"Misquoting Jesus" destroying the faith of Christians

[Psalms18_28]

While you don't need the bible to be saved, Jesus did mentioned "It is written..." alot when referring to the OT, especially about prophecy. Speaking of prophecy, majority of the bible speaks of prophecy, the first and second coming of Christ. So if it was important to Jesus to say "it is written..." about his first coming from the OT, then the NT prophecy written in the bible is just as important. The Jewish people are very careful how they write Torah, and I think it has alot to do with God's doing, that he made them to be that way.


sometimes man can twist what they were taught if they didn't perserve his words. All false religions is rooted from genesis (where they got their ideas with the help of Satan), and you'll noticed that alot of false religion is popping up nowadays is rooted from christianity, like Jehovah Witness. They made their own bible to which they think is correct. Without the bible, It's not easy to remember everything correctly, so that's why it is better to have bible than making up as you go along what God says. Otherwise, a new false religion just might pop up.

Like Jon was saying, The bible must not be idolatry (bible IS God), but God does want us to trust him that his words is perserved, even if a sinner wrote it down like a secretary. My bible got burnt down in the fire, but I didn't cry a river over it, because I know God is not in the bible. His words is, but not Him. I was able to get another bible.

It is really important to protect your bible from people who want to destroy it.

[Guest Guest]

What those people DID have is memorized Scripture. Think about it. If you knew your government was going to take the Bible away from you, and you really wanted to keep at least part of it... the best way would be to memorize verses and then teach others. The Bible is one powerful Book, and having Scripture memorized helps tremendously in witnessing and teaching others, even if you don't have a written copy of the Book in your hand.

[Psalms18_28]

Or taught from those who did have the bible or literacy skills (knows too many people who goes to church, but can't read or even have the ability to memorize)

Iknow many countries where the bible is banned would try to get outside help in secret.

[John81]

A pastor told a story one time about how the Bible was banned in part or all of Japan so some Christians there memorized the entire Bible before their Bibles were confiscated and destroyed. Years later when Christians were once again allowed to go about Japan, there were still several people in that area who could recite the entire Bible.

[Psalms18_28]

I know many atheists who claimed they can memorize the entired bible in their head. Say they know more about the bible than Christians. But If God wants a atheists to remember the bible, then so be it. In their (atheists) case, they read the bible, but they don't actually sit there and study it with all their hearts. Which is why they can memorize the bible better than Christians. OF course, Christians memorize the bible too, but just not as quickly as atheists.

[John81]

I know many atheists who claimed they can memorize the entired bible in their head. Say they know more about the bible than Christians. But If God wants a atheists to remember the bible' date=' then so be it. In their (atheists) case, they read the bible, but they don't actually sit there and study it with all their hearts. Which is why they can memorize the bible better than Christians. OF course, Christians memorize the bible too, but just not as quickly as atheists.[/quote']

I've heard athiests and other unbelievers claim to know the Bible better than Christians do, but I've never encountered one who had the Bible memorized.

Scripture is clear in that the lost can't understand much of the Bible because without the Holy Ghost, it's impossible for sinful man to fully understand.

Before I was saved I read much of the New Testament and parts of the Old Testament rather often but boy was I ever not understanding much of it correctly! Of course, I didn't realize that until after I was saved and the Holy Ghost instantly opened my eyes to so much. Praise God!

[Psalms18_28]

I was thinking more like my MIL. She grew up in a church and even a baptist orphanage and she had all the bible verse memorized in her head. She says that she was the only one in her sunday class who knew all the answers asked.

Unfortunately she reject Christ and doesn't believe in God. She will boost about how she knows more about the bible than anyone, and will give me the correct verse off her head if anyone asked her.... well she used to, but she is getting older now can't remember things as well.

[John81]

I was thinking more like my MIL. She grew up in a church and even a baptist orphanage and she had all the bible verse memorized in her head. She says that she was the only one in her sunday class who knew all the answers asked.

Unfortunately she reject Christ and doesn't believe in God. She will boost about how she knows more about the bible than anyone, and will give me the correct verse off her head if anyone asked her.... well she used to, but she is getting older now can't remember things as well.

That's very sad. :sad

It's a shame that those who have some head knowledge of the Bible think they actually "know" the Bible. If one doesn't "know" the Bible so that they accept Christ as their Saviour, they really don't know the Bible.

[John the Baptist]

[quote="MC1171611"][quote="John the Baptist"][quote="brandplucked"]Hi John. Bart and many others got those liberal ideas about Genesis from men like Bruce Metzger, the ex-champion of modern textual criticism. Anybody who uses and believes in textual criticism will soon embrace the idea that there is no such thing as an inspired and infallible Bible in any language, including (or even, especially) "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek. It is my contention that if any English speaker is NOT a King James Bible onlyist, then he does not believe in an infallible Bible at all.

Will K[/quote]

There are many scholars who believe, the Word of God. Daniel Wallace will debate Bart. Wallace does not believe like that As well as most the professors I had in College and Seminary. For you to make a blank statement like that, which has no factual basis, shows how bias you really are.[/quote]

Please clarify which statement you are calling baseless; I'm a little confused as to the intent of your post.[/quote]

[quote]Anybody who uses and believes in textual criticism will soon embrace the idea that there is no such thing as an inspired and infallible Bible in any language, including (or even, especially) "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek.[/quote]

This is a blanket statement. "Anyone" Again Bart's unbelief stems from liberal theology and unbelief of the inspiration of Scripture. No where does Bart according to my understanding say his unbelief was because he had departed from the KJV. It is not true that anyone who believes in textual critcism will embrace the idea that there is no inspired Bible. the Problem is that those who hold to the critical text as I do, do not believe the translation is infallible. That inerrancy is in the original manuscripts, which we do not have. But the copies we have point to the original being without error. Erasmus believed in textual critcism according to his maginal notes. I know this is the difference between the KJV Only and those who are not. Which we will never come to an agreement on this subject. YOu have the right to believe as you wish and so do I. I do believe that the KJV along with others is totally trustworthy.

[brandplucked]

[quote="John the Baptist"]It is not true that anyone who believes in textual critcism will embrace the idea that there is no inspired Bible. the Problem is that those who hold to the critical text as I do, do not believe the translation is infallible. That inerrancy is in the original manuscripts, which we do not have. But the copies we have point to the original being without error.[/quote]

John here demonstrates the blind and confused mindset of those who embrace textual criticism. On the one hand he says "there IS an inspired bible", yet he never gets around to identifying it for us, nor telling us where we can get a copy it. Then he says inerrancy IS (notice his use of a present tense to refer to something he has NEVER seen and does NOT possess) in the original manuscripts, "which we do not have".

If your copies "point to" the original without error, then what copies are you talking about? Those 5000 + out there that no one can agree on? The very ones the NKJV accepts the NIV rejects, and the ESV rejects more than the NIV and the RSV far more than both the NIV and ESV, and the NASB keeps on changing its mind every few years adding some verses, taking them out, then putting them back in brackets. Must be nice having a version like the NASB that brackets some 45 whole verses as being "questionable". This is the type of mindless prattle the textual critics like John give us.

Oh Yeah. They believe in "the inspired Bible" alright. It's just a fantasy of their over educated and blind minds. SHOW US THE BOOK, John, or just be quiet.

Will K

[Guest Guest]

We need a "Rate This Post" feature; Will would get my vote!!

Two thumbs up, brother!

[Guest Guest]

We need a "Rate This Post" feature; Will would get my vote!!

Two thumbs up, brother!

I second that motion! :amen:

[Guest Guest]

Oh Yeah. They believe in "the inspired Bible" alright. It's just a fantasy of their over educated and blind minds. SHOW US THE BOOK' date=' John, or just be quiet.[/quote']

While I do agree with the premise of Will's contention, I don't believe this is the appropriate way to express it. You've got to remember that a great deal of baptist theology comes from an anti-intellectual prespective. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this, as it was the product of a time when not much empasis was placed on education and anything that SEEMED to contradict the bible was written of as false or satanic (see the Scopes Monkey trial). And it had to be this way, because they believed in the inerrency and literalness of the scriptures. As time continues to move forward and learning is spread to all people, these ideals tend to give way to logic and rational thinking (remember when the earth was flat?). In the end, Christians are able to see that reality is compatable with Christianity, or they lose their faith all together (the former is the far more prevelant perspective). In any event, it is always a more proper choice to be polite and open minded. Once you get to a certain age, your mind becomes set and it is almost impossible to change, even in the face of reality. It is best to let these ideas die with the people that hold them, rather than try to kill them yourself.

[Jerry]

Um, yeah... Whatever. Baptists are not anti-intellectual. Yes, we do take the Bible literally - as that is the only way to interpret it properly. You keep mentioning that people thought the earth was flat - as if that is what a literal interpretation of the Bible teaches. It is not. Even the oldest book of the Bible (Job) mentions that the earth is round. Other passages teach that is earth is a globe, floating on nothing. If it matters, I can look up the OT verses that do teach this.

[Guest Guest]

Mr. Jerry: I was not saying that the bible teaches that the earth is flat. I was using that as an example of an idea that has since died off (although there still is a "flat earth society"). And even if the Bible does teach that the earth is round, that is not how early christians interpreted it, plus there were christians before there was a bible. Also, I am not stating that Baptist are anti-intellectual (as in "against intelligence") but that a lot of pre-modern baptist theology is anti-intellectual, as in, "you can't use science and rational thought to disprove that the earth is only a couple thousand years old." I probably shouldn't have used the term "baptist," as there are so many different kinds of Baptist that the term "baptist church" really has no indentifying meaning other than a few common core beliefs which are, far the most part, held by all christians.