Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation?

[Free]

Again , the word "in" was omitted

How do you know that it was omitted?

Read these two verses --- Galatians 5:21 and now read Ephesians 5:5 <-- What difference do you see in these two verses ?

I do not have the time right now to go into those, suffice it to say that they have little or nothing to do with just how it is you know that "in" was omitted. How is it that you know? To what Greek text are you referring that contains "in" in that specific verse?

 

[Mysteryman]

The translators left out the small word "in" , which makes a huge difference in understanding what is written here. Romans 2:7 should have been written this way -- "To them who by patent continuance in well doing seek for glory and hounour and immortality in eternal life"

God be praised that you are here to correct the intent of the Bible and God so readily available to anyone with the internet and access to a Greek translation...

This is exactly why Christ formed a Church, rather than a piece of writing that would be diseminated throughout the world. People like you would no doubt "correct" everything, making it more to THEIR liking and making Christianity cater to their own whims.

Let me ask , What does the phrase you used -- "People like you" -- suppose to mean ?

 

[francisdesales]

This is exactly why Christ formed a Church, rather than a piece of writing that would be diseminated throughout the world.

As I pointed out to someone else already, such a statement undermines the inspiration of Scripture.

How so? If Christ left an authoritative body of men - the Apostles - who the Christian community recognized to possess divine inspiration, how does this Church undermine the inspiration? It GUARANTEES it, if you think about it! Otherwise, Scriptural inspiration is a circular argument...

Scripture are the Word of God.

Why?

Because the Word of God is found in the Scriptures...

How do you know that the Word of God is found in the Scriptures?

Because the Scritpures contain the Word of God...

With an authoritative body, we would say "because the Church, institututed by the Christ, called the pillar and foundation of the truth, SAYS the bible is inspired".

Then, it becomes a matter of faith - did God establish the Church? The Scriptures, as ONLY historical works, (not as the Word of God at this point) verifies this is so.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

The translators left out the small word "in" , which makes a huge difference in understanding what is written here. Romans 2:7 should have been written this way -- "To them who by patent continuance in well doing seek for glory and hounour and immortality in eternal life"

God be praised that you are here to correct the intent of the Bible and God so readily available to anyone with the internet and access to a Greek translation...

This is exactly why Christ formed a Church, rather than a piece of writing that would be diseminated throughout the world. People like you would no doubt "correct" everything, making it more to THEIR liking and making Christianity cater to their own whims.

Let me ask , What does the phrase you used -- "People like you" -- suppose to mean ?

Nothing magical here. People who feel the need to correct the Bible based upon their supposed "higher spiritual knowledge" that claims to know the mind of God, as opposed to those silly interpreters that all agree...

It's all a mystery how you can come here and make such claims and refuse to back them up...

Please, "the translators left out "in".

 

[Mysteryman]

How do you know that it was omitted?

Read these two verses --- Galatians 5:21 and now read Ephesians 5:5 <-- What difference do you see in these two verses ?[/quote]
I do not have the time right now to go into those, suffice it to say that they have little or nothing to do with just how it is you know that "in" was omitted. How is it that you know? To what Greek text are you referring that contains "in" in that specific verse?[/quote]


Hi Free

Show me from the origianls (which there are none) where the word "in" is not used .

 

[Mysteryman]

The translators left out the small word "in" , which makes a huge difference in understanding what is written here. Romans 2:7 should have been written this way -- "To them who by patent continuance in well doing seek for glory and hounour and immortality in eternal life"

God be praised that you are here to correct the intent of the Bible and God so readily available to anyone with the internet and access to a Greek translation...

This is exactly why Christ formed a Church, rather than a piece of writing that would be diseminated throughout the world. People like you would no doubt "correct" everything, making it more to THEIR liking and making Christianity cater to their own whims.

Let me ask , What does the phrase you used -- "People like you" -- suppose to mean ?

Nothing magical here. People who feel the need to correct the Bible based upon their supposed "higher spiritual knowledge" that claims to know the mind of God, as opposed to those silly interpreters that all agree...

It's all a mystery how you can come here and make such claims and refuse to back them up...

Please, "the translators left out "in".

Higher spiritual knowledge ? Yep ! I have the Spirit of truth in me. I would call that --"higher spiritual knowledge" than those who do not have the Spirit of truth in them. Do you have a problem with this ?

 

[francisdesales]

Show me from the origianls (which there are none) where the word "in" is not used .

It's up to you to provide the evidence that we need to change EVERY Bible ever written to coincide with your "heavenly inspiration" that demands we add more words to Scriptures that are not warranted.

 

[Free]

This is exactly why Christ formed a Church, rather than a piece of writing that would be diseminated throughout the world.

As I pointed out to someone else already, such a statement undermines the inspiration of Scripture.

How so? If Christ left an authoritative body of men - the Apostles - who the Christian community recognized to possess divine inspiration, how does this Church undermine the inspiration? It GUARANTEES it, if you think about it! Otherwise, Scriptural inspiration is a circular argument...

Scripture are the Word of God.

Why?

Because the Word of God is found in the Scriptures...

How do you know that the Word of God is found in the Scriptures?

Because the Scritpures contain the Word of God...

With an authoritative body, we would say "because the Church, institututed by the Christ, called the pillar and foundation of the truth, SAYS the bible is inspired".

Then, it becomes a matter of faith - did God establish the Church? The Scriptures, as ONLY historical works, (not as the Word of God at this point) verifies this is so.

Regards

In arguing for the authority of the Church you say that Christ didn't form any piece of writing but at the same time you certainly must believe that, as the God-man, he inspired what was to be written. If Christ himself inspired what was written, how is it that you can also say that he didn't form any piece of writing? And I need not point out the verse which states that all Scripture is God breathed. It certainly doesn't need anyone or any authoritative body to then state, redundantly, that the Bible as it currently is is inspired.

 

[francisdesales]

Higher spiritual knowledge ? Yep ! I have the Spirit of truth in me. I would call that --"higher spiritual knowledge" than those who do not have the Spirit of truth in them. Do you have a problem with this ?

Balogna...

I see absolutely no evidence to take you at your word. Any charlatan can get on the internet and make such claims. The Scriptures clearly tell us to beware of false teachers, and that is what the Spirit is telling me about your "claims" to know how the Bible SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN!

This is not the first time you have made such a silly claim, and as such, I must dismiss this as more of the same false teachings.

 

[Free]

I do not have the time right now to go into those, suffice it to say that they have little or nothing to do with just how it is you know that "in" was omitted. How is it that you know? To what Greek text are you referring that contains "in" in that specific verse?

Hi Free

Show me from the origianls (which there are none) where the word "in" is not used .

lol! Seriously? The onus is on you to prove your claim that it is omitted. You're a funny man, Mysteryman.

 

[Mysteryman]

Show me from the origianls (which there are none) where the word "in" is not used .

It's up to you to provide the evidence that we need to change EVERY Bible ever written to coincide with your "heavenly inspiration" that demands we add more words to Scriptures that are not warranted.

Evidence ? Just look at all the translations. Now show me the two that totally agree word for word with one another ! Doesn't the RCC have its own translation ? < Now who is guilty ?

 

[MMarc]

Higher spiritual knowledge ? Yep ! I have the Spirit of truth in me. I would call that --"higher spiritual knowledge" than those who do not have the Spirit of truth in them. Do you have a problem with this ?

Balogna...

I see absolutely no evidence to take you at your word. Any charlatan can get on the internet and make such claims. The Scriptures clearly tell us to beware of false teachers, and that is what the Spirit is telling me about your "claims" to know how the Bible SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN!

This is not the first time you have made such a silly claim, and as such, I must dismiss this as more of the same false teachings.

Ah pride, you gotta love it. Sadly when people start reading the Bible they usually leave the RCC, because traditions of men seems to take precedents over the Word of God.

The apostles discern the grace that was upon Paul by the power of the Holy Spirit, the same who inspired the writing of the Bible.

When the RCC contradicts the bible, who should we believe?

 

[francisdesales]

In arguing for the authority of the Church you say that Christ didn't form any piece of writing but at the same time you certainly must believe that, as the God-man, he inspired what was to be written.

My friend,

As God, not as man. In other words, there is nothing that Jesus said (on record) that speaks of how HE PERSONALLY will inspire the Apostles to write what would, in the future, be called "Sacred Writ", akin to the Old Testament. I do not find anything in Scriptures that attribute to Jesus the inspiration of Scriptures themselves.

The work of inspiring Scriptures is a work of the Spirit of God, properly appropriated. (God breathed...)

If Christ himself inspired what was written, how is it that you can also say that he didn't form any piece of writing?

As the Messiah, we have no indication, with the possible exception of Revelation. Jesus final words to the apostles were to TEACH all that He taught - whether orally or by writing, He never makes that distinction or judges one as a superior mode to the other. But it goes without saying that the first teachings were orally given. Thus, we can certainly say that their ORAL teachings were ALSO inspired by God (Paul seems to think so when speaking to the Galatians in chapter 1).

And I need not point out the verse which states that all Scripture is God breathed. It certainly doesn't need anyone or any authoritative body to then state, redundantly, that the Bible as it currently is is inspired.

But nowhere does the Bible state WHAT IS the CONTENTS of the Bible!!!

The People of God must make that determination, and must be done authoritatively, otherwise, you'd have Marcionites who toss out the OT, and other miscellaneous groups picking and choosing what was from God. And as we are seeing before our very eyes, you'd have others ADDING to the Words of Scriptures based upon their own WHIMS, DEMANDING that we accept it!!!

Not of much value if you don't know WHAT is Sacred Scriptures and God breathed. Thus, the Church is a necesary part of receiving the Scriptures and determining its contents...


Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Evidence ? Just look at all the translations. Now show me the two that totally agree word for word with one another ! Doesn't the RCC have its own translation ? < Now who is guilty ?

I didn't say every translation agreed. I asked for your evidence that we should CORRECT EVERY BIBLE WRITTEN. And don't bother with "God told me". He already told me otherwise...

 

[francisdesales]

Ah pride, you gotta love it.

You seem to have a ton of it, considering your recent claims...

Sadly when people start reading the Bible they usually leave the RCC.

This is what we call "red herring" in the world of logical discourse. It has nothing to do with the topic (and of course is false, since those who leave didn't read the Bible FIRST).

The apostles discern the grace that was upon Paul by the power of the Holy Spirit, the same who inspired the writing of the Bible.

You ain't no Paul. Thus, we can safely ignore your false gospel that contradicts what is already written.

When the RCC contradicts the bible, who should we believe?

It doesn't, it only contradicts your attempts to change the Scriptures with your false teachings and additions.

 

[Mysteryman]

Evidence ? Just look at all the translations. Now show me the two that totally agree word for word with one another ! Doesn't the RCC have its own translation ? < Now who is guilty ?

I didn't say every translation agreed. I asked for your evidence that we should CORRECT EVERY BIBLE WRITTEN. And don't bother with "God told me". He already told me otherwise...

:rolling God told you otherwise

I always thought you let others tell you what to believe ! :biglol

 

[glorydaz]

Drew,

This seems to be a really long-drawn out argument and I think this is more on a mix-up of terminology rather than a mix-up of doctrine. Please bear with me while I try to understand this issue.

According to you, when is a man able to do righteous works - before he is justified and saved by God's grace through a saving faith of God or after he is justified?
(Justified means being reconciled with God - called by God from being enemies of God to being given the right to call Him Abba, Father, by the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.)

I think this question should resolve a lot of issues. Consider the following possibilities -

i) If a man can do righteous works before he's justified, then that goes against Romans 1-3 where Paul says none apart from God can do righteous works.

ii) If a man does righteous works after he's already justified through faith by grace, then he cannot lose his salvation based on his works - it can only be lost based on his lack of faith or unbelief (because faith was the criteria for justification in the first place).
And yes, his works will definitely be an indicator or evidence of his faith. If a person claims faith but continues to willfully walk in sin, then he's lying about knowing God. Such a person can be evaluated based on his fruits (works). Such people cannot inherit the Kingdom of God just based on their non-works based faith. But those who do righteous works are only evidencing the faith they have in Christ and evidencing the new creatures that they've become by the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. Can this evidencing factor(works) become greater that the primary factor(grace through faith)?

Exactly...One must be justified by faith and good works follow. If good works could save anyone then salvation would not be a free gift. If good works could save us, then the cross was unnecessary. Those who persist in good works and seek after glory, honor and eternal life must still partake of the grace of God and be justified by faith. Otherwise their good works...no matter how persistantly done are as filthy rags to God and one single sin erases them all.

Here we see a man who has kept all the commandments from his youth...he is seeking eternal life.

And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

Here we see another one...we know Cornelius was not saved by being devout, fearing God, and giving alms. He was prepared to receive Christ but he had not yet been justified by faith.

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Sin must be covered by the blood...good deeds to not do the trick...only faith does that.

When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.

 

[Drew]

Hi

Read these two verses --- Galatians 5:21 and now read Ephesians 5:5 <-- What difference do you see in these two verses ?

OK. Here they are:

envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

For this you know with certainty, that (K)no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom (L)of Christ and God

I am not sure what your point is. Neither of these passages in any way contradict Paul's clear assertion in Romans 2 that ultimate salvation is based on good works.

 

[francisdesales]

I always thought you let others tell you what to believe ! :biglol

Sure...

The Apostles, Jesus, and God.

Is there a problem with them telling me what to do?

 

[Drew]

Drew,

This seems to be a really long-drawn out argument and I think this is more on a mix-up of terminology rather than a mix-up of doctrine. Please bear with me while I try to understand this issue.

According to you, when is a man able to do righteous works - before he is justified and saved by God's grace through a saving faith of God or after he is justified?
(Justified means being reconciled with God - called by God from being enemies of God to being given the right to call Him Abba, Father, by the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.)

First, thanks for reading through all the posts. I will politely challenge what appears to be a tacit assumption in your material - namely that justification is a "discrete one time event". I suggest that Paul does not see it that way. He frequently refers to believers as having already been justified. Then, at other times, he writes about how believers will be justified.

I suggest that Paul sees justification as having a "tense" structure. We are justified in the present in that we are given the Spirit through grace alone. We are justified in the future based on the good works that the Spirit has produced.

Now I cannot emphasize this enough. This all works harmoniously together precisely because the gift of the Spirit in the present guarantees that (unless you turn your back on God) that the future "good works" judgement will be favourable.

This may seem overly complex, but at least it is true to Paul and his diverse use of tenses in respect to justification. There is a present justification (by faith) and there is a future justification (by works).

So my position does not involve seeing justification as a one-time event.