Exposing!! The Corrupt Counterfeit (NIV) Bible, Verses That Have Been Tampered With!!

[B-A-C]

Hmmm.. I wonder what translation was used?

2Sam 6:23; Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.

2Sam 21:8; So the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, Armoni and Mephibosheth whom she had borne to Saul, and the five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul, whom she had borne to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

Michal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Merab: Bible | Jewish Women's Archive

Merab, one of the daughters of King Saul, is originally offered in marriage to David, whom Saul hopes to have killed. However, Saul’s plan fails, and Merab marries another man. The story of Saul’s attempt to arrange Merab’s marriage shows the social structures between fathers and daughters among...

jwa.org

In any case Saul did have more than one daughter.

 

[Shutterbug]

Hmmm.. I wonder what translation was used?

2Sam 6:23; Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.

2Sam 21:8; So the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, Armoni and Mephibosheth whom she had borne to Saul, and the five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul, whom she had borne to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

Michal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Merab: Bible | Jewish Women's Archive

Merab, one of the daughters of King Saul, is originally offered in marriage to David, whom Saul hopes to have killed. However, Saul’s plan fails, and Merab marries another man. The story of Saul’s attempt to arrange Merab’s marriage shows the social structures between fathers and daughters among...

jwa.org

In any case Saul did have more than one daughter.

Aye, he did. But, my point is that even those who are opposed to the Bible can employ these kinds of discrepancies which is what began this thread. It only creates division. Would not saying Saul had two daughters be like saying it doesn't matter whose name is used?

Again, I'm not here to pick a fight. I see Muslims doing this kind of stuff all the time. Mind you, they quote the Bible as an authority and then proceed to tear it apart claiming it's corrupted by using the same method the OP is using on the NIV. I like the King James, but I have found that the NIV will occasionally fill in blanks. I also employ the Blue Letter website to compare different translations. Cheers.

 

[tv1984]

Aye, he did. But, my point is that even those who are opposed to the Bible can employ these kinds of discrepancies which is what began this thread. It only creates division. Would not saying Saul had two daughters be like saying it doesn't matter whose name is used?

Again, I'm not here to pick a fight. I see Muslims doing this kind of stuff all the time. Mind you, they quote the Bible as an authority and then proceed to tear it apart claiming it's corrupted by using the same method the OP is using on the NIV. I like the King James, but I have found that the NIV will occasionally fill in blanks. I also employ the Blue Letter website to compare different translations. Cheers.

The OP did not intimate he was "opposed to the bible" as you style it, but had discovered discrepancies in a copyrighted edition. The NIV is not the bible. I say again, the NIV is not the bible. It is a copyright edition which employed eclectic methods as well as consulting texts edited from the 19th century. Those editions have since been consulted by the PCPCU itself, and like the publisher, share many of those readings in common within their copyright edition. The OP concluded that the rendering in Rom. 10:17 proposed a different message altogether. What is so difficult to comprehend?

This thread seems to be calling attention to these things, I am not sure how you conclude it was to "create division". If you are not here to fight, as you claim, why slander the OP? You ought to go back and read the OP for yourself.

 

[Rhema]

Never claimed a thing regarding Metzger,

Uh... these aren't claims ??

I don't read Metzger, nor care for him,

And for what it's worth, you had connected that claim with the following by ellipsis

...and when publishers are employing texts which have only been approved by Rome,

NOT a complaint or a challenge, just letting you know how I read your post.

Let me say once more, I read the Greek and Latin.

Well then, we have something in common. I've used the Greek text of the New Testament for about 50 years now, so yes, that most certainly eliminates the theological bias of translation committees.

You mentioned Marshall's critique of "dubious phrasings".

I think you might be misinterpreting what I wrote. When comparing Marshall's gloss with the KJV, one can see the KJV's dubious phrasings.

... dubious phrasings of the KJV

Yet men long before copyright have been editing documents to suit their ends. Somehow this is overlooked by 'biblical scholars' today.

I think even Jeremiah would agree with you -

(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV) How can you say, “We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us,” when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?​

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Here is an example of what can be problematic:

2Sa 6:23
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

2Sa 21:8
But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

The King James and the American Standard say Michal while the others say Merab.

However, a quick review of Biblehub shows all the others say Michal in 2 Sam. 6:23

2 Samuel 6:23 - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

Which translation says Merab ??

But I do see your point in 2 Sam 21:8. The LXX says Μιχολ (michol)

It would be interesting to look at the DSS and other Hebrew sources.

AHHH... your concern was over the number of her children. I don't see that as a problem, in that the the time frame was from that point on... unto the day of her death.

Thanks,
Rhema

For the record, many Muslims have little understanding of the Quran which had undergone revisions ...

Well, Muslims don't even have the correct location of Mecca, so, ... there's that.

 

[Shutterbug]

The OP did not intimate he was "opposed to the bible" as you style it, but had discovered discrepancies in a copyrighted edition. The NIV is not the bible. I say again, the NIV is not the bible. It is a copyright edition which employed eclectic methods as well as consulting texts edited from the 19th century. Those editions have since been consulted by the PCPCU itself, and like the publisher, share many of those readings in common within their copyright edition. The OP concluded that the rendering in Rom. 10:17 proposed a different message altogether. What is so difficult to comprehend?

This thread seems to be calling attention to these things, I am not sure how you conclude it was to "create division". If you are not here to fight, as you claim, why slander the OP? You ought to go back and read the OP for yourself.

I never stated nor did I intend that the OP is opposed to the Bible. I have not claimed the NIV is the definitive Bible, but is one of several translations. I understand the point made is that the NIV cannot be trusted when compared to the KJV. Neither can some other translations.

An example of this discussion is the words of the OP regarding Matt 16:24. He uses "our flesh" whereas the KJV states "himself" and the NIV uses "themselves".

Matt 17:21 is blank in several translations containing only an explanatory footnote. As for Mark 9:29, the verse in several translations read the same as the NIV with a foot note appended to include fasting because not all resource material is identical.

Regarding Romans 10:17, I do not see a failure in the NIV to convey the same meaning as the KJV. If some one has difficulty understanding some thing, do you mechanically keep repeating the same words? Do you not rephrase your words? Is their meaning suddenly different, too? The KJV also did this to clarify meanings as it was also meant to be read aloud.

Check out Matthew 6:13 in different translations. I did not come here to incite dissension. But, please be careful as some will during your witnesses to others. Cheers.

 

[Shutterbug]

AHHH... your concern was over the number of her children. I don't see that as a problem, in that the the time frame was from that point on... unto the day of her death.


Well, Muslims don't even have the correct location of Mecca, so, ... there's that.

Thanks,
Rhema

It isn't the number of children, but who gave birth. Personally, I don't care if King Saul gave birth to his own grandchildren.

Speaking of Muslims, they have some issues explaining things. They claim that one cannot understand the Quran unless one speaks Arabic. Yet, they cite Quranic verses in English when recruiting. Go figure.

Speaking of which, I watched a recorded debate last evening between Dr. Zakir Naik and Dr. William Campbell. Naik did his usual "if I can't dazzle you with brilliance, I'll baffle you with nonsense". Campbell look rather anemic, but he stood his ground regarding his trust in Jesus. Another is the late Ahmed Deedat. Both he and Naik are quite skilled at selectively using the Bible to defeat the Bible. It's ironic since the Quran is based on the Bible. They claim the latter was corrupted by the Christians, but the Quran affirms both the Torah and the Gospel, what we call the Old and New Testament.

Naik pointed out several "contradictions" with Micha/Merab, the number of soldiers available for battle (1.1M vs 800K), Jacob vs Heli, etc. Oh, and playing Jonah off against Jesus regarding three days and three nights and being alive throughout including the example of when Jesus met his disciples in the upper room following his resurrection. I don't know why he did that because according to the Quran, Jesus was A) never cruicified; and, was taken straight up into Janna. That being the case, he could he have greeted his disciples? Yeah, it gets a bit hard on the mind. Cheers

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

The NIV was written by lying scribes who added words.

if my memory serves me correctly, the NIV had quite a heavy influence from those who were talented in anti Jewish affairs of the Nazi kind, resulting in subtle twists and 'added' thoughts to the general message.

I could be wrong, i was once before.

At times, the rendering can be more 'graspable' to the 'modern layman', in the NIV, despite the possible 'influence' described above.

One of the main things we need to remember is, is there the Gospel of .....the Kingdom, in the pages, that the reader can 'hear' the Word and believe?


Bless you ....><>

 

[Rhema]

if my memory serves me correctly, the NIV had quite a heavy influence from those who were talented in anti Jewish affairs of the Nazi kind, resulting in subtle twists and 'added' thoughts to the general message.

I could be wrong, i was once before.

It was about 50 years ago when I compared the NIV with the KJV and the Greek text with an interlinear gloss by Alfred Marshall, as they were all in the same book side by side. That comparison was all I needed to know about the NIV. Nazis need not apply. (Yet might you be thinking of Kittle's ??)

But in truth, the entire church of Rome was anti-Jewish, as was the Protestant Church up until the last century when weird prophecy stuff sprouted up, and I literally cannot post here what Martin Luther said about the Jews.

One of the main things we need to remember is, is there the Gospel of .....the Kingdom, in the pages, that the reader can 'hear' the Word and believe?

In the Synoptics yes. In the other ancillary documents ?? Not so much.

Jesus was purely anti-animal sacrifice. When Jesus ran riot and took over the temple, He forbade all sacrifices.

If Jesus came preaching the gospel, then the gospel is what Jesus preached. To that end, I resonate with The Family's "Jesus and him alone."

Blessings back at ya,
Rhema

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

Biblical scholar Bruce M. Metzger criticized the NIV 1984 edition for the addition of the word "just" into Jeremiah 7:22 so the verse becomes "For when I brought your forefathers/ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices.​

Metzger also criticized the addition of the word your into Matthew 13:32, so it becomes "Though it (the mustard seed) is the smallest of all your seeds." The usage of your was removed in the 2011 revision.​

- Metzger, Bruce M. (2001). The Bible in Translation : Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. p. 140.​

The NIV was written by lying scribes who added words.
Rhema

You are aware that there are added words in the KJV? They're in Italics. Also in the KJV there are even a few untranslated words, not in Italics....Are you going to throw out the KJV as well?

 

[Shaolin]

Here’s Verse comparisons between the (KJV) bible and the faulty (NIV) bible.

(KJV)
Matthew 17:21
However, this kind does not
go out except by prayer
and fasting.

(NIV)
Matthew 17:21
ooopppss!! Zilch!! Whole verse
missing, why???

Here we see an entire verse missing from the NIV, why would you remove an entire verse out of the bible? Perhaps the writers are trying 2 hide something? Looks very suspicious 2 me!! Bible says in deu 4:2 you shall not add nor detract from the word of God.

(KJV)
Mark 9:29
And he said unto them, This kind
can come forth by nothing, but
by prayer and fasting.

(NIV)
Mark 9:29
He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.

Now this is the time in the bible where the apostles in the bible couldnt cast a demon out of a child and then jesus came and cast it out of the child and the apostles then said 2 him how come we couldn't cast the demon out of the child and he said 2 them dis kind comes out by prayer and (fasting). Now in
the (KJV) it also says prayer and (fasting) but in the (NIV) it says prayer only, why is dis?

If you look at all through out history monks, priests and other types of religious people would fast mortify their flesh and 2 strengthen themselves spiritually so that it wud be easier for them 2 open themselves up 2 the spiritual realm and 2 communicate with God more effectively without any interference from any demonic forces then a person can perceive Gods word better.

When we fast we de-clutter our bodies and detoxify ourselves and drain away impurities from our systems which hence frees up our minds and also allows the holy spirit 2 move through us more easily.

Fasting is quite a big part of christianity and walking in the spirit and also quite a big part of
deliverance ministry, jesus also said we must deny our flesh, Matthew 16:24 so why has the (NIV) taken this out of the verse? its quite an important element. it raises alot of questions?

(KJV)
Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to
them which are in Christ Jesus, (who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit).

(NIV)
Romans 8:1
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those
who are in Christ Jesus,

See the difference? wheres the 2nd part of the verse in the (NIV) version? Well lets look at the 1st part. (There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus). what does it mean 2 be in christ? does it mean 2 believe in him? well even the demons believe and tremble james 2:19. does it mean 2 follow christ? well 2 follow jesus is 2 deny urself and take up ur cross stated again in Matthew 16:24. or does it mean 2 walk as christ walked?

well the bible clearly shows that jesus walked in the spirit. Romans 8:8 Those controlled by the flesh cannot please God. and we know that jesus pleased the father Matthew 17:5 "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him ".and john 8:29 the father have not left me alone coz i always do the things dat please him.

therefore we can conclude dat being in christ is 2 be in the spirit as he was, we must worship God in spirit and in truth john 4:24 also pauls main emphasis through out the NT is to be born again
(circumcised in the heart) and 2 be in the spirit!! gal 5:16. alot of people are being mislead by a tampering of the word and think their ok with God as long
as they just believe in christ without any form of repentance which is very evident in ur
average (so called christian) 2day! hence leaving dem with the idea dat they can also (sin) but call on jesus and its ok! its because of deception like dis dat many people are dammed and on their way 2 hell unfortunately Matthew 7:13

(KJV)
Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God

(NIV)
Romans 10:17
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message,
and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

here we have 2 completely different paragraphs. "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" how does a person get saved? dont they have 2 hear the word!! and wat is the bible? isnt it Gods word? and isnt jesus christ the word dat became flesh? so dat would make the bible all about christ!! so why does the (NIV) say " hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ".

so wats dis so called message dat the (NIV) is talking about? i cant find it, i mean there are tones of messages in the bible anyway, some of dem are prophecys of jesus christ!! some are parables and some are just some other prophetic talk.

Anyway faith doesnt come by "hearing the message" faith comes by hearing the gospel which is the (good news) and the whole word of God which is the bible. so once again another twisting of the scriptures again!!

Actually, comparing the KJV and the NIV as corrupt versions is like comparing a red apple to a green one - they are both corrupt versions. While the KJV ignores the actual Greek with its grammar 85% of the time, the NIV translation board was almost entirely made up of calvinists, who translated the NT especially with their calvinist slant on verses.

I think the "NIV" is not a word for word translation, but a translation more geared towards what the thought the word for word translation meant to convey.

Actually, it is a word-for-word translation. Currently (unless someone has written one in the last year that I don't know about) we do not have any thought-for-thought translations - which is one reason why the church in America is so weak and decadent. Versions like the Amplified and others are not thought-for-thought either, they are paraphrases...and paraphrasing can corrupt the intended meaning of the Greek even worse.

Blessings

That aside, based just on Septuagint, the following are missing:

Psalm 151
Baruch
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Azariah

In fact in the first ever translated King James Version Bible of 1611, there were 80 books in total and not 66. 14 books were actively removed!

Books removed:

• 1 Esdras
• 2 Esdras
• Tobit
• Judith
• The rest of Esther
• The Wisdom of Solomon
• Ecclesiasticus
• Baruch with the epistle Jeremiah
• The Songs of the 3 Holy children
• The history of Susana
• bel and the dragon
• The prayer for Manasses
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

This shows there were active tampering by men! Who gave them the authority to remove those books??

If someone has already pointed this out, then ignore my post - however, there are no missing books of the Bible. Those books which are present in our modern Bible met stringent requirements for authenticity and historical reliability, and almost all of those you have mentioned are either fake, not historical, were written by gnostics, NOT Christians, or failed to meet the other requirements for demonstrating themselves to be authentic records of the Word of God.

I think the NIV is a good translation. Instead of comparing it to the KJV, compare it to the original manuscripts in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
Some of the so called 'missing verses' are simply not there in the original early manuscripts. They are later additions and should never have been in there.
Remember John's warning was about adding verses as well as taking away.
There is no such thing as a literal translation... ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic all had their own idioms and a single word could mean more than one thing, just as it is in modern English. Modern English is itself always changing and so translations need to be updated in order to be true.

Yes, which is why we need a good thought-for-thought translation, but no one will make one because if they did, it would be twice as thick as your current Bible, and they don't think they would sell. When we do compare the KJV and the NIV with the original Greek (just speaking about the NT here), both of them WOEFULLY fall short in places with what the Greek's intended meaning demonstrates.

I know and the Alexandrian manu scripts are corrupt!! don't believe me go study it 4 urself

They have all been tampered with to some extent, usually by ancient scribes that sought to make their own judgment calls on how a specific text could be made understood, instead of just doing what they were supposed to do and "COPY" the text accurately. For example, the Alexandrian text has been butchered when it comes to John 3:13, where the scribes there just could not reconcile Jesus' statement that He was both standing there talking with Nicodemas and "in heaven" at the same time, so they took off the last part of the text, "who is in heaven." Yet earlier manuscripts clearly show that is the whole sentence/verse.

With issues like this, we can see which translations came from the Alexandrian text because all of them take off the last part of the verse. Even the NLT version that this forum uses is so bad its really pathetic, its worse than the NIV. The best version I have found so far is the ESV (even though it is still only a word-for-word rendering of the Greek).

 

[Rhema]

You are aware that there are added words in the KJV? They're in Italics.

Yes I am. But it's good to remind the audience. Thanks.

Are you going to throw out the KJV as well?

You bet. I don't need the KJV. That's why I learned to read the Greek texts directly.

Most Christians are probably aware that the New Testament texts were originally written (perhaps published is a better term) in Greek. But they are probably not aware that the New Testament does not read like Modern Greek, or the ancient texts of the Greek philosophers and novelists (such as Plato and Homer). The dialect of Plato is called “classical” Greek (also Attic Greek), and only academic knowledge of Attic Greek was available to the King James translators. Since the advance of archeology in the very late 1800’s, we now know quite a bit more about the dialect of Greek in which the NT was written. This is called Koine (or common / colloquial) Greek. The NT, instead of being written for the scholar, was written for the common man, and I proffer this link for your perusal: Differences Between Classical and Hellenistic Greek

“One man is to be given the credit for the discovery of the Koine – a German pastor named Adolf Deissmann. Even though one or two perceptive scholars had noted the true character of NT Greek as early as the middle of the nineteenth century, their statements made no impression on general opinion. Deissmann, on a visit to a friend in Marburg, found a volume of Greek papyri from Egypt, and leafing through this publication, he was struck by the similarity to the Greek of the NT. He followed up this observation with continued study, and his publications of his findings finally led to general acceptance of the position that the peculiarities of the Greek NT were, for the most part, to be explained by reference to the nonliterary Greek, the popular colloquial language of the period. He first published his results in two volumes of Bible Studies (1895, 1897) and later on in the justly popular Life from the Ancient East (1908).”​

- The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 486.​

Rhema

(Kind of makes you wonder why some Christians fight so fiercely for the KJV if the translators didn’t quite have a handle on the language in which it was written.)

 

[Rhema]

Those books which are present in our modern Bible met stringent requirements for authenticity and historical reliability,

Stringent ?? That's a bit of a stretch. I doubt even Eusebius would have postulated that.

Do you disagree with Metzger's assessment then?

Thanks,
Rhema

And just whose requirements? Rome? The accounts of Constantine written while he was alive aren't historically reliable.

 

[Shaolin]

Stringent ?? That's a bit of a stretch. I doubt even Eusebius would have postulated that.

Do you disagree with Metzger's assessment then?

Thanks,
Rhema

And just whose requirements? Rome? The accounts of Constantine written while he was alive aren't historically reliable.

The ancient books of the OT which were written by Moses (the Pentateuch), the Jewish historical books (Joshua through Esther) were added because Moses wrote them and because they were historical documents (respectively). Job was added because both Jesus and other NT writers referenced it. Psalms and the prophets wrote Messianic prophetic utterances, therefore they are added. Proverbs was added because it was not only referenced by NT writers, but because it makes specific statements about God and His character. The Gospels were added because they chronicled the life of Jesus. Acts was added because it was verified history of the early church. Romans through Jude were added because they were written by those deemed apostles by the church, or written by a half-brother of Jesus (Jude) which also referenced OT books (and one lost to history). It should be obvious why Revelation was added.

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

The ancient books of the OT which were written by Moses (the Pentateuch), the Jewish historical books (Joshua through Esther) were added because Moses wrote them and because they were historical documents (respectively). Job was added because both Jesus and other NT writers referenced it. Psalms and the prophets wrote Messianic prophetic utterances, therefore they are added. Proverbs was added because it was not only referenced by NT writers, but because it makes specific statements about God and His character. The Gospels were added because they chronicled the life of Jesus. Acts was added because it was verified history of the early church. Romans through Jude were added because they were written by those deemed apostles by the church, or written by a half-brother of Jesus (Jude) which also referenced OT books (and one lost to history). It should be obvious why Revelation was added.

What version of the bible do YOU use, friend?

 

[Shaolin]

What version of the bible do YOU use, friend?

The closest to the actual Greek on the market...the ESV. And even then, I go to the Greek regularly to read what it actually states. For example, the ESV reads 2 Tim. 2:15 thusly:

2 Timothy 2:15 (ESV)
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

But the original Greek says:

2 Timothy 2:15
Make every effort to stand in the presence of God, an approved, faultless worker correctly handling the Word of Truth.


This major difference is due to the fact that the ESV, like most other English translations, does not take the grammar into account in their renderings. The grammar plays a huge part in meaning in Koine Greek, much more than it does in English; and when those grammatical particles are ignored, we come to a different statement than what the Holy Spirit's intended meaning actually states.

Taking the time to learn how to read the Greek text is the ONLY way one can come to the Spirit's intended meaning of certain texts (because the translations of those texts have been butchered by English translators for one reason or another). And by saying that I do not discount the leading of the Spirit into the truth...I have never heard of anyone ever claiming that the Holy Spirit gave them supernatural knowledge of what the Greek actually states. God gave us a brain, and He expects us to use it.

Blessings

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

The closest to the actual Greek on the market...the ESV. And even then, I go to the Greek regularly to read what it actually states. For example, the ESV reads 2 Tim. 2:15 thusly:

2 Timothy 2:15 (ESV)
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

But the original Greek says:

2 Timothy 2:15
Make every effort to stand in the presence of God, an approved, faultless worker correctly handling the Word of Truth.


This major difference is due to the fact that the ESV, like most other English translations, does not take the grammar into account in their renderings. The grammar plays a huge part in meaning in Koine Greek, much more than it does in English; and when those grammatical particles are ignored, we come to a different statement than what the Holy Spirit's intended meaning actually states.

Taking the time to learn how to read the Greek text is the ONLY way one can come to the Spirit's intended meaning of certain texts (because the translations of those texts have been butchered by English translators for one reason or another). And by saying that I do not discount the leading of the Spirit into the truth...I have never heard of anyone ever claiming that the Holy Spirit gave them supernatural knowledge of what the Greek actually states. God gave us a brain, and He expects us to use it.

Blessings

You're saying that understanding of the Word comes through a good translation and intellect?

 

[Shaolin]

You're saying that understanding of the Word comes through a good translation and intellect?

No, what I am saying, is that since there are about 7 different blocks to a spontaneous, accurate understanding of the Bible TODAY because we live in a different culture, time period, political, historical, language, etc. than what the Scriptures were written in. Despite the false doctrines some teach today, the Holy Spirit does not give people historical, cultural, language, etc., supernatural knowledge or understanding of the background to Scripture, and if you do not have those things, then you will get some passages wrong.

Jesus wept is pretty straight forward, but when it comes to doctrinal passages, if you don't have the historical, etc., background, then you WILL get it wrong to one degree or another. People who think that the Holy Spirit gives them the correct and accurate understanding of texts delude themselves on many things. He guides and leads...He does not "give" most of the time. God expects us as intelligent beings to STUDY Scripture, not just read it. Because, since we have these natural blocks to spontaneous understanding of Scripture, He expects us to put some effort and brain power into the study of His Word so that we can get it right.

Ever wonder why you can take five different people, give them the same Scripture text and ask them to write down their interpretation of that text, and we get up to five different interpretations? If we claim that the Spirit gave them all different interpretations, then there's something drastically wrong with our understanding of how all of this works.

Both the Holy Spirit and a complete hermeneutic (along with having knowledge and understanding of the Greek (for the NT)) bring us to the accurate intended meaning of the Spirit in the Scriptures. The Spirit is our guide, and like a teacher...He teaches and guides...He does not "give" us the answer, at least not without some effort on our part, particularly in seeking the intended meaning through prayer.

Blessings

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

No, what I am saying, is that since there are about 7 different blocks to a spontaneous, accurate understanding of the Bible TODAY because we live in a different culture, time period, political, historical, language, etc. than what the Scriptures were written in. Despite the false doctrines some teach today, the Holy Spirit does not give people historical, cultural, language, etc., supernatural knowledge or understanding of the background to Scripture, and if you do not have those things, then you will get some passages wrong.

Jesus wept is pretty straight forward, but when it comes to doctrinal passages, if you don't have the historical, etc., background, then you WILL get it wrong to one degree or another. People who think that the Holy Spirit gives them the correct and accurate understanding of texts delude themselves on many things. He guides and leads...He does not "give" most of the time. God expects us as intelligent beings to STUDY Scripture, not just read it. Because, since we have these natural blocks to spontaneous understanding of Scripture, He expects us to put some effort and brain power into the study of His Word so that we can get it right.

Ever wonder why you can take five different people, give them the same Scripture text and ask them to write down their interpretation of that text, and we get up to five different interpretations? If we claim that the Spirit gave them all different interpretations, then there's something drastically wrong with our understanding of how all of this works.

Ahh So you're saying we should not trust that the Holy Spirit is capable of teaching us nowadays because we don't know history... He's not smart enough to teach us what He means when He says something...I get it...

 

[Shaolin]

Ahh So you're saying we should not trust that the Holy Spirit is capable of teaching us nowadays because we don't know history... He's not smart enough to teach us what He means when He says something...I get it...

You either don't get it, or you are being "that way."

Show me one person who claims that the Holy Spirit gave them supernatural knowledge and understanding of the history or culture behind a verse of Scripture. My statement has absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, it has everything to do with the human condition. So, are you purposely slanting things because you are protecting your bias, or do you seriously lack that much spiritual intuition?

Let's test that...here is a passage, please tell me what you think it means:

Matthew 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Is Jesus teaching here, or speaking prophetically?
Is He talking to Christians or non-christians?
What does He address in verse 21?
What does He address in verse 22?
What does He address in verse 23?
What does He indirectly reference in all three verses that must be understood in order to correctly understand the passage?

I eagerly await your reply...