Are there two God's words?

[savagewind]

The very book they defend as all God Almighty's very words says that Gid did not stop his first human son from bringing upon Earth everything vile and disgusting but God does stop a human being from making a mistake in the book. And I believe my job is to demonstrate that belief in God is the good and reasonable thing to do.

THEIR god does not stop harm done to innocent people but does stop a human hand from writing anything wrong in a book.

 

[Rise]

No, we haven't. It is TRADITION which makes it that. I believe there exists the words of God. YOU must prove that all the other words that are among God's words are also God's words.

You asked for evidence that all of scripture is God's Word. I pointed out to you that Jesus referred to scripture as the Word of God and quotes from most of the Old Testament books. Furthermore, he never rebukes anyone for believing in scripture but affirms many times to people that they should believe what is written. He never corrects scripture and tells them it has been recorded wrong. It's reasonable to think that if Jesus had said such things it would have caused conflict with the religious leaders; but no such conflict is seen.
You've also quoted scriptures that demonstrate the apostles considered scripture to be God breathed, and I can show you from the earliest church fathers that they considered the same scripture to be God's inspired word.

I would call all that significant and solid evidence to your original question.

In contrast; I see no evidence to support the idea that Jesus would reject any of the old testament scriptures. So, do you have a good reason for believing that?

The very book they defend as all God Almighty's very words says that Gid did not stop his first human son from bringing upon Earth everything vile and disgusting but God does stop a human being from making a mistake in the book.

You have wrong ideas about what God's preservation of scripture looks like. We see evidence of scribal mistakes in the record of scripture, but 98% of these are just spelling or grammar issues or that can't even be translated into english. The rest can be sorted through to determine what the original reading probably was; but ultimately our understanding of God, the gospel, and Jesus, is not going to be changed on fundamental and critical truths based on those alternative readings.

God works through willing vessels. That doesn't mean they are perfect. But God doesn't need perfect people to accomplish His purposes. That much is proven just by looking at the disciples of Jesus.

 

[savagewind]

You asked for evidence that all of scripture is God's Word. I pointed out to you that Jesus referred to scripture as the Word of God and quotes from most of the Old Testament books. Furthermore, he never rebukes anyone for believing in scripture but affirms many times to people that they should believe what is written. He never corrects scripture and tells them it has been recorded wrong. It's reasonable to think that if Jesus had said such things it would have caused conflict with the religious leaders; but no such conflict is seen.

No such conflict is seen between Jesus and the religious leaders. And am I suppose to believe that?

You've also quoted scriptures that demonstrate the apostles considered scripture to be God breathed, and I can show you from the earliest church fathers that they considered the same scripture to be God's inspired word.

THINK! When "all scripture is God breathed" was written the Bible as is did not exist. How do you explain all that came after that scripture is included there? Why didn't the writer also include "scripture that will be"?
All scripture that is and will be is God-breathed. Why didn't he write that?

I would call all that significant and solid evidence to your original question.

Have you ever heard of circular reasoning?

In contrast; I see no evidence to support the idea that Jesus would reject any of the old testament scriptures. So, do you have a good reason for believing that?

IF Jesus had criticized the Hebrew scriptures he would have been condemned for that instead of being condemned for claiming sonship. Right? Do you know ANYTHING about psychology?

You have wrong ideas about what God's preservation of scripture looks like. We see evidence of scribal mistakes in the record of scripture, but 98% of these are just spelling or grammar issues or that can't even be translated into english. The rest can be sorted through to determine what the original reading probably was; but ultimately our understanding of God, the gospel, and Jesus, is not going to be changed on fundamental and critical truths based on those alternative readings.

Matthew 28:19 has made disciple the verb into disciple the noun. This is not a bad thing according to you. Why?

God works through willing vessels.

So you are telling me that publishing companies who print Bibles for profit are "willing vessels"? If you believe that no person has had selfish desire while handling God's word then I think there is nothing more to talk about.

That doesn't mean they are perfect. But God doesn't need perfect people to accomplish His purposes. That much is proven just by looking at the disciples of Jesus.

I agree.

 

[Rise]

No such conflict is seen between Jesus and the religious leaders. And am I suppose to believe that?

Maybe you are not understanding my comment. I said there is no record of any instance where Jesus told the Pharisees they were wrong to believe in the written scripture. Unless you can show that to not be true, then yes, you should believe that because it's true.

THINK! When "all scripture is God breathed" was written the Bible as is did not exist. How do you explain all that came after that scripture is included there? Why didn't the writer also include "scripture that will be"?
All scripture that is and will be is God-breathed. Why didn't he write that?

I think again you misunderstand what I said.
I never said that statement in 2 Timothy 4:1 implied that Paul was making reference to all New Testament books.
I said that Paul held the the Old Testament books to be God breathed scripture; and I pointed that out for the purpose of demonstrating that his view of scripture is in line with everything Jesus ever said about scripture being the Word of God in the Gospels.

Although, since we're on the subject, I will point out that it's very possible and even likely that Paul was referring to some of the New Testament books as scripture because this letter was written near the end of life after most of the New Testament books would have already been written (possibly even all of them, depending on when you think the Gospel of John and Revelation were written). Additionally, 2 Peter 3:16 refers to Paul's writings themselves as scripture; thus demonstrating that the apostalic era church recognized Christian writings as God breathed scripture.

IF Jesus had criticized the Hebrew scriptures he would have been condemned for that instead of being condemned for claiming sonship. Right? Do you know ANYTHING about psychology?

I don't see what point you are trying to make. Jesus didn't criticize scripture because He recognized it as the Word of God to us. He did claim to be the Son of God because He is.

Matthew 28:19 has made disciple the verb into disciple the noun. This is not a bad thing according to you. Why?

"to disciple someone" (verb) and "make a disciple of them" (noun) is essentially the same meaning.

Some translations do translate it as "disciple the nations" rather than "make disciples of the nations". Others translate it as simply "teach". The same message is still being conveyed.

I don't see what the problem is with that. Why do you have a problem with it if the meaning remains the same?

So you are telling me that publishing companies who print Bibles for profit are "willing vessels"? If you believe that no person has had selfish desire while handling God's word then I think there is nothing more to talk about. I agree.

You seem to be confusing two seperate issues - Bible translations vs Bible text transmission over the ages.

People who mistranslate the Bible either through negligence, ignorance, or malice have nothing to do with God's preservation of the content of the text in Greek and Hebrew down through History.

We can still go back to the Greek to decide for ourselves if it really makes any difference whether Matthew 28:19 translates disciple as a verb or noun.

 

[savagewind]

I don't see what the problem is with that. Why do you have a problem with it if the meaning remains the same?

I see that you are narrow minded.

You seem to be confusing two seperate issues - Bible translations vs Bible text transmission over the ages.

No, I think some Bible texts were copied incorrectly. You say it is impossible that scripture could be copied wrong. I say that is crazy.

People who mistranslate the Bible either through negligence, ignorance, or malice have nothing to do with God's preservation of the content of the text in Greek and Hebrew down through History.

God has preserved the Truth. It isn't written down.

We can still go back to the Greek to decide for ourselves if it really makes any difference whether Matthew 28:19 translates disciple as a verb or noun.

A disciple is someone who learns and obeys his teacher. YOU and the Bible say we are supposed to make people learn and obey. But I know Jesus said the one listening should learn and obey which would be disciple the VERB.

 

[savagewind]

Some say that Jesus did not criticize people's understanding of scripture because it isn't written that he did.

John 21:25
John 16:12
1 Corinthians 3:2

 

[Rise]

Some say that Jesus did not criticize people's understanding of scripture because it isn't written that he did.

There is no record of any instance where Jesus told the Pharisees they were wrong to believe in the written scripture. The only record we have is of Jesus affirming the inspiration of scripture.

Therefore, if you claim Jesus did otherwise, you need some evidence to support your claim; because all the evidence is against your position.

You could make a claim that Jesus rode around on a pink elephant, and then justify it by saying it was just never written down; but the onus is still on you to prove why we should believe that your claim has even a remote possibility of being true.

No, I think some Bible texts were copied incorrectly.

How modern people choose to translate Matthew 28:19 into English has nothing to do with whether or not it was accurately copied from Greek to Greek by scribes over hundreds of years.

You're confusing translation with transmission.

You say it is impossible that scripture could be copied wrong. I say that is crazy.

I never said that. In fact, I said something that would be the opposite of that. You should read more carefully:

We see evidence of scribal mistakes in the record of scripture, but 98% of these are just spelling or grammar issues or that can't even be translated into english. The rest can be sorted through to determine what the original reading probably was; but ultimately our understanding of God, the gospel, and Jesus, is not going to be changed on fundamental and critical truths based on those alternative readings

 

[savagewind]

There is no record of any instance where Jesus told the Pharisees they were wrong to believe in the written scripture. The only record we have is of Jesus affirming the inspiration of scripture.

Therefore, if you claim Jesus did otherwise, you need some evidence to support your claim; because all the evidence is against your position.

YOU need to support your belief that Jesus believed and believes [He lives. Correct?]that all the Hebrew scriptures were and are good and right. At the end of this your post you say you believe some words were copied wrong. Do you not? And were no ancient Hebrew words of scripture copied wrong?

You could make a claim that Jesus rode around on a pink elephant, and then justify it by saying it was just never written down; but the onus is still on you to prove why we should believe that your claim has even a remote possibility of being true.

Please provide all the scriptures which say what you are claiming.

How modern people choose to translate Matthew 28:19 into English has nothing to do with whether or not it was accurately copied from Greek to Greek by scribes over hundreds of years.

You're confusing translation with transmission.

No, I think you are. You are changing one GREEK word μαθητεύσατε (Strongs 3100 - http://biblehub.com/greek/3100.htm a VERB) into two words a verb make, which isn't there and a noun disciple which is written as a verb. Please do not pretend anymore that you do not understand.

I never said that. In fact, I said something that would be the opposite of that. You should read more carefully:

I think then that we agree. God's actually words are always right and good. Men's words are what mislead people.

 

[Neo Deist]

The Bible says the son of God is God's Word but many people say the Bible is God 's word.
Are they both God's word?

Actually, the Bible is man's interpretation of God's word delivered through divine revelation, and subject to human error. God never came down from the cosmos, sat at a desk, grabbed some parchment, ink and quill, and wrote anything. Just saying...

 

[savagewind]

I shall explicate. @ Rise YOU say it is impossible for errors of meaning to creep into scripture but grammatical errors did creep in. Do you not say it?

 

[savagewind]

Actually, the Bible is man's interpretation of God's word delivered through divine revelation, and subject to human error. God never came down from the cosmos, sat at a desk, grabbed some parchment, ink and quill, and wrote anything. Just saying...

I agree with you! They say all meaning is intact and you only have to understand the words and you will know the truth. I say you only have to know the son to know the truth. Of course, that requires knowing the words which we have. According to the people who say God would not allow scripture to be corrupted Jesus isn't here to help us to know, but scripture says He IS here. Matthew 28:20

 

[savagewind]

God's word is what God really says and means. All of the Bible is NOT what God really says and means imo. That is what I am talking about. Who will talk to me about it? No one so far.

 

[Desert Snake]

God's word is what God really says and means. All of the Bible is NOT what God really says and means imo. That is what I am talking about. Who will talk to me about it? No one so far.

What parts of the Bible, are false in your opinion?

 

[savagewind]

I see the Bible as God's servant. A servant is not a master. Correct? The servant brings us the words. The words are like a map. I see people worshipping the servant with a map. God's son is God's purpose. To know God's son is God's desire imho. But THEY say we must know the words TO God's son. I do not believe that. The disciples of Jesus knew him. They did not have the Bible. They most likely knew scripture but really, does anyone believe they knew it all? Like we know it all?

I asked why people search for their leader in the book. The leader is leading us, I am sure, but they are not being led. They are sitting down with the map. How do you think the servant feels about that? To read the map we need to be led in it. Some people agree with me that the Holy Spirit is needed to understand the map. But I think we must understand the map's drawer and when we can (not everyone can) we must listen to the owner of the map. Who owns the Bible?

 

[savagewind]

What parts of the Bible, are false in your opinion?

There only has to be one serious mistake for me to reconsider the whole thing. Correct? There are no "parts" wrong. There are some scriptures wrong. The most important one is Matthew 28:19 where the command is to make disciples. The scripture which says you love Jesus when you obey his commands is true imo. Seeing that it is humanly impossible to make someone listen, learn and obey Jesus then none of us are loving him, according to God's word which says to make disciples.

 

[savagewind]

To say there are parts of the Bible that are "wrong" is like being a guest at a display of fine things and saying that something does not belong there.
To tell a museum curator that something she chose to display must be removed is just plain stupid. I try not to be stupid.

I would not remove anything. I would bring reason to everything that IS there. Why not?

 

[Desert Snake]

There only has to be one serious mistake for me to reconsider the whole thing. Correct?

I disagree. If there is something that is 'wrong', there are various reasons as to why that might be, everything from a faulty translation, to an added verse, that might be verifiable as to meaning, somewhere else in Scripture. Think the Gospels, I personally do not think they vary. Some say they do. Anyways, say you found some things that look 'false', this has to be researched to make sure it isn't your incorrect interpretation, as well.

There are no "parts" wrong. There are some scriptures wrong. The most important one is Matthew 28:19 where the command is to make disciples. The scripture which says you love Jesus when you obey his commands is true imo. Seeing that it is humanly impossible to make someone listen, learn and obey Jesus then none of us are loving him, according to God's word which says to make disciples.

I think that you are reading that in a way that is too specific as to what the instruction is. I don't read the verse like that, perhaps I'm wrong.
Now, in the part about disobeying, well, it seems , since there are at least some Xians, all over, then the instruction could not really be impossible. I do not think you have a viable argument here..

 

[savagewind]

I shall tell you why not. Because people who might be looking for the truth are afraid to change anything.
1 John 4:18
2 Timothy 1:7
Isaiah 41:10
Psalms 56:3-4
Romans 8:15
Proverbs 1:7
Joshua 1:9
Proverbs 14:27
Luke 12:32
Matthew 10:31

 

[savagewind]

It seems to me that I should be able to be made into a disciple. I want to be. So, make me! God commands it. Matthew 28:19

 

[savagewind]

I disagree. If there is something that is 'wrong', there are various reasons as to why that might be, everything from a faulty translation, to an added verse, that might be verifiable as to meaning, somewhere else in Scripture. Think the Gospels, I personally do not think they vary. Some say they do. Anyways, say you found some things that look 'false', this has to be researched to make sure it isn't your incorrect interpretation, as well.

This is nonsense to me. It is what I do. It is why I post online.
No one has shown me anywhere in scripture where there is another command which says to make people believe/love/obey. Just show me that scripture which supports Matthew 28:19 and I will shut up.