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!

The Holy Bible IS The Word of Almighty God

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, Apr 11, 2005.

  1. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Ratings:
    +0
    THE HOLY BIBLE, THE WORD OF GOD

    After reading a number of posts on this board, that I find very dangerous, I feel that I ought to make a number of points with regard to the Holy Bible.

    In the first place, I will point out that I am here dealing with the original writings of the 66 books of the Bible, as found in the English versions line the King James, etc. I refer not to the various translations into the different languages that the Bible has been translated into. This would also include the LXX of the Old Testament, the Old Latin, the Latin Vulgate, the Bishops Bible, etc. It’s the writings of Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, Paul, Matthew, John, Luke, etc that I refer to here.

    Now, it is my conviction (which I am sure is shared by the greater majority of those on this Baptist Board), that Almighty God in His Wisdom and Providence, has given us “His Word” in only 66 books, and no more, or no less. The Canon’s of both the Old and New Testaments are closed.

    Every one of the authors of these 66 books, at the time when they are writing the Words that God wanted us to have, were doing so under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So, when Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16, that “all Scripture is inspired by God…”, I am convinced that this here means all of the 66 books. And, likewise, when John gives that warning in Revelation 22:18-19, about adding to and taking away from the Word of God, again he is referring to the entire 66 books. This is not something that we can prove, but needs to be accepted by faith. We can also conclude, that, at the time when these writers of Holy Scripture were doing their work, they were “Infallible” in what they were writing. The Holy Spirit took control of their hearts and minds in such a way, that, the work they produced was not the words of man, but that of Almighty God. Therefore, the 66 original books of the Bible, are indeed the very Words of God the Holy Spirit.

    Following on from here, we have the confidence that, since the Author of the Holy Bible in its original form, is the Holy Spirit, Who is the “Spirit of Truth”, therefore what we have from Him is “nothing but the Truth”. We can now say without any doubt, that the original Word of God, is indeed Infallible and Inerrant in ALL that it says (Plenary Inspiration), and that the Holy Bible is completely Trustworthy in every issue that it deals with. That it has 100% Truth (Thy Word is Truth), and 0% error. Again, I cannot give any “proof”, but can honestly say that God the Holy Spirit has given me this conviction. Because it is the Word of God, Who cannot lie, or lead us into any error, the Holy Bible, “is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” ( 2 Timothy 3:16,17)

    This then leads us on to the next point, that that Holy Bible, since it is the Infallible Word of God to man, Who indeed is Perfect in all that He does, DOES NOT have any contradictions therein, but only paradox's.The so-called “errors” that liberals will list for us, are not really errors at all, but are merely “scribal errors”, that which is done by human copyists and translators in the versions that we have through the centuries. I say it again, the original Word of God, IS 100% ERROR FREE., that is even when it comes down to the place of the comma, or full-stop, it is 100% accurate, and trustworthy. I have very little time in modern textual methods, as most of them exist to try to discredit the Word of Almighty God

    We have the assurance, that the Word of God will never fail. I commend to to the Holy Bible as the Word of Almighty God to man. And, instead of trying to find fault with a faultless God, let us be humble and thankful for His grace in giving us His Precious Word in the first place.

    AMEN
     
  2. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Ratings:
    +0
    Icthus;
    Thank you. I agree with all you have said except your second to last paragraph. And even then, only part of it will I disagree with.
    Your jump from "no errors" to "scribal errors" I cannot nor will not make. In my view, if we allow "scribal errors" into our Bible as we have it, then we are left with less than 100% accuracy. Many here will disagree with me, and that is fine by me. After all, each man must come to position he can stand on as he is led of the Holy Spirit.
    You mentioned a few positions you have taken by faith. I do the same. My faith is in the 66 books of the KJV as I have it and my faith is that it is without error of any kind. Thereby, I am able to live my life in SUBJECTION to it as God leads on a daily basis. It has never failed me.
    And to your last sentence; I offer my hearty AMEN!

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  3. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Ratings:
    +5
    Icthus says: I have very little time in modern textual methods,as most of them exist to try to discredit the Word of Almighty God

    Care to prove this statement?
     
  4. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Ratings:
    +5
    Ichtus, also care to prove that the KJV is the only VALID translation of the Word of God?
     
  5. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Ratings:
    +0
    icthus said:

    And, likewise, when John gives that warning in Revelation 22:18-19, about adding to and taking away from the Word of God, again he is referring to the entire 66 books. This is not something that we can prove, but needs to be accepted by faith.

    "Accepted by faith" is a weasel phrase; it simply means, "accepted by my ipse dixit."

    Put another way, even though these verses can be interpreted in more than one way, we're just supposed to accept your interpretation without question.

    Why?
     
  6. Slambo

    Slambo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just look into the theory(which means speculation,not fact)of necromancers W&H to see how destructive it is!
     
  7. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Ratings:
    +5
    Uh...No....You made the accusation...you post the proof. Stop using the typical Slambo avoidance tactics.
     
  8. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hi Jim

    The "Scribal Errors" that I refer to, are NOT in the original, but found in all translations. For, it is a plain fact that NO version of the Holy Bible in ANY language is 100% right, this includes the KJV which I use as my second Bible version, my main being the NKJV.

    Take, for example the prophecy quoted in Matthew 27:9, where we read "Then wsa fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took thirty pieces of sliver..."
    However, if you were to read through the entire book of Jeremiah, you will not find any refernec to this. But, if you did look at Zechariah 11:12-13, it is clear that here we have where Matthew quoted from.While the bulk of manuscripts and versions have "Jeremiah"; some, like the Old Latin (a,b), Syriac, Coptic, Diatessaron, and accoring to Augustine, some manuscripts, omit the name alltogether. Surely to have the name of "Jeremiah" here is a "scribal error" at a very early date.There are other examples that can be given. This does not undermine the Word of God in any way, as there errors are due to human copyists, many of whom were not even believers.
     
  9. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Ratings:
    +0
    Did I say this somewhere?
     
  10. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ransom, what exactly is you problem? I am not at all here concerned with "Interpretation" of the original Scriptures, or even the many "translations" that abound. My main concern is the "original 66 books" found in our Bible, like the KJV, etc, as being the Infallable, Inerrant Word of Almighty God. If you have difficulties in accepting that these original writings are the Word of God, you need to see the Lord for help, since He is the only One Who can convince you that the Holy Bible is His Word. Remember, I speak of the original.
     
  11. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, since almost all the "modern" versions in all languages are based on the Greek Text produced by either the United Bible Society, or that of Nestle and Aland, you will find that almost all those responsible for these "Texts" were unreliable men, many of whom even doubted the Infalability and Inerrancy of Scripture, both which I believe are the "touch-stone" for anyone who undertakes such a work as a Bible Verions.

    You can see some evidence here
    http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/modern2.htm
     
  12. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Ratings:
    +0
    As for the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort, don't even mention them as "reliable"
     
  13. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Ratings:
    +0
    Icthus;
    When choosing an explanation for a "problem" text, I would much rather choose on the side of no error that on the side of error.

    Taken from The People's New Testament commentary;
    Mt 27:9
    "Then was fulfilled." The prophecy is found in Zec 11:12. Albert Barnes shows that a change of a single letter in the original would transform Zechariah into Jeremiah, and it is supposed that some early copyist made the mistake. Another explanation is that Jeremiah, in the Jewish arrangement of the prophets, stood first, and that his name was given to the whole book of prophecy.

    Also in Jamiesson-Fausset Brown we find;
    Mt 27:9
          9. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying-- (Zec 11:12-13). Never was a complicated prophecy, otherwise hopelessly dark, more marvellously fulfilled. Various conjectures have been formed to account for Matthew's ascribing to Jeremiah a prophecy found in the book of Zechariah. But since with this book he was plainly familiar, having quoted one of its most remarkable prophecies of Christ but a few chapters before (Mt 21:4-5), the question is one more of critical interest than real importance. Perhaps the true explanation is the following, from LIGHTFOOT: "Jeremiah of old had the first place among the prophets, and hereby he comes to be mentioned above all the rest in Mt 16:14; because he stood first in the volume of the prophets [as he proves from the learned DAVID KIMCHI] therefore he is first named. When, therefore, Matthew produceth a text of Zechariah under the name of JEREMY, he only cites the words of the volume of the prophets under his name who stood first in the volume of the prophets. Of which sort is that also of our Saviour (Lu 24:41), "All things must be fulfilled which are written of Me in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms," or the Book of Hagiographa, in which the Psalms were placed first."

    Of the two possible explanations,I prefer the latter, in that it was likely that Matthew referred to the whole of the prophets using Jeremiah as being first in those books..

    JMO.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  14. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Ratings:
    +0
    icthus said:

    Ransom, what exactly is you problem?

    My problem is the sort of intellectual dishonesty that is routinely practiced by advocates of the KJV.

    If you have difficulties in accepting that these original writings are the Word of God

    Case in point: misrepresentation of your opponents.
     
  15. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Ratings:
    +0
    icthus said:

    As for the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort, don't even mention them as "reliable"

    Another case in point. Icthus hath spoken! Question not!
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +0
    What about W&H make them less reliable in either a scholarly or spiritual sense than Erasmus?
     
  17. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Ratings:
    +0
    ransom, are you hard of understanding the English language? I have NEVER said that the KJV are the "original writings". By this I mean just that, the "original autographs" of the writers of all of the 66 books
     
  18. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Ratings:
    +0
  19. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    AV1611Jim:

    Perhaps Jeremiah spoke some things which didn't make it directly into Scripture. THE most important prophet of all, JESUS, certainly did, but in His office as The Word, He caused every last passage He wanted preserved to be included in the canon.

    Why wasn't the canon clearly settled right after the Revelation was given? IMO, it was because He wanted believers by FAITH, and once His earthly ministry was done, His miracles were fewer and more subtle. The preservation of the Scriptures is itself a miracle, which wasn't apparent until some time had passed. Notice that during the formative years of the NT canon, that the basics were always there...belief in JESUS as Lord and Savior, His crucifixion and resurrection. The dispute was over the books which contain many of the "nuts & bolts" of Christian living.

    Like it or not, the canon was settled, humanly speaking, by early CATHOLICS. However, this was before that church went over the hill and evolved into a cult. And we must remember that God has used OUTRIGHT PAGANS to accomplish His will.

    I thank GOD every day that He's seen fit to provide us with all the knowledge we now need about Him to live as He wants usto live, and that He underwent a horrible ordeal for our sakes. (Anyone really believe that GOD didn't suffer upon seeing His only Son abused and reviled as JESUS was? How would YOU feel if YOUR son was thus treated by his own creations?)
     
  20. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Ratings:
    +0
    Good post :D
     
Loading...