Red Text or No Red Text for Jesus

You beat me to it. I don't generally read all the posts in here anymore, I get too tempted to reply to certain posters in a manner which does not reflect Christ. Plus there's not much to be said here about certain issues that hasn't been said ad-infinitum already.

 

I'm not so sure I care for the red letters after a few in a church I once served destroyed everything we had worked so had to achieve. They were "red letter" liberals who believed that only the red letters were trust worthy. The rest of the Bible was subject to thier own interpretation. Jesus' recorded words have no more significance over the rest of the Bible. The entire Bible is God's word. I'll not argue a lot of things in the church. It's just not worth it. But, when it comes to the Bible containing God's word as opposed to being God's word then I'm going to fight. There is no compromise. It cost me a lot but God blessed and provided faithfully.

 

My mother in law says that only the red words are to be believed. She's Catholic. I had never heard of that until she said it. Strange view.

I like red letter bibles. Not because I think only the red words are inspired, but because sometimes I want to know what Jesus Himself said about a certain subject and it makes it easy for me to find it. I believe ALL scripture is inspired, regardless of the color of the ink.

 

But it's not that simple. It's already been said here earlier. Sometimes such as in John 3 we don't know if Jesus is speaking or if John is relating something.

 

What verse are you talking about? I've never heard this before.

 

Not a single verse, but passages. For instance in Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology he says: "First, there are two paragraphs in John 3:16-21 and John 3:31-36, which may be in their contexts continuing remarks by Jesus and by John the baptist respectively (the NIV seems to construe them as such), but which may be reflections by John the Evangelist himself on the themes touched upon by Jesus and the Baptist." (page 304)

 

I don't understand why he would say that these paragraphs were reflections of John. Verses 16-21 are preceded by "Jesus answered and said unto him," (vs.10, responding to Nicodemus' question.) The words are in red.
Verses 31-36 are clearly spoken by John the Baptist as a continuation of his conversation with the disciples and the Jews about purification. These words are in black.

I have never even seen a footnote in any bible I have ever owned (and there have been many :laugh questioning who was speaking in either of these passages. It seems clear to me by the context.

 

Leave it to someone related to the NIV to come up with something like this.

 

I wonder if the NIV has a footnote. I must admit it's been years since I looked at an NIV. I don't care for that translation.

 

I'll tell you what I know..it is all God's word every bit of it. I have no need to hyper-intellectualize it.

 

Here is the commentary of the folks from the "Jesus Seminar":

"The fourth evangelist's style of speech and comment is exemplified by the remarks in 3:31-36. These remarks are the creation of the evangelist. There is no suggestion that they should be attributed to Jesus. John 3:14-21 is written in the same style and with comparable content." ---The Five Gospels, p. 409

 

That explains the idiocy

 

He is not related to the NIV. He appears to be critiquing what the NIV says.

 

There is not a footnote in the NIV for these passages. The NIV reads the same as the KJV in these passages.

 

Mike,

I was able to peak inside the HISB at Amazon and it didn't have red letters in the OT when God speaks.

Am I looking at the right study Bible?

ISBN is 1586402757 (hardcover).

Here's a link to the study Bible I'm looking at currently.

In Christ,
Robb