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.
Refer for example to those passages in the Old Testament which begin with, 'The word of the Lord came to me, saying...'. For instance, Jeremiah 1:4 and 2:1.
Another example is Revelation chapters 2 and 3, where Jesus told John to write to each of the seven churches and then proceeded to tell John the exact words to write.
LOL...that's your determination of what was DICTATED????????? Seriously??????????
The Bible is not the inerrant word of "God". Evidence is clear, the errors and changes occurred in the text. The Bible we have today is not the same Bible they had 1,000 years ago and that Bible is not the same Bible they had 2,000 years ago. We use the process of Textual Criticism to determine, the best we can, the closest reading to the original.
Not true because we've NEVER had an original...all we've ever had are copies, of copies, of copies, of copies, of copies, of copies and many more copies. There is NO WAY anyone could determine what was ORIGINALLY written down...claiming otherwise, is just flat out lying!!!
Not true because we've NEVER had an original...all we've ever had are copies, of copies, of copies, of copies, of copies, of copies and many more copies. There is NO WAY anyone could determine what was ORIGINALLY written down...claiming otherwise, is just flat out lying!!!
Yes, we never had the original. However, through the process of textual criticism and comparing all of the ancient versions and translations that will enable us to, at least, make some educated guesses to draw some plausible conclusions on how the original text read. Can it be done perfectly? Absolutely not, but we can come close.
The Bible is not the inerrant word of "God". Evidence is clear, the errors and changes occurred in the text. The Bible we have today is not the same Bible they had 1,000 years ago and that Bible is not the same Bible they had 2,000 years ago. We use the process of Textual Criticism to determine, the best we can, the closest reading to the original.
I have already stated more than once that divine inspiration refers to the original autographs only. However, the copyist errors and variations in the manuscript copies have not resulted in any loss or change in doctrine. We still have the word of God today. We still have God's message to man.
Not true because we've NEVER had an original...all we've ever had are copies, of copies, of copies, of copies, of copies, of copies and many more copies. There is NO WAY anyone could determine what was ORIGINALLY written down...claiming otherwise, is just flat out lying!!!
We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which confirmed the Bible was menticulously and accurately copied.
Which parts were dictated and how could you possibly have determined that?????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Refer for example to those passages in the Old Testament which begin with, 'The word of the Lord came to me, saying...'. For instance, Jeremiah 1:4 and 2:1.
Another example is Revelation chapters 2 and 3, where Jesus told John to write to each of the seven churches and then proceeded to tell John the exact words to write.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristyGrl
LOL...that's your determination of what was DICTATED????????? Seriously??????????
Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition
Dictate
1. to speak (something) aloud for someone else to write down. 2. to command expressly 3. to give (orders) with authority ---n. an authoritative order ---dictation n.
Revelation 2:1''To the angel of the church in Ephesis write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, The One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: 2] I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false...
I agree that the King James Bible is a very good translation even though much of the Elizabethan English is anachronistic, and I think that every believer should have a copy.
The King James is based on the Received Text and compares with the Majority Text much more than the Critical Text does. But the variations and errors in all the manuscripts are for the most part very minor and do not affect any point of doctrine. Even someting major, such as the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) doesn't affect doctrine because the doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent on that passage.
The Received Text upon which the King James is based is not without its problems either. For instance, and I'll just give an excerpt here...
Excerpt:
For example, Acts 8:37 (And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God) has almost no Greek manuscript support, but Erasmus inserted it because it was in the Vulgate, with some support from the Fathers, and in the margin of one of his copies. In Acts 9:5-6, the words it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him are imported from Acts 26:14 and 22:10, and appear in no Greek copy at all here, although they are represented in the Vulgate, with some support from the Fathers. Bibliography of Textual Criticism "E"
But again, nothing is affected by the inclusion of the extra words in Acts 9:5-6
Regarding the end of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), later manuscripts have it, while Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus do not, although according to the Bible Knowledge Commentary, their respective scribes left some blank space after verse 8, suggesting that they knew of a longer ending but did not have it in the manuscript they were copying. Modern translations still include the longer ending, but have, or at least the NASB has a footnote indicating that the earlest manuscripts don't include verses 9-20.
I do believe that textual critcism is a good thing because it has shown that God's word has been preserved even with the errors and variations, most of which are quite minor, in the various manuscripts.
That's the issue I have with falling on the Greek text as the authority as the preserved Word of God. Who's to say that the way it was translated from the Vulgate is not the message accurately conveyed by the Lord and that the Greek "lost" these with time or were deliberately corrupted by our spiritual enemy? The more I lean on "textual criticism" the more I believe I'm trusting on man's fallible reasoning/opinion as opposed to believing in the power of God to do what he'd say he'd do in inspiring and preserving the Word of God. Considering the Lord seems to have changed the primary language of the text throughout history (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, to English) in which he has conveyed his message, I don't have any issue at all in believing that God preserved his word through the 1611/authorized King James Bible.
So where is the Word of God? The Lord says in Psalm 12 that the Words of the Lord are pure words. He also says He will keep Them (or "Us" depending if one believes the Hebrew "scholars" behind the NIV). << to me that is not a small variant at all. Either God is preserving His Word or he isn't. When the Lord says every Word out of his mouth we are going to be accountable for, I have to believe it says "them".
That's the issue I have with falling on the Greek text as the authority as the preserved Word of God. Who's to say that the way it was translated from the Vulgate is not the message accurately conveyed by the Lord and that the Greek "lost" these with time or were deliberately corrupted by our spiritual enemy? The more I lean on "textual criticism" the more I believe I'm trusting on man's fallible reasoning/opinion as opposed to believing in the power of God to do what he'd say he'd do in inspiring and preserving the Word of God. Considering the Lord seems to have changed the primary language of the text throughout history (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, to English) in which he has conveyed his message, I don't have any issue at all in believing that God preserved his word through the 1611/authorized King James Bible.
So where is the Word of God? The Lord says in Psalm 12 that the Words of the Lord are pure words. He also says He will keep Them (or "Us" depending if one believes the Hebrew "scholars" behind the NIV). << to me that is not a small variant at all. Either God is preserving His Word or he isn't. When the Lord says every Word out of his mouth we are going to be accountable for, I have to believe it says "them".
Mikelee, we're going to have to leave this alone. This is not really the topic of the thread and June just issued a warning.
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.
