Featured Can We Trust The Holy Bible Today? Part 2

In the first part, I gave some reasons why we can fully trust in the Bible Versions (translations) that we have today. Even though they themselves are not “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16), as the Original Autographs were, they are nonetheless, Trustworthy and Infallible, as the “copies”, I believe, have been preserved by the Holy Spirit, so as to give us what He Inspired the Writers of the Books, to put down for our benefit. However, no one “version” can claim to be the “only accurate one”, as there are textual variations between them, which does not allow for this. It is safe to say that by comparing “versions”, like the KJV with the ESV, for example, can help us determine with more certainty, the Original text. I gave three examples in the first part, to show what I mean.

Below are some examples from Evangelicals, neo-evangelicals and Liberals, on the Trustworthiness/Authority/Reliability/Infallibility of the Holy Bible. Sadly there are many more who take the positions that these people do, whose writings actually influence others to believe their heretical nonsense. It is essential that we all are daily guided by God the Holy Spirit, especially when we read His Perfect Word.

“The conclusion that these three epistles were not written by Paul is based upon literary, historical, and theological criteria. First and Second Timothy and Titus share a common Greek vocabulary and style that diverges in many ways from the other Pauline epistles. Historically, the Pastoral Epistles appear to presume an institutionalized leadership in local communities with bishops and deacons, and internal dissent over issues of faith and practice, which better fits a period late in the first or early in the second century Ce when Paul was no longer alive… Even if not composed by Paul, they have historically had a very influential role in Christian thought and practice, and the controversies they sought to “fix” —such as the roles of women in the church—remain alive to the present day” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Margaret M. Mitchell, Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles, p. 1725)

“Hyper-orthodoxy does not believe its platform “to the hilt.” It is willing to retain faith in the Bible no matter what the scientists say. But would they really believe the Bible if at every point the Bible and science conflicted? If the differences between the sciences and the Bible were to grow to a very large number and were of the most serious nature, it would be questionable if they would retain faith in Scripture. True, we may believe some of the Bible “in spite of” science, but certainly the situation would change if we believed all of the Bible in spite of science. That is to say, the hyper-orthodox have made a virtue of disagreeing with science, and have not set any sort of limits as to how serious the divergences with science may go before they must rethink their position. Their guiding principle cannot be extended without making their entire position indefensible or simply absurd. We question that the hyper-orthodox would follow their principle through to its extremity, and therefore can only judge that it is an inadequate principle.” (Dr Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, p. 23)

“So the matter stands as between the Gospel and the Apocalypse. But the Fourth Gospel has difficulties of its own. These relate in part to the book in itself. It is true there is a great similarity in language and style between the narrative parts of the book and the discourses of Jesus. It is affirmed that the writer has colored the speeches of Jesus with his own style or even made up the dialogues so that they are without historical value or at least on a much lower plane than the Synoptic Gospels as objective history. There is something in this point, but one must remember that the Synoptic Gospels vary in their manner of reporting the speeches of Jesus and aim to give the substance rather than the precise words of the Master in all instances. It is at most a matter of degree.” (Dr A T Robertson, Harmony of The Gospels, App, 3. The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p.257)

“It is not history, but a legend, set back early in the Persian period, intended to explain the origin and significance of Purim. Though embellished with numerous fictional devices, it may well rest on an historical account of some local deliverance of the Jews in Persia, for there is external evidence of a certain Marduka holding an official post at Susa under Xerxes I…Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form… The book (of Jonah) is a didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of popular legend and put it to new, more consequential use…Not all in these books is of the same historical value, and especially in the stories of Elijah and Elisha there are legendary elements.” (Herbert May & Bruce Metzger, The Oxford Annotated Bible, Introduction, pp. xxi, 603, 1120, 1514)

“Although the author of this letter calls himself "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ" (1:1), and makes reference to his being present at the transfiguration of Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have led nearly all modem scholars to regard it as the work of an unknown author in the early part of the second century who wrote in Peter's name…In the light of such internal and external evidence one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give the letter greater authority” (Bruce Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background Growth and Content 3rd Edition. p.294)

“You don’t have to believe the Bible is ‘without error’ to be a good evangelical Christian” (Dr Ralph Martin, Baptist Times, Divided Over the Authority of the Bible, 4th November 1976)

“Daniel Fuller…contended there were errors in the Bible that could not be accounted for as copyists’ errors. He suggested instead that the Bible was fully truthful and free from all error when referring to revelational or doctrinal matters, matters pertaining to salvation, but that it was not inerrant in matters of science and history…William LaSor and George Ladd, sided with Fuller on this matter…Pinnock makes the point that inspiration, strictly speaking, would not have been necessary. The truth of the gospel rests on what Christ has done, whether there is an inspired record of that or not…Robert Gundry…notes that his comments on the nativity passages ‘had to be completely rewritten once I saw how freely and creatively Matthew edited his sources in the rest of his gospel’” (Millard Erickson, The Evangelical Left, pp. 17, 32 65)

 

Harold Lindsell

 

Not the founder Charles, but more the heretical son, Daniel, and those who shared in his "doctrine of demons"!

 

what do you make of what A T Robertson says?

 

That the words are colored and made up?

 

It is quite possible that Jesus actually spoke Aramaic, as there is evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was probably written in Aramaic originally. I have found from personal study of Mark's Gospel, that there are qoutes from the OT, that are neither from the Hebrew or the LXX, and there is evidence that Mark used Aramaic in his Gospel.

 

no evidence that Jesus or the Apostles spoke Latin. Aramaic yes, Greek yes.

 

For example, Mark 4:12 "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them." is not taken from the Hebrew, or the LXX, or any other Greek version.

Isaiah 6:10:

Hebrew, “And it hath turned back, and hath health.”

LXX, “and be converted, and I should heal them”

Aramaic Targum, “and repent, and it shall be forgiven them”

Mark 15:34: “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” = “ελωι ελωι λαμμα σαβαχθανι ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον ο θεος μου ο θεος μου εις τι με εγκατελιπες”

Psalm 22:1:

Hebrew, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani

LXX, “ο θεος ο θεος μου”, O God, my God

Aquila, “ἰσχυς μου ἰσχυς μου”. “my strength my strength”.

Aramaic Targum, ‘“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,”’

 

there is no actual evidence for this. I have read some theories on this, but cannot see this in any of the Gospels.

 

John 14:26 best answers this

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you

 

TOTALLY agree with you! Which is why I have never believed in the nonsense of The Q source! This undermines the Inspiration, Infallibility and Authority of the Bible.