The authority of scripture

[Warrior76]

Many people do not realize the true authority of scripture. The King James version of the Bible is the most true and accurate translation of the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin written letters, books, poems and gospels from 2000 B.C. to c. A.D. 31 If you read other translations(NIV, NKJV etc.)These are merely further translations of the KJV.This, however is not about the KJV, rather the word of God in its fullness. Despite what you may hear, the word of God is supreme and totally infallible in all of its entirety. It does not change with society like the Constitution, or contradict itself. It was written as an inspiration of God by over 16 different authors over a 2,040 year period who some never came into contact with other authors. It expresses the supreme and infallible majesty of the adorable Godhead, the message of salvation by Jesus Christ and by Grace, not by works (see Galatians), the guide for living, and clearly reveals that both the Old and New Testaments were inspired by God. No book can be compared to it and there is not "Another Testament of Jesus Christ"(See Galatians). This is the Holy Bible, with the Old and New Testaments collected, translated from the original tongues, and with former translations diligently compared and Authorized by King James of England. No part ever came from the Roman Catholic church. The Bible is our guide for living and a message of hope, it is the infallible unchanging word of God. Just to any of you wondering, that is the authority of scripture.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Amen to that! That's truth from God!

[muffler dragon]

I agree with the authority of the Word of G-d. I just wonder why you're pimping the KJV along with this idea, but that's your thang.

m.d.

[BBAS 64]

Many people do not realize the true authority of scripture. The King James version of the Bible is the most true and accurate translation of the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin written letters, books, poems and gospels from 2000 B.C. to c. A.D. 31 If you read other translations(NIV, NKJV etc.)These are merely further translations of the KJV.This, however is not about the KJV, rather the word of God in its fullness. Despite what you may hear, the word of God is supreme and totally infallible in all of its entirety. It does not change with society like the Constitution, or contradict itself. It was written as an inspiration of God by over 16 different authors over a 2,040 year period who some never came into contact with other authors. It expresses the supreme and infallible majesty of the adorable Godhead, the message of salvation by Jesus Christ and by Grace, not by works (see Galatians), the guide for living, and clearly reveals that both the Old and New Testaments were inspired by God. No book can be compared to it and there is not "Another Testament of Jesus Christ"(See Galatians). This is the Holy Bible, with the Old and New Testaments collected, translated from the original tongues, and with former translations diligently compared and Authorized by King James of England. No part ever came from the Roman Catholic church. The Bible is our guide for living and a message of hope, it is the infallible unchanging word of God. Just to any of you wondering, that is the authority of scripture.
Good day, Warrior

Lots of stuff here some of it is true, others are asserstions that lack historical reality. Couple of Questions if I may:

Would you point me to a Latin document written before 31 ad?
What are your feelings on the Bishop's bible as it was refered to many times by the authors of the KJV.
What do you think about the Geneva bible of the 1500's?
Was not Erasmus an Roman Catholic?
Have you read the Chicago statement of Biblical Inerrancy?

Peace to u,

Bill

[Eusebios]

I'll ask my standard question at this point. Let me start by saying that the KJV, as asthetically pleasing as it is, contains the Maseoretic (sp?) OT. This POST-dates the LXX (http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/) by roughly 1000 years and was produced by the Council of Jamnia, Jews hostile to the message and jealous of the growth of Christendom. That being the case, why would one want to rely on it to portray accurately the salvation history of God's people? The LXX was writtenn by devout Jews, eagerly anticipating the messiah.
I like a number of your points, they are good. I agree with Bill on others and eagerly anticpate further discussion.
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.
:bow:

[TwinCrier]

Amen Warrior. The greatest witness to the corruption of modern bibles is to look at what they choose to lable as uninspired. How many times they leave out Christ, blood, and reference to the trinity. (http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html) If 'thees and thous' are such a problem, why not change the hymn books as well?

[muffler dragon]

Amen Warrior. The greatest witness to the corruption of modern bibles is to look at what they choose to lable as uninspired. How many times they leave out Christ, blood, and reference to the trinity. (http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html) If 'thees and thous' are such a problem, why not change the hymn books as well?
I apologize to the OP for asking a question that has nothing to do with it, but I have to ask of TwinCrier:

are you asserting the hymns to the level of Scripture? Because other than that, I don't see your point.

m.d.

[LuxPerpetua]

I would agree with you that Scripture should be our highest earthly authority but I would disagree that it is our only source of authority. No *translation* is infallible, including the KJV, but that's for another discussion. As the Lutheran church teaches, the original autographs of Scripture are inerrant but the Scriptures as we now have them cannot claim to be perfect--but, even then, they are our highest spiritual authority outside of a direct revelation from the Almighty himself.

[Svt4Him]

If you read other translations(NIV, NKJV etc.)These are merely further translations of the KJV
Whether you made this up or someone else, it shows a total lack of understanding about any translation.

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

The Chicago statement:

http://faith.propadeutic.com/chicago.html

Also recomended reading is Explaining Inerrancy, RC Sproul. At the current price of $2.00 it is a must.

https://ecom.ligonier.org/ecom/product.asp?idProduct=EXP01BP

Peace to u,

Bill

[praying]

I just wonder why you're pimping the KJV along with this idea, but that's your thang.

m.d.

:D

[Grace_Alone4gives]

I agree that the Word of God is inerrent and infallaible - but I do not believe the NIV and other translations to be a further translation of the KJV. Maybe the NKJV is (which is my personal fav.).
Regardless, Amen the you original point that God's Word is above all!!!

[TwinCrier]

I apologize to the OP for asking a question that has nothing to do with it, but I have to ask of TwinCrier:

are you asserting the hymns to the level of Scripture? Because other than that, I don't see your point.

m.d.No, not I. The point I am trying to make is that the archaic language doesn't seem to bother anyone singing hymns, reading Shakespeare or such, but yet the bible does. But it seems some hold them above scripture since they would never alter a note or syllable of a sacred hymn, but repeatedly alter the scriptures as evidenced in the link:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html

[TwinCrier]

I would agree with you that Scripture should be our highest earthly authority but I would disagree that it is our only source of authority. No *translation* is infallible, including the KJV, but that's for another discussion. As the Lutheran church teaches, the original autographs of Scripture are inerrant but the Scriptures as we now have them cannot claim to be perfect--but, even then, they are our highest spiritual authority outside of a direct revelation from the Almighty himself.So how do you know which parts of the bible are not in error? Could it be the entire bible is wrong?

[muffler dragon]

No, not I. The point I am trying to make is that the archaic language doesn't seem to bother anyone singing hymns, reading Shakespeare or such, but yet the bible does. But it seems some hold them above scripture since they would never alter a note or syllable of a sacred hymn, but repeatedly alter the scriptures as evidenced in the link:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html
I'll let you go ahead and enjoy this sovereignty you provide the KJV, because I have never seen it lead to a pleasant conversation.

Anyway, it's a bit off the realm of the authority of Scripture in the OP.

Take care,

m.d.

[TwinCrier]

Uhm thanks, I think. I know it's hard for modernists to let KJ Onlies keep their faith in God's sovergn word. I hope you have a chance to compare some of the verses in whatever version you're using to the verses in the link. It really is an eye opener.

[BBAS 64]

Uhm thanks, I think. I know it's hard for modernists to let KJ Onlies keep their faith in God's sovergn word. I hope you have a chance to compare some of the verses in whatever version you're using to the verses in the link. It really is an eye opener.
MD:

I would agree here that the comparisions must be made. I would also reccommend that a Greek version and grammer, be taken into account. As you start to exergesis the Greek it will drive the translation that best fits to come to a picture of theology from the intent of the orignal text.

IMHO it is best to remeber that the scripture was not written in english.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Very true. I see a lot of English speakers thinking that their language is all important and such. As a speaker of Latin, reading the Bible in different languages is one of the best things you can do to get a correct interpretation.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

A parallel bible is an amazing resource to have, Zondervan's Greek Lexicon is also invaluable, as well as a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. I wouldn't study without them!

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Yes, also, Novum Testamentum: Graece et Latine is a side by side Greek-Latin Bible. Very useful if you speak either of the languages.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I am learning greek, but I have no real reason to learn Latin. I am actually studying Hebrew next, and then possibly Aramiac, that covers everything I really need to know to study scripture IMO. But I do not doubt that it is an excellent reference for those that speak Latin.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Oh, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew should cover it. I speak Latin as an actual language however, I didn't just learn it to study the Bible. In my opinion, it is one of the best, or the best, language to learn: easy, simple, and MANY other languages are based off it.

[Larry]

Many people do not realize the true authority of scripture. The King James version of the Bible is the most true and accurate translation of the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin written letters, books, poems and gospels from 2000 B.C. to c. A.D. 31 If you read other translations(NIV, NKJV etc.)These are merely further translations of the KJV.This, however is not about the KJV, rather the word of God in its fullness. Despite what you may hear, the word of God is supreme and totally infallible in all of its entirety. It does not change with society like the Constitution, or contradict itself. It was written as an inspiration of God by over 16 different authors over a 2,040 year period who some never came into contact with other authors. It expresses the supreme and infallible majesty of the adorable Godhead, the message of salvation by Jesus Christ and by Grace, not by works (see Galatians), the guide for living, and clearly reveals that both the Old and New Testaments were inspired by God. No book can be compared to it and there is not "Another Testament of Jesus Christ"(See Galatians). This is the Holy Bible, with the Old and New Testaments collected, translated from the original tongues, and with former translations diligently compared and Authorized by King James of England. No part ever came from the Roman Catholic church. The Bible is our guide for living and a message of hope, it is the infallible unchanging word of God. Just to any of you wondering, that is the authority of scripture.

I would agree with the overall content of your statement, but we part on the issue of the KJV.

[muffler dragon]

MD:

I would agree here that the comparisions must be made. I would also reccommend that a Greek version and grammer, be taken into account. As you start to exergesis the Greek it will drive the translation that best fits to come to a picture of theology from the intent of the orignal text.

IMHO it is best to remeber that the scripture was not written in english.

Peace to u,

Bill
Bill:

I'm not an advocate of any version. I have read the NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, Living Translation and the Amplified. I'm looking into reading a Jewish Bible now, but haven't purchased it yet. Why do I read different versions, because I glean something new from each. Do I think one stands above the rest? Not particularly. There are some I favor. I have been told that when getting into actual debates, only three are recognized: NIV, NASB, and KJV. I have complete and utter confidence in the authority of Scripture; however, I don't place that confidence in one particular version. If TwinCrier or anyone else wants to hold the KJV in higher esteem, then I think that is great, but also a matter of opinion and not firm understanding of original manuscripts.

m.d.

[Amadeus]

Does anyone else agree that having a Bible alone is enough to build a relationship with God? I can imagine being stuck on an island, with just me and my Bible. That might be the Traditionalist's nightmare, but I think that the Bible is perfect, infallible, holy, inerrant, because, think about it. If God is going to speak to you, it's gotta be from a perfect and holy source. Therefore, if you believe that the Bible is not inerrant, then what the heck CAN you trust for God's Word??? Man? A Church? Tradition (which is just silly. Ever play "Telephone")?

[muffler dragon]

Does anyone else agree that having a Bible alone is enough to build a relationship with God? I can imagine being stuck on an island, with just me and my Bible. That might be the Traditionalist's nightmare, but I think that the Bible is perfect, infallible, holy, inerrant, because, think about it. If God is going to speak to you, it's gotta be from a perfect and holy source. Therefore, if you believe that the Bible is not inerrant, then what the heck CAN you trust for God's Word??? Man? A Church? Tradition (which is just silly. Ever play "Telephone")?
I would agree, because that's more or less how I operate the majority of the time now.

m.d.

[Filia Mariae]

No part ever came from the Roman Catholic church. While you are entitled to your opinion, forum rules specify that you need to support such claims.

[TwinCrier]

The Catholic church 'owned' many manuscripts, but I hope we can all agree that the bible came from God. http://www.bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Yep. All books were written in the first century. Catholics weren't around till third or fourth century I don't think. Does anyone have a more specific date?

[Eusebios]

Yep. All books were written in the first century. Catholics weren't around till third or fourth century I don't think. Does anyone have a more specific date?
The One Holy Catholic (read universal) and Apostolic Church has been around since Pentecost, 33 A.D. It was in fact the Church that has given us the canon as we know it today, though the various authors all had their inspiration's source in God.
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.
:bow:

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Yes, but I am not talking about the original Catholic and Apostolic Church, I am talking about the denomination presently referred to as Catholic.

[Filia Mariae]

Yes, but I am not talking about the original Catholic and Apostolic Church, I am talking about the denomination presently referred to as Catholic.
We make no distinction. Further, your assertion that the Catholic Church did not exist until three or four hundred years after Christ is baseless and you have offered absolutely no supporting evidence.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

A lot of churches make no distinction, but popes weren't around for a while anyways.

[BBAS 64]

A lot of churches make no distinction, but popes weren't around for a while anyways.Good Day, Bizzlebin

That would be a long while:

From a RC authour:

Webster’s section on St. Cyprian also demonstrates his unwillingness to represent fairly the process and necessity of doctrinal development within the Church. As we have demonstrated earlier in this book: the oak tree has grown and looks perceptibly different from the fragile sprout that cracked the original acorn, yet the organic essence and identity remain the same. Do the words of the very first Christians contain the full-blown understanding of the Papcy as expressed in Vatican I? No, they do not, as Webster correctly observes (Steve Ray, Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999, p. 184).


Gregory the Great (Gregory I c. 540-603): Certainly the apostle Paul, when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:13), regarded with the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord’s body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of Universal? NPNF2: Vol. XII, Selected Epistles, Book 5, Epistle 18 - To John, bishop of Constantinople.

Gregory the Great (Gregory I c. 540-603): Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). And again it is said to him, And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (22:32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (John 21:17). Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself stablished the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee that they also may be one in us (John 17:21). NPNF2: Vol. XII, Selected Epistles, Book 7, Epistle 40 - To Eulogius, bishop.

Stephen Excommunicated



"they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles...But with respect to the refutation of custom which they {the Roman church} seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or when he sees the light, not to forsake the darkness?...And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen {bishop of Rome}, that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans' custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles....But indeed you {Stephen} are worse than all heretics....Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all...But as far as he {Stephen} is concerned, let us leave him...And yet Stephen is not ashamed to afford patronage to such in opposition to the Church, and for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood and in addition, to call Cyprian 'a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker.' And he, conscious that all these characters are in himself, has been in advance of you, by falsely objecting to another those things which he himself ought deservedly to hear." (Firmilian, Cyprian's Letter 74:6, 74:19, 74:23-24, 74:26)




Peace to u,

Bill

[Filia Mariae]

A lot of churches make no distinction, but popes weren't around for a while anyways.
Also stated with no supporting evidence. :sigh:

[Filia Mariae]

BBAS,

You are manipulating the words of Steve Ray. I would encourage you to actually read his book.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Who was the first person to call themselves a pope?

[Filia Mariae]

St. Peter.

I will not be participating in this thread anymore because I don't want to break forum rules. If you truly are interested in the papacy and history or the Church, you are welcome anytime in OBOB.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

-=<] MOD HAT ON [>=-
This thread is cloaed. Please read the rules for this forum regarding debating other faith's doctrines and claims. If you want to discuss the authority of scripture without bringing up any Catholic claims and attempting to refute them, please start another thread. However in the future all topics that adress scripture and the Catholic church will be moved to OBOB so that you can get an accurate representation of their beliefs and claims.
-=<] MOD HAT OFF [>=-