This May be Shocking to You, But Your Bible Isn't God's Inspired Word (exodus, Moses)

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by Faith_Plus_Nothing

So many of you want to claim the bible is not all God's word or some variation of it not being something we should follow. Please tell us what parts of the bible is not correct? Which part is wrong? Which part must we reject? Be specific and give book, chapter and verse of the parts of the bible you reject and why.

Let's just do one for an example: "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,"
1 Cor 11:14,
Answer: No, that is strictly a cultural perception, I'm willing to bet that no one in his right mind would have told Crazy Horse that his hair was disgraceful. What do you think?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Faith_Plus_Nothing

So many of you want to claim the bible is not all God's word or some variation of it not being something we should follow. Please tell us what parts of the bible is not correct? Which part is wrong? Which part must we reject? Be specific and give book, chapter and verse of the parts of the bible you reject and why.

The way that you tell which are NOT from God is by reading with the "mind of Christ" (WWJT) as HE revealed Himself to us . . . NOT as our ignorant ancestors described Jehovah (YHWH). What our ancestors believed about God is wrong. What Christ revealed about God is the Truth. The mainstream churches merged them together and corrupted Christ's Gospel into the current anti-Christ false Gospel we were told would be the majority view in the latter days. 2000+ years later is definitely the latter days. So . . . if you want to know what is from God compare it to Jesus unambiguous revelations about the true nature of our loving Father. Ask WWJT?

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by Faith_Plus_Nothing

Perhaps but what does that have to do with my asking for those who claim parts of the bible are wrong or not to be accepted to tell us which ones specifically an use the common method of identifying a passage of scripture? It seems as though you want to change the subject and avoid the question.

The Scriptures and the Letters are a continuous flow that impart an idea...Chopping them up interrupts that flow and many doctrines have been developed from individual chapters or verses when the whole of the Letter should have been utilized...

[Faith_Plus_Nothing]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Excuse me, Faith, but did you really think through this post before you made it? We have no original documents. Absolutely ever Bible scholar on the face of the earth today will tell you that. You don't have to believe your Bible (regardless of which translation you use) was translated from the original document as penned by Paul or anybody else in order to believe the Bible is the word of God. You sound almost desperate to convince people (maybe including yourself) that we have the originals when we don't. This shouldn't shake your faith. I hope it doesn't.

The poster was implying the originals never existed and I simply challenged him to prove it. Nothing shakes my faith! I know my God!

[Faith_Plus_Nothing]

Originally Posted by nateswift

Let's just do one for an example: "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,"
1 Cor 11:14,
Answer: No, that is strictly a cultural perception, I'm willing to bet that no one in his right mind would have told Crazy Horse that his hair was disgraceful. What do you think?

That's your opinion and not a fact. I believe long hair on a man is a disgrace to them today and at the time that was written.

[Faith_Plus_Nothing]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The way that you tell which are NOT from God is by reading with the "mind of Christ" (WWJT) as HE revealed Himself to us . . . NOT as our ignorant ancestors described Jehovah (YHWH). What our ancestors believed about God is wrong. What Christ revealed about God is the Truth. The mainstream churches merged them together and corrupted Christ's Gospel into the current anti-Christ false Gospel we were told would be the majority view in the latter days. 2000+ years later is definitely the latter days. So . . . if you want to know what is from God compare it to Jesus unambiguous revelations about the true nature of our loving Father. Ask WWJT?

So you are afraid to give specifics?

Don't you call my ancestors ignorant. Maybe yours were but you should not be insulting our families on this forum.

[Faith_Plus_Nothing]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

The Scriptures and the Letters are a continuous flow that impart an idea...Chopping them up interrupts that flow and many doctrines have been developed from individual chapters or verses when the whole of the Letter should have been utilized...

OK. Then tell us the parts you believe are wrong in a way that we can understand which part you are speaking of.

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by Faith_Plus_Nothing

That's your opinion and not a fact. I believe long hair on a man is a disgrace to them today and at the time that was written.

Would you have told that to Crazy Horse? There are many cultures in which men have long hair and it is in no way disgraceful, but this is a clear example of what happens when such a point is brought up to someone with such a fundamentalist mindset. In order to put something new into a mind, it has to be open.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

The Scriptures and the Letters are a continuous flow that impart an idea...Chopping them up interrupts that flow and many doctrines have been developed from individual chapters or verses when the whole of the Letter should have been utilized...

Agreed, Richard, but I would go further and say that since there is inspiration in all scripture then individual verses and chapters should be viewed with the entirety of Scripture--and with an emphasis on the sayings and works of Jesus to further clarify "Christian" as opposed to "theology."

An extreme example is the quote "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live among you," which when taken out of context became justification for the 17th century purge in America. It's further complicated by the verbiage used from a German translation which views "witch" as female, when in the original it was gender non-specific. If the Christians of the 17th century were going to kill witches, they should have included an equal number of men!!!

Virtually no text can be read without an understanding of ALL text and a great deal of humility added to boot. See Clear Lens better worded view of this in Post #305, of the "The Bible is doesn't merely contain the Word of God, it is the Inerrant Word of God."

Mike, in an earlier post stated that we no longer have the original autographs, so therefore the ones we DO have can no longer be inerrant, but that does not mean they are not inspired because contrary to the belief of some, inerrancy and inspiration are NOT the same thing. And I believe in inspiration.

Inerrancy may be fixed, but inspiration is living and ongoing, which is the way that educated versus dogmatic people can continue to appreciate the value of Scripture. As one author said, God does not err, but men who wrote (and copied, I might add) the scriptures do.

But in a likewise manner, some have said everything is Spirit and have alluded that scripture is less than relevant. Those people cannot even know of the Spirit outside that less than relevant scripture. So it is the foundation for all that any of us who name the name of Christ have faith in.

Scripture can neither be discounted nor worshipped as an idol. It is the picture window into the heart of God. All any of us are doing on this thread is pointing to the dust and chips in the window, or trying to polish or repair them, rather than being engaged by the Living God to Whom we should be looking toward on the OTHER SIDE of the window.

[Jerwade]

Originally Posted by Faith_Plus_Nothing

That's your opinion and not a fact. I believe long hair on a man is a disgrace to them today and at the time that was written.

A personal view, attitude or appraisal?