The PERFECT Word of God!!!!!!

[Goose 11]

Here'san answer to a Question posed on another thread.
This is what I have found about the TRUE word of God and it's inspiration by God Himself!!

The act of inspiring;
the divine influence by which the sacred writers were instructed;
something conveyed to the mind when under extraordinary influence
The Bible claims to be inspired

If a book were inspired of God, we would expect it to say so!
2 Peter 1:21
2 Timothy 3:16-17
1 Corinthians 2:11-13

First Corinthians 2:11-13
"œFor who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man"™s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught to us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words."�

Concentrated efforts to destroy the Bible
Roman Government
Medieval Catholic Church
Modernist Movement

The Roman Government
In the days of Decius (249-251 A.D.) and again under the rule of Diocletian (284-305 A.D.) it was a capital offense to be found in possession of the Christian scriptures. That is probably why we don"™t have many large manuscripts before the fourth century.They used small easy to hide manuscripts.

Medieval Catholic Church
This was not so much an attempt to destroy the Bible, but to keep it from the people.
Scriptures were only written in Latin, a foreign language to most people.
The bibles were chained to the pulpits in church buildings to keep them from being taken and read!

Modernist Movement
Voltaire, a Frenchman, started the idea that the scriptures were insufficient!
Still today it is a popular belief that the bible has contradictions and is therefore not "œperfect"�
Even people who claim to be Christians doubt the completeness of the Bible

The Bible is still God"™s Word
While other works by men who lived near the New Testament times have only 1 to 100 copies extant, there are about 5,357 Greek manuscripts. Add to that the Syriac, Latin, and Coptic manuscripts and the number is well over 14,000 copies of the New Testament!

The Uniqueness of the Bible
The Bible was penned by more than 40 different men, from a wide variety of backgrounds. These men wrote in 3 different languages. From at least 2 continents. Over a period of approximately 1,600 years. Even with these facts, the Bible has one theme, and is written in complete unity!

How do we know that our English translations are accurate?
Because there are over 14,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament. Comparing manuscripts easily reveals any place where a scribe has made an error, or where there is a variation.

Bible Accuracy
In those 14,000 copies, there are about 150,000 variations in the manuscripts we have today. How ever, these variations represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament. Because if a word was misspelled in 3,000 copies, that is 3,000 variations.

Bible Accuracy
Of these 10,000 places, all but 400 are questions of spelling, grammatical construction, or order of words. Of the remaining 400 variations, only 50 are of significance. Such as two copies that leave out Acts 2:37!

Bible Accuracy
Of the 50 remaining variations, not one alters even one article of faith which cannot be abundantly sustained by other undoubted passages!
Some copies date as early as 130 AD at the completion of the N.T. These are identical to copies made in 900 AD, this verifies the accuracy of the scribes.

The Inspiration of the Bible
"œAll scripture is given by inspiration of God"¦that the man of God may be perfect"¦ 2 Tim. 3:16-17
You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."� Jn. 8:32

Hope this is helpful to you all.
Trae"œHeaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away!"� Matt. 24:35

[Mahonri Moriancumer]

Goose 11,

Here'san answer to a Question posed on another thread.

Which question, which thread, and why did you not simply post the answer there?

Although I appreciate you exposition what is it intended to establish? That the Bible is perfect? I see nothing in your post which supports that assertion. Nor do I see anything which states the Bible is complete (or sufficient) or inerrant.

[Goose 11]

O.K.
Thanks for your interest.

[Moose75]

Man I though he left. Thanks Goose

[renfrowridge]

goose good post to bad some people would listin to it and the word of God is perfect mahonri moriancumer that is fact not the JUNK you spew. that is all I will say to you peace and love bro

[DaveH]

The Inspiration of the Bible
"œAll scripture is given by inspiration of God . . . "

MM simply continues to skip over this verse. Wonder why?

[Porter Rockwell]

Dave et al.

I posted this as a reply to your question previously. I think it went unanswered, but correct me if am wrong.. It has not been skipped by Mahonri. I ask you to review it again and let me know what you think.

Does 2 Timothy 3:16 Support the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy?

In 2 Timothy 3:16, the apostle Paul wrote:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
Strangely enough, fundamentalists cite this verse to support the idea of biblical inerrancy. However, this passage merely says that "all scripture" is "profitable" for doctrine, reproof, etc. It says nothing about scripture being "perfect," or "inerrant," or "infallible," or "all-sufficient." If anything, Paul's words constitute a refutation of the idea of scriptural inerrancy, as Oxford University's James Barr has pointed out:
The striking thing about 2 Tim. 3: 16 is not its declaration of scriptural inspiration but its unstressed and low-key application of it. It is not remarkable that it says nothing about inerrancy or historical accuracy, which were not an issue at the time or until many centuries later; but, more important, it says nothing about scripture being the foundation of the Christian faith, or the ultimate criterion of its genuineness, or the decisive factor above all others in the understanding of it. What it does say is that scripture is useful, profitable for the needs of the pastoral ministry. (1983:20, original emphasis)

In 2 Timothy 3:15 Paul tells Timothy that "from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (vs. 15). The only "holy scriptures" Timothy could have known from childhood were the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament. Yet, would any Christian assert that in Paul's view the Old Testament was the final and complete word of God to man? Of course not.

Verse 15 makes it clear that in speaking of "all scripture" Paul was referring to the Jewish scriptures and perhaps to some of his own epistles. The New Testament as we know it did not exist yet. Furthermore, there is no doubt that Paul's canon included some Jewish scriptures that are no longer found in the Old Testament, such as the book of Enoch (Barr 1983:25; 1984:4). In fact, notes Catholic scholar Richard F. Smith, "The entire Church of the first centuries accepted the LXX [the Greek Old Testament, also called the Septuagint] as an inspired work, and therewith accepted.

Thanks and God Bless,

Porter

[DaveH]

this passage merely says that "all scripture" is "profitable" for doctrine, reproof, etc. It says nothing about scripture being "perfect," or "inerrant," or "infallible," or "all-sufficient."

Refer back to my last post here and you'll see that the FIRST part of the verse is my point. This alleged "cut & paste" refutation glosses over that part and concentrates on the second part of the verse. There is virtually no emphasis on the part I referred to -- the author simply dismisses it without going into much detail as to why.

In 2 Timothy 3:15 Paul tells Timothy that "from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (vs. 15). The only "holy scriptures" Timothy could have known from childhood were the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament. Yet, would any Christian assert that in Paul's view the Old Testament was the final and complete word of God to man? Of course not.

However, that does NOTHING to prove your point. The entire Bible didn't have to be written yet for that to be true. What he is saying is that ALL SCRIPTURE RECIEVED UP TO THAT TIME WERE PERFECT. There is no claim of completion here, yet the author of this piece attempts to portray it that way.

In 2 Timothy 3:16, the apostle Paul wrote:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God . . .

Strangely enough, fundamentalists cite this verse to support the idea of biblical inerrancy.

Gee, I wonder why?

[Porter Rockwell]

From Dave H

Dave I just need to be clear in what you are stating before I feel I can answer.
You stated: Refer back to my last post here and you'll see that the FIRST part of the verse is my point.

Porter: Ok, if I understand your post you are referring to the beginning of verse 16 correct?

Dave:This alleged "cut & paste" refutation glosses over that part and concentrates on the second part of the verse. There is virtually no emphasis on the part I referred to -- the author simply dismisses it without going into much detail as to why.

Porter: This is a very quick sidebar-the information I "œcut and pasted"� was for clarification. I am not into "œCut and paste techniques"� that come from the typical anti-Mormon. All the information is there in what I posted. In addition some is my own commentary. Anti-Mormon cut and paste techniques do not offer a full quote. They separate out several different quotes and attempt to tie them into together. This changes the quote entirely in what it says. If you are inferring that I am doing the same thing, I am not. If you are not inferring anything, forgive me and move on to the regularly scheduled program
quote:

In 2 Timothy 3:15 Paul tells Timothy that "from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (vs. 15). The only "holy scriptures" Timothy could have known from childhood were the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament. Yet, would any Christian assert that in Paul's view the Old Testament was the final and complete word of God to man? Of course not.

Dave: However, that does NOTHING to prove your point. The entire Bible didn't have to be written yet for that to be true.

Porter: For What to be true? All scripture? What does All scripture mean to you here?
1) The entire Bible as it was compiled nearly 1600 years after Paul made this statement.
2) The Old Testament scripture as it was given to Timothy via Paul.
3) The Old Testament scripture and parts of the new covenant as it was given to Timothy by Paul.
4) All scripture regardless when uttered.
5) None of the above and I missed your point completely.

If I am understanding your statement correctly you said "œWhat he is saying is that ALL SCRIPTURE RECIEVED UP TO THAT TIME WERE PERFECT. There is no claim of completion here, yet the author of this piece attempts to portray it that way."

So you are stating that all Old Testament scripture received as it was given to Timothy was perfect and inspired? You are also stating then that Paul was not only referring to the Old Testament Law but that anything he would have said afterwards could be added to his earlier statement to Timothy about scripture would be perfect on inspired. Am I correct in my assumptions?

So again, all scripture, whether the old law or the new is scripture given by the inspiration of God? All scripture whether given by Paul or anyone else after this particular statement to Timothy is perfect and inspired. Am I correct?

Help me by clarifying. Thanks.

Porter.

[WARedBear]

The striking thing about 2 Tim. 3: 16 is not its declaration of scriptural inspiration but its unstressed and low-key application of it. It is not remarkable that it says nothing about inerrancy or historical accuracy, which were not an issue at the time or until many centuries later; but, more important, it says nothing about scripture being the foundation of the Christian faith, or the ultimate criterion of its genuineness, or the decisive factor above all others in the understanding of it. What it does say is that scripture is useful, profitable for the needs of the pastoral ministry.

John 11:35 "Jesus wept."
This verse says nothing about who Jesus was. This verse says noting about Him being the Son of God. This verse says nothing about His miracles, His love, His compassion, His selflessness, His teachings or His dedication to His Fathers Will. All it says is that this man wept. He cried. He was a mama's boy, a cry baby, something less of a man. No, that is not what this verse says. Read the verses above and below and you find the true meaning of the words...Jesus wept. You find that one of His friends has died and Jesus is in pain. He knows that He is going to raise Lazarus from the dead but Jesus still shows His deep love for His friend by crying. Too many times people take one verse and stand on it to make a point. Too many times that verse is taken out of context to make that point. (being saved is one such point) Read the whole text, the whole chapter, the whole letter and the whole Bible and you will find the answer. The Bible doesn't contridict itself. The Bible is not wrong. The Bible is the true inspired Word of God.

The Bible doesn't tell you not to stick the barrel of a pistol up your nose and pull the trigger. Does that mean I can...sure...but I will face all of the consiquences of my actions. The same is true with my life. I can go off and do anything and everything that I want to do...but one day I will face the judgement seat and I will have to give account to Jesus for my life and how I lived it...according to His Word.

Wait there is a cow coming home...gotta go.

In His Service,