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

[StanJ]

Gospels and Acts were written AFTER the letters of Paul, and contradict the letters of Paul.
I wouldn't rely on the Gospels and Acts.

all of the Bible is inspired by God and your assertions here are not factual.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/pnt/pnt02.cfm

 

[mjrhealth]

all of the Bible is inspired by God and your assertions here are not factual.

Doesnt say that anywhere that is an assumptiom on mans part so that he can walk around all puffed up saying, " look at me I carry God around in my pocket" and so they never go to Jesus who is the truth to receive the truth and have life as He promised.

 

[Smitty]

all of the Bible is inspired by God and your assertions here are not factual.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/pnt/pnt02.cfm

I don't know what that website is trying to do, but the Gospels and Acts were written after the letters of Paul.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-borg/a-chronological-new-testament_b_1823018.html

 

[StanJ]

I don't know what that website is trying to do, but the Gospels and Acts were written after the letters of Paul.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-borg/a-chronological-new-testament_b_1823018.html

Thanks for the link but after having read it, my opinion on Mr. Borg is that he is one of a mainstream Protestant believer who does not accept the inerrancy of God's word. The minor issues about when exactly certain books were written is not problematic to me, but inspiration and inerrancy is. In the 45-plus years that I've been reading and studying the Bible I have never found one contradiction. There may be a few discrepancies in terms of numbers but that's about it and those numbers are easily explained. The site I quoted was one of the best Bible study sites on the web and as such has some of the best Scholars contributing to it. I would have to say that I would put a scholar from the Episcopal Church on the same level as one from the Catholic church and as such both perspectives are so liberal that they just invite erroneous interpretation of the word of God. The entire New Testament is one in intent and message.

 

[mjrhealth]

erroneous interpretation of the word of God

Thts why God never wanted man to have the written word, caused so much trouble by "smart" men.Men seem to have this odd notion that they can know God from reading the bible, and all that does is cause man to be proud arrogant and to deny God, for they put the written word above the living Word that is Christ Jesus, and deem it good to do so. How foolish is the wisdom of man.

 

[Stranger]

Jesus pointed to the Scripture of his day as the word of God. There was division and he did not seem to mind versions whose words conflicted as he used both the LXX and the ancestor of what Jews often use today. I just strive to figure out why it was not something he considered important.

Jesus pointed to the Scripture as the Word of God and the final authority when He said 'It is written'.

And, how interesting to me that Satan never denied the final authority of Scripture, as many today do. Instead he tried to misuse it against Christ. Once Christ pointed to the written Word, Satan was defeated.

Where is there any proof that Jesus used a so-called 'Septuagint' ? In fact, where is there any 'Septuagint'?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

kepha31

I showed already a verse that declares Scripture as the final authority. Matt. 4:4, 4:7, 4:10. "It is written"

Seemed good enough for Christ.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

kepha31

I showed already a verse that declares Scripture as the final authority. Matt. 4:4, 4:7, 4:10. "It is written"

Seemed good enough for Christ.

Doesnt prove of any authority it was just as He said, it is written, prophecy being revealed. Again thats why people wont go to Christ to get life they would rather the dead letter to the living Word who is Christ Jesus, and dont get it.

 

[tom55]

First things first. Christ gave authority to the 'written' Word? Didn't He? Did not Christ see the written Word as the final authority?

I did say who has the authority to properly interpret. Every believer. Remember? (1John 2:20,27)

Let the Scriptures speak.

Stranger

Your assertion that every believer has the authority to properly interpret scripture is not based on scripture. It appears you only want to quote verse 20 and 27 from 1John. If you put it in context it says opposite of what you believe.

This one sentence can be interpreted many different ways:

"I" did not say you stole the money. Mike said you stole the money.

I did not "say" you stole the money. Mike said you stole the money and I nodded my head in agreement.

I did not say "you" stole the money. I said you were with the people that stole it.

I did not say you "stole" the money. I said you put it in your pocket and walked out with it.

I did not say you stole the "money". I said you stole Mikes wallet (and there happen to be only money in it).

When you take the bible, add thousands of more words instead of the eight I used in the above example, thousands of years of societal change, apply a different culture and that scripture has been translated from it's original language into the language of "every believer" your theory that every believer can properly interpret the bible is not logical. I just translated the meaning of that sentence in 5 different ways. Only one of them can be correct. Just because you BELIEVE you translated it correctly doesn't mean you did.

 

[tom55]

Oh yes, Jesus was well versed in the Hebrew Bible and could not only quote from it but weigh it as he frequently did when He discussed it with the Pharisees. And here and there he boldly said “But I say to you”. You know why He could teach people “as one having authority, and not as the scribes”(Mt. 7:29)? Because it is Him who has the final authority: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Mt. 28:18) And it is Him who is the actual Word of God:
“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.” (John 1:1-5)



David had a Bible of 66 Books? When God “spoke” in the OT, did He throw down scrolls from heaven? Think!

Stranger, I’m a Sola Scriptura Protestant myself. But I uphold Sola Scriptura in the way that Luther actually meant it when he declared it. Luther loved the Bible. He saw it as the sole valid reference point for Christian doctrine as opposed to spiritualist visions and tradition. But Luther would not have signed the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy and He was not prone to Bibliolatry: “This one Word of God, the proclaimed gospel promise about the incarnate Word (also in the OT), provides the key and guide to the meaning of the Word of God in a tertiary sense, namely, the Word of God as writings of the prophets and the apostles. Not surprising, Luther sometimes made a sharp distinction between God and Scripture: “God and the Scripture of God are two things, no less than the Creator and the creature are two things.”[49] Thus the canonical Scriptures and the Word of God are distinct from one another, though clearly related. “Most of the time Luther, like the Scriptures themselves, did not mean the Scriptures when he spoke about ‘the Word of God.””
http://thedaystarjournal.com/holy-scripture-in-the-thought-of-martin-luther/

"Luther loved the bible"....except Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelations which he wanted removed...other than that he loved the bible. He loved it so much he made changes to it by adding words so it would be much easier (to fit HIS belief) to read.

 

[Stranger]

Your assertion that every believer has the authority to properly interpret scripture is not based on scripture. It appears you only want to quote verse 20 and 27 from 1John. If you put it in context it says opposite of what you believe.

This one sentence can be interpreted many different ways:

"I" did not say you stole the money. Mike said you stole the money.

I did not "say" you stole the money. Mike said you stole the money and I nodded my head in agreement.

I did not say "you" stole the money. I said you were with the people that stole it.

I did not say you "stole" the money. I said you put it in your pocket and walked out with it.

I did not say you stole the "money". I said you stole Mikes wallet (and there happen to be only money in it).

When you take the bible, add thousands of more words instead of the eight I used in the above example, thousands of years of societal change, apply a different culture and that scripture has been translated from it's original language into the language of "every believer" your theory that every believer can properly interpret the bible is not logical. I just translated the meaning of that sentence in 5 different ways. Only one of them can be correct. Just because you BELIEVE you translated it correctly doesn't mean you did.

No, 1John 2:20, 27 says exactly what I believe. Every believer has the Holy Spirit and is therefore able to interpret the Word of God which is inspired by the Spirit of God.

Why do you mix 'translation' with 'interpretation'? Do you know the difference?

Are you trying to compare your weak fallible statements with the infallible statements of Scripture?

Stranger

 

[kerwin]

Jesus pointed to the Scripture as the Word of God and the final authority when He said 'It is written'.

And, how interesting to me that Satan never denied the final authority of Scripture, as many today do. Instead he tried to misuse it against Christ. Once Christ pointed to the written Word, Satan was defeated.

Where is there any proof that Jesus used a so-called 'Septuagint' ? In fact, where is there any 'Septuagint'?

Stranger

According to Dr. John Barnett he used it about 90% and the Hebrew about 10%. The quote from it I remember is Matthew 1:23 as the LXX is the version that uses "virgin" while Hebrew uses a more vague "maiden" but that was quoted by Matthew.

At least some Jews of that time viewed the Septuagint and the Hebrew scrolls as having equal authority. Jesus revealed he agreed with them by using both versions. The Spirit is the one that reveals for the Spiritual human sees the things of God and the soulish human sees the things of humanity.

 

[tom55]

No, 1John 2:20, 27 says exactly what I believe. Every believer has the Holy Spirit and is therefore able to interpret the Word of God which is inspired by the Spirit of God.

Why do you mix 'translation' with 'interpretation'? Do you know the difference?

Are you trying to compare your weak fallible statements with the infallible statements of Scripture?

Stranger

So if 5 believers interpret scripture 5 different ways how do you know who interpreted correctly?

 

[Stranger]

According to Dr. John Barnett he used it about 90% and the Hebrew about 10%. The quote from it I remember is Matthew 1:23 as the LXX is the version that uses "virgin" while Hebrew uses a more vague "maiden" but that was quoted by Matthew.

At least some Jews of that time viewed the Septuagint and the Hebrew scrolls as having equal authority. Jesus revealed he agreed with them by using both versions. The Spirit is the one that reveals for the Spiritual human sees the things of God and the soulish human sees the things of humanity.

Well, some can say anything. I am asking where is the proof that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint? Where is the proof that there even was a 'Septuagint'?

Your last statement sounds very 'spiritual', but what does it have to do with the written Word?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

So if 5 believers interpret scripture 5 different ways how do you know who interpreted correctly?

I don't believe there are 5 different ways to study Scripture. Could you name them?

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

I don't believe there are 5 different ways to study Scripture. Could you name them?

Thats not what he asked, he asked if 5 people interpret the scriptures 5 different ways, how do you know which is right. In that regard with over 70 different bibles all reading differently from different documents, which one is the truth if they all disagree, 50 different religions based on 50 different interpretations of the bible cant all agree with God if they are all teaching a different gospel.

 

[Stranger]

Lets put it into practice.

John 1:29-34 says, " The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. "

Interpret this, honestly. In other words, what you really believe these Scritpures are saying.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

Lets put it into practice.

John 1:29-34 says, " The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. "

Interpret this, honestly. In other words, what you really believe these Scritpures are saying.

Stranger

You still havnt answered the question?? And we all know where Tom55 is headed with this, trying to declare that the RC rc hurch is the only one that has the authority to interpret scripture, because he is too blind to see how foolish that is and all the problem that foolish statemant has caused.

 

[Stranger]

You still havnt answered the question?? And we all know where Tom55 is headed with this, trying to declare that the RC rc hurch is the only one that has the authority to interpret scripture, because he is too blind to see how foolish that is and all the problem that foolish statemant has caused.

I am answering it by example. Yes, I know where Tom55 is headed and you also.

So the statement has been made that since Scripture is interpreted so many ways, then how do you know who is right. Well, here, in my reply#97, is a portion of Scripture to put to the test. Interpret it honestly. Meaning as I said, what you believe it is saying. The one who is right is the one who is true to the Scripture.

If you don't know Scripture and don't trust the Bible you have, then I can understand your hesitancy at interpreting. Are you scared?

Stranger

 

[StanJ]

Well, some can say anything. I am asking where is the proof that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint? Where is the proof that there even was a 'Septuagint'?
Your last statement sounds very 'spiritual', but what does it have to do with the written Word?
Stranger

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/jesus_hebrew.html
http://www.septuagint.nethttp://www.septuagint.net