1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is your New Testament Biblical?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Nov 15, 2004.

Top Posters
  1. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    People have mentioned over and over that God has warnings about adding to or taking away from His Word. How about a New Testament? Is this not half of a Bible? :confused:
     
    #1 Phillip, Nov 15, 2004
  2. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh? What if I write down just a verse,a dn stick it in my pocket? Is that biblical? After all, it doesn't have the whole bible.

    When scripture talks about adding or taking away, it's not referring to a requirement to have the whole thing intact at all times. If someone has a specific collection of books, such we the NT, the Pentateuch, the Epistles, etc etc etc, they're still scripture.
     
    #2 Johnv, Nov 15, 2004
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The writer of the Revelation warns about adding/deleting the prophecies.

    It is a jump to have this apply to anything more/less than what it says. That would not be "interpretation". But the "application" of the principle is valid for all of the Word.
     
    #3 Dr. Bob, Nov 15, 2004
  4. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean, when we publish and purchase Bibles that contain only the NT (excluding the OT and apocrypha), or only NT and OT (excluding apocrypha), are we violating the warning of revelation?

    I think the warning applies only to Revelation itself. And the manuscripts changed the number of the Beast depending on what would add up to Nero Caesar (666 or 616), so that shows you how the early scribes thought of the warning.
     
    #4 manchester, Nov 16, 2004
  5. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since the entire Bible as we have it today did not exist then, that warning has nothing to do with having a part of the Bible - such as a NT. It has everything to do with the prophecies in the book of Revelations.
     
    #5 TC, Nov 16, 2004
  6. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Paul reminds us to "rightly divide" the Scriptures. I don't believe too many door-knocking ministries introduce themselves with the Song of Solomon.
     
    #6 robycop3, Nov 16, 2004
  7. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Everybody disappoints me, nobody took the bait. You guys are too smart.

    I agree with Dr. Bob and I will also mention that many old apocryphal style books that were written during that time (all of which were not accepted as Biblical) did have almost the very same statement that John used in Revelation. It was thought, by some scholars today, that it was an early style of a copyright.

    A warning, so to speak, that said, don't add or take away from this if you are going to make copies of it; otherwise you are corrupting what I wrote. Since the government didn't back it, they would invoke the name of God.

    Obviously, with the acceptance of John's book into the canon, it is God's words. We still have to remember at the time the early church only had a few books at their disposal. Most of them bound seperately.

    Think about something else. When each book was written, it contained the personality of the author.

    Obviously God did not take their hand into his and force the letters on the paper.

    Apparently, the inspiration process was to give the people a message to write about in their own dialect, language, style of writing and so on.

    I think that certain scriptures may be a part of that individuality. For instance, Luke's referance to medical things.

    Each author's personality was allowed to come through in each book that they wrote.

    John's statement in revelations may have been something a lot of other authors used and God so no reason not to allow it to become scripture. Although we must realize why John put it in, in order to correctly interpret it.

    As far as the NT, nothing wrong there. Just thought I would see if I could stir the pot. You guys are just too smart. :D
     
    #7 Phillip, Nov 16, 2004
  8. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    We should clarify this in that all Greek MSS but two read 666. One MS (C) reads 616 and one (2344) reads 615. The consensus of all Greek MSS has it right, and those who erred were naturally in the vast minority.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
    #8 Bluefalcon, Nov 16, 2004
  9. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    We should clarify this in that all Greek MSS but two read 666. One MS (C) reads 616 and one (2344) reads 615. The consensus of all Greek MSS has it right, and those who erred were naturally in the vast minority.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon     </font>[/QUOTE]Is there anything odd or different about the manuscripts that are obviously in error? For example, do they come from a particular location or group of people where there seem to be more than a typical number of differences in other scripture?

    Just curious. Thanks for the info above.
     
    #9 Phillip, Nov 16, 2004
  10. Dogsbody

    Dogsbody New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another thought concerning adding to or taking away. The warning in question seems to also imply that there will be no new revelation from God as any new revelation would be adding to Revelation. Ya with me there? Would seem to “put paid” too all our new “prophets” out there. :rolleyes:
     
    #10 Dogsbody, Nov 17, 2004
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Many tracts made for distribution in the USA, Canada, England, etc. are written with the assumption that all their potential readers have at least heard of Jesus. They contain the Scriptures telling one what he/she must to to be saved. These tracts are "milk" rather than "meat", and they "rightly divide" the Scriptures. The aim of the writers of those tracts is to get the lost to come to Christ. The "meat" can come later.

    A glaring example of WRONGLY dividing the Scriptures is the JW anti-blood transfusion thingy. They rip Acts 15:20 and 29 outta context w/o considering God's actual Scriptural prohibition was from EATING blood. They ignore God's repeated statements that the blood is the life. They ignore Jesus' statement that greater love has no man than he who lays down his LIFE for that of his friends. They ignore the reality that transfusions have saved hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of lives...and they have yet to show me that SAVING SOMEONE'S LIFE in this day/age is sinful!

    I don't think this is a versions issue at all, even though some from each side have used it before.
     
    #11 robycop3, Nov 17, 2004
  12. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    BF: "We should clarify this in that all Greek MSS but two read 666. One MS (C) reads 616 and one (2344) reads 615. The consensus of all Greek MSS has it right, and those who erred were naturally in the vast minority."

    Addendum: the most recently discovered papyrus of Revelation (p115 as I recall) has the reading 616. This MS is without question the earliest manuscript of Revelation. For those who prefer the earliest witnesses as "best", it would seem that they should then prefer 616 over 666 (and in fact, some leading text-critics are already suggesting the autograph originality of 616 based on this discovery).
     
    #12 Ziggy, Nov 25, 2004
  13. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Somebody needs to tell LaHaye so he can change his books . . .

    The meaning of 666 or 616 will someday be glaringly evident to men, when antichrist is revealed. Until then, society probably won't be swayed from 666 . . .
     
    #13 Dr. Bob, Nov 25, 2004
  14. Bro. James

    Bro. James Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,130
    Likes Received:
    59
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "even so, come Lord Jesus"

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
    #14 Bro. James, Nov 25, 2004
  15. grace56

    grace56 Guest

    I believe that a Bible should contain both the old and new testement, other wise it is not a whole book so to speak. When the new testement authors are talking about scripture they are taking about the old testement.

    grace56
     
    #15 grace56, Nov 27, 2004
  16. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think they were all right and none in error. The number is whatever adds up to Nero Caesar.
     
    #16 manchester, Dec 4, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...