One can affirm inspiration of the original Scriptures without having to affirm the infallibility of every copyist who has ever lived
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
One can affirm inspiration of the original Scriptures without having to affirm the infallibility of every copyist who has ever lived
The verses aren't in the oldest manuscripts... I think most bibles put the missing verses in the footnotes with a note, not contained in the oldest manuscripts. It's that simple. That this thread has 10 pages of replies (which I'm not gonna bother to read) tells me this is a hot topic of debate... I'm guessing the KJ only peeps are chiming in lol.
That's all there is too it. The King James version has a lot of additions not included in ANY manuscript. They were added to help clarify. Sure you can probably find that in a youtube video too somewhere, lol.
That's all there is too it. The King James version has a lot of additions not included in ANY manuscript. They were added to help clarify. Sure you can probably find that in a youtube video too somewhere, lol.
One can affirm inspiration of the original Scriptures without having to affirm the infallibility of every copyist who has ever lived
But I am not reading the original scripture. but the actual bible.
talk to the author if you want to know what he had written.
he's not likely to talk to you, statistically,
but he does talk to his children and teaches them as he is a perfect father and perfect teacher.
if you want to see the "unchanged" Scripture, you'll have to keep seeking from him. (er... start seeking first, then keep seeking, IF HE PERMITS)
he's not likely to talk to you, statistically,
but he does talk to his children and teaches them as he is a perfect father and perfect teacher.
if you want to see the "unchanged" Scripture, you'll have to keep seeking from him. (er... start seeking first, then keep seeking, IF HE PERMITS)
Yep. And the two are substantively identical. The bits where it doesn't quite line up are easy to spot, and don't change what to believe or how to live. The issue at stake is not whether God's word is inspired or infallible, or whether the prophets and apostles wrote under inspiration, but whether or not human copyists were guaranteed in every case to get it 100% (which is a different issue to whether or not copyists correctly passed on the substance of the Scriptures)
One can affirm inspiration of the original Scriptures without having to affirm the infallibility of every copyist who has ever lived
While what you say is certainly true; IMO, it is of little value.
Unless we can have confidence that the transmission process was superintended by the Holy Spirit; we loose a credible basis for the authority of what we have.
I believe that the presence of human error, which does NOT pervert God's intent, does not argue against Divine Inspiration.
For example, saying that Noah was five hundred years old when Shem, Ham, and Japheth were born when in fact, he was 502 years old does NOT in any way pervert God's intent in Genesis Chapter 5.
Why do we have to assume the transmission process was superintended by the Holy Spirit (by which I'm guessing you mean the transmission was in some sense 'inspired' to truth and infallibility in a similar sense to the writers being 'inspired' to the same)? Why is the actual transmission history itself not sufficient to substantiate the accuracy of the text we have now?
I'm not saying say that it did argue against it. But if you're suggesting the transmission process itself was inspired but was errant (i.e that errors in transmission occurred, regardless of whether or not they alter the broad intent and meaning), I don't see how that's practically different or indeed better than saying the transmission process was not specially inspired in a specific way.
FWIW, I do believe God has amazingly preserved the Scriptures, but not because I think it a circular theological imperative, and not in a specific verbatim sense, but because of the collective size and agreement of the MS tradition itself, and the unity of thought and message.
I agree entirely. I also don't believe that such differences alter the intent. But that doesn't mean both numbers were what was originally given.
In addition to obviously obeying the Scriptures, I think it is also edifying, god-glorifying, as well as stimulating, to continue to pursue what was originally given, and to continue to hone ourselves in that, even though the reliability of the Scriptures as we have them now is already trustworthy.
the TORAH has reportedly by comparison remained unchanged even in just one letter for over 2000 years. the Jews in Ethiopia were isolated almost that long and thought they were the only ones on earth according to a televised report or on the web,
and when they were 'discovered' by the outside world, and when they rejoiced discovering Jews elsewhere, recently(relatively),
they compared their TORAH with the TORAH in Jerusalem, and found that they were IDENTICAL in every letter.
as for the rest of Scripture, written after TORAH, and in the BIBLE , there are some rather distressing changes that cannot be understood at all in english or western thought. we cannot even begin to learn here on the internet about these changes, because so few people want to know the truth. but anyone who seeks and keeps on seeking the TRUTH from YAHWEH , HE GLADLY reveals the TRUTH TO, completely in line with ALL of HIS WORD, exactly as HIS WORD says.
i.e. keep seeking. from YAHWEH (GOD), the TRUTH, and if HE permits(in HIS WORD there are conditions as well as it is written that Yahweh does as He pleases; He has mercy on whom He chooses to have mercy, and HE hardens the heart of whomever HE chooses to harden their heart.
it is written HE is perfect and just and righteous also; HE IS TRUSTWORTHY. men are corrupt.
I don't know anything about the Ethiopian Torah, so I can't comment on whether or not it was accurately copied over thousands of years. A link or something so people can look into it further would be great
Hey Nick from Penrith HAHAH Sydney done with the rain HAHAHAH man has it rained the last two days or what?
I have to disagree in this point, a letter, a coma a point could cause the text to have a different meaning, the evidence: 33,000 Christian churches. out of one perfect and infallible book.
Dear BH:Bowhunter2394 said:
You said you implied that a Christian cannot be sinless (i.e. that they cannot stop sinning) to another believer. This I believe is the very definition of what a "sin and still be saved" type belief actually is all about (Which is a part of OSAS's deadly 7 beliefs).
Anyways, you can view what I had written on this point here.
Last edited:
My position is:
God uses imperfect men to write and transmit his perfect Word. In the course of BOTH writing and transmitting His Word, The Holy Spirit allows human error to enter but not to pervert the message of the text.
Whether or not human error(s) can be found in the text, they are not of such a nature that they in any way pervert or corrupt God's intended message to us.
Whether or not errors of fact appear in any given sentence; the Spiritual truth which God desires to convey will in fact be conveyed..
There are very few errors of any sort in either the writing or the transmission of Scripture; and those that exist are of not of such a nature that the reader will be misled by them.
Last edited:
There is a problem with the idea of being sinless. It is like a prophecy into the future that you will never get it wrong. Or even better are we told we will ever not make mistakes? Imagine you live in a bubble where everything you need is provided. In the legal sense you may be sinless, but this is because the question of choice is not their so sin does not appear. Then difficult times happen and you lash out, you steal because you are hungry. So the sinless has become a sinner. But what is Jesus saying to us? It is the trust and relationship to God that changes everything. Measuring success or failure does not make you successful, but being in love with God does.
One phrase "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Matt 12:32
This verse implies there will be sin in the age to come, but a sin against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven.
Take King David and Bathsheba. Why was he not condemned to death for adultery and murder?
He had a heart of faith, but stumbled.
No. When a person says it is not possible to be sinnless what they are really saying is that they still want their sin. For example: Do you think if you cheat on your wife and tell her that you cannot stop cheating on her and yet you love her and still want to be with her that she is going to want to be with you? Sin is cheating on God. It is all about oneself and what they want and not what God wants.
Yes, David sinned and he stumbled. But David did not stay down in the mud as a sinner. Therein lies the difference.
As for the sin of the Holy Ghost: I do not see how that verse applies. I did not speak bad against the Spirit. For God is not going to condone a believer to think they cannot stop sinning. The Spirit would never lead anyone to think they will forever be in their sin. Only a false spirit would lead a person to believe they cannot stop sinning (or repent of their sins). For a person who thinks they can never stop sinning would mean they are a slave to their sin. For Jesus said, he that sins, is a slave to sin.
Even the "Condemnation" in Scripture condemns such a way of thinking when it says, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (John 3:19-21).
In other words, John says EVERY-ONE that does evil hates the light. So when you say that a believer cannot stop in doing evil or sin, John says they actually are hating the light. The only way they can come to the light is if their deeds are reproved. Meaning, if they repent of their sins (i.e. if they confess and forsak their sin).
For Jesus defines repentance for us. For he said the Ninevites will rise up in Judgment against this generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. Now, if you were to turn to Jonah chapter 3, you would read that their repentance involved turning from their wicked and evil ways.
God is Holy, good, and just and will not condone anyone to think they can get away with sin.
For the Scriptures teach that a believer can cease from sin by suffering in the flesh (1 Peter 4:1). For they that are Christ's have crucified the affections and lusts (Galatians 5:24). Jesus says, be ye perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect. The author of Hebrews says, without holiness, no man shall see the Lord. Paul says in Ephesians 2 and Colossians 3 that we used to be sinners but we are not that way anymore. Paul also says that if any speaks contrary to the words of Jesus and the doctrine of Godliness is proud and knows nothing. Peter identifies certain false prophets as those who have eyes full of adultery and who cannot cease from sin (2 Peter 2:1, 14).
yes, and I think that's the key... the same meaning... it doesn't matter if the exact words are preserved... imo...
I don't see how comma positions are relevant, as most of the Greek MSS don't use any punctuation at all. If you have a problem with comma position (show me an example of where comma position has caused a doctrinal dispute), then you have a problem with a translation, not with transmission of the Scriptures.