New Testament

Originally posted by Proper Knob
No problem, i'll be back later this weekend. I'll mull over your posts in the meantime.

Thanks...

Originally posted by galveston75
That is just a general explination. But I have in detail explained the process of how God communicates and that is by direction.
He does not inspire as he did with the Bible. But he very clearly does help us to progress with knowledge, so in that sense he still communicates with man as opposed to abandoning us to own future.

"However, even as God by his spirit, or active force, granted to certain Christians the “discernment of inspired utterances,” he could also guide the governing body of the Christian congregation in discerning which inspired writings were to be included in the canon of the Sacred Scriptures.—1Co 12:10; see CANON.


1 Corinthians 12:10
New Living Translation (NLT)

10 He gives one person the power to perform miracles, and another the ability to prophesy. He gives someone else the ability to discern whether a message is from the Spirit of God or from another spirit. Still another person is given the ability to speak in unknown languages,[a] while another is given the ability to interpret what is being said.



1 Corinthians 12:10
The Message (MSG)

4-11 God’s various gifts are handed out everywhere; but they all originate in God’s Spirit. God’s various ministries are carried out everywhere; but they all originate in God’s Spirit. God’s various expressions of power are in action everywhere; but God himself is behind it all. Each person is given something to do that shows who God is: Everyone gets in on it, everyone benefits. All kinds of things are handed out by the Spirit, and to all kinds of people! The variety is wonderful:

wise counsel

""clear understanding""

simple trust

healing the sick

miraculous acts

proclamation

distinguishing between spirits

tongues

interpretation of tongues.

All these gifts have a common origin, but are handed out one by one by the one Spirit of God. He decides who gets what, and when."

Here is a scripture that explains how a human can be allowed to be used for many spiritual opportunites. On our own we can never have a full blessing to do these things. But God makes it possible to be used for these reasons. And one as we've been speaking of is discerment or understanding of scriptures.

Originally posted by galveston75
That is just a general explination. But I have in detail explained the process of how God communicates and that is by direction.
He does not inspire as he did with the Bible. But he very clearly does help us to progress with knowledge, so in that sense he still communicates with man as opposed to abandoning us to own future.

This "explanation" of what you actually said is for all intents and purposes a non-sequitur.

Vanity and pride trump integrity and coherence as usual.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
Would it not make sense to you if all intelligent people
both men and women had an input to the society in which they live?

Wouldn't that make it a more progressive better society?

If the cut-off point for "intelligent people" was
one IQ point above yours you would be pretty
pissed off.

Originally posted by galveston75
"However, even as God by his spirit, or active force, granted to certain Christians the “discernment of inspired utterances,” he could also guide the governing body of the Christian congregation in discerning which inspired writings were to be included in the canon of the Sacred Scriptures.—1Co 12:10; see CANON.


1 Corinthians 12:10
New Living Trans ...[text shortened]... reasons. And one as we've been speaking of is discerment or understanding of scriptures.

Couldn't any group of Christians say that they are the authority and they receive direction from God, and that it would take blind faith to choose which group to follow.

Originally posted by moon1969
Couldn't any group of Christians say that they are the authority and they receive direction from God, and that it would take blind faith to choose which group to follow.

Sure. Anyone can say anything. But their beliefs and actions should be the proof if the Bible is used as their guide and no added beliefs that are not taught in the Bible that come from mans ideas are taught.
Their beliefs have to be completely inline with the Bibles.

"When preaching in Athens, the very heart of Greek culture, the apostle Paul did not teach the Platonic doctrine of the soul. On the contrary, he preached the Christian doctrine of the resurrection even though many of his Greek listeners found it hard to accept what he said.—Acts 17:22-32.
Indeed, the apostle Paul warned against any combining of Bible-based truth and paganism when he said: “What sharing does light have with darkness? Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Belial?” (2 Corinthians 6:14, 15) There can be no question that in allowing a pagan teaching to become one of the cornerstones of her philosophy and theology, Christendom has brought dishonor on God himself!"

Originally posted by galveston75
Well I have no idea. I'm not privy to the information of who God might communicate with, so all I can go by is what the Bible indicates. There is nothing else said in the Bible that says God has inspired any other liturature up to this time in the way he did the Bible.
I'm sure when he does he will make it very clear to humans that it is from him and ...[text shortened]... rson to understand the correct point on a subject and in turn write down God's views on this.

is it fair to say then, that you cannot say if the j.w. translation of the bible is inspired?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
is it fair to say then, that you cannot say if the j.w. translation of the bible is inspired?

Have a look at this statement AGAIN! tell us what you don't understand about

There is nothing else said in the Bible that says God has inspired any other
literature up to this time in the way he did the Bible

clearly the Gman considers the Bible as being inspired, as is self evident from his text,
yah think?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Have a look at this statement AGAIN! tell us what you don't understand about

There is nothing else said in the Bible that says God has inspired [b]any other
literature up to this time in the way he did the Bible

clearly the Gman considers the Bible as being inspired, as is self evident from his text,
yah think?[/b]

he said the 'original' bible was inspired. as your bible is a human translation of that text, with entails a human understanding of what the text meant.

galv also stated that you can only judge if somebody has been inspired because they follow the exact words of the bible, which would have to be the 'original' bible. it therefore logically follows that as your bible is different to the 'original' bible that you cannot clearly judge if somebody using your text is inspired.

im taking into consideration that your translation has been described as the most accurate by that amercian scholar (forgotten his name). but 'most accurate' is very different to being 'exact'.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
he said the 'original' bible was inspired. as your bible is a human translation of that text, with entails a human understanding of what the text meant.

galv also stated that you can only judge if somebody has been inspired because they follow the exact words of the bible, which would have to be the 'original' bible. it therefore logically follows scholar (forgotten his name). but 'most accurate' is very different to being 'exact'.

a human translation? how else are we going to translate it? set some pieces of paper
out and hope that words miraculously appear? if the original text is inspired it
should not matter that the translation of that text is also considered inspired is it, if it
faithfully portrays the original sentiments.

what are you talking about different, the only difference is that its written in another
language, if the translation is accurate this should not effect the meaning, should it!
Inspiration comes from the act or operation of Holt spirit, not from using a particular
translation.

accuracy of translation has to do with portraying the correct meaning, not a merely
lexical process (word for word), which would be exact but make little sense because
languages has its own inherent idioms, which must be taken into account.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
a human translation? how else are we going to translate it? set some pieces of paper
out and hope that words miraculously appear? if the original text is inspired it
should not matter that the translation of that text is also considered inspired is it, if it
faithfully portrays the original sentiments.

what are you talking about different, ...[text shortened]... little sense because
languages has its own inherent idioms, which must be taken into account.

would you define any other bible other than the 'new world' translation as 'inspired'?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
would you define any other bible other than the 'new world' translation as 'inspired'?

the base text is considered inspired, its the culmination of cross referencing thousands
of extant manuscripts and its accuracy better attested to than at any point in history.
Yes other translations be be considered as representations of the inspired base text,
but nothing compares to the New world translation, its simply superlative.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the base text is considered inspired, its the culmination of cross referencing thousands
of extant manuscripts and its accuracy better attested to than at any point in history.
Yes other translations be be considered as representations of the inspired base text,
but nothing compares to the New world translation, its simply superlative.

Yes I've heard said many times that one can learn the truth of God from any bible as long as they recognize the sometimes subtle changes that have been made by ones trying to add their influences of beliefs in it such as the trinity, a real burning hell, an immortal soul, Etc..

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the base text is considered inspired, its the culmination of cross referencing thousands
of extant manuscripts and its accuracy better attested to than at any point in history.
Yes other translations be be considered as representations of the inspired base text,
but nothing compares to the New world translation, its simply superlative.

the base text is inspired direct from god.

there is no new inspiration in the translations (the translations must be accurate to the original text to be considered inspired).

the accurate parts of a bible translation that also contains errors are still thought of as inspired, because they are the words of the original text.

there is no added input from god in a translation (that we are aware of).

are these all correct?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes other translations be be considered as representations of the inspired base text, but nothing compares to the New world translation, its simply superlative.

"Nothing compares to the New world translation"? How many bible scholars concur with you on this, apart from that same one you always mention when this comes up?