[Levi Jones]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

Now landovers. You have yet to refute the PSS (Paradox of Sola Scriptura) or establish how you know what books are to be inspired scripture.

I see you're still around papist plagiarist. Have another heaping dish of Sola Scriptura.

1 Corinthians 4:6-10
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.
For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.

I know how much you catlix resent Paul.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

Is this retard back again?

Revelation 22:18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



From the end of the very last chapter of the Bible.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

His Word, as you put it, is The Bible, Old and New Testaments. Is it not for the Master to decide the where and when and for the servant to accept this?

The problem is you deny the decision and promise made by Christ to be with us always, not provide us with a 1500 year absence. Again, I will post these verses:

Matt 1:23 - " '...Emmanuel,' which means 'God is with us.' "
Matt 28:19-20 - "Go therefore... And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

You need some intelligence for this and I usually refuse to fight with an unarmed opponent; nevertheless… The Bible is all we need to know. It is not one word too short or one word too long. If God had wished to say more or less, then He would have.

Oh, Mr. Bathfire, but He did.

Surely you agree that only one Church can be correct in all its understanding? Only one Church can have the fullness of Truth. The Catholic Church feels that because of Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition (The Oral Word of God) that we alone possess that fullness.

So Mr. Bathfire, what grounds do you have to claim fullness of Truth when you possess only half of God's Word and indeed make the same claim as all other KJV only churches?


I will now proceed to refute your "rebukes" with my own paper that you have selected bits and pieces from (much like you have your bible) and thus formed you opinion.

This reduces to “Have faith”

Thus, in an unending circle, Bible-only Christians must assert that they follow the Bible because the Bible commands it. Consequently, they must believe the Bible’s claim to divinity simply because that is what the Bible has instructed them to believe. This paradoxical notion put into effect by Martin Luther some 1500 years after Christ gives a very shaky stance to an idea that could certainly use another leg to stand on. Surely there is more evidence to support the idea of Scripture’s divine inspiration? Yes, but not within the Bible.

It does not matter what god you believe in, the Bible is the final word for Salvation™

Much like a dollar bill is rather worthless without a piece of gold in the Federal Reserve to back it up, the Holy Bible becomes much like any other book without the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church to support it. It is only in asserting the authority of this Sacred Tradition that Sacred Scripture is even in existence. Without the Apostolic Succession held by the Catholic Church, the Bible becomes nothing more than a paradoxical claim of divinity, and is in no way deserving of the reverence it is given.

God.

For any Christian, it is understood that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and therefore, His word would be the Word of God. The Word of Christ was passed on to His twelve Apostles and therefore their teachings were the teachings of Christ himself. The successors of the Apostles would also preach the same word as the Apostles themselves, and thereby preach the same word as Christ. To be Christian is to have faith that God would keep His teachings safe from corruption through the generations and would reach the ears of the faithful many centuries later in the same form that it was heard in the time of Christ. Therefore, any Christian must accept that the Oral Teachings of Christ, passed down to the Apostles which was then successively given from them to their own disciples and from there to the next generation and etc., is also the Word of God, though it may not be found in Scripture. If the successors of the twelve Apostles do indeed speak with the Word of God, then they consequently bear a divine authority separate from Scripture in order to define the Bible itself as being divine. It is because of this separate authority alone that Holy Scripture is defined and established as the Sacred Word of God.

Assume for a moment, you were God. You wanted Your Word promulgated. What better method than a Book? Yet you come along and say, “Think of a better method…” OK little Ms smartass – think of a better method. Bear in mind your Satanic Majesty Darwin used a book to publicize he evil ideas.

Mr. Bathfire. Please understand when I say "Oral Word" that it does not entail that these extra-biblical commandments were never written down. Indeed they were in the CCC. It is because of this that we posses the fullness of Truth. It is because of this separate authority alone that Holy Scripture is defined and established as the Sacred Word of God.


[QUOTE]
I think you’ve answered your own question.[/QUOTE[
The answer is found in Apostolic Succession.

They seem clear enough to Landover.

there is no divinely inspired table of contents. Indeed, there is no way to determine using Scripture alone exactly what is included within confines of Scripture. All that can be determined through Sola Scriptura is that the Bible claims to be the Word of God, and therefore it must be so.

Now Read onAnd there we have it! In your own argument, you show that the Church of Rome has no divine inspiration.

The answer is found in Apostolic Succession.
Therefore, any Christian must accept that the Oral Teachings of Christ, passed down to the Apostles which was then successively given from them to their own disciples and from there to the next generation and etc., is also the Word of God, though it may not be found in Scripture. If the successors of the twelve Apostles do indeed speak with the Word of God, then they consequently bear a divine authority separate from Scripture in order to define the Bible itself as being divine. It is because of this separate authority alone that Holy Scripture is defined and established as the Sacred Word of God.

1 Corinthians 4:6-10
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.
For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.

I know how much you catlix resent Paul.

This means that the Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation, contenting themselves with Paul's proclamation of the cross, which is the fulfillment of God's promises in the OLD TESTAMENT (what is written).

Note also that Paul did not simply send them a book or collection of letters to read and thereby form their religion. Only a few verses later in 1 Cor. 4:17 Paul sends Timothy to Corinth in order to teach them. If his written word was indeed enough as you seem to believe, this act would be largely unnecessary.

Is this retard back again?

Revelation 22:18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

From the end of the very last chapter of the Bible.

Your ridiculous claim is that this verse from Revelation indeed CHANGED MEANING after it was included in the canon of Scripture. If this is the Word of God then its meaning is constant and perpetual. Or else, I could add this to the appendix of any novel and the Word of God would thereby forbid the adding or subtracting from that novel.

Knowing that the Word cannot change meaning, we can only conclude that this passage applies only to the Book of Revelation.

Now, which of you Landovers are next??

[Levi Jones]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

This means that the Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation, contenting themselves with Paul's proclamation of the cross, which is the fulfillment of God's promises in the OLD TESTAMENT (what is written).

Which was written. He is warning them to not go beyond what is written in the Gospel. Something else catlix completely disregard.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

Which was written. He is warning them to not go beyond what is written in the Gospel. Something else catlix completely disregard.

"...we may conclude with very great safety that all our four Gospels were in circulation after 150. Prior to that date, however, we find nothing to prove the acceptance of Jn., and with regard to the date of the Synoptists we see that the question is very debatable, and that up to at least 110 A.D., there is absolutely nothing to prove their existence. The apparently inferior authority of Lk. also rests on such slender evidence that to our mind it is not made out, and therefore its later date than our Mt. and Mk. not established."

http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/grsm_outer_evidence_as_to_the_authors.htm

"Paul writes 1 Corinthians during the last year of his three-year stay in Ephesus. This means that he is writing c. 54-57, between four or five years after founding the Corinthian church sometime between 50 and 52, but, obviously, before his arrest in Jerusalem between 55 and 58."

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/1Cor.htm

The only writings Paul could be speaking about are his own letters, or the writings of the Old Testament. The Gospels were not in circulation at this time. Of course they were written, however they were not universally accepted, thus Paul could not make a generalization referring to the Gospels because they were, at this time, just a few writings among many claiming to be authentic and were not even close to being accepted in the Church.

Maybe you would like to argue as Heathen Basher chose that the passage here changed meaning after it was written? Claiming that the Word of God changes with time? And that now, 2000 years later, the meaning has grown to include writings that were not accepted at the time of the authorship?

[Levi Jones]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

"...we may conclude with very great safety that all our four Gospels were in circulation after 150. Prior to that date, however, we find nothing to prove the acceptance of Jn., and with regard to the date of the Synoptists we see that the question is very debatable, and that up to at least 110 A.D., there is absolutely nothing to prove their existence. The apparently inferior authority of Lk. also rests on such slender evidence that to our mind it is not made out, and therefore its later date than our Mt. and Mk. not established."

http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/grsm_outer_evidence_as_to_the_authors.htm

"Paul writes 1 Corinthians during the last year of his three-year stay in Ephesus. This means that he is writing c. 54-57, between four or five years after founding the Corinthian church sometime between 50 and 52, but, obviously, before his arrest in Jerusalem between 55 and 58."

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/1Cor.htm

The only writings Paul could be speaking about are his own letters, or the writings of the Old Testament. The Gospels were not in circulation at this time. Of course they were written, however they were not universally accepted, thus Paul could not make a generalization referring to the Gospels because they were, at this time, just a few writings among many claiming to be authentic and were not even close to being accepted in the Church.

Maybe you would like to argue as Heathen Basher chose that the passage here changed meaning after it was written? Claiming that the Word of God changes with time? And that now, 2000 years later, the meaning has grown to include writings that were not accepted at the time of the authorship?

The book of Mark is widely believed to have been written before the letters from Paul. It's likely the Corinthians had some true Scriptural reference in addition to what Paul preached and wrote.

There were also multiple sects of Christianity at that time. Rome was a tiny factional minority in the scheme of things. It would be more than 500 years before its stranglehold on Christianity would be complete and nearly a thousand years after that before it would be forever broken.

We have reigned as kings without you.

We don't need a single or central authority nor have we ever.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

The book of Mark is widely believed to have been written before the letters from Paul. It's likely the Corinthians had some true Scriptural reference in addition to what Paul preached and wrote.

It is quite unlikely in fact, as Mark was written in Rome and there were no circulation of the Gospels at that time.

However, this is of little importance. As now you claim that Paul tells the people at Corinth to not go beyond the Gospel of Mark, but also you suggest that Pauls tell us today not to go beyond the entire Bible. In this assertion, you claim that the the Word of God has changed.

***Deleted attempt to derail thread***

Rome? We are discussing if the Bible is the only True Word, not the Papacy and its origins.

I am not trying to prove the early Papacy. Frankly, I don't care what you might think about the early Church. We are discussing if the Bible can be the only Word simply because it makes that claim. Seeing as there are no further takers on this argument, I will be happy to re-post my thesis

*Satanic lies deleted*

[Levi Jones]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

It is quite unlikely in fact, as Mark was written in Rome and there were no circulation of the Gospels at that time.

If it was written in Rome, then why was it written in Greek?

However, this is of little importance. As now you claim that Paul tells the people at Corinth to not go beyond the Gospel of Mark, but also you suggest that Pauls tell us today not to go beyond the entire Bible. In this assertion, you claim that the the Word of God has changed.

It would be impossible to follow the entire Bible as it was being written at the time.

Rome? We are discussing if the Bible is the only True Word, not the Papacy and its origins.

You can't have one without the other. Your entire argument is a house of cards based on apostolic succession. There is none as has been repeatedly demonstrated. The authority of Rome is based on falsified information by the Whore of Babylon itself, conquest through proxy and persecution.

Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

[Rev. Jim Osborne]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Your ridiculous claim is that this verse from Revelation indeed CHANGED MEANING after it was included in the canon of Scripture. If this is the Word of God then its meaning is constant and perpetual. Or else, I could add this to the appendix of any novel and the Word of God would thereby forbid the adding or subtracting from that novel.

Knowing that the Word cannot change meaning, we can only conclude that this passage applies only to the Book of Revelation.

Now, which of you Landovers are next??

We know the Word does not change. But your error in thinking is assuming the caveat at the end of the Book of Revelation is pertaining only to the Book of Revelation. What it is is a warning against adding or subtracting from the Bible.

Now, you may ask how could this quote pertain to the whole Bible when the whole Bible wasn't compiled yet. The simple fact is that John was divinely inspired. The Book of Revelation is a book of the future, which is rapidly becoming now. If we believe this, as True Christians(tm), that these were visions given to John by God, it's not stretching our faith to assume that God made John add that caveat at the end in reference to the Bible, not just the Book of Revelation.

Isn't it funny that those are the last words of the last chapter of the Bible? That's how the Bible ends. Can't you see, because of it's placement, that it pertains to the Bible not just Revelation?

[Rev. Jim Osborne]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

You can't have one without the other. Your entire argument is a house of cards based on apostolic succession. There is none as has been repeatedly demonstrated. The authority of Rome is based on falsified information by the Whore of Babylon itself, conquest through proxy and persecution.

Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

I agree, brother. I think this point has been underplayed by our side. Connecting the modern Roman Catholic Church to Jesus is impossible. It takes a lot of fact-fudging, blind faith, and speculation to draw the links. His apostolic succession argument is like the house of cards you say, or in Jesus's words, a house built on sand.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

It is quite unlikely in fact, as Mark was written in Rome and there were no circulation of the Gospels at that time.

However, this is of little importance. As now you claim that Paul tells the people at Corinth to not go beyond the Gospel of Mark, but also you suggest that Pauls tell us today not to go beyond the entire Bible. In this assertion, you claim that the the Word of God has changed.


Rome? We are discussing if the Bible is the only True Word, not the Papacy and its origins.

I am not trying to prove the early Papacy. Frankly, I don't care what you might think about the early Church. We are discussing if the Bible can be the only Word simply because it makes that claim. Seeing as there are no further takers on this argument, I will be happy to re-post my thesis

This is the Word of God

Mankind has profoundly managed to attribute unnaturally high values to seemingly worthless materials. For instance, a simple, green, paper rectangle can be worth anywhere from one dollar to one hundred dollars depending upon how many zeros it bears. Ironically, the paper only bears those zeros because man himself printed them there. However, this idea of “perspective value” is not limited to simple currency. Man desires numerous other prizes and rewards such as beauty or “precious” stones, all of which have only been so elevated because man himself raised them to that position. Such objects and ideas are often accepted without much question as to their actual value to man and all too often, when faced with the question of why these ideas command respect, individuals are at a loss. A prime example man’s unquestioning reverence is a book resting upon a higher pedestal than most other objects of value, the Holy Bible. Is the Bible like a dollar bill in that its only value is in what man has attributed to it? Or is it deserving of its veneration?

What is the Bible? In the simplest sense, it is ground up tress and ink bound together into the number one best-seller across the globe. A vast majority believe it to be the true Word of God, written through man by God’s divine inspiration. But the fact remains, the Holy Bible is strikingly similar to any other historical text or even work of fiction; they are all of the same substance and they teach an idea, whether historical or moral. However, there is but one distinct difference: The Holy Bible is the proclaimed Word of God, and in the eyes of many billions of believers, this elevates its status beyond all other written text.

What right does the Holy Bible have to claim divinity? It is but a book, yet many millions of the faithful gamble their everlasting life upon its truth with no outside influences whatsoever. This is the idea of Sola Scriptura; that every doctrine necessary for eternal salvation is found within Scripture and no supplementary work is necessary. Immediately however, a paradox is exposed. Following the logic of Sola Scriptura, Christians are forced to accept that the Bible is the Word of God only because the Bible itself makes that claim. Thus, in an unending circle, Bible-only Christians must assert that they follow the Bible because the Bible commands it. Consequently, they must believe the Bible’s claim to divinity simply because that is what the Bible has instructed them to believe. This paradoxical notion put into effect by Martin Luther some 1500 years after Christ gives a very shaky stance to an idea that could certainly use another leg to stand on. Surely there is more evidence to support the idea of Scripture’s divine inspiration? Yes, but not within the Bible.

Immediately however, another problem is encountered. Any outside authority to so declare that Scripture is indeed divinely inspired must of course be of equal or even greater authority than the Scripture itself, meaning that any outside reference must also be the Word of God. Any lesser authority than the Word of God would be worthless; no one but God himself could claim Scripture to be divine. For instance, if a man on the street pointed at a telephone pole and claimed it was Jesus Christ, the lesser authority of the common man would in no way convince the next passer-by of the pole’s divinity. However, to have any divine authority outside of Scripture is commonly seen as blasphemous.

Often it is asserted that “in your observance of the commandments of the Lord, your God, which I enjoin upon you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deuteronomy 4:2). However, in searching Scripture, there is no clear definition of exactly what these “commandments” are; there is no divinely inspired table of contents. Indeed, there is no way to determine using Scripture alone exactly what is included within confines of Scripture. All that can be determined through Sola Scriptura is that the Bible claims to be the Word of God, and therefore it must be so. However, this essay is of the same substance as the Bible, ground up trees and ink, and makes the same claim, “This is the Word of God”. How then, can writings such as this essay be infallibly excluded from the canon of Scripture unless there is an “inspired” table of contents? Factually, they cannot. Again the idea is forced that there must be an outside authority equal to that of Scripture in order for it to be the Word of God and, indeed, to define of exactly what that Word consists.

The widely accepted table of contents for the Holy Bible was officially declared at the Council of Rome in the early fourth century by the Roman Catholic Church. In order to define what is to be included in Sacred Scripture, an equally Sacred authority is thereby required. In such an assertion, Christians are forced to accept that this extra-biblical canon established by the Catholic Church is also the true Word of God. However, yet another problem now arises: What gives the Catholic Church the authority to make such a statement? How can mere men determine what is and is not the word of their God? The answer is found in Apostolic Succession.

For any Christian, it is understood that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and therefore, His word would be the Word of God. The Word of Christ was passed on to His twelve Apostles and therefore their teachings were the teachings of Christ himself. The successors of the Apostles would also preach the same word as the Apostles themselves, and thereby preach the same word as Christ. To be Christian is to have faith that God would keep His teachings safe from corruption through the generations and would reach the ears of the faithful many centuries later in the same form that it was heard in the time of Christ. Therefore, any Christian must accept that the Oral Teachings of Christ, passed down to the Apostles which was then successively given from them to their own disciples and from there to the next generation and etc., is also the Word of God, though it may not be found in Scripture. If the successors of the twelve Apostles do indeed speak with the Word of God, then they consequently bear a divine authority separate from Scripture in order to define the Bible itself as being divine. It is because of this separate authority alone that Holy Scripture is defined and established as the Sacred Word of God.

Oral Tradition and Sacred Scripture are like two legs supporting the same body; they do not contradict each other. However, they are not completely identical either; each leg bears a few freckles that vary from the other, but both are necessary for the Church to stand; one cannot exist without the other. They work together to establish the Church.

Much like a dollar bill is rather worthless without a piece of gold in the Federal Reserve to back it up, the Holy Bible becomes much like any other book without the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church to support it. It is only in asserting the authority of this Sacred Tradition that Sacred Scripture is even in existence. Without the Apostolic Succession held by the Catholic Church, the Bible becomes nothing more than a paradoxical claim of divinity, and is in no way deserving of the reverence it is given.

Boy, I'm not going to warn you again. Cutting-and-pasting other people's work is not only a federal crime, it is serious sin. I know that lies and trickery are part and parcel of the papist church, but here on God's favorite forum, we will not allow such deceit.

Either give credit and/or post a link to the site you stole your papist spam from, or you will be asked to leave.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

I agree, brother. I think this point has been underplayed by our side. Connecting the modern Roman Catholic Church to Jesus is impossible. It takes a lot of fact-fudging, blind faith, and speculation to draw the links. His apostolic succession argument is like the house of cards you say, or in Jesus's words, a house built on sand.

Reverend, in my extensive research on the subject, it takes a mountain of self delusion to even believe that the Roman faction was ever a force in Christianity until the 5th century CE.

The catlick troll says that there was a council of Rome whom decided what books were to be included. This is an invention of the 5th century. It is much like the invented writings of Ignatius or Clement, also 5 century inventions.

The Roman Church has no authority. They never have.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

If it was written in Rome, then why was it written in Greek?

In your "extensive studies" you must have missed the fact that Greek was the universal language of the Mediterranean.

It would be impossible to follow the entire Bible as it was being written at the time.

Levi I have just got to hand it to you, I have never spoke with anyone more stupid across this forum. May I quote you again?

"It would be impossible to follow the entire Bible as it was being written at the time." -Levi Jones, Biblical Imbecile

Hey, do you remember what you said a while back too?

"Early Christians could have just gone and seen the Apostles or spoken to someone who just did" -Levi Jones, Biblical Imbecile

For a landover you sure do advocate the idea of Sacred Tradition rather well!

Indeed, as the Bible was not compiled until several hundred years after Christ, early Christians would have nothing else to turn to than the spoken Word of their teachers. They couldn't pop open their KJV and whip out the first verse they like. If they had question, they had to go to the Apostles or their successors. You're already well on your way to being Catholic!!

You can't have one without the other. Your entire argument is a house of cards based on apostolic succession. There is none as has been repeatedly demonstrated. The authority of Rome is based on falsified information by the Whore of Babylon itself, conquest through proxy and persecution.

Let's go two ways with this:

1) Forget Catholicism for a moment. Imagine its the early fourth century, you're trying to compile Sacred Scripture along with a Council of early Christians. Now tell me this:

"...there is no way to determine using Scripture alone exactly what is included within confines of Scripture. All that can be determined through Sola Scriptura is that the Bible claims to be the Word of God, and therefore it must be so. However, this essay is of the same substance as the Bible, ground up trees and ink, and makes the same claim, “This is the Word of God”. How then, can writings such as this essay be infallibly excluded from the canon of Scripture unless there is an “inspired” table of contents?"

Demonstrate how you would conclude that this essay of mine is not the Word of God, then tell me what gave you such an authority to do so?

2) If the successors of the Apostles are not among the Priests of the Catholic Church, there where might they be?

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

"This book", as the passage reads, is more appropriately translated as "This Scroll." Do you Reverend, attest that your KJV comes in the form of a Scroll?

We know the Word does not change.

This means, that from the moment the pen left the paper, that the meaning of the Divine Word has been unchanged from the original intent, "Do not add or subtract from this Scroll."

But your error in thinking is assuming the caveat at the end of the Book of Revelation is pertaining only to the Book of Revelation. What it is is a warning against adding or subtracting from the Bible.

And here you seem to think that John intended, without making any reference or mild suggestion, that one day his SCROLL would be included in a greater work. Either that, or you are forced to assert that God's Word changed meaning.

The choice is yours

Now, you may ask how could this quote pertain to the whole Bible when the whole Bible wasn't compiled yet. The simple fact is that John was divinely inspired. The Book of Revelation is a book of the future, which is rapidly becoming now. If we believe this, as True Christians™, that these were visions given to John by God, it's not stretching our faith to assume that God made John add that caveat at the end in reference to the Bible, not just the Book of Revelation.

Stretching your faith? Perhaps not... But sir, Revelation does not make this claim. You are adding to Scripture in asserting that the definition of "scroll" expounds to mean all of Scripture.

Boy, I'm not going to warn you again. Cutting-and-pasting other people's work is not only a federal crime, it is serious sin. I know that lies and trickery are part and parcel of the papist church, but here on God's favorite forum, we will not allow such deceit.

Either give credit and/or post a link to the site you stole your papist spam from, or you will be asked to leave.

I must say, I am honored to know that my freshman, English 101 Rough Draft has deceived you into thinking it worthy of some form of greater publication.

I assure you that it was written and conceived by myself.

Now, which of you landovers are next??

[Levi Jones]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

In your "extensive studies" you must have missed the fact that Greek was the universal language of the Mediterranean.
\

Holy cow you have earned your medal with that statement! Mark was in Rome, but he wrote his Gospel in Greek?

Why did all the other writers of that era in Rome write in Latin?

We have this wonderful message to get out to the Roman people! I know, let's write it in Greek!

Levi I have just got to hand it to you, I have never spoke with anyone more stupid across this forum. May I quote you again?

"It would be impossible to follow the entire Bible as it was being written at the time." -Levi Jones, Biblical Imbecile

Hey, do you remember what you said a while back too?

"Early Christians could have just gone and seen the Apostles or spoken to someone who just did" -Levi Jones, Biblical Imbecile

For a landover you sure do advocate the idea of Sacred Tradition rather well!

Alright twat. That's twice you have gone ad hominem on me. I ignored it the first time.

Speaking directly to the Apostles, people who did speak to them and/or having an early Gospel would be equally fine.

It's when you attempt to relate your argument through 1500 years of generations and then have the stones to attempt to relate it back to the pope is when you get slapped around like the sass mouthed bitch you are.

Indeed, as the Bible was not compiled until several hundred years after Christ, early Christians would have nothing else to turn to than the spoken Word of their teachers.

Like the letters of Paul who warns them to not go beyond what is written?

They couldn't pop open their KJV and whip out the first verse they like. If they had question, they had to go to the Apostles or their successors.

The Apostles direct successors who were trained by the Apostles themselves. Not some people who dress up like clowns in rome who claim to be the direct successors, because a few hundred years later they falsified some writings that just happen to say they were right all along.

1) Forget Catholicism for a moment. Imagine its the early fourth century, you're trying to compile Sacred Scripture along with a Council of early Christians. Now tell me this:

And other things that never happened. No one knows the exact origins of the modern New Testament. The only logical conclusion was that the LORD himself inspired it. It certainly came from the east, though...

2) If the successors of the Apostles are not among the Priests of the Catholic Church, there where might they be?

They are found in the Bible, you mongloid. Are you really this stupid? Is anyone?

[New_Man]

Re: Why is the Bible the ONLY True Word of God?

I do admire the uncompromising stance on this board.