These Men Are Responsible For Our Modern Versions

Hi, thanks for your information, I see your point. I have got the above information from another source, and cannot verify their quotation. I have just seen these pages which are available in Google books, and cannot find the words referred to, which is very disappointing, as you would expect other Christians to be accurate. I wonder if this was taken from another edition? Thanks again

 

By the belief that the Holy Spirit inspired them to poen down exactly what God intended!
MUST any of the Greek texts used be exactly same as the originals in order to be very word of God unto us?

 

Do you fully believe in the complete Inspiration, Infallibility and Inerrancy of the 66 Books of the Holy Bible? What do you make of Paul's (actually the Holy Spirit's) Words in 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Does ALL Scripture refer to ALL the 66 Books of the Bible, or not?

Why do you need to question the extent of the Bible that we have, and that of the originals, as to Its Inspiration?

I think your reasoning is faulty.

 

Okay. Sigh. I'll find them myself.

Will you tell me your secondary source please? It's by someone who did not really understand what he was reading, and misrepresented Nida. There are actually some substantial things to oppose in Nida, but your source missed the cut.

1. "Such a revelation involved limitations" is on p. 222. It is actually talking about the kenosis and the sense that as Christ limited Himself by the incarnation, so the Scriptures are limited to human understanding. At the bottom of the page he writes, "In fact, in our desire to emphasize the deity of Jesus Christ, we must not destroy his humanity." So this statement about revelation is not a problem.

2. "is not absolute" is on p. 25, and means simply that due to our human limitations we cannot through the Bible know everything about God. So he's actually talking about the omniscience of God. In the next paragraph he writes, "This use of 'absolute' must be clearly understood, however, for it does not mean that the revelation which we have received of God is not true." So this quote is again not problematic when seen in context.

3. “are in a sense nothing in and of themselves” is on p. 226, and is more problematic in that he uses the term "receptor," which in his first book on his DE method (Toward a Science of Translating, 1964) is a term used to describe the existential reception of the language of the Bible in that it "becomes the Word of God" in neoorthodox terms.

So once again we are reminded of the importance of going to original sources, especially in the field of Bible translation, which is full of misunderstandings and misconceptions. :)

 

Would say very much in doubt were in the originals!

 

Yes, but would add that ONLY they were fully without any errors or mistakes in them!

 

The ultimate source of our authority is the person of Jesus Christ, as he was/is God Incarnate, and he stated to us the Scriptures are His very words to us penned and spoken!

 

based on what?

 

Your comments here seem to suggest that there could be errors?

 

Sure, Textual Criticism Drawns from the Wells of Infidelity

I should have added this link to my article

 

NOT any in the original books, but we do accept that all of the Hebrew/Greek texts still have some errors/mistakes in them, as in scribes mistakes, add ins, varients numbers, but NONE of that involves any essential doctrines/practices!

 

The quote of the 3 bearing witness not found in best witnesses!

 

such as?

 

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8

 

Check this out, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/1jn5.6-10.pdf

 

By the witess from the Spirit to Jesus is the Lord, and by the scripture that He inspired to be recorded down!

 

Guess 1 Timothy 3:16 comes to mind, eh?