THE TRUTHS OF THE BIBLE

[Grailhunter]

You do not have to go to college to have an adequate understanding of the scriptures. Keep in mind for the first 1500 years Christians did not have Bibles in their hands.....atleast not the New Testament. And for the first part of Christianity they did not have the writings of the Apostle Paul .....Yet tens of thousands were saved.
The History of it all, the Catholic Church did not allow people to have Bibles. Between the invention of the Guttenberg Printer and the Protestant reform, people started to have Bibles in their hands around the 16th century. William Tyndale started smuggling Bibles shortly before the Protestant reform and was killed for it.
Today we have access to the scriptures by way of the Bible which provides a great way to study the Bible.
So the truths.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

Salvation is simple....Act 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And participate in Bread and Wine Ritual.... I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6:51 And....Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them John 6:55

Love God and each other and help those that you can.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1st Corinthians 6:9-10

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6:1-2

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 1st Corinthians 5:10

We all sin but Yeshua expects us to do our best to keep it to a minimum. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1st John 1:7-9

Be good and do good the best you can.

Now if we wrote this down and dropped it on an island, that would be all they need to be saved.

Now for a more detailed understanding of the Bible.

What not to do.....Do not go to the Bible looking for what you want to believe. Let the Bible teach you the truth. There are people that cherry pick through the scriptures to find vague scriptures so that they can twist them to their beliefs. And then spend their life twisting and explaining away the scriptures that are clear and detailed. Take the Bible as a whole and key on the detailed specific scriptures.

Choose a modern Study Bible that is easy to read.....NASB...NIV....ESV etc.

 

[quietthinker]

 

[Brakelite]

We all sin but Yeshua expects us to do our best to keep it to a minimum.

That seems a far cry from "go and sin no more". More like "dont make what you have been doing so obvious". Should we not by faith be doing His best rather than our best?

 

[Grailhunter]

That seems a far cry from "go and sin no more". More like "dont make what you have been doing so obvious". Should we not by faith be doing His best rather than our best?

You know we sin, you sin, I sin.....no one is perfect. The question here is what did Yeshua mean by what He said?
Speculation....could He mean not to commit adultery again?

 

[Brakelite]

You know we sin, you sin, I sin.....no one is perfect. The question here is what did Yeshua mean by what He said?
Speculation....could He mean not to commit adultery again?

You honestly think Jesus was only concerned with her adulterous practises? When the angel said to Mary that Jesus's purpose and ministry was to save His people from the sin, it was limited only to those perhaps which we were caught doing? Not the secret sins we do when no-one is looking? Not the ones we think we will get away with? Not the thefts, the greed, the lust, the pride, the selfishness, the idolatry, the covetousness... Paul interpreted Jesus words different...
“8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. ”
Romans 13:8-10 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

By the way. If you are concerned at all with how we are to overcome all sin, it is in Paul's words above. Through love is the fulfilling of the law. Not just one commandment, but all. And of we are struggling to overcome some sin the Holy Spirit is convicting us of, what ought to be our response? Try harder? Do the best we can? No. We ask for the Holy Spirit to fill us that we may love more. The more we receive Christ, the more we become like Him, the more we love like Him.
See Romans 8:1-8

 

[Grailhunter]

You honestly think Jesus was only concerned with her adulterous practises? When the angel said to Mary that Jesus's purpose and ministry was to save His people from the sin, it was limited only to those perhaps which we were caught doing? Not the secret sins we do when no-one is looking? Not the ones we think we will get away with? Not the thefts, the greed, the lust, the pride, the selfishness, the idolatry, the covetousness... Paul interpreted Jesus words different...
“8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. ”

Sometimes it is easier to know what something is not. Yeshua is pretty smart so He knew she could not live the rest of her life sinless.

 

[Brakelite]

Sometimes it is easier to know what something is not. Yeshua is pretty smart so He knew she could not live the rest of her life sinless.

So His own power was insufficient to accomplish the very goal that the angel said would be His? To free His people from their sins?

 

[Grailhunter]

So His own power was insufficient to accomplish the very goal that the angel said would be His? To free His people from their sins?

Well I do not add things to the scriptures. Nothing to say he miraculously made her sinless. In this story she does not ask for forgiveness Christ just tells her to go and sin no more. This story although popular in it time was not in the original scriptures. It was added later. Not to say it did not happen but someone decided to add it.

 

[amigo de christo]

That seems a far cry from "go and sin no more". More like "dont make what you have been doing so obvious". Should we not by faith be doing His best rather than our best?

and it sure sound like a far cry from what paul would also say
LET it NOT ONCE be named among you as becometh saints .
And to both titus and timothy
Paul would warn TO REBUKE those who do sin before all that others may FEAR .
And something else i noticed that is largely incorrect .
THE early church and later on as well had men recopying the letters of paul and others and etc
And spreading them all over the places .
Its true they didnt have quite the easy access as we do to the scrips
BUT they did hear them from others that were faithful as well as men that were copying letters
and having them delivered to the peoples .

 

[amigo de christo]

Well I do not add things to the scriptures. Nothing to say he miraculously made her sinless. In this story she does not ask for forgiveness Christ just tells her to go and sin no more. This story although popular in it time was not in the original scriptures. It was added later. Not to say it did not happen but someone decided to add it.

according to whom was this said . according to men it was said IT WAS NOT ORIGNIALLY in the scrips .
OH it was . THEY LIE to us as usual . I been watching them too .
They been lying and saying more and more things were NOT IN the original writings .
GUESS who i am gonna beleive . Scholars or TRUTH in BIBLE .
I suggest we stop trusting so darn much in men who are so called highly wise scholars
And start simply reading The BIBLE for our selves .

 

[Grailhunter]

according to whom was this said . according to men it was said IT WAS NOT ORIGNIALLY in the scrips .
OH it was . THEY LIE to us as usual . I been watching them too .
They been lying and saying more and more things were NOT IN the original writings .
GUESS who i am gonna beleive . Scholars or TRUTH in BIBLE .
I suggest we stop trusting so darn much in men who are so called highly wise scholars
And start simply reading The BIBLE for our selves .

It just is not in the older texts that they have example of.

 

[Marvelloustime]

according to whom was this said . according to men it was said IT WAS NOT ORIGNIALLY in the scrips .
OH it was . THEY LIE to us as usual . I been watching them too .
They been lying and saying more and more things were NOT IN the original writings .
GUESS who i am gonna beleive . Scholars or TRUTH in BIBLE .
I suggest we stop trusting so darn much in men who are so called highly wise scholars
And start simply reading The BIBLE for our selves .

@amigo de christo

 

[Grailhunter]

@amigo de christo
View attachment 89064

Which Bible? Stay away from the study Bibles because they will tell you which verses were not in the older texts.

 

[Brakelite]

and it sure sound like a far cry from what paul would also say
LET it NOT ONCE be named among you as becometh saints .
And to both titus and timothy
Paul would warn TO REBUKE those who do sin before all that others may FEAR .
And something else i noticed that is largely incorrect .
THE early church and later on as well had men recopying the letters of paul and others and etc
And spreading them all over the places .
Its true they didnt have quite the easy access as we do to the scrips
BUT they did hear them from others that were faithful as well as men that were copying letters
and having them delivered to the peoples .

Amen brother. We keep hearing from those who would cast doubt on the veracity of the scriptures that the Bible wasn't compiled until the 6th century or so. That may be correct, but from what was it compiled? Adulterated manuscripts found in a dustbin in an abbey on Mount Sinai? An obscure manuscript discovered under a pile of dust in the Vatican? Seriously. There were hundreds of reliable copies of the gospels and the letters throughout the Christian world, else how were people converted without a record of what took place? How were churches formed without instruction? With what did missionaries convince people of truth other than their own word? The Celtic church in Britain had a Bible in their own language long before the Latin Vulgate had any effect in the world. The same with the Assyrian church in the east.

and it sure sound like a far cry from what paul would also say
LET it NOT ONCE be named among you as becometh saints .
And to both titus and timothy
Paul would warn TO REBUKE those who do sin before all that others may FEAR .
And something else i noticed that is largely incorrect .
THE early church and later on as well had men recopying the letters of paul and others and etc
And spreading them all over the places .
Its true they didnt have quite the easy access as we do to the scrips
BUT they did hear them from others that were faithful as well as men that were copying letters
and having them delivered to the peoples .

Also, it is mentioned by different authors such as Dr. Adam Clarke, who claim that the examination of Irish customs reveals that they have elements which were imported into Ireland from Asia Minor by early Christians. Since Italy, France, and Great Britain were once provinces of the Roman Empire, the first translations of the Bible by the early Christians in those parts were written in Latin. This is not the 'high Latin' which later became known only in academic circles, but 'low Latin', which throughout the early Roman Empire was the common language of the people. The early Latin translations were very dear to the hearts of these primitive churches, and as the Roman Church did not send any missionaries toward the West before 250 A.D., the early Latin Bibles were well established before these churches came into conflict with Rome. Not only were such translations in existence long before the Vulgate was adopted by the Papacy and well established, the people for centuries refused to supplant their old Latin Bibles with the Vulgate. “The old Latin versions were used longest by the western Christians who would not bow to the authority of Rome — e. g., the Donatists; the Irish in Ireland, Britain, and the Continent; the Albigenses, etc.”

What brought about Tyndale's untimely demise could be attributed to two things. One, his constant objections and debates with local priests and bishops over Catholic superstitions, and two, the fact that the translation into English which he offered the people was deeply influenced by Erasmus, a student of the Greek NT and advocate for the line of manuscripts derived from the italic/Syriac Peshitta which the early church used as opposed to the Vaticanus which by then was exclusively Rome's favourite. A Bible in the hands of the common people in their own language which exposed Rome's deceptions and false doctrines was what brought about the English reformation.
The commonly diffused Catholic argument that the Catholic Church "preserved the sacred scriptures for 2000 years" and that if not for the Catholic Church "we would not have a Bible" is patently false, a lie, and an attempt to establish a myth as fact. It is said by the RCC that it was in 400AD, or thereabouts, that the church got all the manuscripts together to form the "first Bible'. That also is a lie. Throughout Christendom Bibles existed from the 2nd century, and were carefully copied into the language of the day, the lower Latin, throughout the western Roman empire. They all were derived from Antioch, in Syria, where God's people were first called Christians, and these Bibles or portions thereof were spread throughout the churches of Asia minor, Persia, India, Europe and Britain. The later version of Rome, the Vulgate, was rejected by these churches as being inferior and corrupt...the older italic versions continued to be used so long as the lower latin language was spoken, upward of 1000 years....and in those lands where the Romans had no influence, it was kept in the languages of the local people, all without any influence, protection, or sponsorship or credit going to Rome at all.

 

[Grailhunter]

Amen brother. We keep hearing from those who would cast doubt on the veracity of the scriptures that the Bible wasn't compiled until the 6th century or so. That may be correct, but from what was it compiled? Adulterated manuscripts found in a dustbin in an abbey on Mount Sinai? An obscure manuscript discovered under a pile of dust in the Vatican? Seriously. There were hundreds of reliable copies of the gospels and the letters throughout the Christian world, else how were people converted without a record of what took place? How were churches formed without instruction? With what did missionaries convince people of truth other than their own word? The Celtic church in Britain had a Bible in their own language long before the Latin Vulgate had any effect in the world. The same with the Assyrian church in the east.

Also, it is mentioned by different authors such as Dr. Adam Clarke, who claim that the examination of Irish customs reveals that they have elements which were imported into Ireland from Asia Minor by early Christians. Since Italy, France, and Great Britain were once provinces of the Roman Empire, the first translations of the Bible by the early Christians in those parts were written in Latin. This is not the 'high Latin' which later became known only in academic circles, but 'low Latin', which throughout the early Roman Empire was the common language of the people. The early Latin translations were very dear to the hearts of these primitive churches, and as the Roman Church did not send any missionaries toward the West before 250 A.D., the early Latin Bibles were well established before these churches came into conflict with Rome. Not only were such translations in existence long before the Vulgate was adopted by the Papacy and well established, the people for centuries refused to supplant their old Latin Bibles with the Vulgate. “The old Latin versions were used longest by the western Christians who would not bow to the authority of Rome — e. g., the Donatists; the Irish in Ireland, Britain, and the Continent; the Albigenses, etc.”

What brought about Tyndale's untimely demise could be attributed to two things. One, his constant objections and debates with local priests and bishops over Catholic superstitions, and two, the fact that the translation into English which he offered the people was deeply influenced by Erasmus, a student of the Greek NT and advocate for the line of manuscripts derived from the italic/Syriac Peshitta which the early church used as opposed to the Vaticanus which by then was exclusively Rome's favourite. A Bible in the hands of the common people in their own language which exposed Rome's deceptions and false doctrines was what brought about the English reformation.
The commonly diffused Catholic argument that the Catholic Church "preserved the sacred scriptures for 2000 years" and that if not for the Catholic Church "we would not have a Bible" is patently false, a lie, and an attempt to establish a myth as fact. It is said by the RCC that it was in 400AD, or thereabouts, that the church got all the manuscripts together to form the "first Bible'. That also is a lie. Throughout Christendom Bibles existed from the 2nd century, and were carefully copied into the language of the day, the lower Latin, throughout the western Roman empire. They all were derived from Antioch, in Syria, where God's people were first called Christians, and these Bibles or portions thereof were spread throughout the churches of Asia minor, Persia, India, Europe and Britain. The later version of Rome, the Vulgate, was rejected by these churches as being inferior and corrupt...the older italic versions continued to be used so long as the lower latin language was spoken, upward of 1000 years....and in those lands where the Romans had no influence, it was kept in the languages of the local people, all without any influence, protection, or sponsorship or credit going to Rome at all.

Man you have your history of the Bible is serious messed up. Go back and start over again.
The text in question that do not have these additions are from the 2nd and 3rd century.....Greek, not Latin.
And they were manuscripts, not bound books.
Emperor Constantine ordered the first bound hand written and illustrated books of the New Testament. Called the 50 Bibles of Constantine.
William Tyndale's demise? LOL He was hand writing Bibles to distribute to Christians because the Catholic Church would not allow Christains to own Bibles. He was killed for distributing Bibles.
Two factors put Bibles in the hands of Christians, the invention of the Gutenberg printing press and the Protestant reform in the 16th century.
Over the years hundreds of examples of the Greek New Testaments have been discovered. No reason to involve the Latin anymore.
Your interest in keeping these additions in your Bible is probably because you like the King James Version which is well know to be the most error riddin Bible in print.
Modern Bibles that are translated from more reliable sources either do not include the additions or put them in parentheses with notes that says they are not in the earlier texts. Then again some additions like the Johannine Comma Addition that is included in the KJV are a re-writing of the scriptures. Some errors in the King James Bible are just translational errors. Some lists are up to a hundred errors.
So the question is; Why wouldn't a Christian want an accurate Bible that is closer to the original writings?
Why wouldn't these original writings be better for the faith?