If Paul says in the book of 1st Corinthian 7 vs 25 that it is not from God but it is from his own opinion, then how come the Bible is 100% the word of God?

If God were to inspire me to write a book, the words in my book would still be my words. They would not be the word of God.

Ask a Christian a question about Jesus, and he might answer with a quotation from Paul. But who tells us Paul speaks for Jesus? Why do we need Paul to speak for Jesus when Jesus speaks for himself? Why do we need Paul to speak for Jesus when Jesus himself warns us: “Be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time?” (Mark 13:23). If Jesus has told us all we need to know, why do we need someone else to add to, or subtract from, what he said?

The word of Paul is not the Word of God, this present Bible is a spiritual scam from our colonial Masters.

ictplotter:
The word of Paul is not the Word of God, the present Bible is a spiritual scam from our colonial Masters.
Let us be Muslims by studying the Quran not the Muslims.

So you are saying that because the words of paul are not of God, we are instead to be Muslims?

Couldn't it also be said that the quran is a scam from the colonial masters— the Arabians?

Kobojunkie:
So you are saying that because the words of paul are not of God, we are instead to be Muslims?

Couldn't it also be said that the quran is a scam from the colonial masters— the Arabians?

I challenge you to study the Quran and brings out a contradictions or human input error.

ictplotter:
I challenge you to study the Quran and brings out a contradictions or human input error.

Let's try to stay focused, shall we? Why is the Quran, itself delivered to Africans by the Arabian colonial masters, not a scam? By the way, I am very certain the book contains so many contradictory accounts. For one, its claim to be of the God of Israel is definitely a huge one against the Quran since it sets Him up as a liar while it desperately attempts to convince us that He isn't .

ictplotter:
If Paul says in the book of 1st Corinthian 7 vs 25 that it is not from God but it is from his own opinion, then how come the Bible is 100% the word of God?

If God were to inspire me to write a book, the words in my book would still be my words. They would not be the word of God.

Ask a Christian a question about Jesus, and he might answer with a quotation from Paul. But who tells us Paul speaks for Jesus? Why do we need Paul to speak for Jesus when Jesus speaks for himself? Why do we need Paul to speak for Jesus when Jesus himself warns us: “Be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time?” (Mark 13:23). If Jesus has told us all we need to know, why do we need someone else to add to, or subtract from, what he said?

The word of Paul is not the Word of God, this present Bible is a spiritual scam from our colonial Masters.

Na wa oh David, Solomon, Isaiah and co all wrote and spoke like Paul yet it is him you people choose to attack.

Wow whatever he said must be too painful for you people to bear.

ictplotter:

I challenge you to study the Quran and brings out a contradictions or human input error.

Ten Q and co have done just is to that no need. Besides 70 virgins is definitely a man's input.

Don't mind the hypocrites!

They are driven by personal sentiments not the Truth.

That's another clear proof that not all sayings in the Bible are inspired by God.

There are those which were of men as that.

There are also those of the devil inside the Bible so the Bible cannot be 100% inspired of God.

Hence the 100% Word of God for me, is the Words of Jesus not the Bible.

I believe that's why Jesus, aside emphasizing (the keeping of) His Words, commanded His disciples to teach men to observe His own Words before departing the Earth. Matthew 28:20

Therefore any idea or teaching in the Bible that doesn't align with that of Christ in the Bible, including those of apostles, is not of God.

Anything to the contrary is bound to result in errors and imperfections, which would hinder someone from becoming perfect as Christ was.

That's why the standard of the church has nosedived ever since. It's because the church has chosen to lay aside the instructions of Jesus to "teach men to observe His Words" but to uphold those ideas of men.

Bottomline, the Bible is not a scam but it's not 100% the Word of God either because it also contains man-made ideas that have nothing to do with God, and also those of the devil. For instance, the saying of that old serpent in the beginning.

God bless.

The Bible is not the word of God, but it contains the word of God.

hsapien:
The Bible is not the word of God, but it contains the word of God.

Couldn't have said it any better.

All the books in the bible was written in different centuries and different people, it was through Canon that we have the bible now.

IT'S WRITTEN BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD.

Dtruthspeaker:


Ten Q and co have done just is to that no need. Besides 70 virgins is definitely a man's input.

70 virgins is not in the Qur'an.

jesusjnr2020:
Don't mind the hypocrites!

They are driven by personal sentiments not the Truth.

That's another clear proof that not all sayings in the Bible are inspired by God.

There are those which were of men as that.

There are also those of the devil inside the Bible so the Bible cannot be 100% inspired of God.

Hence the 100% Word of God for me, is the Words of Jesus not the Bible.

I believe that's why Jesus, aside emphasizing (the keeping of) His Words, commanded His disciples to teach men to observe His own Words before departing the Earth. Matthew 28:20

Therefore any idea or teaching in the Bible that doesn't align with that of Christ in the Bible, including those of apostles, is not of God.

Anything to the contrary is bound to result in errors and imperfections, which would hinder someone from becoming perfect as Christ was.

That's why the standard of the church has nosedived ever since. It's because the church has chosen to lay aside the instructions of Jesus to "teach men to observe His Words" but to uphold those ideas of men.

Bottomline, the Bible is not a scam but it's not 100% the Word of God either because it also contains man-made ideas that have nothing to do with God, and also those of the devil. For instance, the saying of that old serpent in the beginning.

God bless.

All of the Bible was written by men, even the purported words of Jesus so how do you know someone didn't insert something? In fact scholars have determined that were not only scribal errors, there were deliberate additions like the story of the woman caught in adultery.

Obviously the Bible contains words of God, Prophets، wise men and foolish men!

LordReed:


All of the Bible was written by men, even the purported words of Jesus so how do you know someone didn't insert something? In fact scholars have determined that were not only scribal errors, there were deliberate additions like the story of the woman caught in adultery.

For someone who couldn't comprehend the simplest thing of the existence of God, why should I even bother?

If the so-called scholars had stated the otherwise, would you have believed them or even called them scholars?

That's why you should avoid comments that exceed your scope, because this comment wasn't meant for the carnal minded or irreligious but those who understand what it means to be inspired of God.

The teachings of Jesus were 100% inspired of God! Even if there were man-made errors in the accounts given of them, they are negligible.

jesusjnr2020:
For someone who couldn't comprehend the simplest thing of the existence of God, why should I even bother?

If the so-called scholars had stated the otherwise, would you have believed them or even called them scholars?

That's why you should avoid comments that exceed your scope, because this comment wasn't meant for the carnal minded or irreligious but those who understand what it means to be inspired of God.

The teachings of Jesus were 100% inspired of God! Even if there were man-made errors in the accounts given of them, they are negligible.

LoLz! This is isn't about the existence of a god, this is about books written by men. If as you say only the words of Jesus are untouched then how do you explain additions like the story of the adulterous woman? How do you know what was there originally and that which was added later? These are questions you need to answer if you are going make such proclamations in the public space.

LordReed:


LoLz! This is isn't about the existence of a god, this is about books written by men. If as you say only the words of Jesus are untouched then how do you explain additions like the story of the adulterous woman? How do you know what was there originally and that which was added later? These are questions you need to answer if you are going make such proclamations in the public space.

You're so sure the so-called story of the adulterous woman was added because you were there yourself when they were added right? You can see how your arguments were purely driven by atheistic sentiments not facts.

Easy to believe the statement of scholars who speak things which align with your atheistic beliefs not those which go against it.

jesusjnr2020:
You're so sure the so-called story of the adulterous woman was added because you were there yourself when they were added right? You can see how your arguments were purely driven by atheistic sentiments not facts.

Easy to believe the statement of scholars who speak things which align with your atheistic beliefs not those which go against it.

LoLz. Nope, there are Christian scholars who say this. These are facts derived from the manuscripts themselves, some have the passage others don't and the older ones do not have the passage. You should read up on the history of how you got the Bible in your hands so you don't make statements that are not supported by the facts.

LordReed:


LoLz. Nope, there are Christian scholars who say this. These are facts derived from the manuscripts themselves, some have the passage others don't and the older ones do not have the passage. You should read up on the history of how you got the Bible in your hands so you don't make statements that are not supported by the facts.

So you weren't there when it happened, yet you easily believed what those so-called Christian scholars said was a fact, yet you're accusing me of doing the same thing you're guilty of. Isn't that hypocrisy or are you saying there aren't Christian scholars who attest to the contrary?

Perhaps facts now mean anything Christian scholars say that discredits what the Bible or Gospels say, not that which supports it, because you never believe anything else they said is a fact, except that the story of the adulterous woman was not in the original manuscript. Or is there anything else?

jesusjnr2020:
So you weren't there when it happened, yet you easily believed what those so-called Christian scholars said was a fact, yet you're accusing me of doing the same thing you're guilty of. Isn't that hypocrisy or are you saying there aren't Christian scholars who attest to the contrary?

Perhaps facts now mean anything Christian scholars say that discredits what the Bible or Gospels say, not that which supports it, because you never believe anything else they said is a fact, except that the story of the adulterous woman was not in the original manuscript. Or is there anything else?

LoLz. Just explain why the older manuscripts didn't have the story.

LordReed:


LoLz. Just explain why the older manuscripts didn't have the story.

How did you know they didn't have the story? Did you see them yourself?

jesusjnr2020:
How did you know they didn't have the story? Did you see them yourself?

That's not the question before us. You have never seen any of the manuscripts either so we are in the same boat. We are both looking at what has been presented to us as fact, the older manuscripts of the book of John do not have a particular story, the later ones do. My explanation is the story was an addition. What is your explanation?

LordReed:


That's not the question before us. You have never seen any of the manuscripts either so we are in the same boat. We are both looking at what has been presented to us as fact, the older manuscripts of the book of John do not have a particular story, the later ones do. My explanation is the story was an addition. What is your explanation?

Oh, now you believe we're in the same boat. You believe what has been presented to us as facts not that you were there to confirm this yourself, yet you accuse me of doing same, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

You don't believe everything else that was presented to us as facts in the Bible and the Gospels, except that the story of the adulterous woman was not in the original manuscript, but only an addition according to some so-called Christian scholars.

So what is your proof that what they said is the fact and not what other Christian scholars claim to the contrary?

That's why you must provide proof of what you believe otherwise I would not believe you. Seeing is now believing lol.

jesusjnr2020:
Oh, now you believe we're in the same boat. You believe what has been presented to us as facts not that you were there to confirm this yourself, yet you accuse me of doing same, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

You don't believe everything else that was presented to us as facts in the Bible and the Gospels, except that the story of the adulterous woman was not in the original manuscript, but only an addition according to some so-called Christian scholars.

So what is your proof that what they said is the fact and not what other Christian scholars claim to the contrary?

That's why you must provide proof of what you believe otherwise I would not believe you. Seeing is now believing lol.

LoLz. All this to just avoid answering a simple question.

Meanwhile point to anywhere I have written seeing is believing.

LordReed:


LoLz. All this to just avoid answering a simple question.

Meanwhile point to anywhere I have written seeing is believing.

A simple question based on a false premise unless proven otherwise is not worth answering.

As for the bolded, kindly show me where I said you wrote that?

jesusjnr2020:
A simple question based on a false premise unless proven otherwise is not worth answering.

As for the bolded, kindly show me where I said you wrote that?

What is false here? That the older manuscripts don't contain the story?

Then why bring it up? Is that what you think now, that seeing is believing?

LordReed:


What is false here? That the older manuscripts don't contain the story?

Then why bring it up? Is that what you think now, that seeing is believing?

That it was an addition to the original, earliest, oldest manuscript of the Gospel.

You know why I brought the bolded up na. Are you not the ones that keep asking for proof of the Unseen to believe He exists?

jesusjnr2020:
That it was an addition to the original, earliest, oldest manuscript of the Gospel.

You know why I brought the bolded up na. Are you not the ones that keep asking for proof of the Unseen to believe He exists?

Ok so if I show you the oldest manuscript without the story what will be your reaction? What if I show you Bible translator notes on the story?

All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work! 2Timothy 3:16-17

The Bible from Genesis to Revelation is God's word only Jehovah's Witnesses understood this and can tell you why it's so.

The title "GOD" connotes SUPREME BEING and when you're talking about the one who is SUPREME it simply means someone whose utterances will be fulfilled whether you like it or not. It's the SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES that can talk and their words expire along with them {Psalms 82:6} but as for the SUPREME ONE not a single word from Him go unfulfilled!


This is the EVIDENCE that the Bible is 100% the word of the living GOD:

Some 2,700 years ago a man was inspired to pen down this prophecy:

In the final part of the days, The mountain of the house of Jehovah Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains, And it will be raised up above the hills, And to it all the nations will stream. And many peoples will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, To the house of the God of Jacob. He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths.” For law will go out of Zion, And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem. He will render judgment among the nations And set matters straight respecting many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, Nor will they learn war anymore. Isaiah 2:2-4
Later another prophet named Micah was given the same inspiration! Micah 4:1-3

What exactly is the meaning of this prophecy?

Well the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob told us that He will send out His Active Force (Holy Spirit) and faithful and obedient people from all races throughout the earth will come together under one umbrella: Isaiah 2:2; Micah 4:1
Now note what the next verse says ~ these people will use what they found in God's word to teach themselves: Isaiah 2:3; Micah 4:2

What will be the proof that the book they are studying is God's word?
They will resolve all their racial disparities among themselves, divert their resources into the production of food and information materials, erased the making, buying, selling and usage of weapons in their hearts and vow never to raise weapons against anyone again: Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3

Well today this prophecies has been fulfilled 100% as a group started in 1919 and began going from house to house just as God's word foretold {Matthew 28:18-20} and they used what is written in the Bible to teach themselves {Malachi 3:16} and by the end of 100 years a global family of peace loving worshipers sufficed in the name of JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES!
While all other people are fighting and killing one another {Revelations 6:3-4} they have separated themselves! Revelations 18:4

So what book made this possible in this divided world?

It's that WONDERFUL BOOK know as BIBLE: the 100% word of the living GOD! Isaiah 55:10-11

LordReed:


Ok so if I show you the oldest manuscript without the story what will be your reaction? What if I show you Bible translator notes on the story?

Do you mean the one written by apostle John himself?

jesusjnr2020:
Do you mean the one written by apostle John himself?

Bwahahahahahahaahhahaahahhaahahaha! OMFD! Nobody has seen that oga. Your bible was translated from manuscripts written long after the purported events. LMFAO!

And nobody knows who wrote it so I dunno what you expect to find. LMFAO!

LordReed:


Bwahahahahahahaahhahaahahhaahahaha! OMFD! Nobody has seen that oga. Your bible was translated from manuscripts written long after the purported events. LMFAO!

And nobody knows who wrote it so I dunno what you expect to find. LMFAO!

Well if that be the case, it's quite unfortunate because that's the only manuscript that you could use to prove to me that anything was added to or omitted from what was originally written by apostle John, because anything can happen along the way.