Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Exactly, Dopp.doppelgänger;1381487 said:
It is, of course, absolute nonsense to speak of "the original 66 books of the Bible." The canon of the New Testament was a matter of dispute well into the fifth century, and the Orthodox Church, though it accepts the Apocalypse (Revelation) as scripture, doesn't appoint it to be read in church to this day. The New Testament canon was disputed anew by Martin Luther, who rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse, though in the end he failed to convince even his own followers.
In this as in most other areas, the Orthodox position is more subtle and less settled. All Orthodox Churches accept the Septuagint canon, but there are some differences, notably in the books of Esdras. The Greek Bible contains two books of Esdras, which are equivalent to Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 Esdras in the KJV. (Ezra and Nehemiah are one book in the Greek.) The Slavonic Bible contains three books of Esdras, which are equivalent to Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Esdras and most of 2 Esdras in the KJV. (I'm aware that the KJV is almost always printed without the so-called Apocrypha, but it originally included those books.) The Greek Bible also includes 4 Maccabees as an appendix, though the book is not considered canonical.
That's a very mistaken view.
That's not at all offensive. Neither Church adheres to the doctrine of sola scriptura, since sola scriptura is not just nonsense from a historical view (since the Church pre-dated and developed the canon), but also disproves itself (since the doctrine isn't found in scripture).
It's impossible because human beings are involved, and human beings are fallible. I'm sure God would have wanted accurate translations, but He would also have wanted all Christians to be united in their faith. Why did He allow Christianity to be splintered into over 30,000 different denominations? God has given us our free agency and because we are imperfect, our works are also imperfect. That includes the transcription and translation of His word.ἀλήθεια;1382048 said:
See posts 69, 76 and 82. I can expound on post 69, if you'd like, but it should answer your question fairly well. How many books are in your Bible, by the way?
Do you know what "the gates of hell" meant to Christ's audience? The gates of hell never have prevailed against His Church, no will they.
Of course not. But we can verify their reliability much more easily if we aren't just working with copies of copies of copies.
I believe they were God's word as they came from the pens of the original writers.
No, I don't get it from the Book of Mormon. Again, this is addressed in other posts, not only by me but by others who are not members of my Church.
The Roman Catholic Church does consider the deuterocanonical books to be Scripture, but it does include three books of Apocrypha (Prayer of Manasses, 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras) for which their status as Holy Scripture is considered doubtful.
Do you think these verses refer to the Bible as you have it today? Do they include the books in which the verses appear? Do they include books that didn't yet exist when these verses were written?ἀλήθεια;1382048 said:
Human beings were fallible when the original manuscripts were written. God is infallible.
Are you asking why God allows sin? It is so He may show His mercy.
Imperfect men wrote the original documents. Does that somehow taint the original documents?
His sheep are the Church for whom He gave His life. Would He lead them astray with imperect, uninspired scripture that has been tampered with by men? What made the Bereans more noble than those in Thessalonica?
Is this how we measure the reliabilty of all writings? If that is how you verify the Word of God, what do you do with the Book of Mormon? Where are its "original manuscripts?" You see, I find it a bit disingenuous to judge one canon of scripture by one method and another so-called canon by a completely different method.
Were the original writers, as you call them, fallible or infallible?
... that they considered as scripture.ἀλήθεια;1382181 said:
Yes, they were. And it's possible they made mistakes, or interpreted God's words differently than He meant them. The chances for error increase each time a document is hand-copied, and it increases even more with each subsequent translation.ἀλήθεια;1382175 said:
I have no argument with this.
No.
To some degree, probably, but not significantly so.
Let's leave the non-Christian religions out of the discussion for the time being. There are thousands of Christian denominations out there and hundreds of different translations of the holy scriptures. You're insisting that God would make sure the Bible contained everything He wanted us to know and that it is absolutely free from error. Then why do the various translations differ? And why do the thousands of different denominations of Christianity interpret the scriptures differently?
Men killed the prophets and apostles He sent. Why didn't He stop this from happening? Jesus didn't lead anybody astray, but He has always allowed men to mess up, and mess up they have.
I agree. You probably don't realize how much I love the Bible.
Personally, I measure the reliability of all scripture by what the Holy Ghost tells me is true. I don't measure the Bible any differently than I measure the Book of Mormon. If I were to read the Qur'an, I'd measure it the same way. I'm not sure if you're really not understanding what I'm saying or if you're just trying to be difficult. All I have said is that the greater the degree to which fallible men are involved, the greater the chance there is for error. That shouldn't be that difficult to understand. And I don't appreciate being called disingenuous by someone who doesn't even know me at all. Would you?
They were fallible. The were God's prophets but the only infallible person who has ever lived is Jesus Christ, in my opinion.
Thanks for pointing that out, even though it's pretty much a no-brainer.
You would think so, but I've run into many people who seem to think it means something like "the entire King James Version and nothing else".
And what evidence leads you to the conclusion that the author of Timothy would identify the Book of Revelation, for instance, or even the Gospels as "scripture"?ἀλήθεια;1382269 said:
Obviously we disagree. Maybe our disagreement stems from our understanding of what we mean by the phrase "God-breathed."ἀλήθεια;1382269 said:
You continue to post these same verses. I'm not sure why.
He allows us our free agency, as I already stated.
Satan's goal is to prevent as many as possible from returning to our Father in Heaven.
Of course not.
The FLDS Church is not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It broke away from the LDS Church years ago. It also claims to be a Christian Church. Do I believe Jesus Christ would approve of its practices? No. Now, let's get back to our discussion on the Bible, okay?
That's an interesting twist on what actually happened. Jesus called apostles to direct His Church. They were all martyred and the authority He gave them was not passed on to anyone. Hence, no one was in a position to receive revelation on behalf of the Church and men were essentially left without the authority to act in God's name.
His word will never fade. Men's alterations can change what He said or leave parts of what He said out. The books that are missing from the Bible prove that this is the case.
Paul prophesied of an Apostasy. He also prophesied of a Restoration.
No you're not. You said I was being disingenuous. That was a comment meant to offend. I am not criticizing the word of God. I am saying that the Bible contains translation errors, and most scholars would agree with that statement.
I don't.
Why is it that some people feel compelled to turn every thread into an anti-Mormon one? I already answered this question. Read what I said and try to stay on topic from here on out, please.
He uses fallible men. Do you believe there is such a thing as an infallible man (other than Christ)? Could you name a few?