is the bible a miss leading book to non interrupters?

Question

do you really get the passages you read

Answer 1

(1) Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only source of God's Word.

(2) The first Christians "were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles" (Acts 2:42; 2 Tim 1:14) long before the New Testament was written — and centuries before we knew with certainty which books were part of the New Testament.

(3) The Bible affirms that Christian teaching is "preached" (1 Pet. 1:25), that the Apostles' successors were to teach what they have "heard" (2 Tim. 2:2), and that Christian teaching is passed on both "by word of mouth [and] by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2).

(4) Not everything Christ did and said is recorded in Scripture (Jn. 21:25).

(5) New Testament authors availed themselves of sacred Tradition. For example, Acts 20:35 quotes a saying of Jesus that is not recorded in the Gospels.

(6) Scripture needs an authoritative interpreter (Acts 8:30-31; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 3:15-16).

(7) Christ left His Church with divine authority to teach in His name (Mt. 16:13-20, 18:18; Lk. 10:16).

(8) The Church will last until the end of time, and the Holy Spirit protects the Church's teaching from corruption (Mt. 16:18, 28:19-20; Jn. 14:16).

(9) The Church — and not the Bible alone — is the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

(10) The Bible refers to more sources of the Word of God than only Scripture. Jesus Himself is the Word (Jn. 1:1, 14), and in 1 Thess. 2:13, St. Paul's first epistle, he refers to "the Word of God which you heard from us." There St. Paul is clearly referring to oral apostolic teaching.

Source(s):

Catholic

Answer 2

Yes absolutely, & almoast to all of those that claim to under stand it, christons will tell you that the bibel is made up of 66 books. but what thay dont tell you is that there are alot more books that at some point sdombody said we dont nead or like theas , usaly becaus thay contridectid other books. Thay thought that contridicton would lead to alessning of the validdty of the bible! But if life contridects it self then why would the book of gods word as peopul saw it be aney diffrant?

Answer 3

The historic previous of the Apocryphal books you have discovered is rather one-sided. those books weren't risk-free interior the Masoretic textual content fabric of the Tanakh, the Hebrew previous testomony. They have been even if, risk-free interior the Septuagint, the Greek Translation of the Hebrew OT in many situations used in Christ's day. while Jerome translated the Scriptures into Latin, he risk-free the the Apocryphal books, yet with the specific preface that they weren't risk-free interior the unique Hebrew textual content fabric and could be considered apocryphal! Later copyists copied those books yet disregarded the preface Jerome had made. for this reason the books grew to become common interior the Roman Church as being "scripture", even although they weren't risk-free interior the Hebrew OT, nor have been they actually common as scripture by employing Jerome. because of the fact Jerome did no longer settle for them as actual scripture, and because (it particularly is the significant section) weren't component of the HEBREW Masoretic textual content fabric, those books are rejected by employing Protestant churches. It wasn't basically Martin Luther the two. John Wycliffe, the 1st man or woman to translate the Bible into English, long earlier Luther exchange into ever born, made understand Jerome's preface, and for this reason risk-free this preface in his very own translation. because of the fact those books weren't interior the Hebrew Cannon, because of the fact Jerome stated that they have been considered apocryphal even in his day, i do no longer think it is suited to declare that the Protestants bumped off those books, yet fairly that the RCC extra the books ... with in spite of robust intentions ... later on. a much greater distinctive protection of the Protestant place is given on the final link published under.

Answer 4

Like this verse 1 Thess ch 4: 3 "It is Gods will for you that you should be holy and avoid sexual immorality."

It does lack directness and it's a little obscure on content and I'm not sure if it says what I think it does; if it says what I think it does I might want to get a real interpreter to be sure.

Answer 5

You "get" what God intends for you to "get" if you are in the Word. You are misled when you fail to read the Word which would make you a non interpreter. A lot of people misinterpret the Word, that is different from not interpreting it at all.

Answer 6

Of course it is, considering a lot of the original works were left out............
And it take years to learn.

Answer 7

Even the people who think they can interpet it can't agree

Answer 8

that is totally up to the competence of the reader

Answer 9

half the time no.. but if you really research the words you can understand it