He wrote in Koine Greek, but his style and how he wrote it was almost like classical greek, as was very refined!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can We Trust The Holy Bible Today? Part 1
- Thread starter SavedByGrace
- Start date
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Luke was Greek Gentile and not Jewish!
Agreed
Again, I understand what verbal inspiration means. And I understand this is the position you hold. Like I said, my position is more akin to Martin Luther (I believe God communicated His words to men who expressed those words in their terms to communicate to their immediate audience, even when they did not understand all that they were given).
I am not saying your position is unorthodox or even unpopular. I am saying it is a position I do not hold.
And I am saying it would make for an interesting thread, but there is no need to hijack this one (I think we both know you will just keep saying your view is correct but will never defend it).
Your view point on Scripture seems flawed to me.
My position is the view of Martin Luther (and, I would argue, of the Apostles in their handling of Scripture).
Again, you are welcome to start a thread and discuss the various ideas of inspiration. It would be a good topic.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
so the Original Bible did is not THE Word of God, but CONTAINS His word? This is like the NIV, NLT, CEV, GNB etc, which are "thought for thought" translations. But, when these are compared to the actual Hebrew and Greek, and the more "literal" translations, they are often way off the mark! What you are saying can mean that God told the writers one thing, and then they wrote it the best they THOUGHT it should read, like even paraphrasing the actual Words of God? Have I understood you clear on this?
No. You have hinted at Martin Luther's statements regarding the human aspect but dropped the ball a bit..
What I am saying is Scripture is the word of God. But God did not dictate "I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God".
Jesus quoted the Word of God at times, but He did not fo so imperfectly.
I am saying that words are essentially symbols conveying truth. God communicated His Word to men, but not necessarily by dictation.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
any reason why not? What objections do you have to this way?
I have no objections to it being done that way. I just do not believe it was done that way.
Why do you believe otherwise (that God dictated the words of Scripture)?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Part 3 of my study will look at Divine Inspiration
Paul appealed to the very word of the seed and not seeds of Abraham concerning Christ, how much more verbal plenary can it get?
This makes absolutely no sense.
We are not arguing whether or not Scripture is accurate but how it is inspired. Did God say "seed" (singular) or did God communicate "descendant (singular)? Either way Paul could reference the passage.
Jesus Himself stated that the OT was inspired to every jot and tittle, why would not the NT be such also?
It is. Exactly the same. And like us the time of Jesus was absent the original autographs of the OT.
Jesus knew that the OT was verbal Plenary inspired and that the NT would now be also!
Brethren in answer to the OP... If I can't trust the Holy Bible today, I want to be sure to be buried in a asbestos suit and have full coverage of fire insurance
... I believe it!... Read it!... Brother Glen
2 Timothy 3:16 ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
... I believe it!... Read it!... Brother Glen2 Timothy 3:16 ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Now you are making stuff up. This is the same as taking God's name in vain and you should be ashamed of yourself.
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).Brethren in answer to the OP... If I can't trust the Holy Bible today, I want to be sure to be buried in a asbestos suit and have full coverage of fire insurance
2 Timothy 3:16 ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
" 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.
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.
true, that refers to the Originals themselves!Brethren in answer to the OP... If I can't trust the Holy Bible today, I want to be sure to be buried in a asbestos suit and have full coverage of fire insurance
2 Timothy 3:16 ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.