Again true. However, the Bible is our text book so we can follow His example. How could you do so without it?

7...The bible should not be our source of faith for to do so is to make it a belief which is then not faith; the bible should, at best, be a verification of our faith and an instruction into the deeper mysteries and teachings of God beyond the saving grace of Jesus Christ made possible by our evidence-less faith in Him.

Right again. But like I said before, if one believe in Jesus, but don't believe the Bible is perfect, that's riding the fence. The Bible speaks against that.

8...If one is truly willing to be led by the Holy Spirit, then after being explained the gospel by another believer and accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour as long as they have a submissive will the Holy Spirit will always be able to guide, lead and teach them how to become Christ-like even without the bible. Even with the bible, without a submissive will it will do them little good, for all the study they do it will profit them little. A head full of knowledge and a heart empty of spiritual understanding and discernment will profit no man.

But that's not the way He wanted it. You're right in the fact that it could happen that way. And you're also right that without a submissive will the Bible will do one no good. But that doesn't mean the Bible isn't perfect, which if you believe in Jesus, you must take that on faith. To say otherwise is riding the fence.

christian73

5th September 2006, 02:28 PM

Hypo, (Can I call you that for short?)

You are by far THE best debater I've ever debated with. However, do you think we're running this thread into the ground as I do? I'm not asking you to admit you're wrong (because I wouldn't admit that to you), but just declare a draw. You're not going to win me over to your side, just like I'm not going to win you over on my side. Would you like to find a fresh topic to debate?

53Isaiah

5th September 2006, 03:06 PM

But the bible is written by human beings, and not every word comes out of god's mouth. So I personally think it may be possible that the bible is not "perfect" - especially the Old Testament.
How are we to know what the errors are?

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 03:09 PM

How are we to know what the errors are?

If you understand how to listen to God there are no issues of understanding. But see there is the problem; humility comes before knowledge.:sigh:

RajunCajun86

5th September 2006, 03:15 PM

If you understand how to listen to God there are no issues of understanding.
what if God tells me something contrary to what He tells you, how then are we to decide which is right in the sight of God

but wait if we hold the two against Scripture we should then be able to determine which is right according to what God has already said

53Isaiah

5th September 2006, 03:20 PM

The problem is if we are part of a denomination we are entering into a system that has done some "picking and choosing".......otherwise there wouldn't be denominations.......LOL
Andy, you’ve participated in these type of threads for a while, always asking questions it seems not with an interest to learn form others, nor do you readily come out and share with other what you’ve learned. Debating seems to be what you seek, and it does not edify the saints.

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 03:22 PM

what if God tells me something contrary to what He tells you, how then are we to decide which is right in the sight of God

but wait if we hold the two against Scripture we should then be able to determine which is right according to what God has already said

Rest assured God does not contradict. Again, there are no "contradictions" if you are led by the Spirit not yourself.

eldermike

5th September 2006, 03:23 PM

If you understand how to listen to God there are no issues of understanding. But see there is the problem; humility comes before knowledge.:sigh:

There is another problem, if you ever obtain humility you would know you have it, and by knowing that you would no longer have it:wave:

We know what is true by choosing a standard for truth. From that standard the Holy Spirit illuminates what we need. Searching the bible is searching in truth, illumination is conviction between what is written and what we feel in our nature. The standard is written.

RajunCajun86

5th September 2006, 03:25 PM

there are no "contradictions" if you are led by the Spirit not yourself.
how can we know who is being led by the Spirit and who is acting on their own accord

but if we hold the two against Scripture then we know

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 03:29 PM

There is another problem, if you ever obtain humility you would know you have it, and by knowing that you would no longer have it:wave:

We know what is true by choosing a standard for truth. From that standard the Holy Spirit illuminates what we need. Searching the bible is searching in truth, illumination is conviction between what is written and what we feel in our nature. The standard is written.

This is untrue. This is claiming that God would instruct us in something unattainable?

It seems a mixing of ego and assurance. There is a difference.

Proverbs 15:33
The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility.

Proverbs 18:12
Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility.

Proverbs 22:4
By humility and the fear of the LORD are riches, and honour, and life.

Acts 20:19
Serving the LORD with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews:

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 03:31 PM

how can we know who is being led by the Spirit and who is acting on their own accord

but if we hold the two against Scripture then we know

Do you truly have faith that God is just and will keep His promises? If you do, then there is no worry about what path will be set in front of you.

RajunCajun86

5th September 2006, 03:33 PM

Jesus loves me this I know
For the Bible tells me so
Little ones to Him belong
They are weak but He is strong

Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
The Bible tells me so(emph added by me)
someone had the right idea

RajunCajun86

5th September 2006, 03:34 PM

Do you truly have faith that God is just and will keep His promises? If you do, then there is no worry about what path will be set in front of you.

what promises....oh the promises in the Bible?

53Isaiah

5th September 2006, 03:36 PM

what promises....oh the promises in the Bible?
:thumbsup: :clap:

Razorbuck

5th September 2006, 03:39 PM

We know what is true by choosing a standard for truth. From that standard the Holy Spirit illuminates what we need. Searching the bible is searching in truth, illumination is conviction between what is written and what we feel in our nature. The standard is written.

Park it there and PREEAACH!!

:thumbsup: :amen:

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 03:46 PM

what promises....oh the promises in the Bible?

You might be enlightened in the fact that there are translation issues in the Bible. However, neither I -- nor do I believe anyone has ever said that it would detract from God getting through. In fact, I believe I have always stated this. So not so sure what you men are so excited over… Did ya win something?:scratch:

53Isaiah

5th September 2006, 03:47 PM

RajunCajun86

5th September 2006, 03:48 PM

i repeat my question
what promises?

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 03:49 PM

This is the crux of the issue, when the Bible is not viewed as the Word of God one has no ultimate authority for Truth.

What does the Bible teach is the word of God, do you even know? I posted this I believe several pages back...

I don't see anyone here claiming that the Bible is not a source, they are saying there are translation issues.:scratch:

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 03:51 PM

i repeat my question
what promises?

If you don't know Gods promises, you need to find a new pastor. You have a Bible why don't you read it instead of relying on everyone else to tell you what to do?

Of course, unless your just stirring up trouble, in which go pick fights and cause disruption with someone else. Until your attitude changes, there is nothing more we need to discuss.:sigh:

RajunCajun86

5th September 2006, 03:57 PM

If you don't know Gods promises, you need to find a new pastor. You have a Bible why don't you read it instead of relying on everyone else to tell you what to do?
don't be so quick to belt blows at me,
it is a legitimate question, i am asking what promises you are referring to and where they are?

RajunCajun86

5th September 2006, 03:58 PM

and don't EVER attack my pastor who is also my father

Razorbuck

5th September 2006, 03:58 PM

What does the Bible teach is the word of God, do you even know? I posted this I believe several pages back...

I don't see anyone here claiming that the Bible is not a source, they are saying there are translation issues.:scratch:

Not me. My bible has no translation issues, praise God!

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 04:12 PM

and don't EVER attack my pastor who is also my father
You said you did not know Gods promises in this realm, it is not my fault he is your father. This is a basic thing all Christians should be made aware of right away.

Proverbs 2
3Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
4If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

James 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

A quick reference to promises/assurances by subject for future:

http://ww2.intouch.org/site/c.7nKFISNvEqG/b.1034467/k.9C8E/Gods_Promises.htm

Razorbuck, This is untrue. There are clearly errors in translation between the two languages. All Biblical scholars agree the Bible is translated at only a 98% accuracy, with no distortion to the gospel.

HypoTypoSis

5th September 2006, 04:20 PM

3...Placing our faith in Jesus no matter what (ex. errors or not in the bible) is the whole point of faith.

Take, for example, the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

Is it a real story or a parable?
What is its point, what was its purpose?
What, if any historical relevance is there in it?
Does it have anything to do with salvation?
If so, for who and how?
Is it eschatological in nature or not?
Is it generally understood by the whole of Christendom or are they misled into believing it means something else entirely?Please, think on and answer these questions for this is important, for it is a demonstrable case in point to this entire subject.

To say that Jesus did not raise Lazarus from the dead

Wrong Lazarus, please see the parable in Luke 16:19-31, it will then be easier for us to discuss point 3 above.

RajunCajun86

5th September 2006, 04:26 PM

You said you did not know Gods promises in this realm, it is not my fault he is your father. This is a basic thing all Christians should be made aware of right away.
wrong. i did not say i didn't know what they are i asked what promises you were referring to and where they where found
you are right it is not your fault he is my father it is God's fault and i considered myself blessed
"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, `From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.' "
John 7:38

HypoTypoSis

5th September 2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26480125#post26480125)
1...The Holy Spirit does not study, research and interpret the scriptures. We do.

Wrong again my friend. The Holy Spirit knows more about the Scriptures than we do. Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not have to study or research. And if we ask Jesus into our hearts, it's the Holy Spirit that dwells within us. That's Who helps us understand the Bible.

Then how can my statement be wrong? We're saying the same thing.

Razorbuck

5th September 2006, 04:28 PM

Razorbuck, This is untrue. There are clearly errors in translation between the two languages. All Biblical scholars agree the Bible is translated at only a 98% accuracy, with no distortion to the gospel.

With respect dear sister, I believe God perfectly preserved His Word and I have a copy, biblical scholars notwithstanding.

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 04:30 PM

With respect dear sister, I believe God perfectly preserved His Word and I have a copy, biblical scholars notwithstanding.

Not sure what Bible you got, but I am sure it would become a commodity especially in the Theology Schools, particularly in the Baptist Theology Schools!

HypoTypoSis

5th September 2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26480125#post26480125)
2...It is by faith that we know Jesus is the Son of God, not as a result of knowledge based on study, research and interpretation.

Again, how would you know that without the Bible? If it's that important (which it is), why would people not write it down?

The same way they knew before they had the bible. By 'hearing" the word. Faith is not based on something we can see, feel or touch. Things that can be seen, felt and touched are believed because their is physical evidence to prove it. That is not faith. That is belief.

RajunCajun86

5th September 2006, 04:30 PM

I believe God perfectly preserved His Word
i have faith and trust in His sovereignty over His own Word

HypoTypoSis

5th September 2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:
7...The bible should not be our source of faith for to do so is to make it a belief which is then not faith; the bible should, at best, be a verification of our faith and an instruction into the deeper mysteries and teachings of God beyond the saving grace of Jesus Christ made possible by our evidence-less faith in Him.
like I said before, if one believe in Jesus, but don't believe the Bible is perfect, that's riding the fence. The Bible speaks against that.
.

Of course it's not, the two are not synonymous.

The bible does not say Jesus and the bible are synonymous and neither does the bible speak against it.

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 04:38 PM

i have faith and trust in His sovereignty over His own Word

No one is disputing the spiritual issue with you two you are just fighting yourselves here?:confused:

RajunCajun86

5th September 2006, 04:39 PM

The bible does not say Jesus and the bible are synonymous
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1
just thought i would toss that out there

RajunCajun86

5th September 2006, 04:40 PM

No one is disputing the spiritual issue with you two you are just fighting yourselves here?:confused:no i was agreeing with him,
A for effort

Razorbuck

5th September 2006, 04:50 PM

No one is disputing the spiritual issue with you two you are just fighting yourselves here?:confused:

I'm confused, am I one of the two you are referring to?

I'm not fightin' anybody, honest! I just saw the bit about 'translation issues' and chimed in with my belief in a perfect translation. (the Authorized Version to be clear) No contention. I didn't even read the whole thread. But maybe I oughta, huh?

HypoTypoSis

5th September 2006, 05:01 PM

1...But that's not the way He wanted it.

2...if you believe in Jesus, you must take that [the bible] on faith.

1...Apparently, it is because that's the way it has happened for two thousand years and even into today!

Romans 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

How were men saved for fifteen hundred years before the bible was printed? How about all those from Jesus time to your neighbors down the street and across the world that still cannot read?

2...You are equating Jesus and the bible. The bible does not save, Jesus Saves. Take nothing and no one ever on faith. Only Jesus is to be taken on faith.

---------

Technically, the bible is not even for the unsaved but the saved alone. It is of spiritual matters only the spiritual can discern, which is something the unsaved are incapable of since they do not have a spirit given them by God, they are not His, and they are not indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

So the unsaved are saved by hearing the word of God and the saved study the word of God to spiritually understand the spiritual things of God.

There are always exception to the rule but those are always the rare and isolated incidents. A man stranded on a desert island with only the bible possibly could well in time come to the realization that he must submit his will to that of God - if he was so predisposed - and then be saved but that would be a rare exception.

The unsaved see the bible as 'just another story' as though it were 'just another piece of literature' a 'piece of fiction handed down over the ages'.

How is the Holy Spirit in you going to convict anyone if you don't personally present the gospel message to them?

It's not the preacher's job to go out and 'save the world', that's your job; his job is to train, teach and care for his flock and he stands up there every Sunday telling you to go out into the highways and the biways.

But somehow most never get it as they go home, eat Sunday dinner and pass out in front of the game preparing for Monday's start of the next secular work week.

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 05:07 PM

I'm confused, am I one of the two you are referring to?

I'm not fightin' anybody, honest! I just saw the bit about 'translation issues' and chimed in with my belief in a perfect translation. (The Authorized Version to be clear) No contention. I didn't even read the whole thread. But maybe I oughta, huh?
I wondered what was going on, it is not usually your style.

The discussion is it seems if there are translation issues in the Bible, literally (text) there are, however spiritually God will overcome these (my perspective and most others.)

However, this issue is being challenged that the Bible in its literal translation form is perfect. Which even Biblical scholars do not agree that it is. You will find even divisions within our own denomination. Then it seems people are rabbit trailing into other realms for whatever reason.. Mainly, if the bible isn’t perfect, somehow we are less than perfect Christians for thinking so...or some twisting of that nature.. Some are becoming very combative about it resembling KJOists…:sigh:
Then you chime in – “The Bible is Perfect” to me??:scratch: ;)

As for me, I have had enough of this constant combative and threatening nature this forum has been allowed to turn into...so I think I have said all that needs to be at this point.

53Isaiah

5th September 2006, 05:27 PM

What does the Bible teach is the word of God, do you even know? I posted this I believe several pages back...
I do not know what you posted. But the answer is Jesus. Christ Jesus is the Word of God:
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
....
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 05:34 PM

I do not know what you posted. But the answer is Jesus. Christ Jesus is the Word of God:
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
....
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
:wave: So why are you arguing with me here that the word of God is not "a" book?:doh: :scratch: ………………….
This is the crux of the issue, when the Bible is not viewed as the Word of God one has no ultimate authority for Truth.
And do a search on the word of God and how it is delivered throughout the bible. It is referenced in many ways..:)

53Isaiah

5th September 2006, 05:38 PM

I wondered what was going on, it is not usually your style.

The discussion is it seems if there are translation issues in the Bible, literally (text) there are, however spiritually God will overcome these (my perspective and most others.)

However, this issue is being challenged that the Bible in its literal translation form is perfect. Which even Biblical scholars do not agree that it is. You will find even divisions within our own denomination. Then it seems people are rabbit trailing into other realms for whatever reason.. Mainly, if the bible isn’t perfect, somehow we are less than perfect Christians for thinking so...or some twisting of that nature.. Some are becoming very combative about it resembling KJOists…:sigh:
Then you chime in – “The Bible is Perfect” to me??:scratch: ;)

As for me, I have had enough of this constant combative and threatening nature this forum has been allowed to turn into...so I think I have said all that needs to be at this point.

If you do not feel as thought people are posting with Gal 5:22 in mind, then my all means do not reply. I do it all the time.

Remember there are very few here that seek truth, most are just using CF for debate as an emotional outlet.

53Isaiah

5th September 2006, 05:39 PM

:wave: So why are you arguing with me here that the word of God is not "a" book?:doh: :scratch: ………………….

And do a search on the word of God and how it is delivered throughout the bible. It is referenced in many ways..:)
#1
I do not find your doh, scratch, smile, and tone much in line with:
Galatians 6
1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.

#2
The Word of God is spoken
The Word of God is writen
The Word of God is revealed by the Holy Spirit
The Word of God is Jesus

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 05:46 PM

If you do not feel as thought people are posting with Gal 5:22 in mind, then my all means do not reply. I do it all the time, and there are those you are not seeking truth, rather just using CF for debate as an emotional outlet.

Let me tell you a little something here, I have been taught to be wise as the serpant and harmless as a dove. I know for a fact in this thread alone there are repeated examples of disrespet. I have been watching it for quite a while.

You might have something else in mind, but your posts seem quite different. Not to mention others in this thread.

I have been on CF for quite a while now, I did not earn reputation points and friends for carriying an attitude such as what I have witnessed here since the Mod change. I think it is clear I don't just come for "debate." Good grief.

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 05:49 PM

#1 I do not find your doh, scratch and waving much in line with Gal 5:22.

BTW, Doh, and scratching my head in confusion means exactly that what are you fighting? Stick to a subject and run with it, quit hopping all over the place, I cannot, none of us can follow what you are speaking of?
It is like saying HELLO?? What is going on here?? I am confused??:confused: :confused:

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 05:51 PM

If you do not feel as thought people are posting with Gal 5:22 in mind, then my all means do not reply. I do it all the time.

Remember there are very few here that seek truth, most are just using CF for debate as an emotional outlet.

I know your not talking to me?:confused:

53Isaiah

5th September 2006, 05:59 PM

Let me tell you a little something here, I have been taught to be wise as the serpent and harmless as a dove. I know for a fact in this thread alone there are repeated examples of disrespect. I have been watching it for quite a while.

I myself would not desire to be as wise as the serpent. The serpent is Satan, and I do not find someone attempting to exalt their thrown over God’s as very wise.

You might have something else in mind, but your posts seem quite different. Not to mention others in this thread.

I can only guess that you have me confused with someone else, else why would you presume that my intentions are anything but sincere? If you had a concern a friendly PM would have cleared things up.

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 06:02 PM

I myself would not desire to be as wise as the serpent. The serpent is Satan, and I do not find someone attempting to exalt their thrown over God’s as very wise.

I can only guess that you have me confused with someone else, else why would you presume that my intentions are anything but sincere? If you had a concern a friendly PM would have cleared things up.

You, young man, speak out of both sides of your mouth..

FYI..
Matthew 10:16
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

53Isaiah

5th September 2006, 06:02 PM

I know your not talking to me?:confused:
Yes I am. I am encouraging you to only participate in fruitful discussion, and if you do not feel as thou it is fruitful to avoid it. I was trying to help with the frustration you’ve expressed in the thread. I am trying to help you :cry:

53Isaiah

5th September 2006, 06:15 PM

You, young man, speak out of both sides of your mouth..

FYI..
Matthew 10:16
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Go back and read what you said.
I have been taught to be wise as the serpent and harmless as a dove
(BOLD for my emphasis).

Look at what the Word of God says:
be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
(BOLD for my emphasis).

I knew being as wise as Satan ('the Serpent'), was not what you intended but is a good example why the Word of God is it important. One simple translation error makes what you say entirely different.

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 06:27 PM

Yes I am. I am encouraging you to only participate in fruitful discussion, and if you do not feel as thou it is fruitful to avoid it. I was trying to help with the frustration you’ve expressed in the thread. I am trying to help you :cry:

Then YOU should have sent a PM if you felt compelled to do so. You would have not addressed me as you have in the many posts of discussion.

"#1 I do not find your doh, scratch, smile, and tone much in line with:"
"I myself would not desire to be as wise as the serpent. The serpent is Satan, and I do not find someone attempting to exalt their thrown over God’s as very wise."
Besides the fact your interpretation of the verse is quite different than my intent. I never wished to dethrone God.

I could go on an on from other threads and posts...

The point is, I have watched several say the same things over and over to you --- in fact the same things you are saying. Instead you are either not listening or wishing to argue. I think the repeated time-consuming attempts of clarification should be a clue people are trying to attempt to have a fruitful discussion. It has taken how many pages and sharp remarks on your part to others before you finally get the fact no one is completely disagreeing here? To help towards a fruitful discussion I would think you would want to be clear, and request clarification of others in that discussion, rather than coming back at them in circles?

Is the Bible perfect? In the spiritual sense, yes; In the literal sense, no. That is my stance. As I said before end of discussion for me.

BTW, you won’t see many PM’s from me. I try very much to avoid them. If I have something to say, everyone knows about it (within reason). I don’t have anything to say that cannot be said in front of everyone. I have several reasons for this. Namely the problem with gossip, also the problem with accountability and getting to know others characters in this medium.

I knew being as wise as Satan ('the Serpent'), was not what you intended but is a good example why the Word of God is it important. One simple translation error makes what you say entirely different.
My point exactly, if you knew, why come at me with your previous response in that manner?
The way I see it, if there are this many communication issues with a poster, there is no need to discuss.

53Isaiah

5th September 2006, 06:42 PM

Then YOU should have sent a PM if you felt compelled to do so........there is no need to discuss.
Well I am humble enough to apologize. Nothing I say is intended to do anything but edify the saints. I have apparently failed in my attempt to loving discuss with you what I believe the Word of God to be and say while addressing your concern of my sincerity. Suspecting that our discussion is done, I will let you know I have and will give prayerful consideration to what you’ve said and do value you more than is any difference in opinion we may have.

Flynmonkie

5th September 2006, 06:52 PM

Well I am humble enough to apologize. Nothing I say is intended to do anything but edify the saints. I have apparently failed in my attempt to loving discuss with you what I believe the Word of God to be and say while addressing your concern of my sincerity. Suspecting that our discussion is done, I will let you know I have and will give prayerful consideration to what you’ve said and do value you more than is any difference in opinion we may have.

No apologies needed! I think now we are on the same page! It takes a while to learn about others, their beliefs, and their posting style in a good fruitful discussion. Confrontation, laying cards on the table helps this along. Thank you for your patience with my style of posting :)

FWIW I think you usually articulate yourself very well and are genuinely devoted to understanding. :hug:

christian73

5th September 2006, 07:03 PM

1...Apparently, it is because that's the way it has happened for two thousand years and even into today!

Romans 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

How were men saved for fifteen hundred years before the bible was printed? How about all those from Jesus time to your neighbors down the street and across the world that still cannot read?

2...You are equating Jesus and the bible. The bible does not save, Jesus Saves. Take nothing and no one ever on faith. Only Jesus is to be taken on faith.

---------

Technically, the bible is not even for the unsaved but the saved alone. It is of spiritual matters only the spiritual can discern, which is something the unsaved are incapable of since they do not have a spirit given them by God, they are not His, and they are not indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

So the unsaved are saved by hearing the word of God and the saved study the word of God to spiritually understand the spiritual things of God.

There are always exception to the rule but those are always the rare and isolated incidents. A man stranded on a desert island with only the bible possibly could well in time come to the realization that he must submit his will to that of God - if he was so predisposed - and then be saved but that would be a rare exception.

The unsaved see the bible as 'just another story' as though it were 'just another piece of literature' a 'piece of fiction handed down over the ages'.

How is the Holy Spirit in you going to convict anyone if you don't personally present the gospel message to them?

It's not the preacher's job to go out and 'save the world', that's your job; his job is to train, teach and care for his flock and he stands up there every Sunday telling you to go out into the highways and the biways.

But somehow most never get it as they go home, eat Sunday dinner and pass out in front of the game preparing for Monday's start of the next secular work week.

ok. I see what you're saying. But don't you think Christians need the Bible as a "text book" so to speak. I mean, if you go to college to become an engineer, you can't learn how to be one without having a text book. Once you become a Christian, you need something to help you learn to be more like Him. Would you agree?

I agree with a lot of what you say. Howev