SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Majoritity or Minority Text-What difference does it make?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next Page )
PosterThread
MR_CPK
Member



Joined: 2004/7/9
Posts: 36
Indiana

 Majoritity or Minority Text-What difference does it make?

It has been commonly argued for 200 years that no matter what greek text one uses no doctrine will be affected. When the question is brought up of what is the correct text the usual response is "What difference does it make?"
The presently popular Greek Text are UBS and N-A which are what most all modern translations are based on. The KJV and NKJV follow the Recieve Text which is a "close cousin" of the Majority Text. The discrepencies between UBS-3 and the Majority text are 8%(involving 8%of the words). In a Greek text with 600 pages that represents 48 solid pages worth of disprepencies! About a fifth of that reflects omissions, so it is some ten pages shorter than the Majority Text. Even if we grant for the sake of arguement that up to half of the differences between the Majority and the eclectic texts could be termed "incosequential", that leaves some 25 pages worth of discpencies (in a 600 pages greek manuscript) that are signifigant(in varying degrees). In spite of these differences it is usually assumed that no cardinal Christian doctrine is at risk (though some, such as eternal judgment, the ascension and the deity of Jesus, are weakened). However, the most basic one of all, the divine inspiration of the text, is indeed under attack.
The eclectic text incorporates errors of fact and contradictions such that any claim that the New Testament is divinely inspired becomes relative, and the doctrine of inerrancy becomes virtually untenable.If the authority of the New Testament is undermined, all its teachings are likewise affected. For over a century the credibility of the New Testament text has been eroded, and this credibility crisis has been forced upon the attention of the laity by the modern versions that enclose parts of the text in brackets and have numerous footnotes of a sort that raise doubts about the integrity of the Text.
The consequences of all this are serious and far-reaching for the future of the Church. It seems unreasonable that individuals and organizations that profess to champion a high view of Scripture, that defend verbal plenary inspiration and the inerrancy of the Autographs, should embrace a Greek text that effectively undermines their belief.Since their sincerity is evident, one must conclude that they are uninformed, or have not really looked at the evidence and thought through the implications. So I will now set out some of that evidence and discuss the implications. I wish to emphasize that I am not impugning the personal sincerity or orthodoxy of those who use the UBS text; I am challenging the presuppositions that lie behind it and calling attention to the "proof of the pudding."

ERRORS OF FACT AND CONTRADICTIONS
-In these I'll put the Majority Text first and UBS and or Nestle Aland (NA25) second

Luke 4:4 [In the synagogues] of Galilee
[in the synagogues] of Judea

Problem: Jesus was in Galilee (and continued there), not in Judea, as the context makes clear. In the parallel passage, Mark 1:35-39, all texts agree that Jesus was in Galilee. Thus UBS3 contradicts itself by reading Judea in Luke 4:44. Bruce Metzger makes clear that the UBS editors did this on purpose when he explains that their reading "is obviously the more difficult, and copyists have corrected it . . . in accord with the parallels in Mt 4.23 and Mk 1.39."[5] Thus the UBS editors introduce a contradiction into their text which is also an error of fact. This error in the eclectic text is reproduced by LB, NIV, NASB, NEB, RSV, etc. NRSV adds insult to injury: "So he continued proclaiming the message in the synagogues of Judea."

Luke 23:45 [the sun] was darkened
[the sun] being eclipsed

Problem: An eclipse of the sun is impossible during a full moon. Jesus was crucified during the Passover, and the Passover is always at full moon (which is why the date for Easter moves around). UBS introduces a scientific error.

Mark 6:22 [the daughter] herself of Herodias
his [daughter] Herodias
Problem: UBS in Mark 6:22 contradicts UBS in Matthew 14:6.Matthew 14:6 states that the girl was the daughter of Herodias (Herodias had been the wife of Philip, King Herod's brother, but was now living with Herod). Here UBS makes the girl out to be Herod's own daughter, and calls her "Herodias". Metzger defends the choice of the UBS Committee with these words: "It is very difficult to decide which reading is the least unsatisfactory" (p. 89)! (Do the UBS editors consider that the original reading is lost? If not it must be "unsatisfactory", but are those editors really competent to make such a judgment? And just what might be so “unsatisfactory” about the reading of over 99% of the MSS? I suppose because it creates no problem.) The modern versions that usually identify with UBS part company with it here, except for NRSV that reads, "his daughter Herodias."

1 Corinthians 5:1 is named
Problem: It was reported that a man had his father's wife, a type of fornication such that not even the Gentiles talked about it. However, the UBS text affirms that this type of incest does not even exist among the Gentiles, a plain falsehood. Every conceivable type of sexual perversion has existed throughout human history

Luke 3:33 of Aminadab of Aram
of Aminadab of Admin of Arni

Problem: The fictitious Admin and Arni are intruded into Christ's genealogy. UBS has misrepresented the evidence in their apparatus so as to hide the fact that no Greek MS has the precise text they have printed, a veritable "patchwork quilt". In Metzger's presentation of the UBS Committee's reasoning in this case he writes, "the Committee adopted what seems to be the least unsatisfactory form of text" (p. 136). The UBS editors concoct their own reading and proclaim it "the least unsatisfactory"! And just what might be "unsatisfactory" about the reading of over 99% of the MSS except that it doesn't introduce any difficulties? There is complete confusion in the Egyptian camp. That confusion must have commenced in the second century, resulting from several easy transcriptional errors, simple copying mistakes. APAM to APNI is very easy (in the early centuries only upper case letters were used); with a scratchy quill the cross strokes in the A and M could be light, and a subsequent copyist could mistake the left leg of the M as going with the L to make N, and the right leg of the M would become I. Very early “Aminadab” was misspelled as “Aminadam”, which survives in some 25% of the extant MSS. The "Adam" of Aleph, syrs and copsa arose through an easy instance of homoioarcton (the eye of a copyist went from the first A in "Aminadam" to the second, dropping "Amin-" and leaving "Adam"). A and D are easily confused, especially when written by hand—"Admin" presumably came from “AMINadab/m”, though the process was more complicated. The "i" of "Admin" and "Arni" is corrupted to "ei" in Codex B (a frequent occurrence in that MS—perhaps due to Coptic influence). Codex Aleph conflated the ancestor that produced "Adam" with the one that produced "Admin", etc. The total confusion in Egypt does not surprise us, but how shall we account for the text and apparatus of UBS3 in this instance? And whatever possessed the editors of NASB, NRSV, TEV, LB, Berkeley, etc. to embrace such an egregious error?

Matthew 19:17 Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, God.
-Why do you ask me about the good? One is good

Problem: UBS in Matthew 19:17 contradicts UBS in Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19 (wherein all texts agree with the Byzantine here).Presumably Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but there is no way that whatever He said could legitimately yield the two translations into Greek given above.That the Latin versions offer a conflation suggests that both the other variants must have existed in the second century—indeed, the Diatessaron overtly places the Byzantine reading in the first half of that century. The Church in Egypt during the second century was dominated by Gnosticism. That such a "nice" gnostic variant came into being is no surprise, but why do modern editors embrace it? Because it is the "more obscure one" (Metzger, p. 49). This "obscurity" was so attractive to the UBS Committee that they printed another "patchwork quilt"—taking the young man's question and this first part of the Lord's answer together, the precise text of UBS3 is found only in the corrector of Codex B; further, with reference to the main Greek MSS given as supporting the eclectic text here (À,B,D,L,Q,f1), the fact is that no two of them precisely agree! (Should they be regarded as reliable witnesses? On what basis?) Most modern versions join UBS in this error also.

Acts 19:16 them
both of them
Problem: The sons of Sceva were seven, not two.To argue that "both" can mean "all" on the basis of this passage is to beg the question. An appeal to Acts 23:8 is likewise unconvincing. "For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both." "Angel" and "spirit" if not intended as synonyms at least belong to a single class, spirit beings. The Pharisees believed in "both"—resurrection and spirit beings. There is no basis here for claiming that "both" can legitimately refer to seven (Acts 19:16).Still, most modern versions do render "both" as "all". NASB actually renders "both of them," making the contradiction overt!

Matthew 1:7-8 Asa
Asaph
Problem: Asaph does not belong in Jesus' genealogy. Asaph was a Levite, not of the tribe of Judah; he was a psalmist, not a king. It is clear from Metzger's comments that the UBS editors understand that their reading refers to the Levite and should not be construed as an alternate spelling of Asa; he overtly calls Asaph an "error" (p. 1). In fact, "Asaph" is probably not a misspelling of "Asa". Not counting Asa and Amon (see v. 10) Codex B misspells 13 names in this chapter, while Codex Aleph misspells 10, which undermines their credibility. However, their misspellings involve dittography, gender change, or a similar sound (z for s, d for t, m for n)—not adding an extraneous consonant, like f, nor trading dissimilar sounds, like s for n.

In response to Lagrange, who considered "Asaph" to be an ancient scribal error, Metzger writes: "Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation" (p. 1). Metzger frankly declares that the spelling they have adopted is "erroneous". The UBS editors have deliberately imported an error into their text, which is faithfully reproduced by NAB (New American Bible) and NRSV. RSV and NASB offer a footnote to the effect that the Greek reads "Asaph"—it would be less misleading if they said that a tiny fraction of the Greek MSS so read. The case of Amon vs. Amos in verse 10 is analogous to this one. Metzger says that "Amos" is "an error for 'Amon'" (p. 2), and the UBS editors have duly placed the error in their text.

Matthew 10:10 neither staffs
neither a staff
Problem: In both Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3 UBS has "neither a staff," thus contradicting Mark 6:8 where all texts have "only a staff."Discussion: In Luke and Matthew the Byzantine text reads "neither staffs", which does not contradict Mark—the case of the staffs is analogous to that of the tunics; they were to take only one, not several. A superficial reader would probably expect the singular; that some scribe in Egypt should have trouble with "staffs" and simplify it to "a staff" comes as no surprise, but why do the UBS editors import this error into their text? Almost all modern versions follow UBS both here and in Luke 9:3.

Mark 1:2 [as it is written]in the prophets
[as it is written] in Isaiah the prophet
Problem: The UBS text ascribes extraneous material to Isaiah. The rest of verse 2 is a quote from Malachi 3:1 while verse 3 is from Isaiah 40:3. Once again Metzger uses the "harder reading" argument, in effect (p. 73), but the eclectic choice is most probably the result of early harmonizing activity.Almost all modern versions agree with UBS here.

I pause to register a case where the chief "Alexandrian" witnesses introduce a contradiction that the "critical" texts have not adopted, thankfully, although Westcott and Hort included it in double brackets in their text. This gives a further illustration of the tendency of those MSS.

Matthew 27:49 but another taking a spear pierced His side, and water and blood came out

Problem: The "Alexandrian" reading here has Jesus being speared before His death (presumably becoming the direct cause of that death), which contradicts John 19:34 that states plainly that Jesus' side was pierced after He dismissed His spirit.
I am well aware that the foregoing examples may not strike the reader as being uniformly convincing. However, I submit that there is a cumulative effect. By dint of ingenuity and mental gymnastics it may be possible to appear to circumvent one or another of these examples (including those that follow), but with each added instance the strain on our credulity increases. One or two circumventions may be accepted as possible, but five or six become highly improbable; ten or twelve are scarcely tolerable.

Anomalies/Aberrations

John 7:8 not yet
not
Problem: Since Jesus did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do), the UBS text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Him.

John 6:47 [believes] into me
[believes]
Problem: Jesus is making a formal declaration about how one can have eternal life: "Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes into me has everlasting life." By omitting "into me" the UBS text opens the door to universalism.

Acts 28:13 making a circuit [we reached Rhegium]
taking away (something) [we reached Rhegium]
Problem: The verb chosen by UBS, periairew, is transitive, and is meaningless here.Metzger's lame explanation is that a majority of the UBS Committee took the word to be "a technical nautical term of uncertain meaning" (p. 501)! Why do they choose to disfigure the text on such poor evidence when there is an easy transcriptional explanation? The Greek letters O and Q are very similar, and being side by side in a word it would be easy to drop one of them out, in this case the theta. Most modern versions are actually based on the "old" Nestle text, which here agrees with the Majority reading. NRSV, however, follows UBS3, rendering it as "then we weighed anchor."

Mark 16:9-20 UBS and NA omit it.
-Problem: A serious aberration is introduced—it is affirmed that Mark's Gospel ends with 16:8.UBS3 encloses these verses in double brackets, which means they are "regarded as later additions to the text," and they give their decision an {A} grade, "virtually certain". So, the UBS editors assure us that the genuine text of Mark ends with 16:8. But why do critics insist on rejecting this passage? It is contained in every extant Greek MS (about 1,800) except three (really only two, B and 304—Aleph is not properly "extant" because it is a forgery at this point).[13] Every extant Greek Lectionary (about 2,000?) contains them (one of them, 185, doing so only in the Menologion). Every extant Syriac MS (about 1,000?) except one (Sinaitic) contains them. Every extant Latin MS (8,000?) except one (k) contains them. Every extant Coptic MS except one contains them. We have hard evidence for the "inclusion" from the II century (Irenaeus and the Diatessaron), and presumably the first half of that century. We have no such hard evidence for the "exclusion".In the face of such massive evidence, why do the critics insist on rejecting this passage? Lamentably, most modern versions also cast doubt upon the authenticity of these verses in one way or another (NRSV is especially objectionable here). As one who believes that the Bible is God's Word, I find it to be inconceivable that an official biography of Jesus Christ, commissioned by God and written subject to His quality control, should omit proofs of the resurrection, should exclude all post-resurrection appearances, should end with the clause "because they were afraid"! If the critics' assessment is correct we seem to be between a rock and a hard place. Mark's Gospel as it stands is mutilated (if it ends at v. 8), the original ending having disappeared without a trace. But in that event what about God's purpose in commissioning this biography?

John 1:18 the only begotten son
an only begotten god
the only begotten god-NA
Problem: A serious anomaly is introduced—God, as God, is not begotten. The human body and nature of Jesus Christ was indeed literally begotten in the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit; God the Son has existed eternally. "An only begotten god" is so deliciously gnostic that the apparent Egyptian provenance of this reading makes it doubly suspicious. It would also be possible to render the second reading as "only begotten god!", emphasizing the quality, and this has appealed to some who see in it a strong affirmation of Christ's deity. However, if Christ received His "Godhood" through the begetting process then He cannot be the eternally pre-existing Second Person of the Godhead. Nor is "only begotten" analogous to "firstborn", referring to priority of position—that would place the Son above the Father. No matter how one looks at it, the UBS reading introduces a serious anomaly.

John 7:53-8:11 Omitted in UBS
The evidence against the Majority Text is stronger than in any of the previous examples, but assuming that the passage is spurious (for the sake of the argument), how could it ever have intruded here, and to such effect that it is attested by some 85% of the MSS? Let's try to read the larger passage without these verses—we must go from 7:52 to 8:12 directly. Reviewing the context, the chief priests and Pharisees had sent officers to arrest Jesus, to no avail; a "discussion" ensues; Nicodemus makes a point, to which the Pharisees answer:



(7:52) "Are you also from Galilee? Search and look, for no prophet has arisen out of Galilee."

(8:12) Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world . . . ."
What is the antecedent of "them", and what is the meaning of "again"? By the normal rules of grammar, if 7:53-8:11 is missing then "them" must refer to the "Pharisees" and "again" means that there has already been at least one prior exchange. But, 7:45 makes clear that Jesus was not there with the Pharisees. Thus, UBS introduces an aberration. And yet, Metzger claims that the passage "interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff." (p. 220)! To look for the antecedents of 8:12 in 7:37-39 not only does despite to the syntax but also runs afoul of 8:13—"the Pharisees" respond to Jesus' claim in verse 12, but "the Pharisees" are somewhere else, 7:45-52 (if the Pericope is absent).Metzger also claims that "the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel"—but, wouldn't the native speakers of Greek at that time have been in a better position than modern critics to notice something like that? So how could they allow such an "extraneous" passage to be forced into the text? I submit that the evident answer is that they did not; it was there all the time. I also protest their use of brackets here. Since the editors clearly regard the passage to be spurious they should be consistent and delete it, as do NEB and Williams. That way the full extent of their error would be open for all to see. NIV, NASB, NRSV, Berkeley and TEV also use brackets to question the legitimacy of this passage.

1 Timothy 3:16 God [was manifested in flesh]
who [was manifested in flesh]
that [was manifested in flesh]NA

Problem: A grammatical anomaly is introduced. "Great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifested in flesh" is worse in Greek than it is in English. "Mystery" is neuter in gender while "godliness" is feminine, but "who" is masculine!

2 Peter 3:10 [the earth . . .] will be burned up
[the earth . . .] will be found
Problem: The UBS reading is nonsensical; the context is clearly one of judgment.Metzger actually states that their text "seems to be devoid of meaning in the context" (p. 706)! So why did they choose it? Metzger explains that there is "a wide variety of readings, none of which seems to be original"—presumably if "shall be burned up" were the only reading, with unanimous attestation (it has 94% of the MSS), he would still reject it, but he can scarcely argue that it is meaningless. The UBS editors deliberately chose a variant that they believed to be "devoid of meaning in the context." NASB abandons UBS here, giving the Byzantine reading; NEB and NIV render "will be laid bare"; TEV has "will vanish".

1 Peter 2:2 [desire . . . the word that] you may grow [thereby]
[desire . . . the word that] you may grow [thereby] into salvation
-- Problem: A doctrinal anomaly is introduced. Peter is writing to the "elect" (1:2), to the "redeemed" (1:18), to the "born again" (1:23), to “a holy priesthood” (2:5), to “believers” (2:7), to “slaves of God” (2:16)—they do indeed need to grow, but not "into salvation".Metzger explains: "The TR . . . omits ["into salvation"] either through an oversight in copying . . . or because the idea of 'growing into salvation' was theologically unacceptable" (p. 689). Notice that the UBS editors understand their text to mean "growing into salvation." TEV, NRSV and Jerusalem render UBS literally, putting the salvation in the future. NIV renders "grow up in your salvation," something the text doesn't say, while LB has a looser variation on that theme (NEB is looser still).

How is all of this to be explained? I believe the answer lies in the area of presuppositions. There has been a curious reluctance on the part of conservative scholars to come to grips with this matter. To assume that the editorial choices of a naturalistic scholar will not be influenced by his theological bias is naive in the extreme.

To sum it up, I return to the opening question: "What difference does it make?" Not only do we have the confusion caused by two rather different competing forms of the Greek text, but one of them (the eclectic text) incorporates errors and contradictions that undermine the doctrine of inspiration and virtually vitiate the doctrine of inerrancy; the other (the Majority Text) does not. The first is based on subjective criteria, applied by naturalistic critics; the second is based on the consensus of the manuscript tradition down through the centuries. Because the conservative evangelical schools and churches have generally embraced the theory (and therefore the presuppositions) that underlies the eclectic text (UBS3/Nestle26), there has been an ongoing hemorrhage or defection within the evangelical camp with reference to the doctrines of Biblical inspiration and inerrancy (especially). The authority of Scripture has been undermined —it no longer commands immediate and unquestioned obedience. As a natural consequence there is a generalized softening of our basic commitment to Christ and His Kingdom. Worse yet, through our missionaries we have been exporting all of this to the emerging churches in the "third world". Alas!

















_________________
Christopher

 2006/7/25 3:33Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: Majoritity or Minority Text-What difference does it make?

Quote:
Not only do we have the confusion caused by two rather different competing forms of the Greek text, but one of them (the eclectic text) incorporates errors and contradictions that undermine the doctrine of inspiration and virtually vitiate the doctrine of inerrancy; the other (the Majority Text) does not.


The Textus Receptus itself is also an eclectic text. There is no single manuscript which has a perfect copy of the original.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/25 4:41Profile
MR_CPK
Member



Joined: 2004/7/9
Posts: 36
Indiana

 Re:

Quote-"The Textus Receptus itself is also an eclectic text. There is no single manuscript which has a perfect copy of the original."

First off I didtn't dubb it the eclectic text. That's just one of the names that's been given besides "critical" and "minority. And here is why.The definition of eclectic is-"Unrelated and unspecialized. Crossing a range or mixture of specialties." The majority is NOT eclectic in the true sense of the word. Why? Because we have a majority of manuscripts to witness to the fact that they are "related"(literally) (I know there are some instances where a majority reading isn't available but in those few instances it's not hard to find the reading that is correct using other sources)Whereas in the minority text we find Bruce Metzger and the boys bringing out readings that aren't in ANY manuscripts or the writing of the early Church fathers or the Latin Vulgate. That is eclectisism. It is eclectic to take the Worst least verified reading of a text and say this is what it should say BECAUSE it contradicts other scripture and that must be what it originally said because there was never a time when God's word was perfect. This is the thought line they are on with the eclectic and it is a slippery slope.


_________________
Christopher

 2006/7/25 11:33Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
eclectic


This is the same root as 'ekklesia' or a called-out company. An eclectic text is one 'gathered out' of various manuscripts. In that sense even Erasmus' original was an eclectic text.

You will be aware that we don't even know what 'eclectic' text the KJV was based on. Scrivener tried to reverse-engineer a text which is sometimes called the 'text behind the KJV' but he created it by eliminating any variants which were not represented in the KJV.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/25 13:13Profile
MR_CPK
Member



Joined: 2004/7/9
Posts: 36
Indiana

 Re:

Quote-This is the same root as 'ekklesia' or a called-out company. An eclectic text is one 'gathered out' of various manuscripts. In that sense even Erasmus' original was an eclectic text.

This is only a partial truth.


_________________
Christopher

 2006/7/25 13:21Profile
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re: Majoritity or Minority Text-What difference does it make?

Quote:
The authority of Scripture has been undermined —it no longer commands immediate and unquestioned obedience. As a natural consequence there is a generalized softening of our basic commitment to Christ and His Kingdom.



Only by those who didn't know Christ in Spirit and truth, but knew Christ by the bible alone.

Those who have been born again follow Christ by continually giving themselves to Christ. Because of this, fruit is produced in them. They do not "obey" the law, rather the law is produced in them as fruit through the indwelling of the Spirit. Likewise, anyone who "obeys" the bible is living under the law and has no part of Christ. They are putting on a false appearance of being Holy, while inside they deny Christ.

The bible should be made true in a believer by Christ. A believer obeys Christ in love by giving thier life to Him. As a result, Christ works in them and they naturally obey the bible. However, any person who "obeys" the bible as "the" authority has given themselves over to a false god. This form of idoltary is prevelant in the Church currently. The bible is not the Word of God. Rather, it is a testimony to the Word of God. However, the Church has adopted the bible as the Word of God making it the fourth person in their trinity.

In the lives of true believers, the bible has no authority and never has had any. Those who have been born again died with Christ to the law. The do not follow "laws" rather, the law is written in them. Christ lives in them, and as such, they don't follow the law, they follow Christ.

The authority the bible has had is over non-believers. The bible has been imposed as an authority or law to those who really don't know Christ. These people don't have Christ in them, and so, they "obey" the bible. They obey the bible as though it were God. Since they do not have Christ, the law is an oppressive force over them. Inside, they have sin. Their nature is to sin. And so, the law oppresses them.

There is no "softening" of a commitment to Christ. Rather, a slow division is occurring. Those who are in Christ know His voice. They follow Him. Those who are not in Christ, do not know Him. They do not follow Christ. And as such, people who are without Christ are defying the bible. They are rejecting it. They do not want to be oppressed. Instead, they are turning toward lawlessness. Instead of being set free from sin by dying with Christ to the law, they are setting themselves free by giving into sin and rejecting the law of God.

This lawlessness is abounding and will continue to abound. Because of this, many will fall away from Christ. It will appear as a disobedience to the bible, but in truth it is a rejection of Christ. They are openly rejecting Christ by refusing to repent of thier sins. Rather, in thier minds, they have no sin. Sin is natural, they will say.

As lawlessness abounds, a seperation will occur. Those who truly know Christ will know His voice and will keep thier confidence in Him. Those who do not know Christ will slowly be drawn away into lawlessness.

Quote:
Worse yet, through our missionaries we have been exporting all of this to the emerging churches in the "third world". Alas!



Alas, we do have a Savior who is the Head of the true Church. He is fully capable of using weak and sinful people to do His work, all the while seeing people saved. We should not worry what is happening to the Church, for she is in good hands, the best.

In Christ,
Blake


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2006/7/25 14:42Profile
MR_CPK
Member



Joined: 2004/7/9
Posts: 36
Indiana

 Re:

Quote-"In the lives of true believers, the bible has no authority and never has had any."

This is the CRAZIEST statement I've ever heard in my entire life.


_________________
Christopher

 2006/7/25 20:57Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

beenblake's

Quote:
The bible is not the Word of God. Rather, it is a testimony to the Word of God.

This is not evangelical Christianity but [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=13933]Barthianism.[/url]


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/26 4:00Profile
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3707
Ca.

 Re:

I am not giving Blake any needed help, he can do just fine himself, but I believe he is saying it is the Christ in us that makes the Bible the authority. He is the Word of God. Our hope is in Christ and no other, He is a Person a living, giving Person of God. He is God in us. Act 17:28 For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. We are the offspring of God. Think on that. Christ Himself is the Word and He is in us and we live by His life. The bible as the authoritative word of God means nothing If Christ is not born again in the believer, then it is Christ the Word born again in us. 1 Peter 1:22-23 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. Who is the Word? John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

It is people that don't see who the God in us is and what makes the Word living in them that use the bible as their law of life. We have the law of Live Himself in us and it is His life that we are to be living. Galatians 2:19-21 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. Law on this side.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Law on this side.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

In the middle of the Law of the bible is Christ Himself. Who is our life outside of the Law?
"Christ in you, the hope of Glory" Col 1:27

Go Blake Go, I see Christ in you because I see Christ in me. May the power of the Holy Spirit bring Jesus Christ forth in His appointed Work of the Holy Spirit in us. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:


In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2006/7/26 4:13Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I am not giving Blake any needed help, he can do just fine himself, but I believe he is saying it is the Christ in us that makes the Bible the authority.


So is the Bible the Word of God or is it only the Word of God when we recognise it to be the Word of God. Was the original text without error and directly inspired by God or is it just the witness of God's people to what they believe they have heard?

Human beings are fallible and we would expect every human witness to be fallible but if it is the Witness of God we may expect it to be infallible.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/26 4:42Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy