/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>656697

Read "The Case for Christ".

In that Christianity originated in persecution, it was policy at the time to destroy any record pertaining to it.

The veracity of the entire scripture is intellectually found in its consistency of prophetic thread and spiritually through connection between The Word and The Spirit.

Find a NAB, because it attempts to use the earliest source material possible in translation. Most are annotated for interpretation and cross-reference both.

And pray to relinquish doubt and find guidance as you read. The repentance The Baptist spoke of is not feeling guilty for sin, but instead emptying yourself of the worldly to make room for The Spirit.

>I believe in the God and that Jesus was fully human and fully divine and died on the cross and rose from the dead.

>am skeptical of accounts of Jesus' life in the New Testament, because it seems that stuff was added.

Which is it? Either the Gospel is 100% valid or it is not.

>I know that divine inspiration is how mainstream Christians believe the Bible was written, but what is the basis for this? Is there a Biblical basis; would a Biblical basis even be valid?

Because most if not all of the books of the OT were written by prophets, and many of these refer to the fact that they were explicitly commanded to write them (Isaias, Jeremias and Ezechiel in particular). Why would it be any less the case that the Apostles, inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit, should have any less inspiration?

It sounds like you should read the whole of the Bible, for a start.

>>656839

>Find a NAB, because it attempts to use the earliest source material possible in translation.

No it doesn't, it uses non-scriptural source material. In the footnotes for the book of Jude, the NAB references the book of ENOCH as justification for its translation of verse 7, and it defines sodomy as "to the desire for intimacies by human beings with angels."

The NAB also calls Lucifer by the name "Morning Star" in Isaiah 14:12. Yet "Morning Star" is the name of Jesus, see Revelation 22:16. Therefore the NAB is saying that Jesus Christ was cut down to the earth in Isaiah 14. It should say that Lucifer is cut down to earth there.

The NAB also has several factual errors, for instance in Mark 1:2, it claims that the full quotation is "is written in Isaiah the prophet:" but it quotes Malachi 3:1, which is found nowhere in the book of Isaiah. It is NOT written in Isaiah the prophet. Therefore, the NAB is outright wrong in Mark 1:2.

The NAB also removes the entire verse of Acts 8:37 and it separates the last part of Mark chapter 16, verses 9-20 as "questionable." The NAB removes the second half of Romans 11:6, see what the KJV says in that verse. The NAB removes the second half of 1 John 5:13, again, see what the KJV says in that verse.

The NAB removes the part in 1 John 4:3 where it says "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." The NAB also likewise removes the name of Jesus Christ from 1 Corinthians 16:22, a similarly related verse!

And if that wasn't enough, the NAB also muddles up the Trinity and salvation. See how it removes all mention of the person of Jesus Christ in Ephesians 3:9 and 3:14, the NAB changes the meaning of Philippians 2:6 to imply the opposite, the NAB removes all mention of "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16, and the NAB changes Hebrews 1:8 from "unto the Son he saith" into "of the Son." It removes the words "on me" from John 6:47. It removes the words "through his blood" from Colossians 1:14. It adds the words "into salvation" to 1 Peter 2:2. It changes "I must work" to "we must work" in John 9:4.

>>656871

Oh yeah and of course the NAB changes Matthew 5:32 from "saving for the cause of fornication" to "(unless the marriage is unlawful)" so you can decide what's "unlawful" and it removes mention of sodomites in 1 Kings 15:12 and Deuteronomy 23:17 and it inserts mention of sodomites in 1 Corinthians 6:9.

>>656939

>Do you have a translation unrelated to KJV to liken you argument to?

That's not a coherent question.

>Is there a reason why the One Catholic and Apolistic Church no longer uses KJV, but protestant sects springing from nothing do?

Is there a reason why people who do sprinkling and call it baptism change their scripture? Probably for the same reason they changed baptism.

>Do you mean to argue that non-inspired work is useless in understanding The Bible?

I mean to argue that changing the Bible— that is, changing the word of God is wrong. You can't change the word of God.

>Not lawyering.

If you think the doctrine of Christ is a small thing in your eyes, then it doesn't surprise me that you sir do not abide in the doctrine of Christ either.

1 Peter 2:2

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

Romans 10:17

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

>>656697

>I believe in the God and that Jesus was fully human and fully divine and died on the cross and rose from the dead.

On what basis do you have to believe that when you deny the Bible?

>>656955

>Cor2;14

Yes and the previous verse explains how the Holy Spirit teaches. Not the Pope.

John 14:26

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So then whatever the word of God says, the Holy Ghost tells the saved believer.

1 John 2:27

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

John 15:26

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:13-14

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

>Do you have a different translation that supports your argument? More specifically, one that is not descended from the King James?

Isn't that a logical paradox? You want me to give you a translation that agrees with the KJV yet disagrees with it at the same time. The only example I can give you is the original language sources on which the KJV is based, which say the same thing as the KJV, so that doesn't qualify as a "different translation."

You've asked for a paradox.

This is a discussion on the merits of a particular translation. The Pope is apart from it alltogether.

If Jim and Stacey read a book, then they summarize the book separately, has Stacey plagiarized Jim?

"Descending" implies succession. If the same source material was translated today without reference to KJV, the product of this translation would not be descendant of the KJV.

Excerpt from introductory letter:

"…labored to create this new translation of the Scriptures from the original languages, or from the oldest extant form in which the texts exist."

1970, Vatican

Excerpt from Wikipedia (because I am not an expert on the matter):

James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of, and reflect the episcopal structure of, the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.

Cited further from

Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-09930-4.

And either way, your own previous barrage supports my point. Understanding is of The Spirit. Claiming superiority over translation is to put the works of man before those of God.

I recommend NAB as a clear translation in plain English. I also find the footnotes illuminating as you build your capacity for Grace.

>>656948

the ministry of the Apostles and the shroud of Turin

>>656871

>The NAB also calls Lucifer by the name "Morning Star" in Isaiah 14:12. Yet "Morning Star" is the name of Jesus, see Revelation 22:16

That's not what it's saying at all. If you actually read Isaiah 14, Lucifer in this context is clearly not the infallible Son of God. The name given in that passage is literally "Light-bringer". "Light-bringer" seems to be a title. If the (spiritual) King of Tyre is indeed Satan, then he clearly failed to live up to that role, and the title was taken away and given to someone else, as evidenced in Revelation 22.

>>656965

>Claiming superiority over translation is to put the works of man before those of God.

So God didn't preserve his word you're saying? That's what the translators of NAB are also saying.

Well, just so you know, I believe Matthew 24:35 on this matter. And 1 Peter 1:23-25 and Psalm 12:6-7. So then the word of God doesn't change. That marks off a whole bunch right there.

>I also find the footnotes illuminating as you build your capacity for Grace.

Do you think non-Biblical works are the same as inspired Scripture? It seems like you haven't fully grasped 2 Tim. 3:16-17 here.

>>657107

>and the title was taken away and given to someone else, as evidenced in Revelation 22.

Absolutely not true. Just because Jesus Christ waited until Revelation 22 to reveal his name doesn't mean he hasn't always had it. So it's more like certain translations woefully decided to substitute the name of our Savior into Isaiah 14:12, whether knowingly or not. Not understanding or perceiving the fact that Light-bringer or "Shining one" has no celestial ascription. Whereas Morning Star or Day Star does have the ascription celestial. That's how you know right away they are separate.

They are either confusing the English name and its definition with the Latin definition— just imagine if I substituted other unrelated language's definitions into my Bible— or else they are muddling it with separate words in that sentence which are translated as "son of the morning" in the KJV. In other words, just more dynamic equivalence liberties, not really translating but trying to tell you what they think it means. Either way, it's profoundly incorrect, even making it a blasphemy. You can't place the name of God in a place like that when in the very same translation you have ascribed that same name to Jesus (i.e. in Rev. 22:16). Combined with all the other removal of mentions of the Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly in the NT, this blatant attack in Isaiah 14 simply cannot be ignored.

>Lucifer in this context is clearly not the infallible Son of God.

Yeah, I know. But the antichrist would love to have one of these corrupted translations to start teaching false doctrine. All the scriptures about God manifesting in the flesh and loving Jesus Christ are removed, and then in Isaiah 14:12 this corrupt translation explicitly says that the speaker in Revelation 22:16 was cut down from heaven.

>>657124

>Combined with all the other removal of mentions of the Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly in the NT, this blatant attack in Isaiah 14 simply cannot be ignored.

> in Isaiah 14:12 this corrupt translation explicitly says that the speaker in Revelation 22:16 was cut down from heaven.

Isaiah was a prophet of God, and all the oldest (Greek, not Masoretic) texts, which we know to be reliable, refer to the King of Tyre as Lucifer. You're not that guy who insists on throwing out the entire OT, are you?

> ofputrefaction,

και and

τοκατακάλυμμάσου [[shallbe]yourcovering

σκώληξ [the]worm].

12+ πως Ohow

εξέπεσεν [fell

εκ from out of

του the

ουρανού heaven

ο the

εωσφόρος morning star]-

ο the one

πρωϊ [[by]morning

ανατέλλων rising];

συνετρίβης [was broken

εις unto

την the

γην earth

ο the one

αποστέλλων sending

προς to

πάντα all

τα the

έθνη nations].

Oh, but I'm sure it's only the passages that make you uncomfortable that are mistranslated, for sure. I'm sure the vast majority of Christians just read that passage completely wrong for most of the history of the Church.

>>657124

You missed the preceding sentence, in which I say that God has preserved the essence of his Word. By aiding the interpretation of these translations.

Else we would all be reading it in Aramaic.

It's before work, so I can't look that up. I have a suspicion that it's more content on reading in an inspired (in-spirit) manner.

Please don't twist my words when they're this plain. Footnotes help people as they build the fruits of the Spirit. The same way a Bible study class does. Neither is The Word itself.

Furthermore, participating in a faithful community allows those with more experience to quickly correct misinterpretation. Do not be so proud as to infer that it's impossible to be wrong. Of God has never revealed a mistake on your part, you need more life experience.

>>656697

You clearly don't believe then, Jesus' divinity is based on the law and the prophets, therefore in order to say "I believe Jesus is divine" you also implicitly state "I believe the OT is authentic, at the bare minimum from the end of Exodus to Malachai."

But that's ok, our historical record gets significantly better after Exodus.