Please Show Scripture That Says...

[Reformed1689]

Ok you read an inanimate object: a book.
It's printed symbols on paper.
Something happens inside your heart.
You admit you are a wretched sinner.
You thank Jesus Christ for dying for your (Reformed1689's) sins.
You believe that this Jesus rose from the dead (Why would you believe something improbable like that
who no one you know has ever seen)
and who you understand about from reading symbols on a piece of paper.
Then, you, Reformed1689, actually invite this Jesus, who you know from a piece of paper,
to come into your life,
and theee-een you actually thank Him for it.

That is really ridiculous. Really.
You don't see how ridiculous that is?

Talk about missing the point ...

How can a book be alive and change lives if it's not inspired?
A book inspired from God who made you a Reformed person?

I never said the Bible was not alive and inspired. That is a strawman argument.

 

[Reformed1689]

My heart is flesh.
You can use scholarship, logic, and intellect and rely on your knowledge to argue and have your fun but I am trying to rest in the printed word of God.

"I never said the Bible was not alive and inspired."
Great.
Then we are both ridiculous people.


Every word of God is pure.
He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Proverbs 30:5

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[SGO]

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Sorry I was a bit perturbed.
Deleted from my end.

 

[Logos1560]

It's called scripture and all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Are you trying to suggest the bogus KJV-only claim that "given by inspiration of God" is supposedly the definition of Scripture when it is not?

The term Scripture would refer to words of God that are written, but the process of writing would not be its definition. According its usage and meaning in the Scriptures, the noun Scripture does not include all words that ever have been written. Words can be written without them being Scripture. Words can even be written in or added to a copy of the Scriptures without them being Scripture. Marginal notes or commentary can be added to a copy of the Scriptures without the added words being Scripture. According to truths suggested in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19, would words added by men in a copy of the Scriptures become Scripture? Would any errors written by imperfect men in a copy of the Scriptures become Scripture according to a correct definition of it? Would any actual errors introduced by printers in a printed edition of Scripture become Scripture according to its correct definition? The term Scripture refers to actual words given by inspiration of God, but this process of the giving by inspiration is not actually stated to be its definition as some KJV-only advocates try to assume and claim. Since the process of writing clearly is not the definition for the term Scripture, could it also be asserted that the process of giving by inspiration is not its definition?

Should a Greek adjective at 2 Timothy 3:16 be considered the definition for the Greek noun translated “Scripture”? While an adjective can describe a certain noun, that adjective would not usually be the total definition of that noun. The Scriptures are described by several adjectives that may indicate its attributes or qualities so that no one of them is its definition.

While all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, being “profitable” is not the definition for the term Scripture. Something can be “profitable” and perhaps even profitable for doctrine/teaching without it being Scripture. This adjective “profitable” is used of Scripture in the same verse (2 Tim. 3:16) to which KJV-only advocates appeal for their claimed definition so why is it not included as part of the definition that they claim is given in this verse? While the words of Scripture are pure (Ps. 19:8, Prov. 30:5, Ps. 12:6, Ps. 119:140), being “pure” is not the definition of the term Scripture. Is it interesting that the adjective pure is not claimed by KJV-only advocates to be the definition of Scripture? Something can be pure without it being Scripture. Something can go thru a purification process without it being Scripture. The word of the LORD is tried (Ps. 18:30), but that does not mean that being “tried” would be the correct definition for the term Scripture. Something can be tried without it being Scripture. Being “perfect” is not the definition of scripture even though the word of God is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25). The words of Scripture are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, John 119:160), but the adjective “true” is not actually the definition of the term “Scripture.” Something can be true without it being Scripture. Being “wonderful” is not the definition of Scripture even though its testimonies are wonderful (Ps. 119:129). The words or commandments of the LORD are sure (Ps. 111:7, Ps. 92:5, Ps. 19:7, 2 Pet. 1:19), but the adjective “sure” is not their definition. Something can be sure without it being Scripture. The adjective “right” is not claimed to be the definition of Scripture even though the words of Scripture are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4, Ps. 119:75). Something can be right without it being Scripture. The Scriptures are described by the adjective “holy” (2 Tim. 3:15), but that does not mean that this adjective is its definition. The prophets and the apostles were also described by the adjective holy (Rev. 22:6, Eph. 3:5, Rev. 18:30) so would that in effect make them the Scriptures if holy was claimed to be its definition? Likewise, while all Scripture is God-inspired or God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), being “God-inspired” or “God-breathed” has not been soundly demonstrated to be the actual definition of the term Scripture. Can God breathe into something without it being Scripture? God breathed into man or Adam (Gen. 2:7, Job 33:4) so would Adam be Scripture according to the claimed KJV-only definition of it? Perhaps KJV-only advocates failed to prove that they are giving the definition of Scripture in Scripture.

Are KJV-only advocates consistent in suggesting which type statements in Scripture are to be claimed to be definitions? For example, would KJV-only advocates take the statement “God is love” (1 John 4:16) and treat it the same way as though it were a definition of God? Would they take the statement “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and treat it as though it were a definition of God? Would they take the statement “I am holy” (Lev. 11:44, 1 Pet. 1:16) made by God and treat it as though it were a definition of God?

 

[George Antonios]

Paul called Timothy's childhood copies scriptures then told him all scripture is given by inspiration of God.
Timothy did not grow up on the original autographs.

 

[Logos1560]

Paul called Timothy's childhood copies scriptures then told him all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Do you demonstrate that you are reading something into 2 Timothy 3:15 that it does not state nor teach?

The verse (2 Timothy 3:15) does not actually state that Timothy’s Jewish mother, Timothy’s Jewish grandmother, or Timothy had copies, scrolls, a codex, or a physical book with a complete copy of the Old Testament in their possession or in their hands. The verse did not even directly say that Timothy’s mother, Timothy’s grandmother, or Timothy had read the holy Scriptures. The verb read is not used in 2 Timothy 3:15.

This verse said that Timothy had known the holy scriptures, and he could have known them by more than one way. Timothy could have known the holy scriptures first by being taught them by his mother and grandmother and later by hearing them read at a synagogue or the temple. Timothy’s mother and grandmother may also have known the scriptures by hearing them read, and then they repeated what they remembered and knew of the Scriptures to Timothy.

In the Old Testament, it is noted that the priests were to read the law to all Israel every seven years (Deut. 31:9-13). The Jews often had known the Scriptures orally by either hearing them read or hearing a prophet of God speak the words of God. Gary Long observed: “The Hebrew Bible’s audience primarily heard rather than read the text” (Grammatical Concepts, p. 7). Does 2 Timothy 3:14 indicate or acknowledge that Timothy had received and learned from oral instruction? Were the five brothers of the rich man to hear “Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29) by hearing a priest or someone read from the writings of Moses and the prophets since most Jews did not have their own individual or personal copies? Do KJV-only advocates cite any verses where it is stated that each Jewish home was to have possession of a complete copy of the Old Testament in their home? Would KJV-only advocates try to suggest that the scriptures cannot be known by hearing? David Cloud asserted: “Scriptures written as scrolls were distributed only in portions,” and he indicated that a scroll copy of just the book of Isaiah would be about 24 feet long (Faith, p. 115). In the days of Jesus on earth, it is indicated that copies of Scripture were found at a synagogue, such as the copy of Isaiah, possibly a scroll, that was delivered to Jesus to read (Luke 4:16-17). From hearing the Scriptures read, Timothy’s mother and grandmother may have memorized or remembered some or many portions that they repeated to Timothy. In Acts 15:21, it is suggested that something from the writings of Moses was read in the synagogues every sabbath. Could Acts 15:21 be connected to John 5:47 where the same Greek term in 2 Timothy 3:15 is translated “writings” as used for the writings of Moses? Should 2 Timothy 3:15 be considered a parallel reference to John 5:47? Does Acts 15:21 reveal or demonstrate one way that Eunice and Lois could have known the Scriptures so that they could teach them to Timothy? Could Eunice and Lois have also known the Scriptures from hearing the preaching or teaching of Paul or one of the other apostles? Does Acts 18:14 indicate that people can receive the word of God without having personal, physical, complete copies of it?

Perhaps in their home Eunice and Lois may possibly have had a copy of a few brief written portions that they could read, but 2 Timothy 3:15 does not state directly anything about any personal possession of copies or anything about reading. In New Testament times, Jews may have had phylacteries (Matt. 23:5) [strips of parchment with four scripture passages (Deut. 11:13-22; Deut. 6:4-9; Exod. 13:11-16; Exod. 13:1-10) written on them] in their homes, but is there any clear indication in Scripture that they typically had complete copies of the entire Old Testament?

 

[George Antonios]

Do you demonstrate that you are reading something into 2 Timothy 3:15 that it does not state nor teach?

The verse (2 Timothy 3:15) does not actually state that Timothy’s Jewish mother, Timothy’s Jewish grandmother, or Timothy had copies, scrolls, a codex, or a physical book with a complete copy of the Old Testament in their possession or in their hands. The verse did not even directly say that Timothy’s mother, Timothy’s grandmother, or Timothy had read the holy Scriptures. The verb read is not used in 2 Timothy 3:15.

This verse said that Timothy had known the holy scriptures, and he could have known them by more than one way. Timothy could have known the holy scriptures first by being taught them by his mother and grandmother and later by hearing them read at a synagogue or the temple. Timothy’s mother and grandmother may also have known the scriptures by hearing them read, and then they repeated what they remembered and knew of the Scriptures to Timothy.

In the Old Testament, it is noted that the priests were to read the law to all Israel every seven years (Deut. 31:9-13). The Jews often had known the Scriptures orally by either hearing them read or hearing a prophet of God speak the words of God. Gary Long observed: “The Hebrew Bible’s audience primarily heard rather than read the text” (Grammatical Concepts, p. 7). Does 2 Timothy 3:14 indicate or acknowledge that Timothy had received and learned from oral instruction? Were the five brothers of the rich man to hear “Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29) by hearing a priest or someone read from the writings of Moses and the prophets since most Jews did not have their own individual or personal copies? Do KJV-only advocates cite any verses where it is stated that each Jewish home was to have possession of a complete copy of the Old Testament in their home? Would KJV-only advocates try to suggest that the scriptures cannot be known by hearing? David Cloud asserted: “Scriptures written as scrolls were distributed only in portions,” and he indicated that a scroll copy of just the book of Isaiah would be about 24 feet long (Faith, p. 115). In the days of Jesus on earth, it is indicated that copies of Scripture were found at a synagogue, such as the copy of Isaiah, possibly a scroll, that was delivered to Jesus to read (Luke 4:16-17). From hearing the Scriptures read, Timothy’s mother and grandmother may have memorized or remembered some or many portions that they repeated to Timothy. In Acts 15:21, it is suggested that something from the writings of Moses was read in the synagogues every sabbath. Could Acts 15:21 be connected to John 5:47 where the same Greek term in 2 Timothy 3:15 is translated “writings” as used for the writings of Moses? Should 2 Timothy 3:15 be considered a parallel reference to John 5:47? Does Acts 15:21 reveal or demonstrate one way that Eunice and Lois could have known the Scriptures so that they could teach them to Timothy? Could Eunice and Lois have also known the Scriptures from hearing the preaching or teaching of Paul or one of the other apostles? Does Acts 18:14 indicate that people can receive the word of God without having personal, physical, complete copies of it?

Perhaps in their home Eunice and Lois may possibly have had a copy of a few brief written portions that they could read, but 2 Timothy 3:15 does not state directly anything about any personal possession of copies or anything about reading. In New Testament times, Jews may have had phylacteries (Matt. 23:5) [strips of parchment with four scripture passages (Deut. 11:13-22; Deut. 6:4-9; Exod. 13:11-16; Exod. 13:1-10) written on them] in their homes, but is there any clear indication in Scripture that they typically had complete copies of the entire Old Testament?

A) You don't know that know doesn't imply he had copies. The historical odds are that he did, especially since that knowledge spanned 3 generations. If that's your only counter, I'll take it!

B) Acts 8:32 The place of the SCRIPTURE which he READ was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Was the eunuch reading the Hebrew original autograph of Isaiah?

 

[Reformed1689]

A) You don't know that know doesn't imply he had copies. The historical odds are that he did, especially this that knowledge spanned 3 generations. If that's your only counter, I'll take it!

B) Acts 8:32 The place of the SCRIPTURE which he READ was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Was the eunuch reading the Hebrew original autograph of Isaiah?

The message is Scripture, the words being read are Scripture. That has nothing to do with saying the copies were somehow inspired. That is simply absurd.

 

[George Antonios]

The message is Scripture, the words being read are Scripture. That has nothing to do with saying the copies were somehow inspired. That is simply absurd.

That was absurd. But again, I'll take it!

 

[Reformed1689]

That was absurd. But again, I'll take it!

George the burden of proof is on you. You have not even come close to meeting that burden. Instead, you just look foolish to hold onto this crazy idea that is outside the realm of honest biblical interpretation.

 

[George Antonios]

George the burden of proof is on you. You have not even come close to meeting that burden. Instead, you just look foolish to hold onto this crazy idea that is outside the realm of honest biblical interpretation.

2Co 5:13 For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God:

 

[Reformed1689]

2Co 5:13 For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God:

What does this have to do with this subject?

 

[Logos1560]

That was absurd. But again, I'll take it!

Readers can see that you take following and advocating the subjective opinions, absurd speculations, and assumptions of man over what the Scriptures actually state and teach. You may assume and presume based on use of fallacies, but you do not prove from the Scriptures that your view is scriptural.

 

[George Antonios]

Readers can see that you take following and advocating the subjective opinions, absurd speculations, and assumptions of man over what the Scriptures actually state and teach. You may assume and presume based on use of fallacies, but you do not prove from the Scriptures that your view is scriptural.

Yeah ok.

 

[Scott Downey]

Ok you read an inanimate object: a book.
It's printed symbols on paper.
Something happens inside your heart.
You admit you are a wretched sinner.
You thank Jesus Christ for dying for your (Reformed1689's) sins.
You believe that this Jesus rose from the dead (Why would you believe something improbable like that
who no one you know has ever seen)
and who you understand about from reading symbols on a piece of paper.
Then, you, Reformed1689, actually invite this Jesus, who you know from a piece of paper,
to come into your life,
and theee-een you actually thank Him for it.

That is really ridiculous. Really.
You don't see how ridiculous that is?

Talk about missing the point ...

How can a book be alive and change lives if it's not inspired?
A book inspired from God who made you a Reformed person?

Because the words you read are backed up by the Spirit working in your heart first.
You can read scriptures in many languages, but it is the same Spirit who is working.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”
16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

God speaks his living word into your spirit, you are taught by the Holy Spirit.
Reading scripture out of a book is good to meditate upon and learn about God, but the work being done is somewhat hidden from the mind, from His Holy Spirit to your spirit the deep things of God are revealed to you on the inside of your heart, your spirit. It is after all your spirit which is saved.

Paul here speaks about this, note that v4 he is talking about the manifestation of the Spirit through the spiritual gifts the early church had an abundance of.
But 10-13 applies for all time his people in how He works in you.

1 Corinthians 2
New King James Version

Christ Crucified
2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Spiritual Wisdom
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

 

[Scott Downey]

Jesus says this in John 5 about scriptures.. and people who are not being taught by the Holy Spirit,

37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

Those who do come to Christ, are the ones God has taught by His Spirit.
John 6, note v 44-45 !!
41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life

And John says this about the anointing that is from God that is upon you so that you know the truth because HE teaches you.

1 John 2:26-28
New King James Version

26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you.
27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

The Children of God
28 And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming.

 

[SGO]

The message is Scripture, the words being read are Scripture. That has nothing to do with saying the copies were somehow inspired. That is simply absurd.

I'll try again.
It took me a little while to recover from my last out-of-sorts post.

How can you say it's scripture if it's not inspired?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
2 Timothy 3:16

 

[Reformed1689]

I'll try again.
It took me a little while to recover from my last out-of-sorts post.

How can you say it's scripture if it's not inspired?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
2 Timothy 3:16

The original is absolutely inspired. The message is absolutely inspired. Are the translations inspired? No. That is not the original. That is a translator conveying the meaning to us. That is not the same as saying we don't know what the original said. I am convinced that we do know what the originals said. Those are two totally different subjects.

 

[SGO]

The original is absolutely inspired. The message is absolutely inspired. Are the translations inspired? No. That is not the original. That is a translator conveying the meaning to us. That is not the same as saying we don't know what the original said. I am convinced that we do know what the originals said. Those are two totally different subjects.

Thank you for responding.

"The original is absolutely inspired. The message is absolutely inspired. "
"I am convinced that we do know what the originals said."

Why make a distinction between the original and the message?

What are you trusting in to make that statement (..."we do know what the originals said")?

If we have what the originals said why can't we call them inspired?

Please show the scripture/original that says only the originals are inspired.

 

[Reformed1689]

Thank you for responding.

"The original is absolutely inspired. The message is absolutely inspired. "
"I am convinced that we do know what the originals said."

Why make a distinction between the original and the message?

What are you trusting in to make that statement (..."we do know what the originals said")?

If we have what the originals said why can't we call them inspired?

Please show the scripture/original that says only the originals are inspired.

I don't need to show anything to show only the originals are inspired. It's a red herring nonsense discussion. It is common sense. If the translations are inspired, WHICH ones are inspired? All of them? Some of them? How do you choose which one is the "true" one, etc. It's nonsense.