Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”

Crisis Magazine ^ | October 3, 2014 | RICHARD BECKER

[CynicalBear]

Genesis 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

God consistently refers to the woman as Eve but Catholics would have us believe God switched? Please.

[Elsie]

The point was that the promise involves Mary in the context.

It plainly does not.

The context WAS posted and you avoided it completely.

Learn to read and comprehend the matter read.

[Elsie]

That is Mary’s presence in the context.

No; it is not.

You saying it over and over what you've been convinced of is not convincing anyone else.

[Elsie]

It is a good idea to read the Holy Bible every once in a while.

It would be better to take some remedial English classes.

[Elsie]

God consistently refers to the woman as Eve but Catholics would have us believe God switched? Please.

[CynicalBear]

It’s stunning. And they post as if no one is actually going to “search the scriptures” to see if what they say is true. It amazes me that someone would just blindly follow.

[annalex]

Those people just happen to be members of the One Holy Catholic Church here and in heaven.

[annalex]

You would have us believe that all men, since they are Eve’s descendants are Jesus Christ and crush Satan?

[annalex]

You too think that Eve’s descendants defeat Satan?

[CynicalBear]

>>Those people just happen to be members of the One Holy Catholic Church here and in heaven.<<

Or so Catholics have been deceived to believe.

[CynicalBear]

That was really lame. Sad actually.

[Springfield Reformer]

Beckwith does acknowledge a gradual interest in the deuterocanonicals among Christian writers, but this actually supports his conclusion that the "wider Alexandrian canon," as he calls it was a Christian, and not a Jewish development.  The evidence drawn from the various canonical debates of the Jewish period do not revolve around the deuterocanonicals, but books we would both regard as securely canonical, namely Ruth, Song of Solomon, and Esther.  This is the canon that would be relevant to Timothy's Bible.  

As for bias, there could be no testimony at all in this subject matter if every expert witness was required to have no personal affiliation with a religion. Bias in this case must be found, if at all, in the approach the scholar takes to evidence.  Not that he must agree with our conclusions to avoid a charge of bias, but that he must demonstrate reasonable consideration of the available evidence and logical, consistent analysis of the data. After that, if he's got valid credentials and a good reputation among his peers as an expert in his field, his opinion can be presented, even if his conclusions are disagreeable to us. At that point, to discredit him would require other expert testimony shown in some way to be superior, better evidence, better analysis, etc.  But a decisive expert opinion is not bias, and would not, by itself, discredit his testimony.

Peace,

SR

[boatbums]

It is often the case that we read something in the scripture and not fully know the context; yet we obey the scripture as written, including admitting that if some detail is not provided then it is not necessary. The exact composition of “the scripture” is not given by St. Paul, but the qualification “known to thee since infancy” is given. Therefore, however imprecise the composition of the Septuagint was copy to copy (remember, they were not physically one object as modern books are), what was important to st. Paul is that the Septuagint is inspired in any of its configurations.

Paul WAS quite specific with Timothy concerning Scripture when he said:

That from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 timothy 3:15-17)

What OTHER sacred writings do we have that were "inspired by God", that Timothy could have know "since infancy" and can give one the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? Even Peter clarified that the Scripture they both meant was that which, "never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). Though there is question whether Timothy learned the Scriptures from the Hebrew or the Greek Septuagint, Paul clearly is speaking of ONLY that which was God-breathed, sacred Scripture. Like I've said already, if some wish to believe God breathed the words of the Apocrypha, they will have to explain how the Holy Spirit could have possibly made so many mistakes and contradicted Himself like these books often did.

The issue of canon of the Old Testament did not concern the Church till about 3rd century. we see some fathers approve of the Deuterocanon and others disapprove. Prior to that, the Church was mostly concerned with the provenance and authenticity of the New Testament books. When the Church concerned herself with this issue, she worked out the canon by the early 5 c. The Council of Carthage is evidence that the matter was settled.

The church was mainly concerned with spreading the gospel and leading souls to saving faith in Jesus Christ. The local churches received the letters of the Apostles and their disciples, copied them, read them, learned them and obeyed them based on the authority of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. That was all they needed to know and, because these words were Holy Spirit inspired, their power to change lives and raise up Godly men to carry on the teachings was evidence that they indeed came from God.

I had hoped by now, after so many times this contention has been dismantled, that it wouldn't be brought up again - and in the same thread, yet - but we already have proof that these "councils" did no such thing. We already know it was STILL being contested into Trent and that was a thousand years AFTER Carthage. If Roman Catholics want to assert the Apocrypha were read by some in the early church, I won't argue. But, if they want to assert these books were placed with the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament along with those that made up the New Testament, and called the Christian "canon" (which means "rule of faith", BTW), and then insist this conferred those books as ALL God-breathed Scripture and every Christian MUST accept them that way, then we have a problem. I respect the word of God too much to believe humanly devised myths, fables and legends deserve equal consideration.

[Springfield Reformer]

Just reread your post and noted your agreement on the question of bias. Tired reader syndrome. No intent to be argumentative in my further statements on bias. Going to bed now ...

[Elsie]

You too think that Eve’s descendants defeat Satan?

Isn't EVERYONE 'descended' from Eve; The Mother of ALL Living?

[Syncro]

Genesis 3:15 speaks of the seed of the woman crushing the head of the serpent. That is Mary’s presence in the context.

No it isn't. It's speaking of Eve. Jesus is her seed as well as Mary's. It's quite a stretch to say that this scripture is "Mary’s presence in the context."

In the context, it is Eve.

I under stand why the Catholic religion has to see Mary there, but it just isn't so.

It is a good idea to read the Holy Bible every once in a while.

I would suggest that you increase your frequency of Bible reading. And pray the Holy Spirit shows you what it means.

If you are using a Catholic version, compare to the Greek and Hebrew for clarification of scriptures that are difficult for you to understand correctly.

[sasportas]

Do you mind telling us how this prophetic crushing of the seed of the woman’s head is supposed to work out in real time? Is it Mary who is the prophesied great warrior from heaven who is to defeat the antichrist and his armies at Armageddon? Mary is to do this instead of Christ?

Was she wounded in her heel grappling with the seed of the serpent at the first advent? (We Protestants believe this depicts Christ at the first advent)

[sasportas]

Correction:

Do you mind telling us how this prophetic crushing of the seed of the serpent’s head is supposed to work out in real time?

The head crushed is the seed of the serpent, not the seed of the woman. The picture to our mind, is the seed of the woman grappling with the seed of the serpent. To kill a snake, you go for the head.

[Elsie]

bump

[LadyDoc]

I’m sure paul was very intelligent, but I am dumb and your long post made my eyes gaze over...

I tend to be like Peter who complains he doesn’t always understand Paul’s writings but says you should read them anyway.

However, Jesus tended to teach by using stories, and he is a bit more nuanced in how you are saved. In one verse, he says you are saved if you believe in him. In another, he notes that saying Lord Lord isn’t enough, and in a third one he notes that at the last judgement, some who get to heaven don’t recognize him, but are admitted because he accepts their deeds to the poor as serving Him.

Try reading and praying over the gospels, not taking a verse of Paul out of context and making it the entire truth.

we are saved by grace, but as Paul said: by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace in me has not been fruitless.