1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Why Study The Bible?

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Earthling, Jun 11, 2018.

  1. savagewind

    savagewind Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    37,945
    Ratings:
    +4,317
    Religion:
    An X-Jehovah's Witness
    That is a friendly post but I am still in the dark about what you believe about the Bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses have taught that not only did God have it written as it must be according to the will of God but also protected it from human error all the years with all the copying and translating of it. That is why I ask you in what capacity are you a Bible believer. Do you agree with the JWs that no meaning was ever changed or might you agree with Bart D. Ehrman who goes to prove that some of it isn't as God communicated the message at first?
     
  2. savagewind

    savagewind Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    37,945
    Ratings:
    +4,317
    Religion:
    An X-Jehovah's Witness
    I think I am not that.
     
  3. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +758
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    That isn't correct. They, like myself, teach that the Bible is fallible. The translation of which is uninspired.

    Ah, yes, I do recall reading something you said to that effect, now, it sounds like nonsense to me. Unless you are just talking about spurious scriptures which became apparent upon the discovery of never before seen manuscripts.

    I don't know who Bart D. Ehrman is.
     
  4. savagewind

    savagewind Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    37,945
    Ratings:
    +4,317
    Religion:
    An X-Jehovah's Witness
    There is a difference between how a person lives and teaches according to his understanding of scripture (Trinity, cross, Christmas, Easter, immortal soul, hell, rapture) and what he hears what God is really, truly, and actually saying.

    I am asking about meaning, not about understanding.

    I trust that men and possibly a few women too heard real messages about the Truth that sets a person free and the words got written down. In the book by Bart D. Ehrman Misquoting Jesus he proves without a shadow of a doubt that people have at times changed the meaning of some scriptures. The proof is in the manuscripts.

    So, to "believe the Bible" is to believe what men think it says, and not what was actually communicated by God. In my opinion.
     
  5. savagewind

    savagewind Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    37,945
    Ratings:
    +4,317
    Religion:
    An X-Jehovah's Witness
    Since when do the JWs teach that the Bible is fallible? And, if you believe it too, that the Bible contains errors, how can you possibly believe in it? You are confessing to believing in errors.

    Bart D. Ehrman wrote the book proving that meaning is sometimes changed.
     
  6. savagewind

    savagewind Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    37,945
    Ratings:
    +4,317
    Religion:
    An X-Jehovah's Witness
    I trust that believing is only for the truth. Amen!
     
  7. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +758
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    i don't know how long the JWs have taught that, as long as I can remember and I studied their literature going back to 1955. I read the Proclaimer's book and don't recall anything about it, but that has been a long time ago.

    The Bible warns it's readers to test even the inspired expression (literally, spirit). That implies that the early Christians were warned that it was possible they could be fooled. The Bible isn't written to us. It was written to the people of it's own time. It's for us to use as an example of the past. So, there are some parts in the Bible which don't appear in early manuscripts, they just appear in later ones. Those are spurious passages. See my website on Bible Fallibility.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. savagewind

    savagewind Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    37,945
    Ratings:
    +4,317
    Religion:
    An X-Jehovah's Witness
    They call the Bible "God's Word". Not, some of what God says.
     
  9. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +758
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Well, it is for the most part, with a warning of possible tampering.
     
  10. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    34,818
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    That’s not entirely true. Not all later interpolations are spurious passages. It looks to me as if your scholastic base has some very weak spots. A professed bible scholar not knowing who Bart Ehrman is, is sort of like a philosopher not knowing who Plato is.
     
  11. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +758
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Well, I know who Plato is. Give me an example of a later interpolation that isn't a spurious passage.
     
  12. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    34,818
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    1Cor. 14:34ff is almost certainly a later interpolation by someone other than Paul, but it is not considered to be “spurious.” Same with the “longer ending to Mark.”
     
  13. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +758
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    In the case of Mark, the longer ending is certainly regarded as spurious, but what evidence do you give regarding the other?
     
  14. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    34,818
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    No; “spurious” is something extra that is unintended and a detriment. The longer ending is neither.

    The evidence is that the Corinthians passage has been determined by experts in Pauline scholarship to be uncharacteristic of Paul.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Joel1

    Joel1 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    13
    Ratings:
    +0
    Religion:
    Christian
    Is not Jesus also God? for does the Bible not say that God is a trinity made up of the father the son and the holy spirit, and if God did truly create Jesus before creation, what evidence do you have for this? (Please leave a reference if your quoting scripture, thanks)
     
  16. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Regurgitating right wing propaganda since 2010
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    164,229
    Ratings:
    +50,337
    Religion:
    Bokononist Atheism
    If one is reading a translation of a translation of someone's assemblage of
    various books (excluding others), how could one even know whether it's
    the singularly cromulent Bible, or one of the many corrupted versions?
     
  17. 74x12

    74x12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    3,773
    Ratings:
    +969
    Religion:
    Itiswhatitis
    Because the holy scriptures are the counsel of God; as revealed to true prophets as the Anointing that was in them taught them; they wrote it down. (2 Peter 1:20) Anyone who calls themselves Christian but who disagrees or doesn't consent to the faithful teaching which the scriptures reveal is lifted up in their own mind and is too proud and knows nothing as Paul said. (1 Timothy 6:3-4) Let them mock; but God will show favor to those who are humble and tremble at His Word. (Isaiah 66:2)

    As for Michael. I couldn't disagree with you more. :) The angels are not begotten. They are created sons of God like Adam. But Jesus is the only begotten Son of God because He was literally born of the virgin. (Luke 1:35)

    Michael is not the master worker. He is a powerful archangel and prince but he is not the Word of God. Jesus is called the "Alpha and the Omega" because He is all of God's Word. All words are comprised of letters. The Alpha and the Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek Alphabet showing that Jesus is all of God's Word.

    God commands all the angels to worship Jesus. (Hebrews 1:6)
     
  18. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +758
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Thank you for that, sir. One point of disagreement between believers. I noticed that you didn't leave a scripture in support of Jesus being the alpha and omega. I think that if you look at those scriptures in Revelation and do a little research on them you will find that older manuscripts point out that the term applies, not to Jesus but to Jehovah himself.
     
  19. 74x12

    74x12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    3,773
    Ratings:
    +969
    Religion:
    Itiswhatitis
    Just because a manuscript is older doesn't make it more trustworthy by itself. The Textus Receptus is the most trustworthy collection of scriptures available because we know they were preserved for the reason that people relied on them above others.

    These older manuscripts are untrustworthy and could be cobbled together by anyone with any agenda. Best to go with the manuscripts that have been relied upon for a long time.

    Ignatius in one of his epistles mentions people who were already changing the new Testament writings in his day. So ever since people started circulating the epistles of the Apostles and the gospels; there have been certain sects changing them to suit their own purposes. That's why we should stick with the most trusted or relied on manuscripts. The ones handed down from generation to generation.
     
  20. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    15,571
    Ratings:
    +7,807
    Religion:
    None
    I expect that is where ya need faith, in,
    among other things, one's ability to figure
    out which version is the real thing.

    But then I see the bible as being the most
    wildly overrated, overstudied book ever,
    unless the koran is.

    As in, not worth much of my time. I
    read it, wont pick it up again.
     
Loading...