The Christ Within

[Perry Staltic]

Oh really?
Never-mind.

Seriously, you think the bible is Jesus? He himself made a distinction between himself and scripture, The pharisees were devout students of scripture so they didn't need to come to scripture. The scriptures witness of Jesus, but Jesus never witnessed concerning himself.

Search the Scriptures because you think you have everlasting life in them, and they are the ones witnessing concerning me. And you are not willing to come to me that you may have life. John 5:39-40

 

[Momma]

Seriously, you think the bible is Jesus? He himself made a distinction between himself and scripture, The pharisees were devout students of scripture so they didn't need to come to scripture. The scriptures witness of Jesus, but Jesus never witnessed concerning himself.

Search the Scriptures because you think you have everlasting life in them, and they are the ones witnessing concerning me. And you are not willing to come to me that you may have life. John 5:39-40

No disrespect and I may be wrong about this, but i get combative energy from you. Therefore, I am going to keep this short.

Jesus is called, "the Word of God." Scripture doesn’t define what’s meant by that. It could refer to He is the personification of the written and spoken word.

Revelation 19:13:
He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

I haven’t done it in a while; but when you find a Psalm or something speaking of The Word. If you replace the name of Jesus where The Word is: it works.

You’re probably ready to combat that.
My faith isn’t about being a scholar. It’s about knowing Him.

 

[joaquin]

Yet the KJV says it was finished on (literally "in") the 7th day. The Septuagint says it was finished on (literally "in") the 6th day

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. Genesis 2:2 (KJV)

And God finished on the sixth day his works which he made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his works which he made. Genesis 2:2 (LXX)

The Septuagint is not reliable.

 

[joaquin]

"Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." Genesis 7:20

 

[Perry Staltic]

No disrespect and I may be wrong about this, but i get combative energy from you. Therefore, I am going to keep this short.

Jesus is called, "the Word of God." Scripture doesn’t define what’s meant by that. It could refer to He is the personification of the written and spoken word.

Revelation 19:13:
He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

I haven’t done it in a while; but when you find a Psalm or something speaking of The Word. If you replace the name of Jesus where The Word is: it works.

You’re probably ready to combat that.
My faith isn’t about being a scholar. It’s about knowing Him.

Let me put it another way: a bible cannot save you

 

[Perry Staltic]

The Septuagint is not reliable.

It's very reliable in many instances. Virtually all, if not all, OT quotes in the NT are from the LXX, or the original Hebrew texts that the LXX was made from (which no longer exist)

 

[Momma]

Let me put it another way: a bible cannot save you

Infinitely agree.

 

[joaquin]

It's very reliable in many instances. Virtually all, if not all, OT quotes in the NT are from the LXX, or the original Hebrew texts that the LXX was made from (which no longer exist)

That's because the original mss for the NT are written in Greek. They were not quoting the LXX.

If you believe that the septuagint is a trustworthy document then you are falling into the same trap that other parroting scholars fall into. The septuagint is fuel for unbelief just as is the critical text. The Masoretic is perfect just as is the TR.

Don't be a liberal, Perry.

This brings to mind a quote I saved a long time ago:

Most scientists believe the earth is old because they believe most other scientists believe the earth is old!

 

[joaquin]

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Timothy 2:14

 

[Perry Staltic]

That's because the original mss for the NT are written in Greek. They were not quoting the LXX.

You'll never convince me. This is just one of many examples. James' quote of Amos 9:12 matches the LXX, but not the KJV.

And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Acts 15:15-17

In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things. Amos 9:11-12 (LXX)

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. Amos 9:11-12 (KJV)

 

[TheSir]

You either don't know history or have no respect for it

Pardon me, I'm doing the best I can.

According to Coleman (1975), "[t]here have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy." The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy were not established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-Reformation period.

First thing, the RCC is the apostate church. Second, it was from the Catholic church that the attempt to forge manuscripts and pervert the bible in order to thwart the Reformation.

Quite so, yet then, who were you referring to by 'always'? Who has always viewed the Bible as being infallible? It certainly isn't the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Church Fathers nor the Reformers. Who are you representing?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God", 2 Tim 6:

Is this to equate divine inspiration with infallibility? Why/how are you able to make the jump?

Your word salad here is just gObBlYgOok.

If you are unable or unwilling to process my rhetoric, the full implication of the issue I'm trying to present to you might elude you... which would render our exchange pointless. So I must beg you, please put in more effort or explicitly say if you're unwilling to, lest either of us waste time.

 

[joaquin]

Pardon me, I'm doing the best I can.

According to Coleman (1975), "[t]here have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy." The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy were not established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-Reformation period.


Quite so, yet then, who were you referring to by 'always'? Who has always viewed the Bible as being infallible? It certainly isn't the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Church Fathers nor the Reformers. Who are you representing?

Is this to equate divine inspiration with infallibility? Why/how are you able to make the jump?

If you are unable or unwilling to process my rhetoric, the full implication of the issue I'm trying to present to you might elude you... which would render our exchange pointless. So I must beg you, please put in more effort or explicitly say if you're unwilling to, lest either of us waste time.

By always it is meant the faithful saints. This is not some grandiose mental challenge for you to process.

I am not representing anyone. You have made an extraordinary claim that rests solely upon its own assumption.


All scripture is given by inspiration of God 2 TIM 6
What word(s) do you need assistance on?

 

[joaquin]

You'll never convince me.

Those are the keywords.

 

[charlie]

There are translation mistakes in the King James. Many times when written to "fear God" should have been written "revere God". That makes a big difference.

 

[Perry Staltic]

Those are the keywords.

Because I follow the evidence, which contradicts your assertion

 

[joaquin]

There are translation mistakes in the King James. Many times when written to "fear God" should have been written "revere God". That makes a big difference.

Wrong.

 

[Perry Staltic]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God 2 TIM 6
What word(s) do you need assistance on?

As it is written, but not necessarily as it is translated into another language. There are many difficulties involved in translating text, and it is not always perfect.

 

[joaquin]

Because I follow the evidence, which contradicts your assertion

You believe like other scholars that do a bunch of parroting that James was actually quoting the Septuagint and not the Hebrew.

However the quote in the septuagint is not exactly the same. If a quote must be exact then this disproves the Septuagint.

James was not quoting just verse in Amos. He was quoting prophets. See Jeremiah 12:14-17.

The writers of the septuagint simply failed to understand why the text of Acts 15 did not seem to align with that of Amos and so retrospectively changed the translation to fit it better.

 

[TheSir]

By always it is meant the faithful saints

That would be mostly people from post-reformation era then? Hardly anyone ever advocated for the infallibility of the scriptures before the modern times. The common view was that the scriptures are adequate for their purpose, i.e. teaching. For all they knew, infallibility belonged strictly to God, as it should, no?

You have made an extraordinary claim that rests solely upon its own assumption

Which claim would that be? Extraordinarity -- infallibility existing separately from God -- is your position. What I have brought forth are simple historical realities that can be quickly verified by anyone.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God 2 TIM 6
What word(s) do you need assistance on?

Consider this: I am divinely inspired to warn you. Are my words then infallible? Or are they subject to being filtered through my corrupted nature? Despite my inspiration, I can still fail, right?

Certainly, being inspired by an infallible object does not mean that my output will be infallible too. We can't conflate the motive (divine inspiration) with the outcome (words on a page) without elevating man to the status of infallibility too. Would you not agree?

Are there other parts in the Bible where a case is made for it's infallibility? Most intuitively go for the one you quoted, and it's not much to get started with.

 

[Perry Staltic]

However the quote in the septuagint is not exactly the same. If a quote must be exact then this disproves the Septuagint.

James was quoting from memory, so slight differences would be expected. However, they do match very closely. The KJV doesn't match at all with what James said in one sentence, so by your logic this disproves the KJV

όπως αν εκζητήσωσιν οι κατάλοιποι των ανθρώπων τον κύριον και πάντα τα έθνη εφ΄ ους επικέκληται το όνομά μου επ΄ αυτούς λέγει κύριος ο ποιών ταύτα πάντα Acts 15:17

όπως εκζητήσωσιν οι κατάλοιποι των ανθρώπων και πάντα τα έθνη εφ ους επικέκληται το όνομά μου επ΄ αυτούς λέγει κύριος ο ποιών ταύτα Amos 9:12