mike_decock

Lemme see, the Christians didn't even have a canon for 3 centuries (10 generations). The canon was then modified 1100 years later (about 37 generations). The current canon has been around about 17 generations. Either way you look at it, it is impossible to conclude that every generation had a "correct copy".

-Mike...

Badfish

The authority of Christ's words came from Christ having spoken them and not from the words appearing in a sacred text in a fixed form.

As a result, sayings from apocryphal sources and the Oral Gospel appear alongside quotes from the four Gospels of our present New Testament.

Many early Christians had a preference for oral tradition. For example, Papias in the first half of the second century, said that he inquired of followers of the apostles what the apostles had said and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord were still saying.

"For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice.''

So the gospels were known to the churches and were taught orally. People attended church more often as a whole back then, and there were far less sects and denominations. This can be traced back to the Universal church.

God knew that eventually the NT scriptures would have to be canonized for modern man.

Badfish

Yes, read the bible. It is self guiding.

Badfish

It is impossible to the person who believes that God is not omnipotent.

There is much written history about the NT canon and how it came about, this would take a long time to study, and I am not a teacher. Peruse the web or find books that explain how it is that the Bible as we know it today is the infallible word of God.

The how's and why's are available, if one finds this is a hinderance to believing the infallible word of God, then there is much study to be done.

chimaira

Go ahead, lets check out the passage, do you have a passage in mind?

quoted this passage because you quote the bible saying that the word of God is pure, then me I quote you a passage that shows that the man to drawn in its traditions and the have introduces in the bible "jérémie chapter 8 v 8.

bye

doodad

To me a divine principle is correct guidance if adhering to it is in the best interests of myself and to others in general. Much of the OT law is merely a codification of social rules that had been practiced or developed over time by people living together and relating to each other. For example, much of the Ten Commandments, especially the part that deals with human behavior is simply common sense.

To me the existence or not of God, Heaven, and Hell is merely window dressing or a side show. Christianity, Judaism and other religions are essentially behavorial systems. The promise Heaven for behaving (not sinning) or the threat of Hell for not behaving (sinning) are merely last ditch efforts to convince mortals to commit to the creed before they croak. Call it delayed gratification or delayed punishment. It's a tactic used to intimidate people or to lure them into believing by making promises than cannot be validated as being of value. It relates to the old bit "God will getcha for that." Who's he got lately?

wildernesse

What about earlier English translations? They were under a monarchy (I would suppose), thus meeting your standard of the authoratative source translated under a monarchy. Here is a page about pre-King James English translations.

Is this how you would confer authority on other language translations of the Bible? Find the one that was translated while the main speakers of that language were ruled by a monarch? What about people who do not have monarchs? Do they never get an inerrant translation?

I'm sorry, but I've never ever heard of this reasonable conclusion of yours.



So what was moving the earlier pre-KJV translators, if not the Holy Spirit? How do you tell the difference if it wasn't?

My problem isn't just that the KJV translators might not have had all the resources that we do today, but also that language itself changes. The meanings of the KJV-english may be very different today. Why doesn't God prevent the language from changing so that the exact meaning of all of the words are continuously conveyed throughout time?

For instance, KJV Luke 6:1
In today's English, corn is a specific plant--native to the New World. In KJV English, corn is a generic grain. Jesus never ate corn as we know it today. The exact meaning of this passage is obscured if you don't know the history of the language. You can't just read the passage and know what is going on. Even if it was correct then, the word has a different meaning now.

I picked corn because it jumps to my mind easily. I don't really want to go into the pornea/fornication mumbo-jumbo. The thing is, the words should not change meaning over time if they are part of this inerrant, exact translation book.

So what about the earlier translations? Was God just having some practice runs? Why aren't those other early English translations (under monarchies) the authority? What about shifts in word meanings over 400 years?

Why do you bother with the NASB--you've already established that it is not an authoratative version. What benefit do you get from it? How do you judge meticulous translation when you base the authority of the translation on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit working within people under a monarch?

So why the NASB use? Again, why do you think that other English versions of the Bible, translated under a monarch, are not the authoritative version?

Thanks, I look forward to hearing what you say. Just because I really want to know why you think the way you do, doesn't mean that I will have no further questions. I'm very unfamiliar with your position and I want to know more--if for no other reason than to understand you better.

--tibac

mike_decock

And the generations that only had oral traditions and apocryphal sources available to them had a "correct copy"? You have completely failed to defend your original assertion. You just made a bunch of new ones instead.

-Mike...

yguy

And we know the Council of Nicea got it right because...?

mike_decock

And I could read apologetics defending the Quran or the Book of Mormon. They all use the same defenses as the Biblical inerrantists: "You need to study it more", "It can only be understood by Faith", etc, etc, etc.

If it were the infallible word of God, it would need no defense.

-Mike...