Is this a contradiction?

I hear nasty noises from the kitchen again.

 

--------------------------------------------------
I contend that one very good way is to consider the historical background of the letter itself, in other words, look at the author's original intent, etc. This is what textual criticism does. It supports what you and I believe about 1 John over what freeatlast believes and it also confirms what you and I, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit and personal faith, concluded. THAT is my entire point regarding textual criticism. You seem to be "throwing out the baby with the bathwater," with regard to its use.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is NOT how God has said to do this. You are attempting to bring in things that are such that you would have to ASSUME things outside of plain scriptural truth, that could very well be faulty to explain what YOU THINK the apostles thought. This is not biblical. No one has the ability to do this, and on top of this, denegrates the words of the Lord to the words of men. THe words of the Apostles and prophets were not there OWN, but the very words of God.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
No, he tells us to study to show ourselves approved. To be careful in how we handle the word, and part of the care we take with scriptures is to understand what it meant in its historical context. We understand what it means to us by understanding what it meant to those who originally received it in the time it was written.
--------------------------------------------------

God tells us to rightly divide the word of truth, not figure out the historical context of what that particular writer was in, as they were only writing what God uttered to them to write. They are God's words, not THEIR words, so their historical CONTENT in relation to that writer, is quite IRRELEVANT. History confirms what the scriptures say. We do not conform scripture to fit history.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
You have posted the Scriptures already. Where are there Scriptures that negate the understanding of the type of literature or the historical backdrop of a particular Scripture or knowing what prompted John, for example, to write his letters?

Luke said in Luke and Acts both that he was setting out to form a historical record of Jesus life and the history of the early church (up to Paul's first imprisonment). These also form the basis of my belief.
--------------------------------------------------


You have shown clearly here, your unbiblical belief, that the words of the prophets and apostles were their own words, and not inspired words of God. The scriptures that we have that are in our Bible, are the very words of God, NOT MEN. They are God's authoritative words of truth, NOT MENS. The only thing that "prompted" them to write was the Holy Spirit of God, not their own thoughts and experiences.


love in Jesus CHrist our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

It's real plain that:
It's not biblical to use a car.
It's not biblical to ride a bicycle.
It's not biblical to have air conditioning.
It's not biblical to live in St. Charles, MO.
It's not biblical to have a flush toilet. So get rid of all of things that are not biblical.

The Bible doesn't tell you to use the toilet but I assume you do. The Bible doesn't always tell you what to do in every case. But it does say that when we need wisdom in the midst of trials to ask God.

 

Just like what you have written has a specific context everything else said and written has a specific context. The scriptures were written in past tense in a particular culture and climate much different than in America. For example the book of Matthew must be understood in light of its historical background to get the correct interpretation of the message. Just as all the other books of the Bible must be interpreted in light of their historical context.

Sometime just compare Mt.8:28-34 esp. vs.28; Mk.5:1-20 esp. vs.2; Lk. 8:26-39 esp. vs.27.

If you just simply read those passages and notice the number of demoniacs you will be confused trying to fugure out what happened if you do not understand the rest of the story behind the story or message.

You will not be able to know how to interpret that single event unless you understand the historical background of those books.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Now, you have finally admitted that we have "grieved the Holy Spirit" when we have listened to Him tell us the NASB is God's Word.

Listen to what you are saying.

You say this has nothing to do with LOGIC, but then you turn around and say in this particular case, we are to ignore what we hear the Holy Spirit say and rely on men who have deterimined all of these missing words words in the NASB. People who have used their personal opinions to say that God's Word does not exist in the NASB.

Therefore, listening to the opinions of men to determine if what we hear the Holy Spirit say is right or wrong.
--------------------------------------------------


And you better be absolutely sure that the Spirit that you are listening to is the Holy Spirit of God. Remember this, the Holy Spirit is the one who gave those words to the prophets and apostles, and also convicts our heart of HIS TRUTH from them. The Holy Spirit knows what is the scripture, and what is not, and what has been altered and what has not, and will give that person an understanding of this, as the Holy Spirit of Truth leads us to ALL TRUTH. That is HIS TRUTH, that HE HAS GIVEN, and the only way that one is to be led to ALL TRUTH is if one allows the Holy Spirit to lead them. The Holy Spirit would not lead to confusion nor contradiction in ANY AREA OF OUR ARMOUR.


Ephesians 6

10. Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
11. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15. And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16. Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18. Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
19. And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
20. For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

You loudly make such a proclamation so tell us the correct interpretation to the same event found in the the passages in Mt.8:28-34 esp. vs.28; Mk.5:1-20 esp. vs.2; Lk. 8:26-39 esp. vs.27.

How many demon possessed men were there?

 

--------------------------------------------------
You are saying that I should not listen to the opinions of men, yet you say the opinions of men on your side are the right opinions. However, I appeal to the same Scriptures to which you appeal for your position that you are wrong.
--------------------------------------------------


They show the alterations that have been done to the scriptures, the words of God, the words of truth that you are REFUSING to see. They are not their opinions, but they are EVIDENCE of corruptions, that if you were indeed listening to God, would be able to see.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, Context is everything and the historical setting is part of the context.

Rightly dividing does not mean that you can yank scripture out of context and twist it to mean whatever happens to be convenient to you at the moment.

Not one of the scriptures you have used alludes to the notion that only the KJV is the Word of God today. None of them!

You said earlier that no one has shown you how you have misused scripture. That isn't true. I have. But you go on unphased because you will not acknowledge that you are wrong.

They are God's Word, not yours and He divinely chose both the words to speak and the background setting in which they were said. Nothing about the way God did anything... especially the way He inspired scripture... is IRRELEVANT.

We also don't conform scripture to fit our preconceived opinions about Bible versions. If a passage was not talking about scripture in general or translations in particular when God spoke it into existence then it isn't talking about those things now.

 

So, now if you don't agree with us, we are listening to the wrong spirit. You had better be very careful on what water you tread here, Michelle.

 

Michelle, Do you believe that God directly inspired the KJV translators so that every word that they recorded is the actual choice of God? Or, were the KJV translators simply scholars translating the Bible to the best of their fallible abilities?

 

--------------------------------------------------
In order for that to be true, you must assume that the KJV is God's Word according to the 4 and 5 definitions and you must assume something about my relationship with God to which you are not privy and that Scripture itself says you should not judge.

--------------------------------------------------


Yes, indeed I am told to test the spirits, if they are of God. I am to judge all things, not by my own human reasoning and logic, but by the truth of the scriptures.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Actually, Michelle, it is VERY relevant.

I have had to endure way too many "sermons" that were nothing more than a short scripture reading followed by thirty minutes of personal opinion and interpretation, all sans any understanding of what the original message was. This is wrong, unbiblical, untruthful, and unsound.

Do you know what 'expository' preaching/teaching is, Michelle? From the way you condemn historical settings and exegisis, I doubt it. 'Expository' means to lay bare that which is covered, to expose what is not obvious. Expository preaching exposes the original message of a passage, going to the root of what the Holy Spirit had the authors to write.

Now, according to your ranting, everyone should ignore that, pick out what they believe a passage to say, and by faith pound everyone else in the head with it. I mean, since you have soundly condemned reason and logic as ungodly and of the world and all...

Michelle, grow up. Act responsibly. Listen to yourself, to how childish you sound. That alone would be enough to totally ignore what you have to say...but then you post more and more of your nonsense, and give even more reason. The problem is, you are so far beyond wrong that you can't even see it in your rear-view mirrior.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
When you post scripture like this, it is considered an attack and it IS out of context because it has nothing to do with translations and just because wise-men are being pointed at in that particular scripture does not make today's scholars fit into the same category.

--------------------------------------------------

This is unfortunately because many today, sadly cannot take correction or reproof, and consider this an "attack".


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in your opinion, you are right, we are wrong and we ought to take correction and reproof from you? Am I right?
--------------------------------------------------


NO, God does this through his word, the scriptures, to which you in the above comments accused me of attacking others by them.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I am waiting to get an answer from her about the passages I cited earlier in MT. Mk. and Lk. Not one KJVO has given me an answer yet. Those passages have been brought to their attention several times. Yet, not one has given an accurate an answer. They say they rally believe the Bible and trust God and all the answers are right in the Bible. But they just can't seem to get that one right. So many have skirted and ignored the issue. It takes some background study to fully undersatnd those passages. At first it appears confusing and contradictory. But in the end it is quite simple only after you study.

I have actually been asked about those passages in a Bible study I led.

 

Just like what you have written has a specific context everything else said and written has a specific context. The scriptures were written in past tense in a particular culture and climate much different than in America. For example the book of Matthew must be understood in light of its historical background to get the correct interpretation of the message. Just as all the other books of the Bible must be interpreted in light of their historical context.

Sometime just compare Mt.8:28-34 esp. vs.28; Mk.5:1-20 esp. vs.2; Lk. 8:26-39 esp. vs.27.

If you just simply read those passages and notice the number of demoniacs you will be confused trying to fugure out what happened if you do not understand the rest of the story behind the story or message.

You will not be able to know how to interpret that single event unless you understand the historical background of those books.

 

--------------------------------------------------
If your thought that the the KJV is the only true word of God in the English language is based on scriptures, then you should be able to support it with the clear statements of scripture.

If you can't, then you can't truthfully claim that your thought is based on scripture, and you must admit that this thought of yours is added to scripture. In other words, extrabiblical.

--------------------------------------------------

And the problem that many of you seem to have in approaching and discussing this issue, is that you are looking for a label or a name attached to the scriptures, to be found in the scriptures for proof. This my dear brothers and sisters, is where you err.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

No, Michelle.

No label.

No name.

Just please show us where the bible tells us to hold to any one version/translation of scripture to the exclusion of all others.

If your "belief" is so Biblical, surely you can do that.

In Christ,
Trotter