If only he was saying that....he might find a few more friendly voices on this forum.
In BIBLE we trust? - Misplaced allegiance?
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
If I may, it's not the object that is being bashed. It is false worshippers.
Yes. You got it.
- God is not a book
- God is not a verse
- God is not the words in a book
- God is not a church
- God is not a doctrine
- God is not an interpretation of words in a book
/
But I was saying that.
I guess it is time for you to be more friendly.
That's some good news.
/
There is no consensus. Don't blame me for that.
Do you really believe that everyone is on one side of the fence and I am on the other? - LOL
/
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
Probably "quoted" and misquoted. Do all translations agree? Do you know where the Bible came from?
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101
https://www.bereanpatriot.com/majority-text-vs-critical-text-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/#Corruption-of-the-Alexandrian-text-type/
I'm addressing you. You attack the credibility of the Bible. I believe you do that because you don't like what it teaches. So you endeavor to discredit others as making an idol of the Bible, and to discredit the Bible itself as our source of information about God and life and everything.
Much love!
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Mushroom theology .
First we must consider what works best for a mushroom . Lots of dark and lots of bull .
And believe me , i see lots of folks keeping their congregations in the dark with daily feeds of bull doctrine .
This might work well for a mushroom . But it wont bode well for the people who fed or do feed of it .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
This is why folks do as they do . you NAILED IT SPOT ON RIGHT my friend . THEY dont LIKE some of what is in the bible
but they cant just come out and directly attack the bible itself and thus they try and make it seem
as those who put their trust in THEM HOLY WORDS are somehow comitting IDOLATRY . YOU GOT IT SPOT ON RIGHT .
But good news i do have for all . THE SHEEP WONT BE HEEDING THEM . we stayin DUG IN THE BIBLE .
I question the credibility of the Bible because it lacks credibility on the level you claim it is credible.
We don't even have the original documents. Just one of three methods at a best guess as to what was written.
The gospel accounts were written decades after the events.
And the synoptic gospels are basically three copies of the same document.
But mostly I attack the credibility of the interpretation of the Bible.
And YES, many make an idol of the book and worship it ABOVE the author.
Too many work to know the book more than the author.
Mostly because they believe that the book is their only connection to the author.
Without the book, they have no God.
But apparently you don't have a problem with any of this.
Your problem is with me.
Here is our oldest copy of a copy of a copy... of the Gospel of John.
Only a fragment left. Front and back.
/
Last edited:
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
mark , i rest my case . the man exposed himself as you will soon see with what he wrote above .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
sounds like you in the spot THEY WANT YOU IN . this lamb aint buying all that mess .Which is effectively the same as, "Every man did what was right in his own eyes", because we read the Bible with our own eyes.
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
I would disagree with you when you say that God and Jesus are probably misquoted in the Bible. I don't think the Bible lies. That doesn't mean I agree with all the opinions expressed by Paul and Peter, but I don't think anyone is misquoted.
The Bible has 66 books, each with its own origin. I don't know all the details of how each of those books came to be.
If all translations agreed, there'd be no need for more than one. But I think most are pretty close.
I think the problem is that the translation work is colored by the doctrinal bias of the translators and their employers.
Translation methods vary widely as well. It's a very complicated process. Try reading the document at the link I provided.
You will discover in short order what is involved. Even the translators agree that one of the biggest problems
is that they have so many manuscripts. An enormous task. And which ones to use?
The oldest? The majority copies? The copies accepted by the church as "doctrinally correct"?
What if the "doctrinally correct" versions disagree with the oldest and most original?
/
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
If you look at it that way, it becomes easy to dismiss the Bible entirely. I won't do that. I will believe the Bible accurately quotes God and Jesus. There might be versions that don't do that, but I bet the major versions are accurate.
Similar threads
