I don't really have issue with that, Jesus had the text in the original Hebrew with all the cultural nuance's. We don't

We have the same Hebrew He had. That is not really an issues since the Dead Sea Scrolls settled that. And the cultural nuances He was surrounded with was one of the great problems He constantly addressed. "And he continued, 'You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!'"

my 2 cents . If the Bible is of human construct then it could've been written in the Tower of Babel if the validity depends on what language you are reading it . Our belief is that the Bible is God's word . Language would not be too significant if at all .

The issue is reliability. WG is essentially saying that the OT text has been corrupted so much in the 2 millennia since Jesus that He was reading a greatly different OT than we have. That's what I have asked her to provide evidence for. She can't because the whole suggestion is simply untrue. Are there some relatively small issues of translation? Sure, but they don't amount to anything even approaching a major concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

my 2 cents . If the Bible is of human construct then it could've been written in the Tower of Babel if the validity depends on what language you are reading it

---

I don't think anyone is saying that. I'm not even sure what you mean. Do you really think the Tower of Babel was the origin of different languages?

Quote:

---

Our belief is that the Bible is God's word . Language would not be too significant if at all .

---

That's fine for you to believe that. And your comment on language would therefore (probably) be true. I inserted probably because we don't know what God's plan would have been. After all, one of his plans went so badly he had to destroy everybody living in a big flood.

But let's examine your premise. If, say, language WOULD be significant because of various versions and translations, what does that do to the Bible being God's word? We know that language IS significant concerning the Bible (see WG's examples above), so is the Bible therefore, according to your statement, NOT God's word?

The darkness of the world cannot defeat the Word, because the Word created the world and understands everything that has gone into it. The Word did not just appear to be human; the Word became flesh. The incarnation of Christ silences the fraudulent voices of the world.

As believers, it’s imperative that we trust God’s Word to be true. We must trust that Scripture is God’s written/living word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

The darkness of the world cannot defeat the Word, because the Word created the world and understands everything that has gone into it. The Word did not just appear to be human; the Word became flesh. The incarnation of Christ silences the fraudulent voices of the world.

As believers, it’s imperative that we trust God’s Word to be true. We must trust that Scripture is God’s written/living word.

---

Which Christian SECT do you belong to? Christian Branches and the Evolution of Denominations (learnreligions.com)

Quote:

---

Initially, Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism (Acts 24:5). Denominations began to develop as the history of Christianity progressed and adapted to the differences of race, nationality, and theological interpretation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The issue is reliability. WG is essentially saying that the OT text has been corrupted so much in the 2 millennia since Jesus that He was reading a greatly different OT than we have. That's what I have asked her to provide evidence for. She can't because the whole suggestion is simply untrue. Are there some relatively small issues of translation? Sure, but they don't amount to anything even approaching a major concern.

---

I'm always amazed at how you embroider my and others' posts.

"She can't"??? -- she's been a bit busy because her husband has been in the hospital since Tuesday morning.

Quote:

---

"She can't"??? -- she's been a bit busy because her husband has been in the hospital since Tuesday morning.

---

Sorry to hear about your husband. I do hope he recovers quickly.

However, you attempted to support your statement twice, but in both cases (Joseph's coat and the sixth commandment) you gave examples that did nothing to lend support to your idea that, "We do not have the same scriptures Jesus had." Both of your examples simply had to do with translating Hebrew to English which do not relate to the "scriptures" Jesus had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

translating Hebrew to English which do not relate to the "scriptures" Jesus had.

---

1. When was the OT written?
2. When did Jesus live?
3. What year is this?

Quote:

---

1. When was the OT written?
2. When did Jesus live?
3. What year is this?

---

THAT'S your EVIDENCE???

Well, I feel compelled to tell you this. The Hebrew text that was used for centuries to translate to English (or whatever) was the Masoretic text. It is dated about 950 A.D. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are dated prior to the birth of Christ, it has been discovered that the MT is remarkably similar to the DSS and differs in no way that would support your contention that Jesus had a different OT than we have today. The book of Isaiah is particularly useful since two intact copies of that book were found. They are incredibly similar to the MT and nearly all differences are due to changes in spelling and grammar, and obviously accidental slips of scribal pens. It in no way supports your view.

So questions 2 and 3 become plainly spurious. Question 1 had no impact whatsoever of the question of Jesus having a different OT than we have today.

Quote:

---

Should a Christian understand that God would allow his word to Cain to be corrupted and slay Abel? Should a Christian understand God would allow his word to humanity to be corrupted and slain in a flood? Now answer your own question.

---

The Difference being, God's Word (AKA the Bible) is incorruptible. God is the Author of the Bible. He didn't just lay it in our lap and say good luck- See you later! God was able to preserve Jesus Body, he Certainly is able to preserve his Word. If you believe the Bible has been Corrupted then you might as well throw it out the window. 

What do you mean in saying God was able to preserve the body of Jesus? Just asking.

Quote:

---

What do you mean in saying God was able to preserve the body of Jesus? Just asking.

---

Jesus Christ, His body would not be dead long enough to decay or be corrupted.

You do realize the body of Jesus is alive and well as...Jesus?

Quote:

---

What do you mean in saying God was able to preserve the body of Jesus? Just asking.

---

Jesus Christ, His body would not be dead long enough to decay or be corrupted.

So easy to get sidetracked.


@Athos/WG

Why base your point of view on something that is fallible?

If you believe the Bible has been Corrupted then you might as well throw it out the window.

Don't try to understand, simply believe. You think as if "you choose God." You had nothing to do with it...there is nothing in us that is capable of loving God.

Quote:

---

Jesus Christ, His body would not be dead long enough to decay or be corrupted.

---

Got it. Thanks.

Walter, "following God" is detailed in I Corinthians 13.

Quote:

---

"following God" is detailed in I Corinthians 13.

---

You think you can run with that?

But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

You think you can run with that?

---

Yup! Even Jesus said so: Matthew 22:37-40.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."