They are never wrong....
Scripture - Its Use And Abuse
- Thread starter PeaceLikeaRiver
- Start date
One variable that is missing in this discussion is interpretation. It is more than likely that biblical scripture will be perceived is many different ways, and that is okay! It is actually very healthy in groups to have a diverse portfolio of ideas, interpretations and perceptions.
MMurphy
Inactive
That's rude and presumptuous mitspa. The point is that it takes more than scholasticism to decide to exclude books from the canon of scripture. People argue that the descrepencies in the geonology of Jesus between Mathew and Luke prove one is wrong.
No its not rude to suggest that some real study is needed to understand this issue, and its clear that some have not studied this issue to a point where they can speak about it in a productive and reasonable way.
And there is no conflict between Matthew and Luke...only people who don't understand the reasons for the these books and what they are trying to reveal about Christ. Some are so ignorant of the scriptures and their purpose, but are so full of pride that they cannot be taught.
MMurphy
Inactive
The genologies aren't coherent mitspa. I could just as easily say that you are ignorant of the apocryphal and its purpose. Its rude to say what you say and is condescending. Would you like it if I brought in some seminary professor who told you to shut up because you can't fluently speak Hebrew or Coptic and thus have no right to declare what is scripturally true?
They are completely coherent for their intended purpose..you don't understand the purpose of the different gospels...so it IMPOSSIBLE for you to understand these things and because of your pride its impossible for me to teach you!
MMurphy
Inactive
I have only one teacher mitspa, and while I'm sure your convinced you are Him your not.
The genologies do not follow the same decendents especially after David.
Most apologists say this is because Luke describes Mary not Joseph, but its not clear from the scripture. If you rely on scholarship, though, one has to go.
HisManySongs
Passed on, February 28, 2022
MMurphy & Mitspa: opposite corners and take a breather... but DON'T come out fighting.
MMurphy
Inactive
I'll resign from this thread. I don't think its a discussion important enough for tempers to flare.
I can see where reading this would raise concern. The dates and people are right, but the lack of context does make it sound very conspiratorial. In fact the language even seems a bit like that's what they were going for- "...many have been removed and there is evidence that many more fell under the same fate." sounds a bit more sensational than scholarly and the dismissal of context -"Regardless of his reasons, he was the first to do this."- is a bit of a red flag too.
In my understanding, the same 27 books in our NT had been set apart as primary and inspired long before (at least 1200 years) Luther. Arguments about the inclusion of other extant texts were nothing new, but their inclusion was not usually allowed on the basis of divine inspiration so much as the desire to hold on to every early church artifact we could to strengthen our connection to them.
Luther's bible didn't change the status of which books were considered inspired for the last millennium. It moved what were already considered secondary letters to a new volume in order to keep the accepted inspired books clearly set apart. This way the newly empowered laity would be less likely to be confused in their application of "sola scriptura." Over all, it seemed like a prudent idea, which is why it was accepted. The only place Luther really tried to buck the already accepted view of the inspired books was the relegation of james, revelation, jude, and hebrews. Unlike what became the apocrypha, these books were already widely considered inspired for the last 1200 years and so the church did not accept their reclassification.
Anywho, didn't mean to post a book. To me at least, the article had a conspiratorial "oh no! Luther made a brand new definition of what constituted the inspired word of God 1500 years after Christ!" kind of vibe that could leave someone concerned and, again for me, this context makes that concern seem unfounded.
Oh it is an error in the Bible when Lucifer was purposely inserted into the Vulgate with the expressed intent to cull heretics in Jerome's time. THEN it gets pushed right into the KJV, because the boys working on that had no CLUE that it was politically placed into the text by a pope, that the protestants claim not to recognise.
Oh and there's a unicorn in the KJV as well.
Not to mention so many copy errors throughout the middle ages. So you could have many version of the same bible.
Hence why we have to go back to the source and use context. Or else we'll believe that a whale is a fish, unicorns are made of God and that the political machinations of a bishop are correct for scriptural reference.
Well I agree that these errors are found in the KJV and in other "translations"...but the Greek text has been preserved by Gods divine hand and we need not depend upon Rome or a text and translation that was put together by this king. We have overwhelming witnesses to the true Greek and to my knowledge there is no errors but an amazing accuracy that goes far beyond mans ability to understand.
I am including all the Apocryphal books.
Question was..........
"How do you feel about the woman caught in adultery."
I am glad that she was forgiven because she is exactly like me! A sinner, forgiven and blessed by the Lord Jesus Christ.
My question would be......"What about those men who accused her. Were they just as guility as she was of the same thing and is that why they disappeared????
Just to make sure we are all on the same page allow me to post the definition of "scholastism".
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the system of theological and philosophical teaching predominant in the Middle Ages, based chiefly upon the authority of the church fathers and of Aristotle and his commentators.
2.
narrow adherence to traditional teachings, doctrines, or methods.
I hear you and the fact is that what you say has been used by skeptics for about 2000 years now. My opinion is that
the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. It is well established that breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc.
Therefore, one genealogy might be of Mary and the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.
Another thought is that it would be difficult to accept that those who collected the books of the New Testament and who believed it was inerrant were unaware of this blatant difference in genealogies. They must have understood what the historical/cultural context was and had no problem with it.
But that is just me and certainly does not make it correct.
God bless you brother. That is what I have said and stand by it. It is impossible for a true believer to read those books and come away saying they are God's Word. They are clearly not!
Yes it is when it totally contradicts the accepted canon of Scriptures.
Here is the problem with the Apocryphal books. I will use just one, The Book of Enoch which some many people want to believe.
To the Biblically ignorant( un-learned) reader, the Book of Enoch might have an appeal; but to a believer grounded in the Scriptures, the Book of Enoch is packed full of heresy.
For example:
Enoch 40:1-10...........
1" And after that I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand, I saw a multitude 2 beyond number and reckoning, who stood before the Lord of Spirits. And on the four sides of the Lord of Spirits I saw four presences, different from those that sleep not, and I learnt their names: for the angel that went with me made known to me their names, and showed me all the hidden things. 3 And I heard the voices of those four presences as they uttered praises before the Lord of glory. 4 The first voice blesses the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever. 5 And the second voice I heard blessing 6 the Elect One and the elect ones who hang upon the Lord of Spirits. And the third voice I heard pray and intercede for those who dwell on the earth and supplicate in the name of the Lord of Spirits. 7 And I heard the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord 8 of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth. After that I asked the angel of peace who went with me, who showed me everything that is hidden: ‘Who are these four presences which I have 9 seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’ 10 And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days. "
Now then, the Bible never mentions an angel named Phanuel, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life. That folks is real blasphemy! That statement in itself contradicts everything the Word of God teaches.
What does the Word of God say???? 1st Timothy 2:5 says.......
"that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between God and men"...........
, not some angel named Phanuel... "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Repentance is strictly between a man and Jesus Christ alone.
Only Jesus died for our sins, and shed His blood to pay for them (1st Peter 1:18-19); therefore, we must be diligent to guard and defend against LIARS and imposters who would lead people to believe otherwise. 1st John 2:22 clearly indicts all Christ-deniers as LIARS, guilty before God.
Now here's chapter 48:1-3...
1" And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits."
Was the Son of Man named? When was Jesus named in Heaven? This is an attack on the deity of Jesus. Jesus Himself claimed in Revelation 1:8, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
Jesus is Eternal, without beginning or end. Head of Days? Lord of Spirits? These terms are NOT found in the Bible. IF the Book of Enoch were valid, composing well over 100 chapters, there should be numerous New Testament references to it; but there aren't. Although some people claim that the Bible quotes the Book of Enoch over 100 times, this is simply not true. Just as the Qur'an, the Book of Enoch borrows from the Word of God. In sharp contrast to the Book of Enoch, the New Testament often quotes the Book of Genesis.
Again I say that when a true believers read the exact words of these books which is Enoch as an example. he will be convicted of the
errors and how they contradict the Word of God.
If that does not happen, then there is a deeper problem than just wanting to accept these books as God's holy Word.
LOL........!
I agree that the Greek is the way to go as we literally have source material still there.
But we have to be careful that when we read the Greek we don't assume too much. Just like the issue I am having with the people on here about Jesus dealing with the moneychangers and the use of ekballo and biazo in Greek. If they do not pay attention to the actual words they think in error that Jesus was hitting people with the scourge. Which is not the same as a whip as poor translations gives.
Well let every man be diligent and study to show themselves approved before God, a workman who is without shame who rightly divides the Word... I don't see a great issue in your point? If Christ struck others or not with this whip..the intention is to warn all that He rules the Fathers house and all who would corrupt the House of God should fear at the judgment that is coming to them. Be sure that fear is very much apart of the truth, because often fear is needed against the pride of man to bring them to the true grace of God.
I see him striking another as hypocritical as he said turn and give the other cheek.
if he says to us do this and he does opposite hes not God.