Do you believe God’s word or man’s?

[DavidFirth]

When KJV translated John 1:1 KJV left out the letter "a" at John 1 but added the letter "a" at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B even though the same Greek grammar rule applies at both verses.

I find the pre-human heavenly Jesus was "in" the beginning, whereas only God was "before" the beginning according to Psalms 90:2. So, as Revelation 3:14 B says about Jesus that he is the beginning of the creation by God.
Since only God was before the beginning, then Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

Sorry, but changing the words around to suit you isn't allowed. It says what it says. It is what it is. The current translation accepted by men filled with the Spirit and the churches are what I believe. I will not hear from anyone that any of the words in the current translation need to be changed, deleted or more words need to be added.

So I will not hear your argument or give it any credence. Go to the churches, convince them and then I will hear you.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

How so, and your evidence?

I find according to Scripture that Noah lived more than 24-hrs. and that shows his life was more than a 24-hr. day.

If one's grandfather only lived one day he would be No body's grandfather. So, by saying Noah's day or Grandfather's day we are speaking of more than a 24-hr. day. Just as Genesis 2:4 is talking about more than a 24-hr. 'day'.

 

[DavidFirth]

I find according to Scripture that Noah lived more than 24-hrs. and that shows his life was more than a 24-hr. day.

If one's grandfather only lived one day he would be No body's grandfather. So, by saying Noah's day or Grandfather's day we are speaking of more than a 24-hr. day. Just as Genesis 2:4 is talking about more than a 24-hr. 'day'.

That's whacked big time. Your attempt to justify your thinking is just wrong. You're seeing something in the scriptures that isn't there.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Sorry, but changing the words around to suit you isn't allowed. It says what it says. It is what it is. The current translation accepted by men filled with the Spirit and the churches are what I believe. I will not hear from anyone that any of the words in the current translation need to be changed, deleted or more words need to be added.
So I will not hear your argument or give it any credence. Go to the churches, convince them and then I will hear you.

The Churches of Christendom, since the time after Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30, will Not change.
That is why adverse judgement will start with that religious ' House of God ' as per 1 Peter 4:17.

The words of Revelation 1:5; Revelation 3:14 is Not changed. Jesus had a beginning.
Jesus' words of John 10:36 that he is Son is Not changed. Jesus tells he is Son.
Jesus' words of John 14:28 are Not changed. Jesus' Father is greater than Jesus.
The words of the demons are Not changed as found at Luke 4:41 that the demons believe Jesus to be Son.

 

[DavidFirth]

The Churches of Christendom, since the time after Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30, will Not change.
That is why adverse judgement will start with that religious ' House of God ' as per 1 Peter 4:17.

The words of Revelation 1:5; Revelation 3:14 is Not changed. Jesus had a beginning.
Jesus' words of John 10:36 that he is Son is Not changed. Jesus tells he is Son.
Jesus' words of John 14:28 are Not changed. Jesus' Father is greater than Jesus.
The words of the demons are Not changed as found at Luke 4:41 that the demons believe Jesus to be Son.

Why are you telling me these things when my comment didn't concern any of those scriptures? Are you trying to pull a bait and switch since I rated you out?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I never said time doesn't matter. The passage of time has no effect on God and does not limit Him so a 1000 years are like a day and a day is like thousand years to God, but definitely not to us.

A thousand-year day was definitely to Adam because Adam lived within that thousand-year time frame.
Jesus will govern over Earth for a thousand-year day, so that millennium-long day of governing over Earth has an effect on us.

 

[DavidFirth]

A thousand-year day was definitely to Adam because Adam lived within that thousand-year time frame.
Jesus will govern over Earth for a thousand-year day, so that millennium-long day of governing over Earth has an effect on us.

That sounds stoned. Where do you get these ideas from?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That sounds stoned. Where do you get these ideas from?

Adam would die within the day that he ate the forbidden fruit. Adam lived 930 years as per Genesis 5:3
Even the oldest person to ever live died before age 1,000 according to Genesis 5:27.

According to Revelation 20:6 there are those who govern with Jesus for a thousand years.
So, that thousand-year day is a millennium-long day of governing over Earth before Jesus hands back God's kingdom government to God according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-26.

 

[DavidFirth]

Adam would die within the day that he ate the forbidden fruit. Adam lived 930 years as per Genesis 5:3
Even the oldest person to ever live died before age 1,000 according to Genesis 5:27.

According to Revelation 20:6 there are those who govern with Jesus for a thousand years.
So, that thousand-year day is a millennium-long day of governing over Earth before Jesus hands back God's kingdom government to God according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-26.

What sect or denomination are you?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What sect or denomination are you?

I am here to post what I believe is what the Bible really teaches, and Not to discuss denominations.
I believe since the Bible is Not written ABC as a dictionary is, then we need to look at the Bible by subject or topic arrangement. A comprehensive Bible concordance puts the Bible in alphabetical order for us and we can look up, for example, the word ' day ' and see how many different ways that word is used in Scripture (in Bible speak, so to speak). Thus, I find the word 'day' in Scripture has shades of meaning, just at the word ' day ' has shades of meaning in English today.

 

[garden47]

Do you believe God’s word or man’s?

1. There are no original copies of Biblical texts - just copies of copies of copies ...

2. If one examines the translators notes that are included in the front of every Bible, none make the claim that their translation is infallible.

3. Every new translation of he Bible was written for the express purpose of improving upon the deficiencies of existing translations.

4. Literal word for word translations assume that language remains static over millenium and that meanings don't change when translated from one language to another. Revelations is a difficult book for the modern reader to comprehend - but this was not the case at the time it was written whereby the audience was familiar with the symbolism being introduced.

 

[Windwalker]

I think if the Genesis deniers were honest,

Genesis deniers? LOL!!!!! Did you come up with that yourself? I'll give that one the creative twist of the year award to you!

they know that something cannot be created from nothing and that is what would have to happen for the universe to be created without a supernatural, intelligent being programming it.

Actually, it probably will have a completely natural explanation, once we do get to that point we can look into that. That is the way the pattern does seem to go, time and again, and again, and again. But you go right on holding out hope that one day you will have the proof you need to justify believing God exists. In the meantime, I'll just relax and rest in experience.

In fact, the Genesis account will be proven correct before the science version, since we are throwing opinions out.

Haha! Really? I thought you said Genesis wasn't a book of science? Now you're calling it "an account"? Methinks me smells a rat here.

Very good, science can only explain some things that happened after the initial act setting into motion the creation of all things.

What else should you expect of it? Do you not know what science does? It's not about speculating philosophically, metaphysically, or theologically. That's like ask a jackhammer to play the piano!

That is why they are so intent on starting with, “after the beginning” and they try to make excuses for things they have no answers for but also try to convey their account is the only possible one and is proven by science, hogwash.

If someone is claiming speculations about what happened before the BB is verifiable science, they're full of ****. Probably some ExChristian who has transferred their idolatry of the bible to an idolatry of science. Be careful of that path, BTW....

There is an enormous amount of fantastic explanations and benefits that science does and I support wholeheartedly what is proven as an absolute fact.

Yeah, that's crap. You don't. If you understood science, it never, ever, ever claims "absolute fact". Quit be disingenuous. It's totally unChristian of you.

Nothing wrong with hypothesis and theories, just as long as they are not passed off as “science” which I do not believe honest scientist do.

You don't actually understand what a hypothesis and a theory are in science, do you? I thought you knew more than this. Apparently not.

It seems to come more from the Bible deniers, IMO.

Bible deniers! LOL!!!!! That's hilarious.

 

[Socratic Berean]

Catherine was tormented with a hard decision. Who should she turn to?

Christ?

or

The Bible?

She didn't know. Then she opened the bible read this verse that answered her question.

"[You] search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJVA)

She nodded, gave away her bible, and went to pray.

She chose Christ

@DavidFirth go to christ

You have cited this verse out of context and employ eisegesis over exogesis. That is a curious way to construct a view on what seems to you to be so crucial an issue.

Your view is a curiosity, though. Given that this topic is far outside the purview of this thread, if you are interested in a serious conversation about your view, PM me. I'm interested to learn more.

 

[Ted Evans]

I have no idea what you are referring to can you give me an example?

When you deny modern science, you are motivated by something else that overrides that for you.

Is that your answer to my question, is that your idea of “an example”? It seems to me to be nothing more than an allegation that cannot be proven.

Who denies modern science, science that can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt? Can you provide some examples, or, is that statement only for effects?

Why is it that "faith" has to deny knowledge that challenges your beliefs?

It does not. Why is it that you seem to think it perfectly reasonable to have, as an example, a different explanation for the Genesis account of creation but I am not allowed to question the explanations of science about what they cannot prove is anything more than speculations? Examples….

“…scientists believe…is theorized…suggest…some ancient and unknown type of energy…theory maintains…apparently continued…Scientists can't be sure…Many believe…is thought to be…may hold… leaves several major questions unanswered…none has been proven…”

Those are examples of the “knowledge” you speak of?

There is a marked difference between faith, and mere beliefs, you know?

Of course, who said otherwise?

 

[Ted Evans]

OK, I took you at your word, I answered your first questions, all of them and then asked some in response. We shall see if your word is dependable or if it is not. Unfortunately, my experience has not been good with this issue, hope this one is different.

Well, I do hope you are sincere enough to be honest in your replies, as my experience has been otherwise with too many an apologist claiming faith, yet denying challenges to beliefs.

Interesting, my experience has been the same with those that do not answer questions, or do not answer them as they were asked. I confess, I make mistakes, misspeak but I am never intentionally dishonest as that is a trait that I loathe. Provide verifiable evidence that I have made a mistake, when stating something as a fact, and I will certainly acknowledge the error, explain and make corrections. Does that seem fair to you?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You have cited this verse out of context and employ eisegesis over exogesis. That is a curious way to construct a view on what seems to you to be so crucial an issue.

Your view is a curiosity, though. Given that this topic is far outside the purview of this thread, if you are interested in a serious conversation about your view, PM me. I'm interested to learn more.

This is a serious conversation. You can create a new thread.

It's a simple concept. Which would you choose if jesus was present-him or the bible? Would you go to the bible to find god or would you go to god to find the bible? If you go to the bible to find god, isn't that like the jews using scripture as a means for eternal life without realizing that scripture points to christ instead (in other words-why go to scripture, silly, it's all about me)??

I mean, seriously. Would you pick jesus or the bible if jesus was standing in front of you?

Has nothing to do with exgenesis.

Man's word: words of the bible.
God's Word (Message/Law): Word incarnate (Word made flesh)

I would believe god's word over the bible for the reasons I gave in my posts. But that's me.

 

[Ted Evans]

Did you read my statement?

“It depends on your definition of "modern science" as it relates to the creation of the universe in the

beginning. If that includes the universe being created from nothing and that "modern science" cannot answer where space, matter, energy and time came from, "in the beginning" then the answer is yes.”

Did you notice, creation of the universe in the beginning”? What do you infer from that phrase?

I did not see an answer to the two questions.

My, such self restraint with all the bold and colored fonts! I do commend you on resisting all-caps, however.

Why thank you WW, “the bold and colored fonts” were for attention since, from my perspective, it seems to me that you can be selective in what you wish to see and what you ignore, IMO.

Anyway, I actually doubt you even understand what you are saying.

OK, then we both have our doubts, would you agree?

Do you accept that modern science dealing with everything after the big bang has a fair handle on how things came to be? Yes, or no? If yes, than we can have a different, and far more intelligent conversation.

No, modern science has “a fair handle” on many things, hypothesis, theories, speculation and conjecture on some, if I understand your meaning of “fair handle” correctly.

BTW, I did notice the implied paradigm of an “intelligent conversation” only being possible if one accepts whatever science suggests. My idea of an intelligent, productive conversation is when all questions are answered with plausible, verifiable, clear and straightforward answers.

BTW, by modern science, I assumed you understood any of the empirical sciences following the Western Enlightenment 300 years ago.

I think so, using the definition of “empirical” as being…”originating in or based on observation or experience *empirical data* : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment”…duplicated, tested and observed.

“This chapter discusses the role of inconsistency in the empirical sciences. It distinguishes the various ways in which contradictions may occur in the corpus of science, and argues that while a contradiction may make revision desirable in some contexts, this may not be the case in others. The possibility of producing scientific theories based on a paraconsistent logic may well increase the power of scientific theorizing.”

“inconsistency in the empirical sciences…contradictions” No ambiguity possible there, pure science, correct?

That's what I'm referring to, not the pseudosciences, such as Creationism.”

Is it your custom to make allegations that you cannot prove? Can you offer some names of those that claim Scripture is science? Do you think there is anything in scripture that agrees with science and if so, can you quote examples? Does anyone claim that the account given in Genesis of the creation is science? You seem to like to imply that but I do not see it coming from Bible believing Christians.

Just because that happened in contemporary times, it has nothing to do with what I thinking of, which is anything part of modernity, not some premodernity mixed with modern artifacts calling itself rational, when it's not yet to modernity.

My goodness, that is certainly impressive, quite the opinion but no proof of anything. More to follow.

 

[Socratic Berean]

Which would you choose if jesus was present-him or the bible?

Rather than contemplate a forced and unbiblical dichotomy, wouldn't it be more productive to ask, "How did Jesus view and use scripture? What is the example that Messiah set for his followers?"

Would you go to the bible to find god or would you go to god to find the bible?

Are you implying that people cannot come to God through scripture? What do you think the sole mission of the Gideons has been all these years? Why do you think the tradition in our nation is for a Bible to be found in nearly every hotel room across the land? Why are Bibles distributed in prisons? Have you ever talked to one of the many Muslims who came to Christ through the OT scriptures?

If you go to the bible to find god, isn't that like the jews using scripture as a means for eternal life without realizing that scripture points to christ instead (in other words-why go to scripture, silly, it's all about me)??

Back to exogesis, in the verse you refer to, when properly exegeted, you find that Jesus told the Jews that they were looking to scripture (our OT writings, the Torah) for salvation and missing the point that the scripture was, in fact, pointing to him--standing present before them--as God's route to salvation. He told them that they were missing the forest for the trees. This passage does not in any way convey the idea that Jesus was reducing the importance of scripture at that point in time or any time there after. Absent some impressive mental gymnastics, this passage does not convey any sense that Jesus was telling people to drop scripture to follow him. The passage does convey, in every sense, that he was saying that His words (his message) and the message of scripture were unified, one and the same, telling the same story...no dichotomy.

I mean, seriously. Would you pick jesus or the bible if jesus was standing in front of you?

Man's word: words of the bible.
God's Word (Message/Law): Word incarnate (Word made flesh)

I would believe god's word over the bible for the reasons I gave in my posts. But that's me.

What brand of Christianity do you subscribe to in which "god's word" [sic] and "the bible" [sic] are diametrically opposed?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Can you separate the bible (the book) from christ and the creator?

Rather than contemplate a forced and unbiblical dichotomy, wouldn't it be more productive to ask, "How did Jesus view and use scripture? What is the example that Messiah set for his followers?"

Worship god and not look to scriptures as if they hold eternal life. Since christ holds a christian's key to eternal life, it makes logical sense they should go straight to him. I mean, I'm sure christ isn't a book.

Are you implying that people cannot come to God through scripture?

1. What do you think the sole mission of the Gideons has been all these years?

2. Why do you think the tradition in our nation is for a Bible to be found in nearly every hotel room across the land?

3. Why are Bibles distributed in prisons?

4. Have you ever talked to one of the many Muslims who came to Christ through the OT scriptures?

1. I am saying you do not need scriptures to go to christ. You need christ to go to the creator.

2. Like every other christian who idolizes the bible, our politics and society mirrors more focus on the bible than christ himself. Whether it's by government or individual, it doesn't matter. The idea is the same. You go to the bible to get to christ as if you're a Jew with a Christian overcoat. Jews go to the Law of Moses. The Law in christianity isn't the Bible-It's Christ-the person himself.

3. Same reason as above. Popularity and things of that nature doesn't invalidate my point. It's irritating that a whole society is built on it. It hurts a lot of people I've seen personally. Why not the Quran in the hotels? Why not the Gita in our courts?

Government is something else indeed.

Back to exogesis, in the verse you refer to, when properly exegeted, you find that Jesus told the Jews that they were looking to scripture (our OT writings, the Torah) for salvation and missing the point that the scripture was, in fact, pointing to him--standing present before them--as God's route to salvation. He told them that they were missing the forest for the trees. This passage does not in any way convey the idea that Jesus was reducing the importance of scripture at that point in time or any time there after. Absent some impressive mental gymnastics, this passage does not convey any sense that Jesus was telling people to drop scripture to follow him. The passage does convey, in every sense, that he was saying that His words (his message) and the message of scripture were unified, one and the same, telling the same story...no dichotomy.

Jesus IS the message. It's no longer written; no longer need tablets and words. It is the message incarnate.

Understand?

What brand of Christianity do you subscribe to in which "god's word" [sic] and "the bible" [sic] are diametrically opposed?

I never heard any christian in my "brand" of christianity talk like that. I'd never hear christ say that not to mention the creator. Most god-religions have a consensus that if you believe in god, it's not sliced in bits and pieces. Muslims are still Muslims regardless the sect they believe. Yet JW and Catholics will argue until they are blue over a very simple teaching they are both correct in.

It's horrible, really. It is very unattractive. Rephrase your question.

 

[DavidFirth]

I am here to post what I believe is what the Bible really teaches, and Not to discuss denominations.
I believe since the Bible is Not written ABC as a dictionary is, then we need to look at the Bible by subject or topic arrangement. A comprehensive Bible concordance puts the Bible in alphabetical order for us and we can look up, for example, the word ' day ' and see how many different ways that word is used in Scripture (in Bible speak, so to speak). Thus, I find the word 'day' in Scripture has shades of meaning, just at the word ' day ' has shades of meaning in English today.

In my humble opinion you need to seek out a good Bible teacher because you're doing terrible trying to figure it out on your own.