Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years...

[farout]

God's Word is Jesus Christ who is written about by men in what is called the word of God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I don't know of anyone here who has argued it has errors or contradictions. There are people that seem to think the bible was written by God, instead of inspired. This means that bible carries the meanings and points of God through the words of men that were being inspired.

The bible is error and contradiction free on all issues pertaining to faith and meaning.

The big difference between your and my understanding of the Bible and what we believe is I am a protestant. We have a great difference in basic beliefs. that's the reality of the situation.

 

[james1523]

This is obviously untrue as Christians do not agree on the same thing, as evidenced by this topic. What you have done is put yourself above scripture.

The Holy Spirit indwelling is the indwelling Word. Opinions of man, and freedoms of conscience (1 Cor 8), do not invalidate the Word which says we have an anointing from God that teaches all things (1 John 2:27).

 

[Last Things]

The big difference between your and my understanding of the Bible and what we believe is I am a protestant. We have a great difference in basic beliefs. that's the reality of the situation.

Our views on scripture in this particular topic are not Catholic versus protestant. Protestants do not on a whole believe that God whispered into the ears of bible book writers and told them what words to write.

 

[Last Things]

The Holy Spirit indwelling is the indwelling Word. Opinions of man, and freedoms of conscience (1 Cor 8), do not invalidate the Word which says we have an anointing from God that teaches all things (1 John 2:27).

The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8. So I don't understand what you are trying to extrapolate from scripture.

The anointing from God that teaches all things is confusing because we have scripture, which comes from man. In your point of view, there would be no scripture - we would be saved and God would tell us everything that is to be believed and all true Christians would agree with each other. But that is obviously not the case. The only logical sound interpretation that I can see being made from the passage is that we are being taught by the Holy Spirit through particular things - such as scripture.

 

[farout]

Our views on scripture in this particular topic are not Catholic versus protestant. Protestants do not on a whole believe that God whispered into the ears of bible book writers and told them what words to write.

Some Protestants do believe God spoke directly to those inspired by the Holy Spirit. Even more specifically, I believe God allowed those writers to use their personalities in doing so. I do not believe in extra-biblical things being equal to Scripture. I believe in the priesthood of the believer, and there is only one mediator between me and the one and Holy Father, Almighty God, and that is Jesus Christ. When I die I either Heaven or hell. There is nothing to change our final destination, once we die. Only 66 books of the Bible are God breathed, fully His exact words. The Word of God is Holy and perfect as in the original manuscripts, The Holy Spirit teaches, instructs, convicts, and no man is head over the "BODY" "Bride of Christ", the true "Church".

I have tried to avoid pointing out direct differences by name. I think it is critical for each person to fully examine the doctrines of their faith, and if a doctrine is not in the Bible, in my opinion there is great reasons to doubt the authority from which it comes, and to reject the authority it came from in the first place. If it is not in the Bible (doctrinally) it's not the truth of God. The thesis Martin Luther posted on the Wickenburg door against the Holy Roman Empire and the Medieval Church, and the issues Luther stated are still issues to many Protestant denomination..

There are differences in Protestant denominations, called "in house debates". But the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism is much wider and deeper than "in house debates". Some Protestant denominations have moved closer to Catholic doctrine in more recent times. Some Protestant denominations see some Catholic doctrines as so unbiblical, that there can not be common dialogue to have Christian resolution in their doctrines. This would not apparent in daily living, only in a church setting.

I mean no disrespect, I am stating what I believe, so you understand my views. I live where many believe basically the same way. blessings Last Things.

 

[Asanima]

I don't want to get too much into specific religions or branches of religions at this point. However, if I understand what you mean, then I would agree they don't consider themselves a part of a religion that has "twisted" the scriptures. Judging by the verses provided they most likely wouldn't be aware that they are twisted. 2 Peter mentions that many will follow them. I'm not sure if there was another point you were making, but it may have gone over my head if you did.

That was kinda the point that I wanted to make, and you seem to both understand and kind of agree to my point. But this is also a problem when we are discussing this in the context of whether something is accurate or not.


In the paradigm of christianity, its not just whether the scriptures are accurate, theres also, atleast to my understanding, an aspect of interpretation involved.


So you have two groups of christians, and they both believe that their interpretation of the bible is correct, and the basis for their belief as to why it is correct is because they both claim that the holy spirit has entered their body/spirit and revealed to them what is correct.


How do we determine which one is right?

Agreed. They are two different things. However, when speaking of salvation and the means of attaining isn't it necessary to have a perfect account? I mean there would have to be at least one copy made at one time or another that had perfect information. Otherwise no one can be sure of salvation or the way to achieve it. If it is God's word, what would be the point of giving almost perfect information? What if a couple of things were written differently on the Ten Commandments or if Moses did not write the correct laws completely when God told them to him?

Well, the interpretation and discussion aspect of the new testament kinda makes it unnecessary for it to be perfectly conveyed, doesnt it? If people are not only free to, but are forced to necessarily interpret, discuss, study, and cross-reference what is written in the bible, then what good is relaying information in a perfect way, when the same conclusion can be reached by simply portraying accurate information?


Back to the car crash analogy, the fact that you cannot remember how many pedestrians were on the sidewalk, or the exact make and model of the cars that were in the accident, doesnt take away from the conclusion that someone will reach regarding the accident.

Yes and no. I understand your point, only I can't say what God would do in this situation. I can only give my interpretation of it.
God inspires perfect information to be written down > Disciples write it perfect > Copies are made

Within the Copies there are two categories -

God inspired and Non

Those who would be inspired through the Spirit would be able to continue the perfect copies and those who weren't or had their own agenda could do whatever they want with it. Whether that is the best way or not, who is to say? All I know is that if I choose I can incorrectly copy the Bible. That proves that not every copy is accurate. It just doesn't prove that they are all inaccurate. So, we know for sure not all copies are God inspired. I know that really didn't satisfy your questions, but I am doing the best with the logic I have to look at spiritual matters.

Fair enough.

 

[Asanima]

Whoa there - that is a man made tradition. The bible was not 'dictated' by God. The bible was inspired by God. Jesus is the revelation of God, the bible is the story of Jesus as experienced by man. The meaning of the accounts is preserved, the meaning and reasons are kept. Whether or not Paul wore red or blue sandals has absolutely no relevance.

Well, I wrote that because Ive heard some christians claim that the bible was dictated by God or angels to the apostles. I didnt know what Fenn believed and I didnt want to misrepresent his beliefs so write down both inspiration and dictation.

Accuracy by their standards are completely different.
Accuracy is about the IMPACT and MEANING of something in the ancient world. They worshiped God and spoke of things and realities that they could not touch.
We worship science and speak only of what can be seen and touched. As a result 'FACTS' are the only truth to us. Everything else is relative and unimportant. To them, MEANING was the only truth, everything else is relative.

The core meaning, sure. But Fenn is making the argument that the bible was not only accurately, but perfectly conveyed. Accuracy goes to meaning, but perfection would, atleast I would think, necessitate both the accuracy of the meaning and the accuracy of the facts pertaining to the story, including, if it were included, the colour of Pauls sandals.

 

[RJ]

We will all know soon enough how the Bible was written or dictated, as I am sure that will be one of several questions asked of God.
It appears to me that most of the Bible writers knew God "up close and personal" because they knew Jesus very well. So it seems logical that what they wrote was the truth!

Matthew 16 : 14-17
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

 

[Last Things]

Some Protestants do believe God spoke directly to those inspired by the Holy Spirit. Even more specifically, I believe God allowed those writers to use their personalities in doing so.

So you do not think that they were told what specific word to write?

I do not believe in extra-biblical things being equal to Scripture.

I believe that there was a faith taught by the apostles. This was the basis of the Christian faith. Eventually most of what was taught was contained in writings. I have read the bible many times and no where do I see it saying it contains all that was taught.

I believe in the priesthood of the believer, and there is only one mediator between me and the one and Holy Father, Almighty God, and that is Jesus Christ. When I die I either Heaven or hell. There is nothing to change our final destination, once we die.

I believe in the priesthood of the believer, but I also acknowledge that certain people had ministerial roles in the NT. There were priests, deacons, and bishops. I believe there is only one mediator. I believe our direction in life will reflect our direction in death. Those who reject God cannot enter the kingdom.

Only 66 books of the Bible are God breathed, fully His exact words.

I recognize what most Jews during the time of Christ did, the Aramaic texts.

The Word of God is Holy and perfect as in the original manuscripts. The Holy Spirit teaches, instructs, convicts, and no man is head over the "BODY" "Bride of Christ", the true "Church".

I believe the meaning and purpose is preserved in Christ. A translation can never be perfect or word for word. A translation uses words to convey the meaning. I do not believe anyone is 'over' the body and Church. I believe that there are overseers (bishops) who are tasked to care and guide their local Church and that they are recognized by the bishop of Rome, where Peter and Paul died.

I have tried to avoid pointing out direct differences by name. I think it is critical for each person to fully examine the doctrines of their faith, and if a doctrine is not in the Bible,

I have not seen the bible say that you can only believe what is contained in the bible.

in my opinion there is great reasons to doubt the authority from which it comes, and to reject the authority it came from in the first place. If it is not in the Bible (doctrinally) it's not the truth of God. The thesis Martin Luther posted on the Wickenburg door against the Holy Roman Empire and the Medieval Church, and the issues Luther stated are still issues to many Protestant denomination..

Martin Luther wanted to change the Catholic Church. He said nothing against the Roman Empire as it ended in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople.

There are differences in Protestant denominations, called "in house debates". But the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism is much wider and deeper than "in house debates". Some Protestant denominations have moved closer to Catholic doctrine in more recent times. Some Protestant denominations see some Catholic doctrines as so unbiblical, that there can not be common dialogue to have Christian resolution in their doctrines. This would not apparent in daily living, only in a church setting.

I would say the gaps between Catholicism and protestantism are less than protestants among themselves.

I mean no disrespect, I am stating what I believe, so you understand my views. I live where many believe basically the same way. blessings Last Things.[/QUOTE]

 

[Last Things]

Well, I wrote that because Ive heard some christians claim that the bible was dictated by God or angels to the apostles. I didnt know what Fenn believed and I didnt want to misrepresent his beliefs so write down both inspiration and dictation.



The core meaning, sure. But Fenn is making the argument that the bible was not only accurately, but perfectly conveyed. Accuracy goes to meaning, but perfection would, atleast I would think, necessitate both the accuracy of the meaning and the accuracy of the facts pertaining to the story, including, if it were included, the colour of Pauls sandals.

Minor details that have no effect on the meaning were not considered important back then.,

 

[Asanima]

Minor details that have no effect on the meaning were not considered important back then.,

Im pretty sure that if you consider something to be perfectly conveyed, then even the minor details would be accurate. Thats the thing about Perfection, isnt it?

 

[Last Things]

Im pretty sure that if you consider something to be perfectly conveyed, then even the minor details would be accurate. Thats the thing about Perfection, isnt it?

For us, it is, because we are a literate people that are obsessed with details and care little about meaning when it comes to issues of truth.
Ancient people were illiterate and heard stories that were always slightly different each time.

The bible cannot be a 'perfect translation' as we understand it because you cannot word for word translate the Greek into English. One passage can have a dozen translations, but they are correct so long as they convey the same idea.

 

[Chad]

@Asanima

Please read the sticky threads in this forum
Evidence & Bible Prophecy

Your profile says you're an atheist, I welcome you here and glad you're part of the community. I do expect you to have an open mind to truth, facts. The link above is ample of that.

Here's a handful at least...

http://www.talkjesus.com/evidence-bible-prophecy/38910-atheism.html#.Ut3iQShOn4Y

Also importantly, all the "10 Prophecies..." threads are crucial, backing up the bible's validity in one way.

Then, you got endless miracles Christians have experienced over thousands of years including modern times and including myself as one witness. No atheist can dispute any of those.

There's so much more to chew on as well, but let's take baby steps one at a time.

 

[james1523]

The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8. So I don't understand what you are trying to extrapolate from scripture.

The anointing from God that teaches all things is confusing because we have scripture, which comes from man. In your point of view, there would be no scripture - we would be saved and God would tell us everything that is to be believed and all true Christians would agree with each other. But that is obviously not the case. The only logical sound interpretation that I can see being made from the passage is that we are being taught by the Holy Spirit through particular things - such as scripture.

Rom 1:19 reveals that God may be known outside of Scripture. And if God was not able to be known outside of Scripture, then God could not fairly judge anyone who does not have access to a Bible.
It is not the possession of a Bible that guarantees sound doctrine, but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Some of the most heretical doctrines in the world today, are based on the Bible. So the Bible contains the truth but only if inspired by the Spirit. 1 Tim 3:15 says it is the church which is the pillar and foundation of truth. The church is the Body of Christ with all its members, and that is you and me indwelt by the anointing which teaches us all things.
The same Spirit indwells all believers therefore all believers may be of the same mind if they listen to the Spirit.
Disagreements are caused by lack of understanding, opinions of man and arguing for particular freedoms of the conscience (Rom 14:5).
Christians do not have to all agree on certain matters (Rom 14:5), but the important aspects can be agreed upon by all who have the Spirit.

 

[Asanima]

For us, it is, because we are a literate people that are obsessed with details and care little about meaning when it comes to issues of truth.
Ancient people were illiterate and heard stories that were always slightly different each time.

The bible cannot be a 'perfect translation' as we understand it because you cannot word for word translate the Greek into English. One passage can have a dozen translations, but they are correct so long as they convey the same idea.

Well, within the context of my discussion with Fenn, we werent discussing the translation, we were discussing the original written document that was written by the apostle.

 

[Last Things]

Well, within the context of my discussion with Fenn, we werent discussing the translation, we were discussing the original written document that was written by the apostle.

I do not believe the Gospels were necessarily written by a particular apostle in full.

They obviously rely on various sources and documents and share a lot of material. John admits outright in the end it was not written by John. This is also an issue of modern authorship versus ancient. Today, a document is authored by whomever wrote it. Back then, a document was authored by whomever offered the ideas and concepts from which the material came.

 

[Last Things]

Rom 1:19 reveals that God may be known outside of Scripture. And if God was not able to be known outside of Scripture, then God could not fairly judge anyone who does not have access to a Bible.
It is not the possession of a Bible that guarantees sound doctrine, but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Yet, the HS must indwell in one person, because no two Christians agree (unless belonging to an ancient Church)

Some of the most heretical doctrines in the world today, are based on the Bible. So the Bible contains the truth but only if inspired by the Spirit. 1 Tim 3:15 says it is the church which is the pillar and foundation of truth. The church is the Body of Christ with all its members, and that is you and me indwelt by the anointing which teaches us all things.

On that, we absolutely agree!

The same Spirit indwells all believers therefore all believers may be of the same mind if they listen to the Spirit.
Disagreements are caused by lack of understanding, opinions of man and arguing for particular freedoms of the conscience (Rom 14:5).
Christians do not have to all agree on certain matters (Rom 14:5), but the important aspects can be agreed upon by all who have the Spirit.

Except protestant don't agree on what those things are.

 

[Asanima]

I do not believe the Gospels were necessarily written by a particular apostle in full.

They obviously rely on various sources and documents and share a lot of material. John admits outright in the end it was not written by John. This is also an issue of modern authorship versus ancient. Today, a document is authored by whomever wrote it. Back then, a document was authored by whomever offered the ideas and concepts from which the material came.

Well, sure, i mean, there are documents like the Q document and Markian authorship, etc. But Someone had to write it, and im fine with assuming, within the context of the discussion, that the gospels were written atleast in a large part by the apostles, or atleast someone who was inspired by God/dictated to by God or angels.

 

[farout]

Well, sure, i mean, there are documents like the Q document and Markian authorship, etc. But Someone had to write it, and im fine with assuming, within the context of the discussion, that the gospels were written atleast in a large part by the apostles, or atleast someone who was inspired by God/dictated to by God or angels.

I w at to speak from my hear to you. You have the knowledge about the Bible of someone who has been to Seminary, or has extensively studied at least the Gospels. Did you once believe, and something happened that you turned to atheism? I have seen this in the past, and if this is the case, there is still hope. Can you be honest about it?

 

[Asanima]

I w at to speak from my hear to you. You have the knowledge about the Bible of someone who has been to Seminary, or has extensively studied at least the Gospels. Did you once believe, and something happened that you turned to atheism? I have seen this in the past, and if this is the case, there is still hope. Can you be honest about it?

Yes, I used to be a believer, or atleast tried to be, and i studied the bible as well as the many arguments for and against christianity, God, etc. And I'm trying to be as honest as I can, i would never dismiss or ignore an argument presented at me, and I point out the problems i have with specific arguments or comments to see if those problems can be addressed.