M
Mannyfit75
Guest
This is counter to another thread “Bible Passages that sound too Protestant”
Hey, I maybe Anti-Protestantism, but I like to play fair.
Hey, I maybe Anti-Protestantism, but I like to play fair.
- Status
D
deb1
Guest
if you read the book of romans not as a whole, part only a verse at a time, then it sounds protestant. that is why so many who are attempting to convert catholics to protestantism use romans.
of course, if you read the book as a whole, then it supports catholicism.
my shift key is out. so forgive the lack of capitals.
of course, if you read the book as a whole, then it supports catholicism.
my shift key is out. so forgive the lack of capitals.
D
dosdog
Guest
The Bible was not originally inspired with divisions by chapter and verse. The ancient manuscripts didn’t have them. One man, Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro, started to do this from 1244 to 1248 A.D. He did this while creating a concordance of the Latin Vulgate, in order to help people look up verses of the Bible. But the typical modern chapter divisions were apparently devised by Stephen Langton, who was an Archbishop of Canterbury in England. He started to do this around 1227 A.D. The Wycliffe English Bible did use them, as it was circulated in 1382.if you read the book of romans not as a whole, part only a verse at a time, then it sounds protestant. that is why so many who are attempting to convert catholics to protestantism use romans.
of course, if you read the book as a whole, then it supports catholicism.
the chapter and verse system was not inspired by God, and can be a distraction in some cases, or cause readers to separate thoughts or ideas that weren’t originally separate when the inspired writers wrote Scripture biblestudy.org/question/biblever.html
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
NTBible has been evolved, so also the Christianity, many creeds have been added later, and declared ‘inspired’ explaining as to what is an inspiration. This is what I understand.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.
S
Sabda
Guest
I find some of the chapters breakups really distracting.
There are many times I continue reading as it appears that the thought continued on into the next chapter. I will admit I do not like the way the chapters are broken up. It seems to be especially bad in the New Testament.
D
deb1
Guest
i wish some protestants would answer this thread. it would be interesting to hear their thoughts, also.
A
a_priori
Guest
I was a protestant for 40 years so I do have some understanding of the mindset, but I frankly just don’t understand the question.
D
deb1
Guest
i think that manny is trying to be fair. he started a thread on verses that are too catholic, so he felt that he should have a opposing thread.
i would think that he is looking for verses that protestants use to evangelize catholics and which catholics have trouble responding to.
A
a_priori
Guest
I see your point. But plucking out individual Bible verses and launching them in any direction has about as much meaning as standing with one’s nose about 3 inches from a Monet painting. In both cases you have to step back and look at the work in its totality in order to claim any real understanding.
Thanks for the clarification.
Z
Zenas
Guest
Here are a few that you hear often in Baptist churches:
Ephesians 2:8-9 (salvation through grace, not works)
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (sola scriptura)
Matthew 15:9 & Mark 7:7 (against doctrines not found in scripture)
Matthew 6:7 (against liturgical prayers)
Romans 8:29-30 (in support of Calvinism (not uniformly taught by Baptists))
Ephesians 2:8-9 (salvation through grace, not works)
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (sola scriptura)
Matthew 15:9 & Mark 7:7 (against doctrines not found in scripture)
Matthew 6:7 (against liturgical prayers)
Romans 8:29-30 (in support of Calvinism (not uniformly taught by Baptists))
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Bible has not evolved. A process like that might allow error to be introduced into the text. The Bible has been translated, but modern translators have access to the most ancient manuscripts and scholarship. They do not have access to the original documents themselves, of course, which have not survived the passage of time. However, using a process known as ‘textual criticism’, scholars can be extremely confident that the text we have today is accurate.
Creeds are not inspired. They are statements of core beliefs.
Only the Bible itself is “inspired”.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
S
Subrosa
Guest
WHAT??? NO CAPS!!! I AM COMPLETELY OUTRAGED!!!my shift key is out. so forgive the lack of capitals.
THAT MAKES ME SOOOO ANGRY!!!
Not!
Sub
E
estesbob
Guest
I was in the National Museum of Art lasy week and very politiely informed several poepl who were claiming that the Monet painting were blurred that they needed to step back. I believe the lthe analogy that fits here is "not seeing the forest for the trees
The biggest prblem I have with trying to discuss our faith with our Protestant Bretheren is theri inisistence that we have to quote cahapter and verse to back up anything we say. The fact that the verses they use to “discuss” their beleifs are often scattered all of the Bible and taken out of context never seems to bother them.
S
Subrosa
Guest
“The bible has evolved.”
This is perhaps the most interesting claim I’ve seen on the forums.
Perhaps it is people’s understanding of what he bible says that has evolved.
Sub
This is perhaps the most interesting claim I’ve seen on the forums.
Perhaps it is people’s understanding of what he bible says that has evolved.
Sub
E
estesbob
Guest
You have to take the comment n the cntext of who the poster is. He is muslim and if the Bible has not evolved then large chunks of the Koran are wrong.
D
dosdog
Guest
Erasmus’ Greek manuscript basis. Erasmus’ final 1535 edition still relied upon no more than six Greek manuscripts, the oldest (but least used!) of which was from the tenth century
The History of the Textus Receptus
Authorized in 1604 and published in 1611, the King James version naturally is based on the TR
Erasmus’s third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The “Three Heavenly Witnesses” in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus “for the sake of his oath.” Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since.
The Text of the Textus Receptus
Erasmus, having little time to prepare his edition, could only examine manuscripts which came to hand. His haste was so great, in fact, that he did not even write new copies for the printer; rather, he took existing manuscripts, corrected them, and submitted those to the printer. (Erasmus’s corrections are still visible in the manuscript 2.)
Nor were the manuscripts which came to hand particularly valuable. For his basic text he chose 2e, 2ap, and 1r. In addition, he was able to consult 1eap, 4ap, and 7p. Of these, only 1eap had a text independent of the Byzantine tradition – and Erasmus used it relatively little due to the supposed “corruption” of its text. Erasmus also consulted the Vulgate, but only from a few late manuscripts.
Even those who favour the Byzantine text cannot be overly impressed with Erasmus’s choice of manuscripts; they are all rather late (see table):
Manuscript Date Von Soden Classification
(in modern terms)
1eap XII e: family 1; ap: Ia3
1r XII Andreas
2e XII/XIII Kx (Wisse reports Kmix/Kx)
2ap XII Ib1
4ap XV
7p XI/XII Op18
Not only is 1r an Andreas manuscript rather than purely Byzantine, but it is written in such a way that Erasmus could not always tell text from commentary and based his reading on the Vulgate. Also, 1r is defective for the last six verses of the Apocalypse. To fill out the text, Erasmus made his own Greek translation from the Latin. He admitted to what he had done, but the result was a Greek text containing readings not found in any Greek manuscript – but which were faithfully retained through centuries of editions of the Textus Receptus. This included even certain readings which were not even correct Greek (Scrivener offers as an example Rev. 17:4 AKAQARTHTOS).
The result is a text which, although clearly Byzantine, is not a good or pure representative of the form. It is full of erratic readings – some “Caesarean” (Scrivener attributes Matt. 22:28, 23:25, 27:52, 28:3, 4, 19, 20; Mark 7:18, 19, 26, 10:1, 12:22, 15:46; Luke 1:16, 61, 2:43, 9:1, 15, 11:49; John 1:28, 10:8, 13:20 to the influence of 1eap), some “Western” or Alexandrian (a good example of this is the doxology of Romans, which Erasmus placed after chapter 16 in accordance with the Vulgate, rather than after 14 along with the Byzantine text), some simply wild (as, e.g., the inclusion of 1 John 5:7-8). Daniel B. Wallace counts 1,838 differences between the TR and Hodges & Farstad’s Byzantine text
Thus it will be conceded by all reputable scholars – even those who favour the Byzantine text – that the Textus Receptus, in all its various forms, has no textual authority whatsoever. Were it not for the fact that it has been in use for so long as a basis for collations, it could be mercifully forgotten. What a tragedy, then, that it was the Bible of Protestant Christendom for close to four centuries!
The lack of Hebrew scholarship at the time contributed to an even greater problem with the Old Testament: The translators didn’t know what it meant. Textual damage caused some of the cruxes; others arose from ignorance of classical Hebrew. The translators often had to turn to the translations in LXX or the Vulgate
The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the New Testament. Greek never entirely vanished from the knowledge of scholars, as Hebrew did, but the language evolved. At the time the KJV was translated, classical Greek – the Greek of Homer and the tragic playwrights – was considered the standard. Koine Greek – the Greek of the New Testament – was forgotten; the Byzantine empire had undergone a sort of Classic Revival.
skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html
bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I think the above post in its entirety agrees with my expression that Bible did evolve while it lost its original script, if ever there was , in Hebrew or Aramaic which JesusYeshuaIssa, Mary and the disciples and also Jews at large sopoke in Jerusalem , in times of Jesus. Jews would witness to it, if there is a Jew here he would tell you about this.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.
S
Subrosa
Guest
Given the perspective offered in the post about the Textus Receptus, I may agree with the “evolved” statement. However, the TR is applied to only some bibles, not all, so I can only agree that it evolved in some cases. I do so with reservation. In fact, it is error inadvertantly written into the text, not a true evolution.
Also, given the fact that paarsurrey is moslem, I can understand his perspective that the bible evolved into the Q’uran.
It is also true that “one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth,” which, unfortunately, happens all too often in both the christian world and Islam.
But, even with all this, God’s word is still His word.
Subrosa
R
rbarcia
Guest
**This is counter to another thread “Bible Passages that sound too Protestant”
Hey, I maybe Anti-Protestantism, but I like to play fair.
Hebrews 9
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
Hebrews 10
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries
**
A
allischalmers
Guest
Genesis 1:1 thru Relevation 22:21
- Status