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.
And so do you. There is nothing in the Scriptures that tells you which books are inspired, and which are not. Catholics and Orthodox at least can say that we know the list of inspired books because we rely on unwritten apostolic tradition. However, since you reject that tradition, how do you know which books constitute scripture? It is sheer hypocrisy to say that you believe only those things that are in the Bible, when the Bible itself is never mentioned in the Bible, and the scriptures do not provide any list of the books that should be included as "the scriptures".
You can parrot 2 Timothy 3 until you are blue in the face, but WHY do you say that 2 Timothy is inspired scripture at all? Paul never said it was, and he clearly indicates that the scripture Timothy was to read had been written years before. Why do you pick and choose to regard 2 Timothy as scripture, but not (for example) Wisdom, or 1 Maccabees? Admit it -- you are basing your beliefs regarding which books should be regarded as scripture not on anything in scripture itself, but on what you have picked and chosen to regard as scripture.
The books you mentioned have errors, therefore they cannot be from God. If you’d like, you can start a new thread on whether or not those books are inspired. I’d be happy to participate.
And so do you. There is nothing in the Scriptures that tells you which books are inspired, and which are not. Catholics and Orthodox at least can say that we know the list of inspired books because we rely on unwritten apostolic tradition. However, since you reject that tradition, how do you know which books constitute scripture? It is sheer hypocrisy to say that you believe only those things that are in the Bible, when the Bible itself is never mentioned in the Bible, and the scriptures do not provide any list of the books that should be included as "the scriptures".
You can parrot 2 Timothy 3 until you are blue in the face, but WHY do you say that 2 Timothy is inspired scripture at all? Paul never said it was, and he clearly indicates that the scripture Timothy was to read had been written years before. Why do you pick and choose to regard 2 Timothy as scripture, but not (for example) Wisdom, or 1 Maccabees? Admit it -- you are basing your beliefs regarding which books should be regarded as scripture not on anything in scripture itself, but on what you have picked and chosen to regard as scripture.
Actually she's basing her opinion on what a council of men decided around 400 ad. Sort of.
Nope. Why? The Gospels and the Epistles are not part of it.
I use a good word-for-word translation such as the ESV or NASB. And I can also read some Greek. We do have a good idea of what 99% of the original manuscripts say.
Nope. Why? The Gospels and the Epistles are not part of it.
I use a good word-for-word translation such as the ESV or NASB. And I can also read some Greek. We do have a good idea of what 99% of the original manuscripts say.
The writers of the NT clearly used/quoted the Septuagint in many passages - and since 'ALL scripture is God-Breathed' then clearly both the Hebrew AND the Greek Septuagint must be treated as such and not 'discarded' as Luther and HIS followers did/do.
She's basing her opinion on what a group of Apostate Catholics decided in the 16th century.
Well, to be fair, that's why I said "sort of."
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.