Why I hate the Bible... Or so they say?

[Aunty Jane]

Some interesting points raised here…..

The prophets were inspired. Sometimes they were edited/redacted after the fact, and the editors/redactors don't seem to have been inspired or inerrant. Oops.

Some books aren't written by prophets. They aren't inspired and don't claim to be... except for one verse in 2nd Timothy that the church has badly wrested from its original meaning.

You know what they call it when a doctrine is built on a single controversial verse without corroboration elsewhere in Scripture?

Spoiler

Theology

The question raised with this line of thinking is….can we trust that what we accept today as God’s word…actually is?
Can the average person discern what is “theocratic” from what is called “theology”….especially if they are claiming to be one and the same?

If God had his word recorded in Jesus’ day, and he and his apostles taught and quoted from the only “inspired Scripture” in existence at that time….and because Greek was the common language, the Greek Septuagint was used to bring Gentile believers to Christ……can we take for granted that God not only inspired the contents of the Bible, but also preserved its meaning intact, down through the centuries to our day….in spite of all the things you have mentioned?

At what point do we doubt what it teaches? And if some of it is not God’s word, then who discerns what is? Can we just throw it all away and rely on our own thinking? Satan would love that!

Some have actually done that, and end up seeing themselves as the exclusive mouthpiece of God….we know that God has never operated that way. The last prophet inspired by God, was his beloved son.

I don't find it helpful to discuss "original manuscripts." We don't have them.

This is true, but as they discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls….the preservation was incredibly accutate when compared with manuscripts that were written later…..
It is the Bible’s message and overall theme that is preserved, regardless of the age or the translation.

If it is God’s word…then all of it is…..if it’s not, then nothing it contains has more than superficial value.
Prophesy was merely the ramblings of those who were mentally disturbed.

There's no such thing as a perfect translation. Each language codifies parts of the culture to which it belongs. You can translate base meaning from one language to another, but cultural nuances simply don't translate.

Well, they do if there is consistency with the rest of what is written. No one can use one isolated verse to imply a doctrine….doctrine is set in concrete…not mud….and has to be supported by the rest of Scripture.

Some languages have types of words that others don't. For instance, Biblical Greek has perfect participles, and a bunch of different ways to case them. English doesn't have those things, and instead uses additional "helping" words to try to achieve the same meaning. It doesn't always work.

But without them, none of it would work. Phrasing is a problem, but again it is the message, not the translated words that make the difference.
Would God provide an instruction manual where the instructions mean different things in different languages. Why would he? Who is it that likes to create confusion? Not God.

Biblical Hebrew is a mess. Every word contains letters that are not written out, and the reader/translator is expected to imply the correct letters. Depending on what letters you imply, you could end up with a dozen different meanings. There are also no spaces between words, so the reader/translator also needs to figure out where each words starts and stops. Finally, there are places where the authors deliberately use this ambiguity about what each word means to give multiple meanings. It's completely impossible to translate this - the translator is forced to pick a single meaning for the word when he translates.

And this is perhaps where Interlinear translations are helpful…..see how the translators conveyed the message in the words, not just the words themselves.…and how these words are translated in other passages, to highlight more than one meaning.

I am no scholar, but I do love to do research, especially in how words and phrases are translated from original languages. It allows me to see where things are fudged to obscure the truth, and to prop up doctrines that Christ never taught. These have been around so long that few people even today, question their validity.

 

[Wick Stick]

The question raised with this line of thinking is….can we trust that what we accept today as God’s word…actually is?

Not everything in every book is God's direct words. If a book says, "God delivered this message to me," then I take it as inspired. If it says, "here's a list of rulers over Israel that I got from a history book," then I don't.

It's not actually complicated to figure out what is inspired and what is not. You don't need a theology degree. You just believe what each book says about itself.

If God had his word recorded in Jesus’ day, and he and his apostles taught and quoted from the only “inspired Scripture” in existence at that time…

Great point. I've found it instructive to look at exactly what Jesus and His apostles quoted as Scripture.

I did a very long word study and found 207 places where the New Testament quotes Old Testament prophets. It quotes non-prophets only 15 times that I found.

That huge discrepancy has led me to believe that Jesus and the Apostles viewed the words of the prophets as more important than those who weren't prophets. They seem to view them as having authority that the others don't.

can we take for granted that God not only inspired the contents of the Bible, but also preserved its meaning intact, down through the centuries to our day….in spite of all the things you have mentioned?

Taking things for granted is usually wrong. We have a long history of scholarship on this subject. We have a track record showing that the Bible hasn't changed much since the 4th century BC. Where things have changed, we mostly know what changed.

If it is God’s word…then all of it is…..if it’s not, then nothing it contains has more than superficial value.

The all-or-nothing argument doesn't really work logically. It isn't one book, it's 66. Each book deserves to be considered separately. If one is found credible, that doesn't make the others better. If one is found to have errors, that doesn't mean the others do.

Some books are just better than others. Deuteronomy is more important than Ruth. The prophets are a cut above the rest.

 

[Aunty Jane]

It's not actually complicated to figure out what is inspired and what is not. You don't need a theology degree. You just believe what each book says about itself.

It has to be complicated if so many fail to concur with the interpretation of others….who can say “I know the truth” when so many others are saying the same thing?

How did Jesus tell us to judge the difference? He said “by their fruits” we would know his true disciples….these would be standing out from others, more because of what they won’t do, as opposed to what they will. Actions speak lounder than words.

For example, if Jesus told us to be “no part of the world”….and James said that “friendship with the world is enmity with God”….(James 4:4) can we be “friends with this world” and still retain God’s friendship?

Where is the line of demarcation? How can you tell if you’ve overstepped?

That huge discrepancy has led me to believe that Jesus and the Apostles viewed the words of the prophets as more important than those who weren't prophets. They seem to view them as having authority that the others don't.

The Law and the Prophets set down so much information about what God requires of his worshippers….and the bad example of God’s people teach us more about God than anything their fleeting good examples ever did.….yet, it seems that most even today are requiring something from God whilst giving him little in return.

What is it that God’s children can give to God that he cannot give to himself?

We have a long history of scholarship on this subject. We have a track record showing that the Bible hasn't changed much since the 4th century BC. Where things have changed, we mostly know what changed.

And that change is clearly demonstrated in the failure of the Jewish people to accept Jesus as Messiah…..and then once Christianity had survived till the end of the first century, we see that the rot set in very early, just as Jesus said it would……”while men were sleeping”….the devil sowed his counterfeit seeds….this spiritual drowsiness, took hold once the apostles (who exercised a restraining influence) were no longer on the scene…..the restraint was gone, and Christianity went down the same track as Judaism did.
When Jesus returns as judge, what will he see for the most part? Matt 7:21-23 gives us an idea of why “few” will be found on the road to life. (Matt 7:13-14)

 

[Wick Stick]

It has to be complicated if so many fail to concur with the interpretation of others….who can say “I know the truth” when so many others are saying the same thing?

How did Jesus tell us to judge the difference? He said “by their fruits” we would know his true disciples….these would be standing out from others, more because of what they won’t do, as opposed to what they will. Actions speak lounder than words.

For example, if Jesus told us to be “no part of the world”….and James said that “friendship with the world is enmity with God”….(James 4:4) can we be “friends with this world” and still retain God’s friendship?

Where is the line of demarcation? How can you tell if you’ve overstepped?

Most people just follow their pastor, or their catechism. That isn't a problem; it's intended. But if you want to know for yourself, you have to study for yourself. "Study to show thyself approved."

The Law and the Prophets set down so much information about what God requires of his worshippers….and the bad example of God’s people teach us more about God than anything their fleeting good examples ever did.….yet, it seems that most even today are requiring something from God whilst giving him little in return.

What is it that God’s children can give to God that he cannot give to himself?

A body. Hands and feet to do work here in the world. "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular"

And that change is clearly demonstrated in the failure of the Jewish people to accept Jesus as Messiah…..and then once Christianity had survived till the end of the first century, we see that the rot set in very early, just as Jesus said it would……”while men were sleeping”….the devil sowed his counterfeit seeds….this spiritual drowsiness, took hold once the apostles (who exercised a restraining influence) were no longer on the scene…..the restraint was gone, and Christianity went down the same track as Judaism did.

I was talking about changes to the Bible itself. Things like -

• The 2nd half of Daniel is a separate book from the 1st half. Somebody edited them together.
• Genesis was edited together out of multiple ancient books. They had always been Scripture, but they weren't always together, or in chronological order.
• Job's 4th friend, Elihu, and his speech are late additions to that book.
• The ages of the antediluvian patriarchs have all been changed several times.

 

[St. SteVen]

Nonsense. I don't hate the Bible... Or do I?

I do hate the misuse. And I warn about Bibliolatry.
I'm concerned about inflated (and false) claims about the book.
And the general ignorance about where the Bible came from.
Caused by a church that has suppressed the truth about it.
Probably because they think we would leave the church if we really knew.

Discussion questions:
1) What is the best reason to love the Bible?
2) What concerns do you have about the misuse of the Bible?
3) On a scale of 1 to 10 (low to high) how much do you know about where the Bible came from?
4) Thoughts on inerrancy and inspiration. ??? Of the original manuscripts, or our English translations?

[

 

[Behold]

I do hate the misuse. And I warn about Bibliolatry.
I

You have no connection to the Bible other then to treat it with disrespect, under the guise of....."or do i, LOL"".

So, you teach a Satanic Gospel that leads unbelievers into Hell. (Universalism) and you feel that you are justified and qualified to cast your filthy opinions against God's word?
You have some "inner" issues. @St. SteVen
Deep.

 

[Rockerduck]

Jesus told me to read His words in the bible. That's from Jesus Himself. The Apostle Paul saw Jesus and was taught by Jesus, so they agree. All translations pervert the meanings.

 

[St. SteVen]

The Apostle Paul saw Jesus and was taught by Jesus...

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

[

 

[Rockerduck]

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

[

Its in the Book of Acts and Galatians 1:12 and 1:17- Apostle Paul went to Arabia for 3 yrs. the only possible conclusion is the Paul was taught by Christ.

 

[St. SteVen]

Its in the Book of Acts and Galatians 1:12 and 1:17- Apostle Paul went to Arabia for 3 yrs. the only possible conclusion is the Paul was taught by Christ.

Yes, I agree with that. But I was questioning that Paul actually saw Jesus in Arabia.

Galatians 1:12 NIV
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Rockerduck said:
The Apostle Paul saw Jesus and was taught by Jesus...

[

 

[Aunty Jane]

Yes, I agree with that. But I was questioning that Paul actually saw Jesus in Arabia.

Galatians 1:12 NIV
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Rockerduck said:
The Apostle Paul saw Jesus and was taught by Jesus...

That is a small but significant point.....On the road to Damascus, Saul was blinded by a bright light and heard a voice, but he saw nothing and neither did those accompanying him.

He was subsequently given instructions, which he followed and thereby regained his sight.

It is apparent that Paul received his assignment from Jesus Christ himself, just as the other apostles had done, and that he also educated Paul, but in a supernatural way, (with revelations and visions) because there is no mention of him being taught by the other apostles. His actions and his words proved that he was a genuine apostle....but he was not counted among the 12.

His commission was a special assignment because he was appointed as an “apostle to the nations”....his primary audience being the gentiles, among whom were the noted Greek philosophers of the day, whom Paul could address as an educated man on the same level. But as a former Pharisee he was also well educated in the Scriptures which he subsequently used in the synagogues to prove that Jesus was the Christ.

 

[Behold]

His commission was a special assignment because he was appointed as an “apostle to the nations”..

Wrong again. @Aunty Jane

I think is your bible version in this case, as its apparently junk.
Its probably created by the Jehovah's Witness cult.


Now...Notice this verse..... carefully

Paul is the "Apostle to the Gentiles'".
-

New International Version I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the GENTILES, I take pride in my ministry New Living Translation I am saying all this especially for you Gentiles. God has appointed me as the apostle to the GENTILES. I stress this, English Standard Version Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry Berean Standard Bible I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the GENTILES, I magnify my ministry Berean Literal Bible Now I am speaking to you the Gentiles. Therefore indeed inasmuch as I am apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, King James Bible For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the GENTILES, I magnify mine office: New King James Version For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the GENTILES, I magnify my ministry, New American Standard Bible But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Therefore insofar as I am an apostle of GENTILES, I magnify my ministry NASB 1995 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of GENTILES, I magnify my ministry, NASB 1977 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of GENTLIES, I magnify my ministry, Legacy Standard Bible But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of GENTILES, I magnify my ministry, Amplified Bible But now I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the GENTILES, I magnify my ministry, Christian Standard Bible Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Insofar as I am an apostle to the GENTILES, I magnify my ministry, Holman Christian Standard Bible Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. In view of the fact that I am an apostle to the GENTILES I magnify my ministry, American Standard Version But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of GENTILES, I glorify my ministry;

 

[Aunty Jane]

Wrong again. @Aunty Jane

I think is your bible version in this case, as its apparently junk.
Its probably created by the Jehovah's Witness cult.


Now...Notice this verse..... carefully

Paul is the "Apostle to the Gentiles'".

LOL....who do you think “the nations” are Einstein?
Who are the Gentiles?
People who are not Jews. duh.

 

[Behold]

LOL....who do you think “the nations” are Einstein?
Who are the Gentiles?
People who are not Jews. duh.

Well, let me show you this...

You've never heard of the Nation of Israel?

1.) You are not aware that John, Peter, and James and the rest of the 11 apostles were not sent to the Gentiles, Yet, all the Apostle were told to "make disciples of every nation"... Matt 28

So, you think about that, and see if you can figure it out.

Remember that Peter didnt even know that Gentiles could become Christians, until Acts 10, that is 10 yrs after Jesus is back in Heaven.
So, for that DECADE, who do you think was the "nations" that these 11 Apostles were "sent to", when none of them knew that GENTILES could be saved...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.) So, MATT 24, is Prophetic, and is talking about the 144,000 who are going into the "nations"...(During the Tribulation)....but not just for the Jews........also for the gentiles.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me also show you this... @Aunty Jane

3.) If Jesus meant that the 11 Apostles were to "go into all the nations" (Gentiles), then there would have been no need to call Paul to the be the only "Apostle to the gentiles" as God would have already had 11.
But He didnt.
Jesus only called ONE Apostle to the Gentiles....as a Minstry. = PAUL.

"well what about Peter and Cornelius"........ well that is God revealing to Peter, 10 yrs after Jesus is back in Heaven, that Gentiles could be saved.
HOWEVER< Peter, James, and John were apostles to the JEWS..... Their epistles are heavily related to Jews, and that is why we have to be careful with them, when we are trying to learn "CHURCH" Doctrine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.) Notice carefully.

Matt 24......."go and make DISCIPLES"......"baptizing them".

So, The Gospel, and Jesus on the Cross, creates : CHRISTians.........."Sons/Daughers" of God... "born again".
And that is not related to water baptism.

Listen..

A "disciple" is a person who follows Jesus and keeps the words of Jesus.

A CHRISTIAN is a spiritually born again BELIEVER........forgiven all sin......and is now "seated in Heavenly places, "in Christ".

 

[Jack]

You have no connection to the Bible other then to treat it with disrespect, under the guise of....."or do i, LOL"".

Now that's FACT!

 

[Jack]

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Have you ever opened a Bible stevie?

 

[St. SteVen]

Why I hate the Bible... Or so they say?​

Nonsense. I don't hate the Bible... Or do I?

I do hate the misuse. And I warn about Bibliolatry.
I'm concerned about inflated (and false) claims about the book.
And the general ignorance about where the Bible came from.
Caused by a church that has suppressed the truth about it.
Probably because they think we would leave the church if we really knew.

Discussion questions:
1) What is the best reason to love the Bible?
2) What concerns do you have about the misuse of the Bible?
3) On a scale of 1 to 10 (low to high) how much do you know about where the Bible came from?
4) Thoughts on inerrancy and inspiration. ??? Of the original manuscripts, or our English translations?

 

[Behold]

Nonsense. I don't hate the Bible... Or do I?

You teach a false Gospel (Universalism) that leads unbelievers to Hell, and you enjoy it.
The Mods on this particular forum look the other way, while on most forums, you'd last about 34 seconds, once you started defining the Gospel as "Universalism".
Therefore, you are the last person who needs to be teaching anything related to the "bible" on a "chrisitan" forum.

According to your Satanic gospel.....(Universalism) that Paul defines in Galatians 1:8.....,you are teaching that noone has to trust in Christ, = while they are alive, and noone has to be forgiven their sin, = while they are alive.
So, if you have not trusted in Christ while you are alive, you have not been been forgiven your sin, so, this means you are not a Christian.

Its really that simple. @St. SteVen

 

[Jack]

Why I hate the Bible... Or so they say?​

Nonsense. I don't hate the Bible... Or do I?

Then why do you attack the Bible like Satan???

Quoting STV: "I'm not convinced that God wanted us to have a Bible"!

 

[St. SteVen]

Then why do you attack the Bible like Satan???

How does Satan attack the Bible? (provide scripture)