Can We Trust The Holy Bible Today? Part 1

[Yeshua1]

Now you are making stuff up. This is the same as taking God's name in vain and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Jesus quoted and used the OT as being the very word of God, and he also stated that the same Holy Spirit that moved upon the OT prophets would now be coming upon and in his Apostles, to record down in the originals!

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly. If that verse applies only to Scripture that no longer exists then we not only cannot have confidence in the Scripture we have but the Scripture we have is wrong (the original Scripture was not around when Paul wrote those words).

They were in the process of being recorded down though, as evidenced by Paul quoting Luke as same as Isaiah in scripture, and peter acknowledging Paul as scripture also!

 

[Yeshua1]

" Can we trust the Holy Bible today?"

Based on some of the comments I see in threads like this, I would say that the answer is "no".

There are many today who cannot even decide what should be in the Bible ( as if it was somehow left up to a random vote and every man is an authority when it comes to picking and choosing what are His words ), what was part of the original manuscripts, and whether or not God even preserved it and what it should look like.

Proponents of the "Critical Text" tell us that passages like 1 John 5:7 and Acts of the Apostles 8:36-38, as examples, should not read the way that they do in older translations, when proponents of the "Received Text" or "Textus Receptus" tell us that we can believe that they are God's very words and that we can do so with confidence.

By and large, I would say that the textual critics of the past 150 years have not only succeeded in giving the Bible believer a non-answer ( if not a "no", then definitely not a "yes" ) to this question, but have done so to such an extent that threads like this become necessary to defend what was once not even questioned 200 years ago.

Welcome to the last days, where right is wrong, wrong is right, and God's words are in doubt by most of those who profess to know Him.


But I don't question their veracity, as I know where I can find them.

Are there any differences between your Kjv and the originals then? Both they and Kjv equally inspired then?

 

[JonC]

Jesus quoted and used the OT as being the very word of God, and he also stated that the same Holy Spirit that moved upon the OT prophets would now be coming upon and in his Apostles, to record down in the originals!

Yes, Jesus did. BUT Jesus did not quote "the originals". Jesus picked up a scroll in the synagogue and read the inspired Word of God (something you deny).

Where you took God's name in vain (and should be ashamed) is when you put words into Jesus' mouth and used Him as a puppet for your own agenda buy posting "Jesus knew that the OT was verbal Plenary inspired and that the NT would now be also!". This is taking God's name in vain because Jesus did not confirm that the OT was "verbal plenary inspired" but instead treated the OT that the NT Jews had as the inspired Word of God.

 

[JonC]

They were in the process of being recorded down though, as evidenced by Paul quoting Luke as same as Isaiah in scripture, and peter acknowledging Paul as scripture also!

The OT that Jesus had was not an original copy. The Scripture that Paul had was not an original autograph. IF Paul wrote that all Scripture is inspired, but did not really have the "inspired Scripture" and instead an "infallible but not inspired" OT then Paul and God is a liar. Period.

But Scripture IS inspired (even the OT that Paul, Jesus, and the Apostles had in their possession). God is NOT a liar. And you are wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, Jesus did. BUT Jesus did not quote "the originals". Jesus picked up a scroll in the synagogue and read the inspired Word of God (something you deny).

Where you took God's name in vain (and should be ashamed) is when you put words into Jesus' mouth and used Him as a puppet for your own agenda buy posting "Jesus knew that the OT was verbal Plenary inspired and that the NT would now be also!". This is taking God's name in vain because Jesus did not confirm that the OT was "verbal plenary inspired" but instead treated the OT that the NT Jews had as the inspired Word of God.

Jesus was stating that the original word of God was trustworthy, and that the NT books of the Apostles were to be just as inspired as the original OT books were!

 

[Yeshua1]

The OT that Jesus had was not an original copy. The Scripture that Paul had was not an original autograph. IF Paul wrote that all Scripture is inspired, but did not really have the "inspired Scripture" and instead an "infallible but not inspired" OT then Paul and God is a liar. Period.

But Scripture IS inspired (even the OT that Paul, Jesus, and the Apostles had in their possession). God is NOT a liar. And you are wrong.

you are dead wrong here that Paul and peter did not refer this to their original scriptures was in the process of recording down, as our translation are infallible, but not inspired nor inerrant!

 

[Logos1560]

Has it been soundly proven from the Scriptures that inspiration is to be considered an attribute or quality that describes the process of the copying of the Scriptures or the process of the translating of the Scriptures?

Do some KJV defenders soundly prove from the Scriptures the idea that inspiration is clearly identified in Scripture to be a continuing attribute or quality that will be or at least can be transferred in the later process of translation?

If inspiration was a continuing attribute or quality in the Hebrew Masoretic OT text and in the Textus Receptus NT text that could be transferred during translation, then it would be expected that it should have been transferred to the 1537 Matthew’s Bible, to the 1560 Geneva Bible, or to all the pre-1611 English Bibles. How would the fact of some significant textual differences in the varying printed Textus Receptus editions suggest that all the editions had the continuing quality of inspiration? If inspiration was not transferred to any of the pre-1611 English Bibles, does it suggest that inspiration was not a continuing quality or attribute that could be transferred or does it suggest that the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus did not have it? Could the same attribute be affirmed and denied of the same things which are dependent upon each other? If inspiration was an attribute or quality of any of the pre-1611 English Bibles, it could be regarded as a serious problem for KJV-only reasoning since the makers of the KJV made many changes and revisions to their “inspired” words. From which specific accessible perfect source is it asserted that the KJV directly obtained this claimed continuing attribute or quality of inspiration? The fact that the KJV was actually made from multiple, imperfect, textually-varying sources makes it difficult if not impossible for KJV-only advocates to explain from which one specific OT source and from which one specific NT source from the KJV is supposed to have obtained any continuing quality of inspiration.

Could the adjectival participial phrase [“given by inspiration of God”] simply present the means whereby the process of the giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles takes place instead of presenting a quality or attribute or instead of presenting the means for the different process of copying or the different process of translating?

Perhaps those KJV defenders who asserted that inspiration is not an attribute or quality that can be transferred during the process of translating and who asserted that inspiration is a term for the process by which the Scriptures proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles make the sounder and more scriptural case.

A few KJV-only authors may be trying to change the definition of inspiration in hopes of trying to justify their modern, human KJV-only reasoning.

 

[JonC]

you are dead wrong here that Paul and peter did not refer this to their original scriptures was in the process of recording down, as our translation are infallible, but not inspired nor inerrant!

Jesus and the Apostles considered the Old Testament to be Scripture. They considered what they were writing to be just as inspired as it was directly from God (Paul even specifies when it is not).

But you are ignoring the fact that Jesus Himself affirmed Scripture (not the original autograph but what Jesus quoted and read from the scroll) as Scripture, the words of God, and inspired.

I understand why you want to believe that we do not have God's Word today. But there is no evidence for this claim (it is a product of theology, not God).

You have to realize that there are many Christians (Martin Luther, John Calvin, for example) who believe that God is not only able to preserve His Word but has done exactly that because His Word are not the words but His revelation communicated through those words.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus and the Apostles considered the Old Testament to be Scripture. They considered what they were writing to be just as inspired as it was directly from God (Paul even specifies when it is not).

But you are ignoring the fact that Jesus Himself affirmed Scripture (not the original autograph but what Jesus quoted and read from the scroll) as Scripture, the words of God, and inspired.

I understand why you want to believe that we do not have God's Word today. But there is no evidence for this claim (it is a product of theology, not God).

You have to realize that there are many Christians (Martin Luther, John Calvin, for example) who believe that God is not only able to preserve His Word but has done exactly that because His Word are not the words but His revelation communicated through those words.

We do not need to have inspired translations in order to have fully trustworthy ones to us now!

If translation were indeed inspired, would be perfect....

 

[JonC]

We do not need to have inspired translations in order to have fully trustworthy ones to us now!

If translation were indeed inspired, would be perfect....

I think you are misunderstanding what I have posted and what Martin Luther has written on the topic.

I am saying that we have the inspired Word of God. I am not saying that individual translations are inspired. I am saying that man does not conquer God and divine inspiration transcends interpretation.

I know that I have a trustworthy bible because it is God's Word.

You say you have a trustworthy bible that is man's words, but I do not know that it is possible for man to produce anything that is completely trustworthy.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think you are misunderstanding what I have posted and what Martin Luther has written on the topic.

I am saying that we have the inspired Word of God. I am not saying that individual translations are inspired. I am saying that man does not conquer God and divine inspiration transcends interpretation.

I know that I have a trustworthy bible because it is God's Word.

You say you have a trustworthy bible that is man's words, but I do not know that it is possible for man to produce anything that is completely trustworthy.

It is trustworthy due to it being 99% of the original inspired word of the Lord to us, so indeed trustworthy and true!

 

[JonC]

It is trustworthy due to it being 99% of the original inspired word of the Lord to us, so indeed trustworthy and true!

You have no way of knowing it is 99% of the original words. You do not have the originals.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have no way of knowing it is 99% of the original words. You do not have the originals.

We have preserved by God to us now all of the manuscripts and lectionaries and uncils and others so we can get back to essential what the originals did record down to us still!

 

[JonC]

We have preserved by God to us now all of the manuscripts and lectionaries and uncils and others so we can get back to essential what the originals did record down to us still!

Nonsense. You have no way of knowing those manuscripts we have point to an original inspired text. You have no way of separating what you believe could point to a once inspired text from a man-made doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nonsense. You have no way of knowing those manuscripts we have point to an original inspired text. You have no way of separating what you believe could point to a once inspired text from a man-made doctrine.

We have no inspired text!

 

[JonC]

We have no inspired text!

Don't include me in your sect.

YOU have no inspired Scripture. I have the inspired, infallible, inerrant, and perfect Word of God.

 

[Alan Gross]

We do not have any of the Original Autographs of the writers of the Books of the Old and New Testaments. This has caused concern and even doubt to some who have mistakenly assumed, that because of this, the Holy Bible as we have it today, is not fully “trustworthy”, and therefore not the Infallible Word of Almighty God.

While it is true, that we do not have the Original Books, which alone God the Holy Spirit Inspired, it is not true that this causes any problems with the Trustworthiness and Infallibility of the Books of the Holy Bible. Biblical Inspiration is the Foundation for our completely trusting the 66 Books of the Holy Bible as The Word of Almighty God to humankind. This means, that when the writers of the Books of the Bible wrote, at that time, under the supervision and guidance of the Holy Spirit, what they wrote was 100% Infallible and without any errors. It is important that we fully believe in the verbal and plenary Inspiration, of the entire Books of the Bible. Another important point is, that for anyone to have a complete confidence and faith in the Holy Bible, as the Infallible, Inerrant Word of God, they must accept without any doubt or hesitation, that the Canon of The Old and New Testaments, are closed. And that the Old Testament consists of the Books as found in the Jewish Canon, which is the same number of Books as found in the so-called “Protestant Canon”, as opposed to the Roman Catholic “bible”, which also includes “books”, or “portions of books”, that were never Inspired by the Holy Spirit, nor accepted, or used as “Scripture”, by the Jews at the Time of Jesus Christ, or thereafter. For the number of New Testament Books, there is greater agreement of the 27 accepted Books, by almost all denominations in the Christian Church. Without the acceptance of the closed Canon of both Testaments, it is impossible to have full confidence in the reliability of what the Holy Bible, as we have it today, has to say about anything.

The Divine Inspiration of the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, is Unique, as something that God the Holy Spirit did to produce what is The Word of God. This means that NO translation that is made from the Original Autographs, can be, or are “Inspired” by the Holy Spirit. Divine Inspiration ended with the writing of the Original Autographs, and for any to claim that translations like the Greek Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, or even the King James Bible, are in any way also “Inspired” by Almighty God, are very much mistaken in this assumption! As this would place mere “translations” of the Originals, on the same “authority” as the Autographs, which is an impossibility.

The fact that the Holy Bible that we have today, as the Church has had for centuries, are not the Original, but “copies” made from the Original, does not mean that these “copies” are not to be trusted and therefore cannot be “Infallible” in what they say. Another important factor in the reliability of the Books of the Holy Bible, is the “preservation”, of the Books in the Holy Bible, especially concerning the text of these Books. We have today many “versions” of the Bible, for example in the English language. Some, like the King James, New American, Young’s, are what is known as “literal” or “word for word” translations, which try to keep as close to the original Hebrew and Greek, as possibly can be done. Then there are “versions” like the New International, and New Living, which are more “thought for thought” translations, which in many places, are “paraphrases”, of what the Writers actually did say. However, those these “versions” are different in how they read, yet, in the greater majority of places, they are saying the very same thing, but in a different way or style. It is important to believe, (which is what Christianity is, Faith) that God the Holy Spirit has made sure that in the textual evidence there is for the Books of the Holy Bible, as found in Manuscripts (Hebrew, Greek, etc), Ancient Versions (Greek, Syriac, Latin, etc), and the quotations found in the writings of the early “Church fathers”, are very important in establishing the true reading of any text in the Bible. So, for example, when in important passages in the New Testament, like 1 Timothy 3:16, “God was manifested in the flesh”, as found in versions like the King James, has been changed to “He Who was manifested…”; and in 1 John 5:7, which is the clearest Testimony to the Teaching of The Holy Trinity, which likewise has been changed by “corruption” in modern versions; we can be assured that Original Autograph readings as found in versions like the King James, have been preserved by the Holy Spirit. In other places, like John 1:18, where the King James reads, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son”, has rightly, because of the stronger textual evidence now available, reads: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God”, as in the New American Standard Bible. So, there can be no one “version” (translation) of the Holy Bible that can claim to be “Inspired” by the Holy Spirit, as all of the “versions” do contain, human, “copyists errors”, which were not in the Original Autographs, as they were Perfect. This means that we have to accept that the Trustworthiness and Reliability, of the Holy Bible, is indeed possible, if we do not limit our use to only one “version”, as some do, and reject all the others as not being from the Lord. Just because we have “copies”, does not mean that these are “inferior” in any way to the Originals, as these “copies”, when considered and compared, do give what the Originals had, though with some small variations. Because these “copies” are of the highest standard, as the Holy Spirit would have ensured, we can indeed say that what they say is “Infallible”, and fully “Trustworthy”, because they are “copies” from the Original that IS Inspired by God the Holy Spirit.

Divine Inspiration ended with the writing of the Original Autographs, and for any to claim that translations like the Greek Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, or even the King James Bible, are in any way also “Inspired” by Almighty God, are very much mistaken in this assumption! As this would place mere “translations” of the Originals, on the same “authority” as the Autographs, which is an impossibility.

.

The message to anyone who says and or believes, as demonstrated by their actions, this type of philosophy: is of no use to God.

The elimination of the influence and life of the proponent of the denial of the fully preserved inspiration of The Eternal Word of God is to be received and forgotten of.

The Word of God has been Preserved and I'd As Alive as The Holy Spirit and "is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and Spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.

Thoughts of the mind of man reasoning with and brain that has been fatally effected by the curse of sin inherited from our first greatest granddad, Adam, is flesh, which profits nothing.

"The Words I Speak into you are Spirit and Life".

The Bible is Alive, as The Inspired Words Preserved for us by The One and Only True and Living God.

The denial is a deathrattle in the throat of an apostate.

Jesus Said that The Words He Spoke wrre Spirit and Life.

How did He Know they would be Preserved for us?

Jesus is God.

God is Big Enough to Exault His Word Above His Name.

The Word Testifies of Him and He has His Word Inspired, Alive and We'll, in the hands of Mankind.

 

[SavedByGrace]

.

The message to anyone who says and or believes, as demonstrated by their actions, this type of philosophy: is of no use to God.

The elimination of the influence and life of the proponent of the denial of the fully preserved inspiration of The Eternal Word of God is to be received and forgotten of.

The Word of God has been Preserved and I'd As Alive as The Holy Spirit and "is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and Spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.

Thoughts of the mind of man reasoning with and brain that has been fatally effected by the curse of sin inherited from our first greatest granddad, Adam, is flesh, which profits nothing.

"The Words I Speak into you are Spirit and Life".

The Bible is Alive, as The Inspired Words Preserved for us by The One and Only True and Living God.

The denial is a deathrattle in the throat of an apostate.

Jesus Said that The Words He Spoke wrre Spirit and Life.

How did He Know they would be Preserved for us?

Jesus is God.

God is Big Enough to Exault His Word Above His Name.

The Word Testifies of Him and He has His Word Inspired, Alive and We'll, in the hands of Mankind.

which Bible translation IS The Perfect Word of God?

 

[JonC]

.

The message to anyone who says and or believes, as demonstrated by their actions, this type of philosophy: is of no use to God.

The elimination of the influence and life of the proponent of the denial of the fully preserved inspiration of The Eternal Word of God is to be received and forgotten of.

The Word of God has been Preserved and I'd As Alive as The Holy Spirit and "is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and Spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.

Thoughts of the mind of man reasoning with and brain that has been fatally effected by the curse of sin inherited from our first greatest granddad, Adam, is flesh, which profits nothing.

"The Words I Speak into you are Spirit and Life".

The Bible is Alive, as The Inspired Words Preserved for us by The One and Only True and Living God.

The denial is a deathrattle in the throat of an apostate.

Jesus Said that The Words He Spoke wrre Spirit and Life.

How did He Know they would be Preserved for us?

Jesus is God.

God is Big Enough to Exault His Word Above His Name.

The Word Testifies of Him and He has His Word Inspired, Alive and We'll, in the hands of Mankind.

I agree. People get caught up in "which translations are the Word of God" because translations differ.

It is, IMHO, spiritual ignorance to think that God can save us yet limit His inspired Word to the translation choices of men.

The Bible is the inspired Word of God because it is "God breathed" and transcends mere words on a page.

Scripture is not as a superficial thing those who wonder which translations would make it out to be.