Biblical errors....

[rjcruiser]

I believe my Final Authority is the WORD of God. So I don't care what Bible (NIV ASA NASAV ect)someone uses just as long as they have ONE that is their Fianl Authority . If you use all the versions plus the greek text and keep some verses you like and through out other because that Bible doesn't agree with you , then YOU become the Final Authority.

This is the first time I've ever heard that argument. I don't think that the differences between the NIV, NASB, KJV change the text enough to be able to say that one verse in one version means something different than the verse in another translation.

I do agree that anytime you start deeming some scripture as valid scripture and other as not (see debate we've had with gr8bldr), you get yourself into a world of mess.

I first sin in the Bible is not Eve eating fruit. It's Eve changing the word of God , compare Gen 2:16 with Gen 3:3

Interesting thought. Not sure I agree/disagree with it, but interesting thought.

 

[centerpin fan]

When we qualify our “Final Authority” to the extent that it must be such that we can put our hand on it and read it, do we not bring into the picture the same “error” factor that is the basis of this thread;

We also set up a standard that would have been virtually impossible for the early church to live by.

 

[centerpin fan]

But if we are going to have honest debate we have to be using the same Final Authority or they will say something different.

People on this forum use the exact same final authority and still have radically different interpretations. The same has been true since the church began.

 

[BrowningFan]

This is the first time I've ever heard that argument. I don't think that the differences between the NIV, NASB, KJV change the text enough to be able to say that one verse in one version means something different than the verse in another translation.

I do agree that anytime you start deeming some scripture as valid scripture and other as not (see debate we've had with gr8bldr), you get yourself into a world of mess.



Interesting thought. Not sure I agree/disagree with it, but interesting thought.

Good post and Thanks. I just want you and everyone else on the forum to know I draw I hard line on the Bible issue (but I could care less what someone else uses). But as far as my Christian life I'm not legalistic like most KJV guys. They can be the most legalistic guys I have ever met and most are man made rules (long dresses for women, no facial hair ect. I'm just a normal guy , I will drink a beer or 2 , I love hunting ,fishing and I play or practice golf everyday. I have been blessed to learn the Bible from some of the greatest minds on Bible Doctrine and I study from mostly pre 1950 works like Clarence Larkin as far as Bible Doctrine Clarence is hands down the best. The one thing I have learned from all these guys is the Word of God is the Final Authority. I said all this so you know I'm not here to debate Bible versions to use ,that was settled for me years ago.

 

[tell sackett]

After a long period of chewing on my tounge and debating with myself (to be honest, I'm breaking my word), I just can't stand it any more. All of this "stuff" about which came first the manna or the quail is driving me nuts. Read what both chapters (Ex.16 & Num.11) say. It's really very simple, manna then quail.

Ex.16:4 - the promise of manna
Ex.16:7 - in the morning
Ex.16:8 - flesh in the evening, bread in the morning. Please note carefully that it does not say the next morning.
Ex.16:12&13- the same as v.8, it does not say the next morning. Yes, the order is reversed, but that does not make it the next day.

Num.11:1-5 - The people complain and lust for flesh to eat.
Num.11:6 - ..there is nothing at all besides this manna before our eyes!
Num.11:31-32 - quail come.

Note also Ps.78:23-28 - manna first and then quail (especially v.27- also)

The tactics of the adversary haven't changed since Gen.3:1, he just finds new helpers.

Okay, I've said what I needed to say, now I'm returning to lurk in my self imposed exile.

Be blessed my brothers.

 

[stringmusic]

After a long period of chewing on my tounge and debating with myself (to be honest, I'm breaking my word), I just can't stand it any more. All of this "stuff" about which came first the manna or the quail is driving me nuts. Read what both chapters (Ex.16 & Num.11) say. It's really very simple, manna then quail.

Ex.16:4 - the promise of manna
Ex.16:7 - in the morning
Ex.16:8 - flesh in the evening, bread in the morning. Please note carefully that it does not say the next morning.
Ex.16:12&13- the same as v.8, it does not say the next morning. Yes, the order is reversed, but that does not make it the next day.

Num.11:1-5 - The people complain and lust for flesh to eat.
Num.11:6 - ..there is nothing at all besides this manna before our eyes!
Num.11:31-32 - quail come.

Note also Ps.78:23-28 - manna first and then quail (especially v.27- also)

The tactics of the adversary haven't changed since Gen.3:1, he just finds new helpers.

Okay, I've said what I needed to say, now I'm returning to lurk in my self imposed exile.

Be blessed my brothers.

Thanks for the imput. Come around more often.

 

[WELLS8230]

Gonna split the sky in the east!

 

[1gr8bldr]

After a long period of chewing on my tounge and debating with myself (to be honest, I'm breaking my word), I just can't stand it any more. All of this "stuff" about which came first the manna or the quail is driving me nuts. Read what both chapters (Ex.16 & Num.11) say. It's really very simple, manna then quail.

Ex.16:4 - the promise of manna
Ex.16:7 - in the morning
Ex.16:8 - flesh in the evening, bread in the morning. Please note carefully that it does not say the next morning.
Ex.16:12&13- the same as v.8, it does not say the next morning. Yes, the order is reversed, but that does not make it the next day.

Num.11:1-5 - The people complain and lust for flesh to eat.
Num.11:6 - ..there is nothing at all besides this manna before our eyes!
Num.11:31-32 - quail come.

Note also Ps.78:23-28 - manna first and then quail (especially v.27- also)

The tactics of the adversary haven't changed since Gen.3:1, he just finds new helpers.

Okay, I've said what I needed to say, now I'm returning to lurk in my self imposed exile.

Be blessed my brothers.

Sorry dude, but your out on a limb. First off, if you think it did not mean "the next morning" then when was he telling them this? LOL. And to compound the situation, Numbers has the Israelites complaining about all they ever get is this manna. From this we assume that it was more than one day of eating manna. This unlike the Ex. verse that says Quail one day, manna in the morning. Sorry, but your ship has sank. I might have let you slide if it had not been for what I highlighted

 

[hummerpoo]

I know many believers don't put as much clout on the Bible as I may. I know believers are saved and going to heaven that don't even open their Bible. I believe God wrote a book, many may think that is extreme. In my mind God speaks to you through his WORD. Christ was called the WORD. So I put a lot of clout on his word. I believe my Final Authority is the WORD of God. So I don't care what Bible (NIV ASA NASAV ect)someone uses just as long as they have ONE that is their Fianl Authority . If you use all the versions plus the greek text and keep some verses you like and through out other because that Bible doesn't agree with you , then YOU become the Final Authority. So I don't know how the Holy Spirit can work if YOU are the Final Authority and not the WORD of God.
So if my preacher doesn't match my Bible I choose my Bible over what he says , If another version doesn't match my Bible I choose mine over that version. I first sin in the Bible is not Eve eating fruit. It's Eve changing the word of God , compare Gen 2:16 with Gen 3:3

The first question I ask a JW, Mormon , 7dayer ect ..... What is their Final Authority their Watchtower , Elders ???? It's amazing the look on their face. But if we are going to have honest debate we have to be using the same Final Authority or they will say something different. I will let them use The New World Translation (I have read it 2 times so I have not issue debating using their Bible it's from the Westcott and Hort greek text just like the ( NIV ASV NASV) so I know the areas to focus on.

That’s a very big “If”, leading to a very weak “straw man”. It leans on the incompatibility of flesh and Spirit, then denies the promises of the Spirit (see the opening paragraph of F1’s post #39, as well as his supporting scripture and so many more).

 

[BrowningFan]

That’s a very big “If”, leading to a very weak “straw man”. It leans on the incompatibility of flesh and Spirit, then denies the promises of the Spirit (see the opening paragraph of F1’s post #39, as well as his supporting scripture and so many more).

I don't disagree with what F1 posted

 

[Ronnie T]

Where do I start?

I don't believe the Bible is the final authority? I believe Jesus the Christ is the final authority.

I believe(know) that the Bible is a compilation of writing of the apostles, and others from the 1st century church.

The four gospels were written to different groups of people for different purposes. One is even address to a specific individual. I need to realize that as I study them.

Acts is a second volume to Luke's Gospel. Both were written to a man named Theophilus. Acts records the history of the establishment of the church, along with being, for us, the writing that connects today's church to Judiasm. I need to remember those things as I study from this writing.

The apostle Paul wrote many letters to churches that he had already visited, or was planning to visit. In these very specific letters we're able to learn through the things that the inspired Paul wrote to those individual churches

Paul's letters, and all the other letters, were written to, and for, Christians.

In Acts, Luke writes of unbelievers coming into the kingdom. Being added to the kingdom. Unbelievers are taught and brought into the kingdom in Acts.
It also provides a historical perspective. And all those things are important to us today. And I need to realize those things as I read.

All of these writings are given and are useful today to lead us to, and into Christ. They tell us about life in Christ.

But the Bible is not my Savior. The Bible is not my salvation.
It is given to me so that I might know.

It is all that I have, for I cannot trust anything else as truth.

 

[chadair]

This is the first time I've ever heard that argument. I don't think that the differences between the NIV, NASB, KJV change the text enough to be able to say that one verse in one version means something different than the verse in another translation.

I don't think so either, but I do believe that it's translation from Greek to english or Hebrew to English can be takin outta text in small ways.
I'm copying and pasting from from a Catholic Apologetics site and it does mention the translation difference in certain bibles. and this may be way off topic, but it still shows the translation differences
"The term "born again" may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated "born again" (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the Bible—John 3:3 and 3:7—and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated "again," but in the New Testament, it most often means "from above." In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated "again" are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering. "

 

[BrowningFan]

I don't think so either, but I do believe that it's translation from Greek to english or Hebrew to English can be takin outta text in small ways.
I'm copying and pasting from from a Catholic Apologetics site and it does mention the translation difference in certain bibles. and this may be way off topic, but it still shows the translation differences
"The term "born again" may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated "born again" (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the Bible—John 3:3 and 3:7—and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated "again," but in the New Testament, it most often means "from above." In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated "again" are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering. "

So which Greek Text are you studying.

Erasmus
Colinaens
Stephanus
Beza
Elzevir
Bentley
Hug
Doecel
Mattaei
Mace
Griebach
Semlar
Harwood
Alter
Birch
Lachmann
Tregelles
Hort
Wotswoth
Nestle
Souter
Aland Methmar


They are all a little different and some are way different.

 

[chadair]

So which Greek Text are you studying.

Erasmus
Colinaens
Stephanus
Beza
Elzevir
Bentley
Hug
Doecel
Mattaei
Mace
Griebach
Semlar
Harwood
Alter
Birch
Lachmann
Tregelles
Hort
Wotswoth
Nestle
Souter
Aland Methmar


They are all a little different and some are way different.

where did I say I was studying Greek??? I said I copied it from an Apologetic site I visit

 

[BrowningFan]

where did I say I was studying Greek??? I said I copied it from an Apologetic site I visit

I'm Sorry ..... I thought in post # 52 you said the Greek to English was takin outta text in small ways : I was just trying to say they are not the same text.

You can't do what you trying to do , It like try to use the Rule Book for Little League Baseball and Major League Baseball , both baseball but not the same.


Textus Receptus (KJV)


Erasmus
Colinaens
Stephanus
Beza
Elzevir



Westcott and Hort (Catholic Bible , Jehovah Witness bibles and many others )

Elzevir
Bentley
Hug
Doecel
Mattaei
Mace
Griebach
Semlar
Harwood
Alter
Birch
Lachmann
Tregelles
Hort
Wotswoth
Nestle
Souter
Aland Methma

If you are trying to find a better meaning of a verse from a Catholic site for a KJV verse it's not possible . They come form different Greek Text . Sorry they will differ.

 

[BrowningFan]

Where do I start?

I don't believe the Bible is the final authority? I believe Jesus the Christ is the final authority.

I believe(know) that the Bible is a compilation of writing of the apostles, and others from the 1st century church.

The four gospels were written to different groups of people for different purposes. One is even address to a specific individual. I need to realize that as I study them.

Acts is a second volume to Luke's Gospel. Both were written to a man named Theophilus. Acts records the history of the establishment of the church, along with being, for us, the writing that connects today's church to Judiasm. I need to remember those things as I study from this writing.

The apostle Paul wrote many letters to churches that he had already visited, or was planning to visit. In these very specific letters we're able to learn through the things that the inspired Paul wrote to those individual churches

Paul's letters, and all the other letters, were written to, and for, Christians.

In Acts, Luke writes of unbelievers coming into the kingdom. Being added to the kingdom. Unbelievers are taught and brought into the kingdom in Acts.
It also provides a historical perspective. And all those things are important to us today. And I need to realize those things as I read.

All of these writings are given and are useful today to lead us to, and into Christ. They tell us about life in Christ.

But the Bible is not my Savior. The Bible is not my salvation.
It is given to me so that I might know.

It is all that I have, for I cannot trust anything else as truth.

Your not the only one to not believe in the Final Athority of the Bible

Westcott and Hort didn't either I wished all Christians would study these two guys works and beliefs.

Their skepticism does, in fact, go even deeper. They have both become famous for being able to deny scriptural truth and still be upheld by fundamental Christianity as biblical authorities! Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith.

Hort denies the reality of Eden: "I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden'(I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues."90

Furthermore, he took sides with the apostate authors of "Essays and Reviews."

Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."91

We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated:

"As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces 'groundless,' on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did 'recognize' 'Providente' in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it; but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment."
And further commented to a colleague:

"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."92

 

[BrowningFan]

More on Westcott and Hort in their own words.

Though unimpressed with the evangelicals of his day, Hort had great admiration for Charles Darwin! To his colleague, B.F. Westcott, he wrote excitedly: "...Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book."

And to John Ellerton he writes: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period."93

Dr. Hort was also an adherent to the teaching of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. His son writes: "In undergraduate days, if not before, he came under the spell of Coleridge."94

Coleridge was the college drop-out whose drug addiction is an historical fact. "The opium habit, begun earlier to deaden the pain of rheumatism, grew stronger. After vainly trying in Malta and Italy to break away from opium, Coleridge came back to England in 1806."95

One of Coleridge's famous works is Aids to Reflection. "Its chief aim is to harmonize formal Christianity with Coleridge's variety of transcendental philosophy. He also did much to introduce Immanual Kant and other German philosophers to English readers."96

This man, Coleridge, had a great influence on the two scholars from Cambridge.

 

[centerpin fan]

Your not the only one to not believe in the Final Athority of the Bible.

I don't think that's exactly what Ronnie's saying, but I'm sure he'll answer for himself.

I wished all Christians would study these two guys works and beliefs.

Some of us have studied them. You can't read as much KJV-only material as I have and not be familiar with W&H.

 

[BrowningFan]

I don't think that's exactly what Ronnie's saying, but I'm sure he'll answer for himself.




Some of us have studied them. You can't read as much KJV-only material as I have and not be familiar with W&H.

I think I understand what Ronnie is saying , I don't agree with all of it , but he doesn't have to answer to me.


I was pointing out W & H didn't believe the Bible or Christ had any Authority. That just seems odd for 2 Christians that wrote the Greek Text of many bibles.

 

[Ronnie T]

I don't think that's exactly what Ronnie's saying, but I'm sure he'll answer for himself.
.

You're correct.
And I'm not sure I'll answer for myself or not. Maybe.