Why are there so many versions of the Bible?

[mjrhealth]

[SIZE=10.5pt]And, as I educated you earlier - [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]I don't know of ONE [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]single sect that has only perfect[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt] people as members. To say that the Catholic Church is NOT[/SIZE] the church established by Jesus because there were some [SIZE=10.5pt]bad guys[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt] in it is to be completely ignorant [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]of the Scriptures that warn about exactly that[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt] (Matt. 7:15-20)[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]. Jesus pretty much guaranteed[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt] that there would be bad people in his Church. There was a bad guy at the very beginning[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt] who betrayed [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]him, in case you forgot.[/SIZE]

His bride His ecclesia, Spotless without blemish, no pride not arrogant not demanding, beautiful pure and perfect, now look at your church. Fails in comparrison.

 

[BreadOfLife]

His bride His ecclesia, Spotless without blemish, no pride not arrogant not demanding, beautiful pure and perfect, now look at your church. Fails in comparrison.

WRONG.
Jesus warned of bad people within His Church (Matt. 7:15-20).

Can you show men ONE Protestant faction that consists of only sinless people??
Yeah - I didn't think so . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

His bride His ecclesia, Spotless without blemish, no pride not arrogant not demanding, beautiful pure and perfect, now look at your church. Fails in comparrison.

obvious solution; make the Church a whore, too. Problem solved, and you get to play God, too
i mean yikes, just listen to the guy, lol

 

[Wormwood]

you might see how that sounds coming from a Catholic, lol, no offense. To Kill a Mockingbird would read differently in a different language, although it would be close, depending upon how good the translator was at rendering the inevitable colloquialisms (slang), right. So, see that it does not conflate with the math example very well in that sense.

If you want to insist that the Bible is the Word, then you have to deal with

In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God

on some level, at least a personal level, it seems to me. Imo what we have maybe been dancing around, and not really addressing, is perhaps the progression that seems to occur from making the Book = Word, which the next step is then naturally that one has to obey the Word to be saved, only now it is the Book that must be obeyed, which really who can have a problem with that, right? Nobody. So then, since i love me some Jesus, and i can read English, the final step is to condemn you to hell, when you do not agree with my reading of the Book, that is of course now conflated with God, and used to condemn, no less (when God does not condemn anyone, as can easily be demonstrated from Scripture, God is Love, when is the last time some little kid condemned you for anything, etc).

So, not even considering that this obscures the Word, which is near to anyone, anytime, that they may obtain It, and also ignoring the multiple warnings in the Book Itself about making the Book into the Word, cue mjrhealth, i think the mechanism for turning oneself into God is not being confronted here.

Another way to perceive this might be that if you disagree with any of my interpretation up there, me, who can read English, and loves me some Jesus, then of course you are doomed to hell, Eternal Damnation in the Fiery Teeth-Gnashing Eternity of the Pit, which is of course "forever," or at least a really really long time, until God dies, or whatever mis-defined view i have of "eternity." And the point here is that while i imagine that i have condemned you, for whatever reason you don't seem to be buying it, although i cannot imagine why not, here let me educate you. Lol.

So it becomes clear who is the condemned in this scenario, i hope

First, I would say that my simple point is that merely because something is "different" does not mean that one is valid and the other is not. I tried to use multiple examples to clarify this idea in mj's mind because it seems he is over simplifying the issue that if two things read differently, they cant be of God (or at least one of them cannot).

Second, I disagree with your basic presupposition that implies that if we make the Bible the Word, then it becomes an uncertain word that is reliant upon the interpretations people come up with (that causes them to condemn each other based on those interpretations). In my view, the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible means that it can be understood. I don't believe the Holy Spirit would inspire a message that was convoluted and misleading which would cause people to condemn each other as a result. Most Christians do not disagree on essential matters of salvation. And even those who do are instructed in the Bible not to condemn others. God is the Judge. Now we can stand on our convictions and believe that the BIble clearly teaches something that another person rejects to their own peril. Yet that does not mean we are to condemn those people (even if they stand condemned). We can instruct and warn in light of the clear teaching God has given, but we are never to condemn.

So, I think your reasoning here is a bit off. The Bible instructs us not to condemn others and your claim basically is that if we call the BIble "the Word" it will cause us to do the very thing the Bible itself instructs us not to do. I still don't understand why many here are so comfortable with this nebulous concept of God that essentially comes down to the individual's personal gut feelings about God and are so alarmed by the Bible as the authoritative Word from God on all matters concerning himself and his purposes in Jesus Christ. In my opinion, the latter view is more of a result of our culture's bent toward individualism and Postmodernism and has nothing to do with historic Christianity.

 

[Phoneman777]

Why are there so many versions of the Bible? Catholic version has 73 books and Protestant version has 66 books. Which of these versions is authentic and how?

Please watch "A Lamp In The Dark" on Youtube for a comprehensive look at the historic development of the Bible, and the role of Satan's church (Catholicism) in attempting to corrupt the Word of God throughout the history of Christianity.

 

[bbyrd009]

First, I would say that my simple point is that merely because something is "different" does not mean that one is valid and the other is not. I tried to use multiple examples to clarify this idea in mj's mind because it seems he is over simplifying the issue that if two things read differently, they cant be of God (or at least one of them cannot).

Second, I disagree with your basic presupposition that implies that if we make the Bible the Word, then it becomes an uncertain word that is reliant upon the interpretations people come up with (that causes them to condemn each other based on those interpretations). In my view, the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible means that it can be understood. I don't believe the Holy Spirit would inspire a message that was convoluted and misleading which would cause people to condemn each other as a result. Most Christians do not disagree on essential matters of salvation. And even those who do are instructed in the Bible not to condemn others. God is the Judge. Now we can stand on our convictions and believe that the BIble clearly teaches something that another person rejects to their own peril. Yet that does not mean we are to condemn those people (even if they stand condemned). We can instruct and warn in light of the clear teaching God has given, but we are never to condemn.

So, I think your reasoning here is a bit off. The Bible instructs us not to condemn others and your claim basically is that if we call the BIble "the Word" it will cause us to do the very thing the Bible itself instructs us not to do. I still don't understand why many here are so comfortable with this nebulous concept of God that essentially comes down to the individual's personal gut feelings about God and are so alarmed by the Bible as the authoritative Word from God on all matters concerning himself and his purposes in Jesus Christ. In my opinion, the latter view is more of a result of our culture's bent toward individualism and Postmodernism and has nothing to do with historic Christianity.

well, you have the problem of translation as well, plus intentional mis-translation; but imo the mis-quoted verse pretty well says it all. The Word is God; the Bible is not. But i still consider the Bible authoritative, in the original; It is God~Breathed, after all, and what else do we have that is God~Breathed. But even that description points to the Word, which is the "Breathed" part. And i certainly don't mean that the progression is always to one of making oneself God, but that does seem to be a hallmark of most religions--believe our way or you are lost is at least usually implied.

 

[Wormwood]

Your comments seem very scattered. The Bible is God's Word. God inspired it and it its Gods truth with the power to transform the eternities of those who believe and accept its message of God and the work of salvation through Jesus, correct?

 

[bbyrd009]

Your comments seem very scattered. The Bible is God's Word. God inspired it and it its Gods truth with the power to transform the eternities of those who believe and accept its message of God and the work of salvation through Jesus, correct?

well, you might see that "your comments seem very scattered" is kind of a defense mechanism? Or an attack mechanism, a discrediting device. If the Word is God, and "the Bible is the Word," then the Bible is God, for you; It is no longer God~Breathed. It has become God. So now the mechanism that God designed to bring life, which is Word, and which the Book verifies, is displaced by a different mechanism, a different Word. So one is dissuaded, put off, from finding Word, or, since Word is very near to you, to anyone, and you already know what Word is, but you just don't define It as that, Word is discredited, dismissed, annulled.

That is step one. Now, now that the Bible has been established as God, the next step--since i agree, you are right imo, in that a complete understanding of the Book would lead one unerringly to Christ--is to make the Book unavailable to you (not you you, speaking generally here), and this is accomplished when you come to another person, as a new seeker, and allow them to interpret Scripture for you, from their position of "knowledge." Exactly what Paul spent a whole chapter telling one not to do, but everyone does anyway.

And this is evidenced by the fact that there are many, many passages in the Bible that you now cannot get to make any sense, speaking generally; for instance someone convinced that their glossololia is evidence of them having received the Spirit, Paul's passage about "gurgling and cooing" is not reconciled, and so the Book becomes a Witness against one's belief there, and rather than listen to what the Book is saying, we just go blind there, and come up with some device to justify our glossololia that is not Scriptural.

And the same thing happens at "In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God and the Bible was God," see, and i can't make anyone interpret that "my" way, and i am not even interested in trying now, because this is how Word divides a person, joints from marrow, that their heart may be revealed, and being as how the physical (manifestation) descends from the spiritual, this belief in the Book as God, or in glossololia as tongues, they are the manifestations, the descriptions of where one is at spiritually.

And i guess i made them sound, like, "bad" or something? But there is nothing wrong with these, they are just beliefs, that some people have, that describes where they are in their walk, and that the Book will clarify for them when they are ready. Love believes all things because belief is not faith, and there are so many versions of the Bible because people concentrate on the flesh, the physical, the beliefs, which only manifest, descend from faith, just like doctors treat symptoms rather than causes.

So if one faces those Passages that currently make no sense to them, they will point to the Spiritual principle that the person is not owning, the mechanism usually being cognitive dissonance, and the cure being a change of mind. But of course this is not pleasant, and it is much easier to use the Bible to verify what one thinks they already know, so that they can continue to _________, whatever, fill in the blank, essentially fulfill some desire that translates to "in the world," helped by some guy who appears as an angel of light, and is usually (always) considered "successful" by the standards of the world, of course, because who wants to be considered a failure by society?

 

[bbyrd009]

4Young women of Jerusalem, I charge you: do not stir up or awaken love until the appropriate time.

 

[BreadOfLife]

obvious solution; make the Church a whore, too. Problem solved, and you get to play God, too
i mean yikes, just listen to the guy, lol

And while you're busy "lol-ing" - point me to ONE single Protestant denomination that has ONLY sinless people as its members.
Not so funny, it it?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Please watch "A Lamp In The Dark" on Youtube for a comprehensive look at the historic development of the Bible, and the role of Satan's church (Catholicism) in attempting to corrupt the Word of God throughout the history of Christianity.

the only thing sillier and more ignorant than that statement is thinking that the Bible came out of Protestantism.
When you actually study your history, you'll understand that the Bible was compiled and declared canonical by none other than the Catholic Church.

 

[bbyrd009]

And while you're busy "lol-ing" - point me to ONE single Protestant denomination that has ONLY sinless people as its members.
Not so funny, it it?

? it is completely beside the point, i wouldn't counsel seeking those who are wise in their own eyes anyway, BOL, quite the opposite, ok.

 

[BreadOfLife]

? it is completely beside the point, i wouldn't counsel seeking those who are wise in their own eyes anyway, BOL, quite the opposite, ok.

Translation:
"Sorry, but I just can't come up with an example of ANY Protestant sect that contains only sinless people as its members."

Yeah - that's what I thought . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

Translation:
"Sorry, but I just can't come up with an example of ANY Protestant sect that contains only sinless people as its members."

Yeah - that's what I thought . . .

ok well you are obviously someone in a lot of pain, and i wish you the best ok, bye.

 

[mjrhealth]

Catholic Church.

Yes " NOT GOD".

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes " NOT GOD".

ha, anything but God, right? And Protestants are not in much better shape, doctrine wise, or at least it doesn't seem like. The chief difference seems to be who one considers to be their Priest, and just transferring this responsibility onto a Pastor is still copping out imo. They still talk about sin or death all day long. Both are dedicated pathways to attempt the salvation of one's soul, seems like to me.

whosoever desires to save his soul shall lose it,

wow, 3 Witnesses for that direct quote, that is a message right there. This guy has a good read on that imo; i notice that he is still stuck in the kosmic system, still talking Rapture in another breath, after all the good points he is making in the first breath, i don't really get that, but whatever. So read for what it's worth:

http://www.goodnewsarticles.com/Mar99-1.htm

 

[BreadOfLife]

ok well you are obviously someone in a lot of pain, and i wish you the best ok, bye.

Not in any "pain" at all.
I just hold people like you accountable for their false statements . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

Please watch "A Lamp In The Dark" on Youtube for a comprehensive look at the historic development of the Bible, and the role of Satan's church (Catholicism) in attempting to corrupt the Word of God throughout the history of Christianity.

while that is true, and a pretty good overview, maybe, it inevitably offends people who seek God as best they know how, and i think some effort should be made to differentiate "Catholicism" from "Catholics."

 

[BreadOfLife]

while that is true, and a pretty good overview, maybe, it inevitably offends people who seek God as best they know how, and i think some effort should be made to differentiate "Catholicism" from "Catholics."

Seeing as how there is only ONE Catholic Church - Catholics are part of Catholicism.
To try to differentiate between them is to be dishonest.

 

[bbyrd009]

i dunno, in my experience Catholics are just like everyone else--they all believe somewhat different things...