Biblical Authority

pinebeach · Sep 4, 2026

OMC said:
“Brother, I hear your words, but saying ‘no one is mocking you’ does not erase the content or tone of what has been spoken.
Scripture says, ‘Whoever mocks the poor insults his Maker’ (Proverbs 17:5), and mockery is not defined by the speaker’s intention but by the effect and posture of the words.
You may call it opinion, but when an opinion is used to belittle weakness, it becomes contempt. And contempt is sin, not counsel.”

yeah I am actually your sister. Just a very straightforward one who does not try to please for the sake of it.

Yeah Paul was accused of alot of things but that does not change the fact that Jesus Himself stepped into the picture and gave Saul a new name and proclaimed him to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Look, I've been hanging out in churches since 5 and I've lived in quite a few different places and heard plenty, seen plenty and keep quiet about most of it because this is a public forum.

OMC said:
You said: “Your apparent opinion of yourself does not follow scripture.”
Brother, Scripture commands me to speak plainly, not proudly:
“We speak not to please men, but God who tests our hearts.” — 1 Thessalonians 2:4

You create a thread and then get sarcastic when people don't jump on it and praise you for your great knowledge. You please yourself sir.

OMC said:
Plain speech is not arrogance.
Correction is not arrogance.
Clarity is not arrogance.

Then you should definately appreciate me.

OMC said:
Arrogance is self‑exaltation, and I have not exalted myself — I have only insisted that Scripture govern the conversation.

Your 2nd posts says otherwise. You have insisted on being paid attention to ... the. thread. you. made. hmmmm?

OMC said:
You notice most folks on CC avoiding this too..... hmmm?

OMC said:
You said: “Just change the way you post.”
Brother, Scripture tells me exactly how I must speak: “Speak the truth in love.” — Ephesians 4:15
Not flattery.
Not softness to avoid offense.
Not silence to avoid conflict.
Truth — in love — with Scripture as the anchor.

I spoke the truth. You are trying to gaslight here by trying to make it seem I have something against scripture. The way you speak, sir, is not scripture. Again, that 2nd post tells us you expect something because you created something. Do you find me flattering?
I will say no you don't so I must be speaking without flattery, no softness, and certainly not trying to avoid conflict.

This is ridiculous. Such carefully crafted responses. I don't buy it.

OMC said:
If my tone needs refinement, I will refine it.
If my clarity needs gentleness, I will add gentleness.
But I will not stop speaking plainly, because Scripture commands plainness.

You said: “You are one of many even if you think you are not.”
Brother, I have never claimed to be anything but a servant of the Word. And Scripture says: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” — 1 Corinthians 1:31
So I boast in nothing but the text.

pinebeach · Sep 4, 2026

Revelation1v8 said:
In my opinion, it doesn't matter what level of education or writing style you have as long as you're able to get your point across in a way for people to understand it. I can't tell you how many well educated people I've come across using big or poetic words to try and make their point, but have still failed the test of holding their view up to the ultimate authority of the Bible. It really doesn't matter.

Apart from Paul, Jesus didn't pick the University crowd to be His Apostles and I say that having plenty of education myself, both in the institutions and good ole practical hands on. I don't impress easily but I do impress the wrong way with less difficulty.

Revelation1v8 · Sep 4, 2026

pinebeach said:
Apart from Paul, Jesus didn't pick the University crowd to be His Apostles and I say that having plenty of education myself, both in the institutions and good ole practical hands on. I don't impress easily but I do impress the wrong way with less difficulty.

I know I've definitely had my share of people who claim their view is more educational than mine because they have a Masters degree in Theology. What they'll never admit is that their degree came from a particular denomination of Christian University that only allows them to study from their resources that already has a built in opinion on scripture that they're not allowed to stray from. If this group spent as much time studying their Bible as they do the writings and opinions of early church philosophers, they could have had a chance at getting it right instead of wrong.

pinebeach · Sep 4, 2026

Revelation1v8 said:
I know I've definitely had my share of people who claim their view is more educational than mine because they have a Masters degree in Theology. What they'll never admit is that their degree came from a particular denomination of Christian University that only allows them to study from their resources that already has a built in opinion on scripture that they're not allowed to stray from. If this group spent as much time studying their Bible as they do the writings and opinions of early church philosophers, they could have had a chance at getting it right instead of wrong.

.................................................................................................................THIS ^^^^^^^^^^

OMC · Sep 4, 2026

pinebeach said:
yeah I am actually your sister. Just a very straightforward one who does not try to please for the sake of it.

Yeah Paul was accused of alot of things but that does not change the fact that Jesus Himself stepped into the picture and gave Saul a new name and proclaimed him to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Look, I've been hanging out in churches since 5 and I've lived in quite a few different places and heard plenty, seen plenty and keep quiet about most of it because this is a public forum.

You create a thread and then get sarcastic when people don't jump on it and praise you for your great knowledge. You please yourself sir.

Then you should definately appreciate me.

Your 2nd posts says otherwise. You have insisted on being paid attention to ... the. thread. you. made. hmmmm?

I spoke the truth. You are trying to gaslight here by trying to make it seem I have something against scripture. The way you speak, sir, is not scripture. Again, that 2nd post tells us you expect something because you created something. Do you find me flattering?
I will say no you don't so I must be speaking without flattery, no softness, and certainly not trying to avoid conflict.

This is ridiculous. Such carefully crafted responses. I don't buy it.

Sister, thank you for clarifying who you are — and I will speak to you as such. But your being my sister in Christ doesn’t change the substance of what I said: mockery is measured by posture and effect, not by the speaker’s self‑assessment. If the words land as belittling, dismissive, or contemptuous, Scripture calls that mockery, regardless of intention. That’s why I quoted Proverbs 17:5. I wasn’t attacking you; I was naming the posture of the words themselves.

You said I “get sarcastic when people don’t jump on and praise me.” Sister, I didn’t create a thread to be praised. I created a thread to discuss Scripture. If my tone came across as expecting attention, then I will refine that — but I will not accept the accusation that I was seeking applause. My aim was clarity, not self‑promotion.

You said, “Then you should definitely appreciate me.” I do appreciate straightforwardness. But straightforwardness is not the same thing as contempt. You can speak plainly without belittling. You can speak truth without diminishing. You can confront without mocking. That’s the line I’m guarding.

You said my second post “insisted on being paid attention to.” Sister, what I insisted on was that Scripture govern the conversation. If I pressed the point, it was because the point was biblical, not personal. If my tone was too sharp, I’ll soften it. But I won’t apologize for insisting that Scripture be the anchor.

You said I’m “gaslighting” you. Sister, I’m not trying to twist your words or make you doubt your own perception. I’m pointing out that your critique of my tone drifted into belittling, and I answered that with Scripture. That’s not gaslighting — that’s accountability.

You said my responses are “carefully crafted” and you “don’t buy it.” Sister, I speak carefully because Scripture commands me to. I don’t fire off emotional replies. I don’t retaliate. I don’t escalate. I anchor myself in the text and speak from there. If that feels crafted, it’s because I refuse to speak from the flesh.

pinebeach · Sep 4, 2026

OMC said:
Sister, thank you for clarifying who you are — and I will speak to you as such. But your being my sister in Christ doesn’t change the substance of what I said: mockery is measured by posture and effect, not by the speaker’s self‑assessment. If the words land as belittling, dismissive, or contemptuous, Scripture calls that mockery, regardless of intention. That’s why I quoted Proverbs 17:5. I wasn’t attacking you; I was naming the posture of the words themselves.

You said I “get sarcastic when people don’t jump on and praise me.” Sister, I didn’t create a thread to be praised. I created a thread to discuss Scripture. If my tone came across as expecting attention, then I will refine that — but I will not accept the accusation that I was seeking applause. My aim was clarity, not self‑promotion.

You said, “Then you should definitely appreciate me.” I do appreciate straightforwardness. But straightforwardness is not the same thing as contempt. You can speak plainly without belittling. You can speak truth without diminishing. You can confront without mocking. That’s the line I’m guarding.

You said my second post “insisted on being paid attention to.” Sister, what I insisted on was that Scripture govern the conversation. If I pressed the point, it was because the point was biblical, not personal. If my tone was too sharp, I’ll soften it. But I won’t apologize for insisting that Scripture be the anchor.

You said I’m “gaslighting” you. Sister, I’m not trying to twist your words or make you doubt your own perception. I’m pointing out that your critique of my tone drifted into belittling, and I answered that with Scripture. That’s not gaslighting — that’s accountability.

You said my responses are “carefully crafted” and you “don’t buy it.” Sister, I speak carefully because Scripture commands me to. I don’t fire off emotional replies. I don’t retaliate. I don’t escalate. I anchor myself in the text and speak from there. If that feels crafted, it’s because I refuse to speak from the flesh.

I'm done. I just will consider your post #2 as the truth.

Revelation1v8 · Sep 4, 2026

pinebeach said:
yeah I am actually your sister. Just a very straightforward one who does not try to please for the sake of it.

Yeah Paul was accused of alot of things but that does not change the fact that Jesus Himself stepped into the picture and gave Saul a new name and proclaimed him to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Look, I've been hanging out in churches since 5 and I've lived in quite a few different places and heard plenty, seen plenty and keep quiet about most of it because this is a public forum.

You create a thread and then get sarcastic when people don't jump on it and praise you for your great knowledge. You please yourself sir.

Then you should definately appreciate me.

Your 2nd posts says otherwise. You have insisted on being paid attention to ... the. thread. you. made. hmmmm?

I spoke the truth. You are trying to gaslight here by trying to make it seem I have something against scripture. The way you speak, sir, is not scripture. Again, that 2nd post tells us you expect something because you created something. Do you find me flattering?
I will say no you don't so I must be speaking without flattery, no softness, and certainly not trying to avoid conflict.

This is ridiculous. Such carefully crafted responses. I don't buy it.

Maybe it would help if OMC clarified what exactly he meant by post #2?! I had no idea what he was talking about unless he has been conversing mostly with people who don't consider the Word of God to have as much authority as they should. Was this thread created in response to another conversation or thread?

pinebeach · Sep 4, 2026

Revelation1v8 said:
Maybe it would help if OMC clarified what exactly he meant by post #2?! I had no idea what he was talking about unless he has been conversing mostly with people who don't consider the Word of God to have as much authority as they should. Was this thread created in response to another conversation or thread?

I don't think it is scripture that is in question. I outlined what I see as the problem in my posts above and I am not judging the man

He just needs to loose the tude

OMC · Sep 4, 2026

Revelation1v8 said:
Maybe it would help if OMC clarified what exactly he meant by post #2?! I had no idea what he was talking about unless he has been conversing mostly with people who don't consider the Word of God to have as much authority as they should. Was this thread created in response to another conversation or thread?

For the last week I’ve been targeted from every direction, accused of things that have nothing to do with what I actually study or where my convictions come from. It got so intense that I finally had to state plainly what my foundation is, so I posted the Bible Authority. I and many others on this site have been ruthlessly attacked for our beliefs and even for the way we speak. So I posted the World Religious Systems to expose those who are mocking, misleading, and twisting truth. Those are the people my comments were directed toward — not the honest seekers, but the ones who intentionally stir confusion and attack anyone who stands on Scripture.

Revelation1v8 · Sep 4, 2026

OMC said:
For the last week I’ve been targeted from every direction, accused of things that have nothing to do with what I actually study or where my convictions come from. It got so intense that I finally had to state plainly what my foundation is, so I posted the Bible Authority. I and many others on this site have been ruthlessly attacked for our beliefs and even for the way we speak. So I posted the World Religious Systems to

OMC said:
expose those who are mocking, misleading, and twisting truth. Those are the people my comments were directed toward — not the honest seekers, but the ones who intentionally stir confusion and attack anyone who stands on Scripture.

OMC said:
For the last week I’ve been targeted from every direction, accused of things that have nothing to do with what I actually study or where my convictions come from. It got so intense that I finally had to state plainly what my foundation is, so I posted the Bible Authority. I and many others on this site have been ruthlessly attacked for our beliefs and even for the way we speak. So I posted the World Religious Systems to expose those who are mocking, misleading, and twisting truth. Those are the people my comments were directed toward — not the honest seekers, but the ones who intentionally stir confusion and attack anyone who stands on Scripture.

Thanks for the reply. I'll go check out your post on World Religious Systems too!

GWH · Sep 4, 2026

OMC said:
Biblical Authority
The foundation every distortion attacks

2 Timothy 3:16–17
All Scripture is God‑breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work

“All Scripture is God‑breathed…” Paul makes an absolute claim: the entire body of Scripture carries the direct breath of God. The Greek theopneustos does not mean “inspired” in the modern sense of artistic motivation; it means exhaled by God Himself.
This establishes Scripture’s authority as divine speech, not human religious reflection.
Because Scripture is God‑breathed, it is inherently profitable — not in a subjective or emotional sense, but in four objective functions: teaching (positive instruction), reproof (exposing error), correction (restoring what is wrong), and training in righteousness (ongoing formation).
These four functions cover the entire spectrum of spiritual development.
The purpose clause (“so that the man of God may be complete…”) shows that Scripture is sufficient; nothing else is needed to equip a believer for “every good work.”
The text leaves no room for tradition, councils, mystical experiences, or human authority to supplement what God has already breathed out.

Psalm 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

“The law of the LORD is perfect…” David describes the Torah — God’s instruction — as perfect, meaning complete, whole, lacking nothing.
Its perfection is not abstract; it has a specific effect: restoring the soul.
The Hebrew verb shuv means turning back, bringing back, restoring to the right condition.
God’s Word has restorative power because it reflects His character.
The “testimony of the LORD” refers to God’s covenant declarations, and they are “sure,” meaning firmly established, trustworthy, incapable of deception. Their effect is “making wise the simple.”
The “simple” (pethî) is not the foolish but the inexperienced — the one lacking discernment.
God’s Word gives wisdom not by adding human sophistication but by grounding the mind in divine reality.
This verse establishes Scripture as both morally perfect and practically transformative.

Psalm 119:160
The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.

“The sum of Your word is truth…” The psalmist asserts that truth is not found in isolated verses but in the totality of God’s revelation.
The Hebrew phrase means “the head, the beginning, the entirety” — the whole of God’s Word taken together is truth.
This guards against selective interpretation, proof‑texting, and theological systems that elevate certain passages while ignoring others.
Every one of God’s “righteous judgments” — His decisions, decrees, verdicts — “endures forever.”
This permanence means Scripture’s authority does not decay with time, culture, or human opinion.
Truth is not a moving target; it is anchored in the unchanging nature of God. This verse establishes the unity, coherence, and permanence of divine revelation.

Isaiah 55:11
So shall My word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

“My word… shall not return to Me empty…” God declares that His Word is not passive information but active power.
When He speaks, His Word goes out like a commissioned agent, accomplishing exactly what He intends.
The imagery is agricultural: just as rain produces growth, God’s Word produces results.
It “shall accomplish what I purpose” — meaning Scripture is tied directly to God’s sovereign will.
It “shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” — meaning Scripture never fails, never misfires, never produces unintended consequences.
This verse establishes the effectiveness of God’s Word: it performs, executes, and fulfills God’s intentions in history and in the human heart.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two‑edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

“The word of God is living and active…” The writer describes Scripture not as static text but as living, meaning it possesses ongoing vitality, and active, meaning it is continually at work.
The metaphor of a “two‑edged sword” emphasizes precision and penetration.
Scripture pierces “to the division of soul and spirit,” not to separate them but to reach the deepest levels of human existence.
It judges “the thoughts and intentions of the heart,” exposing motives, desires, and hidden reasoning.
This is not psychological insight; it is divine discernment.
Scripture functions as God’s instrument for revealing what is truly inside a person.
This verse establishes the penetrating, diagnostic, and transformative power of God’s Word.

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

“My words will not pass away.” Jesus contrasts the temporary nature of the physical universe with the permanence of His own words.
Heaven and earth — the most stable realities humans know — will dissolve, but His words will remain unchanged and unbroken.
This is an astonishing claim: Christ’s speech has greater permanence than creation itself.
It establishes the eternal authority of His teaching and the unchanging reliability of His promises.
No cultural shift, historical development, or cosmic event can nullify what He has spoken.
This verse anchors the immutability of divine revelation.

John 17:17
Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

“Your word is truth.” In His high‑priestly prayer, Jesus defines truth not as a philosophical category but as God’s Word itself.
Truth is not merely contained in Scripture; Scripture is truth.
The verb “sanctify” means to set apart, to make holy, to consecrate.
Jesus asks the Father to sanctify His disciples through the instrumentality of the Word.
This means Scripture is the means by which God shapes His people, separates them from the world, and aligns them with His character.
The verse establishes Scripture as the exclusive agent of sanctification and the definitive standard of truth.

1 Peter 1:23–25
The word of the Lord remains forever.

“The word of the Lord remains forever.” Peter contrasts human life — “all flesh is like grass” — with the permanence of God’s Word.
Human existence is temporary, fragile, and fading, but the Word of the Lord is enduring and eternal.
This Word is the instrument of the new birth (“born again… through the living and abiding word of God”).
The gospel message is not a temporary announcement but an eternal truth that produces eternal life.
Peter quotes Isaiah 40 to reinforce the point: everything human withers, but God’s Word stands forever.
This establishes Scripture as the eternal foundation of salvation and the unchanging message of God.

All these passages form a unified declaration that God’s Word carries His own authority, power, permanence, and sufficiency.
Scripture is God‑breathed (2 Tim 3:16–17), meaning it comes directly from Him and fully equips the believer for every aspect of life and obedience.
It is perfect and restorative (Ps 19:7), entirely true in its totality (Ps 119:160), and effectively accomplishes God’s purposes wherever it is sent (Isa 55:11).
God’s Word is not static but living and active (Heb 4:12), penetrating the deepest parts of the human heart with divine precision.
Unlike the temporary world, Christ’s words are eternal and unchanging (Matt 24:35).
Scripture is the instrument by which God sanctifies His people in truth (John 17:17), and it is the enduring message that brings new life and remains forever (1 Pet 1:23–25). Taken together, these verses present Scripture as the final, sufficient, living, and everlasting authority for faith, transformation, and obedience. The distortionists will be the first to attack this statement. But were not done. More to come.

Well, certainly all truth is God-breathed, but extant Scripture is derived from previous exhales, so we cannot say that there is one-to one correspondence or divine dictation.

Thus, we must be content with confidence that God insured truth sufficient for accomplishing His plan of salvation is contained in our Bibles, but we cannot avoid the necessity of walking by fallible faith. No sight, absolute/inerrant certainty or popes.

Hence the need to test every Scripture and keep the good interpretations (1Thes. 5:20-21).

OMC · Sep 4, 2026

GWH said:
Well, certainly all truth is God-breathed, but extant Scripture is derived from previous exhales, so we cannot say that there is one-to one correspondence or divine dictation.

Thus, we must be content with confidence that God insured truth sufficient for accomplishing His plan of salvation is contained in our Bibles, but we cannot avoid the necessity of walking by fallible faith. No sight, absolute/inerrant certainty or popes.

Hence the need to test every Scripture and keep the good interpretations (1Thes. 5:20-21).

I agree with you that extant Scripture is mediated through human authors and human languages, but the move you’re making from “God‑breathed” to “fallible faith with no possibility of certainty” doesn’t follow the way Scripture itself treats its own nature; Paul doesn’t say theopneustos means “previous exhales with partial reliability,” he says all Scripture is God‑breathed and therefore profitable for producing a man who is “complete, equipped for every good work,” which assumes sufficiency, clarity, and functional certainty, not merely minimal adequacy. The fact that inspiration is not mechanical dictation does not reduce the product to a level where we must live in perpetual epistemic fog; biblical faith is not “fallible sightlessness,” it is confidence in what God has actually spoken, and the command to “test everything” in 1 Thessalonians 5:20–21 refers to prophetic utterances, not to treating Scripture itself as a mixture of good and bad interpretations that we sift for the least‑wrong meaning. The apostles never present Scripture as something we must approach with suspicion; they present it as truth (John 17:17), sure (Psalm 19:7), enduring forever (1 Peter 1:23–25), and able to make one wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15). So yes, we walk by faith, but biblical faith receives the Word as objectively reliable, not as a fallible approximation we must constantly salvage by human testing. If you want, I can unpack how Paul frames Scripture’s reliability in 2 Timothy 3 or how “testing” functions in 1 Thessalonians 5.

GWH · Sep 4, 2026

OMC said:
I agree with you that extant Scripture is mediated through human authors and human languages, but the move you’re making from “God‑breathed” to “fallible faith with no possibility of certainty” doesn’t follow the way Scripture itself treats its own nature; Paul doesn’t say theopneustos means “previous exhales with partial reliability,” he says all Scripture is God‑breathed and therefore profitable for producing a man who is “complete, equipped for every good work,” which assumes sufficiency, clarity, and functional certainty, not merely minimal adequacy. The fact that inspiration is not mechanical dictation does not reduce the product to a level where we must live in perpetual epistemic fog; biblical faith is not “fallible sightlessness,” it is confidence in what God has actually spoken, and the command to “test everything” in 1 Thessalonians 5:20–21 refers to prophetic utterances, not to treating Scripture itself as a mixture of good and bad interpretations that we sift for the least‑wrong meaning. The apostles never present Scripture as something we must approach with suspicion; they present it as truth (John 17:17), sure (Psalm 19:7), enduring forever (1 Peter 1:23–25), and able to make one wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15). So yes, we walk by faith, but biblical faith receives the Word as objectively reliable, not as a fallible approximation we must constantly salvage by human testing. If you want, I can unpack how Paul frames Scripture’s reliability in 2 Timothy 3 or how “testing” functions in 1 Thessalonians 5.

Well, Paul does say the Scripture he has in mind is that which is able to make one wise unto salvation and profitable for producing a man who is complete, equipped for every good work. So, yes, sufficiently reliable/walking by faith does not mean barely adequate or a fog but rather confidence in what God has inspired/revealed.
The reference to prophetic utterances 1 Thes. 5:20–21 may mean or include Scripture, because Paul does not specify a list of books or a list of truths, but there is a lot of the OT that Jesus and the apostles never cited, which might suggest less importance, if not a little suspicion.

OMC · Sep 4, 2026

GWH said:
Well, Paul does say the Scripture he has in mind is that which is able to make one wise unto salvation and profitable for producing a man who is complete, equipped for every good work. So, yes, sufficiently reliable/walking by faith does not mean barely adequate or a fog but rather confidence in what God has inspired/revealed.
The reference to prophetic utterances 1 Thes. 5:20–21 may mean or include Scripture, because Paul does not specify a list of books or a list of truths, but there is a lot of the OT that Jesus and the apostles never cited, which might suggest less importance, if not a little suspicion.

I agree with you that Paul is talking about Scripture as the body of writings that “make one wise unto salvation” and “equip the man of God for every good work.” That’s why I said inspiration produces sufficiency, clarity, and functional certainty, not fog or partial reliability.
But the move you’re making now — suggesting that 1 Thessalonians 5:20–21 may include Scripture because Paul doesn’t specify a list of books — is precisely where I have to push back.
Paul is not talking about the canon in that passage; he is talking about prophetic utterances delivered in the assembly.
The grammar, the context, and the flow of the exhortations all point to charismatic speech, not written Scripture.
“Do not despise prophecies” is the command; “test all things” is the safeguard; “hold fast what is good” is the result.
That is not how Scripture is treated anywhere in the apostolic writings.

And the idea that the OT passages Jesus and the apostles never cited might be “less important, if not a little suspicious” is simply not how Scripture speaks about itself.
Jesus doesn’t cite every OT book, but He affirms all of it as “the word of God” that “cannot be broken.”
Paul doesn’t quote every OT passage, but he says all Scripture is God‑breathed.
Peter doesn’t list every OT book, but he says the prophets spoke as they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
The apostles never create a hierarchy of reliability based on frequency of citation.
They treat the entire canon as true, sure, enduring, and binding.

So yes — we walk by faith, but biblical faith is confidence in what God has spoken, not suspicion toward the parts Jesus didn’t quote. And yes — Scripture is mediated through human authors, but mediation does not diminish reliability.
Theopneustos means God‑breathed, not “partially reliable previous exhales.”
The apostles never teach us to sift Scripture for “good interpretations” the way we sift prophetic utterances.
They teach us to receive Scripture, obey Scripture, trust Scripture, and submit to Scripture as the objective, stable revelation of God

John146 · Sep 4, 2026

OMC said:
yes, God has preserved His Word, but no, there is not a single printed translation today where I can say every English word is perfect, infallible, and identical to the autographs.
What is preserved perfectly is the text itself — the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament — because that is the form God actually inspired.
Every translation is an interpretation of that inspired text, not the inspired text itself.
So if you want to know where you can trust every word, the answer is: in the preserved Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, not in any one English edition.
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)
The standard printed edition of the preserved Hebrew Old Testament. This is the Masoretic Text — the same textual tradition Jesus and the apostles quoted.
Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ)
The ongoing updated critical edition of the Hebrew Bible. Even more precise than BHS, with improved textual notes.
The Greek New Testament (NA28)
Nestle–Aland 28th Edition — the worldwide standard Greek New Testament. This is the exact text used for nearly all modern translations.
The Textus Receptus (Scrivener)
If you prefer the Greek text underlying the KJV, this is the edition to buy. Printed in English-language editions, but the text itself is Greek.
The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
Not a full Hebrew Bible, but a collection of the earliest OT manuscripts ever found. Useful for comparison and study.

Then you believe that a translation cannot be the inspired word of God? You do know that in the "originals" there are translations.

John146 · Sep 4, 2026

Beckworth said:
Yes. Find a good “word for word” translation, not a paraphrase.

I don't need a word for word translation, just the precise words in my language which is English. I believe that to be the King James Bible. I believe every word is the exact word for us in English.

OMC · Sep 4, 2026

John146 said:
Then you believe that a translation cannot be the inspired word of God? You do know that in the "originals" there are translations.

A translation can be called “the word of God,” but it cannot be called “the inspired wording of God,” because inspiration refers to the specific words God breathed out, not the later human renderings of those words into other languages.
Yet Scripture itself contains translated material—Aramaic speech rendered into Greek, Hebrew texts quoted in Greek, and Septuagint quotations—showing that a translation can faithfully carry inspired meaning when it accurately reflects the original.
In other words, the inspired text is the original wording, but a faithful translation communicates that inspired text to new readers without itself becoming newly inspired.

OMC · Sep 4, 2026

John146 said:
I don't need a word for word translation, just the precise words in my language which is English. I believe that to be the King James Bible. I believe every word is the exact word for us in English.

I honor your confidence in the King James Bible, because it is a remarkably faithful and stable translation.
But inspiration itself happened in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek — the very words God breathed out.
The KJV carries those inspired words into English with extraordinary accuracy, yet it is still a translation of inspired wording, not the inspired wording itself.
English can express the meaning, but it cannot replace the original languages God used.
So while the KJV is trustworthy, authoritative, and proven, the precise words God originally gave were not English, and studying them deepens our understanding of what the KJV faithfully conveys.

GWH · Sep 4, 2026

OMC said:
I agree with you that Paul is talking about Scripture as the body of writings that “make one wise unto salvation” and “equip the man of God for every good work.” That’s why I said inspiration produces sufficiency, clarity, and functional certainty, not fog or partial reliability.
But the move you’re making now — suggesting that 1 Thessalonians 5:20–21 may include Scripture because Paul doesn’t specify a list of books — is precisely where I have to push back.
Paul is not talking about the canon in that passage; he is talking about prophetic utterances delivered in the assembly.
The grammar, the context, and the flow of the exhortations all point to charismatic speech, not written Scripture.
“Do not despise prophecies” is the command; “test all things” is the safeguard; “hold fast what is good” is the result.
That is not how Scripture is treated anywhere in the apostolic writings.

And the idea that the OT passages Jesus and the apostles never cited might be “less important, if not a little suspicious” is simply not how Scripture speaks about itself.
Jesus doesn’t cite every OT book, but He affirms all of it as “the word of God” that “cannot be broken.”
Paul doesn’t quote every OT passage, but he says all Scripture is God‑breathed.
Peter doesn’t list every OT book, but he says the prophets spoke as they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
The apostles never create a hierarchy of reliability based on frequency of citation.
They treat the entire canon as true, sure, enduring, and binding.

So yes — we walk by faith, but biblical faith is confidence in what God has spoken, not suspicion toward the parts Jesus didn’t quote. And yes — Scripture is mediated through human authors, but mediation does not diminish reliability.
Theopneustos means God‑breathed, not “partially reliable previous exhales.”
The apostles never teach us to sift Scripture for “good interpretations” the way we sift prophetic utterances.
They teach us to receive Scripture, obey Scripture, trust Scripture, and submit to Scripture as the objective, stable revelation of God

And I agree with you that Paul was probably referring to current preaching rather than to OT writings, but I think it also applies to interpretations, and he left the door open to speculation by not specifying what "Scripture" includes. Peter was likewise vague, although we can assume he esteemed the messianic prophets.

My guess is that Jesus and Paul did not value Ezra as much as Psalms and Isaiah, for example. In fact, it is reasonable to conclude that they valued most what they cited, which was not Song of Solomon, the genealogies and the rules in Leviticus. I created the thread on "Key OT Teachings" in order to list every OT Scripture cited by J&P. I think God-breathed means divinely inspired, not dictated, especially parts that were written by who knows whom in the Samuels, Kings and Chronicles.

What is not cited is not affirmed, although this does not mean it could not have some reason to be esteemed as Scripture if it passes the test or parameters Paul mentioned--which I suppose is what the compilers of the NT canon used in addition to apostolic derivation. Otherwise it might be valued for historical value like the non-canonical books. There is no way to avoid walking by faith with regard to what is Scripture and to what we deem to be Scripture means.

Right?

OMC · Sep 4, 2026

GWH said:
And I agree with you that Paul was probably referring to current preaching rather than to OT writings, but I think it also applies to interpretations, and he left the door open to speculation by not specifying what "Scripture" includes. Peter was likewise vague, although we can assume he esteemed the messianic prophets.

My guess is that Jesus and Paul did not value Ezra as much as Psalms and Isaiah, for example. In fact, it is reasonable to conclude that they valued most what they cited, which was not Song of Solomon, the genealogies and the rules in Leviticus. I created the thread on "Key OT Teachings" in order to list every OT Scripture cited by J&P. I think God-breathed means divinely inspired, not dictated, especially parts that were written by who knows whom in the Samuels, Kings and Chronicles.

What is not cited is not affirmed, although this does not mean it could not have some reason to be esteemed as Scripture if it passes the test or parameters Paul mentioned--which I suppose is what the compilers of the NT canon used in addition to apostolic derivation. Otherwise it might be valued for historical value like the non-canonical books. There is no way to avoid walking by faith with regard to what is Scripture and to what we deem to be Scripture means.

Right?

Your entire argument rests on a premise Scripture never teaches: that what Jesus and Paul cite determines what Jesus and Paul affirm. That is not how inspiration works, and it is not how either Jesus or Paul treat Scripture.
You are building a canon‑within‑the‑canon based on frequency of quotation, and then treating that frequency as a measure of divine authority.
Scripture never gives us that principle, and the apostles never operate by it.

You say Jesus and Paul “probably valued” some books more than others. But Scripture never says that.
Jesus refers to “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44), which is a shorthand for the entire Hebrew canon.
He does not carve out Ezra, or Song of Solomon, or genealogies, or Levitical legislation as less inspired.
He affirms the whole.
Likewise, Paul says “all Scripture is God‑breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16).
He does not say “all Scripture that we cite,” or “all Scripture we personally prefer,” or “all Scripture except the parts we never mention.” You are inserting a distinction the apostles never make.

Your claim that “what is not cited is not affirmed” is not only unsupported — it is contradicted by the way Jesus and Paul treat Scripture.
Jesus appeals to the authority of Scripture as a whole: “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).
Paul appeals to the authority of Scripture as a whole: “Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction” (Romans 15:4).
Neither of them ever suggests that inspiration is measured by citation frequency.
If that were true, Job, Judges, Chronicles, and large portions of the Torah would be downgraded.
But Jesus and Paul never downgrade them.

You also assume that “God‑breathed” means “not dictated,” and therefore some parts may be less inspired because we do not know the human authors.
But inspiration is not tied to authorship transparency.
We do not know who wrote Hebrews, yet its inspiration is not questioned.
We do not know who wrote portions of Kings and Chronicles, yet Jesus treats the historical narratives as fully authoritative.
The identity of the human author has never been the criterion for inspiration.
The divine origin of the text is the criterion.

You suggest that Jesus and Paul “left the door open to speculation” because they did not specify what Scripture includes.
But Jesus did specify the canon by referring to the Law, Prophets, and Writings.
Paul did specify the canon by referring to “the sacred writings” Timothy had known from childhood — the Hebrew Scriptures.
The apostles did not leave the canon ambiguous.
They assumed the canon their audience already recognized.

Your argument also assumes that the compilers of the canon used Paul’s “parameters” to decide what belonged in Scripture.
But the canon was not created by theological committees evaluating books against Paul’s criteria.
The canon was recognized because the people of God already received these writings as inspired.
Jesus and Paul inherited a canon; they did not construct one.
And they affirmed it as a whole.

Finally, you say “there is no way to avoid walking by faith with regard to what is Scripture.”
But biblical faith is not guesswork.
It is confidence in what God has spoken.
Jesus did not leave His followers guessing about the canon.
Paul did not leave Timothy guessing about the canon.
The apostles did not leave the early church guessing about the canon.
The canon is not a leap into uncertainty; it is the reception of what God has already given.

So no — it is not correct to say that “what is not cited is not affirmed.”
It is not correct to say Jesus and Paul valued some books less.
It is not correct to say inspiration depends on authorship transparency.
And it is not correct to say the apostles left the canon open to speculation.
The canon they used is the canon they affirmed, and the canon they affirmed is the canon the church received.

Biblical Authority

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Groovy

Well-known member

Groovy

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Groovy

Well-known member