marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Or as the case may be, the collective demands of the denominations which may or may not be found in scripture.
Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
reformed1689
Well-Known Member
- Oct 15, 2019
- 4,618
- 1,481
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
It's not the ultimate answer, it is a cop-out. God gave us Scripture. That is how He speaks to us today.
reformed1689
Well-Known Member
- Oct 15, 2019
- 4,618
- 1,481
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Who said I don't? But nobody hears an audible voice from God today. That is not how he interacts with us in this age. He speaks to us through His word.
AND His Spirit.
God is not dead.
God is not mute.
God lives. Loves each of us. Being a Christian is being His disciple, having that direct personal relationship with Him.
That relationship is not a "cop out". It's everything.
Now this gets even better with the idea they used to justify what they did called the "Conflate Theory"....There is a theory taught just as faithfully in today's bible colleges as evolution is taught in secular universities, and it has just about as much proof... It is known as the "Conflate Theory," It was developed by Brooke Foss Westcott and John Fenton Anthony Hort. These two Anglican bible scholars devoted much of their lives to a critical study of the Greek New Testament. They studied the various "text types" or groups of manuscripts, and they claimed that the manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt (primarily Sinaticus and Vaticanus) were the best because they were apparently the oldest and thus, in their opinion, closer to the originals. But they had one major problem: 95% of all the NT manuscripts (known as the Majority Text) disagreed with the their Alexandrian manuscripts while agreeing with each other.
So they came up with their theory: The Alexandrian Text agreed with the originals, and that the church at Antioch, Syria, "edited" them to "improve them" and "strengthen the doctrines," thus producing the Majority Text. The Majority text, they claim, was then forced upon the people by a church council."
But if you look at the history of the Byzantine text called the Majority text, you find the evidence is against them:
1)The VAST MAJORITY OF GREEK MANUSCRIPTS reflect the Byzantine text-type.
Robinson and Pierpont write in the Introduction to their MT Greek text, "Of the over 5000 total continuous-text and lectionary manuscripts, 90% or more contain a basically Byzantine Textform" (p.xviii).
And CT proponents readily admit the Byzantine text-type is predominate in the manuscript evidence. For instance, in reference to the minuscules manuscripts, Aland writes, "... more than 80 percent of the manuscripts contain exclusively the Majority text." But the Alexandrian is represented in only "almost 10 percent" (Aland, pp.102, 128).
Metzger classifies "most minuscules" as "Byzantine Witnesses" (Metzger, p.xxx). And Carson says about the Byzantine text-type, "There are far more manuscripts extant in this tradition than in the other three combined [Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean]" (Carson, p.26).
And finally, a flyer distributed by the publishers of the NASB (a CT based version) states in reference to the TR and Erasmus' Greek NT (which is similar to the TR), "... 95% of the known Greek NT manuscripts of the Greek NT are closer to these than to the Greek text behind most modern English translations" (MacRae).
2) Byzantine texts were MORE WIDELY DISTRIBUTED AND ACCEPTED than those reflecting an Alexandrian text-type. Hodges and Farstad write in the Introduction to their Greek text in reference to the two above mentioned published CTs:
Although eclectic, both rely heavily on a relatively small number of ancient manuscripts that derive mainly from Egypt…. The text which results from dependence on such manuscripts as these may fairly be described as Egyptian. Its existence in early times outside of Egypt is unproven….
On the other hand, the witnesses to the Majority Text come from all over the ancient world. Their very number suggests that they represent a long and widespread chain of manuscript tradition (p.ix).
Robinson and Pierpont write similarly, "The 'Byzantine' Textform (otherwise called the ‘Majority' or 'Traditional Text') predominated throughout the greatest period of manual copying of the Greek New Testament manuscripts - a span of over 1000 years (ca. AD 350 to AD 1516). It was without question the dominate text used both liturgically and popularly by the Greek-speaking Christian community" (p.xviii).
Again, the CT people acknowledge this domination of the Byzantine texts. Aland says about the "Koine Text" (which he considers to be the precursor to the Byzantine text-type) that it, "... became widely disseminated even in the fourth century" and it became "the dominant text of the Byzantine church."
Meanwhile, the church in Egypt, "led an independent life" from the rest of the church, and, "From the fourth century it had a well defined text (known as the Alexandrian text type) because the administration of the Alexandrian patriarchs was effectively centralized."
So the Alexandrian text was used primarily in Egypt. But despite this, Aland states even the Egyptian text was later subjected to the "corrosive effects" of the Byzantine text-type (Aland, pp.65,56).
But note, nowhere does he say the Alexandrian text had a "corrosive effect" on the Byzantine. So scribes in the Egyptian church eventually tried to bring their text into conformity with the Byzantine text, but the reverse did not happen.
Metzger says the Byzantine text was "distributed widely throughout the Byzantine empire." Moreover, "... during the period from the sixth or seventh century down to the invention of printing with movable type (A.D. 1450-56), the Byzantine form of text was generally regarded as THE authoritative form of text and was the one most widely circulated and accepted......Majority Text vs. Critical Text: Part One
So they came up with their theory: The Alexandrian Text agreed with the originals, and that the church at Antioch, Syria, "edited" them to "improve them" and "strengthen the doctrines," thus producing the Majority Text. The Majority text, they claim, was then forced upon the people by a church council."
But if you look at the history of the Byzantine text called the Majority text, you find the evidence is against them:
1)The VAST MAJORITY OF GREEK MANUSCRIPTS reflect the Byzantine text-type.
Robinson and Pierpont write in the Introduction to their MT Greek text, "Of the over 5000 total continuous-text and lectionary manuscripts, 90% or more contain a basically Byzantine Textform" (p.xviii).
And CT proponents readily admit the Byzantine text-type is predominate in the manuscript evidence. For instance, in reference to the minuscules manuscripts, Aland writes, "... more than 80 percent of the manuscripts contain exclusively the Majority text." But the Alexandrian is represented in only "almost 10 percent" (Aland, pp.102, 128).
Metzger classifies "most minuscules" as "Byzantine Witnesses" (Metzger, p.xxx). And Carson says about the Byzantine text-type, "There are far more manuscripts extant in this tradition than in the other three combined [Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean]" (Carson, p.26).
And finally, a flyer distributed by the publishers of the NASB (a CT based version) states in reference to the TR and Erasmus' Greek NT (which is similar to the TR), "... 95% of the known Greek NT manuscripts of the Greek NT are closer to these than to the Greek text behind most modern English translations" (MacRae).
2) Byzantine texts were MORE WIDELY DISTRIBUTED AND ACCEPTED than those reflecting an Alexandrian text-type. Hodges and Farstad write in the Introduction to their Greek text in reference to the two above mentioned published CTs:
Although eclectic, both rely heavily on a relatively small number of ancient manuscripts that derive mainly from Egypt…. The text which results from dependence on such manuscripts as these may fairly be described as Egyptian. Its existence in early times outside of Egypt is unproven….
On the other hand, the witnesses to the Majority Text come from all over the ancient world. Their very number suggests that they represent a long and widespread chain of manuscript tradition (p.ix).
Robinson and Pierpont write similarly, "The 'Byzantine' Textform (otherwise called the ‘Majority' or 'Traditional Text') predominated throughout the greatest period of manual copying of the Greek New Testament manuscripts - a span of over 1000 years (ca. AD 350 to AD 1516). It was without question the dominate text used both liturgically and popularly by the Greek-speaking Christian community" (p.xviii).
Again, the CT people acknowledge this domination of the Byzantine texts. Aland says about the "Koine Text" (which he considers to be the precursor to the Byzantine text-type) that it, "... became widely disseminated even in the fourth century" and it became "the dominant text of the Byzantine church."
Meanwhile, the church in Egypt, "led an independent life" from the rest of the church, and, "From the fourth century it had a well defined text (known as the Alexandrian text type) because the administration of the Alexandrian patriarchs was effectively centralized."
So the Alexandrian text was used primarily in Egypt. But despite this, Aland states even the Egyptian text was later subjected to the "corrosive effects" of the Byzantine text-type (Aland, pp.65,56).
But note, nowhere does he say the Alexandrian text had a "corrosive effect" on the Byzantine. So scribes in the Egyptian church eventually tried to bring their text into conformity with the Byzantine text, but the reverse did not happen.
Metzger says the Byzantine text was "distributed widely throughout the Byzantine empire." Moreover, "... during the period from the sixth or seventh century down to the invention of printing with movable type (A.D. 1450-56), the Byzantine form of text was generally regarded as THE authoritative form of text and was the one most widely circulated and accepted......Majority Text vs. Critical Text: Part One
reformed1689
Well-Known Member
- Oct 15, 2019
- 4,618
- 1,481
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And when you hear from the Spirit what are we to do? Test it against Scripture.
Already have
And the Spirit is the one whom testifies of scripture in the first place. God is the Alpha and the Omega.
I went through all of this post carefully and had responded to quite a bit of it in detail and was about to hit "enter" when it was all lost because I hit the wrong button on my keyboard. It used to almost anger me and certainly frustrate me when that happened, but then God let me know that sometimes He doesn't want me to say what I was trying to say... at least not at the moment in that place. I did agree with some and with regard to some I was purposely not commenting at all, or in depth, due to my own ignorance on the subject or because it seemed like discussion would not be edifying to anyone at the moment. I won't try again now, as there are other alerts I have not even read as yet.
Give God the glory!
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Joh 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
1Jn 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
God speaks to His children he gave us the way
Hey uso, been there. Know that experience, not once, not twice, but numerous occasions. I am still here, if/when you desire to speak with me again.
Here is a good outline of the doctrines affected I came across, and this is just Matthew:
"MATTHEW
1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words (see Mark 3:5). Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.
6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).
6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts. This statement was made a century ago by Dean John Burgon.
8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.
9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.
9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God--they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works--they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.
15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.
16:2,3 "When it is evening ... the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.
17:21 Whole verse is left out. Power with God is to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.
18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. I have not chosen to remark about each instance because it would add many pages to this work. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."
18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.
18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.
18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.
19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.
19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.
20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.
21:12 "of God" is out. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there.
22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.
23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre- eminence that God intends for his Son.
25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's second advent....."
26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse Christians.
27:35 "that it might be fulfilled ... did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.
28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers....Bible Doctrines Changed by Modern Versions
"MATTHEW
1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words (see Mark 3:5). Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.
6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).
6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts. This statement was made a century ago by Dean John Burgon.
8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.
9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.
9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God--they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works--they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.
15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.
16:2,3 "When it is evening ... the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.
17:21 Whole verse is left out. Power with God is to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.
18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. I have not chosen to remark about each instance because it would add many pages to this work. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."
18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.
18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.
18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.
19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.
19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.
20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.
21:12 "of God" is out. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there.
22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.
23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre- eminence that God intends for his Son.
25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's second advent....."
26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse Christians.
27:35 "that it might be fulfilled ... did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.
28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers....Bible Doctrines Changed by Modern Versions
While it is true that in certain 'modern versions' the phrase "her firstborn" is omitted, this argument of Mary having more children is really a Baptist argument, and is not supported by scripture, neither the SoP/ToJ. For instance:
We can know that Jesus was the ‘firstborn’ of Mary, as per St. Matthew 1:25; St. Luke 2:7.
Now, because of the term, ‘firstborn’, many incorrectly teach that it automatically implies, further children (of Mary, by Joseph), but this is not necessarily the case, as the word ‘firstborn’ has a range of meaning, from simply the original child of inheritance, and also the first to be born among others later to come (1 Samuel 8:2; 1 Chronicles 3:1,15, 8:1,39, 26:2,4, &c.), and even has a greater meaning, than simply ‘first child to be born’, but is used to describe even those who are not a first child, but that which is the child through whom the inheritance or blessing or rulership comes:
Consider that Numbers 3:42,43, 18:15, 33:4; Judges 11:34; or Nehemiah 10:36; Psalms 78:51, 105:36, 135:8; or Luke 1:7-80, 9:28, &c. In some of those cases there was only a single child, and yet, would be the “firstborn”. Even the ‘only’ children in those cases are ‘firstborn’, even if they never had another child after. There is no indication that all the Israelites, or all the Egyptians had other child after their ‘firstborn’, though many would have. In the cases of John the Baptist, Jesus and the daughter of Jephthae, and the son of the man who came to Jesus, &c. they are only children, yet would be considered ‘firstborn’.
Genesis 10:15, 19:31,33,34,37, 22:21, 25:13,25, 27:19,32, 29:26, 35:23, 36:15, 38:6,7,28, 41:51, 43:33, 46:8, 48:14,18, 49:3; Exodus 4:23, 6:14, 11:5, 12:12,29, 13:2,13,15, 22:29, 34:20; Numbers 3:2,12,13,40,41,42,43,45,46,50, 8:16,17, 18:15, 33:4; Deuteronomy 21:15,16,17, 25:6; Joshua 6:26, 17:1; Judges 8:20; 1 Samuel 8:2, 14:49, 17:13; 2 Samuel 3:2; 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Chronicles 1:13,29, 2:3,13,25,27,42,50, 3:1,15, 4:4, 5:1,3, 6:28, 8:1,30,39, 9:5,31,36, 26:2,4; 2 Chronicles 21:3; Nehemiah 10:36; Psalms 78:51, 105:36, 135:8, 136:10; Micah 6:7; Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7; Hebrews 11:28.
Continuing with the ‘firstborn’, in the greater sense, see:
Isaac over Ishmael: Genesis 22:2,12,16.
Ephraim was made firstborn, over Manasseh: Genesis 41:50-52, 48:16-20; Jeremiah 31:9.
Joseph over Reuben: Genesis 49:3; 1 Chronicles 5:1.
Jacob/Israel over Esau: Exodus 4:22; Genesis 25:25-26; Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:13-15.
Levites over the others: Numbers 3:41-45, 8:14-18.
David over others: Psalms 89:20,27; 1 Samuel 16:10-11. David is a type of Christ (Luke 24:27; John 5:39).
Simri, over others: 1 Chronicles 26:10.
Jesus over all: Colossians 1:15-18; see also 2 Corinthians 1:20, and Romans 9:5; Colossians 1:26, 2:10; Ephesians 1:21-23, 3:9, 4:15; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:3.
Ephraim was made firstborn, over Manasseh: Genesis 41:50-52, 48:16-20; Jeremiah 31:9.
Joseph over Reuben: Genesis 49:3; 1 Chronicles 5:1.
Jacob/Israel over Esau: Exodus 4:22; Genesis 25:25-26; Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:13-15.
Levites over the others: Numbers 3:41-45, 8:14-18.
David over others: Psalms 89:20,27; 1 Samuel 16:10-11. David is a type of Christ (Luke 24:27; John 5:39).
Simri, over others: 1 Chronicles 26:10.
Jesus over all: Colossians 1:15-18; see also 2 Corinthians 1:20, and Romans 9:5; Colossians 1:26, 2:10; Ephesians 1:21-23, 3:9, 4:15; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:3.
However, Jesus is also the ‘firstborn’ (spiritually; Luke 1:35) of the ‘woman’, that ‘church in the wilderness (Acts 7:38), among many 'brethren": Isaiah 9:6; Luke 2:11; Hebrews 2:10-12; Revelation 12:1-5,13.
and there are other uses: Job 18:12-13; Isaiah 14:30.
Scripture records explicitly that:
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Matthew 1:18
“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” Matthew 1:23
“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” Matthew 1:25
“To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.” Luke 1:27
“And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” Luke 2:7
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Matthew 1:18
“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” Matthew 1:23
“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” Matthew 1:25
“To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.” Luke 1:27
“And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” Luke 2:7
This means that Mary had no children before Jesus, since He is called her “firstborn son” and she was a “virgin”, thus we can immediately eliminate any others before that time for her.
What then of afterwards, since it is written that Joseph “knew her not till she had brought forth” Jesus?, which would help indicate that their marriage was eventually consumated after her purification [Luke 2:22], as is the rightful God-gifted/given position of the married, Husband and Wife, before God [Genesis 2:24; Proverbs 5:18, 18:22; Matthew 1:25, 19:5; Mark 10:7; Ephesians 5:31; Hebrews 13:4, etc], Joseph fulfilling and “perform[ing] the duty of an husband” [see and compare Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 25:5,7, but in the case of an original husband to a new wife, etc], which includes intimacy of marital relations, and not remaining away from her forever, since that would lead to greater temptation for them both [1 Corinthians 7:5]. Though such marital relations are indeed indicated in the Scripture between Joseph and Mary [let us tread carefully in such areas, for they are personal, and generally private], this does not necessarily lead to further children, as is found the case with many a couple in Scripture, and as it is written, that those things are written about Jesus [John 5:39], being types in their lives pointing to Him and His life, etc.
Some, will of course, point to the term “firstborn”, and say that this means that there had to have been others afterwards born of Mary, being 'second-born' etc, yet the word itself, does not inherently dictate this, and is forced into it, by others which have an apriori, or preconceived notion to defend. The word simply means, “firstborn”, whether that child was the only one, or whether the first in a line/series of others/many, yet it is always the context which would indicate any further application or definition. Therefore, we need to consider some context.
Contextually, we do see that the Bible mentions that Jesus had “brothers” [named] and “sisters” [unnamed]:
“Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” Matthew 12:47
“Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” Matthew 13:55
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” Mark 6:3
“Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” Matthew 13:55
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” Mark 6:3
etc.
While it is true that in certain 'modern versions' the phrase "her firstborn" is omitted, this argument of Mary having more children is really a Baptist argument, and is not supported by scripture, neither the SoP/ToJ. For instance:
Questions we can then ask of the Scripture, are:
[A] Who then are these “brothers” and “sisters” [at least two, plural]?
[I.] Are they of Mary after Jesus was born?
[II.] Are are they of Joseph to another previous wife, before Mary was married to Joseph and before Jesus was born?
[III.] Or could these be “cousins”, but simply called “brothers” and “sisters”?
[II.] Are are they of Joseph to another previous wife, before Mary was married to Joseph and before Jesus was born?
[III.] Or could these be “cousins”, but simply called “brothers” and “sisters”?
They could not be “cousins”, since the Bible does not designate in such a way, but when a “cousin” or another family relative [like “mother in law”, etc] is made mention of, it is plainly stated:
“And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.” Luke 1:36
“And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.” Luke 1:58
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Matthew 10:35
“The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Luke 12:53
“And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.” John 18:13
“And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.” Luke 1:58
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Matthew 10:35
“The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Luke 12:53
“And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.” John 18:13
etc.
Elizabeth, Mary's “cousin”, was never called Mary's “sister” in Scripture. The same applies to these “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus, of their father Joseph. Not once in Scripture are they called “cousins” of Jesus. Thus, we can eliminate that option.
Scripture gives us clues, when we are so inclined to ask of God, asking for the Holy Spirit to teach us, and to pray for guidance in these things, that will be connected to show us the way to the answer.
The Scripture does not make any mention of Mary siring any other children after Jesus, or other than Jesus. This would sort of be an argument from silence, but not really as there are minute indications in Scriptures, which are helpful none-the-less, as we shall see further which demonstrates that conclusion.
Notice, "thy brethren", as in Matthew 12:47 and "his brethren", as in Matthew 13:55 and see also Mark 6:3.
These are not "cousins", since the Holy Scriptures, know how to designate relatives, see:
"daughter in law" (in reference to Sarai/Sarah), Genesis 11:31.
"son in law" (in reference to Lot's daughter's husbands), Genesis 19:12.
"daughter in law" (in reference to Tamar), Genesis 38:11.
"daughter in law" (the son's wife), Leviticus 18:15.
"father in law" (in reference to Moses' wifes' father), Numbers 10:29.
"son in law" (in reference to Lot's daughter's husbands), Genesis 19:12.
"daughter in law" (in reference to Tamar), Genesis 38:11.
"daughter in law" (the son's wife), Leviticus 18:15.
"father in law" (in reference to Moses' wifes' father), Numbers 10:29.
... &c. ...(yet a "son in law" can also be considered a "son" (as David to Saul through his wife, Michal, 1 Samuel 18:18,21, 26:17) and so also a "daughter in law" be a "daughter" (a in the case of Ruth and Naomi, Ruth 1:22, 2:2,8,20,22, 3:1,16,18, 4:15 ), and also as a term used of the elder to a younger, Ruth 3:10,11.)
"thy cousin Elizabeth" (in reference to Mary), Luke 1:36.
"her neighbours and cousins" (in reference to Mary), Luke 1:58.
"daughter in law, ... mother in law" (in general), Mathew 10:35; Luke 12:53.
"father in law" (to Caiphas), John 18:13.
Mary is never called the 'sister' of Elizabeth.
"her neighbours and cousins" (in reference to Mary), Luke 1:58.
"daughter in law, ... mother in law" (in general), Mathew 10:35; Luke 12:53.
"father in law" (to Caiphas), John 18:13.
Mary is never called the 'sister' of Elizabeth.
Now let's take a look at some other details.
One of those, is when we come to the event of the Cross itself in the Gospel accounts, we see that Jesus entrusts Mary into the hands of John the Apostle, and not to any previous family members who were born of Joseph previously, which would have been their duty to do, in taking care of a widower like Mary, if they were her actual blood children.
“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!” John 19:26
“Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” John 19:27
“Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” John 19:27
Another, is when Jesus previously had stated, that he had no inheritance on this earth to speak of, and therefore was not the eldest, by any means, but like King David before Him, was the youngest, even though Mary's “firstborn”, and would have received only from His father a portion which remained after being divided among the “sons” of Joseph, and since his earthly 'father' [not by blood/flesh, but by care/commission from Heaven] was deceased, His inheritance could only come from His Heavenly Father.
“And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” Matthew 8:20
“And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” Luke 9:58
“And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” Luke 9:58
The “brothers” of Jesus, being older, from Joseph, at a point in the Gospel record, convince Mary that Jesus was possessed of devils, for they did not follow Jesus, nor believe on Him, but rather they had listened to and believed the Pharisees, which were accusing Him of being used of Satan to cast out Satan, and since they were older, they were using their authority to convince Mary to get Jesus to cease what He had been sent to do:
“But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” Matthew 12:24
“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.” Matthew 12:46
“Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. “ Matthew 12:47
“And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.” Mark 3:20
“And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.” Mark 3:21
“And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.” Mark 3:22
“Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” Mark 3:30
“There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.” Mark 3:31
“And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.” Mark 3:32
“Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.” Luke 8:19
“And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.” Luke 8:20
“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.” Matthew 12:46
“Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. “ Matthew 12:47
“And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.” Mark 3:20
“And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.” Mark 3:21
“And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.” Mark 3:22
“Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” Mark 3:30
“There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.” Mark 3:31
“And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.” Mark 3:32
“Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.” Luke 8:19
“And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.” Luke 8:20
At another time, the “brothers” spoke to Jesus in tones of authority, something only which elders would do to their youngers, declaring His path before Him, apart from The Father's instruction:
“His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.” John 7:3
While it is true that in certain 'modern versions' the phrase "her firstborn" is omitted, this argument of Mary having more children is really a Baptist argument, and is not supported by scripture, neither the SoP/ToJ. For instance:
The Spirit of Prophecy, picking up on what the Bible declares in these things, in a more detailed/magnified consideration, plainly says that the “brothers of Jesus” were all “older” than Jesus, constantly attempting to use that elder “authority” to get Him to acquiesce/resign His works/teachings and ways to theirs, and to the teachings of the Pharisees, Religious Leaders, rather than they listening to Him, their Saviour [even as Moses, a type of Christ, Acts 7:25]:
[A.] “... His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called, sided with the rabbis. They insisted that the traditions must be heeded, as if they were the requirements of God. They even regarded the precepts of men more highly than the word of God, and they were greatly annoyed at the clear penetration of Jesus in distinguishing between the false and the true. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 86.2
[B.] “ … All this displeased His brothers. Being older than Jesus, they felt that He should be under their dictation. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 87.2
[C.] “... Here were the familiar forms and faces of those whom He had known from infancy. Here were His mother, His brothers and sisters, and all eyes were turned upon Him as He entered the synagogue upon the Sabbath day, and took His place among the worshipers. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 236.2
[D.] “... His brothers often brought forward the philosophy of the Pharisees, which was threadbare and hoary with age, and presumed to think that they could teach Him who understood all truth, and comprehended all mysteries. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 326.3
[E.] “... His brothers had spoken to Him in a tone of authority, prescribing the course He should pursue. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 451.2
[F.] “... When urged by His brothers to present Himself publicly as the Messiah, His answer was, “My time is not yet come.” John 7:6. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 485.2
[B.] “ … All this displeased His brothers. Being older than Jesus, they felt that He should be under their dictation. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 87.2
[C.] “... Here were the familiar forms and faces of those whom He had known from infancy. Here were His mother, His brothers and sisters, and all eyes were turned upon Him as He entered the synagogue upon the Sabbath day, and took His place among the worshipers. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 236.2
[D.] “... His brothers often brought forward the philosophy of the Pharisees, which was threadbare and hoary with age, and presumed to think that they could teach Him who understood all truth, and comprehended all mysteries. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 326.3
[E.] “... His brothers had spoken to Him in a tone of authority, prescribing the course He should pursue. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 451.2
[F.] “... When urged by His brothers to present Himself publicly as the Messiah, His answer was, “My time is not yet come.” John 7:6. ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 485.2
Thus the Spirit of Prophecy, just eliminated these “brothers” from being born of Mary.
The Spirit of Prophecy declares in just as explicit a manner, that the brothers and sisters of Jesus, were the sons and daughters of Joseph, whom was older than Mary, and thus were brothers and sisters by the marriage to Mary, and are never called the sons and/or daughters of Mary, in either Scripture, or Spirit of Prophecy, but always those of Joseph alone, and thus they “passed” as brothers of Jesus, or were “called” such:
[A.] “... His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 86.2 or A Call To Stand Apart, p. 9.3
[B.] “... The sons of Joseph, who passed as brothers of Jesus ...” - The Spirit of Prophecy Volume 2, p. 337.2
[C.] “... His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called ...” - From Heaven With Love, p. 52.2
[D.] “... -5. Relatives Dimly Understood Christ’s Mission—[John 7:1-5 quoted.] The brethren here referred to were the sons of Joseph ...” - S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 5, p. 1135.10
[E.] “... Satan was constantly suggesting to His brethren, the sons of Joseph ...” - The Upward Look, p. 54.6
[F.] “... The sons and daughters of Joseph knew this ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 90.1 or Daughters of God, p. 53.1 or From Heaven With Love, p. 55.1
etc, for more see - Ellen G. White Writings and Ellen G. White Writings
[B.] “... The sons of Joseph, who passed as brothers of Jesus ...” - The Spirit of Prophecy Volume 2, p. 337.2
[C.] “... His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called ...” - From Heaven With Love, p. 52.2
[D.] “... -5. Relatives Dimly Understood Christ’s Mission—[John 7:1-5 quoted.] The brethren here referred to were the sons of Joseph ...” - S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 5, p. 1135.10
[E.] “... Satan was constantly suggesting to His brethren, the sons of Joseph ...” - The Upward Look, p. 54.6
[F.] “... The sons and daughters of Joseph knew this ...” - The Desire of Ages, p. 90.1 or Daughters of God, p. 53.1 or From Heaven With Love, p. 55.1
etc, for more see - Ellen G. White Writings and Ellen G. White Writings
All of this, would point to God, lovingly, preserving from Mary and us, from the utter and total confusion it would have been, for the people of that day and of now, in considering any further children of Mary, as being also God, or Messiah, or Saviour, or etc, or thinking that some flesh/blood line was more pure or holy than another, or of entrusting the future of the religion of Christianity to a blood line of Mary, instead of the spiritual line of Christ. Think, briefly, for a moment, of how that would have been, if Mary had other children, or that were around, or still existed, once Christ ascended. Would they have looked Heavenward, or to flesh and blood, knowing the heart of men? The Wisdom of God is indeed Wise.
A lesson we can learn, from these things, is that we ought to remain focused upon Christ Jesus, rather than upon trivial things, though truthful they may be, and to be followers of Christ, as James, a brother of Christ, came to be [James 1:1]. Satan will always attempt to cause unnecessary and harmful division amongst the people of God, to get them to sin, to lose their focus of mission from Christ Jesus, etc.
If others, choose not to accept any of these things [for people are free to choose], and reject, and/or explain away the Scriptural accounts, or the Testimony of Jesus, which reveal the “proof” of them, -- have compassion upon them, and treat them kindly as brother or sister, not desiring to stir up strife over it, but praying for them and yourself, and us, that we may finally, and all, be of the same mind, which mind is in Christ Jesus.
The powerful lesson is, that Christ is no respecter of persons [Acts 10:34], neither of blood/flesh [Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11], but if we accept Him, then we are truly His real “brothers” and “sisters” [Matthew 12:49-50; Mark 3:34-35; Luke 8:21]. He can bring us from Enmity to Him, into Enmity with Sin! Amen!
101G
Well-Known Member
GINOLJC, to all.
I must admit, yes, some modern version can affect doctrine, but upon hearing some posts in another topics last night I was just blown away at how some christian, even in leadership position, can be so delusional that even what they are reading they cannot accept.
so my take now is a combination of modern version and years of traditional false teaching is at fault. where are the trend setters? the independent thinker? it seems that everyone is just following, not matter what, at no cost.
people are not thinking about what they read, they just put on their doctrine reading glases and don't care. but the bible is TRUE,
2 Thessalonians 2:10 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2 Thessalonians 2:12 "That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
as MC Hammer said, "I cain't touch that".
PICJAG.
I must admit, yes, some modern version can affect doctrine, but upon hearing some posts in another topics last night I was just blown away at how some christian, even in leadership position, can be so delusional that even what they are reading they cannot accept.
so my take now is a combination of modern version and years of traditional false teaching is at fault. where are the trend setters? the independent thinker? it seems that everyone is just following, not matter what, at no cost.
people are not thinking about what they read, they just put on their doctrine reading glases and don't care. but the bible is TRUE,
2 Thessalonians 2:10 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2 Thessalonians 2:12 "That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
as MC Hammer said, "I cain't touch that".
PICJAG.
More reason to be very careful in any version that varies the meaning, or outright deletes what they do not agree with.
reformed1689
Well-Known Member
- Oct 15, 2019
- 4,618
- 1,481
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And do you have evidence of that actually occurring in the most popular reputable versions?
Similar threads
