Peter Exalts Scripture Over Tradition

DHK:

Greetings....I think you are missing the point of the discussion so far. The Church councils that determined the canon of Sacred Scripture did not have an inspired table on context. They relied first on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then on Tradition to test if the proposed writings were inspired. As Im sure you are aware, there were several false gosples and other books claiming to be inspired that were not. Hence, when the Gnostics were pushing writings that denied Jesus was God, they were confronted with the teachings of the apostles proving that this train of thought was heretical. They could not go to Scripture as we can today, because of the fact that the canon had not been formalized at that time. So, the early Church had to sort through these documents and figure out which were authentically apostolic writings--those by an apostle or an associate of an apostle--and which were merely human writings--those merely claiming to be an apostle. The way they did this was applying certain tests.

God bless....

 

Greetings Logan, I haven't seen you around for some time. I agree with you on some things, disagree on others. There were certain tests that they had to apply to verify whether the Scripture was authentic or not. I believe I mentioned some of those "tests" or guidelines in a post above. But I do not believe it was given to a church council. I believe that the early churches were intellectually capable enough to discern which were authentic and which were not. We do not give the early believers enough credit here. The apostles authenticate their own Scripture as is demonstrated in the first few verses of 2Peter 3. Peter also refers to Pauls epistles as Scripture, and as sometimes hard to understand. Paul refers to his own writings as Scripture, but I am sure that he did not refer to them all as Scripture, as he wrote many more epistles than those that are just recorded in the Bible. The Holy Spirit guided him as to what was Scripture and what was not. This guidance (teaching was handed down from Paul to Timothy and others. You may call that tradition. I do not.

2Tim.2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

It was Timothy's duty to teach others, who would in turn teach others. That is not tradition. It is the Biblical method of missions, and the propagation of the truth of God through the local church. The medium was the Word of God. That is what Paul taught.

Paul also advised Timothy to beware of false prophets, as you mentioned. There were many in the area. He was to test them against the Word of God. "Take heed unto thyself and to the doctrine."
DHK

 

Hi Swaimj,

You wrote, "I appreciate the question, but since Baptists see it as scripture and the Catholic church holds it as scripture, let's discuss what it says and what it means."

I'm glad that you appreciate the question, but I' not concerned with whether you appreciate it or not. I'm concerned with your answer to it.

If 2 Peter is telling us to reject Tradition, then you should not accept 2 Peter as Scriputre because it is by way of Christian Tradition that we accept it as Sacripture.

To start from the vantage point of the canon, which is received from Tradition and the authority of the Church, and argue Sola Scriptura is to chop your legs out from underneath you.

The reason you accept 2 Peter as Scripture is because it came bound in the Bible that you purchased. And, it ended up in that Bible because that is the New Testament canon decided by the Catholic Bishops in council.

As late as A.D. 324, the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea wrote,

One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon . . . Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3:3:1, 3:25:3, A.D. ).

Eusebius, an Ecclesial Historian writing before the NT canon was closed by the Catholic Church, tells us that the tradition he has received does not accept 2 Peter as Scripture.

The Catholic Church, with her authority, disregarded that tradition and accepted 2 Peter as Scripture.

So, relying upon the Catholic Church and her Tradition while quoting from her Scripture in order to undermine that same Church and Tradition is ridiculous.

I hope, by the grace of God, you will understand your faulty reasoning.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 26, 2002, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world."4 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent,5 who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.2.1

 

Hi Ps104_33,

Quoting Catholics on this board again? I can do that too!

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Gaul:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

 

Catholis but not Roman Catholics

 

I have a copy of the Douay-Rheims Bible and an American Standard Catholic Edition. Both copies contain Second Peter, as does the Latin Vulgate. Either you are a modernist that denies the Word of God, and should have left with the atheists,
or believe what your own church teaches that Second Peter belongs in your own Bible.
DHK

 

Carson,

Would it not be impossible to give men absolute security against error in any other way than by being infallible themselves? When you profess faith in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic magesterium, aren't you, in reality professing faith in your own infallibility?
Doesnt your belief rest, in the end, on an act of your own judgement and it can never attain any higher certainty than whatever that may be able to give you? Havent you at some time in your life applied an act of private judgement when you decided to put eternal soul in the hands of the Magesterium of the Church of Rome?

How do you know that your decision to put your faith in the Roman Church is an infallible one?

If the Roman Catholic Church tells you that you cannot find the truth without her help then how can you be absolutely sure that you chose the right Church?

[ November 26, 2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]

 

DHK:

Yes it has been awhile....I seem to have little time to visit here lately.

Now the canon of the New Testament was formalized at the councils of Carthage and Hippo in 393 A.D. and 397 A.D. and also the council of Rome in 382 A.D. This is confrimed by all Protestant professors I have read. If you know some other view, please share. Prior to these councils (and during) there were many different versions of Acts
of the Apostles and the Gospel of Thomas and so forth, floating around that many wanted and believed were inspired. If it was left up to the indivdual, as you suggest, I believe you would have many different "inspired" bibles floating around today. (Much like we have denominations).

This does not work for me for the simple reason that many of the books that were rejected as Scripture would have passed this test, as you said some were written by the apostles, but were not inspired. Others claimed to be written by an apostle but were found not to be.

Paul himself calls it tradition (paradosis) in 2 Thess. 2:15.

I say Amen! This is what tha Church has been holding to for nearly two thousand years.

I will go with you on this, but the problem arises and has...when you have any Tom, Dick or Harry believing that the person teaching him is wrong and goes and starts his own church and the problem just keeps reoccurring (Protestant churches) and you have a thousand different views on a given subject when the apostles handed down just one.

[ November 26, 2002, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Logan ]

 

Hi Ps104_33,

Catholis but not Roman Catholics

Nope. Roman Catholics. Read the quote from Irenaeus above:

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles."

Would it not be impossible to give men absolute security against error in any other way than by being infallible themselves?

Nope. Because the Holy Spirit is God and he the one who uses men in such a way as they do not err.

When you profess faith in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic magesterium, aren't you, in reality professing faith in your own infallibility?

Nope, I'm professing faith in the infallibility of the Holy Spirit.

Doesnt your belief rest, in the end, on an act of your own judgement and it can never attain any higher certainty than whatever that may be able to give you?

Yes, in the end, we believe. The infallibility of the Church is an article of faith, and I'm a believer.

Havent you at some time in your life applied an act of private judgement when you decided to put eternal soul in the hands of the Magesterium of the Church of Rome?

Of course.

How do you know that your decision to put your faith in the Roman Church is an infallible one?

By faith. I'm a believer.

If the Roman Catholic Church tells you that you cannot find the truth without her help then how can you be absolutely sure that you chose the right Church?

But, I can find the truth without her help. It is just that the light Christ gives us through his Church helps speed up the process. The Catholic Church is really a sublime gift.

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "I have a copy of the Douay-Rheims Bible and an American Standard Catholic Edition. Both copies contain Second Peter, as does the Latin Vulgate. Either you are a modernist that denies the Word of God, and should have left with the atheists, or believe what your own church teaches that Second Peter belongs in your own Bible.

I do believe what the Catholic Church teaches, and I do accept 2 Peter as Scripture. Perhaps you, DHK, shouldn't put words in others' mouths. It's the honest and charitable thing to do.

God bless you,

Carson

 

Swamji:
I agree II Peter is inspired of God. Men may know it is authentic the same way one determines any document of antiquity is genuine. It is all evidence.
For example, How do I know George Washington was the first president of the U. S. I have never met him. I have never talked to him or had any contact with him. One may know he was the president because of the credible witnesses, and the documentation he was the first president.
One must examine the evidence to know the Bible
is authentic. How is this determination made?
1. Are the documents historically credible?
2. Are the documents harmonious with other inspired writings in the new testament?
3. Are there credible witnesses who can verify the authenticity of authorship?
4. Are the writings themselves accurate in the information provided?
5. Did the contemporaries of the writer accept the text as genuine?
6. Are the events chronicled accurately portrayed?
7. Are the writings harmonious with all of the Bible?
8. Are they free of contradiction?
II Pet. meets the litmus for authenticity in each area.

I have two questions realted to this topic.
One, are there contemporaries of the author in question who object to him as the writer of the book?
Two, If so, what is the evidence to support the objection?

 

Would it not be impossible to give men absolute security against error in any other way than by being infallible themselves?

Nope. Because the Holy Spirit is God and he the one who uses men in such a way as they do not err.

When you profess faith in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic magesterium, aren't you, in reality professing faith in your own infallibility?

Nope, I'm professing faith in the infallibility of the Holy Spirit.

Doesnt your belief rest, in the end, on an act of your own judgement and it can never attain any higher certainty than whatever that may be able to give you?

Yes, in the end, we believe. The infallibility of the Church is an article of faith, and I'm a believer.

Havent you at some time in your life applied an act of private judgement when you decided to put eternal soul in the hands of the Magesterium of the Church of Rome?

Of course.

How do you know that your decision to put your faith in the Roman Church is an infallible one?

By faith. I'm a believer.

If the Roman Catholic Church tells you that you cannot find the truth without her help then how can you be absolutely sure that you chose the right Church?

But, I can find the truth without her help. It is just that the light Christ gives us through his Church helps speed up the process. The Catholic Church is really a sublime gift.
[/QUOTE]

Carson, you almost sound like a Baptist.We have the holy Spirit as our infallible guide too.
But how do you know that the magesterium is being guided by the Holy Spirit? Because the magesterium told you?

So if I say that I put my faith in the fact that the Bible alone is my sole guide what right do you have to question my faith?

 

Hi Ps104_33,

Carson, you almost sound like a Baptist.We have the holy Spirit as our infallible guide too.

No, that's not what I claimed. I didn't claim that I have the Holy Spirit as my infallible guide. I claimed that the Holy Spirit infallibly guides the Magisterium.

But how do you know that the magesterium is being guided by the Holy Spirit? Because the magesterium told you?

Because of what Scripture testifies to.

So if I say that I put my faith in the fact that the Bible alone is my sole guide what right do you have to question my faith?

The fact that Scripture contradicts your stance.

What do you think of this quote by Augustine?

You know, you read the Fathers like you do the Bible. You pick a passage here and discard the rest over there.

Augustine and the Papacy has been thoroughly covered already in another place:

http://www.catholicconvert.com/Page_Viewer.asp?inc=webster/augustinewebster.html

and there is no need for me to reproduce the scholarship that has been accomplished above, except for the example below:

"Augustine’s extensions of Matt 16:18 apart from Peter himself were never used to downplay or ignore the primacy of St. Peter or his successors, the bishops of Rome. ... Far from repudiating the Catholic understanding of Matt 16:18, I will provide testimony from Augustine to show he interpreted Matt 16:18 in various ways during his life and not exclusively equating "this rock" with Christ Himself. In addition, I will provide several citations from Augustine to show that he had a well developed understanding of the primacy of St. Peter and of his successors, the bishops of Rome."

"Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail." Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51

"Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church." Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51

"When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?" Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ " Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76

"And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?" In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223

"Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built." In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251

"And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above." In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513

May God bless you,

Carson

 

And how do you know that the Scriptures testify to this?

And on and on we go, ad infinitum.

Good night Carson. Some of us work for a living.

 

Hi Ps104_33,

And how do you know that the Scriptures testify to this?

Because of the testimony of the Catholic Church. For the exact same reason that you do.

St. Augustine put it well when he wrote:

"In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should...With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion...For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."

St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.)
Against the Epistle of Manichaeus A.D. 397
[Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti]

When you attack the Catholic Church, you undermine the foundations of your belief in the Gospels for the precise reason that the Church came first, the Church wrote the Gospels, the Church testifies to the authenticity of the Gospels, and the Church has preserved the Gospels' very existence.

He who claims faith in the Gospels apart from the testimony and authority of the Catholic Church is foolish. Such a claim is illogical and a-historical.

It is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith.

John Henry Newman said it well when he wrote, "I think I may assume that this virtue, which was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their people to judge for themselves" ("Discourses to Mixed Congregations", Faith and Private Judgment).

And in proof he advances the instability of Protestant so-called faith: "They are as children tossed to and fro and carried along by every gale of doctrine. If they had faith they would not change. They look upon the simple faith of Catholics as if unworthy the dignity of human nature, as slavish and foolish".

Yet upon that simple, unquestioning faith the Church was built up and is held together to this day. And, I'm not ashamed of this faith that I have. It's a gift from God, and I praise him for it.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 26, 2002, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Posted by Logan:

I agree that there were many spurious books floating around, even at the time of the Apostles. The question revolves around "inspiration." What is inspiration? How did the early believers know what books were inspired, and which ones were not? The key is in inspiration, for only inspired books are contained in the Bible. (I'll leave the debate about the Apocrypha for another time).

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In verse one of Hebrews one, the author tells us that God revealed Himself to the fathers through the prophets, in various ways. Sometimes it was through dreams, sometimes visions, or an audible voice, or some other means. The truth was spoken through man and then written down. God was using human instruments as the writers of the Old Testaments, and in time 39 books were written.

God also spoke (verse 2) in these last times (the times of Christ) unto us by His Son. God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ (John 1:14), and those things were written down. Four writers were chosen to write down the inspired record of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Luke was inspired to write Acts, and Paul to write 13 of the epistles, as well as James, John, Peter, Jude. In 27 books the revelation of God was written down that centers around the person and life of Jesus Christ. The supernatural process by which this took place is called inspiration.

2Pet.1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Note some things about these two verses. First, no prophecy was an act of any man's private interpretation. No prophecy was an act of any man's human will. All prophecy was from God. "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." The word "moved" means to be "carried" or "borne along," These words were literally "carried along" by the Holy Spirit. These writers wrote the words of the Scriptures, and the words were borne along or carried along by the Holy Spirit. They are inspired words. They became inspired before the ink was dry on the papyrus.
In verse 21 it says again that no prophecy came by the will of man, that is, by an act of the human will. It is a miraculous book authored by God. "No prophecy of the Scripture," refers to all the scripture. Prophecy in this sense is referring to the message of the Bible, not the prediction. Prophecy means to speak forth. The sense here is that no message of God anywhere in the Bible has a human source. It is all inspired.

One cannot just make a decision to write Scripture. "No prophecy was ever made by an act of the human will." It is impossible, and therefore easy to spot forgeries. You can't produce Scriptures from the human will. You can't produce Scripture by any private origin. Holy men spoke from God. That is where Scripture came from. The Holy Spirit gave the message, and the Holy Spirit selected the author, who wrote down the message, which became inspired Scripture. They spoke for God, writing down what God wanted them to say. That is inspiration.

2Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
"All Scripture is ‘inspired' by God" Here the word "inspired" means "God-breathed." It is an interesting verb that is used here. One needs to breathe to live. You take in oxygen, by inhaling, use that same air to use your vocal chords and speak, and breathe out again. You can't speak without breathing. In the same sense the Words of God are God-breathed. God breathed out Scripture. God spoke Scripture. It is the very breathe of God. It is exactly what He wanted said.

The early church recognized these things early on. They could recognize what books were God- breathed, inspired, and which were not.
How did they know the difference? There were very, very distinct ways they knew what was biblical. One, they knew that it needed to be written by one of God's true spokesman, a prophet of God in the case of the Old Testament, an Apostle of God, or an associate with the Apostles in the New Testament. They knew it had to have therefore apostolic authorship, or apostolic affirmation. In the Old Testament they were prophets of God, spokesmen for God who wrote those books. Everyone knew who they were.

They were also affirmed by their internal content. It was clear that they were consistent with everything else in the Scripture. They had a supernatural element to them. They had the miraculous element to them. They exalted the greatness of God and condemned the sinfulness of man which is what God tends to do, not false writers and false teachers. It was very clear to them what the canonical books, they're called canonical from the word canon which was the word for a standard, they are the standard books of revelation. Church councils recognized in the fourth century officially the canon of the New Testament, but unofficially the church had always known what belonged in the text and what did not. It was easy to recognize. Was it written by an Apostle in the case of the New Testament or an associate of an Apostle? Did it have that air of supernatural character? Did it have that exaltation of God and Christ? And did it have that- -that condemnation of iniquity? Was it consistent with all other New Testament writings? And was it affirmed by the Apostles themselves?

The church, to put it in illustration form, the church did not give us the New Testament canon, anymore than Isaac Newton gave us the law of gravity. The law of gravity existed before Isaac Newton identified it. The canon existed before the church identified it. It was God who gave us gravity. It was God who gave us Scripture. We recognized it. The church recognized it. And God then is the author of everything that Scripture says. There is nothing in Scripture that God did not Himself write. And the church has universally affirmed that. As the Old Testament of 39 books has been universally affirmed through the ages, so has the New Testament. There is really no equivocation on that point. We have the living and abiding word of God.

(Summarized from John MacArthur)
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-156.HTM
DHK

 

"Telling people it isn't scripture is an attack."

And accusing someone of saying this when they did not is bearing false witness.

I have read through Carson's posts on this thread and he made no such statement.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]On this thread, Ron. On this thread. His exact words to me on another thread were...

"I am not naive enough to believe 2Peter is scripture." I cannot remember the thread, but you can read further attacks on this 2Peter by Mr. Weber here.....

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001185;p=2

 

Actually, I beleive that what Peter is saying is that we can be "more sure" of the truth of the prophecy (Scripture) because it has the additional witness of Peter (ie. his oral testimony).

That is why he starts out saying that he is an eye witness.

Here are various translations. I think that over all they support my understanding of the verse in question.

And we have the word of the prophets made more certain NIV

So we have the prophetic word made more sure NASB

And we have the prophetic word [made] firmer still. AMP

Because of that, we have even greater confidence in the message NLT

We have also a more sure word of prophecy KJV

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed NKJV

And we have the prophetic word [made] surer DARBY

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Bump