You can say that, but without some reason to believe it, it's an empty accusation. ;)
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
And variations in wording that do not change doctrine are of no concern as I already stated.
Well, you gave a good example in the quote below:
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1)
The text in red is missing from modern Bibles (by and large). This is a major doctrinal issue!
As for Mark 16 - All of it in the King James Bible is authentic from authentic sources!
Believe what you want. It’s your neck on the line at the judgment, not mine.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Finally you are correct: variations in wording that do not change doctrine are of no concern. That is why most translations are excellent. Of course, if they're written in understandable English, all the better. That leaves out the KJV.
Believe whatever propaganda you want. It's your neck!
Regarding Romans 8:1... The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in M. (NET translator's note)
Regarding Mark 16... The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B sys sams armmss geomss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). This is known as the “short ending.” The following “intermediate” ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This intermediate ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 579 pc); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the “long ending” (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has unique material between vv. 14 and 15] Θ ƒ13 33 M lat syc,p,h bo); however, Eusebius (and presumably Jerome) knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses. Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the intermediate and the long endings. Their vocabulary, syntax, and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence indicates that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the likelihood that early scribes had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded today as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.” For further discussion and viewpoints, see Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, ed. D. A. Black (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008); Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (London: Pickwick, 2014); Gregory P. Sapaugh, “An Appraisal of the Intrinsic Probability of the Longer Endings of the Gospel of Mark” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012).sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation." (NET translator's note)
You can believe the above or not, but I respect modern Biblical research and scholarship. Clearly your mind is closed to anything beyond 1611.
Jim, the Faith isn't guarded by well developed methods of Interpreting Sacred Scriptures. The Faith is guarded by making sure a new development doesn't violate what has always been believed or introduce something never believed before.
Communities of faith that do that will not be able to pass their faith down unadulterated. If the infant Church depended on Scripture alone to guard it for future generations, it would be overcome by the futility of this creation. You and I wouldn't have ever heard of Jesus.
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
I researched this matter years ago.
You are just repeating the propaganda of modern scholars. I heard it all before, “scribes added yada yada yada…”
It’s just speculation. Not factual evidence.
My spiritual discernment tells me that scribes left out scriptures (either intentionally, accidentally, or by carelessness).
Faithful scribes would never entertain any thoughts of altering the scriptures in any way for any reason whatsoever.
I have copied scriptures many times over the years and guess what - the few mistakes that I made were always accidental omission, never addition.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
The rich man is in torment, he is not in Sheol.
It's proof text for a cleansing fire, which your theology denies. Jesus is not teaching necromancy. The rich man is seeking help for his brothers. He is asking Abraham to intercede. The rich man is not practicing necromancy, he is not conjuring up the spirit of Abraham. That would be necromancy. He can't be in hell, because there is no compassion in hell. He can't be in heaven, there is no torment in heaven. So where is the rich man???
You are trying to place the rich man and Abraham in the same place. Luke 16:26 clearly does not support your assumption.
Because it would be pointless, since they ignored Moses and the prophets, they wouldn't listen to One who rose from the dead either. Abraham's denial of the request does not disprove the fact that the rich man sought help (prayed to) Abraham. The rich man could have prayed directly to God, but Jesus isn't teaching that. The rich man asked Abraham for help from his torment, he is not conjuring up Abraham's spirit. Jesus would never teach such a falsehood. This parable contradicts the Protestant notion that one can only pray to God. It also contradicts the Protestant invention that there is no cleansing fire in the afterlife. The truth of a cleansing fire (purgatory) began in kernel form in Judaism, not the Catholic Church. Jesus' listeners didn't have a problem with this parable as you do.
It's your assumption, and a straw man. There is nothing in the parable that grants Abraham such power. Any answered prayer from a subordinate intercessor is because God is doing the answering, not Abraham, not Mary, and not the Pope. Jesus is the sole mediator, but that's the reason for subordinate mediators in the first place. The so called reformers were forced into a false dichotomy to justify their rejection of human intercession of any kind. Its a false dichotomy that pits the sole mediatorship of Christ against subordinate mediators. The Bible doesn't teach that.
Now you are saying the rich man is in hell, which makes no sense.
Until Christ's resurrection, all the dead went to Sheol, literally the "unseen realm", but used for the place of the dead, all dead. Again, divided by a gulf fixed between.
If you recall, you used this as a prooftext for communicating with the dead. It's not. Now if you wish to use it for something else, we can discuss that.
Again, Jesus tells a conversation that occurs all within that place. You are talking about communications from the living here on the earth, and those who have passed on to the next realm.
Hell translates from hades, which is the Greek translation from the Hebrew Sheol. There were two sides, a side of comfort, where were Abraham and Lazarus, and the side of torment, where the rich man was.
Answered in the fact of the two sides.
Much love!
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Oh, your spiritual discernment is the final arbiter of what you believe. Very interesting!
Did your discernment also tell you that a) scribes aren't perfect and that b) errors creep into all manual labor, whether intentional or not. You may think that I'm just repeating the propaganda of modern scholars, but, unlike yourself, I'm not listening to the voices inside my own head.
When I was teaching graduate students, if they came up with that kind of nonsense, I would give them a F. Your "spiritual discernment" isn't valid for anything! It is nonsense!
How about coming up with a valid reason for your understanding? Even insane people think that they're right!
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
No, I am using the Parable of the Rich Man as proof text that one can pray to someone other than God that has nothing to do with necromancy. The rich man prayed to Abraham. Get over it.
You're being stubborn. Abraham and the rich man are not in the same place. Sheol is not hell, and no amount of translational word games will change that fact. By the death, resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, everyone in Sheol escaped it, there is no escaping from hell.
The rich man is not on earth, he is dead, in a place of torment. Sheol is not a place of torment.
Well, you're half right. Compare Luke 16:19-31 with Luke 23:43. In Luke 16, Jesus speaks of the poor man Lazarus being taken up to the "Bosom of Abraham." However, despite what is commonly presumed, this cannot be Heaven, since souls did not enter Heaven at this time (not even according to Jewish theology), but awaited Jesus' death, Resurrection, and Ascension for this. Until the Lord opens the gates of Heaven ("I go to prepare a place for you"), it was not possible for humanity to enter into the Presence of God. Rather, the God-man needed to do this first in order to make a place for humanity before the Throne of the Father. Rather, this "Bosom of Abraham" in Luke 16 is what Jewish oral tradition refers to as "the Paradise of the Fathers" --the Garden of Eden, which was withdrawn from the earth.
Now, ... To show that this is the case, one only need to look at Luke 23:43, where Jesus tells the Good Thief, " **This day** you will be with me **in Paradise.** " Notice, here, that Jesus does not say, " ...in Heaven." ...And this is because, as we all know, Jesus did NOT go to Heaven THAT DAY. Rather, Jesus spent 3 days in the tomb! ...Not rising until Sunday morning. ...And we know from Scripture (e.g. 1 Peter 3:19 & 4:6) that Jesus' soul spent **that day** AMONG THE DEAD in Sheol. ...And, as John 20:17 hammers home for us, EVEN ON SUNDAY MORNING, Jesus had STILL "not yet ascended to the Father." So, the "Paradise" Jesus is talking about in Luke 23 is **absolutely** not Heaven itself. Rather, He is talking about the Paradise of the Fathers, and he is promising the Good Thief (a justly-condemned Jewish criminal) that, far from being condemned to Gehenna, he will be with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the righteous patriarchs (models of Judaism) in the Paradise of the Fathers. And this would have been enough for this Jew to die in peace --saved from hell, yet not fully-sanctified so as to immediately enter Heaven.
Again, "divided by a gulf fixed between". Your words in the first quote, so you contradict yourself.
Last edited:
BARNEY BRIGHT
Well-Known Member
You certainly have the right to believe and express what true faith in God and in his only begotten son is, but what you believe and express isn't necessarily true faith. Those with true faith in the true God know that he and he alone knows what's in the best interests of what he created and what is not in the best interests of what he created. So when it comes to true Christianity they don't murder someone they love, they don't practice being a murderer, or practice stealing, or practice being a false accuser of others, they don't practice being liars, they don't practice being greedy and etc.
I can't understand people who say that they're Christians who say they can't lose their salvation when the scriptures say, that those who endure to the end will be saved.(Matthew 10:22; 24:12,13; Mark 13:13; Hebrews 3:14) Why do they have to endure anything if, once saved always saved.
Revelation 2:10 says, "Do not be afraid of the things you are about to suffer. Look! The Devil will keep on throwing some of you into prison so that you may be fully put to the test, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Prove yourself faithful even to death, and I will give you the crown of life.
Why does this scriptures say, prove yourself faithful even to death and I will give you the crown of life, if once saved always saved, what do they have to endure in order to get the crown of life, if they already have eternal life and can't lose it? So what do they have to endure to get the crown of life?
Also what about Hebrews 10: 26-32. Are these scriptures meaningless? These scriptures in Hebrews show us if a person practices sin willfully after having receiving the truth there is no more sacrifice for sins. Meaning they can't be forgiven. These people would have of necessity accepted the truth and been in the truth, meaning been saved to have committed such a sin. Also if such a sin was impossible then this scripture wouldn't have been written. Why warn people of something that's impossible to happen.
Just because you truly accept Jesus Christ as your savior doesn't mean it's impossible for you to go back to the world and live the way the world wants you to live.
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
This is how it works... ↓↓↓
All the members of Christ's body, the church.
In regard to your 1 Corinthians 12:25 reference, how is that accomplished? This is how...
"16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work." Ephesians 4:16
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
Yes. And the errors are in the MODERN critical text based Bibles! They are missing scriptures that scribes omitted.
“I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.” (Psalms 119:99)
What do you meditate on that spiritual things are nonsense to you?
Or are you a natural man?
“…the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)
Jim B
Well-Known Member
I thought about this situation some more...
You actually believe what is going on inside your own head (which you call "discernment") instead of the principle of textual criticism (the art/science of determining what the various textual sources actually say). That is simply astonishing! Any person can make that claim, no matter how far-fetched and illogical their thinking. You are, in essence, saying that you are the source of truth and those who have spent their careers analyzing what the various sources of Scripture actually mean are wrong. That is beyond amazing!!!
I am a rational, intelligent man who, unlike yourself, respect the minds of others who have a) intelligence, b) wisdom, and c) professional ability to determine what Scripture actually says. I have lost all respect for you!
You are the "natural man" of 1 Corinthians. No matter how much you proclaim yourself to be the pure embodiment of truth, I will regard you as being totally deceived, knowing nothing.
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” (Romans 14:5)
“…keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” (1 Timothy 6:20)
“…your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:5)
“For vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass's colt.” (Job 11:12)
Yet YOU are the one who fits the description, not me!
You are scripturally deficient despite all the “studying” you do.
Study the King James Bible with the mind of a fool and get some spiritual wisdom.
“Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.” (1 Corinthians 3:18)
You are being here personal and accusatory. I totally lose interest when the conversation becomes about me. Sorry!
Much love!
This is why I don't go for ad hominem arguments. Just Anyone can make them, and who among us knows the other sufficiently to really start issuing character judgments and all that balogna?
Much love!
Get over what exactly?
Jesus told of a conversation in Sheol, and that does not mean we ignore God's prohibition against necromancy thinking that we, living on earth, can talk to those who have died. God said no.
Much love!
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
Apostle Paul:
“…O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10)
Jesus Christ:
“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33)
There are either friends or enemies of the truth.
There’s no in between.
By hell, you must mean the Lake of Fire?
But here we go again, "translational word games", I'm generally interested in our exchanges, but not with that stuff. Just not into it.
Much love!
@marks Although He is being accusitory he is making a valid argument here. there is something to what he is saying here that is important for those who believe they are wise to hear, and sometimes the only way to communicate this is through reproof and rebuke. It is not pretty, nor is it smooth word to hear if you are on the receiving end but sometimes smooth words are of the devil. (Proverbs 7:21-23)
With the feminization of our culture today Men are getting soft to hearing reproof and rebuke and are getting on the "i am offended" bandwagon instead of receiving rebuke and correction and being self reflective.
God bless.
