Protestants: How Do You Know That Your Interpretation of the Bible is the Right one? Part II

[heiscominginthe]

For 1500 years this was not the case. Jesus certainly did not find them to be conflicting, Paul, when He told Timothy (the bishop of a gentile church) that ALL scripture was God Breathed… could only have been refering to the scriptures that were used outside of Palistine, which was the Septuigent.

You are adding your own interpretation. All truth comes from God. If a man changes even one word, does not the entire messege become corrupt.

Suppose you have one bible, such as the King James. With that one book, you could have possibly five different interpretations, thus creating five different religions.

Today, I believe there is roughly about 26 different translations of the bible. Now, if each of these have five different translations, it could possibly create 130 different belief systems or churches, each boasting theirs is the right way. They cannot all be right and they are not.

Over time, the enemy snuck in when the good man of the house had let his guard down and added a small drop of poison. He only added a few drops of poison so as to not change the taste dramatically, least his plan be discovered. For his intention is not to kill a few, but all mankind. And if he would have added enough poison, a few would have died, and his plan would have been revealed, thus saving the multitude.

So the enemy continued to add poison to the water and to this day continues, causing those who drink from the well to get sicker and sicker, even unto death.

So basically, the further men move from the truth of God’s Word, the sicker he becomes.

So what is the true Word, the uncorrupted Word?

The bible teaches us the Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus told the apostles that his followers will recognize his voice, would know and understand his Word.

Today, most of modern christianity has compromised the bible in one way, shape or form. We are not to compromise the Word of God. We are not to add or take away from the Word of God. We are to led of the Holy Spirit and we are to remember that greater is he who is in me, then he who is in the world.

I believe that if a man seeks God with all of his heart, mind and soul, loves God with all of his heart, mind and soul, he will know the truth and that truth will set you free from the ways of the world.

Regardless of all the many different and diverse translations in the world today, there is one that has and will always stand above the rest. It is the Authorized King James Bible. I believe it is the infallible Word of God. I believe if a man is true to himself and submits to God’s will, he will come to know which is the Word of God.

ONE of the most damaging lies of the devil and most successful is the belief that it is impossible for the God of all creation to get his Word into print and have it done perfectly. It is said that because of the imperfection of man, it is impossible to get a perfect translation. Yet, the bible tells us nothing is impossible for God.

Believe the Word of God. Seek God with the heart and not the mind. Seek him though his Son by way of faith.

 

[ckempston]

When it comes to the NT, I don’t believe the Jews can be trusted at all. Just remember friend, Jesus and the apostles were Jews and the gospel was first preached to the Jews. On top of that, when the Lord removes the church from off the earth, which is when what is known as the time of the Gentiles, the duty of preaching the gospel falls back into the hands of the Jews.

As for quotings by Jesus, if Jesus would have quoted from even one, it may have given the rest validity. Yet, none, not even one was used by our Lord.

And I still stand that the Jews had the authority when it came to the OT books, not the CC.

ON top of that, I believe that there are things in these canons that conflict with the accepted canons.

Do you accept the authority of the Jews when they say the prophecies in the Old Testament do not apply to Jesus Christ? I mean, hey, if you’re going to accept their authority in setting the canon, why stop there?

It doesn’t sound like you’ve taken my advice and studied the Council of Jamnia, or you probably wouldn’t be making these claims. Although there are some questions about the extent of the council and whether they set a full canon or simply debated the canonicity of a few books, this along with quotes from the Jews like Josephus and Philo and Early Christian Fathers demonstrate that the Jews did not have a SET canon as you are suggesting.

 

[heiscominginthe]

As I have consitantly tried to point out to our seperated Brethren, Church authority is clearly shown in the Bible, not only in Mt 16 as you mentioned but even further in Mt 18:15-18 and demonstrated in action in Acts 15:1-29.

You still have not shown me where it says the apostles were catholic. Now they did call themselves christians.

I can say just as yourself that my history of faith can be traced all the way back to Peter.

As I stated before, the church is all who have been born again through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Now don’t get me wrong, because the work that was done in bringing the canons we have was outstanding.

The only dispute we seem to have is the books not included in the KJ.

Now, what about the gospel of Peter, Judus, Mary Magdelene, and Thomas? Should we also include these? Certainly not, with the exception of Peter, My understanding is although it is regarded by many as spurious, many believe it to be legitimate. Yet, another problem I believe is they had not found enough proof to substanciate it.

The major reason why it is not believed is supposedly because the cross spoke. Why would that be that hard to believe? In the OT, did not a donkey speak?

 

[ckempston]

You still have not shown me where it says the apostles were catholic. Now they did call themselves christians.

I can say just as yourself that my history of faith can be traced all the way back to Peter.

As I stated before, the church is all who have been born again through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Now don’t get me wrong, because the work that was done in bringing the canons we have was outstanding.

The only dispute we seem to have is the books not included in the KJ.

Just FYI, but the original KVJ included the deutero-canonicals.

Now, what about the gospel of Peter, Judus, Mary Magdelene, and Thomas? Should we also include these? Certainly not, with the exception of Peter, My understanding is although it is regarded by many as spurious, many believe it to be legitimate. Yet, another problem I believe is they had not found enough proof to substanciate it.

The major reason why it is not believed is supposedly because the cross spoke. Why would that be that hard to believe? In the OT, did not a donkey speak?

 

[JRKH]

Jesus said to love our enemies. He said to bless them that do evil to us.

When nailed to the cross, Jesus asked for their forgiveness. He didn’t bring down lightening bolts and destroy his enemy.

Steven, the first martyr, as that those who were killing him be forgiven. When he looked into heaven, he saw Jesus, standing, not sitting at the right hand of the Father.

There is a hugh difference between OT and the New. Comparing the CC to the ancient Jews is not justification.

My point isn’t to justify anything. Let alone things that never happened. My point is to demonstrate to you that your position is untenable. You use this supposed “Force” argument as a point against the Catholic Church while accepting force from the Jews.
You even excuse the Jews to the point of accepting their OT over that which was given by God to the Christian Church.

Of course You haven’t yet provided Any evidence that the Early Church killed those who disagreed with her anyway. So as far as I can know, no such purges ever took place.

Would you care to provide veriviable evidence?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

You are adding your own interpretation. All truth comes from God. If a man changes even one word, does not the entire messege become corrupt.

All Truth is written in Mans Heart if He truely seeks it. Jesus is The Word. The Bible, for all its beauty and divine (name removed by moderator)iration is a shadow of the Beauty contained in Christ.
Now before you have a coronary, the reason I say it is a shadow, is because it had to be written in human tongue, which cannot ever approach the beauty and Glory of God’s revelation.
So we, when we read the words must be properly disposed to understand them. If we are not, then havoc ensues as I am sure you agree.

Suppose you have one bible, such as the King James. With that one book, you could have possibly five different interpretations, thus creating five different religions.

Today, I believe there is roughly about 26 different translations of the bible. Now, if each of these have five different translations, it could possibly create 130 different belief systems or churches, each boasting theirs is the right way. They cannot all be right and they are not.

Which is precisely WHY there needs to be an authority within the Body of Christ in order to prayerfully, and guided by the Holy Spirit, discern the Truth when there are conflicts.
Again I site Mt 18:5-18 and Acts:15 1-29 as perfect examples of this principle in action.
The different interpretations that Arose at Antioch were the Result of Personal interpretation. The Solution to the problem at Antioch was the Authoritative declaration of the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.
Why is this so hard to understand for you??

So basically, the further men move from the truth of God’s Word, the sicker he becomes.

I couldn’t agree more. Come on home brother - Your more than welcome here where the water is pure.

So what is the true Word, the uncorrupted Word?

Jesus Christ

The bible teaches us the Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus told the apostles that his followers will recognize his voice, would know and understand his Word.

Agreed.

Today, most of modern christianity has compromised the bible in one way, shape or form. We are not to compromise the Word of God. **We are not to add or take away from the Word of God. **We are to led of the Holy Spirit and we are to remember that greater is he who is in me, then he who is in the world.

And yet you hold to a bible that has had words removed from it?
Go figure -
The Vulgate is much older than the KJV, so which has the words changed?

I believe that if a man seeks God with all of his heart, mind and soul, loves God with all of his heart, mind and soul, he will know the truth and that truth will set you free from the ways of the world.

I believe this is true also, but I also recognize the dangers in seeking the Truth and the utter foolishness of dismissing those who have gone before.

Regardless of all the many different and diverse translations in the world today, there is one that has and will always stand above the rest. It is the Authorized King James Bible. I believe it is the infallible Word of God. I believe if a man is true to himself and submits to God’s will, he will come to know which is the Word of God.

And yet it is this Bible that you hold to that was changed from the Bible that was held by ALL Christianity for 1000 years. So agian, you hold to a book that has been changed.

ONE of the most damaging lies of the devil and most successful is the belief that it is impossible for the God of all creation to get his Word into print and have it done perfectly. It is said that because of the imperfection of man, it is impossible to get a perfect translation. Yet, the bible tells us nothing is impossible for God.

Believe the Word of God. Seek God with the heart and not the mind. Seek him though his Son by way of faith.

And Yet this “Perfect Translation” as you call it is THE bible of hundreds of DIFFERENT Theologies that, you youself point out cannot all be correct.
Once the Bible The Sacred Word of God was wrested from its rightful place within the Church and made to stand on it’s own, Chaos ensued.

I know that you realize this because you are trying sooo hard to convince us here that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. So we are to accept YOUR interpretation as our “Teaching Authority”.

Sorry my Friend but your arguemts only point more fully toward the need for the very Teaching Authority that Jesus set up in the Church. The power to bind and loose.
You may not like it.
You may not accept it.
But there it is.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

You still have not shown me where it says the apostles were catholic. Now they did call themselves christians.

As I pointed out before, the term “Catholic” is from the Greek and means “universal” That is the Universal Church. The Catholic Church IS Christian and has been since the days of the Apostles.

I can say just as yourself that my history of faith can be traced all the way back to Peter.

You certainly may.
Not only that, but you are welcome to post your lineage from today all the way back. Along with Books catachisms or other documents that provide a clear, verifiable, and unbroken chain of succession to one of the Apostles.
You see Catholic Christans can do that. So can the Eastern Orthodox.

As I stated before, the church is all who have been born again through the blood of Jesus Christ.

I have no problem with this. The Church is indeed made up of all of the members. This does NOT negate the need for authority. Just how fine of a city/town/state/nation would we have if we did not have authority.

Now don’t get me wrong, because the work that was done in bringing the canons we have was outstanding.

The only dispute we seem to have is the books not included in the KJ.

That is true. And I will grant you that the KJV as it stands today is a fine translation.

Now, what about the gospel of Peter, Judus, Mary Magdelene, and Thomas? Should we also include these? Certainly not, with the exception of Peter, My understanding is although it is regarded by many as spurious, many believe it to be legitimate. Yet, another problem I believe is they had not found enough proof to substanciate it.

The major reason why it is not believed is supposedly because the cross spoke. Why would that be that hard to believe? In the OT, did not a donkey speak?

The reason these are not included is simple.
The Same councils of Hippo and Carthage which set the OT and NT canons found these books to be wanting for one or more reasons.
One of the reasons for having these councils was to standardize things because various regions of the church were using different books/letters as authentic. So it was that, by the Christ Given Authority, the Church met in council, prayed and debated - debated and prayed until they came up with the canon as set in the Vulgate.
It can be readily seen that not all were in agreement with the canon as set. You pointed out Jerome’s resevations on the subject.
BUT
In all cases those who had objections submitted their wills in humility to Christ in the Church. In other words they accepted the Will of God in setting the canon as He did instead of bolting from the True Church and setting up rival Churches with different canons.
This simply mirrors the council of Jerusalem in Acts. Once the Church had reached decision, the faithful accpet this decision as from Christ.

Peace
James

 

[SD_Catholic]

I posted eariler the reason why the other OT books are accepted. I believe the books sactioned by the Jews are legitimate. Yet, this only applies to OT books.

Which Jews? There are plenty who differ over the OT canon… I’ll go with the Ethiopian Jews… they have the same OT canon as Catholics… That’s using your standards even… although I have no idea why this would be the standard when these same people rejected Jesus.

SD

 

[Always_For_Him]

The NT writers quote from the Septuagint over 90% of the time. The Hebrew canon continued to be debated by Jewish rabbinical schools into the third century. Eventually, however, rabbinic Judaism rejected seven books from the Hebrew canon found in the Septuagint - Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 and 2 Maccabees (as well as portions of Daniel and Esther) - chiefly on the grounds that they could not find any Hebrew versions of these books which the Septuagint supposedly translated into Greek. The rabbinic Jews used four criteria to determine their canon. They accepted only those books which were 1) written in Hebrew; 2) in conformity with the Torah; 3) older than the time of Ezra (c. 400 BC)/ and 4) written in Palestine. The Christian Church had used the Septuagint from the beginning, so it ignored the decisions of later rabbinic Judaism and continued to use the Septuagint.

When the Church officially determined which books comprise the canon of the Bible (Councils of Hippo, AD 393, and Carthage, AD 397), it approved the 46 books of the Septuagint as the canon for the OT. For sixteen centuries the Christian OT was a matter of uncontested faith. Each of the seven rejected books is quoted by early Church Fathers as “Scripture” or as “inspired,” right along with the undisputed books.

In 1529, Martin Luther proposed to adopt the 39-book canon used by rabbinic Judaism as the OT canon. Luther justified his decision to delete seven books from the OT by appealing to St. Jerome who, around AD 400, had expressed concerns that these Greek books had no Hebrew counterparts. However, research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran has discovered ancient Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books ((Hebrew versions of Tobit, Sirach, and Psalm 151 (found only in the Septuagint) were discovered at Qumran)) making their rejection unsupportable on those trounds. The principle reason Luther seems to have opposed the additional books of the Christian OT is that they taught doctrines he did not like, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:42-45).

Which OT would you rather use - the OT used by Jesus, the NT writers and the early Church, or the OT used by later Jews who had rejected Christ and persecuted Christianity?

If your Bible includes the seven books, you follow Jesus and the early Church. If your Bible omits the seven books, you follow non-Christian rabbis and Martin Luther - a man who wanted to throw out even more books (James, Ester, and Revelation), and who deliberately added the word “alone” to Sacred Scripture in his German translation of Romans 3:28.

 

[JRKH]

The NT writers quote from the Septuagint over 90% of the time. The Hebrew canon continued to be debated by Jewish rabbinical schools into the third century. Eventually, however, rabbinic Judaism rejected seven books from the Hebrew canon found in the Septuagint - Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 and 2 Maccabees (as well as portions of Daniel and Esther) - chiefly on the grounds that they could not find any Hebrew versions of these books which the Septuagint supposedly translated into Greek. The rabbinic Jews used four criteria to determine their canon. They accepted only those books which were 1) written in Hebrew; 2) in conformity with the Torah; 3) older than the time of Ezra (c. 400 BC)/ and 4) written in Palestine. The Christian Church had used the Septuagint from the beginning, so it ignored the decisions of later rabbinic Judaism and continued to use the Septuagint.

When the Church officially determined which books comprise the canon of the Bible (Councils of Hippo, AD 393, and Carthage, AD 397), it approved the 46 books of the Septuagint as the canon for the OT. For sixteen centuries the Christian OT was a matter of uncontested faith. Each of the seven rejected books is quoted by early Church Fathers as “Scripture” or as “inspired,” right along with the undisputed books.

In 1529, Martin Luther proposed to adopt the 39-book canon used by rabbinic Judaism as the OT canon. Luther justified his decision to delete seven books from the OT by appealing to St. Jerome who, around AD 400, had expressed concerns that these Greek books had no Hebrew counterparts. However, research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran has discovered ancient Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books ((Hebrew versions of Tobit, Sirach, and Psalm 151 (found only in the Septuagint) were discovered at Qumran)) making their rejection unsupportable on those trounds. The principle reason Luther seems to have opposed the additional books of the Christian OT is that they taught doctrines he did not like, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:42-45).

Which OT would you rather use - the OT used by Jesus, the NT writers and the early Church, or the OT used by later Jews who had rejected Christ and persecuted Christianity?

If your Bible includes the seven books, you follow Jesus and the early Church. If your Bible omits the seven books, you follow non-Christian rabbis and Martin Luther - a man who wanted to throw out even more books (James, Ester, and Revelation), and who deliberately added the word “alone” to Sacred Scripture in his German translation of Romans 3:28.

Thank you for that very nice summary.
And as was noted earlier, “quoted” doesn’t nedessarily mean exact quotes in the way we would understand the word today.

Peace
James

 

[MrS]

I can say just as yourself that my history of faith can be traced all the way back to Peter.

As I stated before, the church is all who have been born again through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Tracing your beliefs back to Peter is fine. But you cannot trace any authority back to Peter outside the Catholic Church. Authority should mean a lot, but too many protestants are their own authority.

Where in the Scriptures does your concept of Church appear? Or your concept of born again?

.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Just FYI, but the original KVJ included the deutero-canonicals.

Which was debated and finally found invalid.

 

[heiscominginthe]

As I pointed out before, the term “Catholic” is from the Greek and means “universal” That is the Universal Church. The Catholic Church IS Christian and has been since the days of the Apostles.

Is not all who are born again deemed members of Christ’s Church?

Of course You haven’t yet provided Any evidence that the Early Church killed those who disagreed with her anyway. So as far as I can know, no such purges ever took place.

There is more blood on the hands of the CC then the that of the muslims. How you can deny it is like the leader of Iran saying the holocaust never happened.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Or your concept of born again?

I don’t believe there was ever a time I did not believe in God.

He came to me in my dreams even before the age of five. I remember how the women in my kindergarden Sunday school were amazed by my understanding of God. Yet, I only knew what he revealed to me.

When I was in school, I was excited to learn to read so I could read the Word of God. Once I learned to read, I was without understanding. Yet, regardless, reading God’s Word made me feel closer to him.

When I learned God’s commandments, I became aware of my sin and can recall the day my spirit inside me died. For the first time in my life I felt alone, apart from God. Yet, he did not forsake me.

At the age of fifteen, I was invited to a youth for Christ get away weekend at the local YMCA.

On the night we were to leave, on Sunday, there was a church service. It was here I finally understood. For my heart became convicted and I knew I needed to be saved/born again.

The Lord came into my heart like a rushing wind. I wept like never before and when it was all said and done, I was a new creature in Christ. All things had become new to me, as it is written in the Word of God.

What does it mean to be born again?

I use this scripture, John 3:3 thru 7 as a litmus test to see how far
one is in their spiritual growth or to see of they are of God. I want to
know what you all think? Please do not think I am trying to be anything
more than what I am, and that is a sinner, for the only good in me comes
by my yielding to the will of Jesus. Only when my cup of self will is
empty can I truly be filled with the will of Christ.

In verse 3, Jesus is telling Nicodemus except a man be born again, he
cannot see the kingdom of God…Now as you examine this, look
at the word born again. Does it not make sense that to be born again,
one must first be born. To prove this, examine the next verse.

In verse 4, Nicodemus asks how can a man be born when he is old. Can
he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?..
The important word to examine here is second…
Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about two physical births, but
he was not and the proof lies in the next verse.
In verse 5, Jesus says, except a man be born of water and of spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God…Here our Lord is
telling of two different births, one by water and one by spirit.
When we are born into this world, we are born in a sack of water or
physical birth. Proof that Jesus is talking about physical birth and
spiritual birth can be found in the next verse.
In verse 6, Jesus says that which is born of the flesh is flesh and
that which is born of the spirit is spirit…physical birth,
spiritual birth
So if a man, who is dead in spirit doesn’t become reborn, he will
never see the kingdom of God. So when Jesus says a man must be born
again, he is talking about our dead spirit being born again. The
above scripture talks of three births. One in the flesh and two in
the spirit.

Adam died in the day he ate the forbidden fruit according to scripture.
Yet, he lived in the flesh hundred of years more after his sin.

When he sinned, he died spiritually. He sold his soul unto death. And
all of mankind is held under the yoke of original sin and unless a man
is born again, renewed in his spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom
of God.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Tracing your beliefs back to Peter is fine. But you cannot trace any authority back to Peter outside the Catholic Church. Authority should mean a lot, but too many protestants are their own authority.

Where in the Scriptures does your concept of Church appear? Or your concept of born again?

There are many churches in many denominations. There are many churches who are non-denmominational.

ARE not the heads of the churches the authority according to the Word of God.
Are not all who profess Jesus Christ as Lord being born again through his blood part of the church, Christ’s Church?

In the days of the apostles, corruption was already taking place as one apostle warned against others claiming they were preaching the gospel of Christ, but was different from what the apostles had taught.

So what of these preaching a different gospel? Certainly they could not be lumped in with the true church.

What I am trying to say is, if an interpretation can be proven using the Word of God to be contrary, how can it be legitmate?

I could make a list of the many areas the CC err in their teachings.

Yet, in the early life of the church, they did stand on the Word of God.

 

[heiscominginthe]

I asked it before and I will ask it again. This goes out to all of you, to each catholic.

Is the pope Christ on earth?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

There are many churches in many denominations. There are many churches who are non-denmominational.

ARE not the heads of the churches the authority according to the Word of God.
Are not all who profess Jesus Christ as Lord being born again through his blood part of the church, Christ’s Church?

In the days of the apostles, corruption was already taking place as one apostle warned against others claiming they were preaching the gospel of Christ, but was different from what the apostles had taught.

So what of these preaching a different gospel? Certainly they could not be lumped in with the true church.

What I am trying to say is, if an interpretation can be proven using the Word of God to be contrary, how can it be legitmate?

I could make a list of the many areas the CC err in their teachings.

Yet, in the early life of the church, they did stand on the Word of God.

St. Ignatius, who knew the apostle John, wrote this in about 105 AD.

Why do you believe that your opinion should be more valued than his?

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, **wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. **

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I asked it before and I will ask it again. This goes out to all of you, to each catholic.

Is the pope Christ on earth?

He is Christ’s representative on earth. He holds the keys to the kingdom.

 

[ckempston]

St. Ignatius, who knew the apostle John, wrote this in about 105 AD.

Why do you believe that your opinion should be more valued than his?

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, **wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. **

I’d like to interject that that’s not what Jesus said, so I’ll personally take Jesus over Ignatius.

Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I’d like to interject that that’s not what Jesus said, so I’ll personally take Jesus over Ignatius.

Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

Keep reading. Those two or three will be in trouble if they reject his Church.

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.