Why are there so many versions of the Bible?

[bbyrd009]

And AGAIN, you have not answered the question.
You quoted a passage from Joshua, who was talking about the LAW - not the Bible.

So, I ask you again:
How IS a person told to study the Bible - and by WHOM??

the Bible is the Law, there is no Spirit in the Bible. The Law is important; It must be fulfilled; It is our root. The Law (and the Prophets) is the Bible, and the Word is not the Bible, because the Word is God.

 

[BreadOfLife]

they aren't any leaders of the Church of Living Stones that i recognize; you are of course free to. Commend them to each other, also, if you like.

So we basically have the same argument going here, that we have for government: "people cannot govern themselves; so let's elect a person to govern us!" lol

And YOU don't know your Bible.

Jesus chose 12 leaders to watch over His flock, did He not?
Do you think that after they died, the Church was just supposed to live on in chaos??

EVERY Protestant denomination has leadership.
The difference is that the Catholic Church is the ONLY Church with an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession.

1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER you in the Lord and who admonish you,


1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

 

[BreadOfLife]

the Bible is the Law, there is no Spirit in the Bible. The Law is important; It must be fulfilled; It is our root. The Law (and the Prophets) is the Bible, and the Word is not the Bible, because the Word is God.

WRONG.

The Law and the PROPHETS is the OT.

The "Prophets" are the other books (Isaiah, Jerimiah, Daniel, etc.) They came AFTER Joshua.
He was talking about THE LAW - not the Prophets.

The word used in Joshua 1:8 is התורה (Torah) - which are the 5 Books of the LAW.

 

[bbyrd009]

And YOU don't know your Bible.
Jesus chose 12 leaders to watch over His flock, did He not?
Do you think that after they died, the Church was just supposed to live on in chaos??

EVERY Protestant denomination has leadership.
The difference is that the Catholic Church is the ONLY Church with an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession.

you mean Apostate succession. Let's not forget that one of the Apostles tried to make Christ wear a crown, and you may not be qualified to discern which earthly guy has no agenda, wadr.

And not Chaos (such as the RCC reveled in for centuries), but Anarchy, ok. No earthly rulers, because we are not of this world as believers in Christ. If you want a king to fight your battles for you, then fine, be ready to fight battles. I'll pass.

 

[bbyrd009]

Mahatma? Mujica? These guy are my leaders, you are free to pick your own, and i pray that you are led to a closer walk with Christ by them.

Don't let anyone blow any smoke up your butt, little children; those who do right, are right. Everyone else sucks eggs.

 

[bbyrd009]

>>>"WRONG"<<< = "I know, for a fact, and i am God, and you are not, and i do not even have to square this with Scripture, because you are wrong."

 

[tom55]

Mahatma? Mujica? These guy are my leaders, you are free to pick your own, and i pray that you are led to a closer walk with Christ by them.

Don't let anyone blow any smoke up your butt, little children; those who do right, are right. Everyone else sucks eggs.

Mahatma Gandhi??? Wasn't he Hindu??

José Mujica?? A self described atheist??

You make no sense if that is who you are talking about.

 

[tom55]

>>>"WRONG"<<< = "I know, for a fact, and i am God, and you are not, and i do not even have to square this with Scripture, because you are wrong."

I don't understand this response. What are you trying to say??

 

[Mungo]

I don't understand this response. What are you trying to say??

I think he's been eating too many magic mushrooms

 

[BreadOfLife]

you mean Apostate succession. Let's not forget that one of the Apostles tried to make Christ wear a crown, and you may not be qualified to discern which earthly guy has no agenda, wadr.

And not Chaos (such as the RCC reveled in for centuries), but Anarchy, ok. No earthly rulers, because we are not of this world as believers in Christ. If you want a king to fight your battles for you, then fine, be ready to fight battles. I'll pass.

Boy - your ignorance of the Catholic Church is really astounding.

The Pope is not a "king". He is the earthly head of the Church.
Jesus Christ is the Head of the Body (Col. 1:18) who told Peter to feed His lambs and tend His flock (John 21:15-19).

Explain to me how that makes the Church "Apostate".
Do you even know what apostate means??

 

[bbyrd009]

yes, but my def will not agree with yours tonight, of course; i mean "religious person," what the Bible means. I'll pick this reply up in the am, peace

I don't understand this response. What are you trying to say??

when one person tells another "wrong," when Scripture tells us that "he who says he knows does not yet know as he ought to know," then some pausation and reflectitude are in order imo. It is the same as saying "I am God, and you are not." No one knows, not the first thing. We all live in an illusion. That does not seem to me to be the way to Christ. Attacking other peoples' beliefs. Besides the fact that he can't back any of it up with a holistic view of the Book, i'm pretty sure. Otoh, we could be twins, i am pretty much ezackly like him, so see what you will see there.

you guys have a nice evening, buried, gotta run.

 

[tom55]

yes, but my def will not agree with yours tonight, of course; i mean "religious person," what the Bible means. I'll pick this reply up in the am, peace
when one person tells another "wrong," when Scripture tells us that "he who says he knows does not yet know as he ought to know," then some pausation and reflectitude are in order imo. It is the same as saying "I am God, and you are not." No one knows, not the first thing. We all live in an illusion. That does not seem to me to be the way to Christ. Attacking other peoples' beliefs. Besides the fact that he can't back any of it up with a holistic view of the Book, i'm pretty sure. Otoh, we could be twins, i am pretty much ezackly like him, so see what you will see there.

you guys have a nice evening, buried, gotta run.

"he who says he knows does not yet know as he ought to know' is from 1 Corinthians 8.

That ENTIRE verse is about idols and eating food offered to idols. It has nothing to do with one person telling another person they are wrong. It has NOTHING to do with "I am God, and you are not". You are PARTIALLY quoting scripture AND taking it out of CONTEXT to fit your agenda.

 

[michaelvpardo]

First of all - translations aren't "inspired". If you believe that they ARE - then you are dead wrong.

Secondly - give me some examples of what you are claiming about the Jerusalem Bible (deletions, repeated verses, deletion of verses, rearranging of verses).
Evidence is KEY to an intellectual debate . . .

I don't debate, I proclaim, and there is a big difference.
I no longer have my old paperback copy of the Jerusalem bible, but I couldn't give you an example of the additions and changes, because I didn't observe them. I read about them in the foot notes, which were in that respect surprisingly like those of the Tanakh.

 

[michaelvpardo]

See my previous response. The Jerusalem Bible was used in a biblical "survey" class at Suffolk Community College back in the 1970s which my cousin Tony took while attending that school. I purchased a copy after he showed one to me as it was the first modern translation (in English) that I'd seen. The Bible I read as a child was KJV, and I also read at least the NT in a gideon's bible as well and a military pocket bible. My statements are not my observations, but the footnotes from the Jerusalem Bible itself. Get your facts straight before you accuse people in your ignorance.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Don't be ignorant Tom. My comments were not my observations of the book, but from the footnotes and publisher's comments found in that paperback copy of the Jerusalem Bible used as a text book. If you don't like what the authors said about their own work, take it up with them.

 

[tom55]

Don't be ignorant Tom. My comments were not my observations of the book, but from the footnotes and publisher's comments found in that paperback copy of the Jerusalem Bible used as a text book. If you don't like what the authors said about their own work, take it up with them.

Ignorant? Of What?

Your observation of the footnotes and publishers comments have nothing to do with my statement.

Are you talking about the same Jerusalem Bible that has a been widely praised for it's very high level of scholarship? The one that is widely admired and sometimes used by liberal and moderate Protestants? The Jerusalem Bible is one of the versions authorized to be used in services of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Are they also under the hypnosis of Rome??

My statements DO NOT negate your statements.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't debate, I proclaim, and there is a big difference.
I no longer have my old paperback copy of the Jerusalem bible, but I couldn't give you an example of the additions and changes, because I didn't observe them. I read about them in the foot notes, which were in that respect surprisingly like those of the Tanakh.

Then, if you're going to "proclaim" - make sure you have evidence for that proclamation.
Don't just go off half-cocked, leveling false accusations.

A better way of making the claim that you did would be something like, "If memory serves - didn't the Jerusalem Bible add and delete certain verses."

 

[tom55]

See my previous response. The Jerusalem Bible was used in a biblical "survey" class at Suffolk Community College back in the 1970s which my cousin Tony took while attending that school. I purchased a copy after he showed one to me as it was the first modern translation (in English) that I'd seen. The Bible I read as a child was KJV, and I also read at least the NT in a gideon's bible as well and a military pocket bible. My statements are not my observations, but the footnotes from the Jerusalem Bible itself. Get your facts straight before you accuse people in your ignorance.

The KJV is good but has some issues. (poor translation)

 

[bbyrd009]

"he who says he knows does not yet know as he ought to know' is from 1 Corinthians 8.

That ENTIRE verse is about idols and eating food offered to idols. It has nothing to do with one person telling another person they are wrong. It has NOTHING to do with "I am God, and you are not". You are PARTIALLY quoting scripture AND taking it out of CONTEXT to fit your agenda.

well, you can interpret it that way if you like, i don't believe it is exclusive to your definition,

1About food offered to idols: We know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up.
2If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it.
3But if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

the subject is obviously--to me--more generalized, there in 1b. Unless only knowledge about food offered to idols inflates with pride, which i don't see that being true.

 

[tom55]

well, you can interpret it that way if you like, i don't believe it is exclusive to your definition,

1About food offered to idols: We know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up.
2If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it.
3But if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

the subject is obviously--to me--more generalized, there in 1b. Unless only knowledge about food offered to idols inflates with pride, which i don't see that being true.

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT

You took approximately 12 words out of a passage (1 Corinthians 8) that has 280 words in it and twisted it to fit your beliefs. (2 Peter 3:16)

On top of that you didn't even properly quote Scripture. You changed the wording. How sad.