What do you mean when you say, "The Bible is the Word of God"?

Melach · Oct 6, 2019

1. The Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) had 24 books in three major divisions (as confirmed and approved by Jesus Himself). The 39 books of our Old Testament are exactly the same, but several of the Hebrew books were divided, such as as Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and the twelve minor prophets (which are all in one book).

2. In the New Testament, there are only five books which do not plainly indicate that they are inspired. Which simply means that they do not declare their inspiration. But by the 2nd century, almost all the books of the NT were listed in the Muratori Canon. And the Syriac Peshitta from the 2nd century confirms the NT canon.

3. The Protestant Bibles (such as the original KJB) printed the Apocrypha and placed it between the Old and New Testaments. But also made it clear that it was not Scripture.

4. The corrupted Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh (the Septuagint or LXX from about 200 B.C.) included all the apocryphal books, but the Catholic and Orthodox Churches chose them selectively and included them in their bibles.

5. When the Catholic scholar Jerome translated the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek into the Latin Vulgate (4th century AD), he was not inclined to include the Apocrypha, but was compelled to do so. Then the Catholic Council of Trent decided to call those seven extra books Scripture, and so Catholic bibles have the following extra books:
1. Tobit
2. Judith
3. Wisdom of Sirach
4. Ecclesiasticus
5. Baruch
6. 1 Maccabees
7. 2 Maccabees

The Orthodox bibles have a few more, and the LXX has quite a few more.

i use kjv so im ok then. thanks

Roughsoul1991 · Oct 6, 2019

Dibby53 said:

If you feel inclined to create another thread we can debate early Christians thoughts on hell and salvation. But the point is in this thread was that the canon was agreed on quite early.

Roughsoul1991 · Oct 6, 2019

Here is a easy way to think about the topic of truth in the scriptures.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).

When dealing with the people of his day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: ‘Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?’ (Matthew 22:31)

Jesus didn't have the NT to pull from so Jesus evidently taught that the current OT at his time was the correct and accurate Word of God. We have enough manuscripts showing us we still have a reliable OT that was the same as in his day.

So the question on the truth of the OT really has no ground in less you do not believe Jesus. The truth of the NT is all surrounded in Jesus. If you do not believe the whole event starting with the Gospels is true then every other letter or book will not fit very well from that perspective.

Nehemiah6 · Oct 6, 2019

Roughsoul1991 said:

In brief the Bible is the truth of God. One can either believe it or disbelieve it, but that does not change the truth.

kaylagrl · Oct 7, 2019

Dibby53 said:

As I said, if the Bible is not infallible, we as Christians have no hope. We cannot know if any of God's promises are true. Lots of books are inspirational, I can read those. The Bible is on a different level entirely. It is God Word to us. Either we can take it to the bank or we cannot be assured of our faith.

kaylagrl · Oct 7, 2019

Hungry said:

I'm sure about all of that. But this I am sure of, either the Bible is infallible, or we as Christians have no hope. Either we can stand on the Word of God, or we have no faith. If we cannot be sure God's Word is correct in one place, it could be wrong in another. I don't believe any book that is full of errors. Would you try a recipe from a book you knew had errors? No, why waste your time? How much more so with the Word of God?! No, either we have a hope that is assured with God's Words to us or we are lost indeed.

Dibby53 · Oct 7, 2019

kaylagrl said:

We have this treasure in earthen vessels, paul said of us. I think that includes the bible. The treasure is still the treasure, even in a old container. I think your hope is in the Living One who is within you. Only He is beautiful, perfect and infallible! The Living Word!

Hungry · Oct 7, 2019

kaylagrl said:

I don’t think the Bible is fallible. I think men’s understanding is. Since you brought up the recipe book...

Let’s say it was a recipe book that was translated from a different language. Even though it makes perfect sense read by a chef from the place of origin, with an understanding of the equipment used, and methods of preparation, it might mean something different to someone who has never used a combi-oven, or knows that creme fresh isn’t fresh cream. (I was a chef for many years). Although the recipe is infallible, the user of the cookbook isn’t. Just food for thought. (Pun intended).

Roughsoul1991 · Oct 7, 2019

Hungry said:

If the cook book says to add sugar to bake a cake. This is simple. If you say to add salt instead then your wrong. Now some recipes are more complicated and takes careful consideration and not as easy as baking cookies. These take a more careful and cautious approach. These are the ones people can mess up if not carefully studied.

Most of the Bible if just read through is simple enough a child can understand the main concept. If anyone gets out of the core doctrines of Christianity they are false and should be spoke against.

Dibby53 · Oct 7, 2019

Roughsoul1991 said:

I dont think a child could understandmthe bible by a simple reading. I dont think adults can either. The fact that people need to be spoken against for a misunderstanding of doctines based on scripture means that there are a myriad ways that people can read and interpret it.

Dibby53 · Oct 7, 2019

Hungry said:

I would go slightly further and say that because human beings are fallible that the scriptures are not inerrant and infallible. Inspired, yes. Useful as a guide, yes. And God is able to speak his word to us through it, yes. But they had a culture, a history, a language,a mode of understanding the world very different to us. God did not override that. This doesn't denigrate scripture. It makes it richer, more interesting, human and divine and more importantly, something to engage fully with.

Nehemiah6 · Oct 7, 2019

Dibby53 said:

You just don't get it. The whole point of divine inspiration is to prevent human fallibility from entering into the written Word.

So let's make this really simple. Assume that you are a junior employee in a company who needs to calm down an irate customer. Since you have no experience in handling this, your boss asks you to sit down and write down what he dictates. All you have to do is write down the exact words he has given, so that he can sign this letter. Your fallibility (inexperience) has been removed from this equation, and an appropriate response has been given. End of story. And that is the nature of divine inspiration.

Roughsoul1991 · Oct 7, 2019

Dibby53 said:

Nope our children's wing could prove otherwise. They teach the Bible by its words and often times the child more pure in heart can understand the scriptures faster than some adults.

Obviously you can study and get deeper understandings but the core message is simple. This core message is what Christian missionaries teach to the illiterate in poor countries. The oppressed who have never heard the message can understand the simple messages in scripture.

Adults can but their is two forces good and evil. Scripture warns us of false prophets and teachers who want to pervert the Gospel and teach other so called gospels. Of course there are slight different interpretations even the early church fathers had slight different interpretations but all agreed on the core message that Christ preached. The creeds speak to this.

Roughsoul1991 · Oct 7, 2019

Dibby53 said:

When I first read the Bible. I didn't come from human doctrines. I didn't come from a understanding of the culture, history, and language. It spoke clear to me as much as it does now. Of course learning these extra study methods has put more meat on the bones but still my core understanding has never been altered drastically.

Dibby53 · Oct 8, 2019

Nehemiah6 said:

I,m trying to understand you, Nehemiah. So the actual human writing the scriptures is irrelevant in a way.? He merely writes down the exact words Whispered in his ear, so to speak. Is it a kind of automatic writing?

Dibby53 · Oct 8, 2019

Roughsoul1991 said:

So you understood it devoid of the context within which it was written? And of course you only understand it because someone has translated it into English. And quite often a sense can be lost in translation. With the gospels there are many copies since the original one was written; most of these copies differ from one another.

Adstar · Oct 8, 2019

Adstar said:

Well Dibby 53 has started to ignore my posts.. Not surprising that one who does not trust in the Bible and believes in doctrines in rebellion against the teachings of the Bible like universalism does not want to be challenged by a Bible believer..

But for all others who may be babes in Christ and susceptible to the attack upon the Word of God Dibby 53 has launched,, i will explain the two scriptures that Dibby 53 proclaims proves that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God.. That one of the verses must be wrong..

The two passages in question:
First passage:
Matthew 27: KJV
3 "¶ Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, {4} Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. {5} And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."

The above is an accurate account.. All that is said above happened.. It is the divinely inspired Word of God and is correct.. Now lets take a look at the other divinely inspired passage that reveals More about what Happened..

Second passage:
Acts 1: KJV
16 "Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. {17} For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. {18} Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. {19} And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."

Points:
1) Now enemies of the Word of God will Assume and state that the Acts 1 account says that Judas purchaced the Field with the 30 peices of silver he obtained for betraying Jesus and this contradicts the account in Matthew 27 where Judas cast the 30 pieces in the temple.. BUT Acts does NOT say that the reward of iniquity was the 30 pieces of silver Judas received for betraying Jesus.. This is what the enemies of the Holy Scripture Inject into their interpretation of Acts 1 passage in an attempt to undermine the truth of the Bible..

2) The Acts 1 account does not declare WHEN Judas bought the field.. It simply states that He did buy the field.. Enemies of the Word of God wish you to believe Judas bought the field After he recievced the 30 pieces of silver.. But the scriptures do not make any such statement..

Now lets read another inspired Word of God scripture that details another Iniquitous source of money Judas had access too that provides us Bible believers with another alternate source of money Judas could have used to purchase the filed in question:

John 12: KJV
3 "Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. {4} Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray Him, {5} Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? {6} This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein."

4)That's right Judas was the bag man in control of the Money Jesus and his disciples had and would receive and Judas was corrupt and stole from the money that was gathered. He was a thief and money obtained form theft is..???? The Reward of Iniquity

5)Enemies of the Word of God Assume that the Acts 1 account states that Judas died from a fall in the field this is they state in contradiction to Matthew 27 which rightfully says that Judas died by hanging himself.. But NOTE the Acts 1 account never says that Judas died from the fall... The truth is that Judas died before He fell in the field.. Judas hanged himself more likely in a tree in the field and hung there for days while His body started to rot.. Eventually The rope ( and this is gruesome but needs to be stated) would have cut through the rotting neck of Judas and thus the now rotten body of Judas would have fell down and his weakened rotten stomach wall would have burst open upon impact..

6)Note Judas died around the same time Jesus was crucified and thus his body was hanging during the following day which was the First day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.. This is a High sabbath a holy day where no customary work was to be done.. The Body of Jesus on the other hand was taken down off the cross and placed in a tomb hurriedly so as to be off the cross and in the tomb before the start of this High Sabbath.. Scriptures states::

John 19: KJV
31 "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away."

Galatians 3: KJV
13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"

7) No body cared for Judas, Nobody pulled him down from where he hung so that his body would not be hanging there on the High Sabbath day.. People who saw Judas would have looked upon him as being cursed and they would not have even wanted to touch a cursed corpse.. So they left his body there to rot and eventually fall and burst open in the field of Blood.. The field He bough with the reward of iniquity..

Therefore the differences in the two passages Matthew 27 and Acts 1 Are Not proof that the Holy Bible is not the inspired inerrant Word of God as those who wish to undermine the Authority of the Holy Bible wish them to be.. But it does show that human minds can be totally convinced that there is no way that two scriptures can both be true and trust in their understanding so much that they will make an accusation against the Word of God..

Now once a person like this has been shown they where wrong it should cause them to realize that their mind is faulty and they should stop worshiping their mind as an infallible brain,, trusting in it to be the judge of the Word of God.. They should believe the Holy Bible is the infallable Word of God and know that anything in it that they cannot work out stems not from a fault in the Word of God, but a fault within their limited human reasoning..

Roughsoul1991 · Oct 8, 2019

Dibby53 said:

I had context. I went from left to right until the end of the book. It all builds on the history that is told. You do not have to be a scholar to understand the simple Gospel. Most of the early church was simple people. If I never had anything but the Bible, the Bible could stand on its on and be just a truthful in understanding.

In English translation the accuracy is almost perfect. So I still dont have to be a Hebrew or Greek scholar. So what translated verse is separates the reader from the core message of Christianity if you just read it without studying it? You can build on it but you cant take anything from it. It starts on a solid foundation.

Is the New Testament Reliable:

New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential—spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18]

Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.[19]

Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants."[20]

The New Testament writers did not doubt that the Old Testament prophets spoke for God. Peter and John saw the words of David in Psalm 2, not as the opinion of a king in Israel, but as the Word of God: “You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David” (Acts 4:25, NIV). Similarly, Paul accepted Isaiah’s words as God speaking to men: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers” (Acts 28:25).

https://www.str.org/articles/is-the-new-testament-text-reliable#ANCHOR19

Is The Old Testament Reliable:

The New Testament writers were so convinced all the words of the Old Testament Scripture were inspired by God that they even claimed, “Scripture says,” when the words quoted came directly from God. For example, “The Scripture says to the Pharaoh” (Romans 9:17).

Clearly, the Lord Jesus Himself believed the words of the Old Testament were God-breathed. In John 10:34 (quoting from Psalm 82:6), He based His teaching upon a single phrase: “I said, ‘You are gods.’” In Matthew 22:43–44 He quoted from Psalm 110:1 and emphasized a single word, “Lord,” to reveal Himself as the Son of God.

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/is-the-old-testament-reliable

Nehemiah6 · Oct 8, 2019

Adstar said:

After a reasonable time, one should leave off trying to present the truth when it is not welcome.

Dibby53 · Oct 8, 2019

Adstar said:

Hi Adstar,
I didn't respond to your previous post because I felt you were not really reading and understanding what I had said previously. You seemed more interested in telling me what I understood and thought. It seems very difficult for me to get people to understand my position. You appear to talk of my views in the language of "attack", that babes in Christ are under threat somehow, or that I am an"enemy of God". Just for asking questions??

Your explanation for the two accounts seems convoluted. And if I may say, you are coming up with theories about the death of Judas that seeks to tie the two versions together. I,ve been told that one can read the bible as the Word of God simply: it's meaning is plain. But you now say that what is written there is not plain enough; and you want to add to the accounts your theories about what might have happened. How Judas may have bought the field before etc.

In Acts 1 if you look at what the writer says previously in verse 16 he is talking of Judas handing Jesus over, in verse 18 he says Judas bought a field with the reward of his unrighteousness ( what unrighteousness? The previous verses gives the context: the betrayal of Jesus). He then falls headlong and his guts fall out ( no mention of hanging). This is then known as "the field of blood". In verse 20 his death is linked to a quotation in the psalms.

In Matthew 27 Judas receives his reward for betraying Jesus, as in Acts, but the reward is referred to as 30 pieces of silver in Matthew. He then hangs himself ( it doesn't say where, or in a field he purchased, nothing). In verse 7 it is the chief priests who buy the field ( with the money of his betrayal), in verse 8 it is called the Field of blood! This time, in verse 9, the writer of Matthew quotes Jeremiah..

It is obvious to me what is going on here. The writer of Matthew and the writer of Acts are not aware of each others versions of events. Matthew is interpreting Judas death using Jeremiah and the writer of Acts makes sense of it using a psalm. The only reason you add in your own theories is because Matthew and Acts have been placed together in a bible that you believe is "inerrant and infallible ". The simplest explanation is usually the best.

Now that does not invalidate the scriptures. It means, probably, that the writers are trying to bring meaning to the story of the betrayal of Jesus by linking it to other scriptures. They want it to be seen as meaningful rather than going for accuracy?

Am I still an "enemy of God"?

What do you mean when you say, "The Bible is the Word of God"?

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

kaylagrl

Guest

kaylagrl

Guest

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned