A bias-free Jude 25 discussion

[Ed Edwards]

The same might be said of the Bible in comparison with Pilgrim's Progress.

The fact remains that in Jude 25 there are two distinct streams in the MS tradition:
one is an accurate representation of the inspired Word, one is not,
one is God-breathed and faithful, the other is not,
while both are profitable and worthy of study, only one is actually God's inspired Word, the other, scribal redaction only.

Your answer is a logical error: the False Dichotomy (only two choices are possible). Doubt causes logical errors; Faith causes proper logic.

So we both end up displaying our biases in a thread labeled "A bias-free discussion" :tonofbricks:

As it stands today, it appears that God has blessed us with two different renditions of this verse,
both are accurate and acceptable,
both are God-honoring and faithful,
both are profitable and worthy of study.

Rob

Amen, Deacon Rob -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Bias comes from Doubt; blessings come from faith.



More than one Scripture
magnifies God's Word.

Psalm 34:3 (KJV1611 Edition):
O magnifie the Lord with me,
and let vs exalt his name together.

 

[Deacon]

I'm looking at the differences practically,
Like I said earlier, I do have my opinions
but within a small Bible study group I don't have any problem following along in a text that follows a different tradition.

BlueFalcon writes: “one is an accurate representation of the inspired Word”
In other words you mean: one is an accurate representation of the originally written words.

Problem: we don’t have these originally written words for comparison.

Again you write: “one is God-breathed and faithful, the other is not”

Definition - Faithful: marked by fidelity to the original.

Again the problem is we don’t have these originally written words for comparison.

• Since we can’t compare it to the original,
• Since consensus of opinion is unobtainable (and since opinion isn’t solid proof),
• Since God has seemed fit to allow such differences,
• Since both renditions honor God,

All opinions and biases set aside,

There is nothing unfaithful to God’s character or witness in either rendition.

Rob

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother Deacon -- you won this debate hands down.

And I commend you for doing so graecfully.

 

[Bluefalcon]

Just because we may not know with certainty which version of Jude 25 is original and which is not does not mean that both must therefore be original and inspired. Both cannot be original. Those who deny this are reflecting a stupid and logically puerile notion.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Just because we may not know with certainty which version of Jude 25 is original and which is not does not mean that both must therefore be original and inspired. Both cannot be original. Those who deny this are reflecting a stupid and logically puerile notion.

Jesus said:

March 10:15 (KJV1611 Edition):
Uerily I say vnto you, Whosoeuer shall not receiue the kingdome of God as a little childe, he shall not enter therein

I have the childish notion that it is God's logic that His will be preserved and His will here was that both lines are correct on Jude 1:25.

Jude 1:25 (NIV):
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

Jude 1:25 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
That is, to God only wise, our Sauiour, be glorie, and maiestie, and dominion, and power, both nowe and for euer, Amen.

Until one assumes both are right, they will not get to the truth higher than the one reading they accept. Yet God (only wise) our Savior, He has preserved both lines and both lines are right. God cannot be blamed for being stupid here - that is balsphemy.
[/FONT]

 

[Salamander]

Amen, Brother Deacon -- you won this debate hands down.

And I commend you for doing so graecfully.

Um, only if we all agree you are the final judge.:laugh:

I believe and know that God being wise has nothing pre-requisitely to do with being through Jesus Christ.

If looked at chronologically, God was the only wise God before Christ was born of a virgin.

Yet if we look at this from the eternal standpoint, God is Christ, and Christ is the only wise God as the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world.

It seems the adding of "through Jesus Christ" implies some irrational concepts prior to the NT concerning whether or not God was already wise.:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

Just because we may not know with certainty which version of Jude 25 is original and which is not does not mean that both must therefore be original and inspired. Both cannot be original. Those who deny this are reflecting a stupid and logically puerile notion.

Can I borrow that hammer? I have a few particular nails to drive!:laugh:

 

[Deacon]

The OP didn’t ask us to declare what we thought was original, it asked what was ‘more correct’.
Definition - Correct: free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth

It is impossible/improbable that both are original.
It is possible that one could be ‘original’
but it’s also possible that neither reflects the exact wording of the original.

In any case both (or many) could be ‘correct’.

And since both impart godly truth, it’s even possible that both might be considered inspired/God breathed.
The historical reality is that both were considered 'inspired Scripture' in different parts of the world in their time.

Rob

 

[Bluefalcon]

Ed, remove your antilogic blinders and be reasonable. God preserved MS 713 among others containing Mt 4:1, where that MS reads, "Then Jesus was led into the desert to be tempted by the Spirit" (TOTE O IHSOUS ENHCQH EIS THN ERHMON PEIRASQHNAI UPO TOU PNEUMATOS). God preserved both, but that does not make both "right." Your logical fallacy is that whatever God preserved is thus inspired by God and therefore right. God is right, scribes are not infallible, and you are wrong.

 

[Salamander]

The OP didn’t ask us to declare what we thought was original, it asked what was ‘more correct’.
Definition - Correct: free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth

It is impossible/improbable that both are original.
It is possible that one could be ‘original’
but it’s also possible that neither reflects the exact wording of the original.

In any case both (or many) could be ‘correct’.

And since both impart godly truth, it’s even possible that both might be considered inspired/God breathed.
The historical reality is that both were considered 'inspired Scripture' in different parts of the world in their time.

Rob

Um, all I did was impose doctrine on the possible positions and I didn't PROVE which one is right?????????

The KJV has it right and without question. To interject "through Jesus Christ can and does suggest something contrary to established doctrine.

But what the hay? Doctrine isn't "proof" in the days of anti-doctrinal positions.:tonofbricks:

 

[Salamander]

Ed, remove your antilogic blinders and be reasonable. God preserved MS 713 among others containing Mt 4:1, where that MS reads, "Then Jesus was led into the desert to be tempted by the Spirit" (TOTE O IHSOUS ENHCQH EIS THN ERHMON PEIRASQHNAI UPO TOU PNEUMATOS). God preserved both, but that does not make both "right." Your logical fallacy is that whatever God preserved is thus inspired by God and therefore right. God is right, scribes are not infallible, and you are wrong.

You're asking alot of him.:laugh:

 

[robycop3]

So far, you gents have been a real help; I've learned somthing from EACH of you.

THANX for everything so far.

 

[Bluefalcon]

Ed, I wish to apologize for my harsh and rather rude posts. Please forgive me, brother. My conduct was not like that of Christ. I was wrong. BTW, I can tell that you are a polite and Christian gentleman.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Um, only if we all agree you are the final judge.:laugh:

...

Learn some Doctrine: like Priesthood of the believer.
I am responsible before God for judging these matters (not people, matters). I judge them for me and expressed my opinion. I did not judge them for anybody else. :wavey:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed, I wish to apologize for my harsh and rather rude posts. Please forgive me, brother. My conduct was not like that of Christ. I was wrong. BTW, I can tell that you are a polite and Christian gentleman.

If it will help you, I accept your apology and forgive you.

In the future :wavey: it would help me a lot if you would COMMIT AN OFFENSE before apologizing and asking for forgivness. Thank you now for your future help.

 

[Salamander]

So far, you gents have been a real help; I've learned somthing from EACH of you.

THANX for everything so far.

I'm starting to FEEL all warm and fuzzy again!:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

Learn some Doctrine: like Priesthood of the believer.
I am responsible before God for judging these matters (not people, matters). I judge them for me and expressed my opinion. I did not judge them for anybody else. :wavey:

The Priesthood of the believer is granted by the Lord to be certain what the word of God says, and not as some, still guessing what it says and where it is to be found!

Show me where doctrinally I am wrong?

 

[Ed Edwards]

In post #37//The Priesthood of the believer is granted by the Lord to be certain what the word of God says,
... //

Amen, Brother -- Preach it!

In post #37 // ... and not as some, still guessing what it says and where it is to be found!//
Appears to contradict each oth4er ^ v
In trailer/signature: //We would have nothing less than the pure, undefiled, unadulterated and perfect word of God.//

Here would be my signature as a Freedom Reader:

I have nothing less than the pure, undefiled, unadulterated and perfect word of God -- in multiple version.

I'm sure my HCSB is pure, undefiled, unadulterated and perfect word of God & I have it in my hand/computer.
I'm sure my NIV is the pure, undefiled, unadulterated and perfect word of God & I have it in my hand/computer.
I'm sure my pastor's NASB is the pure, undefiled, unadulterated and perfect word of God & I have it in my hand/computer

 

[Salamander]

In post #37//The Priesthood of the believer is granted by the Lord to be certain what the word of God says,
... //

Amen, Brother -- Preach it!

In post #37 // ... and not as some, still guessing what it says and where it is to be found!//
Appears to contradict each oth4er ^ v
In trailer/signature: //We would have nothing less than the pure, undefiled, unadulterated and perfect word of God.//

Here would be my signature as a Freedom Reader:

I have nothing less than the pure, undefiled, unadulterated and perfect word of God -- in multiple version.

I'm sure my HCSB is pure, undefiled, unadulterated and perfect word of God & I have it in my hand/computer.
I'm sure my NIV is the pure, undefiled, unadulterated and perfect word of God & I have it in my hand/computer.
I'm sure my pastor's NASB is the pure, undefiled, unadulterated and perfect word of God & I have it in my hand/computer

Uh-oh, so you think God can be deceived? Something's IMPURE about that thought!

"Defiled"? NIV has left somethings out that are proven to be doctrinally correct and it is found to be defiled by its omissions. Mary was a virgin, a young girl, but most emphatically a VIRGIN!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Salamander: //Uh-oh, so you think God can be deceived? Something's IMPURE about that thought!//

I know you got this from some liar in whom you have misplaced your trust. I do not think God can be deceived. However you got that statement, you have been deceived somewhere. Yes, there is something IMPURE about that thought, but it is your thought, not mine.

I'm willing to cut you some slack and consider that you don't understand your KJV, whichever edition you use, instead of deliberately lying. People can try to deceive God, but it won't work.

Are you thinking of what a now banned member said:
//Can God be deceived as the NASB teaches in Ps. 78:36? The NASB says the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not letting Him control your behavior, but you certainly cannot deceive Him.//

in this place:

http://www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-26436.html

Psa 78:36 (KJV1l769 family of Editions, e-sword with Strong's Numbers edition):

Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth,
and they lied unto him with their tongues.

Uh, can a person LIE to God? No, a person cannot lie to God.

So if there is something wrong with this verse in the NASB then there is also something wrong in the KJVs here.

I detect a double standared here where an error in the KJVs is alright but the same error in a MV is wrong.

Salamander: //"Defiled"? NIV has left somethings out that are proven to be doctrinally correct and it is found to be defiled by its omissions. Mary was a virgin, a young girl, but most emphatically a VIRGIN!//

The NIV says: //Luke 1:26-34//
In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." 29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." 34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

I don't know which part of the NIV in desperation you believe should have 'virgin' in it, but three times here in a row tends to suggest: Mary was a Virgin. Remember Ed's Rule of Thumb: Don't base your Doctrine on your misreading of one part of one edition of one version of one translation. There is safety in numbers: read lots of parts of the Bible, read lots of editions, read lots of versions, read translations in all languages you understand.

Caveat: I know I've used 'Salamander' and 'liar' in the same post. Some people get bent out of shape with confusion when I do that. The two words both relate to different things NOT TO THE SAME PERSON.