accuracy

[billie]

God's big enough to be in control of what goes into His Word. The 66 Books were picked out by God. He just worked through man.

I do believe God shows individuals things about Himself today, but never anything that would contradict the 66 Books of the Bible, nor should we hold anyone's personal experiences with Him up as high as the Bible, or infallible.

[nebula]

Yomo -

I personally do not believe God has stopped revealing Himself. But the key is: does it match with Scripture?

All the books of the New Testament are in complete harmony with the books of the Old Testament.

Any claim to a revelation from God must be in harmony with the rest of Scripture. The "revelation" given the Mormons does not. trust you know enough of mormon doctrine to know the difference?

Here's an alternate example: I read an account of someone claiming a dream/vision about the Christian life. In this he and the other Christians were given the armor of God, and it perfectly matched the armor described in Eph. 6. But there was one addition: the cloak of humility. Now some may argue that any addition to Scriture is invalid. But, is it an "addition"? Do not the Scriptures say to be clothed with humility? (1 Pet. 5:5) In this dream/vision, the cloak of humility was the only guard against being hit in the back by arrows of pride. Those without the cloak got wounded in the back by pride did not know they were hit, but soon they would begin to take off their armor, which made them vulnerable for attack in the areas they should have been protected in. Well, is this not how pride works? And does not humility guard against the subtle attacks of pride? So it was not exactly a new revelation but an old one being presented in a new way.

See the difference?

[forrestkc]

There are two alternate theories about what actually happened. The first is that the five loaves and two fish miraculously became enough to feed the 5000. The other is that in sharing what the Disciples had with the multitudes, they inspired the multitudes to share what they had with them, and as a result all were fed and even some was left over.

The later view has some support in scripture for it. As in the passage, it does not say that Jesus broke the loaves and hand handed baskets full of bread and fish to the disciples. Instead, he gave them the broken loaves and fish. Thus, arguably, it is reasonable to believe that the rest came from individuals in the crowd and the miracle was in Jesus inspiring the crowd to share what little they had with each other.

Let's see . . .

Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, . . . .

What's the problem with multiplying food?

The question is not whether he could have multiplied food, of course he could have. Instead, the question is about what happened this time. The scripture could go either way.

[GeneV]

So the real question is: Did God direct the composition of the Bible, or not?

If God did not direct the composition of the Bible, then we should probably re-introduce those books/writings which were eliminated from the Biblical canon. Also, there really should be no limit to the number of writings what we could consider of spiritual importance, or of importance to the Christian faith; including the Mormon Bible, the book of Judas, the gospel of Thomas, etc.

If God did direct the composition of the Bible, than it's reliability is based upon God, not upon man. If one trusts in God, has faith in God, loves God with all of his being, then that trust extends to all of what God has done, is doing, and will do in the church.

All Scripture is God breathed

[forrestkc]

So the real question is: Did God direct the composition of the Bible, or not?

If God did not direct the composition of the Bible, then we should probably re-introduce those books/writings which were eliminated from the Biblical canon. Also, there really should be no limit to the number of writings what we could consider of spiritual importance, or of importance to the Christian faith; including the Mormon Bible, the book of Judas, the gospel of Thomas, etc.

If God did direct the composition of the Bible, than it's reliability is based upon God, not upon man. If one trusts in God, has faith in God, loves God with all of his being, then that trust extends to all of what God has done, is doing, and will do in the church.

I guess this gets into the question of whether the Bible is the World of God, or whether the Bible contains the Word of God.

[nebula]

The question is not whether he could have multiplied food, of course he could have. Instead, the question is about what happened this time. The scripture could go either way.

Ah - but if the point of the Scripture was to show that the example of giving ins[ired others to give, do you not think that the Scripture would say so? Or that Jesus would commend the crowd for sharing their food with each other?

But look at the passage:

Matt. 14:15 - As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a remote place, and it's already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food."

The people had travelled from around to see Jesus, and Jesus ministered to them throughout the day. It is unclear when the gathering began, but logically, if the people had their own food, would not the disciples had noticed that the people had bags of food with them and would they have not seen people eating their food?

The context of the passage indicates quite clearly the disciples believed the people did not have any food with them.

It is then more reasonable to conclude that the people did not have food and the disciples noticed this, or rather they overheard the people talking with each other about getting hungry and not having food with them.

Thus Jesus really did multiply the bread and fish.

[forrestkc]

The question is not whether he could have multiplied food, of course he could have. Instead, the question is about what happened this time. The scripture could go either way.

Ah - but if the point of the Scripture was to show that the example of giving ins[ired others to give, do you not think that the Scripture would say so? Or that Jesus would commend the crowd for sharing their food with each other?

But look at the passage:

Matt. 14:15 - As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a remote place, and it's already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food."

The people had travelled from around to see Jesus, and Jesus ministered to them throughout the day. It is unclear when the gathering began, but logically, if the people had their own food, would not the disciples had noticed that the people had bags of food with them and would they have not seen people eating their food?

The context of the passage indicates quite clearly the disciples believed the people did not have any food with them.

It is then more reasonable to conclude that the people did not have food and the disciples noticed this, or rather they overheard the people talking with each other about getting hungry and not having food with them.

Thus Jesus really did multiply the bread and fish.

It would have been very uncommon for peasants at the time not to have small amounts of food on them, at least bread, assuming they had it. Also, as I pointed out earlier, the passage gives no indication at all that when the disciples received the bread and fish from Jesus, that it was multiplied at that point. Getting thousands of peasants with hardly enough to eat themselves to share what little they had with a crowd of strangers is no small miracle itself.

I don't want you to think thought that I am endorsing this or anything, but rather I am saying that the passage is someone ambiguous and could be reasonably construed either way.

[Ovedya]

So the real question is: Did God direct the composition of the Bible, or not?

If God did not direct the composition of the Bible, then we should probably re-introduce those books/writings which were eliminated from the Biblical canon. Also, there really should be no limit to the number of writings what we could consider of spiritual importance, or of importance to the Christian faith; including the Mormon Bible, the book of Judas, the gospel of Thomas, etc.

If God did direct the composition of the Bible, than it's reliability is based upon God, not upon man. If one trusts in God, has faith in God, loves God with all of his being, then that trust extends to all of what God has done, is doing, and will do in the church.

I guess this gets into the question of whether the Bible is the World of God, or whether the Bible contains the Word of God.

To me that aspect of the issue seems like semantics. If the Bible is the Word of God, then it must logically contain the Word of God also.

[forrestkc]

So the real question is: Did God direct the composition of the Bible, or not?

If God did not direct the composition of the Bible, then we should probably re-introduce those books/writings which were eliminated from the Biblical canon. Also, there really should be no limit to the number of writings what we could consider of spiritual importance, or of importance to the Christian faith; including the Mormon Bible, the book of Judas, the gospel of Thomas, etc.

If God did direct the composition of the Bible, than it's reliability is based upon God, not upon man. If one trusts in God, has faith in God, loves God with all of his being, then that trust extends to all of what God has done, is doing, and will do in the church.

I guess this gets into the question of whether the Bible is the World of God, or whether the Bible contains the Word of God.

To me that aspect of the issue seems like semantics. If the Bible is the Word of God, then it must logically contain the Word of God also.

Yes, of course, if the Bible is the Word of God, then it contains the Word of God. However, the reverse is not the same. If the Bible contains the World of God, that does not mean that every word in it is the World of God. Of course, there is the in between argument as well. The original manuscripts may have been the Word of God, but we don't have the originals, thus the versions we have may have human modifications.

[Ovedya]

So the real question is: Did God direct the composition of the Bible, or not?

If God did not direct the composition of the Bible, then we should probably re-introduce those books/writings which were eliminated from the Biblical canon. Also, there really should be no limit to the number of writings what we could consider of spiritual importance, or of importance to the Christian faith; including the Mormon Bible, the book of Judas, the gospel of Thomas, etc.

If God did direct the composition of the Bible, than it's reliability is based upon God, not upon man. If one trusts in God, has faith in God, loves God with all of his being, then that trust extends to all of what God has done, is doing, and will do in the church.

I guess this gets into the question of whether the Bible is the World of God, or whether the Bible contains the Word of God.

To me that aspect of the issue seems like semantics. If the Bible is the Word of God, then it must logically contain the Word of God also.

Yes, of course, if the Bible is the Word of God, then it contains the Word of God. However, the reverse is not the same. If the Bible contains the World of God, that does not mean that every word in it is the World of God. Of course, there is the in between argument as well. The original manuscripts may have been the Word of God, but we don't have the originals, thus the versions we have may have human modifications.

Are we to presume that God had authored the Word of God and yet had not the foresight to conduct the preservation of its message? I believe that even the authors of encyclopedias are wise enough to consult the previous entries before revising them.