Christian: Sola Scriptura

Katzpur · Aug 23, 2005

AV1611 said:
Defend their reliance on Scripture alone ... against what?

Against the opposite point of view.

If the Bible contains every last detail that God wants us to know, it would certainly stand to reason that that particular detail would be at least mentioned, don't you think?

John 21:25 states, "And there are also many other things which Jesusdid, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

Jesus' ministry lasted roughly three years. Stop and think how relatively little information the four gospel accounts actually contain. I don't suppose that He wasted much of that three-year period of time. On the contrary, I imagine that pretty much everything He did during those years was very significant. It just strikes me as absolutely unbelievable that anyone would think that just because something He did didn't end up in the Bible, we were never supposed to know about it.

michel · Aug 23, 2005

Katzpur said:
Against the opposite point of view. If the Bible contains every last detail that God wants us to know, it would certainly stand to reason that that particular detail would be at least mentioned, don't you think?

John 21:25 states, "And there are also many other things which Jesusdid, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

Jesus' ministry lasted roughly three years. Stop and think how relatively little information the four gospel accounts actually contain. I don't suppose that He wasted much of that three-year period of time. On the contrary, I imagine that pretty much everything He did during those years was very significant. It just strikes me as absolutely unbelievable that anyone would think that just because something He did didn't end up in the Bible, we were never supposed to know about it.

Hi, Katzpur

God says in Deuteronomy 29:29 --- THE SECRET THINGS BELONG UNTO THE LORD OUR GOD: BUT THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE REVEALED BELONG TO US AND TO OUR CHILDREN FOREVER, THAT WE MAY DO ALL THE WORDS OF HIS LAW.

There are things that God wants us to know, and things that God doesn't want us to know.

Keep in mind, Katzpur, that the Bible is God's autobiography, and He had the final say as to what went into it, and what didn't.

Katzpur · Aug 23, 2005

AV1611 said:
Hi, Katzpur

God says in Deuteronomy 29:29 --- THE SECRET THINGS BELONG UNTO THE LORD OUR GOD: BUT THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE REVEALED BELONG TO US AND TO OUR CHILDREN FOREVER, THAT WE MAY DO ALL THE WORDS OF HIS LAW.

There are things that God wants us to know, and things that God doesn't want us to know.

Keep in mind, Katzpur, that the Bible is God's autobiography, and He had the final say as to what went into it, and what didn't.

I don't agree, AV, but I don't expect us to see eye to eye on this if we both live to be a hundred. I believe that God has given us free will (i.e. free agency or freedom of choice). I don't believe He personally put together the canon. There have simply been too many different canons over the past 2000 years for me to even consider that as a possible option. He gave us His word. Some of it was lost or irreparably damaged. Errors crept in as what was originally written was copied time and time again. He didn't compile the canon and He didn't translate it. Human beings did, and human beings are fallible. I truly do admire your faith, although, to be perfectly honest, I'd have to say that it appears to me that it's really blind faith. God wants us to have faith, but He also gave us a brain.

michel · Aug 23, 2005

Katzpur said:
I don't agree, AV, but I don't expect us to see eye to eye on this if we both live to be a hundred. I believe that God has given us free will (i.e. free agency or freedom of choice). I don't believe He personally put together the canon. There have simply been too many different canons over the past 2000 years for me to even consider that as a possible option. He gave us His word. Some of it was lost or irreparably damaged. Errors crept in as what was originally written was copied time and time again. He didn't compile the canon and He didn't translate it. Human beings did, and human beings are fallible. I truly do admire your faith, although, to be perfectly honest, I'd have to say that it appears to me that it's really blind faith. God wants us to have faith, but He also gave us a brain.

I understand, Katzpur, thanks for putting it nicely!

I just contend that our God is a jealous God - (Deuteronomy 4:24) - and that He wouldn't let His Word get "spoiled" or "diluted" or "lost".

Especially since His Son paid such a high price completing it - (if you know what I mean).

Uncertaindrummer · Aug 23, 2005

AV1611 said:
I understand, Katzpur, thanks for putting it nicely!

I just contend that our God is a jealous God - (Deuteronomy 4:24) - and that He wouldn't let His Word get "spoiled" or "diluted" or "lost".

Especially since His Son paid such a high price completing it - (if you know what I mean).

But Jesus didn't die on the cross for the BIBLE, man, He did it for our redemption.

And you still haven't responded to any of the valid questions I asked.

Uncertaindrummer · Aug 23, 2005

Keep in mind, Katzpur, that the Bible is God's autobiography, and He had the final say as to what went into it, and what didn't.

Autobiography? It doesn't say THAT in the Bible.

michel · Aug 23, 2005

Uncertaindrummer said:
Autobiography? It doesn't say THAT in the Bible.

Are you sure, man? Have you check out all the [per]versions?

michel · Aug 23, 2005

Uncertaindrummer said:
So you DON'T know why you believe in yours instead of theirs. Figures.

Well, "dude", any one of another writing can claim maybe two or three of the abovementioned reasons, but none fit all seven.

In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

James the Persian · Aug 24, 2005

AV1611 said:
I understand, Katzpur, thanks for putting it nicely!

I just contend that our God is a jealous God - (Deuteronomy 4:24) - and that He wouldn't let His Word get "spoiled" or "diluted" or "lost".

Especially since His Son paid such a high price completing it - (if you know what I mean).

Strange then, isn't it, that God allowed your version of the Scriptures to be reduced some 1500 years after they were first collected (longer in fact, given that the Septuagint actually pre-dates Christ by 1-3 centuries and it is in the OT that the Reformers expunged books)? Also, as you seem to hold the translators of the KJV in suh high regard as to seemingly think of it as the version par excellence, maybe you should be a little more familiar with its history. The original translation of the KJV is clearly not the one you use as that did contain the 'apocrypha' (deuterocannonicals, as they are more properly called).

As to how many books should be in the Bible, I would contend that it should be the whole Septuagint plus the New Testament. Given the somewhat arbitrary nature of the naming and organistaion of the books (some books being separate in our canon but combined into one in the RC canon, for instance) the exact number that this should come to will vary slightly but, being Orthodox and therefore adhering to the oldest version of the Septuagint, I would contend that there should be 51 OT books, bringing the total to 78. I am, however, perfectly able to accept the different organisation of the Roman Catholic OT as valid and even the still greater OT of the Ethiopians, but then I'm not a sola scripturalist and so I have no need to come to a single fixed canon from which to derive my faith.

James

michel · Aug 24, 2005

IacobPersul said:
Strange then, isn't it, that God allowed your version of the Scriptures to be reduced some 1500 years after they were first collected (longer in fact, given that the Septuagint actually pre-dates Christ by 1-3 centuries and it is in the OT that the Reformers expunged books)? Also, as you seem to hold the translators of the KJV in suh high regard as to seemingly think of it as the version par excellence, maybe you should be a little more familiar with its history. The original translation of the KJV is clearly not the one you use as that did contain the 'apocrypha' (deuterocannonicals, as they are more properly called).

As to how many books should be in the Bible, I would contend that it should be the whole Septuagint plus the New Testament. Given the somewhat arbitrary nature of the naming and organistaion of the books (some books being separate in our canon but combined into one in the RC canon, for instance) the exact number that this should come to will vary slightly but, being Orthodox and therefore adhering to the oldest version of the Septuagint, I would contend that there should be 51 OT books, bringing the total to 78. I am, however, perfectly able to accept the different organisation of the Roman Catholic OT as valid and even the still greater OT of the Ethiopians, but then I'm not a sola scripturalist and so I have no need to come to a single fixed canon from which to derive my faith.

James

Evidentally God disagrees with you. Our KJV Bible comes to us via the Gothic Language, not the corrupted Classical Greek that spawned all the other perversions.

Uncertaindrummer · Aug 24, 2005

AV1611 said:
Evidentally God disagrees with you. Our KJV Bible comes to us via the Gothic Language, not the corrupted Classical Greek that spawned all the other perversions.

Again, you haven't deal with ANY questions posed to you, but here's another:

What on Earth did a Christian do before your not-so-wonderful KJV was available? What did a 12th century Christian do to know the way to Salvation? Apparently he had no Bible to go to, sicne it fell out of the sky fifteen hudnred years after Christ, and only certain people--the interpretors of the KJV--could REALLY understand what it meant.

Mike182 · Aug 24, 2005

Uncertaindrummer said:
Not sure if this thread has been posted but I didn't see it anywhere. Anyhow, I am curious how "Bible Only" Christians on here would defend their doctrine that the Bible is our only rule of Faith and is completely sufficient in every way for our Salvation.

in my oppinion, the bible tells us all we need to know, but is not completely sufficient because to say that is to say its the central object of my faith, which is tosh because christ is the central object to my faith

but saying that, there are passages in the new testiment and psalms that cover guidance in the areas of:

anger
citizenship
contentment
crime
death
friendship
greed
hatred
hope
humility
love
marriage
obedience
parents
patience
purity
revenge
riches
self-control
thankful nes
truthfulness

it also offers life guidance on several issues like:

beign affraid or attacked
beign bitter or critical
being conscious of sin
coping with failure
when your faith is weak
feeling inadequate or lost
ill or in pain
insulted
lonely
praying

as well as being tempted to:
commit suicide
drink abuse
divorce
lie

and there are even 4 verses on sleeplesness (mathew11:28, 1peter5:7, psalms3:5 and psalms4:1,6-8)

does anyone else have a book that offers support and guidance to this level? i guess that's a stupid question because there probably is one somewhere, but its still a pretty impressive list!

C_P

Mike182 · Aug 24, 2005

Uncertaindrummer said:
Again, you haven't deal with ANY questions posed to you, but here's another:

What on Earth did a Christian do before your not-so-wonderful KJV was available? What did a 12th century Christian do to know the way to Salvation? Apparently he had no Bible to go to, sicne it fell out of the sky fifteen hudnred years after Christ, and only certain people--the interpretors of the KJV--could REALLY understand what it meant.

well they had bits of it to go on, after paul had written his letters to the corinthians and the romans, he actually sent them to ....(would you believe this!) the corinthians and the romans

but i do see where your coming from - i can only guess it would have been through word of mouth and the telling of stories about the life of jesus etc - but i can only speculate

C_P

michel · Aug 24, 2005

IacobPersul said:
Strange then, isn't it, that God allowed your version of the Scriptures to be reduced some 1500 years after they were first collected (longer in fact, given that the Septuagint actually pre-dates Christ by 1-3 centuries and it is in the OT that the Reformers expunged books)? Also, as you seem to hold the translators of the KJV in suh high regard as to seemingly think of it as the version par excellence, maybe you should be a little more familiar with its history. The original translation of the KJV is clearly not the one you use as that did contain the 'apocrypha' (deuterocannonicals, as they are more properly called).

Not strange at all, James. God said He would "purify" His words, and that's exactly what He meant. If He had wanted the Apocrypha in the King James Bible, then He wouldn't have scraped it off like dross, like He said He would do in Psalm 12:6-7. (Or 'expunged' it as you put it.)

michel · Aug 24, 2005

Uncertaindrummer said:
Again, you haven't deal with ANY questions posed to you, but here's another:

What on Earth did a Christian do before your not-so-wonderful KJV was available? What did a 12th century Christian do to know the way to Salvation? Apparently he had no Bible to go to, sicne it fell out of the sky fifteen hudnred years after Christ, and only certain people--the interpretors of the KJV--could REALLY understand what it meant.

God is a lot more active in His creation than you think He is. They had the Gothic Scriptures, which is the King James Bible prototype. Salvation is a LOT easier to grasp than you can even imagine, and it doesn't take an entire Bible for someone to get saved. Although they had the entire Bible right at their disposal. Do you?

michel · Aug 24, 2005

corrupt_preist said:
well they had bits of it to go on,

They sure did --- all 66 books complete.

James the Persian · Aug 25, 2005

AV1611 said:
Not strange at all, James. God said He would "purify" His words, and that's exactly what He meant. If He had wanted the Apocrypha in the King James Bible, then He wouldn't have scraped it off like dross, like He said He would do in Psalm 12:6-7. (Or 'expunged' it as you put it.)

But He didn't - the original KJV has the 'Apocrypha', or did you miss that part of my post? It's only later that they were removed. And what makes you think that those who removed the books were more inspired than those who put them in in the first place? More inspired than St. Paul, in fact, given that he writes approvingly, in Greek, to Timothy (a Greek speaking Jew) of the Scriptures he knew since a child (almost certainly the Septuagint, as that was in Greek) but doesn't say anything to the effect of "stay away from those 'apocryphal' books". In fact he says that all Scripture is valuable, which would certainly seem to include all the books of the Septuagint, given that that was the accepted Scripture of the diaspora Jews both before and after Christ until the later formulation of the Masoretic Text.

And as for your Gothic text, what on earth are you talking about? Even if the KJV were translated from Gothic (and as far as I'm aware it wasn't, but from Koine - that's NT Greek - and Hebrew), where do you think any Gothic text would have come from? Obviously it would have had to have been translated from Koine (Greek) because that's the language the NT was written in. You cannot get away from Greek, I'm afraid, if you want to have a Bible at all, and precisely what is your problem with the Greek language anyway?

James

michel · Aug 25, 2005

IacobPersul said:
But He didn't - the original KJV has the 'Apocrypha', or did you miss that part of my post? It's only later that they were removed.

Just as God pared Gideon's army down from 32,000 to 10,000 to 300, God pared the books of the Bible down from [however many] to 80 to 66.

And what makes you think that those who removed the books were more inspired than those who put them in in the first place?

Inspiration only has to do with writing Scripture - (2 Timothy 3:16) - not its preservation, which God Himself took care of - (Psalm 12:6-7).

And as for your Gothic text, what on earth are you talking about? Even if the KJV were translated from Gothic (and as far as I'm aware it wasn't, but from Koine - that's NT Greek - and Hebrew), where do you think any Gothic text would have come from? Obviously it would have had to have been translated from Koine (Greek) because that's the language the NT was written in. You cannot get away from Greek, I'm afraid, if you want to have a Bible at all, and precisely what is your problem with the Greek language anyway?

The writers of the New Testament wrote in Koine Greek, not the New-Age-Infested Classical Greek that Plato & Company endorsed. The NIV and other translations come to us via this Classical Greek, the King James Bible comes to us via the Koine Greek, which is the Greek of the common people.

That's why in marginal notes now you see remarks like 'Original Greek this' ... 'better Manuscript says that'. It's because the common people rejected these fake documents, and they were sealed up and never used. Thus they lasted longer and archaeologists dug them up and use them today.

But the Koine writings didn't last forever. They began disintegrating, and had to be copied. And they were, by the Goths.

Mike182 · Aug 25, 2005

AV1611 said:
Just as God pared Gideon's army down from 32,000 to 10,000 to 300, God pared the books of the Bible down from [however many] to 80 to 66.

Inspiration only has to do with writing Scripture - (2 Timothy 3:16) - not its preservation, which God Himself took care of - (Psalm 12:6-7).

agreed - there may well be bits in the other scriptures that are important, but the key points that we are called to read as christians are the parts that god narrowed it down to

The writers of the New Testament wrote in Koine Greek, not the New-Age-Infested Classical Greek that Plato & Company endorsed. The NIV and other translations come to us via this Classical Greek, the King James Bible comes to us via the Koine Greek, which is the Greek of the common people.

That's why in marginal notes now you see remarks like 'Original Greek this' ... 'better Manuscript says that'. It's because the common people rejected these fake documents, and they were sealed up and never used. Thus they lasted longer and archaeologists dug them up and use them today.

But the Koine writings didn't last forever. They began disintegrating, and had to be copied. And they were, by the Goths.

im not getting involved in this one, i dont know enough on the subject to stop myself from looking foolish :bonk:

C_P

michel · Aug 25, 2005

corrupt_preist said:
im not getting involved in this one, i dont know enough on the subject to stop myself from looking foolish

Get a Strong's Concordance (Wrong's Concordance) and look up the word SIN.

It will tell you that it means "to miss the mark".

In Plato's time sin was rampant. Instead of 'sin' being defined as rebellion against a Holy, Transcendent God, it was merely a sports term.

Our country, unfortunately, is following suit. How many times in public or on TV is the word 'sin' mentioned? It's a word fading from our vocabulary.

Christian: Sola Scriptura

Not your average Mormon

Administrator Emeritus

Not your average Mormon

Administrator Emeritus

Active Member

Active Member

Administrator Emeritus

Administrator Emeritus

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Administrator Emeritus

Active Member

Flaming Queer

Flaming Queer

Administrator Emeritus

Administrator Emeritus

Administrator Emeritus

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Administrator Emeritus

Flaming Queer

Administrator Emeritus