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.
It is those who believe the lie of mormonism who would contend that the holy scriptures are "inspired only insofar as they are correctly translated"...that is a lie in mormonism.
You are full of it, my friend. You got that bit of information from our Articles of Faith (whether you know it or not), but the Article of Faith puts no conditions on the Bible being "inspired." What it actually says is "We believe the Bible to be the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly." Why on earth, if there was a passage that had been incorrectly translated, would anyone want to accept it and believe it? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And which translation are you even talking about? Do you have any idea how many of them there are? All of them use different words. Are all of them translated "correctly"?
You are full of it, my friend. You got that bit of information from our Articles of Faith (whether you know it or not), but the Article of Faith puts no conditions on the Bible being "inspired." What it actually says is "We believe the Bible to be the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly." Why on earth, if there was a passage that had been incorrectly translated, would anyone want to accept it and believe it? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And which translation are you even talking about? Do you have any idea how many of them there are? All of them use different words. Are all of them translated "correctly"?
I am of the kjv-superior position when it comes to Bible translations and therefore I believe that the kjv is inspired and inerrant as pertains to doctrine.
I am of the kjv-superior position when it comes to Bible translations and therefore I believe that the kjv is inspired and inerrant as pertains to doctrine.
I actually use the KJV, too. But "inspired" and "inerrant" are not synonyms.
I can't help but wonder how much you actually know about the history of the Christian canon. Perhaps it would upset you to know, but if you are sincere in your desire to believe only what is true, you definitely ought to consider these facts. They may help you to become a little less inclined to see this issue as a black and white one:
In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all? Apparently some people believe that the Bible went from being "God-breathed" to "not God-breathed" and back again quite a few times.
I actually use the KJV, too. But "inspired" and "inerrant" are not synonyms.
I can't help but wonder how much you actually know about the history of the Christian canon. Perhaps it would upset you to know, but if you are sincere in your desire to believe only what is true, you definitely ought to consider these facts. They may help you to become a little less inclined to see this issue as a black and white one:
In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all? Apparently some people believe that the Bible went from being "God-breathed" to "not God-breathed" and back again quite a few times.
I find that the book of Isaiah gives a microcosm of the canon of holy scripture.
The first 39 chapters relate to the Old Testament; and the final 27 chapters relate to the New Testament.
I carry a Bible in my hand, which I consider to be the word of God.
I believe that God orchestrated the events that led up to my Bible being called the Holy Bible.
I will trust that what I have in my hand is God's inspired message to me. It contains and is the message of the gospel through which I am saved.
I find that the book of Isaiah gives a microcosm of the canon of holy scripture.
The first 39 chapters relate to the Old Testament; and the final 27 chapters relate to the New Testament.
I carry a Bible in my hand, which I consider to be the word of God.
I believe that God orchestrated the events that led up to my Bible being called the Holy Bible.
I will trust that what I have in my hand is God's inspired message to me. It contains and is the message of the gospel through which I am saved.
Uh huh. But you didn't really address the issue at hand. Were each of the Bibles that existed through the centuries complete? If you believe they were, could you explain please how this is possible since they all contained different writings? If something is left out of the Bible, then it is no longer inerrant. And I have just given you ample evidence that various books were included or excluded over the years. Maybe everything was just a work in process until the KJV came along?
I actually use the KJV, too. But "inspired" and "inerrant" are not synonyms.
I can't help but wonder how much you actually know about the history of the Christian canon. Perhaps it would upset you to know, but if you are sincere in your desire to believe only what is true, you definitely ought to consider these facts. They may help you to become a little less inclined to see this issue as a black and white one:
In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all? Apparently some people believe that the Bible went from being "God-breathed" to "not God-breathed" and back again quite a few times.
I find that the book of Isaiah gives a microcosm of the canon of holy scripture.
The first 39 chapters relate to the Old Testament; and the final 27 chapters relate to the New Testament.
I carry a Bible in my hand, which I consider to be the word of God.
I believe that God orchestrated the events that led up to my Bible being called the Holy Bible.
I will trust that what I have in my hand is God's inspired message to me. It contains and is the message of the gospel through which I am saved.
JBF, you and I both agree that the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God.
But the point Katz is making is that the process of compiling the various books that make up the Bible was just that, a process. It was a process carried out by humans, and it took hundreds of years at that.
Given that fact and knowing that all humans are fallible creatures; how can you, being a Protestant place a level of trust equating to divine certainty that the canon those men came up with is correct?
Who even authorized the 66 book canon that you use? Was every Bible wrong prior to the 16th century?
If you believe in Sola Scriptura, then shouldn't the canon be listed in Scripture?
Or do you hold to RC Sproul's view that you have a "fallible list of infallible books"?
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.
