Bible Study Is the whole Bible the inspired Word of God?

[xicali]

Is the whole Bible the inspired Word of God?

 

[Rick W]

I believe so... all but "Given to son and wife on their wedding day -- Dad"
:-?

:

Ok, I'm tired.
sorry.

:-D

 

[Solo]

I believe so... all but "Given to son and wife on their wedding day -- Dad"
:-?

:

Ok, I'm tired.
sorry.

:-D

:D :D

 

[xicali]

HA-HA :smt067 :-? : :D :D


((((((I know you're tired and sorry)))))))

Good bye ...your're the weakiest link...
ing:


You are Blessed

xicali

P.s.

Vote!!!!

 

[Georges]

OT yes....

NT maybe......Originally Gospels and Revelation.....Yes.....

 

[TruthMiner]

Is the whole Bible the inspired Word of God?

Since the 4th century, this has been the opinion of those who compiled it into one book. Since then, many have adopted this declared opinion of theirs.

But there is no logical way to verify which books are inspired and which are not. For example, it seems ridiculously naive to presume that Paul thought his own second letter to Timothy was to be included in the sacred Scripture he mentions at chapter 3 verse 16 of that same letter. And it seems just as ludicrous to presume Timothy the recipient would have thought so.

Or how do you know Jude is inspired?

Or Esther which does not mention God even once?

The real question is, "How do I know any given book is inspired?"

 

[ChristineES]

I do believe the whole thing is inspired by God. Most of what Paul wrote in his epistles was repeating what Jesus had said in his Gospels. If I start to dismiss Paul, then who do I later dismiss? Granted, I read the Gospels more than I read Paul's epistles, but I would not dismiss them.

 

[John the Baptist]

There are two 'testing' parts for the whole Bible. (not O.T. & N.T. but all scripture as seen in 2 Timothy 3:16) The Inspired part is written in man's wordings, and is the 'testimony' of the 66 books. 2 Peter 1:20-21

And the only part that the Godhead wrote There/self was the Eternal Covenant (Hebrews 13:20) as seen in Isaiah 8:20. All doctrinal profession is to be tested by these two required means given here for there accuracy. And all else is to be given up.
---John

 

[Georges]

Have the edits (the addition's and subtractions) inspired...? I think not....

Just the knowledge that it (the NT) has been added to well after the originals were penned disqualifies it as being inspired.....


The last verses of Mark...are known additions not found in earlier texts...

The Trinity verse of Mat 28 was not in the original......but added later.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The famous Johannine comma verse ....not in the original....but added in later.....

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Do you think those that made these additions were inspired to edit? My friend AV would say that it's Progressive Revelation.....I suspect. :D

Do the leg work and see if I am wrong......it's history.

 

[John the Baptist]

Have the edits (the addition's and subtractions) inspired...? I think not....

Just the knowledge that it (the NT) has been added to well after the originals were penned disqualifies it as being inspired.....


The last verses of Mark...are known additions not found in earlier texts...

The Trinity verse of Mat 28 was not in the original......but added later.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The famous Johannine comma verse ....not in the original....but added in later.....

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Do you think those that made these additions were inspired to edit? My friend AV would say that it's Progressive Revelation.....I suspect. :D

Do the leg work and see if I am wrong......it's history.

******
John here: Leg work??
You got it all wrong! It is told in 2 Timothy 3:16 & Matthew 4:4 what is required HISTORY. And your still 1/2 of Gospel which is no gospel. God stands by His old posted message here below.

The guy believes 1/2 of Eccl. 1:9 & not even Ecclesiastes 3:15 Lord! About history in the future repeating itself,?? just not your Inspired Word of Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 of .. 'The thing hath been (past/tense!) [is that which shall be]; and that which [is done] is that which [shall be done:] and there is [no new thing under the sun.]

Is there [any thing whereof it may be said, See this is new?] (Thank you for your quick answer Lord! Before 'some' perverted 1/2 gospel person can come along & botch it up, for your Truth here 'deletes all of the reams & reams of the devil's junk on these sites of everything only seen in the future!)
[it hath been already of old time, which was before us.]"

Ask yourself, why would any one go to your stuff to study anything when you are teaching no differently that what Eve was listening at the FORBIDDEN TREE! :

No: I second the motion (my own! :wink that the mod's lock up this tread. You guys have a hobby horse one doctrine 'history' of riding this subject to death with nothing more than the reams & reams of stuff [repeated] over & over again!

 

[MrVersatile48]

Guys,

Do see archives at http://www.alphacourse.co.uk

Nicky Gumbel was a trained lawyer before his call to the ministry

His Alpha talks are also on http://www.God.TV & http://www.Gospel.TV

The talk on the reliability of the Bible is nothing short of masterly: it was on TV @ 2 weeks ago & his book "Questions Of Life" has all the Alpha course talks to browse at your leisure

Roger Forster's classic, "Questions On The Christian Faith Answered From Thde Bible" also combines the same unusual blend of thoroughness with concise readability

@ least 2 very eminent lawyers have set out to write books disproving the Bible, till their extensive research turned their hearts to serve Almighty God

Val Grieve then wrote "The Evidence For The Resurection"

Frank..er..then wrote the classic, "Who Moved The Stone?"

Josh McDowell - the magna cum laude genius @ Campus Crusade For Christ - http://www.ccci.org - wrote "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" & "More Evidence That Demands A Verdict"

He recently published a brilliant but cheap paperback exposing the lies of "The Da Vinci Code" - as many students had said to him that the other 10 evangelical books disproving Dan Brown's gross deception were all costly hardbacks

I find all those books immensely enjoyable & entertaining, as well as educative

& how could I omit ther YWAM master-communicator, Winkey Pratney?

Can't recall the title of his classic training manual, so see http://www.ywam.org

Local Youth With A Mission training courses are done by Frontline Church, Wavertree - link via Together For Harvest - http://www.tfh.org.uk

Masters Commission @ Southport is @ the Argyle Church link - headed by ex-stockbroker, lovably laid-back Cockney wit 'Pastor Pete', known in UK media as "God's Estate Agent" (as on BBC TV's 'Unsung Heroes' last Oct & a recent Panorama programme whose title escapes me - but Green Pastures homelessness ministry has featured on many Christian mags & stations, as well as secular media & newspapers)

Their new Shoreline Church is diagonally opposite Southport Asda, that you see from the trains, near the station - (opp which is his drop-in/soup kitchen, open Sat & Sun lunchtime)

Back softly with free link... :wink:

Ian

 

[Georges]

Have the edits (the addition's and subtractions) inspired...? I think not....

Just the knowledge that it (the NT) has been added to well after the originals were penned disqualifies it as being inspired.....


The last verses of Mark...are known additions not found in earlier texts...

The Trinity verse of Mat 28 was not in the original......but added later.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The famous Johannine comma verse ....not in the original....but added in later.....

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Do you think those that made these additions were inspired to edit? My friend AV would say that it's Progressive Revelation.....I suspect. :D

Do the leg work and see if I am wrong......it's history.

******
John here: Leg work??
You got it all wrong! It is told in 2 Timothy 3:16 & Matthew 4:4 what is required HISTORY. And your still 1/2 of Gospel which is no gospel. God stands by His old posted message here below.

The guy believes 1/2 of Eccl. 1:9 & not even Ecclesiastes 3:15 Lord! About history in the future repeating itself,?? just not your Inspired Word of Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 of .. 'The thing hath been (past/tense!) [is that which shall be]; and that which [is done] is that which [shall be done:] and there is [no new thing under the sun.]

Is there [any thing whereof it may be said, See this is new?] (Thank you for your quick answer Lord! Before 'some' perverted 1/2 gospel person can come along & botch it up, for your Truth here 'deletes all of the reams & reams of the devil's junk on these sites of everything only seen in the future!)
[it hath been already of old time, which was before us.]"

Ask yourself, why would any one go to your stuff to study anything when you are teaching no differently that what Eve was listening at the FORBIDDEN TREE! :

No: I second the motion (my own! :wink that the mod's lock up this tread. You guys have a hobby horse one doctrine 'history' of riding this subject to death with nothing more than the reams & reams of stuff [repeated] over & over again!

John......please give me a couple of hours before you post in response to mine.....it will give me the time I need to digest the mushrooms I need to figure your posts out...... :wink: wait a minute....I think I have a bag of glue out in the garage...... :-D

Seriously, John...I've been kind in my responses to your continued shots....I will continue to do so....in the future I hope you will likewise....

To the rest in forum land....I had a moment of agitation....Sorry for taking the shot at John.....it was only a little one....

 

[Imagican]

Mushrooms are neater, but glue is definitely quicker.............. or is it.........no no, that's another forum, (he he he), yer a funny guy george.


While I truly believe EVERYTHING that I hae learned from the Bible, I also believe that there may be words added or deleted in order to form the 'flavor' of the book. This WILL NOT take away from those that choose to be led by the Spirit in understanding.

I WILL NOT go into the details of the particulars, but in a generalized statement, I will offer this as an answer: YES the Bible is/was inspired by God. And regardless of what may or may NOT have been changed or altered to suit the desires of the writers, GOD allowed NO ONE to completely change or 'hide' the 'truth'. Some of it leans in directions NOT designed by God, but these are quite easy to overcome when the Bible is taken as a 'whole' instead of a 'a line at a time' approach.

The Word IS of God, of this I have NO DOUBT.

 

[Georges]

Mushrooms are neater, but glue is definitely quicker.............. or is it.........no no, that's another forum, (he he he), yer a funny guy george.


While I truly believe EVERYTHING that I hae learned from the Bible, I also believe that there may be words added or deleted in order to form the 'flavor' of the book. This WILL NOT take away from those that choose to be led by the Spirit in understanding.

I WILL NOT go into the details of the particulars, but in a generalized statement, I will offer this as an answer: YES the Bible is/was inspired by God. And regardless of what may or may NOT have been changed or altered to suit the desires of the writers, GOD allowed NO ONE to completely change or 'hide' the 'truth'. Some of it leans in directions NOT designed by God, but these are quite easy to overcome when the Bible is taken as a 'whole' instead of a 'a line at a time' approach.

The Word IS of God, of this I have NO DOUBT.

I am pretty much in agreement with your statement (except for the letters). As far as J the B, I just have trouble trying to understand what in the world the guy is trying to get across....I realize I'm not he brightest bulb in the drawer...but.....the posts usually don't make sense....must be because I don't have the spirit.... :wink:

 

[Bick]

I voted "yes" from this standpoint: thinking of the NT, primarily.

Even though there are hundreds of manuscripts, the variants between them are miniscule, and given men of excellent scholarship, knowing Greek, I believe all the fundamental trues, the decisive doctrines of God's plan of salavation and his purposes are in all of the texts.

Quoting New Testament Baptist theologian J.L.Dagg; and Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the century:

This means there will at times be a measure of uncertainty in defining precisely the exact wording of the Greek New Testament (just as there is in the interpretation of specific verses and passages), but this does not mean that there is uncertainty in the theology of the New Testament. Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg has well-stated the theological limits of the manuscript variations in the New Testament,

Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. Yet the providence which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and remarkable....The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray.(22)

To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century. In discussing the differences between the traditional and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes,

We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus.(23)

Even advocates and defenders of the supremacy of the Byzantine over the Alexandrian text agree in this assessment. One such writer was 19th century American Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney. He wrote,

This received text contains undoubtedly all the essential facts and doctrines intended to be set down by the inspired writers; for if it were corrected with the severest hand, by the light of the most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS. or version, not a single doctrine of Christianity, nor a single cardinal fact would be thereby expunged....If all the debated readings were surrendered by us, no fact or doctrine of Christianity would thereby be invalidated, and least of all would the doctrine of Christ's proper divinity be deprived of adequate scriptural support. Hence the interests of orthodoxy are entirely secure from and above the reach of all movements of modern criticism of the text whether made in a correct or incorrect method, and all such discussions in future are to the church of subordinate importance.(24)

These sober and sensible judgments stand in marked contrast to the almost manic hysteria found in the writings of some detractors of critical texts who write as though those texts were a Pandora's box of heresy. In truth, all text families are doctrinally orthodox. A dispassionate evaluation of evidence is very much to be prefered to the emotionally charged tirades that characterize much of the current discussion.

God bless, Bick

 

[Heidi]

No, the bible is not the whole word of God. We are! If I think the bible is wrong, then I must be right since I'm God. Or so say those who have the audacity to think the bible is wrong. ;-)