Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Bible Guild

Back to Guilds

What if Jesus meant every word He said? 

Tags: God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit, The Bible, Truth, Love, Eternal Life, Salvation, Faith, Holy, Fellowship, Apologetics 

Reply Questions & Answers
What is the synagogue of Satan in Revelation? Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

cristobela
Vice Captain

PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:25 am
CherieBunnie
cristobela
I covered this at length on page 3 of this topic: [Details in the New Testament that Get Ignored] (I linked directly to the reply dealing with Noah, by the way; just let the page load and it will automatically jump you to it). There's a total of 5 ignored details. It'll take you approximately 6 minutes to read, if you read slowly and outloud (so it'll probably take you less time).


Oh I read all of that, and it doesn't make any sense.


Let me point out in fewer words what I addressed so you understand more easily:
· the Hebrew word used for "every moving thing"(KJV) in Genesis 9:3
· how that same word gets applied elsewhere in Genesis, being distinct from the word for cattle, and beast of the earth
· that Noah identified animals as clean and unclean (thus why he is taking 7 pairs of clean animals and 1 pair of unclean animals on to the ark),
· the unstable logic of saying Noah could eat all green herbs (which, if they're being consistent with their interpretation, is what they would be led to say in order to say all animals [or all creeping things] are clean to eat). Just like Noah can't eat every green thing (which would include grass and poison ivy), because of the distinctions God made in Genesis 1, Noah doesn't eat all animals because of the distinctions God made in Genesis 7 and 8.

However, if you didn't understand my explanation, then I cannot explain it to you further or more simply than this, as far as it relates to how people gloss over details and Biblical definition in the passages describing Noah and the matter of unclean and clean distinctions.


CherieBunnie
cristobela
Or as the NIV renders it "until the time of the new order"


Sorry I don't read the NIV. It's based off of the minority texts. New World Order? Are you kidding me?


If that's your way of saying that you believe the NIV somehow changes doctrinal statements, then this has been addressed in the guild already [KJV & NKJV Are The Only Legitimate Bibles]. Going through each allegation and comparing it to what is actually found in the NIV, in its totality, exposes such claims as baseless.

That said,

"new order" does not equal, "new World order".

Please read carefully. This is the reason you're not understanding what I type, and are not noticing details in the passages I'm bringing to your attention. Read with patience.

How the NIV uses the phrase "new order" is to contrast to the "old order" of things:

      • Revelation 21:4 (NIV)

        4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[a] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

        Footnotes:

        a. Revelation 21:4 Isaiah 25:8


CherieBunnie
The KJV says the time of reformation, which was the time of Christ.

You can look up the Greek word διόρθωσις. Strong's Exhaustive concordance gives this definition:

reformation.
From a compound of dia and a derivative of orthos, meaning to straighten thoroughly; rectification, i.e. (specially) the Messianic restauration -- reformation
.


As I bolded, enlarged, and colored purple above, the definition you provided from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for the word that appears in Hebrews 9:10, makes my case actually. The "time of reformation" means the same thing as the time of restoration of all things, that the holy prophets foretold, which is the concept the NIV refers to in Acts 3:21, and why I'm quoting it. The Book of Acts is a book/letter which was written after Jesus had died, raised to life, and ascended into the clouds 40 days later, so the heavens received Him and that time of restoration doesn't come until He returns.

Do we still have sickness? pain? Are animals still eating animals (death)?

Then we're still under the former things / the old order of things.

Not the new order, because at that point there is no death, and animals don't eat each other.

What was promised long ago in the holy prophets is just that: the restoration of all things, not just the renewal of our minds. We've yet to be transformed into an incorruptible body that no longer decays or dies. Revelation 21, that talks about no more death, is after both resurrections have taken place (resurrections that Revelation 20 described), and the old earth with its heavens disappear in Revelation 20:11 at the start of the Great White Throne judgment and the second resurrection. In contrast, Revelation 21 opens up describing the new earth and new heavens. That's when death is no more, that's when all things have been restored, corrected, back to how conditions were in Eden.


CherieBunnie
cristobela
Acts 3:21 (NIV)

21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

Isaiah 65:25 (NIV)

25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the Lord.


Neither of these prove your point that the phrase "until the time of the reformation" refers to after Christ returns.


Using the very Hebrew 9:10 and the Greek definition you provided, it does. As long as death is around, the reformation / restoration has not come.

If you're only reading the KJV, and no other Bible versions, then you won't notice as easily that these passages are related. But they are, I'll quote the KJV:

      • Acts 3:21 (KJV)

        21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.


Bolded word is G#605:

Strong's Concordance
apokatastasis: restoration
Original Word: ἀποκατάστασις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: apokatastasis
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ok-at-as'-tas-is)
Short Definition: restitution, reestablishment, restoration
Definition: restitution, reestablishment, restoration.

HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 605 apokatástasis (from 600 /apokathístēmi, "restore") – restitution, referring to the "restoration of the physical earth in the Messianic kingdom (Millennium)" (G. Archer).

http://biblehub.com/greek/605.htm

It is referring to the restoration that happens at end times when death is no longer affecting us, nor the rest of creation, the earth is restored, as foretold by the holy prophets (thus why I quoted the prophet Isaiah 65:25) which you struck out, but is one of the very things being referred to by Acts 3:21, the restoration of all things, which Hebrew 9:10 agrees (it's the time of restoration), though it spelled it "restauration" when you looked up the concordance entry.

That's why Paul says that creation, along with them, is groaning and travailing (we haven't been restored yet):

      • Romans 8:22-23 (KJV)

        22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

        23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.


They are waiting for the restoration, it is not yet here. You don't wait for something you already have.

Ergo why I am quoting the prophets who foretold of the restoration—a time when animals go back to how they were in Eden (not eating each other but the lion eating straw like the ox and the serpent eating the dust as food). Conditions also prophesied in the vision given to John in the Book of Revelation (21:4), no more death, no more pain, so animals aren't eating animals.


CherieBunnie
cristobela
But until then, just like Isaiah continues to identify them (in agreement with Jesus/the Word of God), they are unclean:

Isaiah 66:17 (NIV)

17 “Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one who is among those who eat the flesh of pigs, rats and other unclean things—they will meet their end together with the one they follow,” declares the Lord.


No animal is unclean if it's been sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

1 Tim 4:5 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

What's the word of God? Jesus Christ! Who blotted out those ordinances and nailed them to his cross!!

Therefore it was sanctified BY CHRIST and our prayer of thanksgiving.

Colossians 2:14-17 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


And Jesus—the Word of God—continues to identify those animals as unclean in Revelation 18:2.

And that does conform to reality once you observe these animals and what they still do on this earth.

About what was nailed to the cross, since you quoted some more material below, I'll further demonstrate it with what you provided:


CherieBunnie
cristobela
The handwriting of ordinances, that was against us, is our record of sins. That's what was nailed to the cross. Our record of sins, our guilt


No it's not. The Greek word δόγμασιν translated to "ordinances" only occurs twice in the new testament, and both times it's referring to the laws set in place for the Israelites.


I don't know if you're deliberately trying to lie or just made a mistake, but no, G#1378 is not only used twice more in the New Testament nor only to refer to the decrees/ordinances of God.

      • Acts 17:7 (KJV)

        7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees G#1378 of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

        http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/17-7.htm

      • Luke 2:1 (KJV)

        2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree G#1378 from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

        http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/2-1.htm


Even man-made decrees, that have nothing to do with the Commands of our Heavenly Father / the Law of Moses, have this word applied to them.

The definition in Strong's Concordance says:

Strong's Concordance
dogma: an opinion, (a public) decree
Original Word: δόγμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: dogma
Phonetic Spelling: (dog'-mah)
Short Definition: a decree, edict, ordinance
Definition: a decree, edict, ordinance.

http://biblehub.com/greek/1378.htm

So, no, you cannot identify the ordinances based on how this Greek term is used elsewhere in Scripture, in this case with this term, but by context, your knowledge of Scripture. What is Jesus saving us from? Our sins, and the guilt of our sins. He's not saving us from the Commands of His Father, which in prophecy and even in the Book of Revelation are still being upheld (e.g. unclean animals, both in Isaiah and the Book of Revelation).

But furthermore, something you're not realizing about Eph 2:15, and also to do with what Jesus is saving us from:


CherieBunnie
This is the other verse in which it occurs:

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Pretty clear.


Paul makes a reference to two different laws in His epistles—and only in the epistle to the Romans does he make the the full distinction (the rest of the time, he shortens the phrase, but you understand by context what he is referring to). The explicit passage in Romans:

      • Romans 7:25 (KJV)

        25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


And which one of those two—the Law of God or the law of sin in the flesh—is it that puts us in enmity with both God and man?

The law of sin in our flesh (carnal).

The Law of God in, contrast, is how we love both God and man, and what God finds pleasing (as opposed to the law of sin in the flesh which He finds displeasing). And the Spirit does not walk in the flesh, but in the Laws of God.

The verses demonstrating this:

      • Romans 8:7-9 (KJV)

        7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

        8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

        9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

      • Ezekiel 36:27 (KJV)

        27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

      • 1 John 3:22 (KJV)

        22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

      • John 14:15 (KJV)

        15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

      • Matthew 22:36-40 (KJV)

        36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

        37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

        38 This is the first and great commandment.

        39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

        40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


The Law of God is not what causes enmity—it is how we Love God and man.

The law of sin in our flesh causes enmity—between man and God, Jew and Gentile alike, and men against men, Jew and Gentile alike.

That law of sin in our flesh was crucified, or is suppose to be crucified when you come to Christ (and Christ Himself crucifies that sin nature off you).

      • Romans 6:6 (KJV)

        6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

      • Colossians 2:11 (KJV)

        11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:


What is sin?

      • 1 John 3:4 (KJV)

        4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.


Christ came to kill that nature in our flesh (the law of sin in our flesh) that loves to transgress the Law of God; He came to kill the law of sin in the flesh, while the Holy Spirit loves to walk in the Law of God. The carnal mind cannot submit to the Law of God. But through the Holy Spirit we can.

Christ came to save us from both the guilt of our sins, and the law of sin in our flesh (not the Law of God which is written on our hearts and continues to be upheld in the Book of Revelation and elsewhere).


CherieBunnie
cristobela
when explaining the Isaiah chapters, which you thought were only end times related, I said that the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets prophesy about Christ. I'm not unaware.


I didn't say that everything in these book are end times related. Clearly it's not. Isaiah 53 for example is definitely about Christ. Now the chapters I did share were evidently clear that they were about the end of times. And again, there is only ONE day of the Lord. I have no idea where you got the idea that there are multiple days of the Lord. There's no proof of that in the Bible.


The explanations of the fufilled aspects of Isaiah 31-35 are still there in my reply to you. You suggested they were all end times, and none fulfilled. That is what I corrected. There is fulfillment of them that you weren't aware of.

I think it's safe to say that you didn't give the verses I provided, as proof, the light of day because I quoted from the NIV. I clearly laid out for you Biblical examples of how the verses got used in the Old Testament to prophesy about a day of wrath that wasn't referring to end times, and that day of wrath called “the day of the Lord”. And I also provided examples of the stars not giving their light and day of dark clouds as well, not in reference to end times, but still being used. We cannot arrive at conclusions, nor at doctrinal statements and interpretations that doesn't account for all the Biblical evidence. Like I said, when God punished a nation, even at times that weren't the end, He called it “the day of the Lord”. Where you're getting that the phrase “the day of the Lord” is solely "end times"-related is the unBiblical notion in light of the chapters that used it without referring to end times destruction. Again, I quoted them earlier in this topic, which I think you dismissed since you said you didn't agree with anything, even though I'm just quoting Old Testament examples and pointing out the criteria for why the United States of America doesn't fit spiritual Babylon's criteria that John saw.


CherieBunnie
cristobela
I've been noticing these details (with the help of the Holy Spirit), and thus why I've been exposing them in the topic: [Details in the New Testament that Get Ignored]. The topic was meant to be read in its entirety however: starting with the foundation, who is Jesus, and to whom I submit my every thought to (thus why I started the topic with His teachings).


And I say my understanding comes from the Holy Spirit, too.

I do wonder, however, are you going to church, are you learning from a pastor, are you following someone online...?


But when you do not acknowledge the existence of other verses (or are unaware of them), the Holy Spirit cannot provide you understanding on them.

I do not go to a physical church building. Of the ones I've ventured to before, they have no interest in turning from their false doctrines nor in acknowledging all these details present in Scripture, especially the New Testament. The point of physically congregating is to encourage each other daily towards love, good deeds, staying rooted in the truth. If that's not being done, it defeats the purpose of why He wants us to congregrate in the first place. At most, I gather with my mother who is a believer. I'm learning from the Holy Spirit as I read the Scriptures daily. As is she. God/Jesus is my (our) pastor / shepherd (in the spirit of Eze 34)

      • Ezekiel 34:10-12 (KJV)

        10 Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

        11 For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.

        12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.

      • John 16:13 (KJV)

        13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

      • Matthew 18:20 (KJV)

        20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


And once I realized these details in the New Testament, I was led to other believers online, random videos echoing the same convictions. Some videos which I would identify as Messianic (the closest thing I can call it because they were groups started by Christians, not Jews who believed in Jesus, who submit to these details that they saw in Scripture too). We probably would go to a Messianic Congregation, if one were near us, but the nearest one is an hour away, and we're not in a position to do that. But what I've seen of their live services, which I only watched two or three times (the one that is an hour away) and another on TV who is even further away, I'm uneasy in my spirit with their “Extra” traditions as well, even if they don't violate the Law of God. I feel like I'm wasting time with uselessness [e.g. this slow procession of taking the Torah scroll out of an "ark", reading a tiny little line, slow walk back into the box], instead of just praising God, getting in the Word of God, and sharing spiritual insights with believers, actual fellowshipping, who needs prayer, etc.
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 11:58 am
cristobela
If that's your way of saying that you believe the NIV somehow changes doctrinal statements, then this has been addressed in the guild already [KJV & NKJV Are The Only Legitimate Bibles]. Going through each allegation and comparing it to what is actually found in the NIV, in its totality, exposes such claims as baseless.


Those claims are NOT baseless when the minority text translations (NKJV included) compared to the KJV Bible contain some pretty messed up stuff. Funny that you linked to a "discussion" that didn't mention any of the following, how the modern Bible versions:

1. have people striking blows to their body

2. have people wishing for people to castrate/emasculate/mutilate themselves

3. read the exact opposite of the KJV

4. enforce the idea that mere baptization by water saves you - leaving out this verse

5. deny that Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit are one

6. are only in agreeance with 5% of existing Greek manuscripts, whereas 95% agree with the Textus Receptus which was the basis of the KJV

"The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.

For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their Greek Text, which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone.
"

User Image

^ I don't know about you, but these are legit problems in my eyes.

And I haven't even mentioned the slew of bullshit that came straight from the mouths of the people who chose those particular conflicting manuscripts over the rest of them. But here are some examples:

"I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden'(I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues."

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period."

Dr. Hort was also an adherent to the teaching of Samuel Taylor Coleridge.... One of Coleridge's famous works is Aids to Reflection. "Its chief aim is to harmonize formal Christianity with Coleridge's variety of transcendental philosophy. He also did much to introduce Immanual Kant and other German philosophers to English readers."

Rev. Hort also shrunk from the belief in a literal, eternal "hell." "I think Maurice's letter to me sufficiently showed that we have no sure knowledge respecting the duration of future punishment, and that the word 'eternal' has a far higher meaning than the merely material one of excessively long duration; extinction always grates against my mind as something impossible."

...he was a very real believer in the fictious Roman Catholic doctrine of "purgatory." "The idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said respecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their character when this visible life is ended."

There was also his rejection of Christ's atoning death for the sins of all mankind. "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins." ... "Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."

Note the following quotations from Bishop Westcott: "No doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from the error of connecting the Presence of Christ's glorified humanity with place; 'heaven is a state and not a place.'" ... "We may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute, faithful, united endeavour to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life."

^ Again, these are legit problems in my eyes, and I refuse to look past them! I'm not going to believe anything if it comes from those Bibles.  

CherieBunnie

Sugary Hourglass


CherieBunnie

Sugary Hourglass

PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:08 pm
cristobela
Let me point out in fewer words what I addressed so you understand more easily:
· the Hebrew word used for "every moving thing"(KJV) in Genesis 9:3
· how that same word gets applied elsewhere in Genesis, being distinct from the word for cattle, and beast of the earth


The word you're referring to is רֶ֫מֶשׂ, and if you click that link you will see that this doesn't seem to be so.

cristobela
how people gloss over details and Biblical definition in the passages describing Noah and the matter of unclean and clean distinctions.


Similar to how you choose to gloss over these verses:

1 Tim 4:4-5 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

cristobela
That said,

"new order" does not equal, "new World order".


It might as well since it's a deliberate mistranslation of Hebrews 9:10. I honestly have no idea how they got the phrase "new order" from this.

cristobela
Please read carefully. This is the reason you're not understanding what I type, and are not noticing details in the passages I'm bringing to your attention.


You are confusing misunderstanding with disagreement.

cristobela
How the NIV uses the phrase "new order" is to contrast to the "old order" of things:

Revelation 21:4 (NIV)

4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[a] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”


Another deliberate mistranslation. I, again, have no idea how they got "old order" from the Greek shown in that link.. Because it seems to translate best to "former things."

cristobela
Footnotes:

a. Revelation 21:4 Isaiah 25:8


Footnotes aren't scripture.

cristobela
As I bolded, enlarged, and colored purple above, the definition you provided from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for the word that appears in Hebrews 9:10, makes my case actually. The "time of reformation" means the same thing as the time of restoration of all things, that the holy prophets foretold, which is the concept the NIV refers to in Acts 3:21, and why I'm quoting it. The Book of Acts is a book/letter which was written after Jesus had died, raised to life, and ascended into the clouds 40 days later, so the heavens received Him and that time of restoration doesn't come until He returns.

Do we still have sickness? pain? Are animals still eating animals (death)?

Then we're still under the former things / the old order of things.

Not the new order, because at that point there is no death, and animals don't eat each other.

What was promised long ago in the holy prophets is just that: the restoration of all things, not just the renewal of our minds. We've yet to be transformed into an incorruptible body that no longer decays or dies. Revelation 21, that talks about no more death, is after both resurrections have taken place (resurrections that Revelation 20 described), and the old earth with its heavens disappear in Revelation 20:11 at the start of the Great White Throne judgment and the second resurrection. In contrast, Revelation 21 opens up describing the new earth and new heavens. That's when death is no more, that's when all things have been restored, corrected, back to how conditions were in Eden.


I see no evident biblical connection between "the time of restoration" of Hebrew 9:10 and "the restitution of all things" in Acts 3:21. I do believe in the time of restitution of all things as you're describing it, but I see no adequate biblical proof that these 2 phrases are both referring to that time.

cristobela
If you're only reading the KJV, and no other Bible versions, then you won't notice as easily that these passages are related. But they are, I'll quote the KJV:

Acts 3:21 (KJV)

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.


Bolded word is G#605:

Strong's Concordance
apokatastasis: restoration
Original Word: ἀποκατάστασις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: apokatastasis
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ok-at-as'-tas-is)
Short Definition: restitution, reestablishment, restoration
Definition: restitution, reestablishment, restoration.

HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 605 apokatástasis (from 600 /apokathístēmi, "restore") – restitution, referring to the "restoration of the physical earth in the Messianic kingdom (Millennium)" (G. Archer).

http://biblehub.com/greek/605.htm

It is referring to the restoration that happens at end times when death is no longer affecting us, nor the rest of creation, the earth is restored, as foretold by the holy prophets


I believe in the time of restitution, and I was not disputing this. I was disagreeing with your claim that Hebrews 9:10 is referring to the same thing.

cristobela
I don't know if you're deliberately trying to lie or just made a mistake, but no, G#1378 is not only used twice more in the New Testament nor only to refer to the decrees/ordinances of God.

Acts 17:7 (KJV)

7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees G#1378 of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/17-7.htm

Luke 2:1 (KJV)

2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree G#1378 from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/2-1.htm


Biblehub was only showing those 2 occurences for some reason. I'm not sure which page I was looking at. But I double-checked on another site, and I do see it's other occurences, none of which disprove what I originally said. So I'm standing by my first claim: That the word "ordinances" refers to laws set in place.

cristobela
So, no, you cannot identify the ordinances based on how this Greek term is used elsewhere in Scripture, in this case with this term, but by context, your knowledge of Scripture. What is Jesus saving us from? Our sins, and the guilt of our sins. He's not saving us from the Commands of His Father, which in prophecy and even in the Book of Revelation are still being upheld (e.g. unclean animals, both in Isaiah and the Book of Revelation).

But furthermore, something you're not realizing about Eph 2:15, and also to do with what Jesus is saving us from:

CherieBunnie Wrote:
This is the other verse in which it occurs:

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Pretty clear.


Paul makes a reference to two different laws in His epistles—and only in the epistle to the Romans does he make the the full distinction (the rest of the time, he shortens the phrase, but you understand by context what he is referring to). The explicit passage in Romans:

Romans 7:25 (KJV)

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


And which one of those two—the Law of God or the law of sin in the flesh—is it that puts us in enmity with both God and man?

The law of sin in our flesh (carnal).

The Law of God in, contrast, is how we love both God and man, and what God finds pleasing (as opposed to the law of sin in the flesh which He finds displeasing). And the Spirit does not walk in the flesh, but in the Laws of God.

The verses demonstrating this:

Romans 8:7-9 (KJV)

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Ezekiel 36:27 (KJV)

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

1 John 3:22 (KJV)

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

John 14:15 (KJV)

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Matthew 22:36-40 (KJV)

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


The Law of God is not what causes enmity—it is how we Love God and man.

The law of sin in our flesh causes enmity—between man and God, Jew and Gentile alike, and men against men, Jew and Gentile alike.

That law of sin in our flesh was crucified, or is suppose to be crucified when you come to Christ (and Christ Himself crucifies that sin nature off you).

Romans 6:6 (KJV)

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Colossians 2:11 (KJV)

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:


What is sin?

1 John 3:4 (KJV)

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.


Christ came to kill that nature in our flesh (the law of sin in our flesh) that loves to transgress the Law of God; He came to kill the law of sin in the flesh, while the Holy Spirit loves to walk in the Law of God. The carnal mind cannot submit to the Law of God. But through the Holy Spirit we can.

Christ came to save us from both the guilt of our sins, and the law of sin in our flesh (not the Law of God which is written on our hearts and continues to be upheld in the Book of Revelation and elsewhere).


Jesus did save us from our sins. I didn't say He saved us from ordinances. I said He abolished the ordinances because they were unnecessary, because they were merely ordinances set in place for the Israelites as a shadow of things to come. Because every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. With that said, I don't see how any of the above is relevant to disputing what I said.

cristobela
The explanations of the fufilled aspects of Isaiah 31-35 are still there in my reply to you. You suggested they were all end times, and none fulfilled. That is what I corrected. There is fulfillment of them that you weren't aware of.

I think it's safe to say that you didn't give the verses I provided, as proof, the light of day because I quoted from the NIV. I clearly laid out for you Biblical examples of how the verses got used in the Old Testament to prophesy about a day of wrath that wasn't referring to end times, and that day of wrath called “the day of the Lord”. And I also provided examples of the stars not giving their light and day of dark clouds as well, not in reference to end times, but still being used. We cannot arrive at conclusions, nor at doctrinal statements and interpretations that doesn't account for all the Biblical evidence. Like I said, when God punished a nation, even at times that weren't the end, He called it “the day of the Lord”. Where you're getting that the phrase “the day of the Lord” is solely "end times"-related is the unBiblical notion in light of the chapters that used it without referring to end times destruction. Again, I quoted them earlier in this topic, which I think you dismissed since you said you didn't agree with anything, even though I'm just quoting Old Testament examples and pointing out the criteria for why the United States of America doesn't fit spiritual Babylon's criteria that John saw.


You did not correct them. I don't feel that you provided adequate evidence that these chapters are not about the end of times. And that was not because you used the NIV, because I checked the verses in the KJV. It was because what you were saying wasn't adding up. You never provided adequate biblical proof that there are multiple days of the Lord. So I do agree with your statement "We cannot arrive at conclusions, nor at doctrinal statements and interpretations that doesn't account for all the Biblical evidence." Where's the biblical evidence that says there are multiple days of the Lord?

cristobela
But when you do not acknowledge the existence of other verses (or are unaware of them), the Holy Spirit cannot provide you understanding on them.


I am acknowledging every verse in the King James Bible. I just don't feel that the verses you are sharing disprove what I originally said.

cristobela
I do not go to a physical church building. Of the ones I've ventured to before, they have no interest in turning from their false doctrines nor in acknowledging all these details present in Scripture, especially the New Testament. The point of physically congregating is to encourage each other daily towards love, good deeds, staying rooted in the truth. If that's not being done, it defeats the purpose of why He wants us to congregrate in the first place. At most, I gather with my mother who is a believer. I'm learning from the Holy Spirit as I read the Scriptures daily. As is she. God/Jesus is my (our) pastor / shepherd (in the spirit of Eze 34)

Ezekiel 34:10-12 (KJV)

10 Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

11 For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.

12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.

John 16:13 (KJV)

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Matthew 18:20 (KJV)

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


No problem here. Agree with all of this.

cristobela
And once I realized these details in the New Testament, I was led to other believers online, random videos echoing the same convictions. Some videos which I would identify as Messianic (the closest thing I can call it because they were groups started by Christians, not Jews who believed in Jesus, who submit to these details that they saw in Scripture too). We probably would go to a Messianic Congregation, if one were near us, but the nearest one is an hour away, and we're not in a position to do that. But what I've seen of their live services, which I only watched two or three times (the one that is an hour away) and another on TV who is even further away, I'm uneasy in my spirit with their “Extra” traditions as well, even if they don't violate the Law of God. I feel like I'm wasting time with uselessness [e.g. this slow procession of taking the Torah scroll out of an "ark", reading a tiny little line, slow walk back into the box], instead of just praising God, getting in the Word of God, and sharing spiritual insights with believers, actual fellowshipping, who needs prayer, etc.


That does sound weird.  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:20 am
edited on 11/6/2017 to change image hosting
Hello again CherieBunnie, yum_puddi

I'm in an exceptionally good mood today. No specific reason why. But I do like meditating on this stuff, maybe that's why.

Anyway, I'll reply in the order of your posts (and this first one, I'll divide into two again :P).


CherieBunnie
cristobela
If that's your way of saying that you believe the NIV somehow changes doctrinal statements, then this has been addressed in the guild already [KJV & NKJV Are The Only Legitimate Bibles]. Going through each allegation and comparing it to what is actually found in the NIV, in its totality, exposes such claims as baseless.


Those claims are NOT baseless when the minority text translations (NKJV included) compared to the KJV Bible.


What I am identifying as baseless is this: the claim that the manuscripts of the NIV translation, as a whole, totally rids doctrinal statements. I'm not denying that there are variances between NIV English and KJV English, as a reflection of the manuscript difference. But doctrine—in the totality of the translation—is the same as the KJV.

CherieBunnie
Funny that you linked to a "discussion" that didn't mention any of the following, how the modern Bible versions:


There's only so many examples that can be addressed in one sitting. And all of the examples that KJV-Only proponents bring to the table are of this same nature. But regardless, let's go down the list of the six you presented in this reply:

CherieBunnie


The NIV is not being disloyal to the Greek language by translating it this way:

User Image

http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/9-27.htm

The word here is G#5299 (ὑπωπιάζω) hypōpiazō, which is defined as (and I'll be quoting from the five sources on this page: http://biblehub.com/greek/5299.htm):

      • Strong's Concordance
        hupópiazó: to strike under the eye
        Original Word: ὑπωπιάζω
        Part of Speech: Verb
        Transliteration: hupópiazó
        Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-o-pee-ad'-zo)
        Short Definition: I bruise, worry, exhaust
        Definition: I strike under the eye, hence: I bruise, treat severely, discipline by hardship, molest, annoy, harass, worry, exhaust.

      • HELPS Word-studies
        5299 hypōpiázō (from 5259 /hypó, "under" and ōps, "eye") – properly, to strike under the eye, i.e. giving someone "a black eye."

      • NAS Exhaustive Concordance
        Word Origin
        from hupópion (the part of the face under the eyes)
        Definition
        to strike under the eye
        NASB Translation
        discipline (1), wear (1).

      • Thayer's Greek Lexicon
        STRONGS NT 5299: ὑποπιάζω

        ὑποπιάζω, a later form of ὑποπιέζω, to keep down, keep in subjection: 1 Corinthians 9:27 Tdf. edition 7 after the faulty reading of some manuscripts for ὑποπιάζω, which see Cf. Lob. ad Phryn., p. 461; (Sophocles Lexicon, under the word; Winers Grammar, § 5, 1 d. 5; see ἀμφιάζω).
        STRONGS NT 5299: ὑπωπιάζωὑπωπιάζω; (from ὑπώπιον, compounded of ὑπό and ὤψ, ὠπος, which denotes a. that part of the face which is under the eyes;

        b. a blow in that part of the face; a black and blue spot, a bruise); properly, to beat black and blue, to smite so as to cause bruises and livid spots (Aristotle, rhet. 3, 11, 15, p. 1413{a}, 20; Plutarch, mor., p. 921 f.; (Diogenes Laërtius 6, 89): τό σῶμα, like a boxer I buffet my body, handle it roughly, discipline it by hardships, 1 Corinthians 9:27; metaphorically, (πόλεις ὑπωπιασμεναι, cities terribly scourged and afflicted by war, bearing the marks of devastation Aristophanes pax 541) to give one intolerable annoyance (`beat one out', 'wear one out'), by entreaties (cf. τέλος, 1 a.), Luke 18:5 (cf. aliquem rogitando obtundat, Terence, Eun. 3, 5, 6).

      • Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
        torment, strike in the face
        From a compound of hupo and a derivative of optanomai; to hit under the eye (buffet or disable an antagonist as a pugilist), i.e. (figuratively) to tease or annoy (into compliance), subdue (one's passions) -- keep under, weary.

        see GREEK hupo

        see GREEK optanomai

        http://biblehub.com/greek/5299.htm


The NIV is being honest to the Greek language, not trying to deceptively con people into a dangerous practice.

In context of the chapter—which is what people would be reading this verse in—it's placed in the midst of an analogy of an athlete, a boxer (who beats the air). Ergo, "like an athlete, I dominate my flesh/my body's desires so I can achieve a goal". Notice as well, the verse does not say: "everyone punch yourselves in the face, like boxers do and like I do, to keep your body in control". You're resorting to sensationalism and exaggeration by how you referred to their translation (First of all, it's one person, Paul, and he's not even being literal; he's comparing himself to the discipline of an athlete, a boxer—who, even if we are taking it literally, is not going to physically injure himself either, otherwise that also jeopardizes his ability to compete in the race [due to inflicting wounds upon himself]. In keeping with the surrounding context and the logic of what an athlete does, it's talking about discipline, dominating their body, which all athletes do in order to compete, keeping their carnal lusts in control in order to have a healthy body, fit enough to do the task and reach their goal). It could also be referring to the fact that Paul willingly jumps into situations where people will respond with animosity (putting himself through hardship), for the sake of making disciples and spreading the gospel, upholding the truth, like Jesus commanded, and like Jesus did. Suffering at the hands of others, not your own hands, though you put yourself into the situation.

Even if you feared that people would take this verse literally if they knew Greek or read the NIV English—punching yourself (in the eye or elsewhere)—that is not equivalent to the self-flagellation practices of the Catholic church, for instance, which they invented in the 13th century (that people still do today in certain Latin American countries, [who don't even use the NIV to support their practice]; in contrast, the NIV is a 20th century Bible version. it did not inspire their practice]), where they whip themselves. A useless practice, an empty show of "religion", a tradition they self-imposed upon themselves, merely human rules, not Commanded by YHWH at all, that seems pious, but does nothing to guard your well-being, nothing to nurture actual godliness and Christ's nature in you (again, Jesus received blows at the hands of others, not Himself, and all while being innocent of sin; a Catholic literally hitting themselves, is not even equivalent to emulating what Christ went through, at all, who suffered at the hands of others. Contrary to those Catholic claims of why they do this practice in the first place, "to become more like Christ", or "mortify the flesh" (which, Biblicaly even in the NIV, is done by using the Holy Spirit not a whip i.e. Roman 8:13), what they're doing is not what Christ suffered at all—and again, not inspired by the NIV).

By the way, what you fear the NIV inspiring, is spoken against by the NIV itself in Colossians.

      • Colossians 2:22-23 (NIV)

        22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.


On that note, that you even tried using Colossians to speak against God's Commands (as if Paul were speaking against God's Commands in the Law of Moses), shows you didn't grasp what was being spoken against in this area. Self-imposed practices, that are human in origin, human teachings and doctrines of man—is not a description of what God spoke and entrusted to Moses [thus God-originated], and spoke throughout the prophets and again in Revelation 18:2—these are not human commands and teachings, but the commands of God; the Law of God actually protects you and the community from harm (which the unclean and clean distinctions still do, thus why they're still being upheld in the New Testament: "don't eat blood" i.e. Acts 15:20, taken from Leviticus 17:10, "don't eat things found dead or torn by wild animals" / things strangled i.e. Acts 15:20 taken from Leviticus 17:15, some birds are unclean in Revelation 18:2 taken from Leviticus 11:13-19, etc). Unlike the Catholic practice of self-flagellation.

And both Jesus and Isaiah make a distinction between God's Commands (the Law of Moses) vs. what the Pharisees were doing (merely human commands, self-imposed traditions, and deviant applications of God's Commands that nullified keeping it as it reads, thus does not honor God in truth of what is written, and at that point, their interpretation of the Commands becomes the merely human teaching).

A distinction and rebuke that's happening in Matthew 15.

For you sake, I'll quote the KJV to demonstrate this principle since you trust it more (but the NIV does not communicate anything different).

      • Matthew 15:1-9 (KJV)

        15 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

        2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

        3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

        4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

        5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

        6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

        7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

        8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

        9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


God commanded "to honor father and mother" and "to stone people to death for cursing father or mother" (what Jesus upheld—let that sink in for a moment, Jesus is not against stoning to death. And rest assured that I'll show you how it doesn't contradict John 8 [the adulterous woman]), but the Phraisees say we don't have to honor our father and mother if we promised to give that thing to God; so they never end up honoring their father or mother the way it is written. They excuse themselves from obeying what the Command in the Law of Moses says, in the way it says to keep it. Thus, they nullify God's Commands in favor of their own interpretations, that in effect, keeps them from obeying what is written as it is written.

By doing that, their interpretations and traditions were the doctrines and commandments of men, not the Commandments of God (the latter of which Jesus told them to obey), though they are claiming to be basing themselves on the Command of God and are so-called being obedient to the Command by how they're keeping it (in their own eyes), but Jesus says they're not because it deviates from the specifics of what is written.

And about stoning to death: as long as there is a Sanhedrin (courts based on God's Law) in the country, thus God's Law is the law of the land in the country (which only happens when the nation unanimously comes into agreement to submit themselves to God), Jesus expects people to punish sins the way He said—when, again, done lawfully, according to God's Law (which is not what the Pharisees did with the adulterous woman whom they wanted to stone in John 8). The Law says—and notice their cherry-picking behavior, because the very verse they so-called "wanted" to obey [concerning adultery, which they weren't obeying either], is right next to the verse they outright didn't want to obey [stoning those who curse father or mother] (the church is totally leavened by this Pharisaical behavior):

      • Leviticus 20:9-10 (KJV)

        9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

        10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


So the command requires what? That BOTH adulterer and adulteress be brought forth for stoning. Who did the Pharisees bring forth for stoning? Just the adulteress.

Where's the adulterer?

One of two things is going on: they either aren't truthful witnesses, just wanting to stone based on rumor, which is illegal...

      • Deuteronomy 17:6 (KJV)

        6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.


Or, one or all of the Pharisees themselves are the other half of that act of adultery (like Judah and Tamar in the Old Testament i.e. Genesis 38, wanting Tamar burned in fire for her prostitution, when he's the one who slept with her). If they want her dead, then they too, for having sex with her, must be condemned to death—they weren't witnesses, they were participants. According to Leviticus 20:9-10, ALL of the participants in an act of adultery get put to death. Ergo, "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". Witnesses are the ones who put others to death, the participants of the sin can't (they're being killed too).

      • Deuteronomy 17:7 (KJV)

        7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.


That's why Jesus asked, essentially, are you guys really witnesses? and if the latter, and did you have sex with her too (were a participant equally to be condemned)? Whatever of the two scenarios it is, (didn't really witness it; I just heard it was true, didn't verify it with my own eyes, but believed it and want her dead OR I did witness her act of adultery, but I slept with her too / I am an accomplice), then they could not function in the capacity of a witness and lawfully put her to death without condemning themselves.

A false witness, in this case, gets put to death too by the way:

      • Deuteronomy 19:18-20 (KJV)

        18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;

        19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

        20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.


So whatever the scenario, they were going to get stoned to death for either unfairly accusing her / lying about being a witness (true or not, a false witness didn't actually see something happen) or for being a participant in the act of adultery.

Because of being unfamiliar with the Law of God/the Law of Moses, people don't even understand the nuances of what's happening in the gospels (let alone the epistles). Jesus is not speaking against His Father's Law. He's speaking against people who commit injustices / lawlessness / who don't obey the Law, but do their own thing all under the guise of obeying the Command, taking some phrases as inspiration to make it sound like they're obeying, but in truth of what the Command actually tells you to do, they don't do it; they cherry-pick (thus make it unjust and unstable—because everything God Commanded, when heeded, would guarantee true justice, true mercy, true protection from harm). The Pharisees are claiming to be doing—whatever it is they're doing—in obedience to the Law of God, when in reality they are perverting what it says, to their own convenience, not out of a sincere heart to obey their Creator (had they been doing so, they would just do what it says), not out of trust that everything He says is for our good, not out of sincere care for the people, but to satiate their own carnal lusts and alleviate their conscience for doing so (not to mention, eliminate the evidence that they ever committed the sin), ergo not out of a sincere desire to establish justice, protect the people, have mercy, walk in uprightness, the way God's Law instructs; they're not obeying the details of the Law that would ensure all this. Because their carnal mind won't let them.

However, the Law of God is love, righteousness, justice, protection and mercy when all the details are heeded. If there are no two to tree truthful witnesses, no one gets stoned, the case cannot be prosecuted; if both the adulterer and adulteress are not brought forth for stoning, no one gets stoned, the case cannot be prosecuted; they're shown mercy, withheld punishment, given a chance to walk away and never commit the sin again (leave their life of sin).

I hope you're getting a sense of how the Law of Moses (the Law of our Heavenly Father) is the very definition of love and justice, towards God and man, and why Jesus is upholding it in contrast to the self-imposed, merely human command and teachings, way of "obeying" the Commands, that the Pharisees would do and concoct; they perverted the Law of God in their application. They did not keep the simplicity and truth of what it says to do.

Ergo,

      • Matthew 23:1-3 (KJV)

        23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

        2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

        3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.


They don't obey (and don't want obey) what is read from Moses' seat, even though they can read it and quote it accurately enough. Their interpretation is deviant. And so is their application of it.

The Law of God is the ultimate standard of truth and protection, and compassion when handled correctly (unlike merely human and commands and teachings, that are human in origin instead of God in origin).

Ergo,

      • 1 Timothy 1:8 (KJV)

        8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;


All of this to say, when people submit to what's actually written, there is nothing to fear.

Whether it's your distrust of the NIV (and comparing it to the Greek text), Or the Law of God that Jesus, Paul, John, etc, are actually upholding (once we acknowledge the details of what's actually being said in adherence to what is written), there is nothing to fear there either.

But let's continue with the distrust / fears you have concerning the NIV.





Again, the NIV is the one being honest with you about what the Greek actually says.

User Image
http://biblehub.com/text/galatians/5-12.htm

In this passage (ἀποκόψονται) apokopsontai is based on G#609, which says,

        Strong's Concordance
        apokoptó: to cut off
        Original Word: ἀποκόπτω
        Part of Speech: Verb
        Transliteration: apokoptó
        Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ok-op'-to)
        Short Definition: I smite, cut off, emasculate
        Definition: I smite, cut off, cut loose; mid: I emasculate, castrate, mutilate myself.


Yes, how dare they...translate what the Greek literally says.

He's either saying one of two things, or both:

(1) they should not just circumcise their p***s, but totally cut off their sexual organ. OR
(2) they should not just circumcise their p***s, but totally cut off their fleshly nature, their body of sin (akin to Colossians 2:11 and Romans 6:6)

      • Colossians 2:11 (KJV)

        11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

      • Romans 6:6 (KJV)

        6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.


In other words, get fully circumcised of your whole fleshly nature, not just a piece of foreskin, because they weren't actually obeying the Law of God as it is written, let alone desiring to obey out of sincerity (due to their carna mind). And they couldn't because in their very being, they were dominated by the desire to sin (carnal mind, the law of sin in the flesh). They need to go all the way, "okay, you are circumcised in your flesh, but circumcize that flesh all the way, do what it symbolizes—a circumcision that only Christ can give you, that desire to sin / transgress the Commands needs to go". They did not crucify their body of sin so that they no longer serve sin / no longer desire to sin from the inside out. So what was the use of their literal circumcision? They were operating out of the law of sin in their flesh, not a sincere desire to obey the Law of God.

And because they were carnally-minded, they only followed mere human interpretation, not what is written, because their carnal mind didn't like the Commands of God, it liked to sin but have some outward sign that they were pleasing to God. But like anything God Commanded, even the Commands that have shadows / symbolic layers of interpretation, it is not to mankind's detriment to keep them like merely human commands are (e.g. scroll down to [Circumcision might have various health benefits, including]). So yes, the physical demonstrates the spiritual, but, the physical-keeping of the Command still has benefits because they came from God (not man), and there has always been a protective quality about them.

The Pharisees, their leaven, we're not to be like. Their faulty interpretations lead to all kinds of injustices / lawlessness, missing the point of what is Commanded and failure to reflect a truth about God. God wants worshipers in Spirit and in truth. And I, for one, agree, and am not interested in teaching to set aside the least of the Commands.

      • Matthew 5:19-20 (KJV)

        19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

        20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


I 100% trust everything YHWH Commanded (including God's dietary laws that with the full Biblical evidence considered, are still guarded under the New Covenant, even in the Book of Revelation. As long as this corrupt earth and these corrupt heavens still stand, those Commands still protect us).

The lawless Pharisees didn't trust YHWH fully. I've no desire to be like them. I can actually see the love and intention behind those Commands, not just for their spiritual applications but their literal ones as well.


[continue below]
 

cristobela
Vice Captain


cristobela
Vice Captain

PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:21 am
edited on 11/6/2017 to change image hosting
[continued...]





Let's quote it out (and I'll try to put this side-by-side to feel the full effect):

Daniel 7:9 (NIV)                                                    Daniel 7:9 (KJV)

9 “As I looked,                                                     9 I beheld till

“thrones were set in place,                                             the thrones were cast down
    and the Ancient of Days took his seat.                      and the Ancient of days did sit,
His clothing was as white as snow;                                whose garment was white as snow,
    the hair of his head was white like wool.                  and the hair of his head like the pure wool:
His throne was flaming with fire,                                    his throne was like the fiery flame,
    and its wheels were all ablaze.                                    and his wheels as burning fire.


The only thing remotely "opposite" is "thrones set in place" vs "thrones cast down".

Like I addressed in the [The NIV Bible... Not a reliable source?] it's not a matter of defending the English between NIV and KJV or any version, but what the Hebrew actually means.

So, what is the Hebrew term?
And is there a reason why both of these are actually accurate translations despite, in English, sounding at odds?

The Hebrew term is H#7412:
and as matter of fact, there is:

User Image

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/daniel/7-9.htm


◄ 7412. remah ►

Strong's Concordance
remah: to cast, throw
Original Word: רְמָה
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: remah
Phonetic Spelling: (rem-aw')
Short Definition: cast

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
(Aramaic) corresponding to ramah
Definition
to cast, throw
NASB Translation
cast (10), impose (1), set (1).

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
cast down, impose
(Aramaic) corresponding to ramah; to throw, set, (figuratively) assess -- cast (down), impose.

see HEBREW ramah

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7412.htm

Despite how it was translated differently in the English language, the meaning didn't change, because, if someone's throne is being set up, someone else's is coming down. Whichever way the translator decides to translate it as, it does not change whose throne is being established and whose is being removed.

In context of the very same chapter, ask yourself this: who are we told are the ones sitting down in authority? Answer: the Ancient of days and His followers.

      • Daniel 7:21-22 (KJV)

        21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

        22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

      • Daniel 7:21-22 (NIV)

        21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.


Their thrones, their reign, is being set up.

Equivalent to:

      • Revelation 20:4 (KJV)

        4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

      • Revelation 20:4 (NIV)

        4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

        Footnotes:

        a. Revelation 20:4 Or God; I also saw those who


Who was dethroned in Revelation 19? The beast, and the false prophet.
Who is enthroned in Rev 20? Christ and His followers

Who is dethroned in Daniel 7? the beast (there are four described, but in Revelation all four are one).

        KJV

        Daniel 7:3 (KJV) Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.
        Daniel 7:4 (KJV) “The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. [...]
        Daniel 7:5 (KJV) “And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. [...]
        Daniel 7:6 (KJV) “After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. [...]
        Daniel 7:7 (KJV) “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful.

        Revelation 13:1 (KJV) And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

        Revelation 13:2 (KJV) And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.


        NIV

        Daniel 7:3-7 (NIV)

        3 Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.

        4 “The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. [...]
        5 “And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. [...]
        6 “After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. [...]
        7 “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. [...]

        Revelation 13:1-2 (NIV)

        13 The dragon[a] stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

        2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.

        Footnotes:

        a. Revelation 13:1 Some manuscripts And I


Who is enthroned in Daniel 7? The Ancient of days and His followers (v. 21-22) as I quoted previously, in both the KJV and NIV.

No doctrine lost. And here you are quibbling over a little word, being represented differently in the English, that didn't change the meaning at all of what is being communicated.

I'm going to these lengths to show you that you have to read the rest of the NIV to understand that it is not changing doctrines. You can't just pluck out a verse and accuse the NIV of changing doctrines (without reading the rest of it sincerely to see if it actually did).

And when the NIV is honestly alerting you of manuscript differences, you can't take that to mean, "there's a conspiracy afoot; they're not actually being honest with me. They're trying to change doctrines". That's unjust, especially when the evidence speaks contrary to that claim.

And what the NIV translators are saying is true. Manuscripts read differently. You're hating on them for informing you of an actual reality of all the evidence that's out there. Some hand written copies have sentences that others don't. Do we just ignore this? The just/fair thing to do is tell people.



CherieBunnie
4. enforce the idea that mere baptization by water saves you - leaving out this verse


I can tell you didn't read the other topics in their entirety because I addressed this verse already in those other discussions.

real eyes realize
As for Chick's accusation, same thing:

      • Accusation:

      The NIV "edited out" Acts 8:37.


      Let's Verify That:
      User Image

      NIV/KJV side-by-side:
      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ac8:37&version=NIV;KJV



      Verdict:

      The information is not missing if one bothers to check. The NIV holds the same information despite relying on a different manuscript.


http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewtopic.php?page=1&t=24424043#366645499


Is the NIV trying to deceive you into changing doctrines? No, it told you of the information anyway despite not having used a manuscript that reads like others. They're going the extra mile to be transparent about what's out there, all the evidence that is out there.

And this idea is not just preserved here with this verse and footnote: if the NIV is read in its totality, you would see that your allegation (that the NIV, "enforces the idea that mere baptization by water saves you") is baseless. Because, if that's what they wanted to do, then they wouldn't have included Cornelius' example who got saved before ever getting baptized in water:

      • Acts 10:44-48 (NIV)

        44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues[a] and praising God.

        Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

        Footnotes:

        a. Acts 10:46 Or other languages

      • Titus 3:5 (NIV)

        5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,


Again, you're ignoring the totality of the NIV (and in, general, "not reading the entirety of a thing" is something that you've been demonstrating in other areas as well which is the root cause for misunderstanding anything that anyone writes). Please avoid doing that. Instead read with patience when a person expects you to read and consider the whole thing to fully understand.





User Image

They denied nothing. They provided you with both manuscript readings and thus informing the reader that a manuscript difference exists. There are older manuscripts [hand written copies of this letter] that do not contain this phrase in this exact reading, but there are other younger/much later manuscripts that read such and such way. In essence, you're saying, "how dare you NIV translators tell the world that such manuscripts exist". They're alerting you of both, not hiding one or the other.

And this isn't the only verse in the NIV where you'd see that "the three are in agreement" (NIV), or that "these three are in one" (KJV):

      • Matthew 28:19 (NIV)

        19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


CherieBunnie
6. are only in agreeance with 5% of existing Greek manuscripts, whereas 95% agree with the Textus Receptus which was the basis of the KJV

"The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.

For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their Greek Text, which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone.
"

User Image

^ I don't know about you, but these are legit problems in my eyes.


If the "contradictions" referred to are anything like the "contradictions" you have been presenting thus far (variant readings), then I see no legitimate problem. They aren't actually contradictions. They can both be true at the same time because the statements themselves are not nullifying one another or any doctrine presented in the entirety of the Bible.

Something being in the minority does not make it false nor inferior. What are the actual claims? and are the claims themselves false in light of what the totality of the Scriptures say? Is the manuscript difference an untruth about what the Bible claims? Do the rest of the manuscripts deny or not support the idea?

Did you actually read the whole page...?

Quote:
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please remember that, while the modern versions of the Bible do water down the truth and are not the BEST translations, they certainly do not completely eliminate these key doctrines, so it is still possible to discern these doctrines and to find the true gospel and way of salvation in many of the new texts or translations. My wife, for instance, was saved while reading the Good News Bible, which is a paraphrase based on the Minority Texts, which were corrupted. So you see, God uses even the flawed translations to accomplish His purposes and decrees.


And yet that's precisely what you're trying to argue. confused That they changed doctrines and/or eliminated doctrines. And at the end of the day, the NIV's footnotes tell you, "hey, other manuscripts say this, that, and the third". There's nothing truthfully eliminated in the content of those Bibles.

The website also goes on to do some unjust assumption-making: "So here's what likely happened:" Then go into a whole scenario of what they think happened. And then blame the devil. They weren't there. They didn't witness this. They asks questions like, "Think about it . . . can you really imagine the Lord of Lords, the Holy One of Israel hiding Codex Vaticanus away for over 1,000 years in the Vatican Library till 1481? Or better yet, can you imagine Him prompting the monks of St Catherine's Monastery to dump Codex Sinaiticus into a waste basket?". I wasn't there and I wouldn't know His purposes for doing so if He had. How is anyone suppose to justly answer such questions? And then to presume and say, it was the devil instead of God, who led that to happen, as if God isn't sovereign over such things. They're just trying to poison your mind with suspicion instead of just looking at the facts.

Similarly, why are they bothering to say things like,

[...] The most influential man among the "intellectual" community of Alexandria was the learned Origen, and it is believed by many that he was largely instrumental in developing the so-called "Alexandrian" text of the New Testament (of which the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts are representative), in contrast to the "Byzantine" text, from which the Textus Receptus has largely come

With all his immense learning and zeal, however, Origen was a heretic. Like modern theistic evolutionists, he felt constrained to harmonize Christianity with pagan philosophy, especially that of Plato and the Stoics. This led him into excessive allegorization of Scripture, especially Genesis, and into denigrating the actual historical records of the Bible, even that of the bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the literal creation of the world.


And yet, does the NIV itself deny the literal creation of the world and the bodily resurrection of Christ? No...

      • Genesis 1:1 (NIV)

        1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

      • Acts 2:32 (NIV)

        32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.


So, talking about Origen's method of interpretation is irrelevant to whether or not the claims of the NIV should be distrusted based on what they actually state / declare.

Just in case you've only read "KJV-only" websites.

    Quote:

    Erasmus, a 15th-century Dutch theologian, working at great speed in order to beat to press another Greek New Testament being prepared in Spain, gathered together what hand-copied Greek manuscripts he could locate. He found five or six, the majority of which were dated in the twelfth century. Working with all the speed he could, Erasmus did not even transcribe the manuscripts; he merely made notes on the manuscripts themselves and sent them to the printers. The entire New Testament was printed in about six to eight months and published in 1516. It became a best seller, despite its errors, and the first printing was soon gone. A second edition was published in 1519 with some of the errors having been corrected.

    Erasmus published two other editions in 1527 and 1535. Stung by criticism that his work contained numerous textual errors, he incorporated readings from the Greek New Testament published in Spain in later editions of his work. Erasmus’ Greek text became the standard in the field, and other editors and printers continued the work after his death in 1536. In 1633, another edition was published. In the publisher’s preface, in Latin, we find these words: “Textum ergo habes, nun cab omnibus receptum,” which can be translated as “the [reader] now has the text that is received by all.” From that publisher’s notation have come the words “Received Text.” The Textus Receptus became the dominant Greek text of the New Testament for the following two hundred and fifty years. It was not until the publication of the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament in 1881 that the Textus Receptus lost its position.

    The reason for its losing its prominent position as a basis of biblical textual interpretation was the inception of textual criticism. Influential scholars paved the way for the acceptance of a critical text. The work of Westcott and Hort brought about the final dethronement of the Textus Receptus and the establishment of the principle of a critical text. However, the Textus Receptus is not a “bad” or misleading text, either theologically or practically. Technically, however, it is far from the original text. Yet three centuries were to pass before scholars had won the struggle to replace this hastily assembled text with a text which gave evidence to being closer to the New Testament Autographs.


    Read More: http://www.gotquestions.org/Textus-Receptus.html


    The two scholars identified their favorite text type as "Neutral text", exemplified by two 4th-century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus (known to scholars since the 15th century), and the Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859), both of which they relied on heavily (albeit not exclusively) for this edition. This text has only a few changes of the original.[6]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westcott-Hort#WH_edition


Erasmus' Textus Receptus is based on manuscripts from the 12th century.
Westcott and Hort discovered two 4th century manuscripts.

If not for websites inspiring suspicion (baselessly, because no doctrines have been eliminated as their little note acknowledged, and yet making you hate the NIV because of how certain people believed, and not necessarily for what the NIV declares itself, even when the NIV disagrees with what that person, believes), and telling you what they think God would or wouldn't do, you would just accept the facts and logic: older = closer to the originals = more authoritative.


CherieBunnie
And I haven't even mentioned the slew of bullshit


Ok, hold it right there: it does't matter how frustrated you feel, there's no excuse for this type of language especially if you're seeking to edify the listener with what you have to say.

      • Ephesians 4:29 (KJV)

        29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

      • Colossians 3:8-10 (KJV)

        8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

        9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

        10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:


That said...


CherieBunnie
that came straight from the mouths of the people who chose those particular conflicting manuscripts over the rest of them. But here are some examples:

"I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden'(I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues."

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period."

Dr. Hort was also an adherent to the teaching of Samuel Taylor Coleridge.... One of Coleridge's famous works is Aids to Reflection. "Its chief aim is to harmonize formal Christianity with Coleridge's variety of transcendental philosophy. He also did much to introduce Immanual Kant and other German philosophers to English readers."

Rev. Hort also shrunk from the belief in a literal, eternal "hell." "I think Maurice's letter to me sufficiently showed that we have no sure knowledge respecting the duration of future punishment, and that the word 'eternal' has a far higher meaning than the merely material one of excessively long duration; extinction always grates against my mind as something impossible."

...he was a very real believer in the fictious Roman Catholic doctrine of "purgatory." "The idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said respecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their character when this visible life is ended."

There was also his rejection of Christ's atoning death for the sins of all mankind. "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins." ... "Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."

Note the following quotations from Bishop Westcott: "No doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from the error of connecting the Presence of Christ's glorified humanity with place; 'heaven is a state and not a place.'" ... "We may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute, faithful, united endeavour to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life."

^ Again, these are legit problems in my eyes, and I refuse to look past them! I'm not going to believe anything if it comes from those Bibles.


Again, what does a person's beliefs and interpretation have to do with the manuscript? To use a Biblical example: I don't doubt that the Pharisees held respect for the Torah, and that they preserved it well, but their interpretation of it? the doctrines they built around it (that Jesus exposed as I quoted in the beginning of this reply, that deviated from what is written—not that they messed up the writing itself, just how they interpreted it)? I don't trust the Pharisees' doctrines and interpretations obviously nor accept them. But I do trust what they read from Moses' seat. The text they preserved. The two ("preserving history and the texts themselves" vs "interpretations of the text") are not equivalent.

Doe the NIV itself deny that Eden was a literal place? that the heavens are a literal place? and that eternal torment is a reality?

      • Genesis 2:8 (NIV)

        8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

      • 2 Corinthians 12:2 (NIV)

        2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.

      • Revelation 20:10 (NIV)

        10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


Clearly, what is written in the NIV does not support their personally-held beliefs and yet I'm quoting the NIV. If their beliefs affect the NIV text, as they are insinuating, then they would've changed these and similar verses. But they didn't.
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:50 am
edited on 11/6/2017 to change image hosting
Response to Second Post


CherieBunnie
cristobela
Let me point out in fewer words what I addressed so you understand more easily:
· the Hebrew word used for "every moving thing"(KJV) in Genesis 9:3
· how that same word gets applied elsewhere in Genesis, being distinct from the word for cattle, and beast of the earth


The word you're referring to is רֶ֫מֶשׂ, and if you click that link you will see that this doesn't seem to be so.


Correct, that is the word I am referring to (remes), but you misunderstood: I'm saying the Hebrew term is distinct (different) from the word for cattle and the word for beast of the earth; remes is only applied to creeping things, which inherently means the verse isn't even talking about all animals in the first place (thus, does not include cattle, or beast of the earth, or birds), but limiting it to creeping things. Remes is only used of creeping things. As the link you provided demonstrates.

Then of those creeping things, it would only be limited to the clean ones because Noah had knowledge of clean and unclean distinctions prior to Genesis 9, as demonstrated in Genesis 7 and 8. So, just like he knew he couldn't eat all green things based on the distinctions in Genesis 1, he wouldn't eat all creeping things either, but limit it to the distinction made in Genesis 7 and 8.

What the verse says (what's in brackets and caps is mine):

      • Genesis 9:3 (KJV)

        3 Every moving thing [REMES / CREEPING THING] that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.


Screenshots:

Genesis 9:3 remes being "moving things"

User Image

http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/9-3.htm

Genesis 1:25 remes being "creeping things" only

User Image

http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-25.htm

Genesis 6:7 remes being "creeping things" only

User Image

http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/6-7.htm

So, if YHWH gave Noah the remes (creeping things) like He gave Noah the green herb (which had limitations based on Genesis 1), then so would remes have limitations, because He's giving it to Noah in the same fashion as He gave the green herb. Noah knew better than to eat poison ivy and grass. He also knew better than to eat unclean remes.


CherieBunnie
cristobela
how people gloss over details and Biblical definition in the passages describing Noah and the matter of unclean and clean distinctions.


Similar to how you choose to gloss over these verses:

1 Tim 4:4-5 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.


No, I actually drew attention to that very chapter and verse, before this topic was even created, and bolded what in those verses was being ignored [thus what I was quoting from earlier]: the Biblical definition of “truth”, and “sanctified”, as the Hebrew and the rest of the Bible define. You're being dishonest. Because, like in the above with Noah, I went through this already with you, both in this topic and in the [Details in the New Testament that Get Ignored] topic. Granted perhaps you dismissed it because I quoted the NIV. But for you to say I ignored the verse is a lie.

Also, for you to hold on to that interpretation—that there aren't any clean and unclean distinctions anymore, on this earth and under these heavens—you would have to turn a blind eye to Revelation 18:2, which even in the KJV is still identifying certain animals as unclean.

      • Revelation 18:2 (KJV)

        2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.


Jesus didn't declare all literal animals clean. Peter's vision was symbolic for Gentiles who are born-again and whose natures are changed in Christ (they stop doing unclean things and stop thinking/fueling unclean thoughts from their heart). But those literal animals, on the otherhand, still have unclean natures based on the unclean actions they continue to do on earth. They haven't changed and won't be changed until Jesus restores all things. Likewise, unless that Gentile does have a change in nature from the inside out, they continue to be unclean from the inside out, and continue to enjoy doing unclean things—not the ones who are born-again in Christ however. They crucify that body of sin that enjoys and desires to sin.

What I've been highlighting in that topic, [Details in the New Testament that Get Ignored], is what offers the cohesive interpretation that accounts for the all the details and statements that can be found in those chapters in the New Testament, allowing them to remain true and not contradict.

I don't know if there is some unspoken assumption here that is making you hostile to what I am saying. But perhaps you're thinking I'm saying that people can't be saved (born-again, “desire to sin” crucified, and replaced by a new and sincere desire for righteousness) unless they obey all those Commands? No. You believe in Christ for that, but those Commands still protect us on a physical level while we're still on this corrupt earth. There are practical reasons for why they are still unclean just as much as Biblical reasons [because the Bible is what conforms to reality; and reality says they continue to be unclean because of what they do and so does the Bible continue to say that—those birds in Rev 18:2 are coming to eat something they found dead]. Babylon has fallen. There are / will be dead people.

      • Revelation 18:8 (KJV)

        8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.


CherieBunnie
cristobela
That said,

"new order" does not equal, "new World order".


It might as well since it's a deliberate mistranslation of Hebrews 9:10. I honestly have no idea how they got the phrase "new order" from this.


Here is where it is helpful to point out that not all Bible translations aim to be word-for-word translations, but at points more thought-for-thought (and the thought being referred to here is that time when all things would be restored; yes, admittedly, they used a phrase that is not representative of the Greek words in Hebrews 9:10 to communicate the thought).

The spectrum from most word-for-word to most thought-for-thought: http://www.tateville.com/translations.html

The NIV is around the middle, though slightly more word-for-word than thought-for-thought.

This can be a danger: as I fully acknowledged when I pointed out earlier the way the NIV translators—and other modern translations—treated Hosea 9:3. The Hebrew says, “unclean” while "things" is implied, but the modern translations erroneously communicated “unclean food” (the word "food" is nowhere to be found) which is an oxymoron and dishonest to what the Bible refers to as food (not to mention limiting, because also unclean is blood [which is not food], poop, rotting carcass, blubber, etc which cultures do eat; even in the United States of America people eat roadkill / things found dead. Unclean things, just like unclean animals, are not food. What has led to the idea of “unclean foods” being an actual Biblical concept are the modern translations, but as well, to be fair, the false doctrine, deviated from Biblical definitions, influencing such thoughts-for-thought translations. A lot of it is due to the mishandling of Paul's writings and other New Testament scriptures so they miss the point of a passage while also ignoring details in the verses that would prevent going to the lawless extreme.


CherieBunnie
cristobela
How the NIV uses the phrase "new order" is to contrast to the "old order" of things:

Revelation 21:4 (NIV)

4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[a] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”


Another deliberate mistranslation. I, again, have no idea how they got "old order" from the Greek shown in that link.. Because it seems to translate best to "former things."


Yes, here too it is a thought-for-thought approach instead of a word-for-word.

CherieBunnie
cristobela
Footnotes:

a. Revelation 21:4 Isaiah 25:8


Footnotes aren't scripture.


I don't know what prompted you to draw attention to the footnote, but footnotes are no different than you or I alerting people of information elsewhere in the Bible, where a similar concept is displayed, information on how a different manuscript reads, historical information, or even drawing attention to the Hebrew or Greek definition of a word. Depending on the nature of the footnote, I can't say I've read all Bible versions, but I would say, it depends on what the footnotes says. Unless it's some historical background, I would say yes, it is Scripture (or Scripture being referred to). Revelation is Scripture. Isaiah is Scripture.

CherieBunnie
cristobela
As I bolded, enlarged, and colored purple above, the definition you provided from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for the word that appears in Hebrews 9:10, makes my case actually. The "time of reformation" means the same thing as the time of restoration of all things, that the holy prophets foretold, which is the concept the NIV refers to in Acts 3:21, and why I'm quoting it. The Book of Acts is a book/letter which was written after Jesus had died, raised to life, and ascended into the clouds 40 days later, so the heavens received Him and that time of restoration doesn't come until He returns.

Do we still have sickness? pain? Are animals still eating animals (death)?

Then we're still under the former things / the old order of things.

Not the new order, because at that point there is no death, and animals don't eat each other.

What was promised long ago in the holy prophets is just that: the restoration of all things, not just the renewal of our minds. We've yet to be transformed into an incorruptible body that no longer decays or dies. Revelation 21, that talks about no more death, is after both resurrections have taken place (resurrections that Revelation 20 described), and the old earth with its heavens disappear in Revelation 20:11 at the start of the Great White Throne judgment and the second resurrection. In contrast, Revelation 21 opens up describing the new earth and new heavens. That's when death is no more, that's when all things have been restored, corrected, back to how conditions were in Eden.


I see no evident biblical connection between "the time of restoration" of Hebrew 9:10 and "the restitution of all things" in Acts 3:21. I do believe in the time of restitution of all things as you're describing it, but I see no adequate biblical proof that these 2 phrases are both referring to that time.


The Biblical connection is this: if Hebrews 9:10 is alluding to the Commands concerning foods (that God instituted: this plant is food, this plant is not; this animal is food, this animal is not) and Jesus is still identifying animals as unclean in Revelation 18 (what else is He basing this on? God's Law), then the time of restoration also mentioned in Hebrews 9:10 is not yet, not even in Revelation 18 can you say the “time of restoration” has come (because an animal is being identified as unclean).

Now, let's set the timeline: animals identified as unclean all the way in Revelation 18. The heavens open and Jesus appears in Revelation 19. Resurrections (divided by the 1,000 year reign) happens in Revelation 20. This earth and these heavens disappear in Revelation 20:11. The new earth and new heavens don't appear until Revelation 21. So for those Commands to have zero relevance, and for there to be absolutely no “unclean” and “clean” distinctions whatsoever anymore, Jesus has to return, our bodies transformed, and this earth with these heavens have to disappear. Jesus returning and restoring all things as Acts 3:21 describes. The link between Hebrews 9:10 to all these events is precisely the reference to the Commands of God that identify certain animals as unclean. Animals are unclean until the time of the restoration, totally agree.

And, for that matter, the reference to animal sacrifices as well in Hebrews 9:10 is another link. Why? considering the prophecies about the Gentiles having to go up to Jerusalem every year to observe the Feast of Tabernacles and they will cook their sacrifices in the pots of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:16-21), obviously the animal sacrifices (spoken of in Hebrews 9:10) are still being observed at end times (considering Zechariah 14 is end times—under what Covenant were foreign nations—nations other than Israel—obligated to come observe the Feast of Tabernacles or else they get no rain? That's not Mosaic at all). Zechariah 14 is end times prior to the restoration of all things (thus why animal sacrifices are still being done, animals still identified as clean or unclean)

I hope you're following: the time of restoration cannot be placed before Revelation 18:2 because Jesus is still identifying animals as unclean at that point. And somewhere in between Revelation 20 and 21 is where we fit in the prophecies about the Gentile nations trekking up to Jerusalem to observe the Feast of Tabernacles every year. Because, after that, there won't be a temple on the new earth and the new heavens (Revelation 21:22), ergo no sacrificing whatsoever, and no clean and unclean animal distinctions (which the sacrifices are also subjected to).

      • Genesis 8:20 (KJV)

        20 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.


CherieBunnie
cristobela
I don't know if you're deliberately trying to lie or just made a mistake, but no, G#1378 is not only used twice more in the New Testament nor only to refer to the decrees/ordinances of God.

Acts 17:7 (KJV)

7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees G#1378 of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/17-7.htm

Luke 2:1 (KJV)

2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree G#1378 from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/2-1.htm


Biblehub was only showing those 2 occurences for some reason. I'm not sure which page I was looking at. But I double-checked on another site, and I do see it's other occurences, none of which disprove what I originally said. So I'm standing by my first claim: That the word "ordinances" refers to laws set in place.


My point in bringing this up is that "the laws with its commands", was not referring to the Law of God, but the law of sin in the flesh. Ergo, what I wrote below:

CherieBunnie
cristobela
So, no, you cannot identify the ordinances based on how this Greek term is used elsewhere in Scripture, in this case with this term, but by context, your knowledge of Scripture. What is Jesus saving us from? Our sins, and the guilt of our sins. He's not saving us from the Commands of His Father, which in prophecy and even in the Book of Revelation are still being upheld (e.g. unclean animals, both in Isaiah and the Book of Revelation).

But furthermore, something you're not realizing about Eph 2:15, and also to do with what Jesus is saving us from:

CherieBunnie Wrote:
This is the other verse in which it occurs:

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Pretty clear.


Paul makes a reference to two different laws in His epistles—and only in the epistle to the Romans does he make the the full distinction (the rest of the time, he shortens the phrase, but you understand by context what he is referring to). The explicit passage in Romans:

Romans 7:25 (KJV)

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


And which one of those two—the Law of God or the law of sin in the flesh—is it that puts us in enmity with both God and man?

The law of sin in our flesh (carnal).

The Law of God in, contrast, is how we love both God and man, and what God finds pleasing (as opposed to the law of sin in the flesh which He finds displeasing). And the Spirit does not walk in the flesh, but in the Laws of God.

The verses demonstrating this:

Romans 8:7-9 (KJV)

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Ezekiel 36:27 (KJV)

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

1 John 3:22 (KJV)

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

John 14:15 (KJV)

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Matthew 22:36-40 (KJV)

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


The Law of God is not what causes enmity—it is how we Love God and man.

The law of sin in our flesh causes enmity—between man and God, Jew and Gentile alike, and men against men, Jew and Gentile alike.

That law of sin in our flesh was crucified, or is suppose to be crucified when you come to Christ (and Christ Himself crucifies that sin nature off you).

Romans 6:6 (KJV)

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Colossians 2:11 (KJV)

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:


What is sin?

1 John 3:4 (KJV)

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.


Christ came to kill that nature in our flesh (the law of sin in our flesh) that loves to transgress the Law of God; He came to kill the law of sin in the flesh, while the Holy Spirit loves to walk in the Law of God. The carnal mind cannot submit to the Law of God. But through the Holy Spirit we can.

Christ came to save us from both the guilt of our sins, and the law of sin in our flesh (not the Law of God which is written on our hearts and continues to be upheld in the Book of Revelation and elsewhere).



Jesus did save us from our sins. I didn't say He saved us from ordinances. I said He abolished the ordinances because they were unnecessary, because they were merely ordinances set in place for the Israelites as a shadow of things to come. Because every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. With that said, I don't see how any of the above is relevant to disputing what I said.


With the clarification in these two replies, I hope / expect you're seeing that the Law of God concerning clean and unclean distinctions weren't abolished either. Not until the time of restoration of all things, which has not happened even in Revelation 18 (since animals are still being identified as unclean then).

Yes, they do serve as a shadow of things to come and simultaneously they guard our good, keep us protected from having detrimental interactions with creation, or motivate us to have beneficial interactions. You don't want to eat that vulture, that rat, that pig, that elephant, that gorilla (the latter two, I don't know if you clicked on the videos I provided in this topic, but the one digging poop out of their own butts, or someone else's, and eating it, yeah, that's them). You don't want to feast on animal who feast on that kind of thing:

[Guinea Bans Bat Eating to Curb Ebola Spread, Warns on Rats] (eating bats, rats)

[Five Japanese men poisoned by puffer fish after 'eating highly poisonous liver'] (as a creature from the seas, fugu does not have scales and fins, and the Law of God had us remove the internal organs from the animals and burn them, not eat them i.e. Exodus 29:13—not surprisingly these organs and bodily tissues store toxins)

These unclean things and unclean animals are unclean for a reason. They are too risky. When God said He would take disease away from us if we obeyed His Commands, these clean and unclean distinctions were part of the Commands (that gentile nations didn't live by them, ergo they suffered as they're still doing now—Guinea and Japan, gentile nations, for eating unclean things).

And I already provided the evidence in [Details in the New Testament that Get Ignored] for why eating rotting meat, or something that did, is not a good idea (of the reasons I've been led to discover; I'm sure there are more that God knows about in His wisdom that I have not realized).


CherieBunnie
cristobela
The explanations of the fufilled aspects of Isaiah 31-35 are still there in my reply to you. You suggested they were all end times, and none fulfilled. That is what I corrected. There is fulfillment of them that you weren't aware of.

I think it's safe to say that you didn't give the verses I provided, as proof, the light of day because I quoted from the NIV. I clearly laid out for you Biblical examples of how the verses got used in the Old Testament to prophesy about a day of wrath that wasn't referring to end times, and that day of wrath called “the day of the Lord”. And I also provided examples of the stars not giving their light and day of dark clouds as well, not in reference to end times, but still being used. We cannot arrive at conclusions, nor at doctrinal statements and interpretations that doesn't account for all the Biblical evidence. Like I said, when God punished a nation, even at times that weren't the end, He called it “the day of the Lord”. Where you're getting that the phrase “the day of the Lord” is solely "end times"-related is the unBiblical notion in light of the chapters that used it without referring to end times destruction. Again, I quoted them earlier in this topic, which I think you dismissed since you said you didn't agree with anything, even though I'm just quoting Old Testament examples and pointing out the criteria for why the United States of America doesn't fit spiritual Babylon's criteria that John saw.


You did not correct them. I don't feel that you provided adequate evidence that these chapters are not about the end of times. And that was not because you used the NIV, because I checked the verses in the KJV. It was because what you were saying wasn't adding up. You never provided adequate biblical proof that there are multiple days of the Lord. So I do agree with your statement "We cannot arrive at conclusions, nor at doctrinal statements and interpretations that doesn't account for all the Biblical evidence." Where's the biblical evidence that says there are multiple days of the Lord?


Well, here, in this paragraph, I'm addressing two things: the passages in Isaiah where I brought to light certain past fulfillments, in the lifetime of Hezekiah and Isaiah, that you did not consider. And I acknowledged, I think in two to three of them, that it could be future fulfillments, one chapter that was very vague even, but my point being that they were not solely reserved for end times.

And my evidences for the general usage of “day of the Lord”—as a day of wrath against a nation—was Ezekiel 30:1-12. Because it identified Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, being sent against that nation [and its allies] and “the day of the Lord” describing that attack.

      • Ezekiel 30:1-12 (KJV)

        30 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

        2 Son of man, prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Howl ye, Woe worth the day!

        3 For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.

        4 And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and they shall take away her multitude, and her foundations shall be broken down.

        5 Ethiopia, and Libya, and Lydia, and all the mingled people, and Chub, and the men of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword.

        6 Thus saith the Lord; They also that uphold Egypt shall fall; and the pride of her power shall come down: from the tower of Syene shall they fall in it by the sword, saith the Lord God.

        7 And they shall be desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities shall be in the midst of the cities that are wasted.

        8 And they shall know that I am the Lord, when I have set a fire in Egypt, and when all her helpers shall be destroyed.

        9 In that day shall messengers go forth from me in ships to make the careless Ethiopians afraid, and great pain shall come upon them, as in the day of Egypt: for, lo, it cometh.

        10 Thus saith the Lord God; I will also make the multitude of Egypt to cease by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon.

        11 He and his people with him, the terrible of the nations, shall be brought to destroy the land: and they shall draw their swords against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain.

        12 And I will make the rivers dry, and sell the land into the hand of the wicked: and I will make the land waste, and all that is therein, by the hand of strangers: I the Lord have spoken it.


This was fulfilled when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568 B.C

http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaNebuchadnezzar_II00000058.htm

Ergo, Egypt's “day of the Lord” / day of wrath when YHWH sent an enemy nation (Babylon) to attack, was fulfilled.

He didn't say He was going to turn Egypt into Sodom-and-Gomorrah level desolate. But it was still their “day of the Lord.”

Similarly, Babylon's “day of the Lord”/ day of wrath—as prophesied in Isaiah 13—when YHWH sent an enemy nation to attack them (the Medes a.k.a. The Persians), was also fulfilled.

The original source for different words used to call the Median people, their language and homeland is a directly transmitted Old Iranian geographical name which is attested as the Old Persian "Māda-" (sing. Masc.).[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes#Etymology

In 539 BC, the Neo-Babylonian Empire fell to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, with a military engagement known as the Battle of Opis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon#Persian_conquest

The Battle of Opis, fought in September 539 BC, was a major engagement between the armies of Persia under Cyrus the Great and the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Nabonidus during the Persian invasion of Mesopotamia. At the time, Babylonia was the last major power in western Asia that was not yet under Persian control. The battle was fought in or near the strategic riverside city of Opis, north of the capital Babylon. It resulted in a decisive defeat for the Babylonians. A few days later, the city of Sippar surrendered to the Persians and Cyrus's forces entered Babylon apparently without a fight. Cyrus was subsequently proclaimed king of Babylonia and its subject territories, thus ending the independence of Babylon and incorporating the Babylonian Empire into the greater Persian Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Opis

If we say this attack sounds too weak compared to Isaiah 13, two things: maybe we're expecting too much violence out of what the language actually means, and if it's suppose to be a stronger attack, then how is this prophesying the original attack by the Medes at all if that's the case (in other words, if this is only partial fulfillment: how much of it is partial? The mere mention of the Medes and that's it? That's all that was fulfilled? Everything else is end times? I mean, there was a battle between two armies at the Battle of Opis—Babylon and the Medes; were they just hugging and talking “kay, you can defeat me, I give up”? Lol. I certainly wasn't there to say: none of isaiah 13 matches the Battle of Opis. Nor was I there to say, all of Isaiah 13 matches the Battle of Opis, but something happened at the Battle of Opis. Some kind of violence. And eventually Babylon became just as desolate as Sodom and Gomorrah (as prophesied), not immediately (but does anything in the prophecy suggest it was suppose to be immediate?).

      • Isaiah 13 (KJV)

        13 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

        2 Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them, shake the hand, that they may go into the gates of the nobles.

        3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness.

        4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the Lord of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.

        5 They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the Lord, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.

        6 Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

        7 Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt:

        8 And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames.

        9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

        10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

        11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

        12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.

        13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

        14 And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land.

        15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.

        16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

        17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

        18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

        19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

        20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.

        21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

        22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.


You can look up pictures of Babylon today and it's in ruins just like Sodom and Gomorrah.

And now that I'm at it, recall that the book of Lamentations was written by the prophet Jeremiah (or traditionally ascribed to have been written by him), lamenting Israel's attack by God (God sent an army—Babylon—to attack them). And he says:

      • Lamentations 2:22 (KJV)

        22 Thou hast called as in a solemn day my terrors round about, so that in the day of the Lord's anger none escaped nor remained: those that I have swaddled and brought up hath mine enemy consumed.


All of that to say, the phrase “day of the Lord” / day of wrath / day of the Lord's anger, etc (and dark cloud imagery i.e. Ezekiel 30:3, 18 and stars not giving light imagery i.e. Ezekiel 32:7-8) has been used when YHWH sent nations to attack each other in the past (as punishment for a nation's unrepentant sins).
 

cristobela
Vice Captain


CherieBunnie

Sugary Hourglass

PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:40 am
cristobela
Like I addressed in the [The NIV Bible... Not a reliable source?] it's not a matter of defending the English between NIV and KJV or any version, but what the Hebrew actually means.

So, what is the Hebrew term?
And is there a reason why both of these are actually accurate translations despite, in English, sounding at odds?


I have looked at ALL of this Hebrew before, and I strongly feel that the other versions translated it incorrectly. This word is always used in a negative sense. It might be insignificant if the reader understands exactly what is happening.. The thrones of the 10 kings/beast being cast down, saints being given thrones. But I feel like incorrectly translating this verse could be used to deceive people and enforce giving power to the 10 kings that are given power one hour with the beast. You might not see it this way, but I do. I can't without a doubt say that doctrine is not lost to some who read it.

cristobela
I'm going to these lengths to show you that you have to read the rest of the NIV to understand that it is not changing doctrines. You can't just pluck out a verse and accuse the NIV of changing doctrines (without reading the rest of it sincerely to see if it actually did).


We seem to have very different beliefs, and I would absolutely say that our Bible preferences have a lot to do with these differences in belief.


cristobela
Is the NIV trying to deceive you into changing doctrines?


I believe it is. You can believe what you want. I firmly believe that the NIV is a corrupt Bible, and I remain unconvinced that it isn't.


cristobela
Again, you're ignoring the totality of the NIV (and in, general, "not reading the entirety of a thing" is something that you've been demonstrating in other areas as well which is the root cause for misunderstanding anything that anyone writes). Please avoid doing that. Instead read with patience when a person expects you to read and consider the whole thing to fully understand.


I have been reading your posts. Do you somehow think that I should agree with you and see it your way if I had read everything you shared? Is it not possible that I've read everything and still choose to disagree?


cristobela
Did you actually read the whole page...?

Quote:
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please remember that, while the modern versions of the Bible do water down the truth and are not the BEST translations, they certainly do not completely eliminate these key doctrines, so it is still possible to discern these doctrines and to find the true gospel and way of salvation in many of the new texts or translations. My wife, for instance, was saved while reading the Good News Bible, which is a paraphrase based on the Minority Texts, which were corrupted. So you see, God uses even the flawed translations to accomplish His purposes and decrees.


YES, I have read the entire page multiple times. Again, you're confusing misunderstanding with disagreement. Nothing you have shared is anything I haven't considered already. And your interpretational beliefs that I disagree with only further condemn the NIV in my eyes. I have never met anyone with a great & true understanding of the Bible who reads anything other than the KJV. Sure, I know people who have the basic doctrines down from reading those Bibles, but a great understanding? Never. On the other hand, I have met a few people along the way who also read the KJV (who don't learn from other people), and we strangely enough come to the exact same beliefs. So YES, without a doubt, I DO believe that the other Bible versions give way to false doctrines! Now, these are just my personal beliefs. You can believe whatever you want. But these observations of mine enforce my preference for the KJV.


cristobela

The website also goes on to do some unjust assumption-making: "So here's what likely happened:" Then go into a whole scenario of what they think happened. And then blame the devil. They weren't there. They didn't witness this. They asks questions like, "Think about it . . . can you really imagine the Lord of Lords, the Holy One of Israel hiding Codex Vaticanus away for over 1,000 years in the Vatican Library till 1481? Or better yet, can you imagine Him prompting the monks of St Catherine's Monastery to dump Codex Sinaiticus into a waste basket?". I wasn't there and I wouldn't know His purposes for doing so if He had. How is anyone suppose to justly answer such questions? And then to presume and say, it was the devil instead of God, who led that to happen, as if God isn't sovereign over such things. They're just trying to poison your mind with suspicion instead of just looking at the facts.


I wouldn't exactly say it the way that site did, but the Bible says that God will preserve His word:

Psalm 12:6-8 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

And, coincidentally, the majority manuscripts have been copied and copied and spread around the world. They've always been available to us. These codices were discovered fairly recently in the timespan of humanity. They were literally buried for centuries before they were discovered in the 1800s. If the Bible says that God would preserve His word, I don't believe these conflicting manuscripts are it. Because otherwise, they would have been around and available over the centuries. That's just something I take on faith.. You can believe what you want.


cristobela
Just in case you've only read "KJV-only" websites.


I have read about Erasmus, too. I KNOW all of this. I have read / watched videos from both sides. I even watched the full James White interview (btw, funny enough, in that interview he said he wouldn't even defend the NIV) and I sided with Steven Anderson on almost all points because I feel the exact same way he does, that the KJV is powerful, and the other bibles are lifeless and powerless. And I felt that way before I even knew who Steven Anderson was or before I did any research on the subject! I'm sorry that you feel that it's impossible that I'm completely informed and still choose the KJV, but I do!


cristobela
Technically, however, it [the Textus Receptus] is far from the original text.


According to whom? Who has the original text? It doesn't exist today. Most existing manuscripts then and now are in agreeance with the Textus Receptus.


cristobela
The two scholars identified their favorite text type as "Neutral text", exemplified by two 4th-century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus (known to scholars since the 15th century), and the Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859), both of which they relied on heavily (albeit not exclusively) for this edition. This text has only a few changes of the original.[6]


Again, according to whom?! The originals didn't exist when these codices were discovered! This sounds like a blatant lie to me. And because we don't have the originals, I prefer to look at the majority of manuscript evidence over a few select conflicting manuscripts.


cristobela
Erasmus' Textus Receptus is based on manuscripts from the 12th century.
Westcott and Hort discovered two 4th century manuscripts.


Older =/= closer to the originals =/= more authoritative =/= more accurate!! It is absolutely possible that someone could have been altering the word of God in the 4th century. Besides, there are existing majority manuscripts that were nearly just as old if not older than these codices, anyway, because scholars are usually in disagreement about these things.. It's not an exact science..

Furthermore, this page brings up a lot of great points, including:

"It therefore, does not automatically follow, that a manuscript written in 350 AD was copied from an older manuscript than one copied in 500 AD."

"Furthermore, a 200 year difference in the age of manuscripts is not substantial when we realise that the assessments of age are only based on the estimates of scholars who at times are in sharp disagreement."

"Allowing for differing styles of the scribes, we must therefore agree that dating of early manuscripts is extremely difficult. Perhaps a tolerance of + 100 years would be reasonable in many cases."

"The Alexandrian School however, is recognised as one of the greatest sources of corruption, and it is Alexandrian influence which permeates some of the ol.dest manuscripts (particularly Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph) upon which the modern versions are based.

"Scrivener states: "it is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within 100 years after it was composed: and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used manuscripts far inferior to those employed by Stunica, Erasmus or Stephens, thirteen centuries later when moulding the Textus Receptus.""

"The only safe approach to textual criticism therefore is to use ALL manuscripts irrespective of age, and not to be limited to a FEW ancient manuscripts."

^ This is exactly what I've been saying!

And then bringing up the TONS of contradictions between Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus alone:

"If we were to believe that the manuscripts became more corrupt each time they were copied, we would therefore expect the oldest to be the best and also to be in greatest agreement with each other.

THE FACT IS THEY ARE NOT -- as the following quote will show: "Ought it not, asks Dean Burgon, sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence, (Codex B and Codex Aleph) to discover that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two manuscripts differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree? .... On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies, between Codd B and Aleph -- grave inconsistencies and occasionally even gross ones -- altogether destroy my confidence in either?"
"


cristobela
Ok, hold it right there: it does't matter how frustrated you feel, there's no excuse for this type of language especially if you're seeking to edify the listener with what you have to say.


I'm not using the word towards you. And I'm not even using it in a frustrated or angry way. I firmly feel that the things I've shared from Westcott & Hort are bullshit. Bullshit is a word that means utter nonsense.

Where does the Bible define corrupt/filthy communication as referring to some words being off limits? I feel that it involves insulting a person, treating someone in a derogatory manner, lying, deceit, blasphemy. None of which I have done. I merely said that these men's beliefs are utter nonsense.


cristobela
Doe the NIV itself deny that Eden was a literal place? that the heavens are a literal place? and that eternal torment is a reality?

Clearly, what is written in the NIV does not support their personally-held beliefs and yet I'm quoting the NIV. If their beliefs affect the NIV text, as they are insinuating, then they would've changed these and similar verses. But they didn't.


This isn't the problem. The problem is that these men were the ones that chose those specific minority text codices in place of the majority text. And you don't think they had any motive to choose those minority texts over the majority of manuscript evidence? You don't think maybe they chose those manuscripts because they preferred the writing in those manuscripts? I don't know about you, but anything that men like these two prefer is questionable in my eyes.


cristobela
Correct, that is the word I am referring to (remes), but you misunderstood: I'm saying the Hebrew term is distinct (different) from the word for cattle and the word for beast of the earth; remes is only applied to creeping things, which inherently means the verse isn't even talking about all animals in the first place (thus, does not include cattle, or beast of the earth, or birds), but limiting it to creeping things. Remes is only used of creeping things. As the link you provided demonstrates.


So Noah was allowed to eat any "creeping thing" upon the earth? And yet creeping things were deemed unclean later on? It still enforces my belief that your claim doesn't make any sense.

Lev 11:41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.


cristobela
I don't know if there is some unspoken assumption here that is making you hostile to what I am saying. But perhaps you're thinking I'm saying that people can't be saved (born-again, “desire to sin” crucified, and replaced by a new and sincere desire for righteousness) unless they obey all those Commands? No. You believe in Christ for that


No. I never assumed you were saying people who ate pork are unsaved.


cristobela
Yes, here too it is a thought-for-thought approach instead of a word-for-word.


This thought-for-thought approach is another thing that condemns the NIV in my eyes.. Thought-for-though relies too heavily on the translator's personal interpretation.


cristobela
No, I actually drew attention to that very chapter and verse, before this topic was even created, and bolded what in those verses was being ignored [thus what I was quoting from earlier]: the Biblical definition of “truth”, and “sanctified”, as the Hebrew and the rest of the Bible define. You're being dishonest. Because, like in the above with Noah, I went through this already with you, both in this topic and in the [Details in the New Testament that Get Ignored] topic. Granted perhaps you dismissed it because I quoted the NIV. But for you to say I ignored the verse is a lie.

Also, for you to hold on to that interpretation—that there aren't any clean and unclean distinctions anymore, on this earth and under these heavens—you would have to turn a blind eye to Revelation 18:2, which even in the KJV is still identifying certain animals as unclean.


1. I'm not being dishonest. Now you're confusing dishonesty with disagreement. I'm not lying if I genuinely don't believe or see the connections you're trying to make.

2. I never denied that the KJV speaks of clean/unclean animals.

3. I stated that I believe (contrary to what you believe) that every creature of god is good and nothing to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving. Because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Because God is capable of making any animal clean for us to eat.

Do you not think He's capable of that? If he's capable of allowing his people to drink any deadly thing and not be harmed, I believe he's capable of making an unclean animal unharmful to us, and that is what I believe is the meaning of those verses.

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

You can believe and do what you want. But I won't let any man judge me in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. biggrin


cristobela
I don't know what prompted you to draw attention to the footnote, but footnotes are no different than you or I alerting people of information elsewhere in the Bible, where a similar concept is displayed, information on how a different manuscript reads, historical information, or even drawing attention to the Hebrew or Greek definition of a word. Depending on the nature of the footnote, I can't say I've read all Bible versions, but I would say, it depends on what the footnotes says. Unless it's some historical background, I would say yes, it is Scripture (or Scripture being referred to). Revelation is Scripture. Isaiah is Scripture.


I don't read footnotes. Sometimes I find that they make false connections. They're words of men.


cristobela
The Biblical connection is this: if Hebrews 9:10 is alluding to the Commands concerning foods (that God instituted: this plant is food, this plant is not; this animal is food, this animal is not) and Jesus is still identifying animals as unclean in Revelation 18 (what else is He basing this on? God's Law), then the time of restoration also mentioned in Hebrews 9:10 is not yet, not even in Revelation 18 can you say the “time of restoration” has come (because an animal is being identified as unclean).


I don't see that as a biblical connection because, as I explained before:

1. I don't think any foods are unclean/harmful to us because I believe a different interpretation than you for Col 2:14-17 and 1 Tim 4:4.

2. I believe the context of Hebrews 9 indicates that the "time of reformation" of Hebrews 9:10 refers to the first coming of Christ.

Your connection between Hebrews 9:10 and Acts 3:21 rely solely on your personal interpretation. My personal interpretation is different, and thus I see no connection. There isn't much else to say about this.


cristobela
My point in bringing this up is that "the laws with its commands", was not referring to the Law of God, but the law of sin in the flesh. Ergo, what I wrote below:


Yes I know what you were claiming. However, I disagreed that the word "ordinances" refers to the law of sin in the flesh. I said that I personally believe the word ordinances refers to all of the carnal ordinances set in place for the Israelites, (touch not, taste not, handle not).. IE all of the ordinances described in Hebrews 9, including there being unclean meats and mixing of fabrics. We disagree on that, what else is there to say?


cristobela
And my evidences for the general usage of “day of the Lord”—as a day of wrath against a nation—was Ezekiel 30:1-12. Because it identified Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, being sent against that nation [and its allies] and “the day of the Lord” describing that attack.


My understanding was that of this Nebuchadnezzar being a spiritual one. Much like there is no Babylon today, but there is a spiritual Babylon in the end times. There are a lot of references like that throughout the books of prophecy. I don't necessarily believe this one refers to something that has already happened. I feel like if there truly were multiple days of the Lord, the wording would be different. It would say "their day of the Lord," or "this day of the Lord," or "one day of the Lord." But instead it always says THE day of the Lord, singular. Much like I don't believe the Babylon in the chapters we were talking about refers to old Babylon at all. Because I find the Bible repeats certain phrases from older books to show the reader the connections between the things being spoken of in different books. The descriptions of Babylon in the old testament and Revelation are so similar that I feel they are the same. And more specifically their destructions speaking of expert arrows none dwell therein afterwards, compared to the destruction of Revelation's Babylon both sound like they're speaking of nuclear warfare to me. And the fact that it speaks of musicians and harpers, and all the merchants, etc. makes me believe that it probably is America as well. These are the connections I see. You might not see them.. But I haven't found anything that clearly without a doubt disproves these things.. And I know I'm not the only one making these connections.
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 7:31 am
Part 1 (lol)

CherieBunnie
cristobela
I'm going to these lengths to show you that you have to read the rest of the NIV to understand that it is not changing doctrines. You can't just pluck out a verse and accuse the NIV of changing doctrines (without reading the rest of it sincerely to see if it actually did).


We seem to have very different beliefs, and I would absolutely say that our Bible preferences have a lot to do with these differences in belief.


Although we arrived at different conclusions of what the KJV is saying—thus the differing beliefs between you and I—I disagree that this is due to my online use of the NIV, seeing as I do study with a KJV as well (I just have a preference for quoting the NIV in online conversation to accommodate people of differing reading levels who may be following along).

The cause of our differences in beliefs is due to the extent to which we acknowledge certain details in a passage/verse, and consistently apply that detail to our reasoning.

For instance, your reasoning does not consistently apply that the animal or plant has to be sanctified (set-apart) by the Word of God, but solely fixes on the detail that says “and by prayer”. If prayer is the only criterion you want to apply, then why even bother including the first criterion (the Word of God has to sanctify it / set it apart)? Using the interpretation you've given: just pray over anything and eat it. Let us eat blood and blubber then because blood and blubber were created by God and I prayed over it, so it's okay now. But that logic is not what you see in Scripture. Something is not food for us merely because God created it, but because the Word of God sanctifies it (sets it apart) for us. All who know the truth (the Law of God, everything Jesus/the Word of God commanded us to obey, which includes what's read from Moses' seat i.e. Matt 23:1-3) knows what can be eaten. Ergo,

      • Acts 15:20 (KJV)

        20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

      • Leviticus 17:15-16 (KJV)

        15 And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean.

        16 But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity.

      • Leviticus 17:10 (KJV)

        10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.


Thus, certain animals still being unclean in Revelation 18:2, and there Jesus is referring to passages like Leviticus 11.

The part about prayer in 1 Timothy 4:5, applies to that—out of what God said could be eaten / what is sanctified by the Word of God—which we pray over in case it was offered to an idol or prepared in the name of another god (for example, a Christian goes into a Hindu market, and buys a cut of lamb, then takes it back to their house, and eats it after praying over it in Jesus' Name / giving thanks to God for the meat, even though the person they bought it from worships Vishnu or Shiva, and could've given thanks to their god in the process of preparing it; if you give thanks for that lamb in Jesus' Name, then the lamb is no longer a meal offering for another god).

Akin to,

      • 1 Corinthians 10:25-30 (KJV)

        25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

        26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.

        27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

        28 But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

        29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?

        30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?


...obviously, reject eating it for the conscience of the person who sees you, who believes your offering is dedicated to the idol, because when on your own, you just pray over the lamb (or other clean animal) and the food is no longer a meal offering made to another god. That fits both criteria: sanctified by the Word of God (e.g. lamb is clean) and prayer.

Considering that Jesus—the Word of God—is still identifying these animals as unclean in Revelation 18:2, then the Word of God does not consider literal unclean animals “clean”. They do not fit the criterion for “sanctified by the Word of God”. And praying over it does not make it clean. Just like praying over blood, semen, and blubber, does not make them clean either. You're perverting the following (what's in red is my responding):


CherieBunnie
[...] Because God is capable of making any animal clean for us to eat.

But He didn't. Revelation 18:2.

Do you not think He's capable of that? […]

Capable yes, did He (yet)? No.

[...]If he's capable of allowing his people to drink any deadly thing and not be harmed, I believe he's capable of making an unclean animal unharmful to us, and that is what I believe is the meaning of those verses.

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


That's inconsistent with the intention of the person who does such things:

Were His disciples purposely picking up serpents (as oppose to mistaking it for a stick, and or having picked up a bundle of sticks, and a serpent was on it), and thus why they were saved from the danger? It wasn't an intentional seeking of a danger, a danger that God's Commands protect us from if we obey the Command.

For instance,

      • Acts 28:3-5 (KJV)

        3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

        4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.

        5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.


What you're insinuating we do, as Christians, is exactly what Satan tempted Christ with: “go ahead, jump down, do the dangerous thing on purpose, God will save you anyway because it is written that He can save you from it.” No! As Jesus said, don't tempt God nor show such little disregard for His Commands.

      • Matthew 4:5-7 (KJV)

        5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

        6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

        7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.


You're twisting Scripture in order to disobey God, just like Satan did in the above example, and just like the Pharisees did as I demonstrated to you in the above replies (carefully highlighting what about them was displeasing to Jesus—their twisted interpretation of what is written in Scripture. And their interpretation was twisted because it nullified the keeping of God's Commands as it is written. They ignored details). You're doing what Peter warned against: twisting Paul's epistles (and the rest of Scripture) to your own destruction:

      • 2 Peter 3:15-17 (KJV)

        5 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

        16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

        17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.


What you're doing is playing Russian Roulette, thinking that every time you violate the Command, nothing bad would come of it because you haven't suffered its effects yet or haven't suffered tremendously because of it. If you don't want to invite destruction, then stop violating the Instructions of our Heavenly Father. His longsuffering is not approval of sin. And twisting Scripture to say, “hey, it's okay to do what His Commands tell us not to do, because it's dangerous, but let's go ahead. He'll save us anyway” is the very same logic Satan used. Don't tempt God. Don't fall for Satan's persuasion. Submit to what is written and apply it lawfully (for your own good and the good of others).

      • 1 Timothy 1:8 (KJV)

        8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

      • 1 Timothy 4:16 (KJV)

        16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

      • Proverbs 4:2 (KJV)

        2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.

      • Isaiah 66:17 (KJV)

        17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.


You're sanctifying yourself (setting yourself apart) for destruction, not sanctifying yourself to the Word of God, which is safety/refuge. So, for your own well-being, assuming you have been eating unclean things, please stop. And please stop teaching others that's it's okay and that there will be no consequences for breaking those Commands, which keep us safe when heeded. There will be consequences. It must be sanctified by both criteria: sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, not just prayer (and the latter only relevant if it met the first criterion).


CherieBunnie
You can believe and do what you want. But I won't let any man judge me in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. biggrin


Yes, they speak of Christ, but you're denying the very Christ they speak of because Christ tells us to obey what's read form Moses' seat in Matt 23:1-3 and still identifies those animals as unclean in Revelation 18:2.

Again, you're twisting Paul's words to excuse sin.

Paul does judge believers for what they want to eat. Do not over generalize all the criteria Paul gave. He does judge believers for what they want to eat, for instance, if it's in an idol's temple, or we give off the impression that we honor the idol too...

      • 1 Corinthians 8:10 (KJV)

        10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

      • 1 Corinthians 10:18-22 (KJV)

        18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

        19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

        20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

        21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

        22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?


...and, like I already went over, Paul instructed to eat things that are sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (not just prayer) i.e. 1 Timothy 4:1-5.



CherieBunnie
cristobela
Again, you're ignoring the totality of the NIV (and in, general, "not reading the entirety of a thing" is something that you've been demonstrating in other areas as well which is the root cause for misunderstanding anything that anyone writes). Please avoid doing that. Instead read with patience when a person expects you to read and consider the whole thing to fully understand.


I have been reading your posts. Do you somehow think that I should agree with you and see it your way if I had read everything you shared? Is it not possible that I've read everything and still choose to disagree?


Yes, it's possible that you read everything and still chose to disagree, but we shouldn't, because we are told to be of one mind concerning what we know about Jesus.

      • 1 Corinthians 1:10 (KJV)

        10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

      • Ephesians 4:11-13 (KJV)

        11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

        12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

        13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:


What I am showing you is evidence of what displeased the Son about the Pharisees' methods of interpretation—which I noted in you as well. I'm telling you so that you turn away from disobeying the Son. I'm also doing this so that you reach full knowledge of the Son of God—which includes knowing everything He Commands—only then are you truly obeying Matthew 28.

      • Matthew 28:19-20 (KJV)

        19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

        20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


And what did Jesus command His disciples to do (ergo, is something that His disciples would later go on to teach all nations to obey)?

      • Matthew 23:1-3 (KJV)

        23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

        2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

        3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.


Obey what's read from Moses' seat, even when those in authority of teaching it to us don't obey it themselves, and even when they teach interpretations that keep us from obeying it lawfully (i.e. Matt 15:1-9). What's read from Moses' seat includes the clean and unclean distinctions that Jesus still upholds in Revelation 18:2 of literal animals.



CherieBunnie
cristobela

The website also goes on to do some unjust assumption-making: "So here's what likely happened:" Then go into a whole scenario of what they think happened. And then blame the devil. They weren't there. They didn't witness this. They asks questions like, "Think about it . . . can you really imagine the Lord of Lords, the Holy One of Israel hiding Codex Vaticanus away for over 1,000 years in the Vatican Library till 1481? Or better yet, can you imagine Him prompting the monks of St Catherine's Monastery to dump Codex Sinaiticus into a waste basket?". I wasn't there and I wouldn't know His purposes for doing so if He had. How is anyone suppose to justly answer such questions? And then to presume and say, it was the devil instead of God, who led that to happen, as if God isn't sovereign over such things. They're just trying to poison your mind with suspicion instead of just looking at the facts.


I wouldn't exactly say it the way that site did, but the Bible says that God will preserve His word:

Psalm 12:6-8 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


If every tablet of stone, manuscript, scroll, printed copy of the bible, even digital copy were to be removed from the face of the earth, and from the hearts and minds of men, God words are still pure and true. Not only does He do what He promises to do, His Words are the truth of how He functions, and what is best for us and keeps us safe (whether we're aware of His words or not, have physical reminders of it, or not).

This is what I mean by ignoring details: because in verse 7, what is being kept away from the wicked generation are the humble ones mentioned in verse 5.

      • Psalm 12:5-8 (KJV)

        5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

        6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

        7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

        8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.


It's the same statement made in the other Psalms:

      • Psalm 17:8-9 (KJV)

        8 Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings,

        9 From the wicked that oppress me, from my deadly enemies, who compass me about.

      • Psalm 31:19-20 (KJV)

        9 Oh how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee; which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee before the sons of men!

        20 Thou shalt hide them in the secret of thy presence from the pride of man: thou shalt keep them secretly in a pavilion from the strife of tongues.


And what does it mean to “fear” God (as mentioned in Ps 31:19 above)?

      • Deuteronomy 6:2 (KJV)

        2 That thou mightest fear the Lord thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.


Ergo why verse 6 of Psalm 12 mentions the Commands of God (“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times”): the Instruction of God, the Way He instructs us to interact with His creation, is trustworthy, able to protect those who trusts in Him, from danger and every evil path and from evil-doers:

      • 2 Samuel 22:31 (KJV)

        31 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.

      • Proverbs 1:33 (KJV)

        33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

      • Psalm 119:97-104 (KJV)

        97 O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.

        98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.

        99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.

        100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.

        101 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word.

        102 I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me.

        103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

        104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.

      • Psalm 50:15-23 (KJV)

        15 And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.

        16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?

        17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

        18 When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.

        19 Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit.

        20 Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son.

        21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

        22 Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.

        23 Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.


He saves from trouble the one who trusts in Him (and who trusts in His guidance to save them. Clearly, if you trust in “the Way, the Truth, and the Life”, you also confide in His Way of living, His Way of being, His Way of interacting with creation, and what He told you to do). The same cannot be said of the wicked, who don't trust what He said. You misapplied Psalm 12 because you did not keep it in its proper context. It's not talking about the preservation of a specific document that describes His Words/Commands, but that His Words/Commands themselves are true, always trustworthy, and capable of keeping you safe from evil-doers.

That said, about throwing Scripture into a trashcan and saying, “God could have never wanted that done nor allowed His word to have been forgotten for so long”: He has done it in the past...

      • 2 Kings 22:8 (KJV)

        8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.


It had been lost somewhere in the temple for 77 years during the previous reigns of Manasseh and Amon who were evil (they worshiped idols / false notions of God and set the Book of the Law aside). Then the Book of the Law was found by a priest under the reign of a righteous king (Josiah) who would put it into practice.

I'm drawing attention to the concept of God allowing His Word to be “lost” for years, not implying that this an identical scenario to the manuscript differences we're discussing because the 12th century manuscripts do not lie nor are devoid of truth. But neither do the 4th century manuscripts lie nor are devoid of truth. Even if you wanted to force fit Psalm 12 into saying it's talking about the material preservation of a document, which describes His Words / His Commands, then this would actually be an example of just that (Scripture preserved by these 4th century documents that, despite variant readings, communicate the same concepts throughout), and were preserved by God by having it locked away / hidden / forgotten / lost for a while. They don't nullify the 12th century manuscripts nor vice versa.

But Psalm 12 really isn't talking about the preservation of a document. But that His Commands are true, always trustworthy, forever capable of keeping us safe and from every evil path—a path that the wicked do not walk on because they reject His Commands.


continued below...
 

cristobela
Vice Captain


cristobela
Vice Captain

PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 7:32 am
edited on 11/6/2017 to change image hosting
Part 2

CherieBunnie
cristobela
Technically, however, it [the Textus Receptus] is far from the original text.


According to whom? Who has the original text? It doesn't exist today. Most existing manuscripts then and now are in agreeance with the Textus Receptus.


The 4th century manuscripts do not communicate altogether different concepts than the Textus Receptus either. So, people can't declare, “of the devil” when the Hebrew and Greek of those manuscripts didn't change doctrines.

That you don't trust the NIV English entirely because of a “thought-for-thought” approach at times, that's fine (neither do I on certain points, thus why I was highlighting the Hebrew of Hosea 9:3). But also acknowledge that—as you saw, if you clicked the continuum from “word-for-word” to “thought-for-thought”—that the KJV is not the most word-for-word translation either. So don't be so critical for something the KJV does too (in the very examples you brought up, instead of “emasculate themselves” all the KJV says is, “I would they were even cut off which trouble you.” totally avoiding the subject of emasculation present in the Greek e.g. Gal 5:12; instead of striking a blow / punch to their body, the KJV says, “I keep under my body, ” i.e. 1 Corinthians 9:27, even though the Greek is more explicit, and the NIV was more word-for-word in those areas).

Furthermore, the KJV is not just doing thought-for-thought as well, but at times even adding in words that the Greek doesn't even contain, like “God forbid”.

God mentioned twice
      • Romans 11:1 (KJV)

        11 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.


God only mentioned once:

User Image

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/11-1.htm


God mentioned
      • Romans 3:31 (KJV)

        31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


God not mentioned

User Image

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/3-31.htm

It seems like everything, but the interlinear, uses thought-for-thought to some extent.



CherieBunnie
cristobela
The two scholars identified their favorite text type as "Neutral text", exemplified by two 4th-century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus (known to scholars since the 15th century), and the Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859), both of which they relied on heavily (albeit not exclusively) for this edition. This text has only a few changes of the original.[6]


Again, according to whom?! The originals didn't exist when these codices were discovered! This sounds like a blatant lie to me. And because we don't have the originals, I prefer to look at the majority of manuscript evidence over a few select conflicting manuscripts.


It's one thing to say, “we have no standard (the originals), so to say which is original and which is not original cannot be declared”. But to say, “sounds like a blatant lie to me”—just outright condemning the idea that they could be closer to the original—isn't fair to say either. They're not deliberately lying to anyone, just logically assuming, because there is no evidence to the contrary, that “older” does mean closer to “original” / closer to what was there earlier. Just like we assume that the older generations of humans (though dead now) were closer to Adam's generation than we are today. It's natural to think that way.

You can prefer to do something without condemning the other at the same time. If by conflicting you mean “variant readings”, again, that is not equivalent to saying “nullifying claims”. You have not brought up any claim made by those manuscripts that nullifies the claims made by the other manuscripts. You're suspecting evil motives of the heart when no evidence, in the manuscript itself, has been provided to reflect ideas that are totally incompatible with what the other manuscript is saying. The majority saying something that a minority doesn't, isn't proof of ill-intent of the minority either—especially when the minority is not saying an altogether different concept. The substance / the content of the claim is what should prove a thing true or not, not whether many parrot the same exact diction of how the concept was said (particularly when it doesn't change the meaning of the whole message of the entire manuscript).


CherieBunnie
cristobela
Erasmus' Textus Receptus is based on manuscripts from the 12th century.
Westcott and Hort discovered two 4th century manuscripts.


Older =/= closer to the originals =/= more authoritative =/= more accurate!! It is absolutely possible that someone could have been altering the word of God in the 4th century. Besides, there are existing majority manuscripts that were nearly just as old if not older than these codices, anyway, because scholars are usually in disagreement about these things.. It's not an exact science..


Two things;

“It is absolutely possible that someone could have been altering the word of God in the 4th century.”

But there's no proof that they were altering the word of God to change doctrines. For you to say otherwise, you must have proof / evidence that they changed doctrines. And as the website you linked to previously noted, they don't. So, this is a baseless and needless suspicion that is dividing the body.

The variant readings of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not nullify the claims of other manuscripts. You need actual proof of those manuscripts saying, for instance, “God is a female / She created the world. God's name is actually Vishnu”, etc. something that actually nullifies the claims of the Bible.

Otherwise, the additions or omissions could have just as easily been that the original manuscript didn't have a sentence, but because a similar (and fuller) statement was made elsewhere, someone plugged it into the passage that lacked the full expression found elsewhere—the way we do with footnotes to cross reference the ideas in other passages—except they didn't put it in as a footnote, just directly into the text. Later (younger) manuscripts that copied it and became more popular wouldn't be lying for adding the sentence into a place it wasn't in originally, because they didn't add a concept, they just added words that were found elsewhere in the Scriptures. But that doesn't necessarily mean that because the later (younger) texts became more numerous / popular than the versions displaying the original rendering, that lacked the edit, that the more popularly-copied ones were more reflective of the original. That is just as plausible a scenario. There doesn't have to be evil-intent to explain this, especially when the manuscripts are not actually representing ideas that cancel one another out in their full content.


CherieBunnie
Furthermore, this page brings up a lot of great points, including:

[...]

"The Alexandrian School however, is recognised as one of the greatest sources of corruption, and it is Alexandrian influence which permeates some of the ol.dest manuscripts (particularly Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph) upon which the modern versions are based.


Let's define “corruption” though. Variant readings that don't change doctrine at all when looking at the entire manuscript? (thus is not something to worry about) Or “intentionally proclaiming ideas not supported by the rest of that very manuscript nor by other manuscripts”? The latter would be something to worry about, but not the former.

However, the word “corruption” would get applied to the former definition as well (variant readings that, when read in their totality, don't change the essence of the concepts being taught). If anything, all it says is that those who composed the “Alexandrian” manuscripts were not as good at copying precisely. The word “corruption” when people are talking textual criticism might as well be “difference”, because as you said, we don't have the originals, they're just comparing handwritten copies to other handwritten copies; there's no absolute standard. “Corruption” does not mean “conspiracy and evil-intent” by any means in this context, just “someone's copy alters from someone else's copy”—not evil intent nor indicating that it even changed meaning. Perhaps you know this, but in the case that you hadn't articulated the thought out in your mind, “corruption” is not equivalent to “conspiracy”/”changed meaning on purpose to pervert God's Word”, just that someone's handwritten copy is not identical to someone else's.

Again, you can have a preference, but that is not grounds to condemn the other handwritten copies without legitimate evidence that they nullified meaning.


CherieBunnie
"Scrivener states: "it is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within 100 years after it was composed: and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used manuscripts far inferior to those employed by Stunica, Erasmus or Stephens, thirteen centuries later when moulding the Textus Receptus.""


Inferior in what sense? Quality of paper, legibility? That it was done by commoners? What?

That said, this website did some unjust assuming:

In 1533 Sepulveda furnished Erasmus with 365 readings of Codex B to show its agreement with the Latin Version against the Common Greek Text. It is therefore evident that Erasmus rejected the readings of Codex B as untrustworthy and it is probable that he had a better acquaintance with it than did Tregelles in the 19th Century.

What about that says he rejected it because "it was untrustworthy"? Whatever the case, if he did think it untrustworthy, that he thought it was untrustworthy doesn't mean it actually was.

As of 8/20/2016 Wikipedia Quote About Codex B a.k.a. Codex Vaticanus

In the 16th century Western scholars became aware of the manuscript as a consequence of the correspondence between Erasmus and the prefects of the Vatican Library, successively Paulus Bombasius, and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. In 1521, Bombasius was consulted by Erasmus as to whether the Codex Vaticanus contained the Comma Johanneum, and Bombasius supplied a transcript of 1 John 4:1–3 and 1 John 5:7–11 to show that it did not. Sepúlveda in 1533 cross-checked all places where Erasmus's New Testament (the Textus Receptus) differed from the Vulgate, and supplied Erasmus with 365 readings where the Codex Vaticanus supported the latter, although the list of these 365 readings has been lost.[n 3] Consequently, the Codex Vaticanus acquired the reputation of being an old Greek manuscript that agreed with the Vulgate rather than with the Textus Receptus. Not until much later would scholars realise it conformed to a text that differed from both the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus – a text that could also be found in other known early Greek manuscripts, such as the Codex Regius (L), housed in the French Royal Library (now Bibliothèque nationale de France).[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus#Collations


Something I wanted to comment on:

Codex Sinaititus (Aleph) (4th Century) "From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written. The whole manuscript is disfigured by corrections, a few by the original scribe, very many by an ancient and elegant hand of the 6th Century whose emendations are of great importance, some again by a hand a little later, for the greatest number by a scholar of the 7th Century who often cancels the changes by the 6th Century amender, others by as many as eight (8) different later writers. " Scrivener, Page 93, Vol. I.

That describes some pages in my handwritten journals, lol. It's not as easy to edit without a backspace and edit feature to everything we do.


CherieBunnie
"The only safe approach to textual criticism therefore is to use ALL manuscripts irrespective of age, and not to be limited to a FEW ancient manuscripts."

^ This is exactly what I've been saying!


No, you haven't. You only want what the majority has to say.

The one attempting to use all manuscripts are those modern versions with footnotes who, in an attempt to include what other manuscripts say, despite using the reading of a different one in their main body of text, alerts you in their footnotes of alternate readings of other manuscripts. The KJV doesn't do that (alert you of alternate manuscript readings). The KJV has no footnotes.


CherieBunnie
And then bringing up the TONS of contradictions between Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus alone:

"If we were to believe that the manuscripts became more corrupt each time they were copied, we would therefore expect the oldest to be the best and also to be in greatest agreement with each other.

THE FACT IS THEY ARE NOT -- as the following quote will show: "Ought it not, asks Dean Burgon, sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence, (Codex B and Codex Aleph) to discover that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two manuscripts differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree? .... On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies, between Codd B and Aleph -- grave inconsistencies and occasionally even gross ones -- altogether destroy my confidence in either?"
"


You said, it brought up tons of contradiction, I read the page, but all I see is the allegation that it does (and the number of times it allegedly does), but no examples. And it's a bit sensationalized, don't you think, since it starts out by saying...

Differences in manuscripts fall into well defined categories. The majority of these are scribal slips of a minor nature such as spelling errors, punctuation, missing one line or word, placing in a word which sounds like the true word, repetition, transposition, etc. Only very few of the approximately 5,000 manuscripts can be said to have been changeo[sic] by deliberate corruption.

Can they name/illustrate/provide the examples of the inconsistencies? Or are they just going to make the claim? Why not make public what these inconsistencies are. Unless, “variant readings” are the inconsistency being referred to in which case are not an actual problem.

I cannot (justly) tell you the reason why the Alexandrian text types have more inconsistencies than others, but from what I can tell, they haven't provided a substantiated reason for why that is either.

And again, the KJV does this too, because, as I linked to you in the “word-for-word” and “thought-for-though” continuum, the KJV is not the most word-for-word translation out there. It does do thought-for-thought and adds words that the Greek doesn't have. There are inconsistencies whichever way you cut it. But if the inconsistencies don't communicate ideas that nullify the other, then there is no problem.



CherieBunnie
cristobela
Ok, hold it right there: it does't matter how frustrated you feel, there's no excuse for this type of language especially if you're seeking to edify the listener with what you have to say.


I'm not using the word towards you. And I'm not even using it in a frustrated or angry way. I firmly feel that the things I've shared from Westcott & Hort are bullshit. Bullshit is a word that means utter nonsense.


Well, you see, “utter nonsense” registers totally different in the heart when I read it. It doesn't feel like a term of contempt at all. Certain words carry a tone of scorn, ill-will, and condescension—just overall mean-spirited-ness. Even if it's not directed to me, it hurts to hear it. You could hurt people you didn't even intend to (even people just standing around or lurking in the forums who are not the recipient of the words).

CherieBunnie
Where does the Bible define corrupt/filthy communication as referring to some words being off limits? I feel that it involves insulting a person, treating someone in a derogatory manner, lying, deceit, blasphemy. None of which I have done. I merely said that these men's beliefs are utter nonsense.


I'm sure it depends on how the words are used in the society around you. So, for that reason, I don't think we'll find a concrete list of terms in the Bible saying “only use these words and none of these”, but the foul language most people use, that is readily known as mean-spirited and condescending, that you wouldn't speak to someone in authority, because it's disrespectful, I would avoid using.

      • Proverbs 15:1 (KJV)

        15 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.


The Hebrew word there for “grievious” is H#6089 which says,

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
earthen vessel, idol, labor, sorrow
From atsab; an earthen vessel; usually (painful) toil; also a pang (whether of body or mind): grievous, idol, labor, sorrow.
see HEBREW atsab

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6089.htm

So please be mindful next time of using grievous words in conversation. Not only for how the person you're speaking to may be affected by it, but someone listening in.



CherieBunnie
cristobela
Doe the NIV itself deny that Eden was a literal place? that the heavens are a literal place? and that eternal torment is a reality?

Clearly, what is written in the NIV does not support their personally-held beliefs and yet I'm quoting the NIV. If their beliefs affect the NIV text, as they are insinuating, then they would've changed these and similar verses. But they didn't.


This isn't the problem. The problem is that these men were the ones that chose those specific minority text codices in place of the majority text. And you don't think they had any motive to choose those minority texts over the majority of manuscript evidence? You don't think maybe they chose those manuscripts because they preferred the writing in those manuscripts? I don't know about you, but anything that men like these two prefer is questionable in my eyes.


This is exactly what I'm saying about injustice though, “And you don't think they had any motive to choose those minority texts over the majority of manuscript evidence?”: are you or I God to know the motives of the heart?

      • 1 Corinthians 4:5 (KJV)

        5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.


What in their manuscripts themselves shows their motives? Nothing! And the fact that they kept the manuscripts saying things that they personally didn't even believe to be true is a good sign that they're not trying to manipulate the doctrines that they don't agree with. I can't tell you why they chose those 4th century manuscripts over the 12th century ones Erasmus used, nor have tangible proof to say it had anything more or less to do with the documents being old (I don't know, you don't know, or anyone else—you just have an assumption / wanting to believe the worst, that it had to do with something other than age, and had to do with their personal beliefs, despite no evidence in the manuscripts themselves reflecting that). And like you said, since dating is an art—what if they genuinely believed they were older, what is the basis for assuming mal-intent? There is none present in the manuscript itself. I don't know their motives either, but I haven't been presented with evidence from the handwritten copies that demonstrate their motives were evil.


CherieBunnie
cristobela
Correct, that is the word I am referring to (remes), but you misunderstood: I'm saying the Hebrew term is distinct (different) from the word for cattle and the word for beast of the earth; remes is only applied to creeping things, which inherently means the verse isn't even talking about all animals in the first place (thus, does not include cattle, or beast of the earth, or birds), but limiting it to creeping things. Remes is only used of creeping things. As the link you provided demonstrates.


So Noah was allowed to eat any "creeping thing" upon the earth? And yet creeping things were deemed unclean later on? It still enforces my belief that your claim doesn't make any sense.

Lev 11:41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.


If you read the whole chapter, there are clean creeping things as well and unclean creeping things, compare:

      • Leviticus 11:21-23 (KJV)

        21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

        22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

        23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.


      • Leviticus 11:41-44 (KJV)

        41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

        42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

        43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

        44 For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


Thus why I further suspect that Noah limited himself to the clean creeping things in Genesis 9 due to the clean and unclean distinctions he knew already back in Genesis 7 and 8 (when separating the 7 pairs of clean animals and 1 pair of clean animal). Just like he would've avoided grass and poison ivy, because of the distinctions of what mankind was told to eat by God in Genesis 1.



CherieBunnie
cristobela
Yes, here too it is a thought-for-thought approach instead of a word-for-word.


This thought-for-thought approach is another thing that condemns the NIV in my eyes.. Thought-for-though relies too heavily on the translator's personal interpretation.


But, as I demonstrated above, neither is the KJV 100% word-for-word translation either. It uses thought-for-thought at times.

CherieBunnie
cristobela
The Biblical connection is this: if Hebrews 9:10 is alluding to the Commands concerning foods (that God instituted: this plant is food, this plant is not; this animal is food, this animal is not) and Jesus is still identifying animals as unclean in Revelation 18 (what else is He basing this on? God's Law), then the time of restoration also mentioned in Hebrews 9:10 is not yet, not even in Revelation 18 can you say the “time of restoration” has come (because an animal is being identified as unclean).


I don't see that as a biblical connection because, as I explained before:

1. I don't think any foods are unclean/harmful to us because I believe a different interpretation than you for Col 2:14-17 and 1 Tim 4:4.

2. I believe the context of Hebrews 9 indicates that the "time of reformation" of Hebrews 9:10 refers to the first coming of Christ.

Your connection between Hebrews 9:10 and Acts 3:21 rely solely on your personal interpretation. My personal interpretation is different, and thus I see no connection. There isn't much else to say about this.


After this reply, I would think you see the connection now considering those animals still are unclean, even if you pray over it, because God's Word does not sanctify it. The bit about “prayer” / “giving thanks for your food” pertains to those animals which the Word of God does sanctify / set-apart, and are genuinely considered clean by the Word of God, but that have been dedicated to another god as a meal offering, so that you don't eat what has been “polluted by an idol” (but don't eat of it, at all, if it links you with idol worship in the eyes of others). Not based on my personal interpretation, but all the criteria available in the New Testament.


CherieBunnie
cristobela
My point in bringing this up is that "the laws with its commands", was not referring to the Law of God, but the law of sin in the flesh. Ergo, what I wrote below:


Yes I know what you were claiming. However, I disagreed that the word "ordinances" refers to the law of sin in the flesh. I said that I personally believe the word ordinances refers to all of the carnal ordinances set in place for the Israelites, (touch not, taste not, handle not).. IE all of the ordinances described in Hebrews 9, including there being unclean meats and mixing of fabrics. We disagree on that, what else is there to say?


This is what else can be said: we shouldn't disagree because Revelation 18:2 still identifies them as unclean. It's not safe for us to eat unclean things, even if we pray over it, because the Word of God does not sanctify it, but still considers it unclean. To defiantly go against what God Commanded against—for our own safety—just because there's a verse that says He can protect us, is not conducive to our well-being. That's what Satan wants. To make us doubt that the consequences are real.


CherieBunnie
cristobela
And my evidences for the general usage of “day of the Lord”—as a day of wrath against a nation—was Ezekiel 30:1-12. Because it identified Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, being sent against that nation [and its allies] and “the day of the Lord” describing that attack.


My understanding was that of this Nebuchadnezzar being a spiritual one. Much like there is no Babylon today, but there is a spiritual Babylon in the end times. There are a lot of references like that throughout the books of prophecy. I don't necessarily believe this one refers to something that has already happened. I feel like if there truly were multiple days of the Lord, the wording would be different. It would say "their day of the Lord," or "this day of the Lord," or "one day of the Lord." But instead it always says THE day of the Lord, singular. Much like I don't believe the Babylon in the chapters we were talking about refers to old Babylon at all. Because I find the Bible repeats certain phrases from older books to show the reader the connections between the things being spoken of in different books. The descriptions of Babylon in the old testament and Revelation are so similar that I feel they are the same. And more specifically their destructions speaking of expert arrows none dwell therein afterwards, compared to the destruction of Revelation's Babylon both sound like they're speaking of nuclear warfare to me. And the fact that it speaks of musicians and harpers, and all the merchants, etc. makes me believe that it probably is America as well. These are the connections I see. You might not see them.. But I haven't found anything that clearly without a doubt disproves these things.. And I know I'm not the only one making these connections.


Well, like I've said in this reply, pay attention to all the criteria for identifying Spiritual Babylon in the Book of Revelation. Because the USA (a nation/country) doesn't fit every single one of the criteria for spiritual Babylon (a great city—like Old Babylon—that rules over many kings and nations [Rev 17:18]; she must be built on seven hills, which are also seven kings, both [Rev 17:9]. She will be betrayed by all the kings [Rev17:16-17], She must have persecuted the servants of God [Rev 17:6, 18:24], much trading, affluence, entertainment, and thrill with the nations [Rev 18:3, 18:11-22], not surprisingly where she sits, there are many are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues [Rev 17:15], suffers an earthquake that divides the city into three parts [Rev16:18-19]).

Even with all that, I still can't narrow it down. There are probably other cities that I haven't heard about too. Because of the difficulty to pin down who it is, I use to think it was just whoever the definition described was Babylon, in spirit, but clearly it's one place because the merchants watch her burn from afar and people would sail to her.

And about the fall of Old Babylon—I wasn't there to witness everything that went down, obviously, so I can't say how much of the criteria was actually met as described in both Isaiah 13 and Jeremiah 51. But the bright arrows, as described in Jeremiah 51:11 (“Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the Lord hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of His temple.”), is not hard to be believed of Old Babylon times. I wasn't able to find historical resources describing the battles in detail. But it's not inconceivable considering there are other references to this type of weaponry, albeit being used as an analogy:

      • Proverbs 26:18-19 (KJV)

        18 As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death,
        19 So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?

      • Ephesians 6:16 (KJV)

        16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.


So it isn't necessarily “nuclear warfare” that's being described by the bright arrows in Jeremiah 51.

However I'm not saying the Bible doesn't possibly prophesy nuclear warfare whatsoever (e.g. the zombie-like/walking-dead description of Zechariah 14 makes me think that nuclear warfare might be involved—unless, it's just a plague from God, which is altogether different, and does not involve man's creations, but still zombie-fies people [not that they're eating other dead people, but that they're rotting without having been buried, still standing, possibly still walking] emphasis on v. 12 & 15)

      • Zechariah 14:12-15 (KJV)

        12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

        13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour.

        14 And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.

        15 And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the a**, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague.


Like I demonstrated in my previous replies however, the destruction of Old Testament realities does not necessarily match the reality of the new one (Sodom [forever desolated] vs. figurative Sodom [Jerusalem, Rev 11:8, despite being attacked by YHWH, is to be populated, not forever desolated]; Queen Jezebel [died a quick death, pushed out of a tower, quickly devoured by dogs i.e. 2 Kings 9:30-36] vs. Spiritual Jezebel in the Book of Revelation [bed of suffering, thus torment i.e. Revelation 2:20-23], ergo, we shouldn't expect the specifics of Babylon's destruction to be exactly how the Spiritual Babylon will fall.

And here is an example of the inconsistency that arises in forcing the specific details of Old Babylon (its destruction and its doings) to the Spiritual Babylon:

      • Jeremiah 20:4 (KJV)

        4 For thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will make thee a terror to thyself, and to all thy friends: and they shall fall by the sword of their enemies, and thine eyes shall behold it: and I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall carry them captive into Babylon, and shall slay them with the sword.


If the USA is Babylon, then the USA is taking Jews from their homeland to kill them by sword? confused

I'll leave it at that in light of all the other points to consider that I brought up concerning “end times Babylon” previously.
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:55 pm
cristobela
we are told to be of one mind concerning what we know about Jesus.

1 Corinthians 1:10 (KJV)

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.


After doing some reading and praying, I believe this is the only right thing to do. I don't think it's right to continue arguing with you. Arguing only serves to offend.

Romans 14:16-19 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another...

If you feel that it is wrong to eat the animals deemed unclean in the laws of Moses.. You shouldn't eat them.

And if I don't trust that the other Bibles provide me with the truth.. I shouldn't read them.

For whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14)  

CherieBunnie

Sugary Hourglass


cristobela
Vice Captain

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:07 pm
edited
CherieBunnie
cristobela
we are told to be of one mind concerning what we know about Jesus.

1 Corinthians 1:10 (KJV)

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.


After doing some reading and praying, I believe this is the only right thing to do. I don't think it's right to continue arguing with you. Arguing only serves to offend.

Romans 14:16-19 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another...

If you feel that it is wrong to eat the animals deemed unclean in the laws of Moses.. You shouldn't eat them.

And if I don't trust that the other Bibles provide me with the truth.. I shouldn't read them.

For whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14)


Except, that Paul, in Romans 14, is not invalidating the other criteria he gave (consecrated by the Word of God and prayer, not eaten in an idol's temple, etc), by what he says here: arguing over eating plants and animals or eating plants only. A vegetarian issue. A disputable matter, extra-Biblical regulations, things that God's Word is not clearly Commanding us to do, nor mandating that we not do:

      • Romans 14:1-2 (KJV)

        14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

        2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.


Like Peter said, Paul's letters are hard to understand and people twist them. I've provided the details that you—and many others—have been ignoring, shining a light on how you've been taking passages out of context and ignoring New Testament criteria, and instead, I've offered the cohesive explanation from Genesis to Revelation that accounts for all these details. Choosing to stay silent is not what will bring cohesion to the body. Unity happens only when everyone submits to every detail about Christ, and what He revealed / corroborated in the New Testament. We must trust what He said. If you're not willing to do that, then yes, continuing the conversation is pointless, since that is the goal of this conversation.

However, if choosing not to submit to those New Testament details, then, despite walking away from the conversation, do not deceive yourself into thinking that you're honestly and consistently honoring all those details / criteria in your reasoning. It's not because I personally believe they have remained unclean. Jesus Himself says so in Revelation 18:2. (deemed unclean for very good reasons, as I showed from a practical stand point as well with real life examples). And, no matter the topic, I will take captive every thought and make it obedient to what Christ said.


edit: in light of what you said, that you were convicted that continuing the conversation would just lead to offense, I think it best to lock the topic. (edit: not that offending people is wrong though John 6:61 because Jesus did it by speaking the truth)

edit #2: though on the issue of Bible versions, yes, I can see how that is a disputable matter.  
Reply
Questions & Answers

Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum