Replies

I know Catholics have been taught to split scripture into chapters and verses which allows them to separate the intent of the passage. I would suggest you not stop at those arbitrary verse endings and see the whole passage and meaning.

2 Peter 1:20 this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private explanation for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

The "holy men" there were the prophets. It was the Holy Spirit from which the explanation of those visions came. It was NOT talking about "interpretation of scripture".

The "holy men" there were the prophets. It was the Holy Spirit from which the explanation of those visions came. It was NOT talking about "interpretation of scripture".

You are correct sir. We are not discussing brain surgery here. The explanation did not come from some guys putting their heads together. God "breathed" the explanation Himself. Men were simply the ones who wrote it down. We are free to interpret scripture as the Holy Spirit allows us to. The deal is, the only thing that matters, in all of creation, and that is Heaven or Hell, is so simple, that a 3 year old can understand it. It is so simple, it interprets itself.

"I know Catholics have been taught to split scripture into chapters and verses which allows them to separate the intent of the passage. I would suggest you not stop at those arbitrary verse endings and see the whole passage and meaning. 2 Peter 1:20 this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private explanation for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake."

=============================================================

No, CynicalBear, it was you who put the text numbers (2 Peter 1:20-21) into your post #298 - linked here, including them right there in your post, and it was you who added the phrase "the prophet's" into 2 Peter 1:20, radically changing the meaning of that text, and, while you claimed you were using the Greek version of that text in your post in order to provide a more precise and accurate translation, what you actually used there was the very losely translated "New International Version - UK (NIVUK)" of 2 Peter 1:20-21, as shown here, not the Greek version which you explicitly said you were going to use.

There are a number of different ways to interpret those Bible texts (as the many differing English translations strongly attest), and I think it is obvious that you've chosen the wrong interpretation, and that is the reason why you did not really want to use the Greek like you said you were going to use, but wanted instead to use the NIVUK version that added some words to the Greek that were obviously not there already, changing the meaning of the text so that it more closely matched your own preconceived misconceptions.

(Like I said in post #587, it is always a good idea to stick to the truth.)