N.Testament interpretation

[Kutless]

Seems as though an infallible Word should give us an infallible understanding.

I understand that great efforts were put forth to perserve the Old Test. Were the same taken for the New?

Reading a book that tauts the following: "Over 200yrs seperate the original New Testament writings and the earliest copies in existence."

The writer questions the agreement of the most ancient manuscripts as to what books were to be included.

I do hope that the sarcasm can be kept to a minimum. I am genuine in my questioning.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Kutless

Seems as though an infallible Word should give us an infallible understanding.

I understand that great efforts were put forth to perserve the Old Test. Were the same taken for the New?

Reading a book that tauts the following: "Over 200yrs seperate the original New Testament writings and the earliest copies in existence."

The writer questions the agreement of the most ancient manuscripts as to what books were to be included.

I do hope that the sarcasm can be kept to a minimum. I am genuine in my questioning.

Your first line is absolutely unscriptural.

It might seem logical, but it doesn't wash in light of the Word.

Jesus taught that there would be many who would not understand, mainly because of heart issues they brought to the table.

That is a simple Scriptural concept to support.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Your first line is absolutely unscriptural.

It might seem logical, but it doesn't wash in light of the Word.

Jesus taught that there would be many who would not understand, mainly because of heart issues they brought to the table.

That is a simple Scriptural concept to support.

Thanks Bro Coon for responding I was hoping you would.

First, I did not say the first line was scriptural, for the record, and yes it does seem logical. As shown on this board there are many different interpretation to many scripture.

As to the condition of the authors heart, I probably shouldn't speak to.

Can you comment on the three manuscripts that he mentions:

Codex Vaticanus
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Alexandrinus

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Kutless

Thanks Bro Coon for responding I was hoping you would.

First, I did not say the first line was scriptural, for the record, and yes it does seem logical. As shown on this board there are many different interpretation to many scripture.

As to the condition of the authors heart, I probably shouldn't speak to.

Can you comment on the three manuscripts that he mentions:

Codex Vaticanus
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Alexandrinus

No, i can't.

I was simply commenting on the basic premise--that if the Word was infallible, we would all come to an infallible understanding.

The Scripture makes it plain that many will seek to enter in, and not be able.

As for textual criticism, I have no real knowledge about that.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Kutless

Thanks Bro Coon for responding I was hoping you would.

First, I did not say the first line was scriptural, for the record, and yes it does seem logical. As shown on this board there are many different interpretation to many scripture.

As to the condition of the authors heart, I probably shouldn't speak to.

Can you comment on the three manuscripts that he mentions:

Codex Vaticanus
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Alexandrinus

I read some abnout those MSS. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two "oldest" MSS you read about in the footnotes of their translations today, that allegedly do not contain many of the references the Textus Receptus has (from which the KJV was translated). Through my understanding, I wholly reject the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The Vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican without any knowledge as to where it originated.

The Sinaiticus was found in a trash bin in a monastery on Mount Sinai, and indication showed it had been used to start fires.

The maxim "It must be better since it is older," is simply not always true. The Roman Catholic Church organization is older than any apostolic organization, but is it better?

The Alexandrian text is also in the same bad category. These all derived from the Alexandrian school where the likes of Adamantius Origen felt Mary was God's mother and that satan would be saved in the end. He felt at lilberty, "led by the Spirit", to add to the text of the Bible.

In short, all these MSS in this entire category of the Alexandrian line involve scholars who do nto beleive God took pains to supernaturally preserve His Word, although God took enough pains to inspire it. They treat the Bible as any secular ancient book, that has little if any odds of surviving the many centuries wherein people interpolate and delete.

But the bible is not just any ordinary ancient book. It is God's Word. If God took pains to inspire it, then obviously He ensured its preservation. THERE IS a Word of God today, despite the Alexandrian Cult's claims.

The Textus Receptus involved people thorughout the centuries who believed God DID preserve His Word, and took careful pains to carry it onward intact and without blemish. I agree with them.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I read some abnout those MSS. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two "oldest" MSS you read about in the footnotes of their translations today, that allegedly do not contain many of the references the Textus Receptus has (from which the KJV was translated). Through my understanding, I wholly reject the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The Vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican without any knowledge as to where it originated.

The Sinaiticus was found in a trash bin in a monastery on Mount Sinai, and indication showed it had been used to start fires.

The maxim "It must be better since it is older," is simply not always true. The Roman Catholic Church organization is older than any apostolic organization, but is it better?

The Alexandrian text is also in the same bad category. These all derived from the Alexandrian school where the likes of Adamantius Origen felt Mary was God's mother and that satan would be saved in the end. He felt at lilberty, "led by the Spirit", to add to the text of the Bible.

In short, all these MSS in this entire category of the Alexandrian line involve scholars who do nto beleive God took pains to supernaturally preserve His Word, although God took enough pains to inspire it. They treat the Bible as any secular ancient book, that has little if any odds of surviving the many centuries wherein people interpolate and delete.

But the bible is not just any ordinary ancient book. It is God's Word. If God took pains to inspire it, then obviously He ensured its preservation. THERE IS a Word of God today, despite the Alexandrian Cult's claims.

The Textus Receptus involved people thorughout the centuries who believed God DID preserve His Word, and took careful pains to carry it onward intact and without blemish. I agree with them.

This is what I'm talkin about!!!!!!!!!!

Were the translators of the KJV not effected by culturally sensitive colloquialisms, dialects, etc.?

Would interpretation become more clouded because of cultural bias?

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by Kutless

Seems as though an infallible Word should give us an infallible understanding.

I understand that great efforts were put forth to perserve the Old Test. Were the same taken for the New?

Reading a book that tauts the following: "Over 200yrs seperate the original New Testament writings and the earliest copies in existence."

The writer questions the agreement of the most ancient manuscripts as to what books were to be included.

I do hope that the sarcasm can be kept to a minimum. I am genuine in my questioning.

There are many theories that abound when comes to inerrancy, as one who has sat in some graduate level classes on this subject, I am confident that the NT we hold is reliable and that everything having to do with matters of faith, salvation and life are completely 100% accurate. And yet to be truthful there are some minor variations and descrepancies. I believe that the originals are 100% accurate and inerrant, and the copies that we have today are totally reliable.

Here is a nice link with both sides of the arguement.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by Kutless

This is what I'm talkin about!!!!!!!!!!

Were the translators of the KJV not effected by culturally sensitive colloquialisms, dialects, etc.?

Would interpretation become more clouded because of cultural bias?

Of course the whole wording of bishops in the KJV when it was talking about pastors/elders gave rise to this whole notion of overseers over the overseers. That came from the cultural bias of the translator of the KJV. He wanted that wording because it gave some favor to some in his circle.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Kutless

Seems as though an infallible Word should give us an infallible understanding.

I understand that great efforts were put forth to perserve the Old Test. Were the same taken for the New?

Reading a book that tauts the following: "Over 200yrs seperate the original New Testament writings and the earliest copies in existence."

The writer questions the agreement of the most ancient manuscripts as to what books were to be included.

I do hope that the sarcasm can be kept to a minimum. I am genuine in my questioning.

God could have established His Word in a manner that no one could reasonably dispute, He chose not to do so. In speaking to the Jews He spoke in parables so that they would not understand. He has purposely veiled His Word in ways that require diligence and hunger to "seek and to find." The scriptures we have today are a true revelation of Jesus Christ, that require Spirit and faith to discover His paths. Its depth guarantees that the search will not end for us in this life. ".....for His ways are past finding out." Jesus is that pearl of great price that a person, when he find this pearl, will sell all he has that he can have Him.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Kutless

This is what I'm talkin about!!!!!!!!!!

Were the translators of the KJV not effected by culturally sensitive colloquialisms, dialects, etc.?

Would interpretation become more clouded because of cultural bias?

Again, did God act to preserve His Word or did He not? That is the question. I believe that if He inspired the Word ot begin with, then He obviously was involved in preserving it. He is God, after all. Why inspire something and leave it to chance and men's weaknesses without providentially preserving it?

The bible is not a regular book. God is involved in it.