"Misquoting Jesus" destroying the faith of Christians

[Guest Guest]

The Bible was formed way before some ecumenical/Catholic Council declared it officially.

I'll respectfully disagree. The books that became the bible were around, but there were dozens of additional books/chapters and a plethora of versions. If you are talking about the KJV as it exist today, you have to go back to Nicea, as that is where the books, letters and text that were in circulation where cannonized.

By the Word of God' date=' I am referring to the Gospel - which every true believer throughout this church age would have had to have heard and believed/received in order to be saved.[/quote']

With this I'll agree 100%, but will add that you don't need the bible for this. Oral tradition can sereve the same purpose as written. If the authors of the Gospels had never written anything down, but professed the Gospel message, that message would still be the same and people would have been able to hear and believe. You got to remember that all the stuff in the bible was not written down as it happend. The original text were created from oral tradition.

[Guest Guest]

The subject is inspiration, plain and simple. You just don't like it since it doesn't line up with what you believe. The verse fits whether you acknowledge it or not.

[kevinmiller]

When Vince does a thorough and unbiased study on every Bible version in every foreign language, I'll start thinking about whether there's the slightest thread of probability that the KJV trumps all other versions in the world. :cool
Just wondering if you've done any already? :coffee

[Guest Guest]

When Vince does a thorough and unbiased study on every Bible version in every foreign language, I'll start thinking about whether there's the slightest thread of probability that the KJV trumps all other versions in the world. :cool
Just wondering if you've done any already? :coffee

I really doubt you're serious. :smile If Vince went to all that trouble, you'd still try to find holes in the evidence he presents.

You two get along great about Macs and other stuff, but it seems (like many other people) that you're always trying to find something wacky about his stand on the Bible.

[Guest Guest]

I'll respectfully disagree. The books that became the bible were around, but there were dozens of additional books/chapters and a plethora of versions. If you are talking about the KJV as it exist today, you have to go back to Nicea, as that is where the books, letters and text that were in circulation where cannonized.

Just because the Catholic "church" recognized the canon doesn't change anything. I can get a group of friends together and state that Gravity is indeed a law of nature, but that has absolutely no bearing on the factuality of the subject.

Extreme importance is placed on the words of God throughout the Bible: "the words of the Lord are pure words," or "every word of God is pure," etc. While I don't say that the King James Bible is necessary for salvation, the saving message of the Gospel is.

A problem with not writing anything down is that it would become fragmented over a short period of time. That's why Peter said "We have now a more sure word of prophecy," referring to the audible voice of God, saying that the written Scriptures are more sure than God's actual voice! The writing can be preserved: the oral tradition is subject to embellishment and changes.

[Guest Guest]

When Vince does a thorough and unbiased study on every Bible version in every foreign language, I'll start thinking about whether there's the slightest thread of probability that the KJV trumps all other versions in the world. :cool
Just wondering if you've done any already? :coffee

Come on Kevin, seriously? You're going to give hundreds and hundreds of differing translations in dozens or hundreds of languages the benefit of the doubt as to their veracity and purity? Where's the intelligence in that?

[kevinmiller]

Come on Kevin, seriously? You're going to give hundreds and hundreds of differing translations in dozens or hundreds of languages the benefit of the doubt as to their veracity and purity? Where's the intelligence in that?

It's about as intelligent as claiming(as a fact) that the KJV is better than any other version without having done the research to back it up, nor the logic for it to make sense.

[Guest Guest]

Just because the Catholic "church" recognized the canon doesn't change anything. I can get a group of friends together and state that Gravity is indeed a law of nature' date=' but that has absolutely no bearing on the factuality of the subject.[/quote']

Nicea wasn't the Catholic Church, or at least not as we know it today. It involved the leading scholars of all sects of Christianity. Albeit the recognition of scriptures at Nicea did not change the scriptures, but it did decide which scriptures would be included in the bible and which would be left out, as well as which versions of those included would be used. Without Nicea, we have no bible, or at least not one as we know it today.



Of course this is true, but it wasn't my point. I was just saying that we COULD have received the Gospel without the bible (I am extremely happy we are not left with this option). Really, to hold otherwise , would be saying No Bible=No Christ=No Gospel=No Salvation. Christ would have came to this world and died for our sins whether someone wrote it down or not.

[Jerry]

You got to remember that all the stuff in the bible was not written down as it happend. The original text were created from oral tradition.

No, the Bible was inspired directly by God - He told the writers what to write. They didn't write down oral traditions. Some of the writers were eyewitnesses of the events they wrote about, still they wrote what God told them to, and not just what they were interested in writing.

As far as the books of the NT go, they were established long before the Council in the fourth century. There are church fathers in the second century that list those 27 books and no more - therefore showing which books were commonly accepted and which were not by as early as 50 years after the NT was completed. The Holy Spirit guided His people - they did not have to wait for 300 years to hear what a Council declared was the Word of God - they already knew, and embraced those Scriptures.

[Jerry]

The subject is inspiration' date=' plain and simple. You just don't like it since it doesn't line up with what you believe. The verse fits whether you acknowledge it or not.[/quote']

You are right - I don't like conclusions that are based on wrongly-dividing the Word of God.

People do it all the time: oh look, this word/phrase, etc. is used here too, must be talking about the same thing. So they will go to Matthew 24:31 and try to use that verse to prove that there is no Pre-trib rapture; or they will use the phrase "the last trump" in 1 Corinthians 15 and unite it with the seventh trumpet in Revelation and try to build some doctrine by claiming they are referring to the same thing, when they clearly are not. The same goes with your forcing of the contexts of both passages to be the same thing because the word inspiration is used in both.

[Guest Guest]

Wow, umm... I didn't think "rightly" or "wrongly" dividing the word of God had anything to do with word definitions.

This isn't a discussion about dispensationalism or "rightly dividing", here. It's about the Bible itself.

[Guest Guest]

As far as the books of the NT go' date=' they were established long before the Council in the fourth century. There are church fathers in the second century that list those 27 books and no more - therefore showing which books were commonly accepted and which were not by as early as 50 years after the NT was completed.[/quote']

I'll agree with that, but were not talking about the scriptures themselves, but rather the KJV, which is based on those books accepted at Nicea.

[Guest Guest]

Jerry, when we Bible Believers study the Bible, we see what It says about a subject by cross-referencing all the instances of that word or subject. Now, being that there are but two instances of this word in the Bible, and they can be reasonably explained as referring to the same thing, then naturally we accept the Bible's definition of Itself and believe it.

The problem you have with accepting it is 1) you haven't changed your doctrine in X amount of years, and 2) accepting this means that one could logically conclude that God inspired the KJB translators to translate the KJB. And we couldn't have that now, could we?

And yes, like Kathie said, it's not about Rightly Dividing: it's about believing the Book for what It says.

[Guest Guest]

It's about as intelligent as claiming(as a fact) that the KJV is better than any other version without having done the research to back it up, nor the logic for it to make sense.

Kevin, I've done plenty of research and study. You don't grow up in a decent home with a decent pastor without learning WHY the Word of God is perfect. Either God has a perfect word out here somewhere, or He doesn't and He's a liar. Take your pick; it's actually a simple choice.

[Guest Guest]

Another problem I have with the "eyewitness" thing is this: If a gospel author was an eyewitness' date=' was he writing what he saw, or what God told him he saw, was he writing what he heard Christ say, or what God told him Christ said?[/quote']

Good question. That's where the "understanding of the Almighty" comes in handy. God used the Holy Spirit to bring to memory the things that happened, as well as telling him the words to write. It's simple to explain this if you don't add the "God-breathed" "verbal plenary" stuff that can't be found in any Bible.