The curious case of John 5:4

[St. SteVen]

You have to acknowledge that this isn't a salvific issue-right?

That's not the point.

[

 

[Johann]

Not when you make claims like this.

Every word?

[

The term "theopneustos" (God-breathed) signifies that all Scripture is divinely inspired, while passages such as Psalm 119:160, Proverbs 30:5, Matthew 5:18, John 10:35, and Romans 15:4 collectively support the belief that every word in Scripture is without error and serves as a trustworthy foundation for faith and practice.

Every word.

J.

 

[Johann]

That's not the point.

[

What's your point?

J.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The term "theopneustos" (God-breathed) signifies that all Scripture is divinely inspired, while passages such as Psalm 119:160, Proverbs 30:5, Matthew 5:18, John 10:35, and Romans 15:4 collectively support the belief that every word in Scripture is without error and serves as a trustworthy foundation for faith and practice.

Every word.

J.

but does this relate to the origional written manuscripts or the translations of those manuscripts?

 

[Lambano]

Every word?

But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? (Isaiah 36:12, also 2 Kings 18:27 KJV)

As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (Galatians 5:12 NIV)

But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. (Genesis 38:9 NIV)

Definitely inspired.

I need to find appropriate graphics for these so I can post them in the "Encouraging Verses" thread.

 

[Johann]

but does this relate to the origional written manuscripts or the translations of those manuscripts?

Absolutely, @Eternally Grateful, textual criticism does not change the reality that ALL Scripture is God-breathed; otherwise, we might as well discard the Scriptures entirely-as some here are doing.

J.

 

[Johann]

But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? (Isaiah 36:12, also 2 Kings 18:27 KJV)

As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (Galatians 5:12 NIV)

And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. (Genesis 38:9 KJV)

Definitely inspired.

I need to find appropriate graphics for these so I can post them in the "Encouraging Verses" thread.

It’s only a matter of time before things get ugly-I’ve witnessed debates where Muslim apologists use these very verses to argue that our Bible is corrupt and their Quran is infallible. I’m disappointed in this, @Lambano. You and @St. SteVen appear to share a very close friendship.

J.

 

[St. SteVen]

What's your point?

THE point is that you claim that EVERY word is inspired.
But when we encounter a questionable verse, you say it "isn't a salvific issue".

[

 

[St. SteVen]

I’m disappointed in this, @Lambano. You and @St. SteVen appear to share a very close friendship.

Shame you on you @Lambano - LOL

[

 

[Matthias]

Good question-there's a noticeable hesitation from some members here…

One of the things I discovered when I began teaching is that many of my students didn’t know how to properly use commentaries. They would speak endlessly themselves - often with great conviction, confidence, and ignorance - about the Bible but shut down the idea of reading a commentary - the words of others, more studied than they themselves were, speaking about the Bible.

There is such a thing as the tyranny of the educated. There is also such a thing as the tyranny of the ignorant.

Commentaries are intended as aids. Some of my students valued them too highly and some too lowly.

Read widely. Read deeply. Students generally don’t have a problem with that concept.

Read thoughtfully. Read critically. The battleground of the mind / spirit.

, and I've lost "good brothers" who aren't willing to read secondary sources. However, since it's not a salvation issue, I won’t push the matter.

J.

 

[Johann]

THE point is that you claim that EVERY word is inspired.
But when we encounter a questionable verse, you say it "isn't a salvific issue".

[

That's correct-there are NO salvific doctrines being scrutinized by @St. SteVen or through textual criticism.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

J.

 

[Matthias]

95% of people who are confused regarding, and now deceived regarding...

"losing salvation"
"what does it mean to be born again"
"eternal security"
"water baptism as a requirement for Salvation"
"Catholicism"
"Mormonism"
"JW"
"Calvinism"
"Mary Baker Eddy"
"Confusion about the Rapture"
"Confusion about Hell, vs, Sheol, vs Hades"..

and so many more 'Isms".. are led there by : COMMENTARIES.

100%, nearly, of the arguments found on Forums, exist because people do not study a bible, and they are simply posting "what some man said", from a commentary or from the writings of some deceived "church father".


Thats a fact, all of it.

Thanks for your commentary. You make some valid points.

 

[Lambano]

You and @St. SteVen appear to share a very close friendship.

So I definitely have poor taste in friends.

I’ve witnessed debates where Muslim apologists use these very verses to argue that our Bible is corrupt and their Quran is infallible.

Never let your enemy unilaterally choose the terms of engagement. Is the hill of "our holy writings are infallible; yours are corrupt", the fight you need to win? I don't see it as defensible. The battle here is a defensive one to keep from losing the Christian, and the problem is that we've made a vulnerable hill essential to our strategy. I don't think you'll win the Muslim on that battlefield.

 

[Matthias]

Did you point out the irony of him trusting YOU for guidance, but not, say, Matthew Henry, Utley, or Barclay?

I didn’t ask him to trust me. We worked through it together.

I also didn’t ask him to trust commentaries. I asked him to consider what they said and evaluate it critically.

 

[Johann]

So I definitely have poor taste in friends.



Never let your enemy unilaterally choose the terms of engagement. Is the hill of "our holy writings are infallible; yours are corrupt", the fight you need to win? I don't see it as defensible. The battle here is a defensive one to keep from losing the Christian, and the problem is that we've made a vulnerable hill essential to our strategy. I don't think you'll win the Muslim on that battlefield.

What you think and what I know are completely opposite.

J.

 

[St. SteVen]

textual criticism does not change the reality that ALL Scripture is God-breathed

What do you mean by the term "ALL Scripture"?
- Your favorite Bible translation in English?
- The original autographs (manuscripts) that have been lost to time?
- The copies, of copies, of copies, of copies that contain textual variants?
- The Majority Text?
- The Critical Text?
- The Textus Receptus? (confessional position)
- The Alexandrian Text?
- The Western Text?
- The Byzantine Text?

[

 

[Lambano]

Shame you on you @Lambano - LOL

[

Mom did warn me not to associate with "those boys".

 

[St. SteVen]

What you think and what I know are completely opposite.

I suppose there's a good reason for that. - LOL

[ cc: @Lambano

 

[Matthias]

Internet discussion forums -> commentary hell.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
THE point is that you claim that EVERY word is inspired.
But when we encounter a questionable verse, you say it "isn't a salvific issue".

That's correct-there are NO salvific doctrines being scrutinized by @St. SteVen or through textual criticism.

Does a text have to be salvific to be inspired?

We can let the non-salvific texts go? (not required to be inspired)

[