BTW, does bug you, like it does me, that a lot of people skip the intro? There's usually a lot of good stuff in there! Hey, I just thought of a solution! From now on, book writers should just call it Chapter 1 instead of Introduction, and shift all the other chapter numbers accordingly!
I'm currently writing a book that will, of course, rival "Purpose Driven Life" in sales. Blume will use it as a textbook for teaching, I'm sure. But anyway, it has no intro, for exactly that purpose. I never read intros. I just wanna get it over with. So my intro is chapter one.
I'm currently writing a book that will, of course, rival "Purpose Driven Life" in sales. Blume will use it as a textbook for teaching, I'm sure. But anyway, it has no intro, for exactly that purpose. I never read intros. I just wanna get it over with. So my intro is chapter one.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
I didn't say we are in danger of falling into apostasy in the absence of the availability of a Bible...my point was that selectively discounting, or discrediting parts of the Bible will lead to apostasy....lot of difference there
Originally Posted by deadeye
I realize that there are variations and differences in translations.....and i also realize that some are better than others. However i believe that what has been delivered to us is the Infallible Word of God, and that it is our responsibility to "rightly divide the Word".
Sure there are things and scriptures that need research to have a better understanding, but when we start questioning the Flood, sun standing still, etc...we might as well throw the whole thing out....we can strive to understand it better but to selectively discount portions of the Bible is a slippery slope that ends in apostasy.
Ok, here is your post. Here is mine;
Originally Posted by NotforSale
Deadeye, one question for you. The current Bible we possess was mass distributed starting in the early 1800's, as modern day printing presses had not been invented yet. This means, mankind as a whole never had a "Bible".
So, how did mankind in the context of all time conceive God and His will before the Bible became a part of mainstay reading by the common people?
I believe we are guilty of drawing vain conclusions by stating we will fall into apostasy without a Bible, when humanity as a whole on this Planet never even knew what a Bible was.
Maybe we both need to refine our comments or responses. But, I can't help ask you again; What did people do before the Bible became the mainstay Book of the Religious World?
Access to the Bible was primarily in the hands of the Catholic Church. In fact, even Catholics in my family were forbidden to own a Bible. The Church felt that is was their responsibility to handle this Divine Word, and that the laity needed to accept that or pay the price. I went to Catholic school for 6 years and not once did I see a Bible.
"The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally suppressed, opposed, and forbidden the open use of the Bible. It was first officially forbidden to the people and placed on the index of Forbidden Books List by the Council of Valencia in 1229 A.D. The Council of Trent (1545-63 A.D.) also prohibited its use and pronounced a curse upon anyone who would dare oppose this decree. Many popes have issued decrees forbidding Bible reading in the common language of the people, condemning Bible societies and banning its possession and translation under penalty of mortal sin and death. The Roman Catholic Church has openly burned Bibles and those who translated it or promoted its study, reading, and use (John Hus, 1415 A.D.; William Tyndale, 1536 A.D.)
Though external pressures have caused Rome to relax its restrictions and opposition against Bible reading in America, the Bible is still widely withheld and its distribution and free use discouraged in many countries which are heavily influenced by Roman Catholicism."
With this and other facts in mind regarding limited understanding of stories in the Bible, such as the Great Flood of Noah, which we dissect down to the last letter because we can, please tell me what human beings did before this current age of total access to Scripture?
I feel we are guilty today of placing everyone into our Box or Idea without a deep consideration of other generations who had to define God by more of an instinct, rather than our tabled Idea that if we dare question something from this Book we will face the consequences.
Think about it Deadeye, in all honesty, the 20th Century is the only Century in Time where man truly opened the pages of a Bible. Why is it that we are now responsible to put God in there without question or rebuttal? Hey, the Book says it, so I believe it!! This is not only wrong, but puts the entire human race at risk of being lost if we take this Book literally from the Apostolic Church's perspective.
I find it a big mistake that the unlearned and ignorant took this Book, claiming it's validity without proving its authenticity. It's simple. Just accept it. The Church say's "That's the Book for me, the B I B L E", and that settles it. In the past this worked. Men stood behind pulpits making the laity feel as if they would be struck by lightning if they ever questioned this Holy Oracle.
But today, we are capable of understanding much of past cultures, peoples, and Nations. We no longer comprehend our Planet from distant or made up ideas, we can go there if we want to and put our fingers into their soil. We don't observe War, Disease, Corrupt Governments, Natural Disasters, and many other things from a clouded lens anymore. In the last 50 years, our ability to understand the realities of nature and Human life is changing the way we all think. "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" theology is waning under the microscope of the Facts, which is leading us away from being manipulated by a spectral world that cannot be questioned.
We also see today the array of Religions on this Earth coming from this one Book. Where there used to be just a handful of Faith's, we now have 1000's all claiming their divine "Take". They had a revelation. God spoke to them. And, this Forum is no different. We have our "Take", and if we're not careful, those who don't agree with us will be deemed as destined to the Lake of Fire, the exact mindset that filled the Dark Ages of few Centuries ago.
Peoples and Nations who stop questioning Authority will end up being ruled by Tyrants, and Religion is included in this debauched ending by demanding the acceptance of things that cannot be proven.
Not at all. There is no way getting rid of sin can give me God's righteousness by that act alone and no other factor. But the truth is God refuses to give us His righteousness if we are unwilling to release sin.
No. But it allows for God to grant us right standing. That is what I was trying to say about our hands being full disabling us from receiving something from another person. In this case if our hands hold sin, they are not open to receive the gift of righteousness from God. Emptying our hands does not make us righteous. Emptying our hands allows God to give us the free gift of righteousness.
This is a basic principle. God will not impute righteousness while we desire and are involved in sin. That is the reason that after Adam ate the forbidden fruit God said, Adam had to leave the Garden LEST HE ALSO take of the fruit of life. We cannot mingle unrighteousness with righteousness. Romans 1 says wrath is reserved for those who hold truth in unrighteousness.
Ridding ourselves of sin is in no way a manner of working our way to righteousness. If it were, then it would not be a case of God imputing righteousness top us, but us contriving SELF righteousness.
Hey Mike, I'd like to read this article you're referring to. Does it need to be emailed? I can PM the address to you.
But on the "Cross Alone" topic, I guess we're at an impasse. The topic has been hashed, rehashed, and overhashed. The main point I jumped in with was when you claimed you eliminated sin from your life, and as a result, received "The Holy Ghost" as you see receiving it, which is, as you see it, a necessary part of salvation. That, to me, is a system of bettering yourself in order to be saved. I'm sorry, I've tried to hear your heart, what you're saying, and how you're saying it, and it still just all adds up to you improving yourself in order to obtain God's grace.
Obviously, you disagree. I guess we'll let it go at that. For me, "Grace" that depends on us getting better, isn't grace. That would be more like a reward, not grace. Sorry Mike, I just can't get around this one.
Hey Mike, I'd like to read this article you're referring to. Does it need to be emailed? I can PM the address to you.
But on the "Cross Alone" topic, I guess we're at an impasse. The topic has been hashed, rehashed, and overhashed. The main point I jumped in with was when you claimed you eliminated sin from your life, and as a result, received "The Holy Ghost" as you see receiving it, which is, as you see it, a necessary part of salvation. That, to me, is a system of bettering yourself in order to be saved. I'm sorry, I've tried to hear your heart, what you're saying, and how you're saying it, and it still just all adds up to you improving yourself in order to obtain God's grace.
Obviously, you disagree. I guess we'll let it go at that. For me, "Grace" that depends on us getting better, isn't grace. That would be more like a reward, not grace. Sorry Mike, I just can't get around this one.
Regarding ridding self of sin, and our disagreement, whatever. Ridding self of sin, as I described it, is simply admitting it is wrong and refusing to hold onto it any more. In short, repentance. You claim we need repentance to be saved, and that it is not a work. It is a work, but not to make us righteous. And unless you can see what I described is repentance, then we indeed are at an impasse.
Only God can remove sin from us, when WE REPENT, and only God can give the Holy Ghost. So I do not know how you make that something categorized as improving ourselves. To disagree is to say God does not mind us holding onto sin. Since I cannot accept that, then you and I cannot agree. I will never preach that God lets us hold onto sin and saves us anyway. But if I should say, "So, I do not think you got what I was trying to say," since I could not imagine you believing God lets us retain sin, you would shut me down again. So I will leave it as disagreement.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Regarding ridding self of sin, and our disagreement, whatever. Ridding self of sin, as I described it, is simply admitting it is wrong and refusing to hold onto it any more. In short, repentance. You claim we need repentance to be saved, and that it is not a work. It is a work, but not to make us righteous. And unless you can see what I described is repentance, then we indeed are at an impasse.
Only God can remove sin from us, when WE REPENT, and only God can give the Holy Ghost. So I do not know how you make that something categorized as improving ourselves. To disagree is to say God does not mind us holding onto sin. Since I cannot accept that, then you and I cannot agree. I will never preach that God lets us hold onto sin and saves us anyway.
Well, I read an ENTIRE book one time....well, almost, got a little bored....ok, about half of a book, once....fine, I read the introduction....but really, I'd love to read it.
Good grief...just wanted to wrap this up and then you go and say something like only you can say. So if I disagree with your take on salvation, I'm saying that God does not mind us holding onto sin????? Mike, I'd sure like to call you a name right now but it's against AFF rules!
So Mike, if you disagree with me, you're saying that the Pope is the final authority on all things and the Catholic Church rules. Whatever. Way to stretch it there, Mike.
But I must say, you've changed your tune since your original post I called you on. You now say...."Ridding self of sin, as I described it, is simply admitting it is wrong and refusing to hold onto it any more. In short, repentance." That's about a galaxy from what you originally said.
Here's that quotePost 682, page 69)..."I personally know from experience that I sought the Spirit baptism for six months. The trouble was, that I knew I was not letting go of some sins, and when I let go of them I got the Spirit right away! I can only go by my experience. It is not hard. Letting go of sin may be what is hard."
So we don't have to do all this again, but if you're going to have the audacity to say that if I don't agree with you then I believe God wants us to hold on to sin, then you're a........................oops, there's that rule again!
Well, I read an ENTIRE book one time....well, almost, got a little bored....ok, about half of a book, once....fine, I read the introduction....but really, I'd love to read it.
Good grief...just wanted to wrap this up and then you go and say something like only you can say. So if I disagree with your take on salvation, I'm saying that God does not mind us holding onto sin????? Mike, I'd sure like to call you a name right now but it's against AFF rules!
Well I tried explaining that to you at the start, and you could not get any further than reading "You are not getting what I am saying." That is why I said you surely do not agree with God condoning sin. How else can I tell you that you must not have gotten my point than saying you must not have gotten my point? lol
Quote:
So Mike, if you disagree with me, you're saying that the Pope is the final authority on all things and the Catholic Church rules.
No. I am saying you must think God condones sin.
Quote:
Whatever. Way to stretch it there, Mike.
No stretch at all. It's just you will not let me explain myself to you.
Quote:
But I must say, you've changed your tune since your original post I called you on. You now say...."Ridding self of sin, as I described it, is simply admitting it is wrong and refusing to hold onto it any more. In short, repentance." That's about a galaxy from what you originally said.
No, it's just you would not read past, "You're not getting my point," when I said the same thing in every explanation I tried to give you. Your A.D.D. hindered you from reading that far.
Quote:
So we don't have to do all this again, but if you're going to have the audacity to say that if I don't agree with you then I believe God wants us to hold on to sin, then you're a........................oops, there's that rule again!
Well, if you would read all I explained, you would know that I only described repentance. I said in my first explanation that I MEANT I WOULD NOT REPENT. And its a two way street. You can have audacity, and no one else can? You had the audacity to say I preach salvation by works when I was only describing repentance. Let's all say "OOOPS!"
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Well I tried explaining that to you at the start, and you could not get any further than reading "You are not getting what I am saying." That is why I said you surely do not agree with God condoning sin. How else can I tell you that you must not have gotten my point than saying you must not have gotten my point? lol
No. I am saying you must think God condones sin.
No stretch at all. It's just you will not let me explain myself to you.
No, it's just you would not read past, "You're not getting my point," when I said the same thing in every explanation I tried to give you. Your A.D.D. hindered you from reading that far.
Well, if you would read all I explained, you would know that I only described repentance. I said in my first explanation that I MEANT I WOULD NOT REPENT. And its a two way street. You can have audacity, and no one else can? You had the audacity to say I preach salvation by works when I was only describing repentance. Let's all say "OOOPS!"
As Ronald Reagan said to several time to then-President Carter, "There you go again." In my attempt to wrap it up, we've entered the theological twilight zone again.
Yes, you are correct that I believe that you believe in salvation by works and you don't believe that you believe that. You can deny 'til the cows come home, and I believe I hear them mooing, but if you believe that you get rid of sin, and then and ONLY then, get saved you believe what you believe, and that is, salvation by works. Like I said before, I don't know of an orthodox Christian denomination that proclaims in their statement of faith, "We believe in salvation by works" so it's ok, Mike....no one thinks they believe it. But if one says that HE did something and as a result, got saved....well, it just is what it is. Sorry.
Not at all. There is no way getting rid of sin can give me God's righteousness by that act alone and no other factor. But the truth is God refuses to give us His righteousness if we are unwilling to release sin.
No. But it allows for God to grant us right standing. That is what I was trying to say about our hands being full disabling us from receiving something from another person. In this case if our hands hold sin, they are not open to receive the gift of righteousness from God. Emptying our hands does not make us righteous. Emptying our hands allows God to give us the free gift of righteousness.
This is a basic principle. God will not impute righteousness while we desire and are involved in sin. That is the reason that after Adam ate the forbidden fruit God said, Adam had to leave the Garden LEST HE ALSO take of the fruit of life. We cannot mingle unrighteousness with righteousness. Romans 1 says wrath is reserved for those who hold truth in unrighteousness.
Ridding ourselves of sin is in no way a manner of working our way to righteousness. If it were, then it would not be a case of God imputing righteousness top us, but us contriving SELF righteousness.
This is odd. You seem to bounce between being declared righteous, and earning righteousness or becoming righteous. Righteousness is a position we have in Christ, not something we earn through our own efforts to release sin.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
So you could be wrong. Maybe there are copyist errors. I've never heard, that I can recall, anyone claim there were none. But, if there are copyist errors, no matter how small they may be, I guess you would have to throw out the whole thing!
There are standard copyist errors that are seen in the ancient manuscripts. These were expected and various systems were developed to help avoid them. Some common errors include repeating a word that ends a line as the first word on the next line, repeating a word in succession, dropping a word, misspelling a word or replacing it with a word that has a similar spelling - the variants run the whole gamut of copying errors that we still make today.
There were also different systems of abbreviation used at different times. The common Jewish practice of spelling "God" as "G-d" also had some parallels in Greek manuscripts where the "nomina sacra" (words like God, Lord, Jesus and Christ) were not spelled out in the early centuries but were spelled out in latter Medieval times. All of these changes in custom would be considered "variants."
There are many such "variants" used in the handwritten systems over the centuries that today allow a scholar of texts to be able to put the "clues" together and to identify the approximate date of a particular manuscript.
The important thing however, is that we have literally thousands of manuscripts to compare. When taken as a whole, it's comparatively easy to sort out the gaffs and omissions. In fact, the correction is usually provided by the same scribe or another (an "editor") in the margin.
The message of the Gospel story is clearly proclaimed throughout. No important doctrines (nor even "unimportant" ones) are affected by the copyist errors. It may be that all of these manuscripts are simply repeating a legend - that is up to the individual reader to decide; but they all clearly testify to the same story, and that story is preserved with a remarkable number of consistent witnesses. More manuscript witnesses than any other story in the history of mankind.
To disagree is to say God does not mind us holding onto sin. Since I cannot accept that, then you and I cannot agree. I will never preach that God lets us hold onto sin and saves us anyway. But if I should say, "So, I do not think you got what I was trying to say," since I could not imagine you believing God lets us retain sin, you would shut me down again. So I will leave it as disagreement. 
Post 682, page 69)..."I personally know from experience that I sought the Spirit baptism for six months. The trouble was, that I knew I was not letting go of some sins, and when I let go of them I got the Spirit right away! I can only go by my experience. It is not hard. Letting go of sin may be what is hard."
Linear Mode
