SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Is the Bible really the inerrant Word of God?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 )
PosterThread









 Re: Idolize the KJV

Now come on Krispy, you'll be back to read because it's too irristable. You love debate as much as the next guy. And everyone knows how firm you are in that the KJV is the final authority. And thats great, of course you know that I do not believe that. Because reading the bible without the holy Spirit's authority is dead.

The KJV by itself is nothing more than paper and ink. We should at least agree on that, because reading it without faith, reading it without the holy Spirit guiding you is no different than reading any other historical work.

Ahhhh, but when it becomes sacred, it doesn't matter if there is no faith or holy Spirit, it's sacred regardless, actually what it has become in the minds of those who think that way is an Idol.

 2006/3/28 15:58
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: flaws and faith

Quote:
reading it without faith, reading it without the holy Spirit guiding you is no different than reading any other historical work.



I'd like to challenge this. For example, the commmandmdent, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," doesn't require the Holy Spirit to reveal its meaning. Also when it says, "In the beginning God created...."

Children do not require regeneration to understand the command to obey their parents.

God's word is the universal authority, because God is the God of all people regardless of whether they want to accept it or not.

By the way, I think I changed my mind on this point half way through this thread. I have come to believe that there is a lot in the Bible that even pagans can comprehend, that even atheists themselves believe. But there are also many portions that are quite meaningless and impossible apart from Spirit revelation ex Jesus words: Eat my flesh, drink my blood; if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, eternal truths, etc.

Here's a thought for Krispy to crunch on - not that it necessary, as it alluded to earlier:

My husband and I built a house two years ago. The house passed inspection and is very trustworthy, as any house could be in this temporal world.
But I have to admit that it has several flaws, and from time to time we try to fix or make improvements. But none of those flaws jeapardize it's reliability.

Could it not be so with Scripture? It is perfectly reliable in its authority, that is, its foundational structure because it is a work of the Master Builder who oversaw flawed humans to get the job done.

Though many doubt the authority of Scripture and so make themselves the authority of Scripture, surely, in spite of the flaws we can heartily say:

"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righeousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equiped for every good work."

Pardon me for being repetitive, as I think all these points have been covered each time we went "round the mountain", but it is good for ME to be sure that I am not shaken in my trust in the Word even though there are flaws, and I have an answer for the skeptics.
Diane


_________________
Diane

 2006/3/28 22:43Profile









 Re: Is the Bible really the inerrant word of God?

Hi Diane,

I thought your last post was excellent - and I thought Healingwaters' last post was excellent, and I'm still thinking about them both - because I remember how incomprehensible the Bible was to me... and I've needed a lot of help to understand it both from beloved brethren and with the help of the Holy Spirit. Honestly, it was just a bunch of words for a long time. So when you said

Quote:
I'd like to challenge this. For example, the commmandmdent, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," doesn't require the Holy Spirit to reveal its meaning.

I was inclined to agree, and it set me off wondering if anyone who has been alive since Pentecost, will be in heaven without having received the Holy Spirit. There is Romans 2:14, 15, sure, but, what about all those who have/had ceased to be obedient to a sacrificial system which satisfies God, today?

If we define adultery with Jesus words in Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (NKJV)

then although the technical meaning of the words are apparent, there is no chance of a person's efforts to keep that word, being anything more than a dead work (if they succeed completely). In itself, they are not saved by such 'work', and that's only one example. I'd go so far as to say that while a command remains out of the reach of a man or woman, by it's [i]unkeepabibility[/i] (you know what I mean :-P ) it is as good as dead to the person. The inability of the word to make any difference to their lives, makes it as good as meaningless in their experience.

The ability to [i]keep[/i] (benfit by [i]eating[/i]) the word of God in the spirit that it was intended, necessitates they have the Holy Spirit [i]and[/i] walk in the light.

Maybe I've veered off your point somewhat, but I needed to say that... I take your example about the house (Sounds exciting!) but equally repetitiously, would point out that without the Holy Spirit, the word of God's power and authority cannot [i]affect[/i] how the 'house' of even a [i]believer[/i], is being built.

 2006/3/29 7:45
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
Next question... which Bible? NIV, NASV, KJV ect?



There are not many bibles. The NIV, NASB, KJV, etc are not different Bibles but differeint tranlations of the One Bible. And they vary as to thier accuracy and fidelity to the origional.

We don't have the origional manuscripts but we have miriads of copies of the origionals which are in 98% harmony with the 2% disagreements being mainly is spelling and such minor insignifigant factors.

Through thses God has persevered His Word throughout the centuries. And through the available translations we have the ability to know accurately what the origionals said.

As the translators of the 1611 KJV said in their preface, "even the meanest translation is the Word of God".

Graftedbranch

 2006/3/29 10:14Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
I'd like to challenge this. For example, the commmandmdent, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," doesn't require the Holy Spirit to reveal its meaning. Also when it says, "In the beginning God created...."



One does not need the indwelling Spirit to understand every doctrine or teaching of the Bible. But one needs the Spirit to enter into its intrinsic meaning and to have any benefit from it.

One may obey the command "thou shalt not commit adultry" and do this quite apart from Christ. ONe can build him self up in biblical morality and not be a member of the Kingdom of God which requires being born of the Spirit, possesing the Divine Life to enter into (John 3).

The moral teaching of the Bible has no capacity to give Life. In fact, the Law of God has only one function, that is to condemn us and to show us our need of Christ.

BUt when through faith in Christ we have been regenerated with the DIvine Life, then the moral teaching of the Bible becomes to us a revelelation of the Person of Christ who indwells us. And as we live in this Person, abide in this Person, and walk by this indwelling Person, "the just requirement of the law is continually fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Graftedbranch

 2006/3/29 10:21Profile
1611word
Member



Joined: 2006/3/31
Posts: 5


 Re:

If the NIV,NASB,KJV, etc, are all the same bible, then why do the New bibles destroy important verses that Gods word, the KJV include. 98 % of all manuscripts make up the majority text and the texus receptus and this is where the KJV comes from. The NIV, NASB, NKJV, NLV, NET, and all the rest besides the KJV, follow the 2% of manuscripts that take verses away from the Bible. They are dangerous bibles and should be avoided like the plague. We do not need a new bible. We need to read our own bible and stop looking for something else.
1611word

 2006/3/31 20:14Profile









 Re:

Quote:
I'd like to challenge this. For example, the commmandmdent, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," doesn't require the Holy Spirit to reveal its meaning.


You are absolutely right!

 2006/3/31 20:57
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

The NIV, NASB, NKJV, NLV, NET, and all the rest besides the KJV, follow the 2% of manuscripts that take verses away from the Bible.



How do you know the TR didn't add those verses?

Also, are you aware that not even all the TR agrees with all the TR?


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/3/31 21:32Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
How do you know the TR didn't add those verses?



It seems the premise being put forth here is just this: That if we don't have one singe translation that is perfect, then we cannot claim to have the Word of God.

And this premise is often put forth as the logical conclusion of God's promise to preserve His Word. And therefore if we cannot look at one single translation as perfect, then God has failed to preserve His Word.

But the verses put forth to support the doctrine of the preseverance of the Bible do not really promise this but rather promise what What God has spoken will not fail and His word will abide forever.

But that notwithstanding, God has preseverd His Word, but there is nothing to suggest this is preserved in one, single, perfect translation.

The reality is we have the scriptures preserved in the manuscripts upon which the translations are based and the worth of any translation is found in its fidelity and accuracy to the origional.

As the translators preface to the KJV states, "any translation however mean is still the Word of God".

And they claimed not to offer a perfect tranlation but rather to make good translations better.

And in their edition they had many marginal notes, many alternate renderings and went to great lengths to demonstrate why these are necessary. And they did so against the same arguments put forth today to suggest that further work in tranlation in to our modern "vulgar toungs" is unnecessary and even wrong.

And their conclusion was that in all matters of importance, of central doctrine, of revealed truth, these things are clear. But in smaller matters some things are not so clear and so liberty must be given in interpretation and translation which is not an exact science, but rather an exercise which combines science, with comprehension, understanding and often ones view of the whole.

I suggest a reading of the preface to the KJV 1611 to gain a proper view of their own view, their own position, and their own conclusions regarding their work and their translation, and the need for ongoing work to follow theirs.


Graftedbranch

 2006/4/1 14:33Profile
Kungfookelly
Member



Joined: 2006/3/23
Posts: 4
Earth

 Re:

ok, ive been reading the majority of these posts, and from i get from it. the people here are debating the accuracy of the translation of bibles, right? ....why? is there really a difference in a bible made for fourth grade kids than a regular nkjv? The only thing thats different is the way things are worded, they still mean the same thing. It would be like talking to a kid about a baseball game, and asking him who won. I could say, "Team 'A' (O.o) beat the other team" while another person could say, "Team 'A' barely won, and ..(long elaborate sentence or how they won)" But its still the same, just geared from two different people. different bibles are made that way too, you know, some people have a hard time understanding what people say in the kjv, i know i do. teen bibles and other bibles are made so people can understand whats said. Its cool that everyone has a different opinion in this subject, but i think i saw that some one had written that there were sertain versons that took out scripture and added to it, but there was no compairison... Thats something that we can proove by compairing verse by verse if its true or not. I dont buy it. You can know everything in the bible inside and out without being a christian, but you can only know the creator of the word of god in the scriptures if you have the holy spirit. Theres a difference from knowledge and wisdom.

knowledge:

Noun
1. The state or fact of knowing.

wisdom:

Noun
1. The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.

Knowledge can become wisdom, but knowledge alone has no substance and no purpose, other than the fact that you know alot. Its compairable to the things of this world. In the day of judgement, its all wood hay an stubble.
I guess this is just my inability to understand debating, but dont you think that God is omnipotent? If there was even a chance of making his word infaliable, dont you think he would know and have the power to change it? Or, to make it so obvious that we as christians could come to a common conclusion that its not right? One example of that is the Mormon bible, not that i dont like them, but from talking to them enough and learning about them, its obvious that the bible they read in not the true word of God. The holy spirit gives us the spirit of god to discern what is right and not right. Of course we know whats right and wronge, ie. stealing, killing, ect.. but there are somethings that only the spirit of God can reveal.
one last thing that really bothered me too was the fact that christians, brothers and sisters in the lord are, debating.

debating:

Verb
Inflected forms: de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
Verb
intr. 1. To consider something; deliberate. 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. 3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss. 4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
Verb
tr. 1. To deliberate on; consider. 2. To dispute or argue about. 3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally. 4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.

Its like formally argueing. I dont understand why we enjoy argueing with each other. That is certainly not a characterisic of the lord. I mean, i dont really know anything about debating except for what i just looked up and have witnessed in the past. But its still argueing, why do you want to argue with your christian brothers and sisters... I dont know, it makes me think of the parable Jesus told (I really cant find it, please let me know where it is if you know..^_^;;) about a pharasee and a tax collector, the pharasee stood boldly before the temple and spoke proudly, 'Lord look at what i've done for you, I tithed regularly all that i have, and i fast daily.' (this is not exact, its pharaphraised to the best of my memory)All the while the tax collector is down on his knees, not even looking up at the temple steps, probably thinking that he is absolutly no good whatsoever. humbling himself before God. Jesus said that the tax collector was esteemed higher than the pharasee because he humbled himself. So i guess it still brings my back to the point of why argue? or debate? whatever you want to call it. when i first read this thread some of the stuff set me off. I got angry, im over it now and im not angry anymore, but it still seams like its a refined childish act of selfishness, adapted by people in this world who like to argue. I mean, its interesting to see what people think, dont get me wronge, i just dont see the purpose in debating. I have issues too.. *twiches*


_________________
Sasha

 2006/4/7 18:49Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy