What is the real value of scripture?

You cannot know the God of the Bible without knowing the Bible .
Click to expand...

You might be amazed to discover that some people actually know the fellow the Bible is written about.
I think Elijah was somewhat familiar with God, and he never saw a Bible.
Same goes for all the apostles. Many of the Saints spoke with Jesus on a regular basis.

If I had the option, I'd go to the source. To a large extent, wasn't that the promise of the Holy Spirit, that he would lead people to all truth?
I don't remember Jesus saying anything about "read you Bibles".
 
Glomung said:
You might be amazed to discover that some people actually know the fellow the Bible is written about.
I think Elijah was somewhat familiar with God, and he never saw a Bible.
Same goes for all the apostles. Many of the Saints spoke with Jesus on a regular basis.

If I had the option, I'd go to the source. To a large extent, wasn't that the promise of the Holy Spirit, that he would lead people to all truth?
I don't remember Jesus saying anything about "read you Bibles".
Click to expand...
Yes He never said to read your bible but He expects us to know the Word of God so we would know Truth. Yes the Holy Spirit can speak to us directly and give us Gods Word, but we need to read the Bible to know what the Word is as well.
 
Glomung said:
You might be amazed to discover that some people actually know the fellow the Bible is written about.
I think Elijah was somewhat familiar with God, and he never saw a Bible.
Same goes for all the apostles. Many of the Saints spoke with Jesus on a regular basis.

If I had the option, I'd go to the source. To a large extent, wasn't that the promise of the Holy Spirit, that he would lead people to all truth?
I don't remember Jesus saying anything about "read you Bibles".
Click to expand...

And how do you know that who you say you know is Him of whom the scriptures speak of?
Yet did not Abraham who is the father of the faithful teach all his children what God had taught him? and not what God did not teach him?
and did not God tell people to go and w rite these things down that you forget not?and that was in the Old Testament. In Ezekial 37 for one .
And did not God by His own finger in the first instance write the ten commandments on the two tablets of stone and then by Moses in the 2nd.?
God is the God of the written word.
I see you do not address any of my objections or questions yet are willing to raise up more issues all the same before you do.
In truth the RCC has turned to error in her 'doctrines ' of Mary and other matters .Simply because she does not hold the scriptures above her own 'memory' and traditions .
This idea in the church that there was no written record and it was all oral is dubious . Given that God does not change .and just because the world relies on an oral tradition does not mean that the people of God did .
Did not Paul tell Timothy "ye have all the scriptures and they are able to make you wise unto salvation"? What scriptures where these ? If not the Old testament .
and considering that w still have that despite the many 'solutions' tried to destroy the Jews who carried it and who are an unbroken line and witness to the law and the prophets as well as back to Abraham who in turn was alive when Noah was who in turn was born not long after ADam but in the time of Methusala.
Then your over reliance on 'tradition should be by suspect by all including yourself expeciually in the light of the words of Jesus (how do I know that I wonder?) "Ye have by your traditions have made the Word of God of none effect"
But you speak of the Apostles as not having any scripture. Yet did not Jesus speak to the two on the road to Emaus not in some great revelation of Himself .But "STARTING at MOSES .........................................." began to go through all the scriptures that SPOKE of HIM.
That they might be then grounded in the Word of God.
and what of Peter who some day they honour ? Who saw the transfiguration of the Lord as he was praying on the mountain ;and with Him stood Moses and Elijah who communed with the Lord about His death?
Yet said "But we have a better prophecy......" Meaning that despite those great experiences .The better thing was the Word of God.
What of John who said "these things are WRITTEN that ye may know..............................."
Shall I again mention "all scripture is inspired by God and is good for correction reproof and instruction in righteousness...................." and much lese besides .Which you still have not addressed.
You mention Elijah and the Apostles . as if that justified you and your perception of the scriptures .
But you are neither an Elijah or an Apostle .
But even the Apostle Paul who is the true pattern to which all Apostles must in some measure conform to . NEVER went beyond scripture . But in all that he taught can be traced and find has its root in the scriptures. Where he promised believers that" he will lead you into all truth "
is he not "another comforter"? Who then was the first if not the Lord Himself . For the Spirit of truth is the Spirit of Christ .
How is it then you think that the Holy Spirit will not lead you to understand that same scripture he inspired men to so write?
and you say and talk about knowing Him?

"Little children your sins are forgiven for his names sake "


Jesus came that we may come to know and be reconciled to God the Father .

Young men ,because the WORD OF GOD abideth in you and ye have overcome the wicked one .

How pray do you think you will overcome the devil/temptation by any other way than how Jesus did so ? "It is written....................

I have WRITTEN to ye fathers because ye have known Him who is from the beginning . 1 John.

Should we live in cloud cuckoo land and think that all men speak the truth ? Or spirits too fro that matter .

Are we to blindly follow men and prelates who claim they are infallible or Apostles or prohpets .Without recourse to some more objective source?
Not even God demands it .How much less then of men

in Christ
gerald
 
You are very fond of typing it seems.
Rather than read all that and try to have a coherent response to a collection of incoherent accusations,
I'll just state the obvious again "you are to have a relationship with Jesus the Christ".
Everything else is a waste of your time.

If you do not know "how" to do that, no amount of reading will help.
Perhaps a dose of humility and an earnest search for God?
He said Himself, he who searches will find.
 
I found a lot of people think "Father, Son, and Holy Bible"... of which Jesus said:

John 5:39-40 (ESV2011)
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
 
Abdicate said:
I found a lot of people think "Father, Son, and Holy Bible"... of which Jesus said:

John 5:39-40 (ESV2011)
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
Click to expand...

It seems people needs must go from one extreme to the other .

If it is not all scripture and none Holy Spirit .
It is now presumed all Holy Spirit and not scripture .

If you have the scriptures and not the Holy Spirit you dry up.
If you have the Holy Spirit and not the scriptures you will blow up.
If you have the scriptures and the Holy Spirit . You will grow up.

There is nothing in all of scripture that encourages any one to disregard what is written.

My objections to such a unbalanced approach rest on these and also much else .

"All scripture is inspired by God and is good for correction ,reproof and instruction in righteousness........................"
If you then cast off the Bible you can neither be corrected or reproved or indeed instructed and I suppose might even count yourself infallible .

These things are written that ye might know ye have eternal life .

The Lords use of scripture to convince the two on the road to Emaus .
As well as in his disputes with religionists who thought the truth was what they said it was.

How shall a young man sin not against God ? If not by hiding His word in His heart ?

How indeed can you know Him who was from the beginning if you dismiss He who spoke in the beginning? and the written record of HIM ?

There are just so many scriptures I find it amazing that you present such an argument .
As If honouring the Word of God you deny the Spirit of God.

Indeed what say you to Him; who inspired them to write what was written which you dismiss or hold of little value yet say you honour Him who inspired them?

Ive said enough .
and those who presume I have said too much . Know little of what more could be said .Both of Him who they say they honour and Him of whom they say they speak of .

in Christ
gerald
 
Glomung said:
You are very fond of typing it seems.
Rather than read all that and try to have a coherent response to a collection of incoherent accusations,
I'll just state the obvious again "you are to have a relationship with Jesus the Christ".
Everything else is a waste of your time.

If you do not know "how" to do that, no amount of reading will help.
Perhaps a dose of humility and an earnest search for God?
He said Himself, he who searches will find.
Click to expand...

Yet strangely when Paul preached in Thessalonica there were some that "received the word with all readiness of mind and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES daily , whether those things were so " Acts 17:11

I leave it to you and any other to judge which is the wiser course and "more noble"

In Christ
gerald
 
GBzone said:
While I understand your reasoning .

There is a major flaw in it . and many assumptions .
That great flaw has no mention of God or the Holy Spirit in your argument and you analogy does not take into account that ALL scripture is inspired by God and while yes the four Gospels see things from four different angles . The Son of Man , The Son of God, The Kingdom of God and the Word of God .
Yet each Apostle was inspired what to wright according to" the mind of God" by the one who did and does know it.
It is beyond dispute and I am fully persuaded of it both by scriptures record and by the arguments of academics that there are corrupted texts .That is to say texts that have additions and omission s as well as other dubious renditions . and texts that have none .
To suggest that you mix them up is like saying you must have light and darkness to see the truth .Or truth and lies to know the truth .
As God separated the light form the darkness even in the beginning .It behoves men also to do the same . For God will also separate the children of light from the children of darkness at the end as well. Lest we find ourselves in the wrong camp.
Thus man needs the same Holy Spirit and in the same measure to understand what si written let alone to translate it as he was needed to write what was written .
If he does not he will go into error judging and subjecting all things (including the scriptures)by his own mind and intellect rather than by the Spirit of truth .

So while there was only four original eye witness accounts of the Life of Christ and one other "out of time" who was Paul who spoke of things the others did not . and while there have been many translators . Not all were are of God and even as there were already "false Apostles " in Johns time there have also been false texts and false translators even up to this present day .

I do not accept then your argument .Not out of contention for contentions sake but in love and for the truths sake .
Am I telling you what to do or not to do ? No I am not. Am I insisting that you use only the KJV for instance? No not really.
But in a negative argument its quite strange how so many people insist I don't use it or discard it as almost useless and unreliable and many a preacher has by implication and direct teaching has preached it so .
Yet in over 30 years and more I have never found it wanting (I don't use another) and as a sword it undercuts the accusations and objections of Islam who then say which Bible? Who boast in their one book. that's just in passing.
Yet strangely also all modern versions boast in their "better understanding" Yet those with so little or less understanding at the reformation were able to turn the world upside down and truly separated light from darkness .
Yet do you not find it strange that we with our "better understanding " not only do far less but I also see we are in a reverse reformation and those things once rejected and with good reason are now being accepted and the world is in the church and the church is in the world.
Something very wrong somewhere .

Both with the churches perceptions and reasoning.

in Christ
gerald
Click to expand...

I find your disagreements to actually be in agreement; however if you disagree that your positions of disagreement are actually in agreement, then we must in kindness agree to disagree that we are in agreement.

God bless you GBzone
 
Great Fiction said:
I find your disagreements to actually be in agreement; however if you disagree that your positions of disagreement are actually in agreement, then we must in kindness agree to disagree that we are in agreement.

God bless you GBzone
Click to expand...
That was a piece of Factually 'Great Fiction'
 
Great Fiction said:
I find your disagreements to actually be in agreement; however if you disagree that your positions of disagreement are actually in agreement, then we must in kindness agree to disagree that we are in agreement.

God bless you GBzone
Click to expand...

To whom was I replying? To you, or another?

If you are in agreement with me as to the great value and importance of scripture but do not agree with the poster Glomung as to his seeming causal approach to the scriptures.
Why the comment?
But if you did not understand the argument of both or if you did wish to sit on the fence on the matter .Does that warrant such a post?
Then I suggest that given the number of viewers to this particular line of discussion it is profitable to no one .

in Christ
gerald
 
And I don't think any poster minus the OP suggestion think scripture is without value. I looked up the word "glory" in esword the other day and there are 371 references throughout the bible. But many are out of context but what I got out of it is that man's glory is only a washed down version and reflection of the original source to whom all glory belongs. Being out of context, it can be interpeted many different ways.

Great Fiction was using the tool of humor to get a point out. It loses in translation depending on your point of view, I suppose.
 
Silk said:
And I don't think any poster minus the OP suggestion think scripture is without value. I looked up the word "glory" in esword the other day and there are 371 references throughout the bible. But many are out of context but what I got out of it is that man's glory is only a washed down version and reflection of the original source to whom all glory belongs. Being out of context, it can be interpeted many different ways.

Great Fiction was using the tool of humor to get a point out. It loses in translation depending on your point of view, I suppose.
Click to expand...

It is not just having 'some' value it is inestimable .
I would not dispute at all how many ways and times the word 'glory' is used . What do you mean they are taken out of context? If it is there then it in context can and does give a thorough understanding of the BIBLICAL understanding of 'glory'
Works is another where Paul speaks about works he is saying that by works we are not saved but by grace .
James using the same word "works" is speaking about works of faith or righteousness that come after and prove your faith .
ALL men have faith whether saved or not . For according to what faith " IS" as defined in Hebrews then as "God has given to every man a measure of faith to profit withal" We should understand by the scriptures use of the word the difference between faith in God and faith in idols and other things. as well as every day of a persons life it is in use . Those then who decry faith and condemn it .It should be understood do but undermine themselves to their ruin.
Surely mans point of view without God is always wrong . How on earth (literally) are we to be "....transformed by the renewal of our minds"
if we keep the same old thinking and perspective of the old man?
is not one of the primary purposes of the Bible to see things from GODS "point of view"?
it is only when we see our own hearts and nature from Gods point of view and not our own "......and who can know it...." That we understand the precarious situation we are in and the danger and by Gods tender mercies we are then led to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Thus the heart is transformed . The Body redeemed now the mind has to be renewed.,
That we more and more see things form Gods pint of view ands walk by faith rather than by sight form our own point of view.

Thus the word glory is applicable in many instances .The glory of a flower is indisputable . But it simply reflects the glory of God .
each thing that God has made has its own 'glory' but as you say nothing can boast in itself for what we have if we have is of God .
I used to wonder at the scripture that' says "the whole earth is filled with the glory of God" For I could not 'see' it. It was not so much that I did not believe what the scriptures said but did not see what it meant . But in very truth the earth IS filled with the glory of God .

It speaks of Jesus as the fullness of His glory or the brightness of His glory .
God is light .
If you look around you the light is around us all . But in every truth the sun has a glory that if you could look at it you would see the brightness of its glory .
A spot light dissipates light in a certain direction and there is the light general and there is the fullness of it when you look at the bulb a sit were.

Jesus is the brightness of Gods glory .
and one day the church or rather the Bride is to become the fullness of it .
Yet still all the glory is Gods and ever shall be .
For it is He that has done the work and trod the wine press alone .

But when Paul spoke about sharing in His suffering or finishing it . The only way I could think of it was as a floor sweeper in a great factory who sweeps up after the work is done .
We are co workers with God or can be and as such " he will not forget your labour of love " and those who suffer with Him will also reign with him .
But he who seeks his own glory is not righteous .But he who seeks the glory of Him that sent is both righteous and his message si true .

I objected to the humor because it implied that such a loose idea and value of scripture was as equal or in agreement with what scripture says we should have .

in Christ
gerald
 
I liked your passages on glory,btw, but I used it as an example to show that when you separate the various verses out of context, it is easier to manipulate and spin the meaning to something it was never meant to mean. But as I have already posted - taken as a whole, even out of it's original context, it still has the original truth. All creation can only reflect God's glory, it is never solely or ever any man's (or woman's) glory. We can reflect it or not, as our only choice. The value of understanding scripture, I agree, is "inestimable". The value of twisting scripture is equally of great value to darkness and false preachers/misleaders.

Some say we learn better from an inherent message given with humor. Apparently, this is not always the case.
 
GBzone said:
To whom was I replying? To you, or another?

If you are in agreement with me as to the great value and importance of scripture but do not agree with the poster Glomung as to his seeming causal approach to the scriptures.

Why the comment?

But if you did not understand the argument of both or if you did wish to sit on the fence on the matter .Does that warrant such a post?

Then I suggest that given the number of viewers to this particular line of discussion it is profitable to no one .

in Christ
gerald
Click to expand...

Forgive me if my point was too brusque, and I only meant it in the kindest way to point out that terminological contradictions can mean the same thing or something opposite.

I find that "truth" can be seen from many vantage points and perspectives strive for divine knowledge to know "truth" (Christ).

Is it possible that "perspective" is simply different about the "same truth" most of time? Thus, is another person to be wrong as they understand the "same truth" from a different perspective? I should think being open to "different perspectives" leads to better understanding of the "same truth," thus I rationalize that you simply speak from a different perspective about the same truths quite often. For I have seen no person here corrupt the truth but simply offer perspective for it.

Once I was at a graduation celebration for my daughter and my niece was late trying to get to our location. On the phone I asked her where she was, and she exclaimed, "I may be lost for I am right across the street from a certain department store." I replied, "Then look just next door, as we are right beside the department store in mention. She searched and searched in frustration, and could not find us because she was in "another city" in a "different location" that supported similar logistical criterion and places as our location. After she realized she was in a different "location" she then realized that "her directions were different than ours in order to arrive at the same place."

CBzone is it possible that your philosophical logistics fall to unique variance regarding the same divine truth that other people around the world are also engaging? For I see the same Savior of the world divinely defended in your writings like I do many but with differentiating perspective. Why must every perspective be contested my friend? I bear witness that you are my brother in Christ for which I can learn much, yet I would offer that we all can learn from different perspectives. I have also learned from Glomung and find him our co-benefactor to disseminate the truth.

Can we agree that we are all from different walks of life going through unique circumstance as Christ reveals His life-saving truth to us who are called according to His purpose? Is it possible that each person surviving the death-throes of earthly satanic power, by His love, is then equipped with a unique contributing perspective for the body? Also as we sojourn history in variance to ascertain translatable accuracy, and also apprehend original language renditions coupled with prayer and meditation, we then all have unique contributions to increase our knowledge in common? I suggest not that all things said are true but would suggest that a "spirit of discussion" culminates to much knowledge between brothers and sisters in the Lord.

For if a productive contribution is amputated quickly then that member is no longer in use by the one who amputates it.
 
Great Fiction said:
Forgive me if my point was too brusque, and I only meant it in the kindest way to point out that terminological contradictions can mean the same thing or something opposite.

I find that "truth" can be seen from many vantage points and perspectives strive for divine knowledge to know "truth" (Christ).

Is it possible that "perspective" is simply different about the "same truth" most of time? Thus, is another person to be wrong as they understand the "same truth" from a different perspective? I should think being open to "different perspectives" leads to better understanding of the "same truth," thus I rationalize that you simply speak from a different perspective about the same truths quite often. For I have seen no person here corrupt the truth but simply offer perspective for it.

Once I was at a graduation celebration for my daughter and my niece was late trying to get to our location. On the phone I asked her where she was, and she exclaimed, "I may be lost for I am right across the street from a certain department store." I replied, "Then look just next door, as we are right beside the department store in mention. She searched and searched in frustration, and could not find us because she was in "another city" in a "different location" that supported similar logistical criterion and places as our location. After she realized she was in a different "location" she then realized that "her directions were different than ours in order to arrive at the same place."

CBzone is it possible that your philosophical logistics fall to unique variance regarding the same divine truth that other people around the world are also engaging? For I see the same Savior of the world divinely defended in your writings like I do many but with differentiating perspective. Why must every perspective be contested my friend? I bear witness that you are my brother in Christ for which I can learn much, yet I would offer that we all can learn from different perspectives. I have also learned from Glomung and find him our co-benefactor to disseminate the truth.

Can we agree that we are all from different walks of life going through unique circumstance as Christ reveals His life-saving truth to us who are called according to His purpose? Is it possible that each person surviving the death-throes of earthly satanic power, by His love, is then equipped with a unique contributing perspective for the body? Also as we sojourn history in variance to ascertain translatable accuracy, and also apprehend original language renditions coupled with prayer and meditation, we then all have unique contributions to increase our knowledge in common? I suggest not that all things said are true but would suggest that a "spirit of discussion" culminates to much knowledge between brothers and sisters in the Lord.

For if a productive contribution is amputated quickly then that member is no longer in use by the one who amputates it.
Click to expand...

While I can sympathise with your sentiment .
I will always oppose that which is clearly contrary to scripture and while you may think that is purely a subjective view of what I think is contrary you would be mistaken.
I also understand and acknowledge that there are levels both of understanding and maturity .I also understand and appreciate the fact that the very basics of Biblical and Spiritual truth do not and are not contradictory even as the "meat" of the word is not as well.
and like the elementary principles of mathematics or the milk of mathematics which are + - x and division need to be learnt before anything else can be . No higher mathematics at whatever level contradicts the first and each part dovetails perfectly with the next .
So too the laws of physics which while they are diverse do not contradict each other but are always in perfect harmony and sync with all the rest .
So too then spiritual and Biblical truths .
For any truth that you learn as a new born child of God will not be out of harmony and vice versa with any thing else we may come to understand as we grow in grace and in the knowledge of God .
Thus as it si spoken of in Ephesians "till we all come to the unity of the faith " The sound doctrines of biblical truth and spiritutal understanding are like the bones in the body. Each ahs their function and work but each joined ot the other as a whole works together.

I do not accept that you can mix corrupted texts and uncurroupted texts .Though people do it .
Nor do I accept that by doing so you will arrive at the truth . But rather will arrive at confusion.

and most certainly will not come" to a unity of THE faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints "
Though you will come to a unity of '/a ' faith that will accept every false religion and doctrine to accomadate a form of unity but it will be at the expense of truth .

In Christ
gerald
 
GBzone said:
I do not accept that you can mix corrupted texts and uncurroupted texts .Though people do it .
Nor do I accept that by doing so you will arrive at the truth . But rather will arrive at confusion.
Click to expand...

God bless you CBzone

I agree with everything you just said but singled this part out for more discussion, as this is the nexus of our disagreement. Not that we disagree to tangible position regarding anything but regarding what is unknown.

Can you if possible without going to any other subject matter define with specificity "what are corrupted texts" and "uncorrupted texts" in context to "manuscripts that are used for "English translations?"

For new testament translations are "comprised" and "translated" from countless manuscripts (24,000 available for the New Testament). Which manuscripts do you claim is corrupted and which manuscripts do you claim are uncorrupted? Also which languages or one language will you acknowledge? For example the original New Testament writings in Greek have deteriorated to dust, thus we now have 24,000 manuscripts that are available to "translate from." Thus we have Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic? For the New Testament, will you choose Greek only? Then you can narrow your selection down to 5,000 plus manuscripts. Which ones do you rule out, which ones do you accept?

I propose as an example, that you will find a plethora of textual variations with them all, not knowing if "Jesus went, walked or travelled" often times by exact word to a given city, but would with boldness testify that Christ did in fact "go to a certain city" since over 15 thousand manuscripts in history can testify that He did in fact go to a certain city. Manuscripts are accurate to track where Christ went, record what He said regarding truth and principles, yet every syllable in the King James or another translation may not be regarded always as accurate.

Did Christ die for our sins? Yes
Is He the Son of God? Yes
Is the covenant of salvation offered to you and me so that we might obtain life eternal? Yes

Truth emerges from the thousands of manuscripts because they "testify in common" with accuracy many things that happened.

Thus what corrupted texts are you referring too? Please be specific so that I might benefit from your contribution my friend
 
Not to mix-up the question but there have been several previous threads regarding modern vs not so modern english translations. Being in the main, a KJV reader (NASB in a pinch), I was surprised just how major the differences can get. Search youtube and you find several good videos on this point. I looked for a short one but the same pastor has a longer and more detailed video if you want to pursue this.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top