Biblical inerrancy

[Grazer]

Nothing wrong with unorthodox. It's those considered unorthodox that got things changed and new ideas in the open

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[felix]

I will not ask the SAME question thrice.

From your evasive answers above it is clear that you are creating non-standard views of Scripture.

For example when you are quoiting from the Sermon on the Mount, you are taking a hyper literalistic approach. You need to take the CONTEXT and the words into consideration. Who was the audience? Jews steepedi n the 10 Commandments and who were bullied by the self-righteous Pharisees.

What you exclude from the quotes is significant because that gives a context for Jesus saying as He did. The reason context is so vital is that any verse ripped from its context becomes a pretext. Your cherry picking is not an exception to that rule.

There are two major significances to the entire passage. The most obvious one is the "you have heard it said... (referring to the 10 commandments) but I say unto you..." passages. Jesus is asserting His authority above the 10 C as well as the onerous rules of the Pharisees. In doing so, He is skewering the Pharisees who tithed on the spices, but neglected the intent of the Law-- a schoolmaster unto righteousness. The intent of the Pharisees was to come as close to breaking the 10 Cs as possible without actually breaking them. Jesus was addressing the exceptions based on the 10Cs. So while He did not quote exactly any particular Commandment directly, He was addressing the fallacies of the Pharisees circumvention of the Commandments by making clarifications of them.

The second purpose for the passage is where you may not fully understand it: He was upholding the 10Cs, not replacing them.

From where did this stuff come, mate? I ask because the stuff is certainly a cult-like and unorthodox view of Scriptures. I do NOT think that it is a result of you spending too much time in the hot outback this time of year without a hat

Shalom

where did you get the idea of Jesus quoting 10 commandments?
All through the gospels and even referring to requirements for Eternal life He refers only 9. Which Jesus are you talking about?

(Sent from mobile)

 

[By Grace]

where did you get the idea of Jesus quoting 10 commandments?
All through the gospels and even referring to requirements for Eternal life He refers only 9. Which Jesus are you talking about? (emphasis added)

What you seem not to understand is the fact that Jesus was NOT eliminating any of the 10 C, (or else He would say so directly); He was expanding the meaning behind them, which the religious leaders failed to understand.
In every statement that Jesus made concerning Scripture, He UPHELD Scripture.

And when you write "Which Jesus are you talking about?" you really confuse me, it is as if you believe in another, different Jesus than is found in Scripture alone. Please explain.

 

[felix]

What you seem not to understand is the fact that Jesus was NOT eliminating any of the 10 C, (or else He would say so directly); He was expanding the meaning behind them, which the religious leaders failed to understand.
In every statement that Jesus made concerning Scripture, He UPHELD Scripture.

And when you write "Which Jesus are you talking about?" you really confuse me, it is as if you believe in another, different Jesus than is found in Scripture alone. Please explain.

If Jesus is not eliminating, why is He giving a NEW commandment in a NEW covenant ? Paul also teaches in this way:

(Heb 8:13) [ In that He says,] [ "A new] [covenant,] [ "] [ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.]

Is Jesus expanding an obsolete covenant and the commandments in it ? Absolutely not!

This is why I said, the Christ who was crucified in the cross and mentioned in the Gospels, created a New Covenant using His own blood, and gave us a New Commandment for us to follow.

 

[By Grace]

If Jesus is not eliminating, why is He giving a NEW commandment in a NEW covenant ? Paul also teaches in this way:

(Heb 8:13) [ In that He says,] [ "A new] [covenant,] [ "] [ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.]
Is Jesus expanding an obsolete covenant and the commandments in it ? Absolutely not!
This is why I said, the Christ who was crucified in the cross and mentioned in the Gospels, created a New Covenant using His own blood, and gave us a New Commandment for us to follow.

From this, am I correct to extrapolate that your belief is that Jesus Christ was not mentioned, prefigured, prophetisied, and did not appear as a theophany in the OT?

 

[felix]

From this, am I correct to extrapolate that your belief is that Jesus Christ was not mentioned, prefigured, prophetisied, and did not appear as a theophany in the OT?

What made you think that new convent means Jesus is not mentioned in OT ?

 

[By Grace]

What made you think that new convent means Jesus is not mentioned in OT ?

This, what you wrote below:

Originally Posted by felix
If Jesus is not eliminating, why is He giving a NEW commandment in a NEW covenant ? Paul also teaches in this way:

(Heb 8:13) [ In that He says,] [ "A new] [covenant,] [ "] [ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.]
Is Jesus expanding an obsolete covenant and the commandments in it ? Absolutely not!
This is why I said, the Christ who was crucified in the cross and mentioned in the Gospels, created a New Covenant using His own blood, and gave us a New Commandment for us to follow.

If that, especially what I made large and bold is an inaccurate reflection of what you believe, then your correction is requested.

 

[felix]

This, what you wrote below:
If that, especially what I made large and bold is an inaccurate reflection of what you believe, then your correction is requested.

No correction is required.

Is Jesus expanding an obsolete covenant and the commandments in it ? Absolutely not! - is perfectly valid.

No! Jesus is not expanding the Old Covenant. People who follow Old Covenant are an abomination in the sight of God.

I posted a blog long ago: http://www.churchsw.org/old-covenant which explains it all and why we must NOT follow Old Covenant.

We are not under the old covenant (Heb 8:13) but new covenant with better promise (Heb 8:6). God married Israel (Isa 54:5) but divorced because of Israel didn’t keep the old covenant and involved in adultery (Jer 3:8). Now, God cannot take Israel or His people back (Jer 3:1). So, God sent His Son as an atonement (Eze 16:62-63) to wash the sins of His people (1 Jn 2:2) and make them as a bride (Rev 21:2) to marry them (Mark 2:19-20) through a new covenant (Heb 9:15).
If you follow any of the old covenant, you go to the Father as a divorced wife which is an abomination (Deu 24:1-4). So, you must go to the Father through Jesus Christ (John 14:6) who is the only way using the new covenant as a bride (Rev 21:9).

The 10 commandments (Exod 20) which are the words of the old covenant (Exod 34:28). The law of commandments are abolished by Jesus Christ (Eph 2:15) and we are not under this law but under grace (Rom 6:14).

So, Do you follow 10 commandments? do you give tithe? do you follow Sabbath? It’s abomination to God.

• Christ did not gave us 10 commandments in new covenant, but 1 new commandment (John 13:34), that is, to love one another.
• There is no tithe in new covenant but only freewill offering (Luke 21:3), i.e, give to God whatever your heart desires and nothing is demanded out of you. (note: do you know that tithe is only for Jews to give to Levites because they did not have inheritance (Num 18:20-21) in the land of Israel and God is their inheritance? Giving tithe to church or pastors is unbiblical).
• According to new covenant, we have a future rest (Heb 4) with Christ. Sabbath is about ‘rest’ and not ‘worship’ (Exod 31:15). Following Sabbath, simply means working out the law to be justified by law which scripture calls ‘estranged from Christ’ and ‘fallen from grace’ (Gal 5:4).

 

[By Grace]

Thank you for that link. It gave me a much greater understanding of who you are, and why you believe as you do. In a nutshell it is because you do not consult the Hebrew or Greek relying on the English translations. As a result, I offer you the oppoetunity to go to the one-on-one debate section, and discuss (but do not debate) some things that I found on your website. For instance, what you state below is at odds with every hermeneutic principle in Christianity:

Following the old covenant after the new covenant had arrived is like going to the Father as a divorced wife rather than a bride of Christ. Scripture says, a divorced wife going back to her former husband is an abomination. Hence, tithing, sabbath, circumcision, etc, are all abomination as they are of old covenant. In the new covenant, we only have freewill offering, a future rest with Christ and circumcision of heart.

The reason I do not want to peruse it here on another thread is that the threads are easily derailed, and some interlopers can become nasty. On that site, the posts are limited to only the two participants. I think that we can engage ina deep lelvel discussion without any rancor coming between us, especially since I read your web site. let me know of your decision, OK?

Now to get back to the OP. i can understand that you are a "Textus Receptus" person, but are you aware that the texts used in the TR are not considered as reliable as the texts that are newer, and thus closer to the autographa? The reason for that being that the newer texts are the closest recordings of the actual events. Another way of stating that is the TR is based on fewer documents than are the newer translations.


Novum Testamentum omne


The second edition used the more familiar term Testamentum instead of Instrumentum, and eventually became a major source for Luther's German translation. In second edition (1519) Erasmus aquired also Minuscule 3.
With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because a single 16th-century Greek manuscript (Codex Montfortianus) had subsequently been found to contain it, though Erasmus had expressed doubt as to the authenticity of the passage in his Annotations. Popular demand for Greek New Testaments led to many authorized and unauthorized editions in the early sixteenth century; almost all of which were based on Erasmus's work and incorporated his particular readings, although typically also making a number of minor changes of their own.


The overwhelming success of Erasmus' Greek New Testament completely overshadowed the Latin text upon which he had focused. Many other publishers produced their own versions of the Greek New Testament over the next several centuries.


Editio Regia

Robert Estienne, known as Stephanus (1503-1559), a printer from Paris, edited four times the Greek New Testament, 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551, the last in Geneva. The first two are among the neatest Greek texts known, and are called O mirificam; the third edition is a splendid masterpiece of typographical skill. It has critical apparatus in which quoted manuscripts referred to the text. Manuscripts were marked by symbols (from α to ις). He used Polyglotta Complutensis (symbolized by α) and 15 Greek manuscripts. In this number manuscripts: Codex Bezae, Codex Regius, minuscules 4, 5, 6, 2817, 8, 9. The third edition is known as the Editio Regia; the edition of 1551 contains the Latin translation of Erasmus and the Vulgate, is exceedingly rare. It was in this edition that the division of the New Testament into verses was for the first time introduced.
​

from Wiki

You can see in this snippet that there are only a handful of miniscules, papyri and other fragments used in the compilation. The bad thing in having such a small sampling available is that there is less certainty that you "got it right" in translating due to some variations in texts. However with a larger sampling, the possibility for certainty increases exponentially. That is due to the law of large numbers. And if there are variants in the larger amount of samplings, they are seen, and can be observed and cataloged. So if you are smart, and I know you are, you are most likely asking how many samplings are used today? 5800 +/-100 and being generous, there were perhaps 100 of these used in the TR.

Because the possibility of an error being compounded in 100 samplings is far greater than when there are 5800 samplings, it stands to reason that scholars are able to compile and to grade the variations because they see that there are three "families" of NT manuscripts. All these are rated:

By means of the letters A, B, C, and D, enclosed within "braces" [ ] at the beginning of each set of textual variants, the Committee has sought to indicate the relative degree of certainty, arrived at on the basis of internal considerations as well as of external evidence, for the reading adopted as the text. The letter A signifies that the text is virtually certain, while B indicates that there is some degree of doubt. The letter C means that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior read­ing, while D shows that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text.
from the preface to the Critical Apparatus of Nestle Aland 26

​

Gary Habermas, [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Dept. of Philosophy and Theology at LIBERTY UNIVERSITY says the following:
[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Further, the New Testament copies are much earlier—that is, closer to the original writings—than the classical texts. Most of the New Testament is available from copies that are only 100-150 years after its completion, while a copy of the entire New Testament dates from about another 100 years after that. In contrast, the classical counterparts generally date from 700-1400 years after their original compositions. This enormous difference significantly closes the distance between the authors and the earliest copies, placing the dates of the New Testament copies much closer to the events themselves. This makes it at least possible that the biblical writers were in a better position to know what actually occurred.[2]


Generally speaking, critical scholars readily admit these initial two points of manuscript number and date. John A. T. Robinson agrees that, “The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world.”[3] Even the skeptical Helmut Koester attests: “Classical authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript . . . . But there are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek . . . . the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end of II CE. . . . Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors.”[4]
[/FONT]​

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]So we have excellent pointers that we have essentially what the various authors originally wrote. John Wenham thinks that the overall biblical text is 99.99 percent pure, without any of the differences affecting doctrine.[5]
[/FONT]​

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Originally published in the Christian Research Journal / vol. 28, no. 1, 2005.

[/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][2] For many details, see F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 16-18; Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), especially Chapter 3.
[3] John A.T. Robinson, Can we Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 36.
[4] Helmut Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, two vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), II:16-17.
[5] John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984), 186-187.

NOTE the 5800 number came from an on-line and more recent video

So with all that, I am wondering about your belief that the TR is more reliable.

BTW this is the sort of discussion I would do on the 1 on 1.
[/FONT]

 

[felix]

Thank you for that link. It gave me a much greater understanding of who you are, and why you believe as you do. In a nutshell it is because you do not consult the Hebrew or Greek relying on the English translations. As a result, I offer you the oppoetunity to go to the one-on-one debate section, and discuss (but do not debate) some things that I found on your website. For instance, what you state below is at odds with every hermeneutic principle in Christianity:

The reason I do not want to peruse it here on another thread is that the threads are easily derailed, and some interlopers can become nasty. On that site, the posts are limited to only the two participants. I think that we can engage ina deep lelvel discussion without any rancor coming between us, especially since I read your web site. let me know of your decision, OK?

Yes, I am happy for 1 to 1 discussion.

Also, actually, I am not a TR person. I changed my viewpoint based on some of the recent revelations from the Bible. I need to update the website. But I will give you the idea of what I believe.

What I recently discovered is, Christ never included anything apart from Law, Psalms, Prophets as Scripture based on Luke 24:44-45 and several other quotes. If this is the case, we need to ask ourselves, under what authority, we defined Scriptures? Isn't it Christ who is our authority?

Order of Authority
1. Words of Christ - all the red text in Gospels and Revelation - Father - Deut 18:18-19, Son - John 12:48 and Holy Spirit - John 14:26, all declare the authority of Christ's words.
2. Scripture - Law, Prophets, Psalms - Scripture by itself does not have any authority. The authority of Scripture is only because it gives witness to Christ.
3. Teachings of Paul and apostles - Teachings of Paul through his letters and apostles are not scripture but good for us to understand Scripture and the Old Testament. We always need to independently verify those teachings using Scripture and must always build their teachings over Christ's foundation NOT the other way round.
4. Rest of the Old Testament.
5. Deutrocannonical books - Personal, I haven't read it but I was able to confirm it to be used widely including Paul quoting the woman and his sons from Maccabees. I consider this to be more of a historical reference since Christ never quoted anything from it.

 

[By Grace]

Felix,

I have no idea of what you are doing in establishing a hierarchy of Bible verses or sections. Paul the Apostle stated in 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL Scripture is inspired by God..." As a Rabbi, who earned the equivalent of a Ph.D. sitting under Gamaliel, He was referring BACK to the entire OT, as well as his writings, and the writings of the other Apostles which were to come. So I assert that the red letters (signifying the words of Jesus) are no more nor less important than the other lettes of the OT and NT comprising the 66 canonical books we call the Bible. To create such a hierarchy is to butcher Scripture, is arbitrary (albeit well-intentioned), and is not supported anywhere in Scripture.

Logically speaking, what you are doing is attempting to create a positive from a negative. Because you are assuming that an absence of a teaching from this place or that places (therein indicates the negative statement) is a defacto admission of something of lesser importance. This verse from John explains why that view is not accurate: John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. So the positive you are attempting to create is "Only what Jesus Christ mentioned is important".

Each of the writers were highly selective in what they wrote. For example, Mark takes 90 minutes or so to read orally; all those things mentioned in Mark took place in the space of 3 years. Matthew wrote his Gospel to present Jesus as Messiah of the Jews. Luke wrote Luke /Acts as a scientist and historian of his day, showing Jesus as the Great Physician. John wrote his Gospel to demonstrate the great love that God has for his children. But you can not pit one Gospel against another, even though they were authored for different purposes. The reason for that is because in all of the stated purposes of each Gospel writer, there is nothing contrary to the other, nor is their view of Jesus exclusive; all are correct.

Another problem with your hierarchy view is that it takes a Scripture, and rips it from its context. Having deallt with SDAs , Mormons and other cults for several years on other forums. I have never seen an exception to this hermeneutic rule: "Any verse ripped from its context is a pretext" Your quoting Luke 24: 24-25 is no exception to that rule, and it also demonstrates where your hierarchy creates an error. Please read these verses:

Luke 24: 13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
<SNIP>
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself
​

So the Emmaus Discourse of Jesus to Cleophas and his friend contained MORE than just what Jesus said, for there many verses in the OT which refer to Jesus Christ. And by relying heavily on that artificial hierarchy of yours, you missed an important clue in the black letters that would have alerted you to the unintended error.

So what I am to attempting to demonstrate to you is the doctrine of the clearness of Scripture. That means that Scripture is its own, and best interpreter. The $5 word for that is perspicuity . Rating Scripture verses in any manner as to "most important", etc creates an artificial distinction that is not in keeping with any principle of interpretation of Scripture, known as hermeneutics.

I plan to pursue the 1 on 1 thing after Christmas.

Hope that yours is great, and it is Christ honoring.

 

[felix]

I have no idea of what you are doing in establishing a hierarchy of Bible verses or sections. Paul the Apostle stated in 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL Scripture is inspired by God..." As a Rabbi, who earned the equivalent of a Ph.D. sitting under Gamaliel, He was referring BACK to the entire OT, as well as his writings, and the writings of the other Apostles which were to come. So I assert that the red letters (signifying the words of Jesus) are no more nor less important than the other lettes of the OT and NT comprising the 66 canonical books we call the Bible. To create such a hierarchy is to butcher Scripture, is arbitrary (albeit well-intentioned), and is not supported anywhere in Scripture.

I haven't read below but I have to ask you questions before I can proceed further.

• Scripture in Paul's days includes deutrocannonical books, as Paul and all apostles quote a lot of verses from LXX which includes deutrocannonical and in no way LXX disregards them - nor considered as secondary canon. So, what made you think Paul did not accept deutrocannonical books when he quoted the woman and his sons from Maccabees., i.e, Hebrews 11:35 is a reference to 2 Maccabees 7.
• What PhD did Jesus earn from which rabbi? Also list the PhD of all disciples. I know for certain Peter has a PhD in fishing because of his trade.
• 66 canonical books are not the cannon for the 1st 3 centuries. Neither the authors of NT referred from all 39 OT. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon was NEVER quoted in NT.
• Define Scripture? I need reference and the authority of who defined it. I mentioned the definition of Scripture as in Luke 24:44-45, with the authority of Christ. Who is your authority?

 

[Grazer]

Someone posted this elsewhere but I really like the gist of what they're saying;

The Holy Spirit did not leave the Church when the last word of Scripture was written. The Holy Spirit is still with the Church, guiding her in revelation. Scripture is the primary means of the Church in discernment. But it is not the ONLY means.

So is Scripture inerrant? No. Our ancestors were fallible human beings. If we imply that the Holy Spirit ignored their fallibility and dictated the Word perfectly, then I fear, we deny the premise of our faith: which is Incarnation. The Holy Spirit speaks through fallible, mistaken, and oh so human humanity, in order to speak to us. The Holy Spirit does not deny our humanity, but uses that humanity to speak.

This week, we celebrate the eternal Word becoming flesh. We celebrate God becoming human. If God is willing to become a pooping, crying and weak infant, how can we say that God won't use the fallible human individual to speak His word?

 

[By Grace]

I haven't read below but I have to ask you questions before I can proceed further.

[*]Scripture in Paul's days includes deutrocannonical books, as Paul and all apostles quote a lot of verses from LXX which includes deutrocannonical and in no way LXX disregards them - nor considered as secondary canon. So, what made you think Paul did not accept deutrocannonical books when he quoted the woman and his sons from Maccabees., i.e, Hebrews 11:35 is a reference to 2 Maccabees 7.

I still have no idea of what exactly you mean by "deutrocannonical ".

However, to answer this statement, the Septuagint (LXX) is a translation of the OT scrolls into common Greek, done in 300 BC. Therefore, they do not differ in purpose from the OT being translated in any other language. The fact that they are mentioned or quoted in any degree by the sacred writers does not elevate them to canon. Should you read 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Samuel, you will find that there are several other books that are mentioned, which contain information which the writer cites. Over the years, that has led some to wrongly infer that those were "missing books of Scripture". From that errant supposition have come many silly conspiracy theories.

[*]What PhD did Jesus earn from which rabbi? Also list the PhD of all disciples. I know for certain Peter has a PhD in fishing because of his trade.

You missed the words, "the equivalent of" in the statement. I stated that to refer back to the credentials of Paul which he listed. To state that he did earn a PhD is an anachronistic error, but it is not a mistake to state that he was one of the most educated men in the area, and a master of several languages.

As to the Peter PhD remark, I assume that you are make a humorous comment. He had only a rudimentary education, to which Scripture attests.

[*]66 canonical books are not the cannon for the 1st 3 centuries. Neither the authors of NT referred from all 39 OT. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon was NEVER quoted in NT.

NT Canon was codified c.220. That a book of the OT was not referred to in the NT as a criteria to be OT canon is a false standard.

[*]Define Scripture? I need reference and the authority of who defined it. I mentioned the definition of Scripture as in Luke 24:44-45, with the authority of Christ. Who is your authority?
[/LIST]

To do that beyond stating that the 66 books comprising the OT and NT are indeed, Scripture, requires a study of the transmission of Scripture, both OT and NT. For that, I recommend R. Laird Harris's book Inspiration and Canonicity of Scripture and E J Young's Thy Word is Truth These are the best in that field, and for me to post more on that may become pedantic

 

[felix]

I still have no idea of what exactly you mean by "deutrocannonical ".

However, to answer this statement, the Septuagint (LXX) is a translation of the OT scrolls into common Greek, done in 300 BC. Therefore, they do not differ in purpose from the OT being translated in any other language.

Wrong answer. The fact that you do not know deutrocannonical simply suggests you have no idea what books of LXX consists of. I suggest to verify and learn yourself.

You missed the words, "the equivalent of" in the statement. I stated that to refer back to the credentials of Paul which he listed. To state that he did earn a PhD is an anachronistic error, but it is not a mistake to state that he was one of the most educated men in the area, and a master of several languages.

As to the Peter PhD remark, I assume that you are make a humorous comment. He had only a rudimentary education, to which Scripture attests.

I thought you would take Paul's stance of saying his education is nothing before Christ, I now understand you never took that into consideration. May be I would like to know from who did Jesus got His PhD from, because you seem to exhalt Paul based on his education ?

NT Canon was codified c.220. That a book of the OT was not referred to in the NT as a criteria to be OT canon is a false standard.

To do that beyond stating that the 66 books comprising the OT and NT are indeed, Scripture, requires a study of the transmission of Scripture, both OT and NT.

I thought you consider Scripture to be authoritative. Now, you ask me to read a book and say that is authoritative ? I quoted what Jesus considered as Scripture, and yet, you rejected His Word and His Scripture, to exhalt a man's letter over Christ's Words.

Sorry, I do not follow your doctrine. I follow a doctrine, declared by the Father, a living word and that which is made into remembrance by Holy Spirit, for whom Heavenly Father and John are witness and yet you simply reject His Word?

(John 12:48) He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

Now, listen to what Christ says,

(Luke 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
(Luke 24:44-45) Then He said to them, "These [are] the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and [the] Prophets and [the] Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

If you truly obey Christ, then you will accept Christ's version of Scripture. If you do not, then you don't obey Christ. May be I can call you a Paul's follower, rather than Christ's follower.

 

[Mike]

Here is 45 year-old me, and I have a note to write for my neighbor with life-saving instructions. A 5 year-old has to write it and deliver it. If she writes the wrong instructions, it could have a devastating result. I could:

1. Tell her what to write and send her off to my neighbor's house, knowing it made little sense. (or)
2. Guide her letter by letter so that the end result was exactly what I want to tell my neighbor. Speak to her through the entire process so that an "h" looks like an "h", and not like an "r".

To add to the story, say decades and centuries go by, and I'm still 45, unable to write those instructions for new neighbors who moved in the house next door. I have different 5 year-olds who must write these same instructions... in different languages. Do I:

1. Let them re-write it any way they'd like. (or)
2. Use my influence to ensure that, though the words are different, the new neighbors get the same instructions the first neighbors got.

I may be walking in blind faith, but I believe my God is Powerful enough to ensure that His Message to humanity was not only exactly what He wanted to say to them at the time, but also powerful enough to preserve the integrity of His Word for those to come later. I am completely certain His Word is inerrant and perfectly preserved for us by Him in spite of human limitations.

 

[felix]

I may be walking in blind faith, but I believe my God is Powerful enough to ensure that His Message to humanity was not only exactly what He wanted to say to them at the time, but also powerful enough to preserve the integrity of His Word for those to come later. I am completely certain His Word is inerrant and perfectly preserved for us by Him in spite of human limitations.

Except if you believe His Word is Jesus Christ since no where it is mentioned as Scripture. His Word is inerrant and perfectly preserved but, no where such a guarantee is given to Bible. There are two places warnings are given, i.e, one for the Law and the other for Revelation.

If you happen to somehow believe Bible is God's Word (which ofcourse is clearly not), where does it say that God will make sure His Message to humanity is delivered exactly what He wants, when Christ Himself said false prophets will come and deceive many ??

(Matt 24:11) Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.

Also,
(2Pet 2:1-2) But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, [and] bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.
(1Tim 4:1) Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

 

[Vanguard]

What I find really interesting is that Orthodox Judaism does not recognize biblical inerrancy. They do believe in the divine origin of the Torah, however, their system is made up of 2 parts: the written version, which we have today, and the oral version which has been passed down verbally through the ages. For them, they believe you have to understand both parts in order to get the full scope of God's message. They do not take the Bible at face value, word for word. That is a Christian doctrine, and completely foreign to Orthodox Judaism. Without the oral understanding, the written is only half a message.

Orthodox Judaism knows the OT better than any other religion. Keep in mind that Christianity was born from Judaism, and we share the same God and OT of the Bible. The biggest difference is that Christians accept Jesus as the messiah, whereas Jews reject that notion, along with the NT (except Messianic Jews).

Who is right or wrong has been a question that has spanned 2,000 years.

 

[By Grace]

Wrong answer.... I suggest to verify and learn yourself.

I am concerned about the tone of these, and other remarks in your post to me.

If you care to discuss, I will. Perhaps if you clarified what you meant to say...

 

[Knotical]

Here is 45 year-old me, and I have a note to write for my neighbor with life-saving instructions. A 5 year-old has to write it and deliver it. If she writes the wrong instructions, it could have a devastating result. I could:

1. Tell her what to write and send her off to my neighbor's house, knowing it made little sense. (or)
2. Guide her letter by letter so that the end result was exactly what I want to tell my neighbor. Speak to her through the entire process so that an "h" looks like an "h", and not like an "r".

To add to the story, say decades and centuries go by, and I'm still 45, unable to write those instructions for new neighbors who moved in the house next door. I have different 5 year-olds who must write these same instructions... in different languages. Do I:

1. Let them re-write it any way they'd like. (or)
2. Use my influence to ensure that, though the words are different, the new neighbors get the same instructions the first neighbors got.

I may be walking in blind faith, but I believe my God is Powerful enough to ensure that His Message to humanity was not only exactly what He wanted to say to them at the time, but also powerful enough to preserve the integrity of His Word for those to come later. I am completely certain His Word is inerrant and perfectly preserved for us by Him in spite of human limitations.

Well said, Mike.