Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 02-06-07 | Mary Harwell Sayler

[Salvation]

Mary Harwell Sayler	Other Articles by Mary Harwell Sayler Printer Friendly Version
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

---

March 6, 2007

Question: What's the difference between a Catholic Bible and a Protestant one? Is our Old Testament the same as a Jewish Bible? If not, why?

Answer: The most noticeable differences occur in the number of books included and the order in which they have been arranged. Both the Jewish Bible and the Hebrew canon in a Protestant Bible (aka Old Testament) contain 39 books, whereas a Catholic Bible contains 46 books in the Old Testament. In addition, the Greek Orthodox, or Eastern Orthodox, Church accepts a few more books as canonized scripture.

To give you a quick overview of a complicated subject, here's what happened: Several hundred years before the birth of Christ, Babylonian conquerors forced the Jews to leave Jerusalem. Away from their Temple and, often, from their priests, the exiled people forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. After a while, Jewish scholars wanted to make the Bible accessible again, so they translated Hebrew scriptures into the Greek language commonly spoken. Books of wisdom and histories about the period were added, too, eventually becoming so well known that Jesus and the earliest Christian writers were familiar with them. Like the original Hebrew scriptures, the Greek texts, which were known as the Septuagint, were not in a codex or book form as we're accustomed to now but were handwritten on leather or parchment scrolls and rolled up for ease in storage.

Eventually, the Jewish exiles were allowed to return to Jerusalem where they renovated the Temple. Then, in A.D. 70, warring peoples almost completely destroyed the sacred structure, which has never been rebuilt. Without this central place of worship, the Jews began looking to the Bible as their focal point of faith, but to assure the purity of that faith, only Hebrew scriptures were allowed into the Jewish canon. By then, however, the earliest Christians spoke and read Greek, so they continued to use the Septuagint or Greek version of the Bible for many centuries. After the Reformation though, some Christians decided to accept translations into Latin then English only from the Hebrew texts that the Jewish Bible contained, so the seven additional books in the Greek translation became known as the Apocrypha, meaning "hidden." Since the books themselves were no secret, the word seemed ironic or, perhaps, prophetic because, in 1947, an Arab boy searching for a lost goat found, instead, the Dead Sea scrolls, hidden in a hillside cave.

Interestingly, the leather scrolls had been carefully wrapped in linen cloth, coated in pitch, and placed in airtight pottery jars about ten inches across and two feet high where, well-preserved, they remained for many centuries. Later, other caves in the same area yielded similar finds with hundreds of manuscripts no longer hidden. Indeed, the oldest copies of the Bible now known to exist are the Dead Sea scrolls of the Septuagint.

Because of this authentic find from antiquity, many publishers in the twentieth century added back the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, as well as additions to Esther and Daniel. So now, when an edition of the Bible says "with Apocrypha" on the cover, the extra books from the Septuagint will usually be placed between the Old and New Testaments or at the end of the Bible. Catholic Bibles already contained those books, however, so you'll find them interwoven with other Old Testament books of history and wisdom writings. 

For the New Testament, it's a different story — and short. All of the books were written in Greek or Aramaic from the start. Although some debate occurred about which Gospels or Epistles should be included, all Christians eventually accepted all of the same 27 books in the same order. So, as long as you choose an edition that does not add explanatory notes opposed to a Catholic perspective, any reputable translation of the New Testament is fine.

 

© Copyright 2007 Catholic Exchange

[kosta50]

I'm happy to try if I can understand where the communications problem is

There is no communication problem. You are telling me a story that sounds like a fairytale based on something you find convincing and I don't.

[Quix]

You are telling me a story that sounds like a fairytale based on something you find convincing and I don't.

NO!

That's not remotely close to my construction on reality. What is your definition of a communication problem and how does this not fit your definition? Methinks the rest of us have a very different definition.

It is, no doubt true, that I have perhaps less than 0.00% influence on what you consider a fairytale. And, it does appear that REALITY TESTING ISSUES are smack in the middle of the dialogue.

[kosta50]

I find those ideas utterly and profoundly, screamingly 100%

WITHOUT

1. Scriptural foundation
2. Logical, rational support
. . .

Tell me, Quix, what are you going to do with your personality in heaven? Obviously you have an answer that is with scriptural foundation and logical, rational support ... so, why don't you tell us all exactly what this life in heaven will be like and what will you and all of us be doing with our talents, good looks, smarts and personality traits.

[kosta50]

NO!

That's not remotely close to my construction on reality

What exactly would be 'remotely close' to your construction of reality?

And, it does appear that REALITY TESTING ISSUES are smack in the middle of the dialogue

Life in heaven is a reality testing issue? As in extreme living? :)

[Quix]

GLORIFYING,

FELLOWSHIPPING WITH,

DIALOGUING WITH

GOD.

I fail to understand why that's so hard to grasp.

[Quix]

I'm sure more integrative, functional, communicative, humbler msgs for me to ponder and respond to are quite possible.

[Forest Keeper]

Celibacy is a discipline, not doctrine. So is fasting.

Thanks for the clarification on discipline. So here, as a discipline it "could" be changed. Kolo spoke earlier about Orthopraxis, and that it includes some disciplines, implying not others. He also spoke of "economia" in the context of a Bishop to one of the laity. I was wondering if this also works from Bishop to priest. For example, if a married priest was being considered for elevation to Bishop, could economia be used to allow it? Or, would this simply never happen?

[Kolokotronis]

"For example, if a married priest was being considered for elevation to Bishop, could economia be used to allow it?"

A married priest would not be considered for elevation to the episcopacy. The canons are clear on ordination to the episcopacy but I suppose an ecumenical council could change them.

[Mad Dawg]

Brother,

I feared you would take that as an - well not a rebuke but -- a sort of targetted admonition.

It really was just my observation. When one person says, "A" and another says,"If you can stand there and say 'A', obviously you are the kind of person who eats babies for tea," then something is amiss.

That's why I tried to back away from the conversation. My best guess is there's a fundamental failure to communicate" here.

When I worked a "beach ministry" (now THAT was a great job!) a zillion years ago, there was one guy who stopped by every day and asked, "How many people did you save yesterday?"

And I always answered, "I don't save people. Jesus saves people."

[kosta50]

GLORIFYING FELLOWSHIPPING WITH DIALOGUING WITH GOD

Dialoguing with God? LOL!!! What exactly will you discuss with Him? What do you think you will tell Him that He already doesn't know? LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!

ROTFLOL GTTM

SMHSHMLNIBMC [Shaking My Head So Hard My Long Nose Is Brusing My Cheeks]

SMHSHMEACAB [Shaking My Head So Hard My Ears Are Creating A Breeze]

ROTFLOLSHTICIJAITTB [Rolling On The Floor Laughing Out Loud So Hard The Ice Cream I Just Ate Is Turning To Butter]

ROTFLOLSHTNWMTTTTVLTVD [Rolling On The Floor Laughing Out Loud So Hard The Neighbors Want Me To Turn The TV Laugh Tract Volume Down]

Did I get that right?

PS do you find all these capitals and colors annoying? Well I do. Imagine if everyone was using this method of yours! One could go color-blind.

[Forest Keeper]

"... Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time."

It's not an exaggeration to say that Luther and Protestants rarely, if ever, site this.

I don't know why that would be. We have already talked about the surety of election to the believer. Concerning not sinning, it is a true statement. By doing those things, and not other things, we will not sin. There is no sin in those things.

[kosta50]

Thanks for the clarification on discipline. So here, as a discipline it "could" be changed

It has been changed several times. That's why I take it with a grain of salt so to day, although if you are spiritually involved in the Lent, your body actually refuses to eat just anything.

For example, if a married priest was being considered for elevation to Bishop, could economia be used to allow it? Or, would this simply never happen?

No. Celibacy of Bishops is not subject to oikonomia (economy). They must devote their life entirely ot the Church, which is why most Bishops are drawn from monastic ranks, but some widowers have been elevated to that rank.

[kosta50]

I don't know why that would be. We have already talked about the surety of election to the believer

We are not arguing over not sinning, but over assuredness of election. Clearly the author doesn't think it is as assured but says it can be assured by works.

He is tying good works to election (salvation, which really means health): "by good works you may make sure your calling and election."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

But St. Paul chose to quote from the Septuagint OT which uses the Greek word nous (mind, intellect), and not the Hebrew OT, which uses the word ruach (spirit). He could have used the latter if he wanted to leave the Greeks with the impression that he was speaking of the indwelling Spirit. But he didn't.

Again, I must beg your pardon both on the terms and Paul’s use of them.

Paul was not taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ by flesh and blood, it was revealed to him.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. - Galatians 1:11-20

Justin Martyr testified to the astonishing difference between wisdom he gained by diligent learning v. revelations.

And I too, having experienced nearly a half century of the indwelling Spirit – also testify to the piercing difference between understanding gained by revelation v reasoning v sensory perception, e.g. listening to the counsel of men.

Scriptures are the best example. I used to pour over them with lexicons, maps, commentaries and the whole nine yards. They were text on paper to me, like any other ancient manuscript - until I finally learned to yield to the Spirit at which time they came alive within me. Since then, as my eyes casually scan over the words, truths appear within me. Not all Truth of course, but what I need to know – moment by moment.

So on personal experience, I assure you that Paul is speaking of the mind of Christ as revealed by the indwelling Spirit in I Corinthians 2. Here is the passage, emphasis mine:

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

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.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. – I Cor 2:6-16

With the opinions you have expressed against Paul, I doubt I will be able to convince you to the contrary, dear kosta50.

Nevertheless, for the Lurkers I will attempt to show that the Hebrew word concepts of soul/spirit at four levels do not translate one-to-one with the Greek word concepts at two levels and illustrate how Paul conveyed spiritual understanding from holy Hebrew word concepts to Greek word concepts.

First on the importance of the Hebrew language. Before Christ’s appearing to him on the Road to Damascus, Paul’s teacher was none other than Gamaliel who not only was a prominent member of the Sanhedrin but was also the grandson of Hillel. It is no coincidence that Gamaliel was specifically cited for this prophesy in Acts 5:34-39:

Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men….

And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. – Acts 5:34-39

Some of Gamaliel’s thoughts are also captured in the Talmud. And like the other members of the Sanhedrin, Gamaliel was extensively educated in matters of theology, math/science, and very important to this discussion, language:

Qualifications for a Jewish judge and the operation of the Sanhedrin.

The Sanhedrin was required to hear all testimony directly, and not through an interpreter. It is therefore preferable that its members be familiar with all the languages spoken by Jews around the world.

When a foreign language is used in testimony, the Sanhedrin must have at least two members who speak that language to examine the witnesses. There must also be a third member who understands the language. These three members then constitute a minor court (beit din) of three, who can report the testimony to the entire body. Once testimony has been accepted by a minor court, it is no longer considered second-hand testimony.

We know that Paul spoke Greek, but he also knew Hebrew which is particularly important to the Torah because it is understood (then and now) - by all the religious Jews that Hebrew is the holy language because that is the language God spoke the Torah to Moses, and the Jewish tradition is that the Torah existed before the world:

The Conversion of Texts: Good for the Jews?

For Frisch, therein lies the weakness. He asserts that the only real way to ensure eternal viability is through preserving the original language of the Jewish people: Hebrew. Translations should be no more than tools to aide in the acquisition of language skills.

"Since the history of sacred literature, if something was not in lashon kodesh ["holy tongue"], it didn't survive," he explains. "Hebrew is the one language that takes any text and transcends it into eternity."

It's a framework that Rabbi Yoel D. Zeffren, the assistant dean of the Community Kollel of Philadelphia in Bala Cynwyd, says he operates under whenever he teaches.

"There's been a virtual explosion of opportunities and demand for opportunities - a tremendous increase in learning," locally and nationally, he says. The trick is to guide the student through a sea of English material.

"The beauty of the Torah opens up when you deal with interpreting using your own unique set of tools and experiences," he adds. "For the most part, that is locked when you don't have the ability to study on your own, when instead you're led along by the interpretations of those who translated before you, when you're reading it in a language other than the original text."

Sanhedrin 21b

Mar Zutra or, as some say, Mar 'Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashshurith script and Aramaic language. [Finally], they selected for Israel the Ashshurith script and Hebrew language, leaving the Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the hedyototh. Who are meant by the 'hedyototh'? — R. Hisda answers: The Cutheans. And what is meant by Hebrew characters? — R. Hisda said: The libuna'ah script.

I assert that having the language skills he learned at Gamaliel's feet, Paul’s understanding of spiritual Truth which he received from the Holy Spirit, was in holy Hebrew word concepts which he carefully translated when he was speaking in Greek.

In Hebrew:

1. nephesh – the will to live, the animal soul, or the soul of all living things (Genesis 1:20) which by Jewish tradition returns to the “earth” after death. In Romans 8, Paul speaks of this as a whole, the creation longing for the children of God to be revealed. This is the natural man, the carnal man Paul describes in Romans 8.

2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) – by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded. Paul explains this concept in detail in Romans 8, we are responsible for choosing to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit rather than the urgings of the natural man.

3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?"

4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) which indwells Christians (I Cor 2, John 3) – the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. (Col 3:3) This is the life in passage : "In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." (John 1)

In Greek:

1. nous - reason/knowledge, the rational part of the soul.

2. pneuma - soul or spirit.

Romans 8 was a magnificent translation of these concepts to Greek, which we can see in English here:

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded ( sarx phronema) [is] death; but to be spiritually minded (pneuma phronema) [is] life and peace.

Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God (pneuma theos) dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ (pneuma Christos), he is none of his. – Romans 8:9

If Paul were speaking of the soul of a non-Christian man (nephesh, ruach, neshama without ruach Elohim) - he would not have added the words kurios and Christos to nous in I Cor 2:16. The indwelling of ruach Elohim is what makes a Christian. (John 3, Romans 8:9, John 1)

Indeed, in I Cor 2:6 he makes it very clear that mental reasoning (sophia which translates to wisdom) of mortal man will not lead to spiritual understanding. He goes on to say that the spiritual man, the reborn Christian man, speaks in a spiritual language that the natural man cannot understand because he does not have the indwelling Spirit. That is the heart of I Cor 2, not mortal reasoning but spiritual understanding.

When we take all of Paul’s writings in context with Scripture from Torah to Revelation – we see that Romans 8 and I Corinthians 2 are speaking to same Spiritual Truths as John’s Gospel, esp chapters 1,3,16-17.

[wmfights]

IOW, the only way to determine the correctness of their words, or proposed doctrines, is against God's word.

For what saith the scripture? (Rom.4:3)

I'm glad someone "got it".

If Constantine had stacked the Nicea council with Arians would we be expected to blindly follow the edicts of this ecumenical council? No, because SCRIPTURE clearly indicates they are wrong.

[kawaii]

well in practice it's happened whether knowingly or not, there are and have been bishops who are married (though not generally in weddings known to the church)

[kawaii]

what of bishops who have a wife/family in secret, what are the canonical ramifications?

[Quix]

Shameless pers END TIMES PING LIST ping for prayer, if not interest.

Dear Heart Precious Angel-Gal,

On just arising and reading this post first, I'm so blessed and thrilled in my spirit as to be moved to tears. PRAISE GOD! Your words are so true and such a blessing this Lord's Day Morning. [tears] I tried to sleep longer but kept feeling an urge to get up and come check this thread. Soooo blessed that I did. Words cannot express my thanks sufficiently. The following parts were particularly blessed to me.

Paul was not taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ by flesh and blood, it was revealed to him.

Justin Martyr testified to the astonishing difference between wisdom he gained by diligent learning v. revelations.

And I too, having experienced nearly a half century of the indwelling Spirit – also testify to the piercing difference between understanding gained by revelation v reasoning v sensory perception, e.g. listening to the counsel of men.

Scriptures are the best example. I used to pour over them with lexicons, maps, commentaries and the whole nine yards. They were text on paper to me, like any other ancient manuscript - until I finally learned to yield to the Spirit at which time they came alive within me. Since then, as my eyes casually scan over the words, truths appear within me. Not all Truth of course, but what I need to know – moment by moment.

So on personal experience, I assure you that Paul is speaking of the mind of Christ as revealed by the indwelling Spirit in I Corinthians 2.

Nevertheless, for the Lurkers I will attempt to show that the Hebrew word concepts of soul/spirit at four levels do not translate one-to-one with the Greek word concepts at two levels and illustrate how Paul conveyed spiritual understanding from holy Hebrew word concepts to Greek word concepts.

First on the importance of the Hebrew language. Before Christ’s appearing to him on the Road to Damascus, Paul’s teacher was none other than Gamaliel who not only was a prominent member of the Sanhedrin but was also the grandson of Hillel. It is no coincidence that Gamaliel was specifically cited for this prophesy in Acts 5:34-39:

When a foreign language is used in testimony, the Sanhedrin must have at least two members who speak that language to examine the witnesses. There must also be a third member who understands the language. These three members then constitute a minor court (beit din) of three, who can report the testimony to the entire body. Once testimony has been accepted by a minor court, it is no longer considered second-hand testimony.

I assert that having the language skills he learned at Gamaliel's feet, Paul’s understanding of spiritual Truth which he received from the Holy Spirit, was in holy Hebrew word concepts which he carefully translated when he was speaking in Greek.

# # # # # # # # # ##

I again had the NT on MP3 player playing all night as I slept, awoke, prayed, slept etc. And just prior to arising had been particularly blessed by Col 2—here in the Message version [emphasis Qx’s]:

Colossians 2

2-4I want you woven into a tapestry of love, in touch with everything there is to know of God. Then you will have minds confident and at rest, focused on Christ, God's great mystery. All the richest treasures of wisdom and knowledge are embedded in that mystery and nowhere else. And we've been shown the mystery! I'm telling you this because I don't want anyone leading you off on some wild-goose chase, after other so-called mysteries, or "the Secret."

5I'm a long way off, true, and you may never lay eyes on me, but believe me, I'm on your side, right beside you. I am delighted to hear of the careful and orderly ways you conduct your affairs, and impressed with the solid substance of your faith in Christ.

From the Shadows to the Substance

6-7My counsel for you is simple and straightforward: Just go ahead with what you've been given. You received Christ Jesus, the Master; now live him. You're deeply rooted in him. You're well constructed upon him. You know your way around the faith. Now do what you've been taught. School's out; quit studying the subject and start living it! And let your living spill over into thanksgiving.

8-10Watch out for people who try to dazzle you with big words and intellectual double-talk. They want to drag you off into endless arguments that never amount to anything. They spread their ideas through the empty traditions of human beings and the empty superstitions of spirit beings. But that's not the way of Christ. Everything of God gets expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly. You don't need a telescope, a microscope, or a horoscope to realize the fullness of Christ, and the emptiness of the universe without him. When you come to him, that fullness comes together for you, too. His power extends over everything.

11-15Entering into this fullness is not something you figure out or achieve. It's not a matter of being circumcised or keeping a long list of laws. No, you're already in—insiders—not through some secretive initiation rite but rather through what Christ has already gone through for you, destroying the power of sin. If it's an initiation ritual you're after, you've already been through it by submitting to baptism. Going under the water was a burial of your old life; coming up out of it was a resurrection, God raising you from the dead as he did Christ. When you were stuck in your old sin-dead life, you were incapable of responding to God. God brought you alive—right along with Christ! Think of it! All sins forgiven, the slate wiped clean, that old arrest warrant canceled and nailed to Christ's cross. He stripped all the spiritual tyrants in the universe of their sham authority at the Cross and marched them naked through the streets.

16-17So don't put up with anyone pressuring you in details of diet, worship services, or holy days. All those things are mere shadows cast before what was to come; the substance is Christ.

18-19Don't tolerate people who try to run your life, ordering you to bow and scrape, insisting that you join their obsession with angels and that you seek out visions. They're a lot of hot air, that's all they are. They're completely out of touch with the source of life, Christ, who puts us together in one piece, whose very breath and blood flow through us. He is the Head and we are the body. We can grow up healthy in God only as he nourishes us.

20-23So, then, if with Christ you've put all that pretentious and infantile religion behind you, why do you let yourselves be bullied by it? "Don't touch this! Don't taste that! Don't go near this!" Do you think things that are here today and gone tomorrow are worth that kind of attention? Such things sound impressive if said in a deep enough voice. They even give the illusion of being pious and humble and ascetic. But they're just another way of showing off, making yourselves look important.

. . . . HMMMM . . . making yourselves look important . . . probably because earthly daddies didn’t cause them to feel important enough the first 8 years of life. Dreadfully sad how satan takes such hideous advantage of such histories and bludgeons them about the head and shoulders relentlessly with dry husk chaff RELIGION as though it were the truly truest truly true truest truth vs those idiots over THERE who don’t know enough to adhere to OUR !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of men; doctrines of men; traditions of demons; doctrines of demons. Sigh.

AND, It’s not ‘merely’ that such things occur with us human critters. We’ve most all been there at some time or other in our Christian walk. It’s that our insecurities and blinding pride can foster such a cold steely DEATH GRIP on such deadly constructions on reality.

Mercifully, clarity and freedom from such are afforded when we forsake the idolatry of our own constructions on reality and seek GOD ALONE FIRST, FOREMOST & ALWAYS.

[Cvengr]

"And I too, having experienced nearly a half century of the indwelling Spirit – also testify to the piercing difference between understanding gained by revelation v reasoning v sensory perception, e.g. listening to the counsel of men. ..."

Some have described this discernment by stating we have three systems of perception. The body has five sense of perception used in empiricism; the soul has a sense of perception used in rationalism; and when we have a reborn spirit, we have another system of perception, namely faith. Hence the phrase, faith as a system of perception.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your beautiful testimony and all those wonderful paraphrases of Scripture! And thank you for your encouragements!

I have spent many a long night meditating on how I know what I know and how sure I am that I know it.

Of a Truth, the only certain knowledge I possess is that which has been revealed to me by the Spirit. My own reasoning, my sensory perception and the counsel of men simply do not compare. They are not even in the same league.

In sum, a thing is True because God says it.

Of course all of this is foolishness to anyone who trusts his own mind, sensory perceptions or the counsel of men

But that is the question, isn’t it?

Who do you believe?