Is the NIV dishonest?

[Randy]

yes scripture requires the apostles continue until Christ returns mt 28:19 acts 1:8
authority same as Christ Jn 20:2-23

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

apostles are God breathed not just the scripture some of them wrote!

I suppose you don't include Paul cos that makes 13? not to mention titus and timothy

The new Jerusalem has only 12 foundations. They are named after the 12 apostles of the Lord. So is Gods revelation incorrect in only stating 12?

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

NASB 1977 > NIV. Too many issues in NIV. NASB 1977 or 1995 is the BEST as a Main Bible.

Don't bother with paraphrase translations. Accuracy FIRST.

I like the ESV as an accurate word-for-word translation.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

Don, Paul was one of the 12 chosen by God and set aside from birth before he did good or bad. He received the gospel by revelation. Raised in traditions and one under law He never backed down from grace.

I tell you something from wisdom given to me from above. They failed to wait for an answer from the Lord. A big snafu yet the Lord finds this in their favor, their motives were pure, and they could not know about Paul at that time who we read had already been set aside from birth.

Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Most churches have always assumed that the choice of Matthias was not Spirit-led because the Holy Spirit has not yet come on Pentecost.

However, since Jesus gave the eleven disciples the Holy Spirit on the evening he arose, they did have the Holy Spirit's guidance. Paul was the thirteenth apostle:

Joh 20:20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
Joh 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Spirit's coming on Pentecost was to empower them to be his witnesses.

 

[Free]

your quote: orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations,

does this also apply in the new testament under the apostles?

I was only giving Thayer's definition of the word used to show the different meanings and interpretations of it.

case of the bereans

The Bereans incident!

The berean incident supports both scripture and tradition!

(((NOT SCRIPTURE ALONE!)))

acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

(There is no single verse in the O.T. that says this)

one verse that refers to suffering is Isa 53 but it does not say it refers to Christ.

acts 8:30-35

35 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

The fact that Isa 53 refers to Jesus Christ is only according to apostolic tradition of Paul and Philip!

And likely Jesus himself (Luke 24:25-27). But, none of that is apostolic tradition, it is Scripture. The Bereans checked what Paul was saying to make sure it was true; that's the point.

The jews and I have communicated with them on this site DO NOT accept Isa 53 as reference to Christ but to Israel itself, and they say Paul is a hetetic and traitor.

Of course they say that, but they're wrong and the context of Isa. 53 proves that it cannot refer to Israel itself.

The bereans believed both the scripture and tradition!!!

It says they examined "the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so," not tradition.

(sacred tradition is found all over yhe new testament, and was handed down decades before the new testament was written, and centuries before the canon was itself collected by apostolic authority and approved by the pope of rome in 381-2 at the council of rome!)

examples

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (every word the apostles heard from Christ)

mt 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

mt 16:16-17

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Lk 11:28 blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words...

acts 4:31 and they spake the word of God with boldness.

1 cor 11:23 as I received of the Lord I have handed down to you...

1 thes 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2 thes 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

thks

This is all Scripture, not tradition. Or, if you prefer, some of it may be tradition written down and is now in Scripture, making it Scripture.

 

[Randy]

Most churches have always assumed that the choice of Matthias was not Spirit-led because the Holy Spirit has not yet come on Pentecost.

However, since Jesus gave the eleven disciples the Holy Spirit on the evening he arose, they did have the Holy Spirit's guidance. Paul was the thirteenth apostle:

Joh 20:20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
Joh 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Spirit's coming on Pentecost was to empower them to be his witnesses.

Paul wrote he was aside from birth so God already knew beforehand Judas's replacement. Why then would the HS guide them to seek another? They failed to wait for a answer to their prayers.

The Spirit was with them before it was in them.

“If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

 

[donadams]

You're quoting the NT. Thats scripture. Their source was God.

What is your point in all this?

it is now but not at that time!

when philip preached to the eunuch and paul to the bereans it was not and would not be written gor decades and not collected into a canon with apostolic papal approval for centuries until the council of rome 381-2 and most people were illiterate until the 20th century and bibles were very rare and expensive until the mass production processes of the 20th century

thks

 

[donadams]

You're quoting the NT. Thats scripture. Their source was God.

What is your point in all this?

Christ and His church are one!
((Inseparable authority & unity))
Acts 9:4 Lk 10:16 eph 5:32 Isa 53:5 Jn 15:4-5 eph 5:24 Jn 20:21-23
(The apostolic church possesses the authority of Christ, it is Christ acting thru His church)
matt 28:19-20

The church was founded and existed and exercised authority in teaching, governance, and sanctifying souls before the New Testament was written!

The church does not require the New Testament scriptures to know the truth!

The church wrote the scripture!

The church was taught by Christ in person for three years!

And commanded by Christ to teach and sanctify all men unto eternal salvation! Matt 28:19

For 30 plus years before the apostles wrote scripture
By the inspiration of the Holy Ghost they taught and preached and settle matters of doctrine!

Acts 8:12 & 25 & 35
Acts 13:5
1 pet 1:25


The apostolic church exercise's the authorityof Christ in union with Christ! matt 28:19-20
Jn 15:5 Jn 20:21-23

 

[donadams]

The new Jerusalem has only 12 foundations. They are named after the 12 apostles of the Lord. So is Gods revelation incorrect in only stating 12?

only 12 original with mathias replacing judas and excluding paul?

11 plus 1 is 12!

Acts 2:14
But Peter, standing up with the eleven...

mathias makes 11

judas is dead
paul not apostle yet

 

[donadams]

I was only giving Thayer's definition of the word used to show the different meanings and interpretations of it.


And likely Jesus himself (Luke 24:25-27). But, none of that is apostolic tradition, it is Scripture. The Bereans checked what Paul was saying to make sure it was true; that's the point.


Of course they say that, but they're wrong and the context of Isa. 53 proves that it cannot refer to Israel itself.


It says they examined "the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so," not tradition.


This is all Scripture, not tradition. Or, if you prefer, some of it may be tradition written down and is now in Scripture, making it Scripture.

the point is its impossible to check what Paul said only according to scripture!

Isa 53 does not say it refers to Christ the apostolic tradition does!

scripture and tradition!
Amen?

 

[donadams]

I was only giving Thayer's definition of the word used to show the different meanings and interpretations of it.


And likely Jesus himself (Luke 24:25-27). But, none of that is apostolic tradition, it is Scripture. The Bereans checked what Paul was saying to make sure it was true; that's the point.


Of course they say that, but they're wrong and the context of Isa. 53 proves that it cannot refer to Israel itself.


It says they examined "the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so," not tradition.


This is all Scripture, not tradition. Or, if you prefer, some of it may be tradition written down and is now in Scripture, making it Scripture.

all scripture then why does the eunuch who had scripture and was reading completely failed to understand it? and God has to send him an apostle to teach him?

Jesus Christ founded the new covenant church to teach and sanctify all men unto eternal salvation! (Matt 28:19)

 

[donadams]

I was only giving Thayer's definition of the word used to show the different meanings and interpretations of it.


And likely Jesus himself (Luke 24:25-27). But, none of that is apostolic tradition, it is Scripture. The Bereans checked what Paul was saying to make sure it was true; that's the point.


Of course they say that, but they're wrong and the context of Isa. 53 proves that it cannot refer to Israel itself.


It says they examined "the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so," not tradition.


This is all Scripture, not tradition. Or, if you prefer, some of it may be tradition written down and is now in Scripture, making it Scripture.

scripture alone

you can argue infant baptism from from scripture alone and both support it and reject it!

scripture alone is no solution or Christ would not have established the church to infallibility teach all men unto eternal salvation!

thks

 

[Free]

the point is its impossible to check what Paul said only according to scripture!

You disagree then with both Paul and Jesus:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (ESV)

Isa 53 does not say it refers to Christ the apostolic tradition does!

No, the NT makes it clear that it refers to Christ.

scripture and tradition!
Amen?

I have nothing against tradition, but Scripture is the final and only infallible authority.

all scripture then why does the eunuch who had scripture and was reading completely failed to understand it? and God has to send him an apostle to teach him?

Because a lot of people fail to understand Scripture. Tradition is those things that are not written down as Scripture. God used apostles and others to initially teach, and some of that we have written down as Scripture. It's pretty straightforward.

Jesus Christ founded the new covenant church to teach and sanctify all men unto eternal salvation! (Matt 28:19)

Of course, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

scripture alone

you can argue infant baptism from from scripture alone and both support it and reject it!

scripture alone is no solution or Christ would not have established the church to infallibility teach all men unto eternal salvation!

Please don't argue against sola Scriptura, as you have repeatedly shown in the past that you don't understand it and have no intention of doing so. As for infant baptism, some like to think Scripture supports it, but it doesn't.

Jesus was the only human to walk this earth that was infallible in what he taught. The Church is not infallible because it is made up of fallible people, including all its leaders.

What does any of this have to do with your OP? Was this just a troll thread to bring in your anti-Protestant, pro-Catholic talking points?

 

[donadams]

You disagree then with both Paul and Jesus:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (ESV)


No, the NT makes it clear that it refers to Christ.


I have nothing against tradition, but Scripture is the final and only infallible authority.


Because a lot of people fail to understand Scripture. Tradition is those things that are not written down as Scripture. God used apostles and others to initially teach, and some of that we have written down as Scripture. It's pretty straightforward.


Of course, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.


Please don't argue against sola Scriptura, as you have repeatedly shown in the past that you don't understand it and have no intention of doing so. As for infant baptism, some like to think Scripture supports it, but it doesn't.

Jesus was the only human to walk this earth that was infallible in what he taught. The Church is not infallible because it is made up of fallible people, including all its leaders.

What does any of this have to do with your OP? Was this just a troll thread to bring in your anti-Protestant, pro-Catholic talking points?

focus like a lazer beam

we are not talking about "all the prophets have spoken" but only what Isa 53

 

[donadams]

You disagree then with both Paul and Jesus:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (ESV)


No, the NT makes it clear that it refers to Christ.


I have nothing against tradition, but Scripture is the final and only infallible authority.


Because a lot of people fail to understand Scripture. Tradition is those things that are not written down as Scripture. God used apostles and others to initially teach, and some of that we have written down as Scripture. It's pretty straightforward.


Of course, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.


Please don't argue against sola Scriptura, as you have repeatedly shown in the past that you don't understand it and have no intention of doing so. As for infant baptism, some like to think Scripture supports it, but it doesn't.

Jesus was the only human to walk this earth that was infallible in what he taught. The Church is not infallible because it is made up of fallible people, including all its leaders.

What does any of this have to do with your OP? Was this just a troll thread to bring in your anti-Protestant, pro-Catholic talking points?

No, the NT makes it clear that it refers to Christ.

where?

 

[donadams]

You disagree then with both Paul and Jesus:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (ESV)


No, the NT makes it clear that it refers to Christ.


I have nothing against tradition, but Scripture is the final and only infallible authority.


Because a lot of people fail to understand Scripture. Tradition is those things that are not written down as Scripture. God used apostles and others to initially teach, and some of that we have written down as Scripture. It's pretty straightforward.


Of course, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.


Please don't argue against sola Scriptura, as you have repeatedly shown in the past that you don't understand it and have no intention of doing so. As for infant baptism, some like to think Scripture supports it, but it doesn't.

Jesus was the only human to walk this earth that was infallible in what he taught. The Church is not infallible because it is made up of fallible people, including all its leaders.

What does any of this have to do with your OP? Was this just a troll thread to bring in your anti-Protestant, pro-Catholic talking points?

no i brought it up cos someone asked

 

[donadams]

You disagree then with both Paul and Jesus:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (ESV)


No, the NT makes it clear that it refers to Christ.


I have nothing against tradition, but Scripture is the final and only infallible authority.


Because a lot of people fail to understand Scripture. Tradition is those things that are not written down as Scripture. God used apostles and others to initially teach, and some of that we have written down as Scripture. It's pretty straightforward.


Of course, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.


Please don't argue against sola Scriptura, as you have repeatedly shown in the past that you don't understand it and have no intention of doing so. As for infant baptism, some like to think Scripture supports it, but it doesn't.

Jesus was the only human to walk this earth that was infallible in what he taught. The Church is not infallible because it is made up of fallible people, including all its leaders.

What does any of this have to do with your OP? Was this just a troll thread to bring in your anti-Protestant, pro-Catholic talking points?

Christ established the church in His infallible truth and authority! Lk 10:16 mt 28:19
and in union with Christ! mt 28:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 20:21

 

[Free]

focus like a lazer beam

we are not talking about "all the prophets have spoken" but only what Isa 53

Why do you want to leave out everything else? Is Isaiah not one of the prophets? Wouldn't "all that the prophets have spoken" necessarily include Isa. 53? When Jesus "interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself," do you think he would have excluded such an important and obvious passage as Isa. 53?

Since Paul was reasoning "from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead" (Acts 17:2-3, ESV), do you think he would have excluded Isa. 53?

No, the NT makes it clear that it refers to Christ.

where?

Have you not read the NT? Have you not read the Passion narratives? It's throughout the NT, shown in many ways. One could never have read the Bible and know little about it, read the NT, and then go read Isa. 53 and know that the suffering servant is Jesus.

Christ established the church in His infallible truth and authority! Lk 10:16 mt 28:19

No, he did not. He established the Church, but nowhere did he indicate or even imply that it would be infallible. Nowhere is any person or leader said to be infallible. Human nature dictates that we are all fallible, including church leaders. Only Jesus was infallible.

Please try and put all your responses to one post in one post.

 

[Randy]

it is now but not at that time!

when philip preached to the eunuch and paul to the bereans it was not and would not be written gor decades and not collected into a canon with apostolic papal approval for centuries until the council of rome 381-2 and most people were illiterate until the 20th century and bibles were very rare and expensive until the mass production processes of the 20th century

thks

We accept the teachings written down in the NT. A closed canon.

A closed canon, in religious contexts, refers to the belief that the collection of sacred writings considered authoritative is complete and no further additions or revisions are accepted.

That what was accepted was more than likely already in use. It clearly preexisted. The authorship was most likely the criteria for acceptance as genuine. A apostle or close associate of a apostle??

But what is your point in all this?

 

[Randy]

Christ and His church are one!
((Inseparable authority & unity))
Acts 9:4 Lk 10:16 eph 5:32 Isa 53:5 Jn 15:4-5 eph 5:24 Jn 20:21-23
(The apostolic church possesses the authority of Christ, it is Christ acting thru His church)
matt 28:19-20

The church was founded and existed and exercised authority in teaching, governance, and sanctifying souls before the New Testament was written!

The church does not require the New Testament scriptures to know the truth!

The church wrote the scripture!

The church was taught by Christ in person for three years!

And commanded by Christ to teach and sanctify all men unto eternal salvation! Matt 28:19

For 30 plus years before the apostles wrote scripture
By the inspiration of the Holy Ghost they taught and preached and settle matters of doctrine!

Acts 8:12 & 25 & 35
Acts 13:5
1 pet 1:25


The apostolic church exercise's the authorityof Christ in union with Christ! matt 28:19-20
Jn 15:5 Jn 20:21-23

Your use of citations seems to argue against this post.
The canon is closed and what any church teaches as doctrine should be able to be verified in the NT as sound doctrine.
Paul received the gospel by revelation not any man. The other disciples were eyewitnesses of Jesus and learned from Him.

No new revelation is given.

 

[Randy]

only 12 original with mathias replacing judas and excluding paul?

11 plus 1 is 12!

Acts 2:14
But Peter, standing up with the eleven...

mathias makes 11

judas is dead
paul not apostle yet

Paul was God's choice from birth. Mathias is not one of the 12 whether you give him the title of apostle or not. They did not wait for answer to their prayer. Revelation states "12". The foundations of the New Jerusalem were named after the "12" apostles of the Lord. As Jesus states elsewhere, "if that were not so why would I state it?"

The 11 were not introducing apostolic succession. They only sought to replace Judas who betrayed Jesus. When James was put to the sword he wasn't replaced. The 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.