Dear KAG: 20230131 Open Thread

Cover image: ice sculpture by Darren Jackson

Yes, it’s Tuesday. I took Sunday for myself as well as part of Saturday, so this is Monday heavy.

How the Deep State Destroyers Threaten Your Way of Life

The Politics of ‘Normal’

Why Preserve a ‘World Order’ without Freedom?

The legacy of censorship on Twitter

Progressivism vs. Popular Sovereignty

The Covid Narrative Tide is Turning

WHY DO SOUTH KOREANS DESPISE CHINA? LET THEM SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES…

DAVE RUBIN EXPOSES HOW BAD TWITTER’S SHADOWBANNING STILL IS AS IF IT WAS THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THE COMPANY

Menticide: The Rape of the Mind

Klaus Schwab and the Men Who Molded Him (Part Two)

Globalist — Depopulationist — Eugenicist — Now We Can Add Communist to the List of Words to Describe Bill Gates

Triumph Regained

Wise words from Bannon…

Are the COVID Yarns Slowly Beginning to Unravel?

Tracking a Fraudulent Ballot in Real Time

Never Too Late to Pray for America

Whistleblower Ivory Hecker: Fox News Is “Hiding Some Dirty Secrets About How Corrupt Elections Are”

Have You Heard of the “Tradwife Movement”?

There Is Far More Going on Behind the Scenes Than Most People Ever Imagined

Privilege

Presidential Lessons from Cardinal Sarah

Ancient Medicinal Mint Has Untapped Potential, New Research Reveals

Surprise, Surprise – DOJ Informs Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan they Will Not Comply with Request for Biden Classified Docs, Due to “Ongoing Special Counsel Investigation”

CHRIS HEDGES: UKRAINE: THE WAR THAT WENT WRONG

Shocking: 1992 Book Predicts Current World Crises, Points to “Post-Industrial” World by 2050

Fact Check: Debunking Conspiracy Theories About the Emperor

Trump Sues Far-Left Author Bob Woodward For $49 Million For Releasing Interview Recordings

Not Today Satan – Mark Houck Found Not Guilty of Federal Charges of Obstructing an Abortion Clinic

The press versus the president, part one

Tweet hopper:

https://twitter.com/BreannaMorello/status/1618783264315179009

As of this writing, the video is up to 27 million views.

Make that 30 million.

https://twitter.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1619408058429603840
https://twitter.com/ClownWorld_/status/1619887424775258112

Congrats, Dr. Judy!

https://twitter.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1620215367279984640

Meme & Fun hopper:

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1620159861387563009
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1619959342551412740

Something to remember, always.

Per the boss’s instruction:

I’d throw in a few Rockefellers and Rothschilds also.

YEA! Youtube videos are working again!

Of course, this does not mean committing felonies, but standing up to the forces that want to tear this nation – and humanity apart. The very people XVII told us will be destroyed by the time this movie comes to an end are currently roaming the halls of power…supposedly. It’s a sickening sight.

Guidelines for posting and discussion on this site were outlined by our host, WolfM00n. Please, review them from time to time.

The discourse on this site is to be CIVIL – no name calling, baiting, or threatening others here is allowed. Those who are so inclined may visit Wolf’s other sanctuary, the U-Tree, to slog it out. There is also a “rescue” thread there for members of the Tree to rendezvous if the main site goes kablooey. A third site has been added for site outages of longer duration.

This site is a celebration of the natural rights endowed to humans by our Creator as well as those enshrined in the Bill of Rights adopted in the founding documents of the United States of America. Within the limits of law, how we exercise these rights is part of the freedom of our discussion.

Fellow tree dweller, the late Wheatie, gave us some good reminders on the basics of civility in political discourse:

  1. No food fights.
  2. No running with scissors.
  3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.

And Auntie DePat’s requests:

If you see something has not been posted, do us all a favor, and post it. Please, do not complain that it has not been done yet.

The scroll wheel on your mouse can be your friend. As mature adults, please use it here in the same manner you would in avoiding online porn.

Thank you so much for any and all attention to such details. It is GREATLY appreciated by more than one party here.

__________________________________________________

HEBREWS 12:1-4

1Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, 2looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. 4In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.

109

Anonymous ID: hHkrVD7x No.148156632 
Nov 5 2017 20:06:36 (EST)

Anonymous ID: pqW40Wgk No.148156518 
Nov 5 2017 20:05:48 (EST)

>>148154137

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do thou, Prince of the Heavenly Hosts, by the power of God, cast down to Hell Satan and all his evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

>>148156518
Amen brother.
Q

As always, prayers for the fight against that which seeks to enslave us are welcome. Via con Dios.

Satire

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
400 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

TheseTruths

I had not heard of the tradwife movement, and I’m glad to see it.

Once upon a time, virtually all mothers in the United States embraced traditional values.

Unfortunately, now we have reached a stage where “tradwives” are considered to be freaks.

pgroup2

Fear and loathing in the YSM.

Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving bunch.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Hope the YSM women get erections and the men get cramps!

pgroup2

You are very bad today.  😂 

nikkichico7

Yuk … 😖🤚 …

1F8BE328-662E-43BA-B56D-31B00793A321.jpeg
TheseTruths

Very interesting that the German government admits that a lot of vaxed people are getting AIDS-like symptoms. I had not heard of that. Of course we know Fauci was active in the AIDS research.

kalbokalbs

Also had not heard the German government admit, AIDS like symptoms.

IIRC, this has been addressed here QTree, Guessing 8-12 months ago. I believe Wolf has done an article on this, or certainly has discussed it at length in posts. Likely other really smart folks here have discussed it. Many times since.

(Assuming my memory is somewhat intact.)

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Oh, yeah, we’ve been way ahead on this. The people who spotted VAIDS out there were on the money!

Aubergine

So, the ones who they didn’t get with Covid (the old and already sick), they will get with some new virus, because their immune systems are shot.

We’d all better be keeping our uncompromised immune systems in tip-top shape.

kalbokalbs

Yup. Heads On Swivels…Action Stations.

Trust has Evaporated in government at all levels AND medical weenies.

TheseTruths

“Tippy-top,” as PDJT once said. 😃

rayzorback

I think that PDJT was mocking AOC when he said it.

Aubergine

Lol, I thought about that when I wrote it! It was a Q message.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

I’m finally understanding why this is. It’s all coming together. PRRARSV was they key. These people had a GOAL.

TheseTruths

The acronym had not sunk in yet.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36203551/?utm_source=gqueryNuclear translocation of spike mRNA and protein is a novel …

Sep 27, 2022  … resides at the S1/S2 boundary of Spike (S) protein and constitutes a functional nuclear localization signal (NLS) motif “PRRARSV“, …

TheseTruths

This tweet says that “Jeb Bush knew too.” At a presidential debate, he says the next president will almost certainly be faced with an unforeseen challenge. “It could be a pandemic…”

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

So he was in on the plot.

Brave and Free

He was the one selected to take over after Kilary, makes sense he knew.
He’d come in as the anti Kilary alternative, and their cycle of control continues.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brave and Free
Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

All making sense!

TradeBait2

They always leave a trail if we are paying attention. They plant seeds…

TheseTruths

House GOP weighs expunging Trump impeachments
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/12/house-gop-weighs-expunging-donald-trump-impeachmen/

“We’d look at it,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told The Washington Times when asked whether he would bring legislation to the floor wiping out Mr. Trump‘s historic double impeachments. 

The California Republican cited debunked charges Democrats lodged against Mr. Trump throughout hispresidency including discredited claims he collaborated with Russia to win the 2016 election.

Just do it.

scott467

I doubt Trump would want them expunged, they represent two historic victories for him, as well as document the treasonous conduct against him.

Those impeachment efforts are likely evidence against the traitors.

Valerie Curren

Hear, Hear. Sunlight not shadows!

TheseTruths

Even if expunged, their act of doing it will remain the same, and he can use that against them.

TheseTruths

comment image

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

ON POINT!!!

TheseTruths

comment image

TheseTruths

BREAKING: HORRIBLE – Arizona Regime Is Investigating Kari Lake And Trying To JAIL Her On Felony Charges For Exercising First Amendment And Exposing Election Fraud
They’re saying that by posting this…

comment image

…Kari Lake broke this law:

Nothing in this section shall preclude public inspection of voter registration records at the office of the county recorder for the purposes prescribed by this section, except that the month and day of birth date, the social security number or any portion thereof, the driver license number or nonoperating identification license number, the Indian census number, the father’s name or mother’s maiden name, the state or country of birth and the records containing a voter’s signature and a voter’s e-mail address shall not be accessible or reproduced by any person other than the voter, by an authorized government official in the scope of the official’s duties, for any purpose by an entity designated by the secretary of state as a voter registration agency pursuant to the national voter registration act of 1993 (P.L. 103-31; 107 Stat. 77), for signature verification on petitions and candidate filings, for election purposes and for news gathering purposes by a person engaged in newspaper, radio, television or reportorial work, or connected with or employed by a newspaper, radio or television station or pursuant to a court order. Notwithstanding any other law, a voter’s e-mail address may not be released for any purpose. A person who violates this subsection or subsection E of this section is guilty of a class 6 felony.

pgroup2

The discovery portion of the case should be very entertaining.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Yes!

scott467

Until or unless a scourge is made, and the money changers chased out of the temple, they will of course continue exactly what they have been doing.

They will never stop, until they are stopped.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

We’re getting close to the point where it become the duty of men to bring down the government in Arizona.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

In some ways, I hope they do it, because it will make the regime “worthy of destruction”.

When exposing a crime becomes a crime on a technicality, and the technicality is enforced, but the law against the crime is not, an appeal to heaven can be made.

Valerie Curren

Boom!

comment image

kalbokalbs

JURY N U L I F I C A T I O N, if it ever goes to trial.

TheseTruths

comment image

TheseTruths

comment image

TheseTruths

comment image

cthulhu

I didn’t know catturd had a daughter. She should be surrounded by puppies.

TheseTruths

Ha! He would fit the bill…

TheseTruths

Catturd:

Flashback Monday …

Wiggles, Fatty, and Wings.

comment image

scott467

She should be proud of her Dad!

Meme ‘lords’ have done more direct action against the enemy within than anybody who is actually trained and paid to do it, that’s for sure.

TheseTruths

comment image

cthulhu

This is why the “warrior-monk” shows up so many times in culture.

cthulhu

Remember how “Mad-dog Mattis” was supposed to be the Warrior-Monk, and turned out to be a political hack?

Remember how Petraeus was supposed to be the Warrior-Monk, until his biographer had to know everything about him?

TheseTruths

I didn’t remember those guys being portrayed as warrior-monks, but that’s a couple of fails.

cthulhu
TheseTruths

Thanks.

cthulhu

It’s not like the idea is modern.

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

They just don’t call stoic philosophers “monks”.

scott467

He wasn’t much of a monk either, being married to young Faustina (as opposed to Faustina the Older) 😂

cthulhu

Hearkening back to the OP’s Thucydides, he did pretty well — and the modern understanding of “monk” was still TBD.

scott467

I thought that the term “monk” was derived from “monastic”.

A monk (/mʌŋk/, from Greek: μοναχός, monachos, “single, solitary” via Latin monachus)

monastic

adjective

  1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a monastery. Used often of monks and nuns.
  2. Resembling life in a monastery in style, structure, or manner, especially.
  3. Secluded and contemplative.

.

Monasticism
Monasticism, also referred to as monachism, or monkhood, is a religious way of life in which one renounces worldly pursuits to devote oneself fully to spiritual work. Monastic life plays an important role in many Christian churches, especially in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions as well as in other faiths such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. Wikipedia

cthulhu

Exactly.

Marcus Aurelius lived from 121-180 AD.

Traditional monastics formed later, such as Benedictines (529 AD), Franciscans (1209 AD), Hospitaller (1099 AD) and many others.

scott467

I have looked all over the Scriptures for the Authority for ‘monastics’ — by command, approved example or necessary inference — but so far, I’ve come up snake eyes.

It appears to be completely a creation of, by and for men.

Or women. Can’t find any Authority for nuns, either.

Can’t find monk, monastery, monastic… there’s not even anybody named Mona.

Valerie Curren

you might rile some people up with these views/words 😉

scott467

I am always happy to be proven wrong!

Monks are supposed to be a quiet sort, so I’m not too concerned about the Monks.

I have heard things about hostile Nuns with rulers though 😁

scott467

“I have heard things about hostile Nuns with rulers though”

_________

Now I remember.

It was Jake, and Elwood.

The Blues Brothers 😉

Valerie Curren

Didn’t Aretha sing about Freedom in that movie?

Valerie Curren

LOL

Aubergine

Well, can NO action decided on by man, that isn’t specifically called for in the Bible, be a legitimate form of worship in your eyes?

For example, I don’t think having a church building for meeting in is ever called for in the Bible, but do you attend church in one? Men decided to make the roof over your head, so does that make it illegitimate to meet in it?

barkerjim

Not to mention the pews!

Aubergine

Lol. Most of the churches I grew up in had the most uncomfortable ones ever!

barkerjim

Definitely not a Godly design.

kalbokalbs

Keeping the flock awake.
  :wpds_shock: 

bflyjesusgrl 🍊 😎MEGA MAGA GAME ON😎

Riding the pine.

Aubergine

Lol!

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Beats the other “riding the pine [box]”!  😆 

bflyjesusgrl 🍊 😎MEGA MAGA GAME ON😎

At least you don’t get buttlock in the box! 😜 Or if you do, you don’t know it. 🙃🙃☺

Valerie Curren

Harder to comfortably fall asleep in during the sermon 😉

Aubergine

Yeah, no kidding!

Aubergine

Can you tell me which verse you would refer to? All the verses I can find regarding “the temple” of God appear to refer to man, not a building.

I have ancestors who were Dunkers, and some who were Quakers. Both only met in their own houses, not building churches. It makes me curious.

Aubergine

Well, I don’t disagree with you.

And I have been showing up at the local Catholic church for Mass once a week. And no, I am not Catholic. At least, I wasn’t raised Catholic. But there’s something soothing and peaceful about a religious practice that is centuries and centuries old, as opposed to the “modern church,” which is not my “thing” at all. I’m too conservative for them.

See, this is the argument I am having with a handful of people. Only following the wording of the Bible discounts any genuine “contact” of man with God for the last 2000 years. Like God left us the Book, and said “later.” It doesn’t make any sense to me. But I’ve had this problem before, and it’s always with men, not women.

I actually had a very Christian man tell me once that he had no idea what I was talking about when I said I listen for the “voice of God.” He also said without “fear” of God, why wouldn’t he do bad things, like cheat on his wife! I said, how about because you made promises to her, and you would hurt her by doing that? It’s just weird to me. God speaks to me all the time, if I am listening.

Anyway, thanks for answering.

Aubergine

Traditions of the people is something entirely rejected by modern and evangelical churches. It’s one of the many places where they lose me.

rayzorback

1 Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Aubergine

Well, yes, the body is the temple of the spirit is one of my life’s mottos.

But I am speaking of building actual structures of wood or stone.

rayzorback

Actual “structures” would be Hebrew in origin. The Temple in Jerusalem and the Tabernacle which represented the Temple. I can’t find one in the New Testament.

Aubergine

Right. Which I’m sure is why my Dunker and Quaker ancestors met in each other’s homes and didn’t build churches.

rayzorback

I was raised Baptist which was never part of the Catholic “Church”. We date back to John the Baptist. We did not break away from them. There are many things that the Catholics do and believe that I can not find in the Bible.

I do not understand praying to ANYONE other than God.
Absolution given by “Men”.
Confession and penance.
Purgatory et al.
The “Infallible” Pope.
and many other doctrines/practices.

Valerie Curren

Agreed

scott467

“Well, can NO action decided on by man, that isn’t specifically called for in the Bible, be a legitimate form of worship in your eyes?”

_________

Aha, now we’re getting somewhere!

It’s not my eyes that matter, but the Lord’s, yes?

And do we not have examples in Scripture, of men doing things in worship which were not according to God’s Will?

And how did it work out for those who did so?

Is their example one that we want to follow?

What’s more, is there any good reason to, when God has already told us, in His Word, what is acceptable to Him?

Why would we add to it, as if we know better than God what He wants… or subtract from it, presuming to know what God thinks is unimportant?

Since we have no Authority from God to add to God’s Word or to subtract from it, then by what Authority do we do such a thing?

It must necessarily be by our own Authority, yes?

That kind of presumption, for a man to presume the Authority to add to, subtract from, change, edit, amend or otherwise tinker with the Word of God is quite a large presumption, is it not?

How is that likely to go over at the Judgment?

When we stand before the Lord on Judgment Day, if He asks us why we did such and such a thing, we will have to give an honest answer, won’t we?

We will not be able to lie to Jesus. We won’t be able to dodge or obfuscate. We won’t be able to toss Jesus a red herring, or any other logical fallacy.

We won’t be able to remain silent, and we won’t be able to run away, either.

For once in our existence, maybe for the first time (for many), we will have to answer truthfully, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.

So if Jesus asks, “By what Authority did you do this thing?”, how will we answer?

Which would be the best answer to give at the Judgment?

A) My own authority, I thought… (are we the Authority in matters of God?)

B) My parents said… (are our parents the Authority in matters of God?)

C) My preacher said… (is our preacher the Authority in matters of God?)

D) I felt… (feelings… nothing more than feelings… trying to forget my, feelings of love…. FEELINGS, whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings…)

E) Our church said … (is it ‘our’ church, or is it the Lord’s church? If it’s ‘our’ church, then certainly we can do whatever we want and try to save ourselves… but if it’s the Lord’s church, then is He not the Head of the body, the church?

And as the Savior of the body, if we hope to be saved, do we not have to be a member of His church? Can we be the Authority in His church, or is He the Authority in His church?)

F) Some guy on the Internet said… (?)

G) Because You said so, in Your Word, Lord. My feeble mind may not recall the book, chapter and verse off the top of my head, but if I may have a moment, I will find it here in my Bible

Which of those answers would we most like to be able to give, at the Judgment?

I know which answer I want to be able to give.

Aubergine

So you don’t attend church in a building, then? Because for all I can find, God doesn’t require that, or recommend it.

I’m not being facetious, truly. But it interests me that there are lots and lots of practices that people do and have done for centuries that don’t appear in the Bible. But nothing bad has happened to them.

rayzorback

 But nothing bad has happened to them.”
.
Yet…

Aubergine

But if you accept that, for example, becoming celibate and being a nun is not in the Bible, then those people who did that would be bad. Which is not something I will go along with. And yes, I will happily speak of that with God someday, if that is required.

Valerie Curren

then those people who did that would be bad. “

I don’t think that such a choice would necessarily be “bad” per se, just going further that what is required in scripture. It could be argued that celebacy is a higher path honoring God based on some of Paul’s writings. However “be the husband of one wife” teachings lead one to conclude that church leadership would typically be married, monogamy-style…

rayzorback

And of the Male persuasion.

Valerie Curren

True though there is an example of a house church in a woman’s home, Lydia I believe. Also there is a husband & wife team, Priscilla & Acquilla where she is listed first which Might imply that she is more of the leader there. & we have the OT example of Deborah as a judge of Israel, & I believe she was also a married woman.

rayzorback

HUSBAND of One WIFE.

Valerie Curren

Absolutely!

scott467

“So you don’t attend church in a building, then? Because for all I can find, God doesn’t require that, or recommend it.”

_________

I posted my reply above 🙂
.
.

“I’m not being facetious, truly.”

_________

I appreciate your sincerity, and your interest, and the opportunity to try to provide a good Bible answer.

.

“But it interests me that there are lots and lots of practices that people do and have done for centuries that don’t appear in the Bible.”

_________

Yes! That fascinates me also. Because from the first, from the very first time anyone ever did any one of these things which subsequently became a tradition or doctrine or commandment of men (against which we are warned), someone should have asked “By what Authority do we do this thing?

If the answer is by the Authority of God, then for certain we will be able to point to it in His Word, book, chapter and verse.

If the authority cannot be found in God’s Word, then by definition, is it not by the authority of men?

What man has Authority higher than God, that he would change, or add to, or subtract from, what God has said?

What possible way is there, for any man, to get around that question?

.

“But nothing bad has happened to them.”

__________

If you mean by permanent consequences, then I would say “nothing bad has happened to them yet.”

The Judgment is not now, nor has it already been, but is yet to come.

While we are still in this world, we have time yet to change, to repent. For it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this, then the Judgment. (cf. Hebrews 9:27)

But can it truly be said that bad things have not happened as a result of practicing things in contradiction to God’s will and Word?

Consider how error, once established, becomes a tradition, and a foundation for further error.

Consider how that error grows and is multiplied, and metastasizes, across generations and centuries, to the point where a church can hardly even be said to resemble the Lord’s church, as His church is revealed in Scripture.

Consider all the souls in those churches, convinced by men and believing they are doing God’s will.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands of different churches, practicing and believing different things, all believing and convinced they are doing God’s will.

Clearly something is wrong with that picture. Is it possible that they can all be doing God’s will, and be doing different things, in contradiction to one another?

For we know that God is not double-minded (cf. James 1:8, 4:8), we know that God is perfect (Psalms 18:13), knowing the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).

We know that God is not the Author of confusion:

………………….
“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (1 Corinthians 14:33, KJV)
…………………..

And yet, that there is much confusion in the churches is plainly manifest, by all the different beliefs and doctrines and traditions that are practiced.

How can anyone know what is right according to God?

How can anyone know what is good and acceptable to the Lord, and what is not?

How can we find our way out of this chaos, which is created by Man?

To whom should we turn, and seek for the answer?

…………..
“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.” (Jeremiah 6:16, KJV)
…………..

Is the answer to the question not given throughout God’s Word, even right here?

………………..
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, KJV)
………………..

What should we say, then?

Does it not always comes back to Authority?

Who (or Whom) are we to believe and obey?

Man, or God?

………………….
“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:25, KJV)
…………………..

Is there any context, or could there even be any context, wherein that verse is not true and applicable?

Last edited 1 year ago by scott467
Aubergine

But do you not understand that men decided what to put in to the Bible, and what to leave out? That there are scriptures from the early church that, because they didn’t agree with what “men” decided was true, were not included?

Do you know that there is not one single original scrap of Paul’s letters, or any other piece of scripture? That all that exist are copies, possibly copies of copies of copies?

And to say as many do that God wouldn’t allow an “incorrect” Bible to be created, is to ignore that there are many translations. Why would God allow translations to be different from each other, and exist? Wouldn’t there be only one “correct” one?

I appreciate the effort you put in to all your answers, but these are questions professional theologians have never answered adequately for me. I have been a pain in the neck to many over the years, including during the required theology classes at my religious college. It made for spirited dialogue, but it never resolved my questions.

I enjoy the conversation, though. I learn things every time.

““For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (1 Corinthians 14:33, KJV)”

Who are the “saints” referred to in this verse?

SteveInCO · Thermonuclear MAGA

Copies of copies of copies of copies, bare minimum.

The oldest fragment of anything in the New Testament is a bit of the Gospel of John, at least 30 years younger than its (generally accepted) date of authoriship.

If you compare all the extant manuscripts to each other, there are more discrepancies in wording between them than there are words in the New Testament…though the vast majority of these are scribal “typos” (spelling errors, copying the same line twice, skipping over a line, etc) and of no significance.

Other discrepancies are generally marked with a footnote (in newer translations) giving an alternate wording. The translators have to take an educated guess as to which one of the alternatives is the original.

Aubergine

Right, an “educated guess,” made by humans.

I read a wonderful book about this subject. It’s called Misquoting Jesus. It was written by a new testament scholar, but for lay people to read.

SteveInCO · Thermonuclear MAGA

I believe I’ve read the same book.

scott467

“But do you not understand that men decided what to put in to the Bible, and what to leave out?”

___________

That is definitely not my understanding.

If what you claim is true, what reason would I (or anyone) have to be a Christian?

Set aside for a moment that God, if He is who He claims to be, the Creator of the universe and everything in it, is easily capable of ensuring His Word is written down according to His will, and preserved through time, no matter what man might try to do to stop it.

And if God’s Word is not His Word, but just what men decided to write and put in the Bible, then why do either of us care, about any of this?

What could be less important, than the idle ramblings of men dead nearly 2,000 years, if their witness is not true?

Why wouldn’t you be some type of pagan? Or why believe in anything at all?

Conversely, how can one be a Christian, or even know anything about Christ, if God’s Word is not true and accurate?

Would we not just be taking the words of lunatics? Nearly 2,000 year old lunatics?

If all we have is the words of men, and words that men decided to include in the Bible, then I have zero confidence in any of it, and I don’t know how anyone else does either.

I can understand how an atheist would argue against God’s Word actually being God’s Word, but how can someone who believes (and believes in) Christ make that same argument?

What can man know about God which God has not revealed to us?

And if God has revealed nothing to us, if the foundation and every other thing we know about God and Christ is just the vain babblings of 1st century lunatics, then don’t we both have a lot better things to do, than waste our time talking about this?

How can we have any confidence that God’s plan of salvation is real, or that Jesus is real, or that He died on the cross for our sins, or that we have any hope of salvation? Any of it?

If God’s Word is not true, then our hope in Christ would be absolutely in vain.

We might as well eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

……………
“If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.” (1 Corinthians 15:32, KJV)
……………

Paul addressed this issue:

……………
“But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: [14]
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. [15] Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. [16] For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: [17] And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. [18] Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. [19] If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” (1 Corinthians 15:13-19, KJV)
……………

It’s all meaningless drivel, less than worthless, if Scripture is not the inspired Word of God. How could it be argued otherwise, if it is just words of men, and not God?

I do understand, from many discussions of this nature, that claiming the Scriptures are not of God is the argument which needs to be made, in order to justify not being obedient to God’s Word.

I don’t mean that harshly, in any way. I am just pointing out, that for anyone who wants to do things their own way, of a necessity, they must then discredit God’s Word.

That is a logical and necessary step — because we cannot argue against God’s Word if we acknowledge it is God’s Word, so if we intend to ignore it or disobey it, it must necessarily be discredited.

It’s the only option.

Ultimate denial.

How can the Authority of God’s Word be denied, without first denying the legitimacy of God’s Word?

How can the legitimacy of God’s Word be denied, without denying the existence and power of God?

Is it not the ultimate discreditation, to argue that God’s Word is the word of men, and not the Word of God?

It throws the door of Pandora’s box wide open. At that point there is no longer any restraint of any kind — quite literally, anything goes.

Because if God’s Word is not true, then what Authority is there to determine what is right or good or acceptable, besides some man?

And why should anyone listen to some man?

God has no respect of persons (cf. Romans 2:11), and neither did Paul or the other apostles — why should we, or anyone else?

But I can’t even make that argument, if God’s Word is discredited.

In fact, I can’t make any biblical argument, at all.

All that is left to me is “I think” or “I want” or “I feel”, etc.

For I am no one, what I think matters not at all — and if God’s Word matters not at all either, then what is left to us, except to do whatever is right in our own eyes? (cf. Deuteronomy 12:8, Judges 17:6, Judges 21:25, Proverbs 12:15, Proverbs, 21:2)

Except I can’t cite those verses, if God’s Word is not true.

We can justify anything we want to do, if we accept that God’s Word is not actually Authoritative, because it is just the word of men, and not God.

Before we go further, it helps to bear in mind that ultimately, we only need to convince two people.

Ourselves, and Jesus.

Ourselves, because we have to decide for ourselves whether we believe and trust God.

And Jesus, because at the Judgment (if there is one, of course), we’re going to have to convince Jesus why we believed what we did.

At this point in my life, I am confident that Man can convince himself of absolutely anything.

I am not nearly so confident that Man can convince Jesus of anything.

(If He exists, of course — which could not be known, if His Word is not true.)

If (normally I would say ‘when’) we come face to face with Jesus at the Judgment, and you make the claims you are making here, how will you back them up, and convince Jesus that you are right?

Do you see what I mean?

Because you don’t have to convince me, and I don’t have to convince you — but one day, we’re both going to have to explain what we did, and why, to the Lord (if He exists, and if His Word is true).

On that day (if it happens), it is my great hope that I will not have been led astray between then and now, that I will be able to stand before the Lord at the Judgment (if there is such a thing, which I could not know, without His Word), with His Word in my hand, and give a Scriptural answer for every question I might be asked in matters having to do with God.

……………..
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:” (1 Peter 3:15, KJV)
………………

Aubergine

“Because you don’t have to convince me, and I don’t have to convince you — but one day, we’re both going to have to explain what we did, and why, to the Lord (if He exists, and if His Word is true).”

No, we’re not.

God knows EVERYTHING about you, me, and everyone. He knows your HEART. And everything in it.

It’s just amazing to me that people think we’ll have to “explain ourselves” to the omniscient God.

“Why wouldn’t you be some type of pagan? Or why believe in anything at all?”

Yes, that is the question.

scott467

“No, we’re not.”

___________

The Scriptures say that we are, so in order for your position to be correct, God’s Word must be wrong.

And if God’s Word is wrong about that, then we must assume it is wrong about everything else, we can have no confidence in the whole, if it is wrong in part.

Who put this into your mind? I think I saw who did it, at least in part, when I was scrolling to check for your reply, and his name is Bart Ehrman.

I don’t know Bart Ehrman, but I took a look, and I know his type, and what they do.

Getting information about Christianity from people like Bart Ehrman seems to be like getting information about natural health cures from Albert Bourla.

I’ll address that post when I get to it.

.

scott467

“God knows EVERYTHING about you, me, and everyone. He knows your HEART. And everything in it.”

_____________

Agreed, 100%.

Though I don’t know how you could know that or back it up, without citing the Scripture, which you don’t appear to believe has any credibility.

Which is logically irreconcilable, because in the same way that I cannot know anything about you that you have not chosen to reveal, neither can we know anything about God which He has not chosen to reveal.

And He didn’t reveal anything about Himself in Reader’s Digest, or Scientific American, or anywhere else, except in His Word.

So if we take His Word off the table, discredit and reject it, how can we know anything about God at all, apart from His Word?

.

But to your point, God’s knowledge of everything about us does not invalidate the Judgment.

The Judgment is not where God finds out what we did in life through interrogation — as you pointed out, He already knows.

We are all guilty before God, every one of us is a sinner (cf. Romans 3:10, 3:23, 5:12, 1 John 1:8).

The only hope available to us is mercy and forgiveness, which was made available to us through the sacrifice of His Son and belief in Him (who we can’t know anything about or believe if we do not believe the Scriptures are authentic).

………….
“For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:21, KJV, which is irrelevant, if it is not accurate or authentic)
………….

But many people believe otherwise of course, and seek to justify themselves and their righteousness.

That would seem to be a very bad position to take at the Judgment.

If you search an online Bible for ‘Day of Judgment’ (or ‘Judgment Day’) you will find no less than ten verses (Matthew 10:15, 11:22, 11:24, 12:36, Mark 6:11, Romans 2:5, 2 Peter 2:9, 2 Peter 3:7, 1 John 4:17, Jude 1:6).

But if we are convinced the Scriptures are not credible or authentic, then that can all be dismissed.

Before I allowed myself to be convinced of such a thing, I would want to be very certain that I did not have itching ears, and I had not sought out a false teacher, who told me what I wanted to hear.

Bart Ehrman appears to have many disciples.

Bart Ehrman is a man.

Men are undeniably fallible.

God, on the other hand, is not.

Bart Ehrman appears to have made it his life mission (and route to fame and fortune) to discredit God’s Word.

From what little I have read about Bart Ehrman, and even if I had read nothing at all about him, I would be very cautious about putting my faith or confidence in Bart.

Because if Bart is wrong, he won’t be able to help anyone at the Judgment.

Last edited 1 year ago by scott467
Aubergine

“And He didn’t reveal anything about Himself in Reader’s Digest, or Scientific American, or anywhere else, except in His Word.”

And here is our fundamental disagreement.

God revealed much more in his Creation than the written word. And I’ve borne four children; if you want to see the face of God, look into the eyes of the baby He just made in you. It’s an experience that is indescribable, but it’s a Miracle. Once you’ve experienced an actual Miracle, it changes you forever.

scott467

“And here is our fundamental disagreement.

God revealed much more in his Creation than the written word.”

___________

Yes, if you mean in the sense that God is revealed in the wonders of nature around us:

……………….
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; [19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” (Romans 1:18-20, KJV, boldface mine)
…………………

So we are agreed.

And by your own reply, we are also agreed that God revealed His written Word.

And it is His written Word which is specific, a very intentional and direct form of communication, which we can look to for answers and knowledge and guidance and understanding, for things which cannot be gleaned from the miracles of nature, yes?

.
.

“And I’ve borne four children; if you want to see the face of God, look into the eyes of the baby He just made in you.”

__________

And that is quite beautiful, of course. But it doesn’t tell us anything about what God thinks or wants or expects of us, does it?

.
.

“It’s an experience that is indescribable, but it’s a Miracle. Once you’ve experienced an actual Miracle, it changes you forever.”

___________

Again, that’s very beautiful, experience and emotion are very powerful.

Emotions can also be deceiving, and lead us astray. You may have heard the expression “better felt than told”.

Did the Israelites not have babies too? But their babies provided no instruction regarding the ways of God and His desires with regard to His chosen people.

They needed the Law of Moses, revealed by God on Mount Sinai, to guide them, among other things.

The point being, the same as I cannot know your mind except you tell me, we cannot know the mind of God, except what God chooses to reveal to us:

………………….
“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:11, KJV, boldface mine)
…………………..

In the days of Adam, and Noah, and Abraham, and Job, God sometimes spoke directly with His creation.

For a time, God then spoke through prophets.

…………………
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, [2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” (Hebrews 1:1-2, KJV)
………………..

For a time, God spoke to man by His Son Jesus:

…………………
“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” (John 12:49, KJV)
…………………

Throughout that time, various men wrote by inspiration of God, the Scriptures, for our learning:

……………
“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4, KJV)
…………..

God likewise spoke through the apostles and others (e.g., Luke) to write the books of the New Testament, which we have today.

………………
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26, KJV)

“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 14:37, KJV)
……………….

In no way does the communication of God’s Word to mankind, and the preservation of same, diminish the miracle of childbirth, nor was it ever intended to.

They are, of course, separate things.

scott467

“It’s just amazing to me that people think we’ll have to “explain ourselves” to the omniscient God.”

____________

I did not mean that God does not already know everything we have done, He does.

The Judgment appears to be more like a sentencing phase.

Those who have obeyed the gospel of Christ are forgiven. God knows the hearts of every man and woman, and knows whether their repentance and belief is real. There will likely be many who try to fool themselves, but there will be no fooling God at the Judgment.

As to why people would think we will have to give an answer for what we have done, and why, it is from God’s Word, which Bart appears to have convinced many not to believe:

“But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. [37] For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” (Matthew 12:36-37, KJV)

.

“So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” (Romans 14:12)

.

“Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.” (1 Peter 4:5)

Paul and Peter agree with Jesus.

Bart Ehrman appears to disagree

.

“Why wouldn’t you be some type of pagan? Or why believe in anything at all?”
“Yes, that is the question.”

___________

Exactly.

If God does not exist, then why believe in Him?

Why not just do what thou wilt?

…………….
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” (1 Peter 5:8, KJV)
…………….

Our discussion is about truth, about whether God is real, and about whether His Word is genuine and authentic, and therefore also ‘real’ and therefore true.

Someone appears to have convinced you that God’s Word is not true, and if God’s Word is not true, it would seem to necessarily follow that God Himself is not real or true either.

It is easy to destroy, but difficult to build.

Bart Ehrman appears to be a very effective destroyer.

Aubergine

Pagans believe in God, Scott. They just aren’t Christians.

scott467

“Pagans believe in God, Scott. They just aren’t Christians.”

__________

Pagans believe all sorts of things, don’t they?

Some worshipped Moloch, some worship Baal.

……………….
pagan

noun

  1. An adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity, especially when viewed in contrast to an adherent of a monotheistic religion.
  2. A Neopagan.
  3. One who has no religion.

……………….

You don’t want to even see the images that come up in a search for the word “pagan”. But it’s definitely not God the Father they are believing in.

Druids worship nature (I think), some pagan female cults worship Lilith. There must have been tens of thousands of pagan belief systems through time, but how could any of them be said to have worshipped the one true and living God, who has revealed Himself directly and by prophets and by His Son in times past — and by His Word, since the time of Moses, to this very day?

The Philistines worshipped Dagon:

“Then the lords of the Philistines gathered them together for to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god, and to rejoice: for they said, Our god hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hand.” (Judges 16:23)

“When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon.” (1 Samuel 5:2)

The LORD toppled the image of Dagon. The Philistines set it back up. The next day, they found their image of Dagon toppled again, face down, his hands cut off, and only a stump left to him (cf. 1 Samuel 5:4).

Clearly the pagan Philistines were not believing in or worshipping the LORD God Almighty, they worshipped Dagon, the Philistine fish deity.

The one true and living God made it clear to the Philistines that their god was false.

In 1 Kings chapter 18, Elijah shamed the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel, mocking them openly as they called for fire to come down from heaven.

When it was Elijah’s turn, the fire came down. (see 1 Kings 18:36-40 for the conclusion)

Clearly, the prophets of Baal were not believing in the same God as Elijah.

……………..
“And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.” (1 Kings 18:39)
………………

.

Aubergine

No matter what anyone “believes,” there is only one God.

Valerie Curren

Saints are all the believers & followers of Jesus 🙂

Aubergine

🙂

scott467

“That there are scriptures from the early church that, because they didn’t agree with what “men” decided was true, were not included?”

____________

But Scripture did not come “from the early church”, Scripture came from God, revealed to men, who wrote it down.

The ‘church’ did not generate any Scripture.

The Scriptures are very clear on this, repeatedly. The following is certainly not exhaustive. After each one, we should ask ourselves, are they lying?

Is God lying?

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13, KJV, boldface mine)

Is Paul lying?

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21, boldface mine)

Is Peter lying?

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 3:16, boldface mine)

Is Paul lying?

“But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26, boldface mine)

Is John lying?

“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 14:37, boldface mine)

Is Paul lying?

With the exception of Hebrews (generally attributed to Paul), the writers of the other 65 books of the OT and NT are not generally in dispute.

The New Testament Scriptures were not written down in the absence of the men who wrote them down, they were written down by men who were alive at the time.

And having the gifts of God (healing, prophecy, speaking and interpreting tongues, raising people from the dead, etc.), they were able to confirm that the things they wrote were of and by God, with signs and wonders.

……………
“And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” (Mark 16:20, KJV, boldface mine)
……………

Whether any particular congregation wanted to believe it or not, was up to them, naturally. What was God supposed to do, put every man in a headlock?

They could believe or disbelieve, the same as us today.

The Scriptures make an affirmative case for themselves, and today, as in the 1st century, we can examine and test the Scriptures, and determine whether they are true.

There were many false gospels written during the time of the early church, and if I remember correctly, Iraneaus (130 – 202 A.D.) among others collected many of them, to be aware of them, and to distinguish them from the true Scriptures.

If the Scriptures cannot be relied upon as being true, then how could Jesus refer to them as Authoritative?

…………………..
“He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?” (Luke 10:26)


“But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;” (Matthew 12:3)


“Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?” (Matthew 12:5)


“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,” (Matthew 19:4)


“But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,” (Matthew 22:31)


“And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:” (Mark 12:10)


“And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?” (Mark 12:26)


“And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;” (Luke 6:3)


“And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?” (Mark 12:24)
………………………..

But if the Scriptures are not the Word of God, then how do we even know that Jesus even said any of those things?

How do we know anything about Jesus at all, apart from Scripture — besides the several brief references to Him in ancient secular sources, e.g., Josephus, Tacitus, and not many others?

scott467

Glancing over the rest of your post, these are all great questions, for which there are equally great answers.

I have had these discussions many times over the years. My research is on my hard drive, which I transferred to my new PC about a year ago, but my Copernic desktop search engine would not transfer without buying it over again.

Except you can’t buy it anymore, you have to ‘subscribe’ and pay annually in perpetuity.

I have ‘Agent Ransack’ as an alternative, and it works, but every search takes over an hour. I’m currently at one hour and 11 minutes on a search for “reasoned from the Scriptures”, it has searched 344,000MB out of 358,000MB.

So each query takes a LONG time. Many times I have decided on a different reply by the time the search result is finally available.

Like ‘reasoning from the Scriptures’, the current search. What point is there in proving that the Apostles reasoned from the Scriptures, if it is not accepted that the Scriptures are even true?

.

“Do you know that there is not one single original scrap of Paul’s letters, or any other piece of scripture? That all that exist are copies, possibly copies of copies of copies?”

__________

Of course.

For which ancient work is that NOT true?

Does this mean that we throw out our entire knowledge of the ancient world?

And believe none of it, because we don’t have the original ‘autograph’ manuscripts by Aristotle, Pliny the Younger, Socrates, Thucydides, et al?

I’m waiting for my search to finish, so I can post the information on the oldest known copies of many historical works, and many of them, the oldest known copy is over a thousand years from the original writing.

And they are accepted as accurate copies by historians everywhere.

By contrast, the earliest copies of Scripture manuscripts (and certainly fragments of manuscripts) are much, much closer to the original.

Every answer is like this, the TRUTH is on the side of God’s Word, not against it!

Last edited 1 year ago by scott467
Aubergine

I had a response to this all written, but discarded it. I just can’t anymore.

scott467

“And to say as many do that God wouldn’t allow an “incorrect” Bible to be created, is to ignore that there are many translations.”

____________

It’s not like God is a Genie, hovering over every copy of Scripture, swatting away corrupters like flies.

Anybody can corrupt anything.

Anyone could buy a Bible, take it home, tear off the binding, cut out pieces, add parts from other books (cook books, sci-fi, biographies, whatever), put it all back together, make copies, and distribute it.

God isn’t going to stop you — or anyone else.

Why would He need to?

Anyone could get a copy of the “new” Bible, look through it, and see that it was obviously messed with (and messed up).

That’s an absurd example in order to make the point, but the same is true for telling legitimate ancient copies from corrupted copies, it’s just more difficult and requires more effort and knowledge.

It is the volume of ancient manuscripts (and fragments) which makes the comparison process possible.

Suppose you have a hundred fragments of 2 Timothy 3:16, dating from the 2nd century to the 12th century.

With so many fragments, you can track it across time, and see where an error was made, and then the error was copied forward on some, and not on others, depending on what source was used and where in the world it was made.

As an example, there may be 10 fragments dating to the 2nd and 3rd century that are all the same.

Then suddenly there is a changed word, or punctuation, or even a missing word. This may appear in 30 fragments dating from the 4th century through the 8th century, in one part of the ancient world, but not in another, because in another part of the world, the particular error in that particular verse was not made, and the surviving copies don’t contain the same error.

The most exciting part about researching this stuff is that your confidence in the legitimacy and accuracy of the Scripture text that survives today grows, it does not diminish!

No fear of the truth! 😁

.

“Why would God allow translations to be different from each other, and exist? Wouldn’t there be only one “correct” one?”

____________

Again, how might God prevent it, without engaging in constant supernatural woo-woo?

Imagine living in a world, where any time anyone mishandled God’s Word, or tried to corrupt it, a giant hand materialized out of thin air, gave you a light smack on the bottom, and prevented you from messing around with His Word.

God can do anything, so it could happen, as it did in the Book of Daniel:

“In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.” (Daniel 5:5, KJV)

Just because God can do such things, doesn’t mean He makes a habit of it.

Since God knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), He certainly knew before time began, exactly who would corrupt His Word, and how, and certainly there have been many, both intentional and accidental — and yet the corruptions are identifiable and discoverable.

Aubergine

You just proved my case.

“It’s not like God is a Genie, hovering over every copy of Scripture, swatting away corrupters like flies.

Anybody can corrupt anything.”

We have COPIES of originals.

How on Earth do you know the first COPY doesn’t have an error in it? That’s the point.

scott467

“We have COPIES of originals.
How on Earth do you know the first COPY doesn’t have an error in it? That’s the point.”

_____________

Are copies of originals not all that survive of any ancient manuscript?

To my knowledge, not a single ancient historical work exists as an original manuscript.

If we reject the authenticity and credibility of the Scripture on that basis

…then do we not likewise have to reject every other ancient manuscript on the same basis?

.

“We have COPIES of originals.
How on Earth do you know the first COPY doesn’t have an error in it? That’s the point.”

____________

Because the original manuscript was written by inspiration of God, and if God can create the universe and everything in it, God is certainly able to make sure Paul or Peter or Matthew or John or Mark or Luke (or Moses, David, Daniel, et al.), did not write down the wrong thing or make an error.

“Inspiration” means “God-breathed”.

It does not mean, for example, that God told Matthew a story, and Matthew thought about it for a while, and then wrote based on his own recollection.

If that had been the case, irreconcilable contradictions between the Scriptures would abound.

But for the sake of argument, suppose an original Scripture manuscript did have an error in it.

What sort of error are we talking about?

An inconsequential error of punctuation, which has no impact on doctrine or teaching, and contradicts nothing in any other Scripture?

Or are we talking about some whole hog, wandered off the reservation type of error?

Certainly that sort of error would be in wild contradiction to the other gospels and Scriptures.

So would a blatant error not stand out and draw attention to itself, by virtue of contradicting the other Scriptures?

And likewise, would a minor or inconsequential error not be just that, minor and inconsequential, having no affect on doctrine or belief?

Aubergine

I am unaware of any other ancient document that is referred to as “inerrant.”

scott467

“I am unaware of any other ancient document that is referred to as “inerrant.” ”

____________

The concept of inerrancy is simply that God, being perfect, does not make mistakes, and the Scriptures, being written by inspiration of God (“God-breathed”), are therefore likewise inerrant.

What God writes through a man is inerrant, just as what God speaks is inerrant.

So if any of the original manuscripts survived and was found, it should be ‘inerrant’, i.e., ‘error free’, as if God had written it Himself, like the Ten Commandments.

The original manuscript, like all ancient manuscripts, would necessarily need to be copied by hand, until the printing press, photography, copy machines and scanners were invented.

Manual copying has the potential to introduce human error.

It has been some years since I studied this, but going by memory, a group called the Masoretes were dedicated to copying the OT Scriptures. Sometimes these are referred to as the Masoretic Texts.

They had a number system associated with the Hebrew alphabet, and would add up the numbers represented by the text. If the number did not match the page that was being copied, they knew there was an error, discarded the copied page, and started that page over.

It was a very effective system. Not perfect, no system involving Man is, but it was very effective.

The New Testament Scriptures were not copied (at least not exclusively) by a group dedicated to that task like the Masoretes.

But the sheer volume of copies of the NT books, letters and epistles that were made is what makes it possible to do comparative analysis, and end up with a similar degree of confidence in the fidelity of what we have today. That is not to say that individual copies do not contain human errors, they do.

But because there are so many existing copies, going back in time so close to the original (much, much closer than the other ancient documents I posted previously), they can be compared and traced back in time to discover where the transcription error was made.

The ‘inerrancy’ would be in the original transmission from God, through man, onto parchment. God using man as His instrument to write His Word.

That errors have been made in the copy process since then is unavoidable, as Man is far from perfect. Fortunately, the errors, even those made centuries or millennia ago, can be discovered through comparative analysis.

But whether anyone refers to the Scriptures as ‘inerrant’ doesn’t change the fact that no ancient historical document (to my knowledge) is an ‘original’, they are all copies of copies of copies.

So the books of the OT and NT cannot be rejected on that basis, unless we likewise reject every other ancient document for the same reason.

What’s more, the scholars who specialize in other ancient documents would LOVE to have the volume of manuscripts and fragment evidence which exists for the Scriptures.

For many ancient documents (see the list I posted previously), the number of existing copies are in the single digits.

By contrast, we have thousands of copies of the Scriptures.

This is a brief comment from bible.ca, a website I use frequently for research. There are also some helpful comments about various translations at the same link above.

It is not a random website, but the first Christian website I came across in my search (years ago) in which I could not find any obvious error.

I later discovered that the website is owned and managed by a member of the same non-denominational church of which I subsequently became a member:

…………………………
“IS THE BIBLE ACCURATE?”
In a conversation with a man at Walmart, a statement was made as well as a question asked:

“The Bible was taken from hand written copies, much of which are only fragments. How can we trust that what we have is accurate?”

Because there are over 14,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament we can absolutely be confident of its accuracy.

With this large number of manuscripts, comparing manuscripts easily reveals any place where a scribe has made an error or where there is a variation. There are approximately 150,000 variations in the manuscripts we have today.

However, these variations represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament (if the same word was misspelled in 3,000 manuscripts, that is counted as 3,000 variations.) Of these 10,000 places, all but 400 are questions of spelling in accord with accepted usage, grammatical construction, or order of words.

Of the remaining variations, only 50 are of significance (such as two manuscripts leaving out Acts 2:37). But of these 50, not one alters even one article of faith which cannot be abundantly sustained by other undoubted passages.

There are some manuscripts that date as early as 130 AD, very close to the completion of the New Testament. These manuscripts are nearly identical to those dating 900 years later, thus verifying the accuracy of the scribes.
…………………………

scott467

“I appreciate the effort you put in to all your answers, but these are questions professional theologians have never answered adequately for me.”

__________

Why should anyone require the services of a professional theologian?

Does God’s Word require a theologian to understand it?

To my knowledge, there were no Bible colleges in the 1st century, and there is no indication that God was only interested in communicating with (and saving) the over-educated. 😉

Sometimes (often times?) we make it harder than God ever did.

If I remember correctly, the Scriptures were written at about an 8th grade level of reading.

What is the point of God revealing His Word to mankind?

Is it to give special knowledge to theologians who can lord it over the People?

Or is it to communicate the saving gospel of Christ, to all men and women everywhere?

Theologians, spending more time in study than the average person might (though not necessarily!), could gain more insight to various aspects of Scripture.

But then the student of theology must also be aware of (and actively counter) all of the doctrines, traditions and other errors of men that are invariably being taught by any institution, and doesn’t every denomination (to include the RCC) have their own doctrines which cannot withstand Scriptural scrutiny?

Is that not an unavoidable consequence of denominationalism?

So how much good is a professional theologian really going to do you?

You’re far smarter than the average bear, certainly smarter than me, plenty smart to research and understand the things we’re discussing today.

It’s not understanding the truth that is hard, it is finding it amongst all the false teaching that is difficult.

So how do we find the truth?

One way is to assume that everybody is wrong about everything in matters of God, until or unless proven otherwise to our satisfaction.

And then use the same filters and processes to figure out the truth as we use for anything else, i.e., the rock between our ears.

I hope you will never hear me present my own ‘belief’ about anything in matters of God, unless I specifically say that’s what it is, but I don’t know why I would do that, because what I believe is probably not ever going to be relevant to any discussion.

What I should be doing is presenting what God’s Word actually says, and then reasoning, rationally in a way that anyone can understand, using basic logic and reason, from the Scriptures.

That’s what we have example to do in the Scriptures, so there’s no reason to fix it if it ain’t broke. Common sense is common sense, logic is logic, reason is reason, whether Apollos (who was not an apostle) was doing it in the 1st century, or whether we do it today.

…………..
“And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.” (Acts 18:24, KJV)

“For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:28, KJV)
……………

BUT, we can’t get to reasoning from the Scriptures UNTIL you are satisfied that the Scriptures are:

1) the genuine Word of God

2) have been accurately preserved

3) have been accurately translated

So we can’t put the cart before the horse.

When I began to search for the truth about God, I had to work these things out too.

I had to understand, at least somewhat, the likelihood that the texts we have today are authentic and genuine. I learned much more later, but I needed to understand at least a basic amount before I could pass ‘go’.

I had to figure out the deal with translations, and which one(s) were ‘good’ or accurate.

For example, I discovered that most people have a preference for one particular translation or another, for a variety of reasons.

Many translations have as many detractors as supporters, again, for various reasons.

The translation that most people seemed to agree was at least acceptable, was the KJV.

It is not without its share of issues, one of the more well known being that King James apparently insisted that the word “Easter” be used in place of “Passover” in Acts 12:4.

The underlying original Koine Greek word is “Passover”, the transliteration is “pascha”, it’s not “Easter”.

You can see it here, in Strong’s:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3957/kjv/tr/0-1/

But everybody who looks into the subject of translations learns that (eventually) about the KJV, so it’s a known issue.

And for me personally, I am comfortable with the “old English”, I like it, and it helps me with memory, to locate verses or passages.

For example, if I’m trying to find the passage about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, I can go to any online Bible, select “KJV” translation, and type in one word:

STINKETH 😂

It’s only used TWICE in the entire KJV, so I can locate the passage about Lazarus in John 11:39 in about two seconds 👍

The old English in the KJV makes it easier for me to find verses and passages that way all the time.

Another factor (for me) is that “older is better”, because any translation from the past 30 years is going to be influenced by political correctness — and I want nothing to do with political correctness.

So I ended up settling on the KJV and the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901 as my preferred translations.

Are they perfect translations of the underlying Koine Greek text?

No, but no translation is going to be perfect.

Where there are questions or concerns in a verse or passage, we have to look up the underlying Koine Greek for clarification, and online Bibles make this quick and easy to do 👍

Last edited 1 year ago by scott467
Aubergine

I can’t believe you think the King James Bible is written on an eighth grade reading level! Lol, where’d you go to eighth grade, Harvard?

scott467

“I can’t believe you think the King James Bible is written on an eighth grade reading level! Lol, where’d you go to eighth grade, Harvard?”

_____________

No, I might not be able to read at all if that had been the case 😁

I said “If I remember correctly, the Scriptures were written at about an 8th grade level of reading.”

I didn’t express that very well.

A quick search brought up the following:

………………………..
TranslationGrade Level

  • KJV — 12
  • RSV — 12
  • NRSV — 11
  • NASB — 11
  • ESV — 10
  • HCSB — 7-8
  • NIV — 7-8
  • CEB — 7
  • CSB — 7
  • NKJV — 7
  • NLT — 6
  • GW — 5
  • Message — 4-5
  • NCV — 3
  • NIrV — 3

………………………..

Aubergine

I can’t believe you think the King James Bible is written on an eighth grade reading level! Lol, where’d you go to eighth grade, Harvard?

I didn’t “require” the professional theologians, they were required of me to graduate from college! So was weekly chapel attendance.

scott467

Stop your grinnin’ and drop your linen… found it!

(That’s an Aliens reference!)

It only took “Agent Ransack” an hour to find it for me.

This is from a discussion I had back in 2012:

………………………..
Ca7 wrote: “2. While you might think you are believing in facts, to other people it is just your belief. They may in fact be facts but you don’t actually know that they are facts and you certainly can’t prove them to be facts. What you can do is state your beliefs.
3. Once you start insisting that something inherently unprovable is a fact, you’ve lost me.”

Scott: “You seem to not distinguish between conclusions, facts and evidence:

fact (dictionary.com)
1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed

2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation

ev•i•dence (dictionary.com)
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof

The historicity of Jesus Christ is not seriously contested by scholars. The Scriptures have been examined and tested more thoroughly and rigorously than any other documents in the world; tested against themselves for internal consistency, accuracy, etc., tested against other historical evidence from contemporary history, and against archeological discoveries made all the time.

Never once has an archeological discovery proven the Bible to be in error; but a great many archeological discoveries have proven the Bible to be true.

The sheer volume of surviving Scriptural manuscripts dwarfs the surviving “great works” of men, which are almost universally accepted as accurate, authentic and true. Here are a few of the more prominent examples:

Caesar – 100-44 BC (published 50’s or 40’s BC)
Earliest copy: 900 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 950 years
Copies in existence: 10

.

Plato (Tetralogies) – lived/written 427-347 BC
Earliest copy: 900 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 1,200 years
Copies in existence: 7

.

Tacitus (Annals) – written 100 AD
Earliest copy: 1,100 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 1,000 years
Copies in existence: 20

.

Tacitus (Minor works) – written 100 AD
Earliest copy: 1,000 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 900 years
Copies in existence: 1

.

Pliny the younger (History) – lived 61-113 AD
Earliest copy: 850 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 750 years
Copies in existence: 7

.

Thucydides (history) – lived 460-400 BC
Earliest copy: 900 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 1,300 years
Copies in existence: 8

.

Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum) – lived 75-160 AD
Earliest copy: 950 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 800 years
Copies in existence: 8

.

Herodotus (history) – lived 480-425 BC
Earliest copy: 900 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 1,300 years
Copies in existence: 8

.

Sophocles – lived 496-406 BC
Earliest copy: 1,000 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 1,400 years
Copies in existence: 193

.

Catullus – lived 54 BC
Earliest copy: 1,550 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 1,600 years
Copies in existence: 3

.

Euripides – lived 480-406 BC
Earliest copy: 1,100 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 1,500 years
Copies in existence: 9

.

Demosthenes – lived 383-322 BC
Earliest copy: 1,100 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 1,300 years
Copies in existence: 200

.

Aristotle – lived 384-322 BC
Earliest copy: 1,100 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 1,400 years
Copies in existence: 49

.

Aristophanes – lived 450-385 BC
Earliest copy: 900 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 1,200 years
Copies in existence: 10

.

Homer (Iliad) – lived 900 BC
Earliest copy: 400 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: 500 years
Copies in existence: 643

.

Books of the New Testament – written 40-100 AD
Earliest fragment copy: 125 AD
Time span from original writing to oldest surviving copy: approximately 25 years
Copies (including fragments of course) in existence: 24,000+

If one discounts the eyewitness testimony and the written record in Scripture — which are accepted in these other ancient historical accounts — then by that same standard, one must discount the veracity of all these others.

How much of our knowledge of the ancient world are you willing to throw away, in order to deny the veracity of Jesus Christ?”
………………………………

In our discussion, I would ask instead, How much of our knowledge of the ancient world are we willing to throw away, in order to deny the veracity of Scripture?

Because if we accept all these other works as being genuine, authentic, accurate and true — which we must, if we are to have any coherent understanding of the ancient world — and:

1) we have far fewer surviving copies of these other works than we do Scripture, and…

2) the copies of these other works are far more recent (further removed from the original manuscript) than copies we have of Scripture…

Then how can we dismiss the veracity and authenticity of the Scriptures, for which so much more and earlier evidence exists?

I love this subject 😁

Last edited 1 year ago by scott467
Aubergine

But all of the 24,000 fragments differ from each other! That’s the whole issue! And there’s no solution to it, other than BELIEF. That’s it.

I’m glad for you that you have chosen to accept that at least one of the modern translations of the Bible is the absolute word of God.

scott467

“But all of the 24,000 fragments differ from each other!

That’s the whole issue! And there’s no solution to it, other than BELIEF. That’s it.”

_________

You will be very glad to know that there is indeed a very good and scientific solution to it, and best of all, it has already been solved 😁

The vast majority of the variations are matters of spelling or grammar or the order of words.

It’s not like you’re putting Jaws in the VCR, and Star Wars comes up on the screen 😂

As posted recently, from Bible.ca:

……………..
There are approximately 150,000 variations in the manuscripts we have today. However, these variations represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament (if the same word was misspelled in 3,000 manuscripts, that is counted as 3,000 variations.)

Of these 10,000 places, all but 400 are questions of spelling in accord with accepted usage, grammatical construction, or order of words. Of the remaining variations, only 50 are of significance (such as two manuscripts leaving out Acts 2:37).

But of these 50, not one alters even one article of faith which cannot be abundantly sustained by other undoubted passages.

There are some manuscripts that date as early as 130 AD, very close to the completion of the New Testament.

These manuscripts are nearly identical to those dating 900 years later, thus verifying the accuracy of the scribes.
……………..

.

scott467

“I’m glad for you that you have chosen to accept that at least one of the modern translations of the Bible is the absolute word of God.”

_________

A comment on translations, from the same webpage at Bible.ca as earlier:

………………
When people hear there are over 50 different versions of the Bible in English alone, they often think to themselves, “No wonder there are many denominations each teaching different things, there are many different versions of the Bible.”

This view, however, is wrong. Yes there are many denominations, but don’t blame that on the fact there are many versions of the Bible. There is one Bible.
First we need to understand what we mean by a “version”.

A better word than “version” is “translation”. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. If every man could read Hebrew and Greek, then we would have no need for an “English version”. Most people can’t read Greek, “It’s all Greek to me”!

We must rely, therefore, upon men who are fully fluent in English and Greek. These “scholars” read the original Greek Bible and come up with an English equivalent. This process is called translation. We have all seen a foreign diplomat give a news conference through the help of a translator.

One translator may choose different words or sentences, but the message is identical. Translation is a reliable science of communicating between different languages. Remember, it was God Himself who created all the language barriers in Genesis 11 at the Tower of Babel. God is satisfied that His inspired word can be maintained although translated into over 200 languages.

Translation of the Greek New Testament is a very precise science. The New American Standard Bible, for example, was translated over 10 years, by over 45 scholars and was first published in 1962 AD. Similar painstaking work was applied to the production of the New International (1978 AD), and King James (1611AD) and the New King James (1982AD). These translations and others like them were the products of many years of work from scholars from many denominations.

Each translation has its own strengths and weaknesses. The King James Version (KJV) is excellent, but you must use a dictionary as you read because it uses language typical of the time it was translated (1611). I recommend you purchase a more recent translation. The New American Standard Version (NASV) is believed by many to be one of the most accurate translations and is an excellent study Bible.

The American Standard Version (ASV) is also excellent and highy accurate. The New King James Version (NKJV) is high on the recommended list. The New International Version (NIV) tries to make the text as easy to understand as possible and is an excellent reading Bible, but not a good study Bible.

The New World Translation (1950, the Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible) should be avoided because its is actually corrupt, being a sectarian paraphrase rather than a true translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Although the exact choice of words or sentence structure is different in each translation, the meaning is identical.

Take the words of Jesus in Mark 16:16 from three “versions” as an example;

NIV: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved”.

KJV: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”.

NAS: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved”

Different words and sentences but the meaning is identical. To blame religious division on the fact there are different Bible versions, therefore, is incorrect.

The view that each translation of the Bible conveys a different message is also incorrect. There is only one Bible message that has been translated into hundreds of different languages.
………………

.

scott467

We know that translations are acceptable, because of the Scriptures themselves.

Again, from Bible.ca:

………………………
Abstract:
From the tower of Babel, God knew translations of his inspired word would be made into hundreds of different languages yet still carry the same force, authority and message. This is what Jesus meant (in part) when He said that “scripture cannot be broken” in John 10:35.

Today Christians regard our translations like the King James Version (KJV) or the New American Standard Bible (NASB) as equal to the autograph in authority. When a preacher reads from his English Bible it is considered equal to the inspired word of God. The words of the English Bible are the words of God!

When Jesus began his ministry the Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh had been in use so long throughout the entire world that it was considered equal to the original Hebrew. Hebrew went extinct around 300 BC as a common working language of the Jews.

At the time of Jesus, Aramaic was the native language but Greek was the working language of all Jews the world over. Weekly Synagogue sabbath worship services were conducted entirely in Greek not Hebrew and the Septuagint was their Bible.

Christians regard the translation KJV as the word of God in exactly the same way that Jews at the time of Jesus regarded the translation Septuagint. Each of the thousands of synagogues in and outside Judea used the Septuagint as their standard Bible for worship, preaching and devotional reading.

Augustine in 400 AD makes this timeless observation true of Jews in 100 BC and Christians today: “Nevertheless, the Church has adopted the Septuagint as if it were the only translation. Indeed, Greek-speaking Christians use it so generally that many of them do not even know that the others exist.

From the Septuagint a Latin translation has been made, and this is the one which the Latin churches use.” (Augustine, City of God 18.43, 400 AD) God foresaw at the tower of Babel the His word MUST be translated and the Holy Spirit wrote it in such a way so that the original meaning would transcend the translation process.

In 446 BC, Nehemiah translated Hebrew into Aramaic for his listeners. In 282 BC seventy two Jewish scholars from Jerusalem translated the Hebrew Tanakh into Greek for the Jews throughout the world. In 80 AD, Apostle John translated Aramaic into Greek for his readers. “Scripture cannot be Broken” even when it is translated!”
………………………….

.

It then goes into much more detail and many examples, at the link above 👍

scott467

“Who are the “saints” referred to in this verse?”

____________

The word “saint” (singular) appears only 3 times in the Bible, twice in the OT (Psalm 106:16, Daniel 8:13) and once in the NT (Philemon 4:21):

………………
“Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you.” (Philemon 4:21, KJV)
………………

The plural, ‘saints’, appears 96 times in 95 verses. Looks like 34 verses in the OT and 61 verses in the NT.

Saints in the New Testament refers to those who have obeyed the gospel, and have been added to the Lord’s church.

The list of verses which include the word “saints” can be found here:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=saints&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

scott467

“For example, I don’t think having a church building for meeting in is ever called for in the Bible, but do you attend church in one? Men decided to make the roof over your head, so does that make it illegitimate to meet in it?”

____________

Great questions!

Yes, normally I do attend church in a building, but we don’t need to. If it was 100 degrees outside, and the air conditioning was broken (there are no windows in the main room to open), we could hold worship services outside. We could meet in a house, or a field, or wherever it is expedient to do so.

Expedience is often misused in an “ends justifies the means” way, so we do need to be careful about expedience.

For something to be Scripturally expedient, it must be something done to accomplish the Lord’s will (not our own will) and reconcile and harmonize with God’s Word, not contradict it. Expediency is the freedom to choose within the boundaries of what God has Authorized.

With regard to attending worship, we are to assemble together (cf. Hebrews 10:25) on the first day of the week (cf. Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2).

As it pertains to meeting in a building, is a house not a building?

If we search an online Bible (KJV in this case) for the words “build” and “house“, these two words occur 156 times in 70 different verses.

Without listing them all, and unless anyone objects, a house is clearly a building. It is a building intended for people to live in, but as we have multiple examples in Scripture, a building intended to be lived in can also be used as a place for the church to meet:

“Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.” (Romans 16:5, KJV, boldface mine)

“The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.” (1 Corinthians 16:19, boldface mine)

“Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.” (Colossians 4:15, boldface mine)

“And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:” (Philemon 1:2, boldface mine)

The Lord has given us example that we are to assemble (Hebrews 10:25) on a day which is determined by the Lord (Acts 20:7) to accomplish the Lord’s will
(not our own will).

We are not told where to meet, so we have freedom to choose where to meet, in order to comply with God’s will to assemble and worship. It is expedient for us to meet in a building, but we don’t need to, we could choose to meet elsewhere.

It is expedient to meet at a certain time which everyone in the congregation is aware of, but we have freedom to choose the time of day when we come together, so long as we assemble and worship on the first day of the week.

Does that make sense, and is it clear how it reconciles and harmonizes with God’s Word?

Aubergine

Matthew 18:20
“For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Then a walk in the woods with a friend discussing God and praying will suffice.

I don’t see a day of the week there.

scott467

“Then a walk in the woods with a friend discussing God and praying will suffice.

I don’t see a day of the week there.”

________

Certainly we can pray anywhere 🙂

As for worship, under the Old Testament Law of Moses, the congregation was to assemble together for worship on the Sabbath, which if I understand correctly, was Saturday, the 7th day of the week, the day that God rested from His creation.

In New Testament Christian worship, the example Christians have is to assemble for worship on the first day of the week, which was also the day Jesus rose from the dead (boldface emphasis mine in all cases):

“In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” (Matthew 28:1, KJV)

“And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.” (Mark 16:2)

“Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.” (Mark 16:9, see also Luke 24:1, John 20:1).

“Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” (John 20:19)

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:7)

“Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” (1 Corinthians 16:2)

Aubergine

Yeah, and people can’t even agree on what day that is!

scott467

“Yeah, and people can’t even agree on what day that is!”

_____________

Well, it only takes one person to disagree, and anyone can disagree with anything 🙂

If anyone wants to claim the day approved for Christian worship is some day other than the first day of the week, their argument is certainly not with me.

Their argument is with God’s Word, and the six passages posted above 🙂

Those verses will first need to be explained away, and then verses which prove some other day will have to be provided.

I don’t think anyone can actually do it, but I never discourage anyone from trying.

Trying is a good way to learn 👍

Aubergine

Which day is the first day? Sunday? Monday? Saturday?

How do you know? Days of the week are arbitrary, assigned by humans.

Aubergine

Are you by chance a Seventh Day Adventist?

scott467

“Are you by chance a Seventh Day Adventist?”

____________

No, the church of which I am a member is the church of Christ.

It is a non-denominational, independent, autonomous congregation, in fellowship with other independent and autonomous congregations in America and around the world, under the Authority of God, according to the pattern and example given in Scripture.

There is a denominational church called The Church of Christ, but that is not the same church.

The Scriptures refer to the church in a way that glorifies God the Father or Christ the Son.

The Lord’s church is referred to in three ways, frequently with the addition of the town or city location:

1) church of God:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28, KJV)

2) church of the Firstborn:

“To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,” (Hebrews 12:23, KJV)

3) church of Christ:

“Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.” (Romans 16:16, KJV)

Often times a location is included:

“Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:” (1 Corinthians 1:2, KJV, boldface mine)

Sometimes the church is referred to as the people of an area are called, like this example where Paul instructs the members of the church at Colosse to read the epistle sent to Laodicea, and vice versa:

……………………
“And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” (Colossians 4:16, KJV)
…………………….

scott467

“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” (Hebrews 10:25, KJV)

TheseTruths

(Not getting into a discussion. 😊)

There are examples in Scripture of people taking vows and living lives of asceticism. This can be found by searching for, for example, “Biblical support for monasticism.”

The word “abortion” is not found in Scripture, nor is “homosexual”; but we understand the principles involved.

para59r

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+desert+fathers+book&t=vivaldi&iax=images&ia=images

Many books on this. This is but one.
comment image

They actually had an influence with some the seats of the church (Constantinople, Rome, Africa, Egypt, and Antioch I believe.)

Then in the most extreme there were the Stylites. Simeon being among the most famous but many cities were said to have them. They spent most of their lives living atop tall pillars. Simeon’s successor Daniel lived atop a pillar for 33 yrs it is said. I think it was him that climbed down to chew out one of the Emperors.

comment image

Read about them here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylite

TheseTruths

Yes, good info.

Aubergine

Yes, stuff like that!

scott467

“There are examples in Scripture of people taking vows and living lives of asceticism. This can be found by searching for, for example, “Biblical support for monasticism.” ”

______________

If this is the link you meant, (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/87344/what-bible-verses-support-monasticism), it is fraught with error.

It necessarily is looking at something which is already being done, and then looking backward in the effort to find some excuse to justify it.

The justifications provided will not withstand scrutiny.

I glanced through it, and I can deconstruct it for you, if you would like.

scott467

“The word “abortion” is not found in Scripture, nor is “homosexual”; but we understand the principles involved.”

____________

Agreed, but the Scripture is clear that an unborn person is a life created by God, and the Scripture is clear that murder (the unlawful or unjustified taking of life) is sin.

Likewise, homosexual conduct is specifically condemned in both the OT and the NT.

I still cannot find any command, example or necessary inference for becoming a monk, or living as a member of any religious order other than the Lord’s church, or being part of anything called a ‘monastery’ where other similarly minded people do whatever it is that monks do.

That these things have sprung up, after the Lord’s church (and the New Testament) were established, is not in dispute.

Trying to reverse-engineer them or boot-strap them back to some kind of Scriptural Authority is always the problem.

pgroup2

Knowing everything about him never should have included peering inside his tightey-whiteys.

scott467

Don’t know about Mattis, but Betrayus wasn’t much of a monk, when the honeypot came strolling by.

cthulhu

It’s been more of a romantic trope than a success every time it has been referenced, which is why I said “culture” instead of “history”.

cthulhu

The sad fact is that mobilization of massive armies cannot be done by a warrior or a monk, but can only be done by a politician.

Valerie Curren

or perhaps an actual leader (by example)

cthulhu

Benedict, in the Amber novels, is nearly a perfect example. Corwin very much respects him……but, as with the discussion of intelligence vs. IQ yesterday, that does not guarantee the victory.

cthulhu
TheseTruths

comment image

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

WELL SAID. Reign it in!

cthulhu

*Grammar Nazi seething*

Might you mean “rein”?

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

LOL! I did indeed, but the misspelling was intended as a swipe at our regal Scofflaw SCOTUS. And it fits the DAMN QUEENS, too, so I ain’t fixin’ it!  😉 

ROBERT BAKER

I find your attitude recalcitrant and truculent.  😉 

Last edited 1 year ago by ROBERT BAKER
scott467

Good words! Haven’t seen those words used in a LONG time👍😁

Aubergine

Two of my favorite attitudes!

TheseTruths

“Seething” 😂🤣🔥

TheseTruths

Zoom iOS App Sends Data to Facebook Even if You Don’t Have a Facebook Account
https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7e599/zoom-ios-app-sends-data-to-facebook-even-if-you-dont-have-a-facebook-account

The Zoom app notifies Facebook when the user opens the app, details on the user’s device such as the model, the time zone and city they are connecting from, which phone carrier they are using, and a unique advertiser identifier created by the user’s device which companies can use to target a user with advertisements.

Zoom says:

“Zoom takes its users’ privacy extremely seriously. We originally implemented the ‘Login with Facebook’ feature using the Facebook SDK in order to provide our users with another convenient way to access our platform. However, we were recently made aware that the Facebook SDK was collecting unnecessary device data,” the statement read, and described the data being collected as the same sorts of information that Motherboard identified.

“To address this, in the next few days, we will be removing the Facebook SDK and reconfiguring the feature so that users will still be able to login with Facebook via their browser. Users will need to update to the latest version of our application once it becomes available in order for these changes to take hold, and we encourage them to do so. We sincerely apologize for this oversight, and remain firmly committed to the protection of our users’ data,” the statement added.

Zoom has a number of other potential privacy issues too. As the EFF laid out, hosts of Zoom calls can see if participants have the Zoom window open or not, meaning they can monitor if people are likely paying attention. Administrators can also see the IP address, location data, and device information on each participant, the EFF added.

I think it can be hard to avoid Zoom in instances where that is the only option a company provides for doing business by conference call.

cthulhu

IIRC, the FOSS replacement would be Jitsi. And if you don’t like its privacy choices, fork it.

TheseTruths

Okay, so the only nouns I understood there were replacement, privacy (though used as an adjective), choices, and fork (even though fork is used as a verb). 😂 🍴

cthulhu

Zoom is a proprietary app that facilitates video conference calls. Like any other proprietary app, there is a way for the provider to make money — probably by compromising the privacy of the call.

Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) uses a different model. There are no hidden ways to compromise your privacy. You might have to provide your own server and your own bandwidth. And if you dislike the non-hidden ways that your privacy might be at risk, you could copy the entire software application and edit those parts out, creating a fork. My understanding is that Jitsi will do most of what Zoom does.

cthulhu
Nor'easter

(would appreciate your input on this):

https://gab.com/voice

https://voice.gab.com/

cthulhu

I appreciate your interest, but I don’t Tweet, FB, Gab, Parler, Truth, Jitsi, Zoom, or any of the other things…..so my opinion would be free-floating, bereft of links to rational justifications.

Nor'easter

OK thanks anyway !

TheseTruths

Thank you!

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

This is why we don’t have Login With Facebook or Google or Twitter.

cthulhu

YAY!!!

Nor'easter

I don’t know enough about this stuff…

https://gab.com/voice

https://voice.gab.com/

Last edited 1 year ago by Nor'easter
TheseTruths

How TikTok Tracks You Across the Web, Even If You Don’t Use the App
https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/privacy/tiktok-tracks-you-across-the-web-even-if-you-dont-use-app-a4383537813/

A Consumer Reports investigation finds that TikTok, one of the country’s most popular apps, is partnering with a growing number of other companies to hoover up data about people as they travel across the internet. That includes people who don’t have TikTok accounts. 

These companies embed tiny TikTok trackers called “pixels” in their websites. Then TikTok uses the information gathered by all those pixels to help the companies target ads at potential customers, and to measure how well their ads work.

To look into TikTok’s use of online tracking, CR asked the security firm Disconnect to scan about 20,000 websites for the company’s pixels. In our list, we included the 1,000 most popular websites overall, as well as some of the biggest sites with domains ending in “.org,” “.edu,” and “.gov.” We wanted to look at those sites because they often deal with sensitive subjects. 

We found hundreds of organizations sharing data with TikTok.

If you go to the United Methodist Church’s main website, TikTok hears about it. Interested in joining Weight Watchers? TikTok finds that out, too. The Arizona Department of Economic Security tells TikTok when you view pages concerned with domestic violence or food assistance. Even Planned Parenthood uses the trackers, automatically notifying TikTok about every person who goes to its website, though it doesn’t share information from the pages where you can book an appointment. (None of those groups responded to requests for comment.)

“I was genuinely surprised that TikTok’s trackers are already this widespread,” says Patrick Jackson, the chief technology officer at Disconnect, who helped us conduct the research. “I think people are conditioned to think, ‘Facebook is everywhere, and whatever, they’re going to get my data.’ I don’t think people connect that with TikTok yet.”

The number of TikTok trackers we saw was just a fraction of those we observed from Google and Meta. However, TikTok’s advertising business is exploding, and experts say the data collection will probably grow along with it.

Much more at the link.

scott467

Why do people get ads?

I always forget they exist, except when I read about them here.

The only time I ever see ads is when one of my ad-blockers is accidentally shut off.

Valerie Curren

We auto mute commercials if watching broadcast TV so that Most of their propaganda falls on “deaf” ears 🙂

scott467

When cable TV came out, they promised no commercials, since you would be paying for the TV service.

They lied.

They really, really lied.

In the history of whoppers, that was a triple, with cheese and special sauce.

Valerie Curren

shocked, shocked I say!

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Thanks! I knew TikTok was bad. I didn’t realize that the app has pulled ahead of American IC’s lazy evil efforts.

THAT is why they’re suddenly scared of TikTok in Washington.

kalbokalbs

IIRC. D-Rats stopped Trump from banning Tik Tok.

cthulhu

Thank you, DePat, for a most beautiful and content-filled post.

scott467

A Virginian Patrick Henry said: “Give me Liberty or give me Death!”

____________

It always bothers me the way he said that.

It’s a form of pleading, which is begging, and nobody ‘gives’ freedom or liberty anyway.

Any tyrant in a position to give either liberty or death, will almost certainly choose to give you death. So basically, the expression comes across like a ‘Kick Me’ sign.

It makes more sense to say “I will have Liberty, or give you Death.”

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

YES.

TheseTruths

No. 😊 Henry was not talking to the British. He was addressing his fellow colonists and pleading with them to see this:

“Gentlemen may cry, ‘Peace, Peace,’ but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? … Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

To say, “I will have Liberty, or give you Death” in that context makes no sense.

TheseTruths

I said above that Patrick Henry was not pleading, and here I say he was pleading.

In Scott’s example, Henry is portrayed as begging someone to “give” him liberty. He was not doing that.

In contrast, a plea is also an appeal. Henry was appealing to his countrymen to hear his warnings and his commitment to freedom. He was trying to get them to see what he saw, which is a situation we are faced with every day. So many people just can’t see.

scott467

Thank you TT, it makes a little more sense in context.

I still don’t like the expression ‘give me’.

Not thrilled about death being the alternative door prize, either.

I prefer the quote attributed to Patton: “No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.” 😉

This is more to my liking: “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, I will die a free man.

Whether I die of old age, or up to my eyeballs in British blood, I will die free.”

SteveInCO · Thermonuclear MAGA

The problem is not with your spirit, but with the fact that you’re ripping it out of its context.

scott467

The context is the same in my revised version.

“Why stand we here idle? … Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!, I will die a free man. Whether I die of old age, or up to my eyeballs in British blood, I will die free.”

It’s saying the same thing, maybe less eloquently, but more forcefully and more directly.

It’s saying that the speaker is free, right now, and will remain that way, and further saying what the speaker is going to do, whether anyone joins him, or not.

More along the lines of Joshua: “As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (cf. Joshua 24:15)

Because the last thing you want to do, is to make your own actions contingent on what the wishy-washy PINOs and fence straddlers decide to do.

Last edited 1 year ago by scott467
SteveInCO · Thermonuclear MAGA

But you only wrote your revised version because you thought he was addressing England. That was the “rip out of context.”

I honestly don’t give a rat’s ass about your revised version; you misunderstood the original.

cthulhu

He is addressing “Almighty God”, to whom Liberty, Death, or various other options may be available.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

My “yes” has no dependence on the original context, or what Henry was saying, because Scott has found a philosophical problem. I thought about explaining, but I didn’t, mostly because I was lazy and tired. Now, it looks like I need to do so.

If the thought of the time is correct, the Americans of the time are by right already free, and are DENIED their right to freedom by the British. This is similar to the points that the 2A crowd makes all the time about being “granted” freedoms. Nobody and no government grants them or gives them. God granted them. They are DENIED TO US by others.

Whether for rhetorical or other reasons – whether Henry is addressing God, the British, the people, or destiny – his speech is great. But I think Scott raises a valid point – saying “give me” to anybody, or even to nobody in particular, seems problematic in philosophical context. The British are not in a position to “grant” or “give” freedom. God has ALREADY given it. The people, likewise, cannot give it. Etc.

It’s eloquent, but just a bit wrong. And perhaps intentionally (see below).

Now we can try to interpret it differently, but as you say, THAT is also wrong. It doesn’t fit. And even if we say “Give me” = “let me have” = “let it transpire that I have” [LIBERTY], in such a way that the agency of the act is a mystery, it’s still poetry in the “wrong way” in a sense, that it even SEEMS like he might be asking the British for the liberty he already has.

THAT, to me, is Scott’s point, and I say yes to that, but also to more.

I like Scott’s version, because it fits the morality of the American Revolution better. Those people DEFENDED THEIR FREEDOM WITH DEATH TO THOSE WHO WOULD TAKE IT. There is no other way to put it. They did NOT conform to the ethics of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Sidebar: Indeed, THAT is one of the things that grates on me in calling MLKJ a Founder. MLKJ was a great American – perhaps one of the greatest – and one of the most fitting embodiments of the idea that “founding” keeps on going – but still, it’s just something that bugs me. His philosophy is great, and one that I for now adhere to, but it is NOT founder, on the issue of the right to violence to defend freedom.

This is the ethics they conformed to:

“Don’t take my freedom, or you will die.”

Bottom line. And YES – Scott’s version is closer to where I stand, and where IMO the Founders stood. But I will also say that Patrick Henry’s version is more eloquent, IMHO, so I’m good with it, even though “give” always grates on me.

And who knows – maybe Patrick Henry understood that point perfectly well, and knew that a “pleading edge” would help make people’s blood boil into ACTION!

TheseTruths

I hear you, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. It’s not that complicated. Patrick Henry was not asking anyone to “give” him anything. He was saying, “I either get/achieve/retain liberty, or I will die trying.” Very simple. He wasn’t literally asking any entity to provide him with something (liberty). He was telling his countrymen that this is where he stood. And he was persuading them that the situation had become so dire that their choices had come down to liberty, or die trying.

That last paragraph is one of the most beautiful, moving pieces in all the writings of the time, IMO. It should not be ignored so we can parse words that were not meant to be looked at apart from it.

IMO, the sentence should never be interpreted except in its proper context. That is the only respectful and accurate way to look at it.

I take great exception to people today sitting behind our computer screens and saying what someone in the circumstances of the Founders should have said or done, or even what they probably meant. Henry’s meaning was crystal clear if one looks at the entire paragraph and speech. We owe him that courtesy. We owe it to ourselves to be accurate about our history.

This sounds maudlin and dramatic, but I don’t think we have an inkling of what the Founders were facing in those years and months leading up to the Declaration of Independence, and then of course the fighting. I have the greatest respect and gratitude for what they did. We think we are in similar circumstances, and in a few ways we are, but we are not signing a document that indicates treason to our mother country and could be our death warrant and that of our families. We have no idea what that was like and the courage it took.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Yeah, I’m done. For now!  😉 

Aubergine

He’s using a different form of the word “give” than you are.

As in the phrase “give rise to.” To be the cause or origin of; bring about.

It’s more of a demand than a plea. “I will give rise to Liberty, or I will die trying to give rise to it.”

That’s how I hear it.

pgroup2

Of course. Scott467 is just being his usual grouchy self [which we love].

Aubergine

I know. I do love him, but I like to poke the bear sometimes!

TheseTruths

The bear relentlessly pokes, as well, so turn about is fair play. 😊

scott467

I’m just a Teddy bear… searching for truth in the 100 acre wood. Not much different than when I was little 🙂

Aubergine

Pooh, is that you!?

Aubergine

Lol. I love this place.

scott467

Not grouchy, not usually! 😂

TheseTruths

In no way was Patrick Henry “pleading.” If the person who wrote down his speech later was accurate, then Henry used a rhetorical vehicle to make his point. I would venture to say that not one person who heard the speech or has read the speech over the years has thought to edit it (until you 😂).

“I will have Liberty, or give you Death” Is ineffective, compared with the original. It presumes he is speaking to the British, while Henry’s version speaks to all mankind, and especially to his fellow colonists. He was telling them that his aim was to fight for liberty even if it cost him his life.

scott467

“I would venture to say that not one person who heard the speech or has read the speech over the years has thought to edit it (until you 😂).”

_____________

I’m not nearly as unique or special as you make me out to be 😉😁

.

” “I will have Liberty, or give you Death” Is ineffective, compared with the original. It presumes he is speaking to the British,”

_____________

Agreed, but taken out of context (which is how it is used and presented and heard 99% of the time), it sounds like he is speaking to the British.

Because he wouldn’t be asking for liberty or death from his friends.

Thank you TT, I am happily proven wrong 👍🙂

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

I think you found a philosophical problem, in that what has already been granted by God, cannot be now given by anybody, and if he IS addressing God, even at the “let it be so” level, “give me liberty or give me death” is REALLY poking the bear!  😉 

cthulhu