|
|
Post by messimom on Sept 15, 2005 9:50:13 GMT -8
As far as I understand "accepted scripture" was accepted by the Catholic church as divine. How do we know that only the books contained in the Bible are divine? What about the other writings out there? Do any need to be looked at in a new way from a Messianic perspective, or were all filtered well when the Catholic church deemed some acceptable and some not. As we know a bible didn't just fall out of the sky and hit good old King James on the head....these scripture were found through out hundreds of years, and Revelation wasn't the last book written in the time line (you shall add or take away nothing etc...). The Bible was painstakingly compiled over much time by (to my understanding) some very anti-Jewish people. So how do we know the "version" of the Bible we read is really the complete Bible, and some of those other writings in the dioces' vaults(or in other places) shouldn't be included also? Thanks
Messimom
|
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Sept 15, 2005 15:16:29 GMT -8
An excellent point, to be sure. This has also been on my mind since Shambam raised the issue in another thread. After all, the "Newer Testament" wasn't canonized until after the anti- Nicean Counsel in 325 C.E. So how do we know whether or not anything has been tampered with? I think that what is required is that an individual carefully examine the texts, comparing them with the TaNaK. Anything else would require extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as access to the Old Syriac, Pesh'tta, and several different manuscripts of Hebrew Matthew. You would also need a lot of time to accomplish that project. |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Sept 15, 2005 16:47:08 GMT -8
I believe that even though flawed men where used... Adonai's hand was upon the process. I believe the canon criteria that was used was according to the will of YHVH. Certainly, if it was any text that was pro- that was being rooted out as a criteria by some of these anti-nomian leaders...these men did a poor job of doing it. The following are some interesting facts about the Brit Chadashah (New Test.)... (the following is a summary adapted from Josh McDowell's "A Ready Defense") "The New Testament has far more manuscript evidence than any other ancient work. There are more than 24,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament, with only a 25 year time span between the original and the manuscript copies. The Iliad ranks next -- it has 643 manuscript copies with a 500 year time span between the original and the copies. Only 40 lines (400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt between the 24,000 manuscript copies, compared to 746 lines in doubt of the Iliad's 643 copies. This translates to 5% of the Iliad's text being corrupted, compared to 1/2 of 1% for the New Testament. These New Testament errors consist primarily of misspellings and duplications and affect no fundamental doctrines. To quote Sir Frederic Kenyon, an authority in the field of New Testament textual criticism:"It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain... The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other book in the world. Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us... yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands." Shalom, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by messimom on Sept 15, 2005 22:28:29 GMT -8
Good stats, Reuel. Thank you. I assume by your statement also that you feel there are no possible "missing" scriptures either? A very reasonable stand to take. I don't have a particular stand on the issue, just curiosity.
Messimom
|
|
Pioneer
Full Member
Shema and Shemar
Posts: 210
|
Post by Pioneer on Sept 19, 2005 10:25:47 GMT -8
I really enjoyed Ryans post and agree with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Sept 19, 2005 16:50:27 GMT -8
Very true Reuel. And those are definitely good stats. But, I still hold that everything should be examined through the prism of the and TaNaK. |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Sept 22, 2005 15:59:56 GMT -8
I believe that unless we have some hidden never before seen manuscripts...the ones that are known have been tested by the scriptural canon (measuring stick) of the scriptures and found not to be a 100% inspired text. I believe that if it was pertinent for Adonai's people to have a word that was from Him...He would have made it available to His people over the last few hundred years as He has the rest of the scriptures.
Agreed.
Shalom chaverim,
Reuel
|
|
|
|
Post by NaildWithHim on Oct 12, 2005 21:59:50 GMT -8
Just a couple quick comments on what has been said thus far. The Revelation quote is often used to imply taking away or adding to Scripture as a whole. This is simply a false surmise. The text implicity states "This book of prophecy", meaning the scroll of the Revelation of Messiah Yeshua. Not the entire canon. To imply that it means the whole of canon would mean that the writer of Revelation assumes this scroll would be part of a larger body of work that we have come to call the Bible. This isn't even logical folks. As for the question "What about other writings out there?" I would lean heavily on other writings carrying just as much weight to what we deem 'Scripture'. Many have been badly tampered with but nevertheless it 'tastes' like Scripture to me. The Psuedopigraphal writings is an example of what I'm driving at, and so is the Apocryphal writings. If those words aren't G-d breathed I'll eat my hat!  Shalom Naild If you ever get a chance read Tobias. |
|
|
|
Post by messimom on Oct 12, 2005 23:17:33 GMT -8
I would have to agree. Revelation certainly wasn't the last scroll written. There were others after it, and to assume the writer was referring to "The Bible" as a whole is premature. However, I feel to add anything to other books would also be a no no, as they are all YHVH-breathed, and to add to it now would be near blasphemous.
Messimom
|
|
Pioneer
Full Member
Shema and Shemar
Posts: 210
|
Post by Pioneer on Oct 13, 2005 14:39:19 GMT -8
Pr 30:6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. Misunderstood or not, it seems to me the "Eternal" when He speaks words and says "I change not" speaks completely, knowing the "End" from the beginning. Everything is in , He may open some eyes to see what is plainly written, but there are no changes. EVER! Mt.4:4 But he answered, "It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’" Quoting De. 8:3. So, everything eminated from the mouth of God in the beginning. . The Word of God was spoken from beginning to end in the beginning. Threfore there is no need for man to add to what is complete. We only need for God (via whatever means He sees fit) to reveal what is there already. The Moedim, when we rehearse them one hundred times(100/300 Yrs), we may see the end of the age and the beginning of the new age. Since His word is alive and He said something like this "Whatever you need right now. I am." My paraphrase of "I shall be what I shall be." The Sages of Israel were extra careful when transcribing the word of God, if only everyone who put pen to paper had been so dutiful we wouldn't have errors like _ _ ster, ghost(holy or otherwise) trinity, rapture and Sunday worship to name only a few! Those who transmitted error will have to pay the price for misleading the seekers of truth. Again my opinion, when the end of the age comes and those saved out of this age and they enter the kingdom of (heaven) God, there will be some disappointed people when they are denied access to the City of God. But yet these wont be the least in the kingdom! Mt 5:19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. |
|
|
|
Post by NaildWithHim on Oct 13, 2005 18:15:09 GMT -8
I would have to agree. Revelation certainly wasn't the last scroll written. There were others after it, and to assume the writer was referring to "The Bible" as a whole is premature. However, I feel to add anything to other books would also be a no no, as they are all YHVH-breathed, and to add to it now would be near blasphemous.
Messimom Hi Messimom. I agree with you 100%. I was pointing out that Revelation 22:18-19 is often taken out of context. The contextual meaning is referring to the very scroll the words appear in, and no other. However, as Pioneer has pointed out, it was already written that nothing should be added or taken away from . Here's another example: (Deu 4:1-2) Now, Yisra'el, listen to the statutes and to the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, gives you. You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the mitzvot of the LORD your God which I command you. Something that just gets under my skin is Scripture taken out of it's proper context. I don't know why that is. Maybe because I had been duped by Churchianity and fell victim to their most loudly trumpeted 'proof texts' of false doctrine. Yes, it is in fact proper theology to say that nothing should be added or taken away from the Word of G-d, but that isn't what Revelation 22:18-19 is teaching. If this were true you can bet those plagues would be inflicted upon us all because we are ALL guilty. At some point or another. As for what the R.C.C has deemed canon I cannot disagree with what has been canonized is in fact the Word of G-d. However, they did in fact leave some Scripture out as well. Just my opinion. Shalom Naild |
|
|
|
Post by NaildWithHim on Oct 13, 2005 18:22:37 GMT -8
Everything is in , He may open some eyes to see what is plainly written, but there are no changes. EVER!
Hello Pioneer, If this is a true statement then show me Hebrews chapter 9 in ? Shalom Naild |
|
Pioneer
Full Member
Shema and Shemar
Posts: 210
|
Post by Pioneer on Oct 13, 2005 20:55:54 GMT -8
Mt 13:35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: "I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world." Mt 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Ps.78:22 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, 3 Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us. 4 We will not hide them from their children, Telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done. 5 For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children; 6 That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children, We only need for God (via whatever means He sees fit) to reveal what is there already. I think your problem is that if you can't call it an addition no one could be saved. The eunuch, minister of Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, had no problem being baptized into the kingdom without a Hebrews chapter 9. Or the three thousand without Revelations, recieving his word and were baptized(Acts 2:41). I shouldn't need to point out that the Mashiach is told in Ge.2:15, right there in plain sight, but until he was ready for you and I to see it, kinda hidden in plainsight. Adam was created in Gods image, was perfect, had perfect blood, but he made a bad choice, God knew he would and provided the second Adam again with perfect blood. His blood was shed as redemption for mans sin. Our written record just makes it harder for non-believers to deny. Remember Abram did not have the word of the Lord in him when he answered Gods call. Isa 55:11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it. If you need a revelation to complete your call, rest assured God can and will if required send you a message via a "Dumb Donkey" (like me) or whatever way that is unknown to you or I. I heard the other night that the bible codes reveal every thing you have done, they went on to say predict the future. But since I can't prove it myself via , I'll just be amazed, shocked or in awe after the fact. |
|
|
|
Post by NaildWithHim on Oct 17, 2005 23:00:35 GMT -8
Pioneer,
Billions were saved between the time period of the two Adams. No wonder why your so eager to get steamed up with me. You still have absolutely no idea on my doctrinal positions. If that's my problem that you stated above, then in reality I have no problem because that's a false statement.
You still didn't answer my question.
Go figure.
Shalom
Naild
|
|
Pioneer
Full Member
Shema and Shemar
Posts: 210
|
Post by Pioneer on Oct 18, 2005 10:52:11 GMT -8
Naild, as best I could. I am not in your head to know what answer you wanted.
|
|
Nicean Counsel in 325 C.E. 
