Why is it so hard for people to believe the bible?

[Gendou Ikari]

then why do so many professed Christians not believe the bible?

My thoughts exactly. Why don't people believe it when the Bible says,

1 Timothy 4:10 (King James Version) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

1 Timothy 4:10 (Young's Literal Translation) for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men -- especially of those believing.

1 Timothy 4:10 (New International Version) (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

1 Timothy 4:10-11 (Concordant Literal New Testament) (for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

then why do so many professed Christians not believe the bible?

My thoughts exactly. Why don't people believe it when the Bible says,

1 Timothy 4:10 (King James Version) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

1 Timothy 4:10 (Young's Literal Translation) for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men -- especially of those believing.

1 Timothy 4:10 (New International Version) (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

1 Timothy 4:10-11 (Concordant Literal New Testament) (for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers.

Great post GI, and I can only add AMEN!

 

[AVBunyan]

The NIV a "Catholic bible"- now I've heard it all.

You obviously haven't heard much then.

The NIV comes from the same basic texts that your bible comes from.

They originated with Origin from Alexandria, Egypt. All modern versions come from Wescott/Hort which came from Origen iin Egypt. Just line them up side by side and they all read simliar.

Then line them all up next to the AV and you will see they all read differently from the AV - Why? - different set of texts. One set is corrupt (yours), one is not (mine). God used one (mine) and God has not used the others (yours).

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Then line them all up next to the AV and you will see they all read differently from the AV - Why? - different set of texts. One set is corrupt (yours), one is not (mine). God used one (mine) and God has not used the others (yours).

LOL!!! That is so pompously silly that I cannot even take it seriously.

No, God has never used anything Catholic for His purposes! NEVER!

ROTFLMBO!!!

I feel for you when you actually meet God and see how He feels about your superiority complex.

 

[AVBunyan]

That is so pompously silly that I cannot even take it seriously.
1. No, God has never used anything Catholic for His purposes! NEVER!

2. I feel for you when you actually meet God and see how He feels about your superiority complex.

1. We agree here - God have never used anything Catholic - especially their bibles.

2. I never said I was superior - where did I say that? What I've said was that my Bible - the King James BIble - is suprerior to all modern versions which are basically Roman bibles.

Later

 

[Geo]

You cannot solve this problem for other Christians, but you
can try to solve it for yourself. The labyrinth of possibilities
is created by "the flesh" that is not under supervision of God.

Change the angle of looking at it, and start with the purpose
of God He has with His word. His word is inspired and has a
purpose outside of looking at the differences of translation.

What recipient of that intention takes greater advantage of it,
the one that reads one Bible, trusts in the word with a childlike
faith and grows in it, outside the labyrinth of babylonian possibilities.
Or the one that has basically no time for this intention of God
because the intellect is never satisfied with that "simple answer"
but prefers to read 10 translations to find a common denominator
to finally circle in on the truth?

Unless for the purpose of instructing others I would rate the first
person wise that will be guided into wisdom, and the second a fool.
You cannot circle in on the truth -- You have to believe it.

At one step in time you have to come up with a decision about
the "correct translation" and follow it by faith, unless you want
to end up to be called a librarian instead a follower of Christ.

I have seen people led to Christ reading the NIV version,
so I can never claim it does not contain the word of God.
However for further teaching I need to consider this statement:

"The Greek New Testament upon which all other profane bibles
are based, to greater or lesser extent, has 5,337 DELETIONS
just in the New Testament. Thank God that we have the Word of
God, that we have the Word of God, in the KJV Holy Bible. It
is the only bible which has not had the principles and tactics
of spiritual warfare and deliverance effectively removed."

 

[Orthodox Christian]

The NIV a "Catholic bible"- now I've heard it all.

You obviously haven't heard much then.

The NIV comes from the same basic texts that your bible comes from.

They originated with Origin from Alexandria, Egypt. All modern versions come from Wescott/Hort which came from Origen iin Egypt. Just line them up side by side and they all read simliar.

Then line them all up next to the AV and you will see they all read differently from the AV - Why? - different set of texts. One set is corrupt (yours), one is not (mine). God used one (mine) and God has not used the others (yours).

I presume when you say "your bible" you are presuming that I am 1. Catholic and 2. a user f the NIV or other non-KJV texts. In both cases you are off the mark, for "your bible" to which you refer is the Byzantine Recension of the Greek text. The source texts for your beloved KJV come from the text tradition we Orthodox, aka the Greeks, preserved.

This is where you should feel very, very, very foolish.

But regarding your hilarious assertion that the other ancient fragments all come from "Origin"= yes, they come from an origin, but not from Origen.

But, as LD stated clearly and emphatically, for you to state that God has never used the Catholics is symptomatic of other problems that you have.

 

[TruthHunter]

The NIV bible was taken from the original Hebrew

Heidi - I hate to be a walking barbituate here but I must clarify.

The NIV is taken from the "orginal" texts written by Origen in the 3rd century - these corrupt, vile manuscriptus are the foundation for all the modern versions including the Douhey Rheims which is Rome's bible. Therefore if you have a modern version you are reading a Roman Catholic bible for they all come from Egypt.

The AV is based upon a completely different set of texts that originated from Asia minor - not Egypt.

I believe if you were to search it out you would see this to be so. Also, this new influx of modern perversions has aided in folks not believing their bibles for they don't know which one to believe. The devil has done a remarkable job - you gotta pat him on the back here!

Stick with the one that Godo used - it worked fine for over 350 years and still works.

God bless

Correction: You are not reading a Catholic Bible, or Bible out of Rome unless it contains the seven deutorocanacle texts which Luther Loped off.

 

[TruthHunter]

Actually, Av, the NIV is a direct translation from the earliest Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts. It was constructed over a period of 100 years from the earliest manuscripts avaialable to the known world. The KJV, however, is a direct translation from the Septuagint, or Greek translation, and is a result of very little cross-refferencing of the Aramaic and Hebrew texts.

But I own a parallel bible and there are still very little differences between them. The main difference I see is the difference between legalistic teachings and Grace. The KJV is the one used by the catholics, although they catholic bibles contain more books, and, I believe, is what has caused so many of their teachings which don't have much to do with grace.

Jesus also says that we have one teacher and that is the Christ. The NIV corresponds to what the Spirit inside of me tells me. When there is a peace that comes from understanding, then I believe that correpsonds to the Spirit and is therefore a correct interpretation. But since the KJV was the first bible that many people read, they are very likely to think it is the best translation because it's older and that's what they had always used. People are also more likely to defend something if it has been a tradition in their lives. That is my opinion so we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

I'm sorry to inform you Heidi, but Catholics do not use the King James Version. I as a Catholic use an approved Catholic Addition The New American Bible is such a translation, and it is the complete Bible unlike the NIV which uses the Canon that was bastardized by Luther.

 

[TruthHunter]

Also, just to add, those 100 people are all pulled from different denominations. So one denomination's bias is not "rulling the roost."

You mean kinda like the early church councils did when they set the canon of scripture? Oh right that time a group of Christians Trusting the Holy Spirit was wrong, because Luther said so, but when they follow Luther's point of view, change the canon then they can interpret correctly by the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[thessalonian]

People are also more likely to defend something if it has been a tradition in their lives.

Back at ya.
:D

TruthHunter has already noted your kjv - Catholicism foopaw. We use the NAB, RSV, Jerusalem Bible, Douay Rheims, and a few others. The KJV is not an approved Bible, nor is the NIV for that matter.

I do find it interesting that Protestants would put the name of a man-king on the word of God. :o

 

[Heidi]

I want to add, Av, that the KJV was the result of one person and a committee of about 47 people who translated the bible in a rush job by order of King James. This translation came from older versions of the bible like the Geneva bible, used by the Catholics, and did not come from original manuscripts.

Your research or your sources of infoare way off regarding the texts usd in putting the AV1611- that is all I can say. Way off Miss Heidi - way off.

And if you really believe the NIV - which attacks the diety of Christ and is basically a Catholic bible - is superior to the AV then you need to look into the issue a bit more.

God bless

Sorry, but I got my info from "The Bible: A History" by Stephen Miller & Robert Hunter. It is also a well-known fact that there was a committe of over 100 people who took 100 years to research the NIV. And it is also a well-known fact that the authors of the KJV did not have the time or means of transportation to travel to the Middle east and scrounge up original manuscripts for the translation into the KJV, which is why their translations came from older versions of the bible, not original manuscripts.

So I suggest you do your research before you attack me.

And the NIV does not attack the deity of Christ. Both the KJV and the NIV call Jesus the Son of God. My Lord is my life and I read the NIV. So far, you have given no facts to back up your claims, only prejudice.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Indeed, to have the name of the boy king affixed upon the cover of the sacred English translation- why not simply make a 50 foot statue of the boy king- or should we say boy queen?

One area of the life of King James that for many years remained clouded in controversy was allegations that James was homosexual. As James did father several children by Anne of Denmark, it is actually more accurate to say that he was allegedly a bi-sexual. While his close relationships with a number of men were noted, earlier historians questioned their sexual nature, however, few modern historians cast any doubt on the King's bisexuality and the fact that his sexuality and choice of male partners both as King of Scotland then later in London as King of England were the subject of gossip from the city taverns to the Privy Council. His relationship as a teenager with fellow teenager Esmé Stuart, Earl of Lennox was criticized by Scottish Church leaders, who were part of a conspiracy to keep the young King and the young French courtier apart, as the relationship was improper to say the least. Lennox, facing threats of death, was forced to leave Scotland

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-engli ... james.html

Not that I have a problem with that. :

 

[thessalonian]

AVBunyan wrote:

The NIV is taken from the "orginal" texts written by Origen in the 3rd century - these corrupt, vile manuscriptus are the foundation for all the modern versions including the Douhey Rheims which is Rome's bible. Therefore if you have a modern version you are reading a Roman Catholic bible for they all come from Egypt.

But I thought Constantine started the Catholic Church. Now it's Origen. :

 

[Orthodox Christian]

AVBunyan wrote:

The NIV is taken from the "orginal" texts written by Origen in the 3rd century - these corrupt, vile manuscriptus are the foundation for all the modern versions including the Douhey Rheims which is Rome's bible. Therefore if you have a modern version you are reading a Roman Catholic bible for they all come from Egypt.

But I thought Constantine started the Catholic Church. Now it's Origen. :

Well, they're moving in the right direction, time-wise.

 

[McQuacks]

Also, just to add, those 100 people are all pulled from different denominations. So one denomination's bias is not "rulling the roost."

You mean kinda like the early church councils did when they set the canon of scripture? Oh right that time a group of Christians Trusting the Holy Spirit was wrong, because Luther said so, but when they follow Luther's point of view, change the canon then they can interpret correctly by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Not so sure how that applies to the translation of the NIV...All that I am pointing out is that the NIV was not translated by one group of people, as the KJV has been pointed out to be, but a committee of 115 people from different denominations. http://www.zondervanbibles.com/niv.htm http://www.zondervanbibles.com/translations.htm#NIV
I am not here to bash the Catholic bible, in fact, I am Catholic.
-McQ 8-)

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Sorry, but I got my info from "The Bible: A History" by Stephen Miller & Robert Hunter.

2. So I suggest you do your research before you attack me.

3. And the NIV does not attack the deity of Christ.

1. Everybody has sources - I could give you a few myself that differ. The following link would give enough sources to keep one busy for a year or so:
http://av1611bible.com/links/av1611.htm

2. Excuse me? :o I feel I was not attacking you - if you thought I was then I apologize - I was merely seeking to show you another side of the issue and calling attention to what I felt was wrong with your statement regarding the KJV and the NIV.

3. If I listed you the verses that are well-known then what would you do then?
Would this link be a start?
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/de ... rsions.htm

Yes, the NIV upholds the diety in places but it also attacks the doctrine in other places - does this make the NIV ok? I, for one, would not want a bible that attacks or creates doubts in this vital doctrine. :o

 

[Lyric's Dad]

That is so pompously silly that I cannot even take it seriously.
1. No, God has never used anything Catholic for His purposes! NEVER!

2. I feel for you when you actually meet God and see how He feels about your superiority complex.

1. We agree here - God have never used anything Catholic - especially their bibles.

2. I never said I was superior - where did I say that? What I've said was that my Bible - the King James BIble - is suprerior to all modern versions which are basically Roman bibles.

Later

I would rather spend time with a thousand Catholics who actually show the love of God then someone who spends their time trying to show how right he is and makes such asinine statements as Catholics having never been used by God. I only need remember Mother Teresa. There are many things about the RCC that is edifying and clearly has God's hand on it.

 

[Loren Michael]

[quote="Lyric's Dad":a65b9] That is so pompously silly that I cannot even take it seriously.
1. No, God has never used anything Catholic for His purposes! NEVER!

2. I feel for you when you actually meet God and see how He feels about your superiority complex.

1. We agree here - God have never used anything Catholic - especially their bibles.

2. I never said I was superior - where did I say that? What I've said was that my Bible - the King James BIble - is suprerior to all modern versions which are basically Roman bibles.

Later

I would rather spend time with a thousand Catholics who actually show the love of God then someone who spends their time trying to show how right he is and makes such asinine statements as Catholics having never been used by God. I only need remember Mother Teresa. There are many things about the RCC that is edifying and clearly has God's hand on it.[/quote:a65b9]

mother teresa, to my recollection, has a lot of vile stuff under her belt. mostly, the money that she collected went into the church, not to the poor of calcutta.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

[quote="Lyric's Dad":67c4d] That is so pompously silly that I cannot even take it seriously.
1. No, God has never used anything Catholic for His purposes! NEVER!

2. I feel for you when you actually meet God and see how He feels about your superiority complex.

1. We agree here - God have never used anything Catholic - especially their bibles.

2. I never said I was superior - where did I say that? What I've said was that my Bible - the King James BIble - is suprerior to all modern versions which are basically Roman bibles.

Later

I would rather spend time with a thousand Catholics who actually show the love of God then someone who spends their time trying to show how right he is and makes such asinine statements as Catholics having never been used by God. I only need remember Mother Teresa. There are many things about the RCC that is edifying and clearly has God's hand on it.[/quote:67c4d]
LD, you are a breath of fresh air on this board, and a call to Godly conscience. We ALL ought to remember that making ourself right is not the goal or call, but to lift up Christ in this world. So minded, even our disagreements would be productive.
Sincere thanks
James