Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As Mark Twain once said, "It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I do understand."
Such is the real objection so many on this forum have with Scripture. They know what it says, but, don't like it! ... so denigrate and undermine the entire Bible - in favor of their own opinion.
As Mark Twain once said, "It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I do understand."
Such is the real objection so many on this forum have with Scripture. They know what it says, but, don't like it! ... so denigrate and undermine the entire Bible - in favor of their own opinion.
It’s not being undermined. It’s just not being accepted what you think it is.
As Mark Twain once said, "It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I do understand."
Such is the real objection so many on this forum have with Scripture. They know what it says, but, don't like it! ... so denigrate and undermine the entire Bible - in favor of their own opinion.
That fits your narrative, however, it has been explained many times that it's not about liking or not liking, but rather, among other things, about the contradictory messages which are presented in the bible. Taken as a supposedly inerrant whole, the bible gives various views of God which do not mesh. Some people are not able to compartmentalize those contradictory views or make peace with the cognitive dissonance those views create.
RESPONSE: As we go along, please present your evidence that the original autographs were different that the Bible we now have. And, of course, present the original autographs if you claim they exist.
But if such errors exist and are many, clearly we cannot rely on the Bible as being "God breathed" can we?
I never said that the original autographs were different from the Bible we now have. Nor have I ever claimed that the original autographs still exist. Nor do they need to exist for New Testament textual critics to be confident that the Bible we now have is some 99 percent faithful to the original autographs, with the vast majority of the variants having no effect on the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. And now is a good time to post an old thread of mine which addresses that fact.
And. . . AND, I say again, there is post #64 which I addressed to you back in 09-22-2015 in the thread - Is the New Testament reliable? which is someone else's thread and which already addresses this topic you are once again attempting to argue against. GO BACK AND READ IT!!! POST #64.
Our present Bibles are mostly faithful (up to 99%) to the original autographic texts. But in the course of copying manuscripts, scribal errors (variants) were inevitable. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the variants are meaningless and only a few are of any significance at all. And even those few significant variants don't jeopardize any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.
And despite all this having already been gone over with you, here you are once again raising the same issues. And all I am going to do is to tell you to read the links, one of which is mine, and the other one is someone else's thread but in which I posted my reply to you.
I'm tired of your games. We're done here. READ THE LINKS!!!
RESPONSE: So you are admitting that the Bible is not entirely written by the inspiration of God but rather by men, right? Either that, or God made many errors and contradictions. Lets examine some.
Stop putting words in my mouth and do what I just told you to do in post #24.
Old news or new news, it is just one of many indications that the Bible is the product of men inspired by God, but NOT dictated and NOT infallible or inerrant. There is zero evidence of God controlling or magically preventing the corrupt interpretations of men for their various agendas.
As is the case with the OP, you either can't, or are unwilling to distinguish between the original autographs which were inspired. . . as in God breathed, and the later manuscript copies which were subject to scribal errors. And no, divine inspiration in which The Holy Spirit oversaw or superintended the New Testament writers as they wrote does not mean dictation, except in few cases. Nor does it mean that God magically prevented later manuscript copies from being corrupted. It means that God ensured that what the New Testament writers themselves wrote was accurate whether you accept that fact or not. And you don't.
It was apparently created by both God and man; a partnership. God provided the words, man provided the transcription and duplication. There, summed up in two sentences.
That's not at all apparent, in the sense that you state it. I agree with your central premise, but not your explanation of how it played out.
There are other alternatives for divine inspiration, other than direct God-to-Man dictation.
God is the divine author and He used human writers to pen the books and letters of the Bible under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
... without the supernatural beliefs of mankind, it would come crumbling down around you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
How limited of thought and mind to be unable to accept the existence of realms beyond the visible, physical realm which we inhabit. How is it that you are unable or unwilling to conceive of the supernatural realm which exists beyond the natural realm?
I do not live in the land of magic, superstition or the supernatural, although I do have hopes and dreams. There is nothing and nobody more special than anything or anyone else. If you believe the Bible was divinely written from other than the thoughts and perceptions of the people who wrote it, that’s your choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Many are able, they just do not want to accept it.
When a forest burns (dies) or is cut-down, there is a series of changes that happen called New Birth.
What you visualize is that things will grow back in the same form or fashion as the original landscape.
As Mark Twain once said, "It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I do understand."
Such is the real objection so many on this forum have with Scripture. They know what it says, but, don't like it! ... so denigrate and undermine the entire Bible - in favor of their own opinion.
Hi John. I hope all is going well for you. Yes, I'm still here. I'm not sure why though. This Christianity forum is where truth goes to die.
And you're right in what you said in your post. Many people, not liking what the Scriptures say, will simply not accept what they say. I would add though that many of these people don't understand how the scriptures all fit together, and don't want to understand. They want instead to cling only to the things which are written which fit their preferred image of God while discarding all else.
This is very old news. The Comma Johanneum is a known later scribal addition and not a part of the original autographs. It is therefore illogical to use it to question whether what is actually a part of the original autographs is ''God breathed.''
RESPONSE: And how exactly do you determine if any scripture is the "original autograph"?
Peter’s Confession About Jesus.*
MARK:8
Peter’s Confession About Jesus.*
27
Now Jesus and his disciples set out for the villages of Caesarea Philippi.h Along the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?”
28
They said in reply, “John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others one of the prophets.”
29
And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said to him in reply, “You are the Messiah.”
30
Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.
Matthew:16
h When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi* he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14
i They replied, “Some say John the Baptist,* others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16
* j Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
20
* m Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
Mark 8 was written in 70 AD. Matthew 16:16-19 was written in 80 AD and attached to Mark written in 70 AD.
Do you then reject Matthew 16-19 since it was not part of the original autograph?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
