A complete Bible is NOT necessary to trust God, nor for preservation!

[Mexdeaf]

Originally Posted by Baptist4life
That was not what I was referring to, and I think you know that! I'm talking about........some passages are IN some translations......some passages are NOT IN some translations...anyone that doesn't think that causes DOUBT about what IS or ISN'T the Word of God, IMHO, isn't very honest. After all, if one passage can be doubted by some to be the Word of God, why not other passages as well. It's basic COMMON SENSE to me.

To which I replied and it is my contention that:

Then every "Christian" from day One has reason to doubt.

I said it before and I'll say it again- my faith does not depend upon a translation.

Or as another man put it- a man who did not even believe in God:

"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

Not to mention, for several hundreds of years Christians did not even have a complete Bible, yet they managed to trust God. Christians in China (and Russia, predating the fall of the "Iron Curtain") have managed to get along fine on just snippets of God's Word.

 

[Baptist4life]

I'll repeat it...........


........some passages are IN some translations......some passages are NOT IN some translations...anyone that doesn't think that causes DOUBT about what IS or ISN'T the Word of God, IMHO, isn't very honest. After all, if one passage can be doubted by some to be the Word of God, why not other passages as well. It's basic COMMON SENSE to me.


BOTH translations CANNOT be the Word of God! One is RIGHT, one is WRONG. If people can't see the COMMON SENSE in that, I can't help them.

 

[sag38]

It only creates doubt and confusion in your mind. Please don't project your self created weakness onto the rest of us assuming that we exist in the same state of confusion that you live in.

 

[Baptist4life]

It only creates doubt and confusion in your mind. Please don't project your self created weakness onto the rest of us assuming that we exist in the same state of confusion that you live in.

How very Christlike of you. You talk to fellow Christians like that, and YOU are a pastor??!!??

You can just ignore me if I upset you that much.


BTW, there are LOTS of people who feel the way I do. And please notice..........I didn't mention ANY particular translations.

 

[Jim1999]

I don't trouble over he differences because some omit certain passages and some ad more. I draw my theology from the verses in common. The verses that support a theological thought. I have done that with my 1945 copy of the KJ version, thank you very much.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[annsni]

It's interesting that there are men and women around the world who do not even have the benefit of a full entire Bible and instead have a page or a few pages or maybe an entire book. But they never doubt that it is God's Word. Do they have more faith than you Bap4Life??

 

[SolaSaint]

I'm not sure of the passages or verses you are referring to but I'll assume you are talking about the end of Mark 16 and other passages that appear or don't appear in scripture. I would ask, "do any of these disputed passages stand alone in support of any essential Christian doctrine?" I would argue that these disputed passages are not critical to the whole of scripture and we can disagree on these without damaging the gospel.

 

[jbh28]

I'll repeat it...........


........some passages are IN some translations......some passages are NOT IN some translations...anyone that doesn't think that causes DOUBT about what IS or ISN'T the Word of God, IMHO, isn't very honest. After all, if one passage can be doubted by some to be the Word of God, why not other passages as well. It's basic COMMON SENSE to me.


BOTH translations CANNOT be the Word of God! One is RIGHT, one is WRONG. If people can't see the COMMON SENSE in that, I can't help them.

So what do you do then? Do you just ignore that there are textual differences. Do you just pick one and pretend that they don't exist? Having a few textual variants do not put doubt on the Word of God. That's just a straw man argument.

 

[Baptist4life]

So what do you do then? Do you just ignore that there are textual differences. Do you just pick one and pretend that they don't exist? Having a few textual variants do not put doubt on the Word of God. That's just a straw man argument.

What I DON'T do, as some on here do, is declare them BOTH to be the inerrant Word of God. Since one is right and the other wrong, that cannot be.

 

[RevGKG]

Since one is right and the other wrong, that cannot be.

Flawed logic and conclusion

 

[Baptist4life]

Flawed logic and conclusion

I call it COMMON SENSE.:thumbsup:

"Never argue with a pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig."

:wavey:

 

[RevGKG]

"Never argue with a pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig.":wavey:

This is why it would be a waste of time to pursue this topic with you.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I'll repeat it...........


........some passages are IN some translations......some passages are NOT IN some translations...anyone that doesn't think that causes DOUBT about what IS or ISN'T the Word of God, IMHO, isn't very honest. After all, if one passage can be doubted by some to be the Word of God, why not other passages as well. It's basic COMMON SENSE to me.


BOTH translations CANNOT be the Word of God! One is RIGHT, one is WRONG. If people can't see the COMMON SENSE in that, I can't help them.

Then according to you, our forefathers in the first few centuries of Christianity lacked common sense. As well as the men who translated the KJV and any other version that has footnotes that "cast doubts" upon God's Word.

 

[Baptist4life]

This is why it would be a waste of time to pursue this topic with you.

I'm sorry if that quote came across the way it did. All I'm trying to say is the internet is FILLED with people "arguing" over this very subject. Not one person that I have seen has changed their opinion after thousands of posts. My point is, I believe the way I do, I don't understand how some can believe the way they do (it's illogical to me), but I'm not going to get angry with them for what they believe, either. So continuing this discussion is pointless, and gets tiresome.

 

[jbh28]

What I DON'T do, as some on here do, is declare them BOTH to be the inerrant Word of God. Since one is right and the other wrong, that cannot be.

If you are referring to the translation, the translations are not inerrant.

 

[Rippon]

I'll repeat it...........


........some passages are IN some translations......some passages are NOT IN some translations...anyone that doesn't think that causes DOUBT about what IS or ISN'T the Word of God, IMHO, isn't very honest. After all, if one passage can be doubted by some to be the Word of God, why not other passages as well. It's basic COMMON SENSE to me.


BOTH translations CANNOT be the Word of God! One is RIGHT, one is WRONG. If people can't see the COMMON SENSE in that, I can't help them.

The KJV is still the Word of God despite its numerous additions and a few deletions. And of course the ERV,ASV,NASBU,RSV,NRSV,ESV,HCSB,NIV/TNIV,NLTse,MLB,GW,Norlie's and a bunch more are the Word of God.The last 13 are more faithful to the originals than are the KJV's. But,all in all,the KJV's are in the ballpark.

 

[Amy.G]

The KJV is still the Word of God despite its numerous additions and a few deletions. And of course the ERV,ASV,NASBU,RSV,NRSV,ESV,HCSB,NIV/TNIV,NLTse,MLB,GW,Norlie's and a bunch more are the Word of God.The last 13 are more faithful to the originals than are the KJV's. But,all in all,the KJV's are in the ballpark.

(bolding mine)

How can you possibly know that? There are no originals to compare them to.

 

[stilllearning]

The title of the OP says it all........

“A complete Bible is NOT necessary to trust God, nor for preservation!”

In English speaking parts of the world, here in 2010, we have the complete Bible.
--------------------------------------------------
So you have to ask yourself, why would English speaking people, who have access to a complete copy of God’s Word, “want” to cast doubt on parts of it.

The Answer: So that they don’t have to live by it.
(After all, if we are not sure, which parts of it are truly God’s Word, than certainly we should not be expected to obey it!)
--------------------------------------------------
Just like on the other thread about women in the Church:
Those who do not want to follow these particular instructions simply say....
“Well, these instructions were only for the people in Corinth, and they don’t apply to us.”

The heart of the problem is simple rebellion, disguised intellectualism.

If people don’t want to fully obey the Bible, all they have to do, is convince themselves and others that somehow we can’t be sure, exactly what God said, so we are off the hook.

 

[jbh28]

The title of the OP says it all........

In English speaking parts of the world, here in 2010, we have the complete Bible.
--------------------------------------------------
So you have to ask yourself, why would English speaking people, who have access to a complete copy of God’s Word, “want” to cast doubt on parts of it.

The Answer: So that they don’t have to live by it.
(After all, if we are not sure, which parts of it are truly God’s Word, than certainly we should not be expected to obey it!)
--------------------------------------------------
Just like on the other thread about women in the Church:
Those who do not want to follow these particular instructions simply say....
“Well, these instructions were only for the people in Corinth, and they don’t apply to us.”

The heart of the problem is simple rebellion, disguised intellectualism.

If people don’t want to fully obey the Bible, all they have to do, is convince themselves and others that somehow we can’t be sure, exactly what God said, so we are off the hook.

Any evidence of this, or do you like to falsely accuse the brethren?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So you have to ask yourself, why would English speaking people, who have access to a complete copy of God’s Word, “want” to cast doubt on parts of it.

The Answer: So that they don’t have to live by it.
(After all, if we are not sure, which parts of it are truly God’s Word, than certainly we should not be expected to obey it!)

The heart of the problem is simple rebellion, disguised intellectualism.

If people don’t want to fully obey the Bible, all they have to do, is convince themselves and others that somehow we can’t be sure, exactly what God said, so we are off the hook.

So was that the motivation of the translators of the King James Translation when they told us that a variety of translations was profitable and that marginal notes were necessary to understand the sense of scriptures?

I certainly have a higher regard for these men to call them rebels.