The accuracy of the bible

The only one here who appears to be questioning the Bible is you.

 

Then you agree that Jack Chick is a liar.
-----------------------------------

You could not explain why you have two mouths. ?
-------------------------------

Now it is YOU who lie, because I never said that.
--------------------------------------------------
Now you are denying what you said before .

-------------------------------------------------------------
Even if I did (which I didn't), it would be hypocritical of you to hold Jack Chick to a different standard than me. So if you're calling me a liar, then you have no choice but to acknowlege that Jack Chick is a liar.

-------------------------------------------------------
You are the only one who has 2 mouths on this issue !

 

rbell: //If I was approached by someone saying,
"John 5 is not in the Bible,"
I would respond in one of several ways: ...
... //

Reminds me of a scripture:

1 Thessalonians 5:14 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003):

And we exhort you, brothers: warn those
who are lazy, comfort the discouraged, help
the weat, be patient with everyone.

You interpret that scripture with your various responses,
Brother Rbell! There is no 'one answer fits all' in answering
such serious questions. Likewise there is no 'one answer fits all'
when asking about the best Translation of the Bible one is to use.

 

KJV 1611 4tw

TR translations 4tw

NIV and the like are tools and are not scripture! IMHO

 

I love the way Eliyahu attacks me personally in an effort to dodge away from Jack Chick.

You're welcome to address the issue of Jack Chick and why you think he's not a liar.

You're likewise welcome to post any impirical scriptural support for KJVOism. I've asked numerous times before, and no one has ever provided any.

 

KJVOism is false doctrine. Case closed. It's not a matter of debate. If you've learned nothing else on this board, you should at least have learned that much by now. </font>[/QUOTE]What do you mean KJVOism is false doctrine? I own at least 10 translations of the Bible/New Testament. I have perhaps an additional 20 on my Bible Study software. I still prefer and trust the KJV above others. Does that make me a false doctrine KJVOism? Case closed?

 

Scripture does not support the position that one sole translation is the only recipient of providence, inspiration, infallibility, or preservation.

No. Choosing to use solely one translation, or preferring one translation over all others is not what constitutes single-translation-onlyism such as KJVOism.

 

You called Chick is a Liar first! then you have the Onus Probandi on yourself.
You said:

I never said he was a liar because he is hated. He is a liar because he lies .

Otherwise you can be sued by them.
I am not a KJVOist, but they are better than CT's or MV's.
John, you have to be careful in calling others as Liar! If you cannot prove it, the same returns to you!

 

Attacking the Bible on its "Accuracy" assaults scripture on two primary fronts.

#1. Can you trust what it CLEARLY says even when we have NO discrpency in texts?? Can you simply use objective exegesis to ACCEPT it OR you should you use the "lense of atheist naturalist imagination" to accept or reject the clear text? Many evolutionist Christians say "NO need to accept the text if it differs in any way with atheist darwinism"!.

And so they attack not only the 7 day creation week, but also the flood, Jonah and many other accounts in scripture. "Thinking" that to destroy the role of the creator and the literal history of the fall of man "has no effect on the Gospel at all" no matter how much of these Genesis "details are referenced in the NT!

#2. Using historic and textual "criticism" try and "second guess" what parts of the book of acts can be trusted and what parts of scripture where in the original autographs.

 

It gets me when we question Gods very word what kind of Christians are we. No wonder the lost are not saved and the children of this world are killing each other. That's why hundreds of thousands of teens have abortions each year, why 50% of all marriages fail, its because the people, the misguided, the lost, and the defenseless have no one to turn to. The Christians that stood alone on the word of God are no longer around. We have been flimflammed and swindled into Satan's lies.

That's right who knows whats a lie and whats truth no one knows.

Well folks if Gods word isn't truth what is.

For me Gods word is the truth, absolute, inerrant, and perfect if your God isn't powerful enough to do what he says he will do then I suggest you get a new one, the one I know.
The God of Abraham, David, and Jonathon. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

 

the Truth, well put.

Always listen to the Passover Lamb of God, the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt 12:8), Jesus Christ.

 

You're not actually denying that Jack Chick is a liar, are you?

I do not call Chick a liar lightly. Rather, I do so with a heavy heart at having to accuse a Christian brother. As for his lies, they've been copiously discussed on this board by many people (so many, in fact, that you appear to be singling me out as having addresses the lies of Chick), so there is no need to to go over them again, especially since this thread is not primarily about Chick).

That statment makes no sense, since my comment did not address versions/translations of any kind. The comment addressed KJVOism, which is a doctrine which cannot be scripturally substantiated.

 

John,
I don't call anyone a liar without substantial ground. I don't know about the previous discussions. As for the last issue, I would not generalize it and so may agree with you to some extent in principle. The point is about calling a liar which sounds like slandering someone and shooting with gun behind the person just because he is not present here.

 

Neither do I. Jack Chick being a liar isn't in dispute. Sad but true.

 

Are you saying Mark 16:9-20 is not genuine?

...

From "Crowned with Glory,The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version" by Dr. Thomas Holland.

Mark 16:9-20

This passage is referred to as the “Longer Ending” of Mark. Many textual critics doubt its authenticity, believing it was an addition made in the second century. It often appears in modern versions in brackets with footnotes questioning its authenticity.[10] Most textual scholars believe that the text abruptly ends after verse eight. Even the so-called “Shorter Ending” that is added after verse eight is considered to have originated in the second century. The shorter ending reads:

But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been bold. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.[11]

Most scholars believe the original ending to Mark’s Gospel has been lost.[12] If this is true, the concept of preserving the words of Scripture is forever annihilated. The words cannot be preserved and lost at the same time. However, textual scholars usually call for its inclusion even if they question its originality. Dr. Bruce Metzger departs from the maxim of modern textual critics, Brevior lectio potior (the shorter reading is preferable), and supports the longer ending even though admittedly he does not regard the passage as genuine. He considers it to be a legitimate part of the New Testament because of its traditional significance to the body of Christendom.[13] The passage is not contained in the Alexandrian texts, minuscule 2386, the Syrian Sinaitic Version, and a few other translations.

However, it is in many of the Greek uncials (A, C, D, K, X, D, Q, and P) dating between the fifth and ninth centuries. It is also contained in later dated Greek minuscules (137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, and 1582). It is the reading found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic versions and other early translations. Finally, it is cited (at least in part) by many of the early church fathers such as Justin (165 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) and Augustine (430 AD).[14]

In 177 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies. In it he cites from Mr 16:19, establishing that the longer reading was in existence at this time and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeus:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; “ confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: “The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.” Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein. (3:10:5).

The difference here is extremely important. If we conclude that this passage is not authentic, then we must question what happened to the original ending of Mark. It is not logical that the Gospel would end at this place so abruptly. Nor is it likely, as some scholars have suggested, that the Gospel was never finished, calling biblical inspiration into question. The conclusion held by most textual scholars, whether liberal or conservative, that the original ending has been lost over the passage of time certainly denies the doctrine of biblical preservation. If we allow that a passage of inspired Scripture has been lost from this section of the Bible, what stops us from making the same application to other passages? It is certainly within the realm of scholastic studies to note any and all textual differences. But once we open the possibility that this or that passage has been lost, we are now trusting in the understanding of men over the biblical promises of God. Certainly it is better to embrace the textual evidence and hold to the promise of preservation.


Ray

 

So, if he's a liar, how can he be "a Christian brother" in light of these verses -

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars , shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Revelation 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie .

Just an honest question.


Ray

 

Athanasian Creed,

Amen!
Thanks for your contribution by both posts.

 

Jack Chick is probably sincere and means well but he is either ignorant or worships a god who isn't one whom I could respect.

 

If those verses are to be applied in the manner you infer, then none of us are going to be exempt from Hell.

You ask, how can Chick be a brother in Christ if he's a liar? Scripture tells us that all of us, without exception, have sinned and fall short of God's glory. Paul said very clearly that he himself was the chief of all sinners. Chick is no more of a sinner than I am. His deception may affect his righteousness, but if he has accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior, then his deception does not affect his salvation.