Which is the true Bible

[jasoncran]

dragons? as in the fire breathing type?ie tiamat or the one in the hobbit?

 

[reba]

Puff, the magic dragon lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called Honah Lee,
Little Jackie paper loved that rascal puff,
And brought him strings and sealing wax and other fancy stuff. oh

 

[jasoncran]

i loved puff the magic dragon as a kid and cried when he had to leave.

 

[handy]

OK, here are the definitions of "inerrant" that you posted:

in·fal·li·ble
adj \(ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl\

Definition of INFALLIBLE



1

: incapable of error : unerring <an infallible="" memory="">


2

: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain <an infallible="" remedy="">


3

: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

How is what Free, myself and others trying to point out to you about the Bible not fit with with definitions 2 or 3?

Here again is what the Holy Spirit says regarding His word:

</an></an>All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

How does 2 Timothy 3:16 not fit the definitions 2 and 3 of inerrant that you yourself posted.

Almost all words have more than one definition. For instance in that very same Merriam Webster dictionary there are these definitions for Christian:

1
a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
b (1) : disciple
2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2
: the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress


Me, I fit definitions 1 a & b (1)...I do not fit the definitions 2(2), (3) or 2.

The definition of "inerrant" that you posted and is accepted in the Church for the Bible would be 1, 2 and 3 for the original texts and 2 and 3 for the current translations.

All right suit yourself. I see where this is going. If you don't want to use the accepted definitions of words relating directly to your questions, then all discussion is pointless.

I agree with Free here....all words have more than one accepted definition. You must have some reason why you choose to remain so "confused" on this because honestly, it ain't rocket science here. The truth is right here on the table if you choose to accept it...but, that's up to you.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Puff, the magic dragon lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called Honah Lee,
Little Jackie paper loved that rascal puff,
And brought him strings and sealing wax and other fancy stuff. oh

Witches have a box full of "fancy stuff" that they use from time to time, and yes, candles are in there.


Also, don't forget that;


Together they would travel on a boat with billowed sail
Jackie kept a lookout perched on puffs gigantic tail,
Noble kings and princes would bow whenever they came,
Pirate ships would lower their flag when puff roared out his name. oh!

And who could forget this couple of scriptures?

Revelation:12:3: And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
Revelation:12:4: And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.


The great red dragon who drew away a third of the angels of heaven with his tail.


Also, remember this;


Psalms:2:2: The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Psalms:2:3: Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.


It's no wonder the song has kings, princes, and pirates bowing down to satan.


The pirates, they didn't die out, they put their money into alcoholic spirits and other sins that they could exploit men by. Once the pirating business started to fizzle out they had to do something, and it's all been left for their descendants to take care of. What did you think, that they all repented and went away?

 

[handy]

I always cried a little bit about Puff leaving as well. I also cried when Lassie came home, when the Wicked Witch sent the flying monkeys after Dorothy, even when Frodo has to leave the Shire because he saved it for everyone but himself.

I cry a lot. 4

 

[handy]

Witches have a box full of "fancy stuff" that they use from time to time, and yes, candles are in there.


Also, don't forget that;


Together they would travel on a boat with billowed sail
Jackie kept a lookout perched on puffs gigantic tail,
Noble kings and princes would bow whenever they came,
Pirate ships would lower their flag when puff roared out his name. oh!

And who could forget this couple of scriptures?

Revelation:12:3: And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
Revelation:12:4: And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.


The great red dragon who drew away a third of the angels of heaven with his tail.


Also, remember this;


Psalms:2:2: The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Psalms:2:3: Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.


It's no wonder the song has kings, princes, and pirates bowing down to satan.


The pirates, they didn't die out, they put their money into alcoholic spirits and other sins that they could exploit men by. Once the pirating business started to fizzle out they had to do something, and it's all been left for their descendants to take care of. What did you think, that they all repented and went away?

You think Puff is about witchcraft? That's interesting...most think it's about smoking marijuana.


I think we might be getting a bit off topic.

 

[ronniechoate34]

OK, here are the definitions of "inerrant" that you posted:


Originally Posted by ronniechoate34


in·fal·li·ble
adj \(ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl\

Definition of INFALLIBLE



1

: incapable of error : unerring


2

: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain


3

: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals .

This is the definition of infallible.

How is what Free, myself and others trying to point out to you about the Bible not fit with with definitions 2 or 3?.

Incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith and morals, for instance is not what we have in the different bible versions. In fact you have different groups of people that are saying totally different things from one another, teaching different doctrines. This issue is ONE example of this, So logically the fact that there are different bibles causing this issue means that there must be an error somewhere in the scriptures. Many people have been taught by the King James Bible and it's doctrines that there is a problem with these other bible versions. No one can deny that. There was no such division until the revised version came along in 1881 and it has been a controversy ever since. With division and confusion there has to be error. There's no way around it unless there is some crazy thing going on that I don't know about.

Here again is what the Holy Spirit says regarding His word:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;.

That's right all scripture, but don't some people believe that there is scripture left out of some bibles? If we need all scripture then why is any of it left out of any bible version?

How does 2 Timothy 3:16 not fit the definitions 2 and 3 of inerrant that you yourself posted..

It simply says that all scripture is insired by God, There are some people who will tell you that these other bible versions are not the true scriptures, and that these bibles are counterfiets.They can even show you places where important things have been altererd or just plain left out. I don't believe that everyone thinks that all of these bibles were inspired by God. If they are infallible and inerrant bibles then why has there been so much division and confusion surrounding them? Do you believe that God is the cause of all of this confusion?

Almost all words have more than one definition. For instance in that very same Merriam Webster dictionary there are these definitions for Christian:

1
a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
b (1) : disciple
2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2
: the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress


Me, I fit definitions 1 a & b (1)...I do not fit the definitions 2(2), (3) or 2.

The definition of "inerrant" that you posted and is accepted in the Church for the Bible would be 1, 2 and 3 for the original texts and 2 and 3 for the current translations..

The definition of inerrant is simply without error. The definition of infallible that I posted leaves no room for error, or division, of any kind.

Originally Posted by Free
All right suit yourself. I see where this is going. If you don't want to use the accepted definitions of words relating directly to your questions, then all discussion is pointless.
I agree with Free here....all words have more than one accepted definition. You must have some reason why you choose to remain so "confused" on this because honestly, it ain't rocket science here. The truth is right here on the table if you choose to accept it...but, that's up to you. .

No, it ain't rocket science, words have a meaning, and if you are not going to properly use them then it is best if us to, a, learn how to use certain words, or b, don't use them at all because we may mis lead someone

 

[Rhea]

You think Puff is about witchcraft? That's interesting...most think it's about smoking marijuana.


I think we might be getting a bit off topic.

It's about childhood and the loss of carefree imaginative play that comes with growing out of it. According to the songwriter, who is always amused that people try to make it about something else. Listen to it carefully and you'll see - it's about growing up, and the perspective of one who has not grown up watching one who has. Younger siblings know this feeling all too keenly.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Okay, who believes that the confusion and division that has been created by these bibles is from God? Has God sent these various versions of the Bible to tempt men into confusion and division? Or, is this men's doing simply because we could not keep the pure word's of God intact.


Who knows what is causing all of this hubBUB?


I'm open to answers. Does anyone have one?

 

[jasoncran]

Okay, who believes that the confusion and division that has been created by these bibles is from God? Has God sent these various versions of the Bible to tempt men into confusion and division? Or, is this men's doing simply because we could not keep the pure word's of God intact.


Who knows what is causing all of this hubBUB?


I'm open to answers. Does anyone have one?

men who read them not God. while i wont claim total perfect understand . i come from a pretty off the wall background. the nwt is a corrupt bible and i had to unlearn all that the jw taught me. i simply read the kjv and when i didnt know i prayed and asked God to teach me and lead me to the truth. i learned in church and from the word.

 

[ronniechoate34]

men who read them not God. while i wont claim total perfect understand . i come from a pretty off the wall background. the nwt is a corrupt bible and i had to unlearn all that the jw taught me. i simply read the kjv and when i didnt know i prayed and asked God to teach me and lead me to the truth. i learned in church and from the word.

So you believe that the PANdemonium is caused by men who read the scriptures, and not the scriptures themselves.


So then, in your opinion who is right and who is wrong in this situation? Is it those who believe that we have a perfect Bible, or is it those who are in disbelief of this, and who rely on textual critics to give them their leds?

 

[jasoncran]

So you believe that the PANdemonium is caused by men who read the scriptures, and not the scriptures themselves.


So then, in your opinion who is right and who is wrong in this situation? Is it those who believe that we have a perfect Bible, or is it those who are in disbelief of this, and who rely on textual critics to give them their leds?

ok. i go by the spirit fist and verify what i hear with the bible. if God cant keep his own word then why believe in him in the first place. despite all the attempts to pervert it remains intact.

the jews ask the same thing with their tanakh(the jews dont call the ot the ot its either the bible or to tanakh) i have a jewish text that my grandmother had, my brother and i have taken bibles and compared.

 

[ronniechoate34]

ok. i go by the spirit fist and verify what i hear with the bible. if God cant keep his own word then why believe in him in the first place. despite all the attempts to pervert it remains intact.

the jews ask the same thing with their tanakh(the jews dont call the ot the ot its either the bible or to tanakh) i have a jewish text that my grandmother had, my brother and i have taken bibles and compared.

You are right, God's Word does remain intact, but if that's the case then where is it? Who has it? Have you noticed that there is division among the churches? Now, the fact that there is division is an absolute gurantee that somone is wrong, there's no way around it.


I would simply like to know which group you think it is that is wrong in this case. Is it those people who believe that we have a perfect Bible, or, is it those who are in disbelief and can't accept the idea of a perfect Bible and rely on textual critics for leds?


What say you, Jason?

 

[ronniechoate34]

That question is open to anyone.

 

[jasoncran]

You are right, God's Word does remain intact, but if that's the case then where is it? Who has it? Have you noticed that there is division among the churches? Now, the fact that there is division is an absolute gurantee that somone is wrong, there's no way around it.


I would simply like to know which group you think it is that is wrong in this case. Is it those people who believe that we have a perfect Bible, or, is it those who are in disbelief and can't accept the idea of a perfect Bible and rely on textual critics for leds?


What say you, Jason?

well i come from also later in life the bible isnt complete idea. that too is false. i believe that the vulgate and those based on that are the true word.the apochrya contradicts the core of the bible.

 

[reba]

A ring, a ring o' roses,
A pocket full o’posies-

 

[ronniechoate34]

well i come from also later in life the bible isnt complete idea. that too is false. i believe that the vulgate and those based on that are the true word.the apochrya contradicts the core of the bible.

That's your answer to my question?


I'm sorry, I guess I just don't understand.

 

[jasoncran]

That's your answer to my question?


I'm sorry, I guess I just don't understand.

i'm sorry its by faith alone. i cant point out a book or person that will say the catholics are wrong or right and not take that position by faith.

 

[ronniechoate34]

i'm sorry its by faith alone. i cant point out a book or person that will say the catholics are wrong or right and not take that position by faith.

? Are you saying that you don't believe that either group is right? I do not understand this answer either. I am sorry for being hard of understanding.