|
Post by Master Warious on Nov 22, 2006 9:14:29 GMT -5
heh sorry bout the points. I shall eliminate them.
|
|
WHITE LIFE
Sithly Elf
Preach Christ Crucified. Corinthians 1:23
Posts: 34
|
Post by WHITE LIFE on Nov 22, 2006 22:43:49 GMT -5
Hey - this is good. I really appreciate all of your honest insight.
Please help me with one area of confusion that I have with what you are saying. You say that in your idea of which books should be included in the Blble, they have to specifically state that they are inspired - right?
Let's take Genesis, the first book of the Bible, for instance. Where in the text does it specifically state that it is inspired.
Thanks in advance, as I seriously want to understand where you are coming from.
|
|
|
Post by Ali Blue on Nov 26, 2006 20:38:55 GMT -5
Genesis was a book of history. I guess it doesn't count ( ?) if it's historical... that's my general belief..
|
|
WHITE LIFE
Sithly Elf
Preach Christ Crucified. Corinthians 1:23
Posts: 34
|
Post by WHITE LIFE on Dec 2, 2006 6:45:48 GMT -5
Yes, you are correct - Alistair. The books of Holy Scripture are not self-determined. Scripture doesn't say "This is an inspired book so it should be included in the bible - so when you compile the Bible include it" However, even better than that, the Holy Spirit determined this through the people that compiled the bible in the first place. They were given the grace and the AUTHORITY to compile it. So, we can be confident that the books that are in the Bible are ALL inspired and are the Word of God. It would be good if all Christians had the complete truth by having the complete Word of God. The Bibles with less books are the result of an unauthorized (without proper authority) removal of part of The Word of God, and that keeps them from being complete. What they have is good - but incomplete.
|
|
|
Post by Tiana, eh? on Dec 13, 2006 21:04:10 GMT -5
But it DOES say "Thus saith the Lord", "I, Paul, writing on behalf of God", etc. I am pretty certain that in every single book included in the Bible, there is some sort of reference to "Thus saith the Lord our God the Almighty" etc, titles may be altered to fit writer's personality and what God's saying there! I believe that my God has the authority to make certain that the books regarded as absolute truth by His followers will be complete. He can speak the world into existance and breathe out the Scriptures with a mere breath and eradicate us in a similar movement. Factually, the scriptures have remained nearly unchanged through the years before when various translations started being pushed together and the whole arguementive faiths due to demonimations came into being. The scribes involved in translation kept the Bible accurate to the very letter count, and the only errors from their transcribing of the original compiled Bible were spelling errors and occasionally grammar errors... to a 95% ratio. The Dead Sea scrolls have a 900 year difference between some other scroll set with a fancy name I can't spell. They are idencticle. I believe if God could keep the scriptures this accurate over 900 years, He can make sure that we have everything necessary. I agree that any Bible lacking the 66 acknowledged current books has been torn apart. But I have not yet put any study into the other books... and don't acknowledge them, because I have faith in God's ability to keep the Scriptures accurate. ;D [/rant] (not directed at anyone in particular. Just an on topic rant)
|
|
WHITE LIFE
Sithly Elf
Preach Christ Crucified. Corinthians 1:23
Posts: 34
|
Post by WHITE LIFE on Dec 16, 2006 22:56:27 GMT -5
Hi again, Actually, there are 73 books in the Bible that God made sure would be there. He put them in there from the start. It wasn't for over 1529 years that a man decided to take some out. Personally, I cannot get myself to follow some man that comes along and decides to subtract a bunch of books. He based this on some beliefs of non-christian Jews in Jamnia. So, to recap on a couple of points regarding the Bible...what it comes down to is if your Bible includes the seven books, you follow Jesus and the early Church. If your Bible omits the seven books, you follow the non-christian Jews at Jamnia and the Defrocked Catholic Priest named Martin Luther - a man who wanted to throw out even more books (James, Esther, and Revelation), and who deliberately added the word "alone" to Sacred Scripture in his German translation of Romans 3:28. Personally, I choose to follow Jesus and the early Church that He founded.
|
|
|
Post by Ali Blue on Dec 20, 2006 19:49:43 GMT -5
I think we should remember that God is outside of time and space, so what we think of as the beginning, was just.. there... for God. Jesus is currently founding the church. He is our foundation. God guides His people, we follow His word and I believe the Bible that sits on my desk is His complete will for my life. If it includes all you could ever need in your life, why try to add with it? There are serious consequences that come with leading people astray. I'm not saying they're false, I'm just stating a possibility. The books could be accurate historical accounts, but that doesn't mean we should put them in the Bible. Again, I think that if there was a problem with the Bible, God would fix it. If He wanted the Bible to be that way, it would be that way. It's not hindering my walk with God, so I'm not going to try to change it.
|
|
|
Post by SilverSergyon13 on Dec 22, 2006 10:31:09 GMT -5
I don't mean to butt into the conversation or anything, but you also have to remember how much has been changed through translation over the many, many years. The bible wasn't originally written in English. Most languages don't translate straight to another language. Things have changed that way, words changed, orders rearranged. No matter how much you want to think the bible has remained the same all these many years, truth is it has not. I guarantee if you could find an early copy of the bible the translation would not be the same as the bible is today.
|
|
|
Post by Ali Blue on Dec 24, 2006 17:06:54 GMT -5
Feel free to 'butt in'! Yes you are right. That's why we have different translations. I think it's only small changes though, it's not like Christ died and three days later, to three years later or anything. Mainly just grammatical stuff. God watches over His word. He makes sure that everyone knows about Him. No human will die without proof of God's glory and greatness.
|
|
WHITE LIFE
Sithly Elf
Preach Christ Crucified. Corinthians 1:23
Posts: 34
|
Post by WHITE LIFE on Dec 31, 2006 9:07:15 GMT -5
Interesting points that you bring up. It comes down to allowing ourselves to see where the authority is that allows the Bible to be in the form that it currently is in. My bible has 73 books. These are the books that God has given the authority to man to make sure that they are in the Bible. Thank God for that authority. God also gives the authority to these people to translate the texts accurately - which they do. Thank God for that as well.
When it comes to other "Bibles" - there are many. God doesn't authorize these Bibles - man does. That is the difference. When people start taking steps on there own "in the name of God" we come up with all sorts of funny ideas of what God's word is. That is when people start removing books from the sacred texts. Or they might re-translate them to fit there own agendas (see a Jehovas Witness bible for example).
It is important to know that God's word has been kept free from error from the start. He did not get it wrong and have to redo it by taking out books that once were a part of His Holy Word. None the less, although God may not authorize it, God allows people to change their Bibles while having mercy and compassion for them - even in their error. No matter what Bible we have (or maybe we do not have any Bible) - got loves each one of us equally. Thank God for that.
|
|
|
Post by SilverSergyon13 on Jan 2, 2007 8:51:18 GMT -5
Most of the changes ARE grammatical and just differences in word usage. Thats why I get so annoyed with people who follow the bible WORD for WORD. Not even that they follow the bible that way, but that they try to prove things that way.
|
|
WHITE LIFE
Sithly Elf
Preach Christ Crucified. Corinthians 1:23
Posts: 34
|
Post by WHITE LIFE on Jan 7, 2007 6:51:41 GMT -5
I understand your point Silver. Many people try to use the sacred texts out of context to try to prove this or that. I find that the way to approach the Holy Bible is by this motto: "Tell me what it means - not what it says." That is where the gift of the Holy Spirit comes in and teaches the people, not so much through their own interpretation, but through the gift of the Church who has been given the authority to teach the scriptures. So when someone says "All I need is the Bible and not the Church", they are setting themselves up for misinterpretation.
Yes, there are grammatical changes from one bible to another. Although it may not cause a problem in many cases, it can cause problems if it changes the meaning of the text. One thing to keep in mind when reading the text is that there are different literary forms being used throughout the Bible. Some of those forms require "literal" interpretation. For example, in John 6:55 - when Jesus is talking about eating His Flesh and Blood, it IS to be interpreted literally. This is difficult for people who see things through the human mind alone to understand. However, when seeing things through the Holy Spirit and the teachings of the Church, we can come to understand that Christ is Truly present in the Eucharist. When people distort the text and turn what Jesus is saying into a figurative interpretation, suddenly the whole concept of what Jesus was doing is deformed. They simply cannot understand that Jesus can manifest himself in what appears to be bread and wine, yet is actually His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
|
|