C
Cap
Guest
Would you consider yourself Protestant or Catholic, I'm confused.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
A question regarding scripture, Located within the Gospel of Mark.
- Thread starter Herbie
- Start date
Would you consider yourself Protestant or Catholic, I'm confused.
This is exactly what the KJV translators record in the original preface. The only difference is that they chose the Masoretic text as opposed to the Septuagint text which had the deuterocanonical books (which are now included in the Apocryphal books but predate them by centuries in most cases)
Irenaeus defends the Septuagint fiercely as the uncorrupted standard used by the Apostles to his time (175 AD) and castigated (I assume) the Masoretics as heretics for deviating from the Septuagint and reinterpreting the OT from the perspective of anti Jesus. The same perspective that some use to castigate the Talmuds. From what I can tell it’s practically the same people or ideology doing both the Masoretic text and the Talmuds. Justin Martyr does as well.
I'll answer that too, as it might be helpful:
I'm a Protestant, but I find value in reading the Catholic and Orthodox versions of the Bible.
If you read my "Marriage from the Bible Alone" document you'll find I cite from the apocrypha alongside the Protestant canon in order to provide a more detailed perspective on marriage (being very clear to distinguish so as not to confuse readers). I see the apocryphal works as worth using to add additional understanding, but to be held less firmly given the historical debate and not used to contradict those works that everyone agrees are canonical, just used to add further detail to our understanding. In this case, I use it to provide an additional and more detailed scriptural example of marriage to back up what I'm saying and flesh out the details, since the Protestant scriptures contain few weddings and limited information about them. I think this is a good example of how these books can be valuable.
C
Cap
Guest
Then I have to ask what is the Bible to you?
The translators intro is very enlightening; one of the biggest arguments against KJV only there is.
My incredible wife found this at a used curriculum store here in Tulsa. I’ve just started it but it looks quite interesting. Possibly a really good reference book.
https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Sync...&s=gateway&sprefix=Genesis+Rob,aps,171&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Sync...&s=gateway&sprefix=Genesis+Rob,aps,171&sr=8-1
Nice! Great find! Lol
I used to really dig Rob Skiba actually. I enjoyed much of his stuff.... until he got into flat earth stuff ... then it was like everything else he was doing fell away.
Sadly it almost seemed to me like the enemy used flat earth to distract Rob and get him to stop preaching and teaching the things he was previously passionate about! :/
IIRC Rob Skiba keeps a very large folder of testimonials from people who have come to faith in Christ as a result of his work on flat earth.
True or not, flat earth really burns through the false teachings of the church of Science.
In Tolkein's Middle Earth, the world is both spherical and flat, depending on who you are. Every elf knows that the world is flat, and if they sail west they can get to the Undying Lands. Every mortal knows that the world is spherical, and if they sail west they reach the eastern shores. I believe that many times, God's children, even when writing fiction, write better and more prophetically than they know.
I am reminded that light behaves as a wave, or a particle, depending on whether or not it is being observed. I am also reminded that Satan took Jesus to "a high mountain" to show Him all the kingdoms of the world. The mechanism behind this escapes me. Whether this is a function of three dimensions or fourteen is at least for me, a non-issue.
More to the point: I think Jesus has people from many flocks, and some of those flocks are very weird. Rob Skiba preaches Christ out of what I believe a pure conscience and genuine intent. I believe Jesus would tell us to leave him alone and not forbid him, because he who is not against us is for us, and no-one could say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit. Gamiliel would advise to take no action, because if his teaching is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God we don't want to get in the way of that.
I know the crazy folk who have been broken enough by distrust in the lies told to them by authorities that they don't believe in anything unless it is being actively being suppressed or is completely ridiculous to "the sheeple". Like the earth actually being flat or birds not being real. They are not that distant cousins to many of us, really. Who can reach them? You can catch a few by saying "Come now, you schizo freak, everything you are all about is nonsense. Look at these well documented scientific facts and come down to the perfectly round earth and get to know Jesus, your maker". I'm not being sarcastic. I believe you really can. Others can be caught by a guy like Skiba saying "You aren't crazy, man. Here are the bible verses that strongly support a flat earth, which IS being suppressed, just like the Luciferian world system is trying to suppress our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ."
The decision about which tactics should be allowable is made at a pay grade far above mine. I'm not a General in this army. I can tell by counting the number of people who take orders from me.
I am reminded that light behaves as a wave, or a particle, depending on whether or not it is being observed. I am also reminded that Satan took Jesus to "a high mountain" to show Him all the kingdoms of the world. The mechanism behind this escapes me. Whether this is a function of three dimensions or fourteen is at least for me, a non-issue.
More to the point: I think Jesus has people from many flocks, and some of those flocks are very weird. Rob Skiba preaches Christ out of what I believe a pure conscience and genuine intent. I believe Jesus would tell us to leave him alone and not forbid him, because he who is not against us is for us, and no-one could say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit. Gamiliel would advise to take no action, because if his teaching is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God we don't want to get in the way of that.
I know the crazy folk who have been broken enough by distrust in the lies told to them by authorities that they don't believe in anything unless it is being actively being suppressed or is completely ridiculous to "the sheeple". Like the earth actually being flat or birds not being real. They are not that distant cousins to many of us, really. Who can reach them? You can catch a few by saying "Come now, you schizo freak, everything you are all about is nonsense. Look at these well documented scientific facts and come down to the perfectly round earth and get to know Jesus, your maker". I'm not being sarcastic. I believe you really can. Others can be caught by a guy like Skiba saying "You aren't crazy, man. Here are the bible verses that strongly support a flat earth, which IS being suppressed, just like the Luciferian world system is trying to suppress our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ."
The decision about which tactics should be allowable is made at a pay grade far above mine. I'm not a General in this army. I can tell by counting the number of people who take orders from me.
Amen @Slumberfreeze !
I praise God for His son Rob Skiba who is advancing the Kingdom of God. Good brother. Just personally lost interest in continuing to follow his ministry after he got into flat earth stuff.
I praise God for His son Rob Skiba who is advancing the Kingdom of God. Good brother. Just personally lost interest in continuing to follow his ministry after he got into flat earth stuff.
Same here tbh. I realized I couldn't hang in that world very much after @FollowingHim took me to the cleaners, lol
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
If Yeshua/ Jesus is the Word,( Since the beginning) and He is just as alive and active today as He was immediately after resurrection, then wouldn't it stand to reason that Scripture is still being written today?
I was brought up in a belief structure that taught that the Holy Spirit was only for the ushering in of the church than the power was given over to the church. And now the church has the role of the Holy Spirit minus the miraculous!!!!
Yet as I studied historical scripture I came to a different understanding. The Holy Spirit is just as alive and powerful today as ever.
It seems to me in the same way as the Holy Spirit was put away on a shelf. The same mindset says scripture was only written during x period of time.
The whole cursed is he who adds or takes away from Scripture is often thrown in here. Yet those words are brought over from the old testament. Not sure on references. Yet clearly the new testament is considered as not having added.
My belief is that the Word is not going to contradict Himself. So if you are finding other writings with clear contradictions Than it's not the Word.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
If Yeshua/ Jesus is the Word,( Since the beginning) and He is just as alive and active today as He was immediately after resurrection, then wouldn't it stand to reason that Scripture is still being written today?
I was brought up in a belief structure that taught that the Holy Spirit was only for the ushering in of the church than the power was given over to the church. And now the church has the role of the Holy Spirit minus the miraculous!!!!
Yet as I studied historical scripture I came to a different understanding. The Holy Spirit is just as alive and powerful today as ever.
It seems to me in the same way as the Holy Spirit was put away on a shelf. The same mindset says scripture was only written during x period of time.
The whole cursed is he who adds or takes away from Scripture is often thrown in here. Yet those words are brought over from the old testament. Not sure on references. Yet clearly the new testament is considered as not having added.
My belief is that the Word is not going to contradict Himself. So if you are finding other writings with clear contradictions Than it's not the Word.
I've also heard some teach that the early church had the Holy Spirit but only because they didn't have the Bible, and now that we have the scriptures the spirit only talks to us through these. That is an incredibly dangerous viewpoint if you understand what Christ and Paul said of the HS.
But just because Christ lives and the HS still works in our hearts does not mean it suits God's purpose to still create scripture.
And let's face it, the track record of 'new' scriptures isn't very encouraging.
But there is nothing new about Enoch; or the other writings included in the greater cannon's of the other branches of Christianity.
I also believe wherever man is involved there is the possibility of fallacies. So to me someone saying a certain Bible translation is infallible is saying the men that did the translation were equal with God. But I also whole heartedly believe that bible contains the Word. My opinion is that the Word cannot be contained within 66 books. Therefore I don't believe in worshipping the book. Or the men that compiled it.
We are told in the Gospel of John that the Holy Spirit was sent to lead and guide us into all Truth.
We are told in the Gospel of John that the Holy Spirit was sent to lead and guide us into all Truth.
C
Cap
Guest
I believe that the Word of God, however or wherever it is described as scripture does not change or is not new, but it is our understanding of it that changes and what becomes new.
The reason "fathers" and "wives" are not in the second list in Mark 10 could be, for "fathers", similar to why Jesus said to "call no man your father upon earth", and, for "wives", because a wife is one flesh, and he did not want to suggest anything against it; and also one can receive parents and siblings and children through adopting or becoming adopted, but does not receive a spouse through adoption, and so it ties naturally into that picture of adoption.
I do not think the reason was that receiving wives would be adultery, as the putting away of a wife is the adultery, rather than taking another. Taking another is mentioned no doubt because it was the most common reason for divorce. A parallel is "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." - Exodus 21:10. Thus what Christ forbids would be contrasted biblically (and in the minds of his hearers) not with monogamy, but with not divorcing: marrying and being faithful to two wives included, like the example in Exodus.
Also to assume that receiving wives would be like divorcing and remarrying of course assumes that you divorce an unbelieving wife, which would be adultery. Losing a wife for the kingdom of heaven obviously does not mean you divorce them: they may divorce you, which of course does not restrict you from marrying, even if you thought marriage was restricted after divorcing someone. According to Scripture a man who has divorced a woman should take her back (if she has not adulterously married another), just as much so if he himself has married another (and this case is actually more in tune with the biblical example). But the culture makes the commandment of God of no effect through their tradition, and in fact call the commandment of God "adultery".
The Bible can be translated perfectly because that is the doctrine of preservation: if we cannot authoritatively translate some word in the Bible, then God has not preserved it, and part is lost. But there are many languages that do not have a translation, many more that only have an imperfect one, and it is not at all impossible that English is one of them, with their godlike pride of culture. The KJV has been defended by the same arguments they argue against in the case of corrupt modern translations, though the KJV is at least far less corrupt.
There is no pride in saying that man can perfectly translate the Bible. You can't do everything perfectly, but you can spell "cat" perfectly, without error (obviously there is no pride there). Perfection of translation is the same, just more tedious, and is limited only by our knowledge of what the original work to be translated means. In the case of the Bible, perfect knowledge can be had through the preservation of God: if we have access to that and acknowledge it, then perfect translation is only a matter of patience, not doubt.
As to which books, this was decided by the prophets who wrote them. Many extra-biblical books were read alongside the Bible, but which books the Bible consists of has been accepted since the prophets. Catholics canonized these extra-biblical books (just as they canonized their own traditions), and Protestants tried to delete whole books of Scripture, but the Bible has continued the same before and after their mishandling. God spoke many things that are not in the Bible, as the Bible records, but through his prophets he chose not to include them in the Scriptures, and thus they are not perfectly preserved into this present time.
As to Paul, I would point out something people seem to miss:
"6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God." - Romans 2
This could have taken straight out of Ezekiel 33. The reason people see some kind of disconnect with Paul is because they aren't reading him. They are only reading the "unstable and unlearned men" who "wrest his words to their own destruction" as Peter said. Paul got the highest degree of revelation, and thus he must in a sense be read last of all, after one is stable and learned in the Scriptures, because Paul has many things "hard to be understood", and it is these things that had already in his day become the target of many false doctrines.
I do not think the reason was that receiving wives would be adultery, as the putting away of a wife is the adultery, rather than taking another. Taking another is mentioned no doubt because it was the most common reason for divorce. A parallel is "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." - Exodus 21:10. Thus what Christ forbids would be contrasted biblically (and in the minds of his hearers) not with monogamy, but with not divorcing: marrying and being faithful to two wives included, like the example in Exodus.
Also to assume that receiving wives would be like divorcing and remarrying of course assumes that you divorce an unbelieving wife, which would be adultery. Losing a wife for the kingdom of heaven obviously does not mean you divorce them: they may divorce you, which of course does not restrict you from marrying, even if you thought marriage was restricted after divorcing someone. According to Scripture a man who has divorced a woman should take her back (if she has not adulterously married another), just as much so if he himself has married another (and this case is actually more in tune with the biblical example). But the culture makes the commandment of God of no effect through their tradition, and in fact call the commandment of God "adultery".
The Bible can be translated perfectly because that is the doctrine of preservation: if we cannot authoritatively translate some word in the Bible, then God has not preserved it, and part is lost. But there are many languages that do not have a translation, many more that only have an imperfect one, and it is not at all impossible that English is one of them, with their godlike pride of culture. The KJV has been defended by the same arguments they argue against in the case of corrupt modern translations, though the KJV is at least far less corrupt.
There is no pride in saying that man can perfectly translate the Bible. You can't do everything perfectly, but you can spell "cat" perfectly, without error (obviously there is no pride there). Perfection of translation is the same, just more tedious, and is limited only by our knowledge of what the original work to be translated means. In the case of the Bible, perfect knowledge can be had through the preservation of God: if we have access to that and acknowledge it, then perfect translation is only a matter of patience, not doubt.
As to which books, this was decided by the prophets who wrote them. Many extra-biblical books were read alongside the Bible, but which books the Bible consists of has been accepted since the prophets. Catholics canonized these extra-biblical books (just as they canonized their own traditions), and Protestants tried to delete whole books of Scripture, but the Bible has continued the same before and after their mishandling. God spoke many things that are not in the Bible, as the Bible records, but through his prophets he chose not to include them in the Scriptures, and thus they are not perfectly preserved into this present time.
As to Paul, I would point out something people seem to miss:
"6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God." - Romans 2
This could have taken straight out of Ezekiel 33. The reason people see some kind of disconnect with Paul is because they aren't reading him. They are only reading the "unstable and unlearned men" who "wrest his words to their own destruction" as Peter said. Paul got the highest degree of revelation, and thus he must in a sense be read last of all, after one is stable and learned in the Scriptures, because Paul has many things "hard to be understood", and it is these things that had already in his day become the target of many false doctrines.