Your title is "Five Good Reasons to Believe The Bible." From what I've seen, in this sermon, your "the Bible" is the New King James Version (NKJV), the New International Version (NIV) and the New Living Translation (NLT). I will now give you five good reasons not to believe your "the Bible." 1. Your "the Bible" says Satan has already been turned (past tense) to ashes in Ezekiel 28:18. Evidence is good that Satan hasn't been turned to ashes yet. 2. Your "the Bible" (the NKJV and the NIV) says in Exodus 6:2 that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never knew God by the name "Lord." It is easy to find in Genesis that God had been known to all those men by the name Lord (see Genesis 24:2-3, 26:25 and 28:13). 3. Your "the Bible" says what we'll be clothed with in Revelation 19:7-8 is our righteous acts. Actually the righteous will be clothed not with their righteous acts but with the righteousness of Christ (see Christ's Object Lessons page 310). 4. Your "the Bible" says the wicked dead are being punished while awaiting judgement. That punishment would have to be in hell or purgatory. See 2 Peter 2:9 in the NKJV and the NLT. 5. Your "the Bible" says Jesus' spirit, after his resurrection, preached (or made proclamation) to wicked people that had died in the flood. In addition your "the Bible" says he was made alive "in the Spirit" which would mean not a flesh and blood body. See 1 Peter 3:18-20 in the NIV and NLT. You apparently believe there are "Five Good Reasons to Believe The Bible" and I have presented five good reasons not to believe your "the Bible" and I could come up with many more.
You ever heard of a "straw man argument"? This pastor is not talking about any particular version of the Bible, but of the Bible itself. Note that he makes reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls and thousands of manuscripts. Those are not NIV or NKJV or NLT manuscripts. Those are the manuscripts upon which ALL modern versions and translations are based. If you don't like the Bible he's referring to, you don't like the Bible at all. In addition, you're talking about something entirely different (specific theological issues you have with specific versions), while he's presenting reasons to believe that the Bible (not any particular version, but the Bible in a general sense) is worth believing. Do you actually disagree with any of the points he's making? Because you aren't making any counterarguments against his points, just criticizing the particular versions he happens to quote from. If you agree with his points, why aren't you saying that? If you disagree with his points, why don't you say that, and then say why?
@@tomcromwell8493 The fact remains, he used the NIV, NKJV and the NLT so most people, apparently not you, would take that to mean they are "the Bible" especially when the title of his talk is "Five Good Reasons to Believe The Bible." Those "the Bible" all have serious errors and if "the Bible" has errors then it's not entirely believable. The title of his talk should have been "Five Good Reasons to Believe The Bible In Some Places Just Because I Say So." He may make reference to "the Dead Sea Scrolls and thousands of manuscripts" but no one in has audience has them or could even read them. In addition, if the Dead Sea Scrolls and the "thousands of manuscripts" are the reason the NIV, NKJV, the NLT and, as you say, "ALL modern versions and translations" are based on them, then obviously they have serious errors as well.
@@martinlohne5128 Thanks for your response. I'll give you the TLDR (too long; didn't read) version and then the full version, since I've taken your arguments point by point, but it's very long. TLDR version: 1. His topic was reasons to believe the Bible (period), not reasons to believe the NIV, NKJV, and NLT. Take him at his word that that's what he meant. 2. I don't think most people would think what you're thinking. 3. Listen to what he's saying, not what you think he's saying. He's not saying anything about versions at all. He's saying that the Bible is worth believing in. 4. How do you know his audience can't read the manuscripts? And why should they have to in order to understand or accept his arguments? 5. I meant that all modern versions of the Bible are based on one or more ancient manuscripts, so belief in any modern Bible must necessarily imply belief in at least some of those manuscripts. 6. Thanks for engaging in dialogue with me. Full version: Thank you for correctly recognizing that I have a different take on his use of those versions of the Bible in his sermon. Unfortunately, you follow up your earlier straw man argument with another straw man argument, maybe more than one. Sure, he happened to use those three versions, as documented at the bottom of the screen when he showed a text. Did he have the version in large letters at the top, spell them out, or highlight them in any way? No. He put them in small letters right after the chapter and verse, as is common practice the world over, as far as I know. Did he mention out loud any specific version, or state that some versions are better than others; did he recommend any? No. He also didn't call his talk "Five Good Reasons to Believe in the NIV, NKVJ and NLT", which is what you are (incorrectly, I assert) acting like was his topic. If he had wanted to say that, he would have done so explicitly. You're ASSUMING that that's what he meant, in spite of lots of evidence in the content of his sermon to the contrary. It wasn't a talk about versions of the Bible, which versions are better, whether there are errors in Scripture, or anything like that. As the pastor states (I may be paraphrasing slightly), "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and in general acts like a duck, it is very likely a duck." Apply that to his sermon. This was clearly intended to be, purports to be, and is named as if, this were a simple discussion regarding the believability of Scripture (in a general sense) for those who have doubts about that topic. The fact that he used more than one version should tell you that he is not advocating for any specific version. If he were, he would have said so or only used one version, not 3. Did he need to use every version there is (or the specific unnamed version you keep implying that you think is the only one we should use) in order for you to accept his general theological arguments, which you still have not once addressed? There weren't enough texts in his sermon to use every version, so would you have criticized him for using only, say, 10 versions, rather than 50 or 100? He incidentally used those versions, commonly used versions of the Bible which you obviously have a problem with, but they were neither the point of his talk nor anything he even mentioned aloud. Notice also that none of his quotations are the ones you are criticizing from those three versions (we haven't even touched on whether your arguments on that are right or wrong because, once again, that's not at all related to the point of his sermon!). I'm surprised you're focusing on the Bible versions and not the authors he quoted. Your argument is equivalent to saying, "He quoted CS Lewis, and Lewis was wrong about this one thing, so his entire argument must be wrong." That's ridiculous. Also, a fallacy. Lewis wasn't even of the same denomination as this pastor, so obviously they're going to disagree on multiple things, but that doesn't mean he can't quote him if he had something good to say. If I like how the KJV or, say, The Message (oh, a *paraphrase*, say it isn't so!), states a particular text, as long as it doesn't include a theological error, I may well cite that text. As my homiletics teacher once stated, "The best version of the Bible is the version you read." In other words, that you read Scripture is far more important than what particular version you prefer. I also disagree with your statement that most people would assume that the specific versions he used were what he meant by "the Bible". I think most people would take him at face value, assuming that, whatever versions he happened to use in his sermon, he was referring to the Bible in general, not any specific version or versions. You state that "Those 'the Bible' all have serious errors and if 'the Bible' has errors then it's not entirely believable." We obviously have a difference of opinion about the inerrancy of Scripture (I believe that the writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not God's pens), but again, he wasn't saying that there are no texts that appear to contradict each other or that you must believe every word of a particular version or versions. He is saying you should believe in THE BIBLE (not *a* Bible or a *version* of the Bible, but the Bible itself), and here's why. I actually have no idea where you're getting your "suggested" title for his talk. Where's the "in some places"? Did he tell us to only believe parts of Scripture? Did he advocate for a partial belief in the Bible? Not as far as I could see. And the "because I said so" is mildly amusing. His talk is literally about reasons (5 of them, not 1) to believe in the Bible, and "because I said so" is not among them. For every reason he mentions, he gives you a basis and an explanation for why he thinks it's a good reason. That is literally his entire talk, with some circuitousness that he himself made mention of. If it were "because I said so," that would be one reason, and not a very good one, we'll agree. You're making yet another assumption (and an insulting one) when you say that none of his audience members could read the Dead Sea Scrolls or the thousands of manuscripts he references. How do you know? I'm part of his audience, having seen the video, and I studied Biblical Hebrew and Greek in college, so I'm capable of, with some work, reading the Dead Sea Scrolls and at least some of the manuscripts. So you're wrong. Incidentally, isn't there a museum specifically dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls that gives translations of what is written on them, and doesn't that mean that the audience members could read them (in translation) after all? Not to mention that, if they took the time to learn the languages of those manuscripts, they could actually read them directly. Putting all that aside, is he only allowed to reference items which all audience members are currently able to study in depth? Why do the audience members have to have the Dead Sea Scrolls (as an example) or be able to read them for what he's saying to be accepted as true? He mentioned 7.5 billion people, too, but you don't seem to have a problem with that number, even though no one has ever counted every human on earth individually. He cites Biblical scholars who have studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and many of the other manuscripts he mentions. Do you think that those scholars were lying? What evidence was he supposed to give? By your comments, are you saying you don't agree with his fifth reason, or is it just another jab at the versions you don't approve of? Your last sentence seems to have a few words missing somewhere or something else wrong. It doesn't make grammatical sense. You say, "In addition, if the Dead Sea Scrolls and the 'thousands of manuscripts' are the reason the NIV, NKJV, the NLT and, as you say, 'ALL modern versions and translations' are based on them, then obviously they have serious errors as well." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to assume in good faith that you meant to say, "In addition, if the Dead Sea Scrolls and the 'thousands of manuscripts' are the reason the NIV, NKJV, the NLT are the way they are, and, as you say, 'ALL modern versions and translations' are based on them, then obviously they have serious errors as well." It's possible I wasn't clear in my earlier comment on this. I'm not saying that the 3 versions you're discussing got their purported errors from those manuscripts. I'm saying that every single version of the Bible in existence in every language is based on the thousands of manuscripts he and the Bible scholars he cites are talking about. Not all are based on all, but all are based on one or more of them (for example, the KJV, an overall well-done translation, was based only on the Textus Receptus, which was reasonably good for its time, but is not considered the most faithful to the original by modern scholars). If you believe in the Bible (any version you like), you believe in the manuscripts the Bible is based on, whether or not you believe that errors have crept into (or even been intentionally inserted into) certain modern versions. If you don't believe in the manuscripts (which he references as a reason to believe in the Bible), then you can't say you believe in the Bible, since every modern version came from those manuscripts. I must say that I get the impression that you believe in the Bible, but I can't be sure of that based on your arguments. If you don't believe in the Bible, that's a much more fundamental issue than which version he's citing, and I recommend that you pay attention to his arguments, as he's trying to speak to that very issue. I also wanted to say that I appreciate that you're engaging with me in good-faith discourse rather than just rejecting my comments out of hand. As you can tell by my response, I am attempting to do the same.
@@tomcromwell8493 You have definitely put in a lot of time and effort in answering my post and I appreciate that. 1. "The Bible" is singular. It's not one or more bibles from which you pick and choose. When a minister uses several bibles it implies they're all the same and all the Word of God. It is commonly said Seventh-day Adventists believe "the Bible" when "the Bible" they use has serious doctrinal errors. If they said, "I like what this bible says here but it's wrong in places" it would at least be a warning to their listeners and it would be honest. 2. I fully agree with you that most people don't think what I'm thinking. It is rare to find any minister or Seventh-day Adventist church member who will say any Bible on earth at this time is infallible and without any error at all. According to Selected Messages Book One page 416, "Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible." Seventh-day Adventists and Ellen G. White know/knew what the infallibility of the pope means so they should also know what Sister White meant when she said "God's Word is infallible;" it means no error at all. 3. No, the speaker didn't comment specifically on bible versions in particular but when he said "the Bible is worth believing in" he should have pointed his listeners to a Bible they could believe in from cover to cover and the NKJV, NLT and NIV don't qualify in that regard. Some teaching is by example and not by what is spoken and the example demonstrated was that all of those bibles were fine. I'm aware that it's commonly said that "The best version of the Bible is version you read." Do you really mean that? Do you really think you should recommend a "Bible" that contains serious doctrinal error just because it's the one they read? 4. So, I was wrong because you were in the audience and with some effort would be able to read some of the ancient manuscripts. That said, most in the audience wouldn't be able to do that. It also takes a lot of effort to become fluent in a new language. Fortunately I know English and Sister White only knew English and said the English Bible was infallible. And I'm fully aware that some quotation's in Sister Whites books were from the Revised Version, the American Revised Version, the Leeser translation and Noyes translation and I have answered the question as to why that is so to my own satisfaction. 5. There were years when God's Word was locked up in Latin, Greek and Hebrew with no translation in the common vernacular and the Roman Catholic Church wanted to keep it that way. Now the tendency is to say what the Greek and Hebrew say when no one or very few in the audience can understand either of them. It's another version of what the Roman Catholic Church did. And guess what; there have been times when a speaker or writer has said what a certain Greek or Hebrew word meant and with the use of a Strong's Concordance I was able to see that they were wrong. How many Seventh-day Adventists have a Strong's Concordance percentage wise? 6. It is true that all modern versions of the bible are based on ancient manuscripts. Unfortunately, those ancient manuscripts used for modern versions include the Septuagint which didn't exist until Christ and all of the apostles were dead (despite what you were probably taught), Codex Vaticanus (which was probably a Medieval manuscript and has no provenance), Codex Sinaiticus (which was most likely written around 1843 by Constantine Simonides) and Alexandrinus. 7. It's commonly said that the writers of Scripture were "God's penman, and not God's pen." That is just another way of saying the Bible isn't infallible. If you believe a "Bible" has mistakes, just say so and try to find one that doesn't have mistakes. 8. You believe you could even cite The Message if whatever you cite doesn't contain doctrinal error. If you do that, you should also be telling your audience that it contains poison like in Revelation 1:10 where it says, "It was Sunday and I was in the Spirit, praying." 9. One last thing. Do you believe any one Bible is infallible without any error at all? If so, let me know what one it is and we can put it up against mine. You only get one and not several from what you pick and choose. You will have the opportunity to point out one or two errors in my Bible and I will do the same for you. I have given quite a few people a chance to do this and thus far no one has taken me up on it. You could be the first.
From India, please pray for Sandeep diagnosed with bone cancer, he is vomiting blood. Many thanks, Amen and Shalom 🕊
Praise the lord ✝️✝️
Thank you for sharing. BELGIUM
David does a great job but I think I have to reduce the speed of the video . Lol . Thx Dave. U speak really fast . Lol
God of jesus
God bless
Beautiful presentation. I just wish it hadn't cut off before the end. Where's the rest of it? Is it available somewhere?
I love it!
Amen🙏🙏🙏
Amenu 💯💯👏
Your title is "Five Good Reasons to Believe The Bible." From what I've seen, in this sermon, your "the Bible" is the New King James Version (NKJV), the New International Version (NIV) and the New Living Translation (NLT). I will now give you five good reasons not to believe your "the Bible."
1. Your "the Bible" says Satan has already been turned (past tense) to ashes in Ezekiel 28:18. Evidence is good that Satan hasn't been turned to ashes yet.
2. Your "the Bible" (the NKJV and the NIV) says in Exodus 6:2 that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never knew God by the name "Lord." It is easy to find in Genesis that God had been known to all those men by the name Lord (see Genesis 24:2-3, 26:25 and 28:13).
3. Your "the Bible" says what we'll be clothed with in Revelation 19:7-8 is our righteous acts. Actually the righteous will be clothed not with their righteous acts but with the righteousness of Christ (see Christ's Object Lessons page 310).
4. Your "the Bible" says the wicked dead are being punished while awaiting judgement. That punishment would have to be in hell or purgatory. See 2 Peter 2:9 in the NKJV and the NLT.
5. Your "the Bible" says Jesus' spirit, after his resurrection, preached (or made proclamation) to wicked people that had died in the flood. In addition your "the Bible" says he was made alive "in the Spirit" which would mean not a flesh and blood body. See 1 Peter 3:18-20 in the NIV and NLT.
You apparently believe there are "Five Good Reasons to Believe The Bible" and I have presented five good reasons not to believe your "the Bible" and I could come up with many more.
You ever heard of a "straw man argument"? This pastor is not talking about any particular version of the Bible, but of the Bible itself. Note that he makes reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls and thousands of manuscripts. Those are not NIV or NKJV or NLT manuscripts. Those are the manuscripts upon which ALL modern versions and translations are based. If you don't like the Bible he's referring to, you don't like the Bible at all.
In addition, you're talking about something entirely different (specific theological issues you have with specific versions), while he's presenting reasons to believe that the Bible (not any particular version, but the Bible in a general sense) is worth believing. Do you actually disagree with any of the points he's making? Because you aren't making any counterarguments against his points, just criticizing the particular versions he happens to quote from. If you agree with his points, why aren't you saying that? If you disagree with his points, why don't you say that, and then say why?
@@tomcromwell8493 The fact remains, he used the NIV, NKJV and the NLT so most people, apparently not you, would take that to mean they are "the Bible" especially when the title of his talk is "Five Good Reasons to Believe The Bible." Those "the Bible" all have serious errors and if "the Bible" has errors then it's not entirely believable. The title of his talk should have been "Five Good Reasons to Believe The Bible In Some Places Just Because I Say So."
He may make reference to "the Dead Sea Scrolls and thousands of manuscripts" but no one in has audience has them or could even read them. In addition, if the Dead Sea Scrolls and the "thousands of manuscripts" are the reason the NIV, NKJV, the NLT and, as you say, "ALL modern versions and translations" are based on them, then obviously they have serious errors as well.
@@martinlohne5128 Thanks for your response. I'll give you the TLDR (too long; didn't read) version and then the full version, since I've taken your arguments point by point, but it's very long.
TLDR version:
1. His topic was reasons to believe the Bible (period), not reasons to believe the NIV, NKJV, and NLT. Take him at his word that that's what he meant.
2. I don't think most people would think what you're thinking.
3. Listen to what he's saying, not what you think he's saying. He's not saying anything about versions at all. He's saying that the Bible is worth believing in.
4. How do you know his audience can't read the manuscripts? And why should they have to in order to understand or accept his arguments?
5. I meant that all modern versions of the Bible are based on one or more ancient manuscripts, so belief in any modern Bible must necessarily imply belief in at least some of those manuscripts.
6. Thanks for engaging in dialogue with me.
Full version:
Thank you for correctly recognizing that I have a different take on his use of those versions of the Bible in his sermon. Unfortunately, you follow up your earlier straw man argument with another straw man argument, maybe more than one. Sure, he happened to use those three versions, as documented at the bottom of the screen when he showed a text. Did he have the version in large letters at the top, spell them out, or highlight them in any way? No. He put them in small letters right after the chapter and verse, as is common practice the world over, as far as I know. Did he mention out loud any specific version, or state that some versions are better than others; did he recommend any? No. He also didn't call his talk "Five Good Reasons to Believe in the NIV, NKVJ and NLT", which is what you are (incorrectly, I assert) acting like was his topic. If he had wanted to say that, he would have done so explicitly. You're ASSUMING that that's what he meant, in spite of lots of evidence in the content of his sermon to the contrary. It wasn't a talk about versions of the Bible, which versions are better, whether there are errors in Scripture, or anything like that. As the pastor states (I may be paraphrasing slightly), "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and in general acts like a duck, it is very likely a duck." Apply that to his sermon. This was clearly intended to be, purports to be, and is named as if, this were a simple discussion regarding the believability of Scripture (in a general sense) for those who have doubts about that topic. The fact that he used more than one version should tell you that he is not advocating for any specific version. If he were, he would have said so or only used one version, not 3. Did he need to use every version there is (or the specific unnamed version you keep implying that you think is the only one we should use) in order for you to accept his general theological arguments, which you still have not once addressed? There weren't enough texts in his sermon to use every version, so would you have criticized him for using only, say, 10 versions, rather than 50 or 100? He incidentally used those versions, commonly used versions of the Bible which you obviously have a problem with, but they were neither the point of his talk nor anything he even mentioned aloud. Notice also that none of his quotations are the ones you are criticizing from those three versions (we haven't even touched on whether your arguments on that are right or wrong because, once again, that's not at all related to the point of his sermon!). I'm surprised you're focusing on the Bible versions and not the authors he quoted. Your argument is equivalent to saying, "He quoted CS Lewis, and Lewis was wrong about this one thing, so his entire argument must be wrong." That's ridiculous. Also, a fallacy. Lewis wasn't even of the same denomination as this pastor, so obviously they're going to disagree on multiple things, but that doesn't mean he can't quote him if he had something good to say. If I like how the KJV or, say, The Message (oh, a *paraphrase*, say it isn't so!), states a particular text, as long as it doesn't include a theological error, I may well cite that text. As my homiletics teacher once stated, "The best version of the Bible is the version you read." In other words, that you read Scripture is far more important than what particular version you prefer.
I also disagree with your statement that most people would assume that the specific versions he used were what he meant by "the Bible". I think most people would take him at face value, assuming that, whatever versions he happened to use in his sermon, he was referring to the Bible in general, not any specific version or versions.
You state that "Those 'the Bible' all have serious errors and if 'the Bible' has errors then it's not entirely believable." We obviously have a difference of opinion about the inerrancy of Scripture (I believe that the writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not God's pens), but again, he wasn't saying that there are no texts that appear to contradict each other or that you must believe every word of a particular version or versions. He is saying you should believe in THE BIBLE (not *a* Bible or a *version* of the Bible, but the Bible itself), and here's why. I actually have no idea where you're getting your "suggested" title for his talk. Where's the "in some places"? Did he tell us to only believe parts of Scripture? Did he advocate for a partial belief in the Bible? Not as far as I could see. And the "because I said so" is mildly amusing. His talk is literally about reasons (5 of them, not 1) to believe in the Bible, and "because I said so" is not among them. For every reason he mentions, he gives you a basis and an explanation for why he thinks it's a good reason. That is literally his entire talk, with some circuitousness that he himself made mention of. If it were "because I said so," that would be one reason, and not a very good one, we'll agree.
You're making yet another assumption (and an insulting one) when you say that none of his audience members could read the Dead Sea Scrolls or the thousands of manuscripts he references. How do you know? I'm part of his audience, having seen the video, and I studied Biblical Hebrew and Greek in college, so I'm capable of, with some work, reading the Dead Sea Scrolls and at least some of the manuscripts. So you're wrong. Incidentally, isn't there a museum specifically dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls that gives translations of what is written on them, and doesn't that mean that the audience members could read them (in translation) after all? Not to mention that, if they took the time to learn the languages of those manuscripts, they could actually read them directly. Putting all that aside, is he only allowed to reference items which all audience members are currently able to study in depth? Why do the audience members have to have the Dead Sea Scrolls (as an example) or be able to read them for what he's saying to be accepted as true? He mentioned 7.5 billion people, too, but you don't seem to have a problem with that number, even though no one has ever counted every human on earth individually. He cites Biblical scholars who have studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and many of the other manuscripts he mentions. Do you think that those scholars were lying? What evidence was he supposed to give? By your comments, are you saying you don't agree with his fifth reason, or is it just another jab at the versions you don't approve of?
Your last sentence seems to have a few words missing somewhere or something else wrong. It doesn't make grammatical sense. You say, "In addition, if the Dead Sea Scrolls and the 'thousands of manuscripts' are the reason the NIV, NKJV, the NLT and, as you say, 'ALL modern versions and translations' are based on them, then obviously they have serious errors as well." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to assume in good faith that you meant to say, "In addition, if the Dead Sea Scrolls and the 'thousands of manuscripts' are the reason the NIV, NKJV, the NLT are the way they are, and, as you say, 'ALL modern versions and translations' are based on them, then obviously they have serious errors as well." It's possible I wasn't clear in my earlier comment on this. I'm not saying that the 3 versions you're discussing got their purported errors from those manuscripts. I'm saying that every single version of the Bible in existence in every language is based on the thousands of manuscripts he and the Bible scholars he cites are talking about. Not all are based on all, but all are based on one or more of them (for example, the KJV, an overall well-done translation, was based only on the Textus Receptus, which was reasonably good for its time, but is not considered the most faithful to the original by modern scholars). If you believe in the Bible (any version you like), you believe in the manuscripts the Bible is based on, whether or not you believe that errors have crept into (or even been intentionally inserted into) certain modern versions. If you don't believe in the manuscripts (which he references as a reason to believe in the Bible), then you can't say you believe in the Bible, since every modern version came from those manuscripts. I must say that I get the impression that you believe in the Bible, but I can't be sure of that based on your arguments. If you don't believe in the Bible, that's a much more fundamental issue than which version he's citing, and I recommend that you pay attention to his arguments, as he's trying to speak to that very issue.
I also wanted to say that I appreciate that you're engaging with me in good-faith discourse rather than just rejecting my comments out of hand. As you can tell by my response, I am attempting to do the same.
@@tomcromwell8493 You have definitely put in a lot of time and effort in answering my post and I appreciate that.
1. "The Bible" is singular. It's not one or more bibles from which you pick and choose. When a minister uses several bibles it implies they're all the same and all the Word of God. It is commonly said Seventh-day Adventists believe "the Bible" when "the Bible" they use has serious doctrinal errors. If they said, "I like what this bible says here but it's wrong in places" it would at least be a warning to their listeners and it would be honest.
2. I fully agree with you that most people don't think what I'm thinking. It is rare to find any minister or Seventh-day Adventist church member who will say any Bible on earth at this time is infallible and without any error at all. According to Selected Messages Book One page 416, "Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible." Seventh-day Adventists and Ellen G. White know/knew what the infallibility of the pope means so they should also know what Sister White meant when she said "God's Word is infallible;" it means no error at all.
3. No, the speaker didn't comment specifically on bible versions in particular but when he said "the Bible is worth believing in" he should have pointed his listeners to a Bible they could believe in from cover to cover and the NKJV, NLT and NIV don't qualify in that regard. Some teaching is by example and not by what is spoken and the example demonstrated was that all of those bibles were fine. I'm aware that it's commonly said that "The best version of the Bible is version you read." Do you really mean that? Do you really think you should recommend a "Bible" that contains serious doctrinal error just because it's the one they read?
4. So, I was wrong because you were in the audience and with some effort would be able to read some of the ancient manuscripts. That said, most in the audience wouldn't be able to do that. It also takes a lot of effort to become fluent in a new language. Fortunately I know English and Sister White only knew English and said the English Bible was infallible. And I'm fully aware that some quotation's in Sister Whites books were from the Revised Version, the American Revised Version, the Leeser translation and Noyes translation and I have answered the question as to why that is so to my own satisfaction.
5. There were years when God's Word was locked up in Latin, Greek and Hebrew with no translation in the common vernacular and the Roman Catholic Church wanted to keep it that way. Now the tendency is to say what the Greek and Hebrew say when no one or very few in the audience can understand either of them. It's another version of what the Roman Catholic Church did. And guess what; there have been times when a speaker or writer has said what a certain Greek or Hebrew word meant and with the use of a Strong's Concordance I was able to see that they were wrong. How many Seventh-day Adventists have a Strong's Concordance percentage wise?
6. It is true that all modern versions of the bible are based on ancient manuscripts. Unfortunately, those ancient manuscripts used for modern versions include the Septuagint which didn't exist until Christ and all of the apostles were dead (despite what you were probably taught), Codex Vaticanus (which was probably a Medieval manuscript and has no provenance), Codex Sinaiticus (which was most likely written around 1843 by Constantine Simonides) and Alexandrinus.
7. It's commonly said that the writers of Scripture were "God's penman, and not God's pen." That is just another way of saying the Bible isn't infallible. If you believe a "Bible" has mistakes, just say so and try to find one that doesn't have mistakes.
8. You believe you could even cite The Message if whatever you cite doesn't contain doctrinal error. If you do that, you should also be telling your audience that it contains poison like in Revelation 1:10 where it says, "It was Sunday and I was in the Spirit, praying."
9. One last thing. Do you believe any one Bible is infallible without any error at all? If so, let me know what one it is and we can put it up against mine. You only get one and not several from what you pick and choose. You will have the opportunity to point out one or two errors in my Bible and I will do the same for you. I have given quite a few people a chance to do this and thus far no one has taken me up on it. You could be the first.
There are no good reasons to believe in the bible. There are other books which are less evil.
Read the Bible have you ?
Haha. The holy Bible is not evil
Sounds like you are influenced by evil.
For you to say such things
Sorry sir finansesd.lready.he accepted already from God: financess All God Financess helmeted.hullelujah 🙏 🙏 🙏