My Words Shall Not Pass Away

[The Rogue Tomato]

Perhaps this is why I want a Biblical standard. God is perfect. Christ is perfect. Salvation is perfect. Why can't the Bible be perfect. I find peace in knowing it all is perfect.

Truth is not altered by what would give you a sense of peace. 

 

[Izdaari]

Perhaps this is why I want a Biblical standard. God is perfect. Christ is perfect. Salvation is perfect. Why can't the Bible be perfect. I find peace in knowing it all is perfect.

Truth is not altered by what would give you a sense of peace.

^^^
this

It ain't necessarily 'sposed to be easy.

Since the time of Moses, the Jews thought they had a perfect understanding of God's word.
Then Jesus came along and pointed out a bunch of stuff they had missed or gotten wrong.
When we meet Him face to face, I'm sure He'll have more for us too.

1 Corinthians 13:12
King James Version (KJV)

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

1 Corinthians 13:12
J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)

12 At present we are men looking at puzzling reflections in a mirror. The time will come when we shall see reality whole and face to face! At present all I know is a little fraction of the truth, but the time will come when I shall know it as fully as God now knows me!

 

[PappaBear]

This is one thing I hate about Christianity. If I can just vent for a second, why must so many have so many views.

For the same reason that there is a panorama of gods.  Using the same kind of religious politics as Jeroboam in setting up the golden calves in Bethel and Dan, Satan blinds men to the truth by creating a smokescreen.  What better way is there to overthrow faith than by creating doubt through mass producing imitations of the truth?

Going back to the multiple gods answer, would Ransom's answer of God's words being preserved by spreading them out in multiple venues over the earth pass muster if someone said the same thing about the one true and living God?

Why allow the error, if indeed error?

Very good question.  I was asked one very similar to that by my high school biology teacher who claimed to be a Christian, once.  He said that as a theistic evolutionist, he had greater respect for the power of a God who "created" everything through the natural evolutionary process which He set in motion rather than a single creative week where He took the more simplistic method of just "bang" and it was done.  These people are using the same humanistic logic to deny the miraculous.

Realistically, the only way their logic can hold true is if there is no such thing as "error."  If there is no deception or malevolent attack upon the truth, then any errors are only honest mistakes.  Therefore, everything becomes a legitimate attempt at preserving for the next generations what was known in the previous.  But once you allow for those malevolent attempts at corrupting the word of God (2Cor 2:17) and deceptions (2Cor 4:2), then it becomes obvious that there is a cesspool of error within those multiple translations, multiple texts, etc. and either God would have to find some way to preserve and identify what is His words of truth, or it would be impossible for finite man to discriminate truth from error.

 

[Ransom]

I see what you are saying. I guess.

Uh huh.

Someone once said we are all walking translations of the Bible.

Sounds like pious glurge to me.

 

[Izdaari]

I see what you are saying. I guess.

Uh huh.

Someone once said we are all walking translations of the Bible.

Sounds like pious glurge to me.

Wasn't there a pope by that name? Pious Glurge X or something...

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

He did say he would preserve His Word. Where is it?

Spread out over multiple manuscripts, multiple printed texts, multiple translations in multiple languages, all over the world.

Absolutely no one but God himself could possibly eradicate the Scriptures from the earth.

Now that's what I call preservation.

I see what you are saying. I guess.

Someone once said we are all walking translations of the Bible.

Yes.  We are the Body of Christ.

The value of scripture should be great. An infallible God seems obligated to provide a perfect copy of his words. Specially if I follow these words for my life. I look at the phrase "my words" in the Bible and I suppose is spells out "Scripture" or "Bible" .... but it seems others spell out "Christ" ...

This is one thing I hate about Christianity. If I can just vent for a second, why must so many have so many views.

Perhaps this is why I want a Biblical standard. God is perfect. Christ is perfect. Salvation is perfect. Why can't the Bible be perfect. I find peace in knowing it all is perfect.

Something isn't matching for me. How can I trust a system where for 300 years a Bible taught things to be "absolute" scripture and then, now, with the last 100 years of versions some of this is a footnote.

Why allow the error, if indeed error?

If there is not a Preserved Bible how does one apply 2 Timothy 2:15? By every English version since Tyndale and read them side by side? Seems to some that is insufficient. I also need to learn the original languages and acquire copies of some 5000 manuscripts, uncials and scrolls. How does one apply John 17:17? What is truth? Is baptism by immersion the only mode? (Acts 8:37) Is there a Trinity? (1John 5:7)

I am not an existentialist, truth is not relative, vague or fuzzy. It is clear and concise and attainable.

The KJV is a word perfect translation in English, God's preserved word for the English world.

 

[christundivided]

If there is not a Preserved Bible how does one apply 2 Timothy 2:15? By every English version since Tyndale and read them side by side? Seems to some that is insufficient. I also need to learn the original languages and acquire copies of some 5000 manuscripts, uncials and scrolls. How does one apply John 17:17? What is truth? Is baptism by immersion the only mode? (Acts 8:37) Is there a Trinity? (1John 5:7)

I am not an existentialist, truth is not relative, vague or fuzzy. It is clear and concise and attainable.

The KJV is a word perfect translation in English, God's preserved word for the English world.

You apply 2Timothy to exactly what Paul applied it to.

Acts 8:37 isn't the lone gateway to properly understand baptism. There are plenty of other verses that clearly teach Baptism by immersion.

I John 5:7 also isn't the lone gateway whereby you can only understand the Trinity. There are plenty of verses that clearly teach the Trinty.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

This is one thing I hate about Christianity. If I can just vent for a second, why must so many have so many views.

For the same reason that there is a panorama of gods.  Using the same kind of religious politics as Jeroboam in setting up the golden calves in Bethel and Dan, Satan blinds men to the truth by creating a smokescreen.  What better way is there to overthrow faith than by creating doubt through mass producing imitations of the truth?

Going back to the multiple gods answer, would Ransom's answer of God's words being preserved by spreading them out in multiple venues over the earth pass muster if someone said the same thing about the one true and living God?

[quote author=Deist]
[quote author=Seeker]
He did say there is only one God.  Which one is He?

Spread out over multiple religions, multiple communions, multiple confessions in multiple doctrines, all over the world.

Absolutely no one but God himself could possibly eradicate the worship of the one true God/Allah/Baal/Vishnu/Ra from the earth

Now that's what I call monotheism.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I think you stumped everyone.

 

[Ransom]

I think you stumped everyone.

Nonsense. PappaBear's "argument" assumes that one-Bible-onlyism and monotheism are equivalent, but he has done nothing to demonstrate that equivalence.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You gotta admit, Islam has us beat on onlyism.  I hear they believe the only valid Quran is the original Arabic, which is how it is written in heaven.  All translations, regardless of language, are corrupt. 

 

[Ransom]

You gotta admit, Islam has us beat on onlyism.  I hear they believe the only valid Quran is the original Arabic, which is how it is written in heaven.  All translations, regardless of language, are corrupt.

At least Muslims will admit (albeit somewhat incorrectly) that they can know what was originally in the Quran.  On the biblical front, some of the skepticism I've seen from the KJVers would make you believe we have no way of knowing what the Bible originally said at all until God rescued it from oblivion in 1611.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The King James Bible is God's Words. God tells us (in the Bible) that His Words will not pass away.


So does the Catholic Bible. Which one is right?

Below is proof that God's words will not pass away, in the past other details have been given as to why one can conclude the KJV are those words. If the King James Bible IS NOT the inspired words of God then we need to find them. Where are they? He said we would preserve them for us.

Matthew 24:35
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Lord Jesus promised the Word of God will be preserved for mankind)



Jesus said that "HIS" words wouldn't pass away. He was not speaking of the Old Testament.

(God originally inspired His Words, and he tells us they are still inspired. All of it.)

2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture" (all - Gen-Rev) "is given" (didn't say was given, is given) "by inspiration and is profitable" (now, today, it is profitable, and right now, today, it is inspired)



Dude, look at your KJV again. The word "is" was put in by the translators and not part of the original. So you are correct that "was" is not a part of the context but neither is the word "is".

It says, "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." (ASV 1901)

“Every Scripture God inspired is profitable.”  (Interlinear KJV New Testament (1993) )

Here. Read this link in your search.

http://standfordrives.wordpress.com/article/writings-section-of-original-bible-of-g6z6g2l2q6zj-26/

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

The King James Bible is God's Words. God tells us (in the Bible) that His Words will not pass away.


So does the Catholic Bible. Which one is right?

Below is proof that God's words will not pass away, in the past other details have been given as to why one can conclude the KJV are those words. If the King James Bible IS NOT the inspired words of God then we need to find them. Where are they? He said we would preserve them for us.

Matthew 24:35
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Lord Jesus promised the Word of God will be preserved for mankind)



Jesus said that "HIS" words wouldn't pass away. He was not speaking of the Old Testament.

(God originally inspired His Words, and he tells us they are still inspired. All of it.)

2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture" (all - Gen-Rev) "is given" (didn't say was given, is given) "by inspiration and is profitable" (now, today, it is profitable, and right now, today, it is inspired)



Dude, look at your KJV again. The word "is" was put in by the translators and not part of the original. So you are correct that "was" is not a part of the context but neither is the word "is".

It says, "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." (ASV 1901)

“Every Scripture God inspired is profitable.”  (Interlinear KJV New Testament (1993) )

Here. Read this link in your search.

http://standfordrives.wordpress.com/article/writings-section-of-original-bible-of-g6z6g2l2q6zj-26/

There are two "is"'s that were added for clarity.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So to say "All scripture inspired by God is profitable" makes man the determining factor as to what is inspired and what is not. If I don't like what I read, I simply say "it is not inspired" and I theologically remove myself from obedience.

This happens all the time in Christendom. Calvinist quote Spurgeon but ignore him when he said:

"Are you afraid that preaching the gospel will not win souls? Are you despondent as to success in God’s way?..........In this house we have proved successfully, these many years, this great truth, that the gospel plainly preached will gain an audience, convert sinners, and build up and sustain a church. We beseech the people of God to mark that there is no need to try doubtful expedients and questionable methods. God will save by the gospel still: only let it be the gospel in its purity........
Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1888, vol. 34, p. 563

Now I realize this is a different issue, but it smacks of the same

You mentioned the word "is" is in italics. It is. The reasoning is simple, it is not int the original, but was added for sentence flow.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Observe the sentence without the italicized words. What you are saying is George Ricker Berry took the liberty to change a conjunction to a verb.

The conjunction is "kai". It is also found as the first word of 2Timothy 3:15. Both times translated "and". A conjunction. You have it changed to "is", a verb. There is a perfectly good word for "is", it is esti.

http://ia801503.us.archive.org/31/items/interlinearliter00ber/interlinearliter00ber.pdf
This is George Ricker Berry's interlinear by the way. He translates 2Timothy 3:16 as:
Every scripture [is] God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction for discipline which [is] in righteousness.

Now, I am not agreeing with his translation, but note these things.
- He did not change the conjunction to a verb
- He used italics (in his case he encased words not in the Greek in square brackets)
- His English and your English renderings of 2Timothy 3:16 are substantially different.

Quite misleading of you in fact.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]So to say "All scripture inspired by God is profitable" makes man the determining factor as to what is inspired and what is not. If I don't like what i read, I simply say "it is not inspired" and I thelogically remove myself from obedience. [/quote]

Not exactly, but yes?

Do you have any particular section of Scripture you can point to that spells out what books should or should not be included in the Biblical canon?

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]So to say "All scripture inspired by God is profitable" makes man the determining factor as to what is inspired and what is not. If I don't like what i read, I simply say "it is not inspired" and I thelogically remove myself from obedience.

Not exactly, but yes?

Do you have any particular section of Scripture you can point to that spells out what books should or should not be included in the Biblical canon?
[/quote]

No. Do you have any particular section you can point to that spells out what books shouldn't be included?

I ask you this because I assume your question was meant for me to justify which books were included in the canon. Without time, the simple answer is that Churches have accepted the 66 books of the Old and New as Canonical. Only the Catholic Church and it's offshoots have ever accepted the Apocrypha.

Now in saying this, I am aware that the NT quotes itself, and quotes the OT extensively, I am just not prepared to go through and pick out all the references for you.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]So to say "All scripture inspired by God is profitable" makes man the determining factor as to what is inspired and what is not. If I don't like what i read, I simply say "it is not inspired" and I thelogically remove myself from obedience.

Not exactly, but yes?

Do you have any particular section of Scripture you can point to that spells out what books should or should not be included in the Biblical canon?

No. Do you have any particular section you can point to that spells out what books shouldn't be included? [/quote]

Nope.

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]I ask you this because I assume your question was meant for me to justify which books were included in the canon.[/quote]

Yup.

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]Without time, the simple answer is that Churches have accepted the 66 books of the Old and New as Canonical. Only the Catholic Church and it's offshoots have ever accepted the Apocrypha. [/quote]

So man becomes the determining factor...

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]Now in saying this, I am aware that the NT quotes itself, and quotes the OT extensively, I am just not prepared to go through and pick out all the references for you.[/quote]

Actually, there are at least ten OT books never quoted in the NT and (if I recall), only one NT book quoted in another portion.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]So to say "All scripture inspired by God is profitable" makes man the determining factor as to what is inspired and what is not. If I don't like what i read, I simply say "it is not inspired" and I thelogically remove myself from obedience.

Not exactly, but yes?

Do you have any particular section of Scripture you can point to that spells out what books should or should not be included in the Biblical canon?

No. Do you have any particular section you can point to that spells out what books shouldn't be included?

Nope.

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]I ask you this because I assume your question was meant for me to justify which books were included in the canon.[/quote]

Yup.

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]Without time, the simple answer is that Churches have accepted the 66 books of the Old and New as Canonical. Only the Catholic Church and it's offshoots have ever accepted the Apocrypha. [/quote]

So man becomes the determining factor...

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]Now in saying this, I am aware that the NT quotes itself, and quotes the OT extensively, I am just not prepared to go through and pick out all the references for you.[/quote]

Actually, there are at least ten OT books never quoted in the NT and (if I recall), only one NT book quoted in another portion.
[/quote]

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
- Peter authenticates Pauls writing

1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Luke 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
Deuteronomy 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
- 1Timothy quotes both Deuteronomy and Luke

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]Actually, there are at least ten OT books never quoted in the NT and (if I recall), only one NT book quoted in another portion.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
- Peter authenticates Pauls writing

1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Luke 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
Deuteronomy 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
- 1Timothy quotes both Deuteronomy and Luke[/quote]

Yes?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

There are two "is"'s that were added for clarity.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Correct.

So to say "All scripture inspired by God is profitable" makes man the determining factor as to what is inspired and what is not.

I ask you this because I assume your question was meant for me to justify which books were included in the canon. Without time, the simple answer is that Churches have accepted the 66 books of the Old and New as Canonical. Only the Catholic Church and it's offshoots have ever accepted the Apocrypha.

But aren't Enoch and Jasher quoted? Regardless, you said:

So to say "All scripture inspired by God is profitable" makes man the determining factor as to what is inspired and what is not.

Then you said:

...that Churches have accepted the 66 books of the Old and New as Canonical.

So in reality, how can man NOT be the determining factor in your (our) belief?



Correct. And you just said that the word "is" was put in for clarity (both of them actually). Who made the determining factor to add the word to imply opinion? Men. Is that word "is" inspired (God-breathed) if not in the original?

If I don't like what I read, I simply say "it is not inspired" and I theologically remove myself from obedience.

So we are to "theologically" obey words that God did not demand of us?

You mentioned the word "is" is in italics. It is. The reasoning is simple, it is not int the original, but was added for sentence flow.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Observe the sentence without the italicized words. What you are saying is George Ricker Berry took the liberty to change a conjunction to a verb.

What I am saying is that "is" was not a part of the original text. Berry put "is" in brackets:

pasa
pasa
G3956
a_ Nom Sg f
EVERYall
grafh
graphE
G1124
n_ Nom Sg f
WRITingscripture
qeopneustos
theopneustos
G2315
a_ Nom Sg f
God-spiritedinspired-by-God

That was his "literal" (as I understand it) word-for-word rendering. He then added "is" in italics on the side:

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God,

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2ti3.pdf

Berry proves the point. He admits putting "is" into his interpretation to imply context (which is relative opintion) but his word-for-word shows that "is" is not there. More proof that "is" was put in by man.

No. Do you have any particular section you can point to that spells out what books shouldn't be included?

Which passages did Jesus say would not pass away? Could that not be an indicator?

FYI, I believe His answer would be Law, Prophets and His own words.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
- Peter authenticates Pauls writing

Two things. First, Peter did not write the book. But regardless, that point doesn't make a difference.

Second point is that the writer is equating Paul's words with the third section of the Jewish bible, the Ketuvim (Writings, Scriptures). At the time Paul penned his letters, the Scriptures section was deemed edifying but not God-breathed. And with the removal of "is" (which is not in the original text of II Timothy 3:16), Paul is stating that the only profitable Scriptures are those that are God-breathed.

 

[christundivided]

Second point is that the writer is equating Paul's words with the third section of the Jewish bible, the Ketuvim (Writings, Scriptures). At the time Paul penned his letters, the Scriptures section was deemed edifying but not God-breathed. And with the removal of "is" (which is not in the original text of II Timothy 3:16), Paul is stating that the only profitable Scriptures are those that are God-breathed.

I think anyone with much study in theology would have to admit this. Its not something easy to admit for the average person.

To even drive the point home a little stronger. If you study the words "gramma" and "graphe".... used in the texts referenced, you will find that "gramma" is pretty much used exclusively to denote a simple writing. It really carries no significant meaning when it comes to the idea of "graphe" or "Scripture".

For some time I have believed that a proper view of what Paul is telling Timothy goes something like this.

From a child you have known the various documents ascribed to be "holy". In this, I think Paul is even alluding to documents some considered holy and others didn't. Hence, Paul's appeal that Timothy knew "which ones" are actually "graphe" and others documents "gamma" are not. Canonical issues date back far past the time of the apostles.