Is our Bible of 66 Books, the inerrant Word of God?

[Stranger]

I dont think I ever could, NO the Bible is NOT the word of God, all the evidence says so, just because it has SOME of what God and Jesus says does not make teh whole book the word of God that is just profound stupidity. It also has some of teh words form the devil . should we than call it the devis word, it certainly has confuesd a good many christians?? just look at all teh religions and all teh versions of the bible, are you so foolish to think that God would let His word be corrupted as it Has. All men are given teh Holy Sorirt when they beleiev, but if you never ask you will just get mad at those who have. Your choice, getting angry wont get you teh truth.

If the Bible is not the Word of God how do you determine 'truth'? If the Bible is not the Word of God, quit referencing it for me to follow.

Again, you need to answer my question. How do you determine what is the Word of God?

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

How do you determine what is the Word of God?

Why cant you beleieve that Jesus and God actually speak to men???? Thts how I know because I ask the one who is the truth. dont you??? What do you think happened on that day of Christs resurection?? But you will never know because you wont ask.

 

[StanJ]

There is no one original Septuagint that somehow survived in the desert sand, but we have many textual witnesses to it, from which the texts of the Septuagint can be reconstructed, just like the original texts of the New Testament can reconstructed by comparing their many textual witnesses. And no, not that it matters, but whilst being the oldest we have the Papyrus Rylands 458 is not the only one of the Septuagint that dates before the NT:

That is actually not true...do you not understand what the word 'extant' means?

 

[junobet]

Yes the Septuagint is a translation. My question was where is it? As you answer....nowhere.

Actually my answer was that we have about 2000 textual witnesses to it, which you dismissed on the (mistaken) ground that those textual witnesses were too late to give witness of it. Which begs the question: if you seriously think that a later text can not bear witness of an earlier text that it copied, where do you think the Bible is?

There is no Septuagint. Just because you find some brief sketches in Greek does not mean there was a 'Septuagint' written. It is based on a false story.

The very fact that there is a false story about the creation of the Septuagint, puts you to the existence of the Septuagint. King Ptolemy gathers 72 Jewish Elders, six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, and asks them to translate the Torah into Greek. They are placed in 72 separate chambers and are miraculously inspired by God to then come up with the exact same translation word by word. Why come up with such a story, if not for the need to give a certain text-body authority? Authority the Septuaginta increasingly had lost among the Jews:
“Pre-Christian Jews, Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text.[11][37] Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Qumran Scrolls in the Dead Sea, and were thought to have been in use among Jews at the time.
Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the LXX, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the Bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the LXX with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[23] Instead, Jews used Hebrew/Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes; and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel.[38]”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Jewish_use)

You assume a different Hebrew Text that the Septuagint is based on other than the Masoretic Text. A text which you don't know where is. In other words, you assume another Hebrew text. No kidding, they differ. One exists. One doesn't. Just like the Septuagint. It exists only because some say it does.

The Septuagint is in all Four Great Uncials. And looking for texts behind texts is what you do when you are in search of the “Urtext”, the earliest version of a text. But as I already noted: it seems many Evangelicals lack the curiosity that makes one want to do such a search.

There is nothing in the Papyrus Fouad 266 that indicates it is part of the Septuagint. It is assumed by you and others that it is. There is no Septuagint. No one is denying that some may have translated the Scriptures from Hebrew to the Greek. But there is no Septuagint. That is based on a lie.

Again, older is not always better. Older can be false also. Don't you agree? And, why would I want to get rid of the KJV. It is based on the Majority Texts. Your modern versions are based on the Minority Texts. The Majority Texts comes form over 5000 manuscripts. The Minority Texts comes from 45 manuscripts. And it is only in these Minority manuscripts or Alexandrian Manuscripts that the so called 'Septuagint' is found. Perhaps you should rethink your acceptance of these 'modern versions'.

Erm, actually the KJV is not based on the Majority Text, but on the Textus Receptus that stems from Erasmus of Rotterdam’s “Novum Instrumentum omne” (1516), the first published New Testament in Greek (1516). At the time Erasmus had about seven extremely late Medieval Greek Manuscripts at hand to compose it from. According to Daniel B. Wallace the Textus Receptus varies in about 2000 places from the Majority Text. https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

Almost all modern Bible translations are based on the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece or the UBS (same text, different Apparatus). It is neither based on the Majority Text nor on the Minority Text, but on the Critical Text, which just so happens to be closer to the Majority Text than the Textus Receptus. The nerdy guys who edit this Greek New Testament compare all manuscripts that we have at our disposal now. Their decisions on which textual variants are likely to be the most original go case by case and are based on both internal and external criteria, and yes: age is a factor when we are talking about texts that got copied over and over again, that’s why we reverently call the four oldest codices the “Great Uncials”.

As for the Majority vs the Minority Text: “The idea that the majority of existing Greek manuscripts (i.e. the numerous medieval copies) somehow represent the original text better than any of the oldest manuscripts known to us is an idea that is very hard to defend intellectually. One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text. Against this, it is said that perhaps all of the early manuscripts known to us have derived from a deviant kind of text which gained currency only in the area around Alexandria, where these very old manuscripts were preserved on account of the dry climate. But this hypothesis fails to account for the readings of the ancient versions (e.g. Latin and Syriac) which frequently agree with the older Greek copies against the later ones. We cannot reasonably suppose that the Latin and Syriac versions were based upon manuscripts that were not circulating in Italy and Syria. And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts. It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about "Alexandrian" deviations. For this reason, very few competent scholars have argued in favor of the Majority Text."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

When the Jews spoke of the Scriptures, they didn't mean a Greek translation. Why did Jesus say, 'every jot and title'? (Matt.5:18) How many jots and titles are in the Greek.

Of course the author of the Gospel of Matthew knew that the OT was originally written in Hebrew. He was a Jewish Christian who uses very many Semitisms when quoting from the OT as a narrator. Yet, whenever Matthew has Jesus quoting the OT it’s in the Septuagint version, probably because Q was in the Septuagint version. But I suppose Q isn’t your thing either: https://stephencook.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/it-is-written-quotations-from-the-old-testament-in-the-new-testament-5/

Indeed. What you and others are calling the Septuagint simply comes from the 4th and 5th century Alexandrian Manuscripts.

Stranger

Check the List of the Manuscripts of the Septuagint again. Seeing that your concern for the KJV has suddenly made you embrace late medieval manuscripts, you don’t need to fret: plenty of Medieval Greek Manuscripts also have the Septuagint. :lol:

May I give you a well-meant advice that I once have been given myself by a very pious and learned man: No matter whether we are ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, when doing serious textual research it’s best to leave our pre-conceived theological preferences at the doorstep so that we may just be guided by the texts themselves.
The irony in our discussion is: if I did not heed that advice myself and if I approached the Bible from the point of view of a KJV-Fan and an inerrantist, I’d probably quite like the Septuaginta: If there was no such thing as the Septuaginta in use among Gentile Christians in Paul’s time, how could you not assume that either the New Testament’s authors or the translators of the KJV’s OT must have erred in their translation?

 

[junobet]

John 1 says no such thing, so I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about? Moses wrote the Torah during his lifetime. The Septuagint was written in the mid 3rd Century BC and is the oldest extant scriptures we have, albeit in Greek.

“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.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
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.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.“

(John 1:1-17)

Our differences about the Torah aside:
So John 1 does not indicate to you that nothing was existent before Christ, the one true Word of God that “was God” and by whom “all things were made”? You think Moses was “in the beginning”, co-existing with the Triune God?

 

[StanJ]

“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.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
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.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.“

(John 1:1-17)

Our differences about the Torah aside:
So John 1 does not indicate to you that nothing was existent before Christ, the one true Word of God that “was God” and by whom “all things were made”? You think Moses was “in the beginning”, co-existing with the Triune God?

You obviously don't understand what John was speaking of. The Word was incarnated in Christ (v14) which means that Jesus did not exist before he was actually born. It was the Word who is God that existed in the beginning. What John 1 does is connect the New Covenant with the Old Covenant by bringing us back to the very beginning of creation and explaining exactly who God was and how he became Triune in nature.
Moses wrote the Pentateuch a few thousand years after it actually happened. Moses was not a witness to Creation he was divinely inspired by God to recount creation.

 

[Stranger]

Actually my answer was that we have about 2000 textual witnesses to it, which you dismissed on the (mistaken) ground that those textual witnesses were too late to give witness of it. Which begs the question: if you seriously think that a later text can not bear witness of an earlier text that it copied, where do you think the Bible is?


The very fact that there is a false story about the creation of the Septuagint, puts you to the existence of the Septuagint. King Ptolemy gathers 72 Jewish Elders, six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, and asks them to translate the Torah into Greek. They are placed in 72 separate chambers and are miraculously inspired by God to then come up with the exact same translation word by word. Why come up with such a story, if not for the need to give a certain text-body authority? Authority the Septuaginta increasingly had lost among the Jews:
“Pre-Christian Jews, Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text.[11][37] Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Qumran Scrolls in the Dead Sea, and were thought to have been in use among Jews at the time.
Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the LXX, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the Bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the LXX with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[23] Instead, Jews used Hebrew/Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes; and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel.[38]”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Jewish_use)

The Septuagint is in all Four Great Uncials. And looking for texts behind texts is what you do when you are in search of the “Urtext”, the earliest version of a text. But as I already noted: it seems many Evangelicals lack the curiosity that makes one want to do such a search.


Erm, actually the KJV is not based on the Majority Text, but on the Textus Receptus that stems from Erasmus of Rotterdam’s “Novum Instrumentum omne” (1516), the first published New Testament in Greek (1516). At the time Erasmus had about seven extremely late Medieval Greek Manuscripts at hand to compose it from. According to Daniel B. Wallace the Textus Receptus varies in about 2000 places from the Majority Text. https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

Almost all modern Bible translations are based on the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece or the UBS (same text, different Apparatus). It is neither based on the Majority Text nor on the Minority Text, but on the Critical Text, which just so happens to be closer to the Majority Text than the Textus Receptus. The nerdy guys who edit this Greek New Testament compare all manuscripts that we have at our disposal now. Their decisions on which textual variants are likely to be the most original go case by case and are based on both internal and external criteria, and yes: age is a factor when we are talking about texts that got copied over and over again, that’s why we reverently call the four oldest codices the “Great Uncials”.

As for the Majority vs the Minority Text: “The idea that the majority of existing Greek manuscripts (i.e. the numerous medieval copies) somehow represent the original text better than any of the oldest manuscripts known to us is an idea that is very hard to defend intellectually. One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text. Against this, it is said that perhaps all of the early manuscripts known to us have derived from a deviant kind of text which gained currency only in the area around Alexandria, where these very old manuscripts were preserved on account of the dry climate. But this hypothesis fails to account for the readings of the ancient versions (e.g. Latin and Syriac) which frequently agree with the older Greek copies against the later ones. We cannot reasonably suppose that the Latin and Syriac versions were based upon manuscripts that were not circulating in Italy and Syria. And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts. It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about "Alexandrian" deviations. For this reason, very few competent scholars have argued in favor of the Majority Text."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html


Of course the author of the Gospel of Matthew knew that the OT was originally written in Hebrew. He was a Jewish Christian who uses very many Semitisms when quoting from the OT as a narrator. Yet, whenever Matthew has Jesus quoting the OT it’s in the Septuagint version, probably because Q was in the Septuagint version. But I suppose Q isn’t your thing either: https://stephencook.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/it-is-written-quotations-from-the-old-testament-in-the-new-testament-5/


Check the List of the Manuscripts of the Septuagint again. Seeing that your concern for the KJV has suddenly made you embrace late medieval manuscripts, you don’t need to fret: plenty of Medieval Greek Manuscripts also have the Septuagint. :lol:

May I give you a well-meant advice that I once have been given myself by a very pious and learned man: No matter whether we are ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, when doing serious textual research it’s best to leave our pre-conceived theological preferences at the doorstep so that we may just be guided by the texts themselves.
The irony in our discussion is: if I did not heed that advice myself and if I approached the Bible from the point of view of a KJV-Fan and an inerrantist, I’d probably quite like the Septuaginta: If there was no such thing as the Septuaginta in use among Gentile Christians in Paul’s time, how could you not assume that either the New Testament’s authors or the translators of the KJV’s OT must have erred in their translation?

I was addressing you answer where you said concerning the Septuagint that the texts that it was translated from were 'lost to history, either burned or rotten, or ( if we are lucky ), still slumbering in some hidden clay pots we haven't found yet.' To which I replied that you answer that there are none.

So, because there is a false story, which you acknowledge, then that is supposed to mean there is a true story? Indeed, I'm not saying some didn't come up with a story. They did. But, you don't create a lie to support the truth. You create a lie to support a lie.

You say Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew Text. First of all, how could they be equal when they differ? Second of all, Philo was a Jewish philosopher who tried to always merge the Christian faith with Greek philosophy. Third of all, Josephus was always prone to depend on heresay evidence and legend. Thus his credibility alone is always in doubt.

So, I believe the reference of wickipedia is wrong. There was no Septuagint for the Jews to abandon. What is it you think these Jews abandoned in 2nd century A.D.?

What 4 Unicals do you find the Septuagint in?

I disagree. The majority texts are the Textus Receptus, of which there are over 5000. The are also known as the Antioch Texts. The minority texts are the 45 manuscripts which are also called the Alexandrian texts. And from the minority texts, come all your modern translations.

The Nestle's Greek Text is also the Egyptian or Alexandrian Text. It is this text that was the basis of Westcott and Hort. As has been stated already, it is of the minority texts, the Alexandrian. The Nestle's text is based mainly on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts which are part of the Alexandrian texts, or minority texts. It is from these that the modern day translations come from.

Again, age is never the only factor in seeking what the original text says. The most important factor is the amount of manuscripts you have to compare to. This of course should tell you that when you have 5000 compared to 45, you have better chance at the correct wording with the 5000.

There is nothing to indicate that Jesus quoted from a Septuagint. Nothing, other than some want to think He did. And there is no 'Q'. Just like there is no Septuagint. Who are these redactors or editors? No one knows. Yes, Q and the Septuagint are a correct comparison.

junobet, I appreciate your advice which was given you by one you respect. And, it is good advice. I think this should show you I do not come at this with a bias in hand. For it would be easy to use the Septuagint to explain some questions or contradictions found in Scripture. But I am not going to use the Septuagint as an excuse.

I don't pretend to be able to answer all questions about the Scripture. But I would need you to point out which errors you speak of in your last question.

Stranger

 

[junobet]

I was addressing you answer where you said concerning the Septuagint that the texts that it was translated from were 'lost to history, either burned or rotten, or ( if we are lucky ), still slumbering in some hidden clay pots we haven't found yet.' To which I replied that you answer that there are none.

That’s exactly where the text that it translated from is. It’s also where the text that the Masoretic text is derived from is and where any autograph of any Biblical text is. Hence my question: if original manuscripts are the kind of proof you require, where do you think the Bible is?

So, because there is a false story, which you acknowledge, then that is supposed to mean there is a true story? Indeed, I'm not saying some didn't come up with a story. They did. But, you don't create a lie to support the truth. You create a lie to support a lie.

So you are saying that it must be a ‘lie’ that the Reformation ever happened, because it is a ‘lie’ that Luther ever actually nailed his 95 theses on that Wittenberg church door? Well, I’d call it a widely circulated legend that Luther nailed them on any church-door. And still I tend to use this picture when talking about the beginning of the Reformation, because it’s a powerful description of the Protestant spirit. See: Most important events and objects in history have myths and legends being told about them. And these myths and legends tell you what people thought about these events and objects, what importance they gave them.

You say Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew Text. First of all, how could they be equal when they differ?

Do you think the KJV is on equal standing with the Biblical texts that it translated even though they are in a different language? Or do you feel every Christian must read the OT in Hebrew to get the ‘real thing’?

Second of all, Philo was a Jewish philosopher who tried to always merge the Christian faith with Greek philosophy.

While Philo was well receipted in 2th century Christianity - especially by Christians who sought to explain the Trinity - as far as I’m aware of Philo himself was not interested in Christianity. He used Greek philosophy to make sense of the Hebrew Bible. Face it: Christian faith has been syncretic ever since it first spread out to the gentiles, in that it explained itself in a way that was intelligible to the cultures it encountered. It was Paul who first merged Christian faith with Greek philosophy and many theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas followed in his footstep. Up to this very day theology makes use of philosophy. So?

Third of all, Josephus was always prone to depend on heresay evidence and legend. Thus his credibility alone is always in doubt.

Welcome to the world of thought of Antiquity! Their historians did not quite have the same methodologies as ours. But maybe you should not seek to discredit Josephus too much: if I remember correctly his work is one of the few, if not the only, 1th century non-Christian sources that makes mention of a person named Jesus and called Christ.

So, I believe the reference of wickipedia is wrong. There was no Septuagint for the Jews to abandon. What is it you think these Jews abandoned in 2nd century A.D.?

What 4 Unicals do you find the Septuagint in?

I’ve already named them: Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

Frankly if you have not heard of them, you obviously never really occupied yourself with Biblical Manuscripts. That doesn’t give me much confidence in your wild thesis that there never was a Septuagint.

I disagree. The majority texts are the Textus Receptus, of which there are over 5000. The are also known as the Antioch Texts. The minority texts are the 45 manuscripts which are also called the Alexandrian texts. And from the minority texts, come all your modern translations.

Well, as I already pointed out: the vast majority of Biblical Scholars including conservative scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace, disagree with you on this one. Forgive me for taking their word over yours.
The most prominent example in which the Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text is the Comma Johanneum. Hardly any Greek copy of John has it and the handful of copies that does solely consists of very late minuscules. But back in the16th century Erasmus was pressured by the Catholic Church to put it into what was to become the Textus Receptus. Ironically the KJV still has it, whereas the Catholic Church has long since seen sense and has omitted it from the New Vulgata for want of textual evidence supporting it!

Don’t get me wrong: I fully respect your love for the KJV! For personal Bible study I myself use a Bible that’s not the best of translations, just because that battered old thing has been my companion ever since childhood and I am kind of nostalgic about it. But I know that I must turn elsewhere when in search for the best textual accuracy.

The Nestle's Greek Text is also the Egyptian or Alexandrian Text. It is this text that was the basis of Westcott and Hort. As has been stated already, it is of the minority texts, the Alexandrian. The Nestle's text is based mainly on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts which are part of the Alexandrian texts, or minority texts. It is from these that the modern day translations come from.

I don’t want to make myself sound cleverer than I am: in no way am I a qualified textual critic myself. But I once took a class in NT-studies at the very theological faculty that houses the institute issuing the Nestle Aland and I can assure you that the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and Westcott and Hort are not the same and that the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is not simply the ‘Alexandrian text’. If it was so easy I would not have needed to sweat over the its critical apparatus for hours on end.
​By the way, the man, who gave me that good advice we were talking about, was my Professor for that class.

Again, age is never the only factor in seeking what the original text says. The most important factor is the amount of manuscripts you have to compare to. This of course should tell you that when you have 5000 compared to 45, you have better chance at the correct wording with the 5000.

Sorry, but your logic is seriously flawed here. Think about it:

Scribe A is tired and gets a word wrong when copying a given text. Say , instead of “Peter ate a berry” Scribe A writes “Peter ate a cherry”.
Scribes B, C, D copy Scribe A’s text including his mistake and each commits some more mistakes when copying..
Scribes E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M copy the copies of Scribes B, C, D including Scribe A’s mistake.

Just counting numbers you think the one text that does says “Peter ate a berry” must be wrong, and the original reading must be “Peter ate a cherry”, because the majority of textual witnesses have it? Or would you not logically concludé that the earlier the document the less likely it is that corruptions crept in, and that - if the oldest available textual witness says "berry" - that's a textual variant worth thinking about?

There is nothing to indicate that Jesus quoted from a Septuagint. Nothing, other than some want to think He did. And there is no 'Q'. Just like there is no Septuagint. Who are these redactors or editors? No one knows. Yes, Q and the Septuagint are a correct comparison.

junobet, I appreciate your advice which was given you by one you respect. And, it is good advice. I think this should show you I do not come at this with a bias in hand. For it would be easy to use the Septuagint to explain some questions or contradictions found in Scripture. But I am not going to use the Septuagint as an excuse.

I don't pretend to be able to answer all questions about the Scripture. But I would need you to point out which errors you speak of in your last question.

Stranger

Well, stranger, I fear concerning both the Septuagint and Textual Criticism of the NT you fell victim to very biased and inaccurate information and don’t even realize it.

I already gave you an example for the kind of error that would be explained by the Septuagint by pointing you to the detailed comparison of 1 Cor. 1:19 and Isaiah 29:14.
An example of another type of error that can’t be explained/softened by the Septuagint is that Matthew 27:9-10 claims to be citing Jeremiah when in fact the quotation is obviously based on Zechariah 11:12-13. Apparently God, who I do indeed believe to have inspired the Gospel of Matthew, saw it fit to leave the author in this error. Probably because tiny human errors like these don’t make the slightest difference to the divine truth God wanted the Biblical authors to convey. Just like it doesn’t make the slightest difference to God’s truth whether Judas hanged himself or accidentally split his bowels open.

 

[junobet]

You obviously don't understand what John was speaking of. The Word was incarnated in Christ (v14) which means that Jesus did not exist before he was actually born. It was the Word who is God that existed in the beginning. What John 1 does is connect the New Covenant with the Old Covenant by bringing us back to the very beginning of creation and explaining exactly who God was and how he became Triune in nature.

Do you mean to say that Jesus Christ did not exist until he was conceived? Maybe that’s what Pentecostals or Polish Brethren believe, but it is not a belief that is shared by traditional Trinitarians such as myself. Christianity at large still teaches the pre-existence of Christ:

“The doctrine of the pre-existence (or preexistence) of Christ asserts the ontological or personal existence of Christ before his incarnation. One of the relevant Bible passages is John 1:1–18 where, in the Trinitarian interpretation, Christ is identified with a pre-existent divine hypostasis called the Logos or Word. (…) This doctrine is reiterated in John 17:5 when Jesus refers to the glory which he had with the Father "before the world was" during the Farewell Discourse.[1] John 17:24 also refers to the Father loving Jesus "before the foundation of the world".[1](…)The concept of the pre-existence of Christ is a central tenet of the doctrine of the Trinity. (…) This "Word" is also called God the Son or the Second Person of the Trinity. Theologian Bernard Ramm noted that "It has been standard teaching in historic Christology that the Logos, the Son, existed before the incarnation. That the Son so existed before the incarnation has been called the pre-existence of Christ." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence_of_Christ

So no, Trinitarian Christians don’t believe that anything existed “before Christ”: neither Adam, nor Noah, nor Abraham, nor Moses, nor the Torah, nor the Septuagint … existed before Christ! And I sure hope that - as somebody who considers himself a Trinitarian - Stranger understood perfectly well that this is what I was driving at in my reply to him.

Moses wrote the Pentateuch a few thousand years after it actually happened. Moses was not a witness to Creation he was divinely inspired by God to recount creation.

Well Stan, as you probably remember, I think Genesis was composed at around the time of Babylonian captivity. In it God does not give lectures on natural history, but inspired His people to Monotheism and gave them the insight that creation is good and that human beings are endowed with special dignity and responsibility.
But whatever you believe about the Trinity, Moses and the Torah: I can’t imagine that you would claim that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaak, Jakob … already had the Bible. And yet the Bible tells us that God spoke to them. Think about it. When Abraham had faith, it was not faith in a written book, it was faith in God! And it’s that kind of faith that is required still.

 

[StanJ]

Do you mean to say that Jesus Christ did not exist until he was conceived? Maybe that’s what Pentecostals or Polish Brethren believe, but it is not a belief that is shared by traditional Trinitarians such as myself. Christianity at large still teaches the pre-existence of Christ:

John 1 teaches the pre-existence and association of the Word with God, but it also teaches in verse 14 that God the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. I hate to break it to you but you are not a traditional trinitarian.

Well Stan, as you probably remember, I think Genesis was composed at around the time of Babylonian captivity. In it God does not give lectures on natural history, but inspired His people to Monotheism and gave them the insight that creation is good and that human beings are endowed with special dignity and responsibility.
But whatever you believe about the Trinity, Moses and the Torah: I can’t imagine that you would claim that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaak, Jakob … already had the Bible. And yet the Bible tells us that God spoke to them. Think about it. When Abraham had faith, it was not faith in a written book, it was faith in God! And it’s that kind of faith that is required still.

Exodus 24:4 for clearly shows Moses giving the beginning of the Torah to the people. The traditional rabbinical Jewish view is that the Torah was written in 1312 BCE. You can do the math.

 

[junobet]

John 1 teaches the pre-existence and association of the Word with God, but it also teaches in verse 14 that God the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. I hate to break it to you but you are not a traditional trinitarian.

Well, I’m traditional enough to have gasped at this ‘heresy’ on first glance of your post: “The Word was incarnated in Christ (v14) which means that Jesus did not exist before he was actually born. It was the Word who is God that existed in the beginning.”.

Don’t get me wrong: feel free to believe about the Trinity what you want, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that the Oneness Pentecostal view - that seems to be the one you hold - is the tradional view!


Christianity at large traditionally teaches that Jesus Christ, the Word of God that is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, became man in the Incarnation, but is “eternally begotten”/” born of the Father before all ages”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed

Exodus 24:4 for clearly shows Moses giving the beginning of the Torah to the people. The traditional rabbinical Jewish view is that the Torah was written in 1312 BCE. You can do the math.

As for dating and authorship of the Pentateuch: question is whether you are Protestant enough in your thinking be able to abandon traditional rabbinical views in favour of using your own God-given reason, when studying the Bible.

However, you overlooked that I was completely willing to work with Exodus 24:4 telling us that Moses gave the beginning of the Torah to the people. That’s why I asked you about the Biblical figures who lived before Moses. How do you think God communicated with them, when they didn’t even have the beginnings of the Torah yet?

 

[Stranger]

That’s exactly where the text that it translated from is. It’s also where the text that the Masoretic text is derived from is and where any autograph of any Biblical text is. Hence my question: if original manuscripts are the kind of proof you require, where do you think the Bible is?


So you are saying that it must be a ‘lie’ that the Reformation ever happened, because it is a ‘lie’ that Luther ever actually nailed his 95 theses on that Wittenberg church door? Well, I’d call it a widely circulated legend that Luther nailed them on any church-door. And still I tend to use this picture when talking about the beginning of the Reformation, because it’s a powerful description of the Protestant spirit. See: Most important events and objects in history have myths and legends being told about them. And these myths and legends tell you what people thought about these events and objects, what importance they gave them.


Do you think the KJV is on equal standing with the Biblical texts that it translated even though they are in a different language? Or do you feel every Christian must read the OT in Hebrew to get the ‘real thing’?


While Philo was well receipted in 2th century Christianity - especially by Christians who sought to explain the Trinity - as far as I’m aware of Philo himself was not interested in Christianity. He used Greek philosophy to make sense of the Hebrew Bible. Face it: Christian faith has been syncretic ever since it first spread out to the gentiles, in that it explained itself in a way that was intelligible to the cultures it encountered. It was Paul who first merged Christian faith with Greek philosophy and many theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas followed in his footstep. Up to this very day theology makes use of philosophy. So?


Welcome to the world of thought of Antiquity! Their historians did not quite have the same methodologies as ours. But maybe you should not seek to discredit Josephus too much: if I remember correctly his work is one of the few, if not the only, 1th century non-Christian sources that makes mention of a person named Jesus and called Christ.


I’ve already named them: Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

Frankly if you have not heard of them, you obviously never really occupied yourself with Biblical Manuscripts. That doesn’t give me much confidence in your wild thesis that there never was a Septuagint.


Well, as I already pointed out: the vast majority of Biblical Scholars including conservative scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace, disagree with you on this one. Forgive me for taking their word over yours.
The most prominent example in which the Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text is the Comma Johanneum. Hardly any Greek copy of John has it and the handful of copies that does solely consists of very late minuscules. But back in the16th century Erasmus was pressured by the Catholic Church to put it into what was to become the Textus Receptus. Ironically the KJV still has it, whereas the Catholic Church has long since seen sense and has omitted it from the New Vulgata for want of textual evidence supporting it!

Don’t get me wrong: I fully respect your love for the KJV! For personal Bible study I myself use a Bible that’s not the best of translations, just because that battered old thing has been my companion ever since childhood and I am kind of nostalgic about it. But I know that I must turn elsewhere when in search for the best textual accuracy.


I don’t want to make myself sound cleverer than I am: in no way am I a qualified textual critic myself. But I once took a class in NT-studies at the very theological faculty that houses the institute issuing the Nestle Aland and I can assure you that the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and Westcott and Hort are not the same and that the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is not simply the ‘Alexandrian text’. If it was so easy I would not have needed to sweat over the its critical apparatus for hours on end.
​By the way, the man, who gave me that good advice we were talking about, was my Professor for that class.


Sorry, but your logic is seriously flawed here. Think about it:

Scribe A is tired and gets a word wrong when copying a given text. Say , instead of “Peter ate a berry” Scribe A writes “Peter ate a cherry”.
Scribes B, C, D copy Scribe A’s text including his mistake and each commits some more mistakes when copying..
Scribes E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M copy the copies of Scribes B, C, D including Scribe A’s mistake.

Just counting numbers you think the one text that does says “Peter ate a berry” must be wrong, and the original reading must be “Peter ate a cherry”, because the majority of textual witnesses have it? Or would you not logically concludé that the earlier the document the less likely it is that corruptions crept in, and that - if the oldest available textual witness says "berry" - that's a textual variant worth thinking about?


Well, stranger, I fear concerning both the Septuagint and Textual Criticism of the NT you fell victim to very biased and inaccurate information and don’t even realize it.

I already gave you an example for the kind of error that would be explained by the Septuagint by pointing you to the detailed comparison of 1 Cor. 1:19 and Isaiah 29:14.
An example of another type of error that can’t be explained/softened by the Septuagint is that Matthew 27:9-10 claims to be citing Jeremiah when in fact the quotation is obviously based on Zechariah 11:12-13. Apparently God, who I do indeed believe to have inspired the Gospel of Matthew, saw it fit to leave the author in this error. Probably because tiny human errors like these don’t make the slightest difference to the divine truth God wanted the Biblical authors to convey. Just like it doesn’t make the slightest difference to God’s truth whether Judas hanged himself or accidentally split his bowels open.

I am not asking for 'original' copies of the so called Septuagint. I'm asking for the first known copy of the Septuagint that exists that all others are copied from. And this first known copy must be before the time of Christ. You want to treat the Septuagint like the Bible. But the Septuagint is only a translation based on a false story. And this false story was created for the reason you say in reply #184, "to give a certain text body authority."

Your comparison of Luther's nailing the 95 theses to the door at Wittenberg does not parallel. We know who Luther was. We know of his 95 theses. Are you saying the story of Luther was created to give some legitimacy to the Reformation? The Reformation didn't need it. It was already taking place.

I'm not saying the Septuagint and the Hebrew text differ because one is Hebrew and one is Greek. I am saying they differ because the Septuagint doesn't say what the Hebrew texts says.

Exactly. Philo merged Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures, which results in lies and falsehoods. Philo has no credibility as a witness. And Paul did not mix Greek philosophy with Scripture. Josephus is not a credible witness. As I said, he is given to legends and heresay. I don't need Josephus to confirm or support the historical Person of Jesus Christ.

Yes I have heard of these Alexandrian manuscripts. Usually it is just the three of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus. Thus I was curious to the fourth. You indicated earlier that the Jews abandoned the Septuagint in the 2nd century A.D. Where is the Septuagint found in the 2nd Century A.D.?

The Textus Receptus reflect the Majority Text. And the King James Version is based on the Majority Text. You have a Majority Text and a Minority Text. The KJV is based on the Majority Text, and your modern translations are based on the Minority text. They are not called 'Minority' for nothing. Just because the 'comma Johanneum' is found in later texts, doens't mean it doesn't belong. As I said earlier, just because a text is earlier, doesn't mean it is correct. Indeed, I see you did turn elsewhere for the 'best textual accuracy'. And today you deny the inspiration of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament except the Gospels and some parts of Acts. That is according to what you said earlier. Yeah, that best textual accuracy really served you well.

Nestle used three editions of the Greek New Testament in his day. 1. Tischendorf's, 2, Westcott and Hort, 3. Weymouths Nestles is not based on the Majority Text. It is based on the Minority Text. Westcott and Hort based their text mainly on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. Tischendorf is the one who discovered the Sinaiticus manuscripts. So, are you saying Nestles based his text on the Majority text? Because no one else says that. Nestles text is either based on the Majority or the Minority texts. The Textus Receptus or the Alexandrian texts.

I appreciate those Scripture references and I will get back with you on it. But I'm tierd.

Stranger

 

[StanJ]

Don’t get me wrong: feel free to believe about the Trinity what you want, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that the Oneness Pentecostal view - that seems to be the one you hold - is the tradional view!
Christianity at large traditionally teaches that Jesus Christ, the Word of God that is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, became man in the Incarnation, but is “eternally begotten”/” born of the Father before all ages”:

I don't need to feel free to believe what I do I am free to believe what I do and I believe exactly what the scripture tells us. Matthew 1:20
You on the other hand make vague and stereotypical assertions. The first Nicene Creed does not have the wording you use above so obviously you prefer the second Nicene Creed but I prefer what the Bible says not what some man made creed says.

As for dating and authorship of the Pentateuch: question is whether you are Protestant enough in your thinking be able to abandon traditional rabbinical views in favour of using your own God-given reason, when studying the Bible.
However, you overlooked that I was completely willing to work with Exodus 24:4 telling us that Moses gave the beginning of the Torah to the people. That’s why I asked you about the Biblical figures who lived before Moses. How do you think God communicated with them, when they didn’t even have the beginnings of the Torah yet?

Exactly the way the Book of Genesis depicts they communicated. What is it you are not understanding?

 

[Stranger]

I already gave you an example for the kind of error that would be explained by the Septuagint by pointing you to the detailed comparison of 1 Cor. 1:19 and Isaiah 29:14.
An example of another type of error that can’t be explained/softened by the Septuagint is that Matthew 27:9-10 claims to be citing Jeremiah when in fact the quotation is obviously based on Zechariah 11:12-13. Apparently God, who I do indeed believe to have inspired the Gospel of Matthew, saw it fit to leave the author in this error. Probably because tiny human errors like these don’t make the slightest difference to the divine truth God wanted the Biblical authors to convey. Just like it doesn’t make the slightest difference to God’s truth whether Judas hanged himself or accidentally split his bowels open.

I don't see any problem or error with 1Cor. 1:19 and Isaiah 29:14.

Concerning Matt. 27:9-10, there is no error here. Matthew is referencing Jeremiah where Jeremiah purchased a field In Jer. 32: 7-15 , and Jeremiah's sign of the Potter in Jer.18:1-11, 19:1-7. Matthew did use part of Zechariah but it is Jeremiahs prophecy that he is wanting to emphasize. Zechariah said nothing of the purchase of a field and Jeremiah does. And Matt. includes the purchase of the potters field in 27:10.

Yes Scripture does say Judas hanged himself. And it does say all his bowels gushed out. Both are true. Must have been an ugly sight, but then he did a terrible thing.

No reason to turn to any so called 'Septuagint'.

Stranger

 

[junobet]

I don't need to feel free to believe what I do I am free to believe what I do and I believe exactly what the scripture tells us. Matthew 1:20
You on the other hand make vague and stereotypical assertions. The first Nicene Creed does not have the wording you use above so obviously you prefer the second Nicene Creed but I prefer what the Bible says not what some man made creed says.

No Stan, you don’t prefer what the Bible says, you prefer what you think it says over what others think it says.

And it so happens that your interpretation of Scripture is a rather peculiar one. The vast majority of Christianity (including the vast majority of Protestantism) interprets the Bible differently and thus upholds the basic tenets of the doctrine of the Trinity which have been agreed upon at Nicaea and Chalcedon. Of course you are not obliged to believe what any creed says, but your rejection of Christ’s pre-existence most certainly doesn’t make you a traditional Trinitarian as you claim to be. In this point you are - to put it nicely – a maverick.

Exactly the way the Book of Genesis depicts they communicated. What is it you are not understanding?

A while back you wrote ““Faith and commitment to God's inspired written word is what it's called for”. I don’t understand how Abraham could possibly have had faith and commitment to God’s inspired written word, when there was no inspired written word in his time. And yet the Bible doesn’t tell us Abraham is condemned, but that the Bosom of Abraham is a good place to be .
So far you gave me the impression – and please correct me if I’m wrong - that you hold the written word of the Bible as God’s only way of communicating with us. You even gave me the impression that you value the Bible above the Word of God that is Christ. I don’t understand how you explain that God could ever communicate without the Bible, or why you think He stopped communicating without it, or how you think He communicates through it if not in the kind of event that Barth has in mind.

 

[junobet]

I don't see any problem or error with 1Cor. 1:19 and Isaiah 29:14.

Concerning Matt. 27:9-10, there is no error here. Matthew is referencing Jeremiah where Jeremiah purchased a field In Jer. 32: 7-15 , and Jeremiah's sign of the Potter in Jer.18:1-11, 19:1-7. Matthew did use part of Zechariah but it is Jeremiahs prophecy that he is wanting to emphasize. Zechariah said nothing of the purchase of a field and Jeremiah does. And Matt. includes the purchase of the potters field in 27:10.

Yes Scripture does say Judas hanged himself. And it does say all his bowels gushed out. Both are true. Must have been an ugly sight, but then he did a terrible thing.

Weirdly enough Jeremiah speaks of seventeen shekels of silver that he has paid for his field (no prophecy involved) whereas both Zechariah and Matthew mention 30 pieces of silver having been thrown into the temple treasury.
You can’t die twice: You can either die by hanging yourself or by falling on your face and bursting open in the middle with all your bowels gushing out on the field that you just bought. Also you can only spend your money once: either you can throw it into the temple treasury (enabling the High Priests to buy a field) or you can buy a field for yourself that then is called blood field because of you splitting your bowels there.
If you try to harmonize the differing accounts of Judas’ death in Matthew and Acts you end up with an unbiblical story that you fabricated yourself. The same goes for all other different accounts the Bible gives. We have been given four different Gospels + Acts for a reason: Scripture itself tells us that it is not interested in the kind of inerrancy that you have in mind.

No reason to turn to any so called 'Septuagint'.

Stranger

*sigh* I explicitly said that the Septuagint won't help explain this one.

Seeing that I might as well be talking to a wall I’ve given up on discussing the Septuagint with you. Obviously you’ve never even heard the word “Septuagint” before and got caught up in a totally unnecessary knee-jerk reaction that does not allow you to take in any information. However our little discussion wasn’t entirely futile: What I did not know before is that you can read the Codex Sinaiticus online these days, fantastic!: http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/codex/

 

[mjrhealth]

So far you gave me the impression – and please correct me if I’m wrong - that you hold the written word of the Bible as God’s only way of communicating with us. You even gave me the impression that you value the Bible above the Word of God that is Christ. I don’t understand how you explain that God could ever communicate without the Bible, or why you think He stopped communicating without it, or how you think He communicates through it if not in the kind of event that Barth has in mind.

No you are not wron, he has made it implectly clear to me that God has nothing to say to man. or rather it is that man just doesnt listen to God.

 

[Stranger]

Weirdly enough Jeremiah speaks of seventeen shekelsof silver that he has paid for his field (no prophecy involved) whereas both Zechariah and Matthew mention 30 pieces of silver having been thrown into the temple treasury.
You can’t die twice: You can either die by hanging yourself or by falling on your face and bursting open in the middle with all your bowels gushing out on the field that you just bought. Also you can only spend your money once: either you can throw it into the temple treasury (enabling the High Priests to buy a field) or you can buy a field for yourself that then is called blood field because of you splitting your bowels there.
If you try to harmonize the differing accounts of Judas’ death in Matthew and Acts you end up with an unbiblical story that you fabricated yourself. The same goes for all other different accounts the Bible gives. We have been given four different Gospels + Acts for a reason: Scripture itself tells us that it is not interested in the kind of inerrancy that you have in mind.

*sigh* I explicitly said that the Septuagint won't help explain this one.

Seeing that I might as well be talking to a wall I’ve given up on discussing the Septuagint with you. Obviously you’ve never even heard the word “Septuagint” before and got caught up in a totally unnecessary knee-jerk reaction that does not allow you to take in any information. However our little discussion wasn’t entirely futile: What I did not know before is that you can read the Codex Sinaiticus online these days, fantastic!: http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/codex/

Matthew is alluding to the purchase of the field, found in Jeremiah, though he uses Zechariah's quote also. So though he didn't address the 17 shekels they become important to me. And here is the difference between me and you. You see this as a contradiction. I see this as a truth waiting to be learned. (Pro. 25:2) " It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Just because I or others don't have an answer yet, doesn't mean there isn't one. "Line upon line"

Scripture didn't say Judas died twice. It said he hung himself and it said all his bowels gushed out. This is not hard to imagine. No mention is given as to how long Judas hung there. Apparently he was not in plain sight of everyone to see. The human and animal bodies bloat up alot after death. He would probably be found due to the odor, bloating already taking place. Thus when cut down, he burst open.

We have been given the whole Bible for a reason also. And your view and Gods view of the written Word are not the same. "It is written"

I'm curious as to why you wouldn't mention the existance of the Septuagint in Origens Hexapla? That is the oldest copy, isn't it?

Stranger

 

[StanJ]

No Stan, you don’t prefer what the Bible says, you prefer what you think it says over what others think it says.

I believe exactly what the Bible says in Matthew 1:20 and I also agree with what the original Nicene Creed stated.

And it so happens that your interpretation of Scripture is a rather peculiar one. The vast majority of Christianity (including the vast majority of Protestantism) interprets the Bible differently and thus upholds the basic tenets of the doctrine of the Trinity which have been agreed upon at Nicaea and Chalcedon. Of course you are not obliged to believe what any creed says, but your rejection of Christ’s pre-existence most certainly doesn’t make you a traditional Trinitarian as you claim to be. In this point you are - to put it nicely – a maverick.

Only to you and those that only accept man-made Creeds. I have no problem at all with the Bible's definition of God, which you seem to ignore all together. You show me exactly where the Bible states that Jesus existed before he was born? Also I challenge you to show me where the vast majority of Christianity interprets the Bible differently than I do? You make a lot of sweeping claims but never provide anything as far as cooperation is concerned to support you denials.

A while back you wrote ““Faith and commitment to God's inspired written word is what it's called for”. I don’t understand how Abraham could possibly have had faith and commitment to God’s inspired written word, when there was no inspired written word in his time. And yet the Bible doesn’t tell us Abraham is condemned, but that the Bosom of Abraham is a good place to be .

That much is clear, but nevertheless and regardless, since God's written word was established, there is no need for God to deal with us directly over and above his written word. That He does at times communicate directly with us, is solely at his discretion but it never has nor ever will contradict His written word.

So far you gave me the impression – and please correct me if I’m wrong - that you hold the written word of the Bible as God’s only way of communicating with us. You even gave me the impression that you value the Bible above the Word of God that is Christ. I don’t understand how you explain that God could ever communicate without the Bible, or why you think He stopped communicating without it, or how you think He communicates through it if not in the kind of event that Barth has in mind.

As I've stated many times before, God's written word is his chosen way to communicate with us, not his only way to communicate with us. His written word is our sole arbiter when it comes to what God has to say to believers collectively and will never be contradicted by what God chooses to say to us by the Holy Spirit personally. It is clear you don't understand many things, but instead of asking questions you make sweeping statements that are clearly erroneous and then get upset when you're refuted. as far as Barth is concerned you should know by now that I am not a proponent of reformed theology. I do not accept most things that Calvin taught, so why would I accept anything Barth taught, as far as soteriology is concerned?
If properly Guided by the Holy Spirit, we all have the ability to learn from the word of God personally and not have to be guided by imperfect men.

 

[mjrhealth]

His written word is our sole arbiter when it comes to what God has to say to believers collectively and will never be contradicted by what God chooses to say to us by the Holy Spirit personally. It is clear you don't understand many things,

What he means to say, it the bible is his chosen way of learning about God, and he has made it his god, because he insists that God agrees with the bible, now if God "must " agree with the bible, that would make the bible greater than God Himself. The bible says that God Jesus and teh Holy Spirit agree as one, never does it say that God must agree with teh bible, yes man has taking teh living word., Jesus Christ and relegated Him second place to teh Dead letter, and still man will not do as He said. Go to Him so they can have life". There is no life in teh bible, this whole topic is testament to that.