Do you believe everything the Bible says?

[Dino246]

Let me give a for instance of what I was talking about. There is truth to be known in the following passage.

Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

How many did the Lord send out? seventy or seventy two as other versions state? What’s the truth? And yes, this is not a salvation issue. It’s a truth issue. A faithful witness cannot lie.

While I agree that a faithful witness cannot lie, there are untruths that are not lies. As you are well aware, the KJV Bible states that Azariah was both 22 years old and 42 years old when he began his reign (your convoluted explanation notwithstanding); one of these is not the truth. By your reasoning, it is therefore a lie, and the KJV is lying to you.

Your "logic" puts you into an untenable position.

Your example is, frankly, pathetic. Nobody gets saved on whether the Lord sent out seventy or seventy-two disciples, or lost because they can't reconcile it. It doesn't make a whisper of difference in our Christian walk.

 

[John146]

While I agree that a faithful witness cannot lie, there are untruths that are not lies. As you are well aware, the KJV Bible states that Azariah was both 22 years old and 42 years old when he began his reign (your convoluted explanation notwithstanding); one of these is not the truth. By your reasoning, it is therefore a lie, and the KJV is lying to you.

Your "logic" puts you into an untenable position.

Your example is, frankly, pathetic. Nobody gets saved on whether the Lord sent out seventy or seventy-two disciples, or lost because they can't reconcile it. It doesn't make a whisper of difference in our Christian walk.

Again, I love reading your opinions. If the example you gave had no real reconciliation, then yes, the KJV is lying and is not faithful. A translation with ”untruths” cannot be trusted.

 

[Runningman]

That is a good point that a scripture can plainly state a position and not be obscure and people will still ignore it and believe something else.

A lot of times the denominations win in this case by laying a blueprint as the truth concerning their beliefs so many follow that and do not question it and do not see the red flags in the Bible.

One church believes we are not saved by works and another we are saved by works.

It is not a contradiction but people will argue between the 2 and not trying to harmonize the 2 positions for they are both stated in the Bible.

We are not saved by works but by faith for that is all we can when we first confess Christ.

But when we receive the Spirit we have to have works of love to have faith apply in our life to be saved.

Because out of faith, hope, and charity, love in action, works, charity is the greatest, and faith works by love.

Which is why Paul said if they do not have charity they are nothing.

And James said if they do not have charity by pointing out caring about the needs of other people then their faith is dead.

And Paul said the love of money is the root of all evil for it neglects the poor and needy for love is the fulfilling of the law, which any person that goes by their wants neglects the poor and needy and is not love which Paul said they have erred from the faith.

So Paul and James say the same thing but many people argue between them.

John says to do not love in word neither in tongue but in deeds, works, and truth.

We have to have works of love for faith to be active in our life to be saved, and love can only be done in works for it to apply in a person's life.

But many people that believe they are not saved by works try to carry that attitude after they have confessed Christ and then they enjoy sin, and money, and worldly entertainment which is not love and believe they are right with God.

Which also goes along with their attitude that they are alright despite living in sin.

But the Bible says that some have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof, and are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth for they will not allow the Spirit to lead them because they want to enjoy sin and then believe they are saved.

Which these people would fall victim to that which the believe that they are not saved by works causes many to fall victim to that and they were not saved to begin with.

Because if people do not believe their sins affect their relationship with God then when they confess Christ they will not truly turn away from sin but will only repent of their past sins but still want to pursue sin.

People will argue millennial reign and not millennial reign even though the Bible says that the LORD shall be King over all the Earth and it that day there shall be one LORD and His name one, and the heathen that the LORD rules over has to go up year after year to Jerusalem and worship the LORD and keep the feast of Tabernacles.

And the Bible says the knowledge of the LORD shall cover the whole Earth.

Which on Earth the heathen will not acknowledge any god or religious figure but Jesus and this has not happened in the past.

And it cannot be talking about the new earth for there will be no heathen there.

But some people will still say there is no millennial reign.

People will argue OSAS and it being not true if a person does not act Christlike.

Argue about a trinity or one God with no distinction of persons.

Argue about baptism for salvation and baptism for salvation.

Argue about Jesus and Paul acting as if they have opposing beliefs which this one is a weird one to believe because of course they would not have opposing positions.

Argue about the time of the resurrection even though the Bible says it cannot happen until there is a falling away first which is the condition of the world in response to the Gospel which they stopped the preaching of it on a world wide scale, and the man of sin claims to be God.

Which by them stopping the preaching of the Gospel of Christ and the believe in a personal God it caused the man of sin to rule over them.

Which the new age movement will cause this to happen which they believe people are still evolving to be spiritual, and Jesus is an ascended master in the occult, and there is no personal God, and the New Age Christ is the final teacher.

But they will still believe it will happen before that time the nations come together and the antichrist rules the world.

They argue about baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and baptizing in Jesus' name.

But Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not names but titles and it states name as in singular.

And Jesus said He came in His Father's name, and the Son inherited the name from the Father, and the Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus.

And Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans were all baptized in the name of Jesus, and those that were baptized by John had to be baptized in Jesus' name.

The Bible says there is no other name by which we are saved but by Jesus' name, and everything we do in word and in deed we do in Jesus' name.

But some people still want to believe we baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It seems like some people that claim Christianity like the denominations and the divisions in Christianity so they can have the attitude out of all the denominations that claim truth, we have the truth, we are the winners, which they do it out of arrogance.

Because there is a lot of people that like to argue their position, and be sarcastic, and belittle the people they are debating with which would only happen when they have an arrogant attitude.

Agreed. So far I’ve been able to harmonize everything in the Bible. My pretense is simple: the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. If one keeps this in mind while parsing the Bible, they’ll inevitably come to a conclusion that isn’t taught in any one singular denomination.

 

[notonmywatch]

Agreed. So far I’ve been able to harmonize everything in the Bible. My pretense is simple: the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. If one keeps this in mind while parsing the Bible, they’ll inevitably come to a conclusion that isn’t taught in any one singular denomination.

Did you mean to use a different word than "pretense"?

 

[notonmywatch]

Agreed. So far I’ve been able to harmonize everything in the Bible. My pretense is simple: the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. If one keeps this in mind while parsing the Bible, they’ll inevitably come to a conclusion that isn’t taught in any one singular denomination.

Perhaps you meant to say "precept" instead of "pretense"?

 

[posthuman]

Agreed. So far I’ve been able to harmonize everything in the Bible. My pretense is simple: the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. If one keeps this in mind while parsing the Bible, they’ll inevitably come to a conclusion that isn’t taught in any one singular denomination.

Do you believe this?

Deuteronomy 18:22
when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

How does it harmonize with this?

Matthew 19:28-29
"Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life."

 

[VARob]

Again, I love reading your opinions. If the example you gave had no real reconciliation, then yes, the KJV is lying and is not faithful. A translation with ”untruths” cannot be trusted.

2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chron 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

What's the "real reconciliation"?

 

[notonmywatch]

Agreed. So far I’ve been able to harmonize everything in the Bible. My pretense is simple: the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. If one keeps this in mind while parsing the Bible, they’ll inevitably come to a conclusion that isn’t taught in any one singular denomination.

It was bugging me because I knew what you were trying to say, but I think that the proper word finally came to me. I think that the word you intended to used instead of "pretense" was "premise". Not trying to be the grammar police or anything. Just trying to make sense of what you meant.

 

[Dino246]

Again, I love reading your opinions. If the example you gave had no real reconciliation, then yes, the KJV is lying and is not faithful. A translation with ”untruths” cannot be trusted.

I don't recall you ever providing any examples of these alleged "untruths"... without being blatantly hypocritical. Whatever errors you claim are in other versions must be completely absent from the KJV.

 

[Runningman]

It was bugging me because I knew what you were trying to say, but I think that the proper word finally came to me. I think that the word you intended to used instead of "pretense" was "premise". Not trying to be the grammar police or anything. Just trying to make sense of what you meant.

Okay thanks for letting me know. And yes I did mean premise. Pretense wasn’t what I meant.

 

[John146]

2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chron 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

What's the "real reconciliation"?

Short answer: The simple solution to this apparent contradiction is that Ahaziah was physically 22 years old when he began to reign, but since God had appointed Jehu to cut off the house of Ahab, as a son of Ahab through marriage, he was 42 years old. If you want the long version, I can post that as well. But I'll add from a friend:

A couple of Bible commentators I found offer a reasonable similar explanation of the two passages without calling into question the Hebrew texts. One is Dr. Lightfoot and the other is Matthew Poole . Dr. Lightfoot says: " Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign - Compare 2 Kings 8:26. According to that passage, the commencement of his reign is dated in the twenty-second year of his age, and, according to this, IN THE FORTY-SECOND YEAR OF THE KINGDOM OF HIS MOTHER'S FAMILY."

Matthew Poole, Bible commentator, says: - "Of the reign of that royal race and family from which by his mother he was descended, to wit, of the house of Omri,...all which, put together, make up exactly these forty-two years; for Ahaziah began his reign in Joram's-twelfth year, 2 Kings viii. 25. And such a kind of computation of the years, not of the king's person, but of his reign or kingdom, we had before, chap, xvi. 1, where see the notes. And so we have an account of the person's age in 2 Kings viii. 26, AND HERE OF THE KINGDOM TO WHICH HE BELONGED."

 

[VARob]

Short answer: The simple solution to this apparent contradiction is that Ahaziah was physically 22 years old when he began to reign, but since God had appointed Jehu to cut off the house of Ahab, as a son of Ahab through marriage, he was 42 years old. If you want the long version, I can post that as well. But I'll add from a friend:

A couple of Bible commentators I found offer a reasonable similar explanation of the two passages without calling into question the Hebrew texts. One is Dr. Lightfoot and the other is Matthew Poole . Dr. Lightfoot says: " Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign - Compare 2 Kings 8:26. According to that passage, the commencement of his reign is dated in the twenty-second year of his age, and, according to this, IN THE FORTY-SECOND YEAR OF THE KINGDOM OF HIS MOTHER'S FAMILY."

Matthew Poole, Bible commentator, says: - "Of the reign of that royal race and family from which by his mother he was descended, to wit, of the house of Omri,...all which, put together, make up exactly these forty-two years; for Ahaziah began his reign in Joram's-twelfth year, 2 Kings viii. 25. And such a kind of computation of the years, not of the king's person, but of his reign or kingdom, we had before, chap, xvi. 1, where see the notes. And so we have an account of the person's age in 2 Kings viii. 26, AND HERE OF THE KINGDOM TO WHICH HE BELONGED."

Very creative.

The Syriac and the Lucian Septuagint texts for 2 Chron 2:22 say he was 22. There's an error in the Masoretic text.

 

[Papermonkey]

How quickly would people stop believing everything the Bible says if it proved Judas was at one point told he would have eternal life then later lost his salvation?

Ha! People would have every right then to call the Gospel a lie.

Thankfully, it isn't. Whereas the idea Jesus lied when he said we cannot lose Salvation is a lie.
That's something atheists and direct enemies of Jesus have peddled for years.

 

[John146]

Very creative.

The Syriac and the Lucian Septuagint texts for 2 Chron 2:22 say he was 22. There's an error in the Masoretic text.

The Masoretic text is in error because it doesn’t line up with the above texts?😂

 

[VARob]

The Masoretic text is in error because it doesn’t line up with the above texts?😂

The MT is in error because it has a clear contradiction in it. People go to any length to try and reconcile it, as in the example you gave above.

 

[John146]

The MT is in error because it has a clear contradiction in it. People go to any length to try and reconcile it, as in the example you gave above.

We can all have opinions.

 

[Runningman]

Ha! People would have every right then to call the Gospel a lie.

Thankfully, it isn't. Whereas the idea Jesus lied when he said we cannot lose Salvation is a lie.
That's something atheists and direct enemies of Jesus have peddled for years.

Well, the Bible says many things. You know how these discussions go. We pick a topic and sooner or later we’re quoting stuff from all over the Bible that supplements the topic.

Well, it’s a the same with every topic. Jesus said more than something along the lines of salvation can’t be lost, even though that’s not something he actually said either; I see your point though.

However, on the other hand, we shouldn’t believe what the Bible doesn’t say either. So there’s kind of a refining process where we are kind of learning a straight a straight and narrow way: believe everything the Bible says, don’t believe what it doesn’t say, and if an interpretation can’t be reconciled with the rest of the Bible then it’s not accurate.


So do you believe this:


Matthew 10
32Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father in heaven. 33But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven.

 

[Dino246]

Short answer: The simple solution to this apparent contradiction is that Ahaziah was physically 22 years old when he began to reign, but since God had appointed Jehu to cut off the house of Ahab, as a son of Ahab through marriage, he was 42 years old. If you want the long version, I can post that as well. But I'll add from a friend:

A couple of Bible commentators I found offer a reasonable similar explanation of the two passages without calling into question the Hebrew texts. One is Dr. Lightfoot and the other is Matthew Poole . Dr. Lightfoot says: " Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign - Compare 2 Kings 8:26. According to that passage, the commencement of his reign is dated in the twenty-second year of his age, and, according to this, IN THE FORTY-SECOND YEAR OF THE KINGDOM OF HIS MOTHER'S FAMILY."

Matthew Poole, Bible commentator, says: - "Of the reign of that royal race and family from which by his mother he was descended, to wit, of the house of Omri,...all which, put together, make up exactly these forty-two years; for Ahaziah began his reign in Joram's-twelfth year, 2 Kings viii. 25. And such a kind of computation of the years, not of the king's person, but of his reign or kingdom, we had before, chap, xvi. 1, where see the notes. And so we have an account of the person's age in 2 Kings viii. 26, AND HERE OF THE KINGDOM TO WHICH HE BELONGED."

We all can determine that the man was actually 22 years old. The convoluted explanation does nothing to undo the fact that there is a clear contradiction (an error) in the KJV text.

 

[notonmywatch]

So do you believe this:

Matthew 10
32Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father in heaven. 33But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven.

I know that your question wasn't addressed to me, but I most definitely believe this.

 

[Papermonkey]

Well, the Bible says many things. You know how these discussions go. We pick a topic and sooner or later we’re quoting stuff from all over the Bible that supplements the topic.

Well, it’s a the same with every topic. Jesus said more than something along the lines of salvation can’t be lost, even though that’s not something he actually said either; I see your point though.

However, on the other hand, we shouldn’t believe what the Bible doesn’t say either. So there’s kind of a refining process where we are kind of learning a straight a straight and narrow way: believe everything the Bible says, don’t believe what it doesn’t say, and if an interpretation can’t be reconciled with the rest of the Bible then it’s not accurate.


So do you believe this:


Matthew 10
32Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father in heaven. 33But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven.

That's denoting the difference between those in God's grace, those who confess Christ, and those who deny him are those not in grace.

So yes, I accept that is accurate to what the Gospel says. Eternally saved is exactly that.
Salvation is of God. Not us.