Search the scriptures

[Rodger]

If a strict interpretation is to be taken, shouldn’t actual, empirical evidence match these claims?
Where in those verses do you see any mention of " only originals"?
Are not the copies of scripture we have now profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness?

I do not understand why we are having this discussion.

If this is important to you for some reason, then OK. YOU WIN. I give up.

 

[Tambora]

I do not understand why we are having this discussion.

Discussion helps to separate wishful thinking from evidence.

 

[Clete]

Although the original texts of the Bible were inspired by God and are without error, the same cannot be said for later copies of the texts or translations made from them. Translators are human, and many have allowed their own religious biases to influence their work. Usually such mistranslations are relatively minor.

Unbelievable!

If you had said anything similar to this back when I was practically begging you to respond to this actual point, you and I would probably be getting along just fine right now. Instead, you want to get all offended because I get frustrated when you decide to just stubbornly ignore the EXACT point that you just made!

If I didn't know better, I'd think I was being pranked!

 

[Clete]

If a strict interpretation is to be taken, shouldn’t actual, empirical evidence match these claims?

Define your terms. What do you mean by "a strict interpretation"?

Discussion helps to separate wishful thinking from evidence.

Evidence like what?

Be specific.

 

[Rodger]

Unbelievable!

If you had said anything similar to this back when I was practically begging you to respond to this actual point, you and I would probably be getting along just fine right now. Instead, you want to get all offended because I get frustrated when you decide to just stubbornly ignore the EXACT point that you just made!

If I didn't know better, I'd think I was being pranked!

OH snap! Words of wisdom from the cheep seats!

We would be gettin along just fine if you had wanted to get along! But you choose to be a bully!

 

[Rodger]

Discussion helps to separate wishful thinking from evidence.

I agree. It just does not seem to be helpful.

Discussion helps to separate wishful thinking from evidence.

Would you agree that to be inerrant is to be free from error????

Would you then also agree that only the original autographs, the original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy.

That is what I meant by....."Why are we having this discussion".

The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which is what we see in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Would you now also agree that they were 100 percent inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. If not ---why not!

Also, there is no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would be equally inerrant or free from errors.

 

[Clete]

OH snap! Words of wisdom from the cheep seats!

We would be gettin along just fine if you had wanted to get along! But you choose to be a bully!

Liar.

The whole thread is still there fore the whole world to read, Rodger.

How many times did I practically beg you to respond to THE EXACT POINT that you just made? THE EXACT POINT!!!!

No hostility, no insults, just me repeatedly trying to get you to notice that you were arguing against a point that no one had made.

 

[Rodger]

Liar.

The whole thread is still there fore the whole world to read, Rodger.

How many times did I practically beg you to respond to THE EXACT POINT that you just made? THE EXACT POINT!!!!

No hostility, no insults, just me repeatedly trying to get you to notice that you were arguing against a point that no one had made.

“I wish every day could be Halloween. We could all wear masks all the time. Then we could walk around and get to know each other before we got to see what we looked like under the masks.”

Hiding behind a computer screen must be tedious work. Living with Ambiguity is a curse, isnt it?

 

[Idolater]

That is all wonderful thinking and should make it very easy for you to show the evidence that is true.
I'll wait for you to post the evidence.

For an example of evidence I would look to see if there is any extra-Biblical mention of the office of a bishop from 1st Timothy 3:1 and it turns out there are a lot of mentions of this office outside the Scriptures. That would confirm the theory that the office of a bishop in 1st Timothy 3:1 was more than just a word Paul used but that the word actually referenced a real office irl, which was held by real officeholders.

 

[Tambora]

I agree. It just does not seem to be helpful.

Would you agree that to be inerrant is to be free from error????

Would you then also agree that only the original autographs, the original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy.

That is what I meant by....."Why are we having this discussion".

The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which is what we see in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Would you now also agree that they were 100 percent inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. If not ---why not!

Also, there is no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would be equally inerrant or free from errors.

No, I don't believe that being inspired by God means that what you write down must be absolutely, to-a-tee, precise in every aspect and that only the originals had that type of precision.
If I did then I would have to concede that God just didn't really care if that precision survived for future generations.

 

[Tambora]

For an example of evidence I would look to see if there is any extra-Biblical mention of the office of a bishop from 1st Timothy 3:1 and it turns out there are a lot of mentions of this office outside the Scriptures. That would confirm the theory that the office of a bishop in 1st Timothy 3:1 was more than just a word Paul used but that the word actually referenced a real office irl, which was held by real officeholders.

I agree the term was used as an office title.
The term is also translated as "elder" which can be used as an office title or just that you are an elderly person.

Oh, and I am one that also thinks extra biblical sources can be very helpful in understanding how the ancients viewed meanings of biblical terms used.

 

[Idolater]

I agree the term was used as an office title.
The term is also translated as "elder" which can be used as an office title or just that you are an elderly person.

Oh, and I am one that also thinks extra biblical sources can be very helpful in understanding how the ancients viewed meanings of biblical terms used.

I know you are.

 

[Clete]

Oh, and I am one that also thinks extra biblical sources can be very helpful in understanding how the ancients viewed meanings of biblical terms used.

I don't know of a single person who doesn't think this.

 

[Tambora]

I don't know of a single person who doesn't think this.

I do.
I have known people who would not touch literature such as Enoch, Jubilees, etc. with a ten foot pole.

 

[Clete]

I do.
I have known people who would not touch literature such as Enoch, Jubilees, etc. with a ten foot pole.

Move the goal post much?

Just because someone doesn't go to the particular pieces of ancient literature that you like, doesn't mean that they don't ever use any extra-biblical sources to understand how the ancients viewed meanings of biblical terms. Put another way, using any extra-biblical source to glean information related to biblical issues does not require the endorsement of ANY AND ALL extra-biblical sources for use in such endeavors.

 

[Tambora]

Move the goal post much?

Just because someone doesn't go to the particular pieces of ancient literature that you like, doesn't mean that they don't ever use any extra-biblical sources to understand how the ancients viewed meanings of biblical terms. Put another way, using any extra-biblical source to glean information related to biblical issues does not require the endorsement of ANY AND ALL extra-biblical sources for use in such endeavors.

Just because you have not known anyone that will not use extra biblical literature to help them understand the Bible doesn't mean there are none.
I have known some that wont, and I don't give a flying hoot if you believe it or not.

 

[Clete]

Just because you have not known anyone that will not use extra biblical literature to help them understand the Bible doesn't mean there are none.

I never suggested otherwise.

I have known some that wont, and I don't give a flying hoot if you believe it or not.

The point wasn't that none exist at all but that they are pretty far and few between and that the fact that you accept the testimony of extra-biblical sources for historical information doesn't put you in a special class. Practically everyone does so.

 

[Tambora]

the fact that you accept the testimony of extra-biblical sources for historical information doesn't put you in a special class.

I never said or implied it did, Clete.
What I said to Idolater was that, just like him, I am also not against using extra biblical literature.
And he knew what I meant because we have had discussion about it on other sites.
How in the world did you come to the silly conclusion that meant I thought I was in a special class for doing so????

 

[Idolater]

If a strict interpretation is to be taken, shouldn’t actual, empirical evidence match these claims?

This is absolutely true, yes. The strict interpretation of the divine bodily Resurrection of Christ for example ought to comport with empirical evidence. So the Shroud of Turin, if it is in actuality a "photographic negative" of the moment, shouldn't be so surprising that it's automatically ruled out as too convenient of a miraculous relic. Could just be that the strict interpretation is right, in which case, why wouldn't empirical evidence match? It should match, just like you're saying.

Where in those verses do you see any mention of " only originals"?
Are not the copies of scripture we have now profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness?

Especially since we trust the stewards who came before us, who preserved what the first believers believed. We don't just trust their testimony concerning witnessing the Resurrected and Ascended Christ, we also trust that they preserved what Christ taught as well. It doesn't even make sense to me anyway, to trust them wrt the former but not the latter.

Why wouldn't you just trust them wrt both? I can't think of a reason. Not a good one anyway.

Peace.

 

[Clete]

I never said or implied it did, Clete.
What I said to Idolater was that, just like him, I am also not against using extra biblical literature.
And he knew what I meant because we have had discussion about it on other sites.
How in the world did you come to the silly conclusion that meant I thought I was in a special class for doing so????

I responded to the words on the page. I'm certainly not interested in reading your mind. Say what you mean or live with it when someone responds to what your write. If I (or whomever) seems to have missed important context then clarify yourself and be done but you didn't do that. You said what you said and then doubled down on it when challenged.

What you wrote was...

"Oh, and I am one that also thinks extra biblical sources can be very helpful in understanding how the ancients viewed meanings of biblical terms used."​

There isn't anything special or different about that and you clearly were communicating otherwise or else there wouldn't have been any reason to say it.

As for what you meant, that's fine by me. I don't really care. As far as I'm concerned you've conceded the only point I was trying to make anyway.