Posted on 11/29/2012 2:55:12 PM PST by DaveMSmith
Everything in the Old Testament history leads up to the crossing of the Jordan, and yet the way the story is told in Joshua 3 and 4 has major inconsistencies and problems. Is there another way to read it?
Can the Bible be taken literally?
A word of advise: Don't go prattling on about what other folks claim, particularly when you don't get it right. It just makes you look foolish.
Difficulty of translation doesn’t explain elimination of entire books from the Old and New Testaments.
Christ never once mentioned that anything in the Septuagint shouldn't be there.
Surely if the “Scripture Alone” scam were true Christ and the Apostles would have spelled out what should be thrown out of the Septuagint. Surely if the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded didn't have the authority to determine the canon the Apostles would have pointed that fact out rather than calling His Church the bulwark of the faith.
No matter how many people joined Luther's “Self Alone “ party to ingratiate themselves with the nobility, he was obviously wrong about throwing out portions of the New Testament. That alone is sufficient reason to ignore his claims about what should be in the Old Testament.
The need for a single infallible magisterium is due to the fact that Christ established that single infallible magisterium.
so the other is valid
is this ‘other branch’ views simlar
I’ll bet they are
why else would they rank Borg’s writings as equal to scripture.
Jos 24:13 And I have given you a land for which ye did not labour, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and oliveyards which ye planted not do ye eat.
Jos 24:14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
....
Jdg 2:1 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.
Jdg 2:2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?
Jdg 2:3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be [as thorns] in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.
The Bible Study covers the literal account in Joshua 3 and 4 as indicated in the OP. It’s not even clear how many times they crossed the Jordan. Point is, is there another way to read it?
So you exclude the Swedenborgian Church of North America as being the one true church or part thereof, seeing as they support no less an unscriptural practice as ordination ordination of homosexuals?
As with liberal so-called Christian denoms, there is a range of views within the different New Church denominations, from making homosexual Swedenborgians members of congregations to ordaining them, to an apparent rejection and shunning of them.
It is simply a matter that the writer is emphasizing this major event. Not since the Red Sea, nor to my knowledge after this event, has God parted the waters. This was a significant and miraculous event and was deemed important enough by the writer to tell what happened and to explain significant events as it was happening.
BTW-Those who don’t believe God parted the Red Sea probably find this event a little hard to believe as well. This is the hardness of our hearts. Even if we see someone raised from the dead, we still don’t believe.
BTW (2) - If we want to know what alienate God from ourselves, it’s that we simply don’t believe God. God states in Genesis 6 how His Spirit “shall not strive with man”. And that’s our condition. God is perfect love, constantly reaching out to us. We are constantly rejecting that love. We are the ones to strive against God.
No better evidence of this striving can be than how people treat God’s word. God spends 2,000 years writing a book to us and we turn around and say we don’t believe it. We look for mistakes and errors rather than trying to understand what our loving Father is teaching us from it’s pages.
As said, the attempt to promote cults here typically results in them being better exposed here.
Christ never once mentioned that anything in the Septuagint shouldn't be there.
Surely if the “Scripture Alone” scam were true Christ and the Apostles would have spelled out what should be thrown out of the Septuagint.
You arguments consist of a serious of fallacies, while you failed to provide me with the basis for your assurance that Rome is the OTC.
First, whether Christ mentioned something or not is not a determinative basis as to what should be in the canon, as this “red letter” hermeneutic (which homosexuals also use) would also exclude many canonical books He did not quote from, while in principal it would sanction the inclusion of books which Rome herself rejects, as the Spirit of Christ mentions things from books not found in her (or our) canon.
In addition, for many reasons (though Jamnia may be excepted) it is held that the Septuagint is of dubious support for the apocrypha. Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear, nor do all LXX manuscripts have the same apocryphal books and names.
And as Archer finds,
“even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha..” (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)
And while the Alexandrian canon, referred to as the Septuagint, is seen as identical to the Catholic Old Testament, yet ancient evidence as well as the Lord's affirmation of a tripartite canon in Lk. 24:44 weighs in favor of the Palestinian canon — if indeed there was a strict separation — being what He held to.
It is also a matter of debate whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and other councils, and it is understood that Trent rejected the apocryphal Septuagint version of 1 Esdras (as received by Hippo and Carthage) as canonical and called it 3 Esdras.” More
Surely if the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded didn't have the authority to determine the canon the Apostles would have pointed that fact out rather than calling His Church the bulwark of the faith.
This presumes what needs to be proven, first, that Rome is the church of the living God (1Tim. 3:15) while it overall evidences itself to be on an institutionalized version, and (consistent with your premise) that it has Apostlic sanction for everything she does, from praying to saints to Bingo. (Of course, once you infallibly declare you are infallible, anything can be asserted.
And that stulos (pillar) in 1Tim. 3:15 and “hedraiōma,” (as prop or ground, which word only occurs here, and is seen as a synonym/reinforcement of the former, so that the church is the pillar of the truth, and the function of the pillar is to support) means the church must be assured infallible, rather than it being as Israel, for “unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Romans 3:2) "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises." (Romans 9:4)
And under which most of the writings we hold as Scripture were established as such, without an assuredly infallible magisterium.
1Tim. 3:15 does not establish the church as assured infallible, much less Rome, but best conveys that the Church supports the Truth, as it is founded upon Truth, and is the instrumental source of Truth, as Israel was, but which does not render to be infallible whatever a writer wrote or a church taught, even if the latter infallibly declares she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and content-based criteria. Instead, Instead, truth claims are established after the manner of the Lord and early church, as expressed below.
The need for a single infallible magisterium is due to the fact that Christ established that single infallible magisterium.
This again presumes what needs to be established, and relies on Rome's assertion to prove her assertion. The fact is that truth was preserved and writings were established as Scripture (Lk. 24:44) without an assuredly infallible magisterium. And that Christianity began in dissent from those who were the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, and the inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6).
And who alone could lay claim to having historical decent, and whose conditional (as submission to man always is) authority the Lord upheld. (Mt. 23:2 etc.)
But like Rome in presuming a level of assured veracity and authority above what is written, (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) they challenged the unsanctioned (by them) authority of the Itinerant Preach of Nazareth who reproved them by Scripture for teaching as doctrines mere tradition of the elders, (Mk. 7:3-16) and established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And that Scripture was the supreme transcendent material standard for obedience and testing truth claims is abundantly testified to in Scripture
No matter how many people joined Luther's “Self Alone “ party to ingratiate themselves with the nobility, he was obviously wrong about throwing out portions of the New Testament. That alone is sufficient reason to ignore his claims about what should be in the Old Testament.
And we do not concur with all he held, as like other so-called church fathers, he was also working through his theology, not did he claim assured infallibility, as self-alone popes do in exalting themselves.
And as it is Rome that is in the greater error, thus consistent with your basis for what is to be held as truth, and consistent with how the church began (in dissent from those who presumed more than what was written) we reject Rome's belated “infallible” canon, seeing the 66 books as being supernaturally established, as most of it already was before there ever was a church in Rome, due to their enduring Heavenly qualities, effects and attestation, to the glory of living almighty God.
May i reflect Him much better and daily repent in failing to do so.
Sure it can. When context indicates is should be, as in historical narratives.
How condescending of you.
Catholics claim the Bible is allegory with a lot of inconsistencies.
Really? Where do you see them do that?
Protestants did away with that and claim the literal meaning is sufficient.
Really? Where did you see them do that?
The New Church claims the entire Word is significative beginning to end - Genesis to Revelation and is totally consistent; water means truth or in it’s opposite sense, falsity.
You were actually doing OK with this sentence until you got to the water part. Then you lost all coherence.
Did Jesus Christ every mention that there were errors in the Septuagint?
If someone claims to base what they believe on the Scripture and does not accept the entire Old Testament as it was in the Septuagint, the only logical fallacy is their claim that they base their beliefs only on the Scripture.
Were there parts of the Scripture in common use and quoted from by Christ and the Apostles that shouldn't have been included in the Septuagint, Christ would have pointed that out the same way He pointed out that useless and erroneous laws had been added to the legitimate law.
All the noise about why it's correct to use any subset of the Septuagint is just that, noise. It's intended to disguise the fact that Luther couldn't get around various things in those Scriptures so he threw them out. When he couldn't get away with throwing out the book of James, he altered other portions of the Scripture to suit himself and contradict James.
Everyone who accepts the Luther subset of Scripture is doing the same thing Eve did while they claim to be trying to follow Christ. They may well want to follow Christ and not even realize what they've fallen into because it is a very strong delusion. They also may still come to Christ on His terms rather than their own, but they're starting out with a huge self-imposed roadblock between them self and the Grace Christ wants to pour out on them.
More often than not, however, those who cannot accept the entire Bible rather than only the Luther Subset end up modifying Scripture to suit their own desires and therefore worship their own, Most High and Holy Self rather than Christ. The reason they end up that way is because they've accepted the idea that the Holy Spirit was incapable of keeping the Scripture intact and was rescued by the likes of Wycliffe and Luther. In other words, they accept the intellect of men that seems right to them but which in reality leads to destruction.
That's not surrendering to Christ, that's bargaining with Christ based on personal intellect and what the Self accepts as appealing to the Self.
Over books in the Bible that the RCC didn't even agree on until the 1400's? That's not exactly a *huge* roadblock. Heck, it's not even a roadblock. Especially since the Catholic church doesn't consider Scripture, but rather itself, as authoritative.
I'll never forget a guest speaker we had at college one day. He taught that Moses really didn't part the "Red" Sea but it was the "Reed" Sea and it was an unusually low tide, etc. Of course, he couldn't really explain how the millions of Israelites could walk across it on "dry" ground with a wall of water on their right and left, that it parted from east to west right down the middle (not the behavior of a "tide"), that there was enough time for ALL those many people to cross while Pharaoh and his army were prevented from getting there until all had safely crossed to the other side, AND, the clincher, how this "Reed" Sea was then able to swallow up and drown ALL of Pharaoh's army and their horses and their chariots with them. We pretty much, to a student, laughed the guy off the stage.
Those who want to insist on natural explanations or "inner" meanings instead of literal, should remember what Moses told the people as they saw Pharaoh's army descending upon them:
Moses answered the people, “Do not be afraid. Stand firm and you will see the deliverance the Lord will bring you today. The Egyptians you see today you will never see again. The Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still.” (Exodus 14:13,14)
LOL.
Weak dodge.
Try 382 AD when it became the official Bible for use and included everything that had been in the Septuagint. The fact that some groups didn’t accept it all makes no difference just like it makes no difference that Luther put his faith in the Pharisees who survived after 70 AD rather than in the Apostles.
The Canon of Bible was closed by the Council of Rome under the direction of Pope Damasus I in 382 AD. The Vulgate Bible produced to this canon by St. Jerome was later reaffirmed in 1442.
Peace be with you
Doesn't it get tiresome having to repeat the same explanations to those who just ignore the facts so they can throw out a phrase they must think will make all discourse suddenly stop? How many times have you and others said that Luther:
1. Is not the ONLY reformer nor is ANY reformer the sole person "Protestants" follow.
2. Luther did NOT throw out ANY books in the Bible (Old or New Testament) and anyone who claims he did has clearly not read anything about Luther's works.
If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luther’s Bible and find certain books missing. One does not.[http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a2
I hope those who want to know the truth about whether or not Luther took it upon himself to toss out books of the Bible, will go to this site so they can better understand the truth. Those who continue to play the "Luther card" to assert "their" church is alone the arbiter of what IS Sacred Scripture, will probably not care to know the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.