Why are there so many versions of the Bible?

[BreadOfLife]

Well, it is clear only to those who want to believe it. Paul lifted nothing from Wisdom. Dream on.

Stranger

And it is abundantly clear that you can't defend that impotent statement.

Simple denial is the last refuge of the TRULY desperate . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Not here to impress you by no means.

Or, by "any" means . . .

Bad grammar and butchery of the English language I can forgive.
Your twisting of Scripture and rebellion against Christ is what I have a problem with . . .

 

[epostle1]

Well, it is clear only to those who want to believe it. Paul lifted nothing from Wisdom. Dream on.

Stranger

De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.
Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.
Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.
Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.
Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.
Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.
1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.
1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.
1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.
Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.
Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.
Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.
Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.


NOPE. PAUL LIFTED NOTHING FROM WISDOM IN HERE

 

[Stranger]

There are many legitimate Old Testament verses which speak of the same subjects given. Paul doesn't need the apocryphal book of 'Wisdom' to do that.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

There are many legitimate Old Testament verses which speak of the same subjects given. Paul doesn't need the apocryphal book of 'Wisdom' to do that.

Stranger

Then SHOW me the ones that get is as close to Paul's description of the Armor of God as Wisdom gets.

Denial isn't evidence - it's just that last refuge of the TRULY desperate . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

Your twisting of Scripture and rebellion against Christ is what I have a problem with .

Me, mabye you need to have a converstion with God, twisting scripture im sure most of teh ignorant on here can point out all te hscripture that you and kepha keep twisting to suck people into your religion, just like the JW's and the Mormans. Its all about :your" religion using God as an excuse, As for grammar, just bad typing, if it upsets you too bad,

 

[BreadOfLife]

Me, mabye you need to have a converstion with God, twisting scripture im sure most of teh ignorant on here can point out all te hscripture that you and kepha keep twisting to suck people into your religion, just like the JW's and the Mormans. Its all about :your" religion using God as an excuse, As for grammar, just bad typing, if it upsets you too bad,

And what YOU'LL never understand is that it's about Jesus - and Jesus equates Himself with His CHURCH, His Bride (Acts 9:4-5, 1 Tim. 3:15, Heb. 1:22-23).

 

[Deborah_]

The Apocrypha was what all literate first-century Jews were reading, alongside the Scriptures. Paul almost certainly knew it well - so it would be very surprising if nothing found its way from the Apocrypha into his writings. Just because Protestants don't consider it authoritative, doesn't mean it can't contain good stuff.

And Paul was quite happy to quote from pagan writers, if it helped him to make a point! (Acts 17:28) The fact that he does so doesn't make their writings inspired by God; so if he does borrow from the Apocrypha, it doesn't automatically make the Apocrypha inspired either.

But when the NT writers use the formula, "It is written..." that is always followed by a quote from Scripture.

 

[Angelina]

I have never believed in replacement theology. I don't agree that the bride of Christ being the church of today. I believe that the bride of Christ is the redeemed body of believers [the Church] when they return with/as the new Jerusalem. :9qcrib:

 

[bbyrd009]

Huh??
We are ALL in the world.
We're not supposed to be OF the world.

very well, then how can something political not be "of the world?"

 

[Stranger]

Then SHOW me the ones that get is as close to Paul's description of the Armor of God as Wisdom gets.

Denial isn't evidence - it's just that last refuge of the TRULY desperate . . .

First of all, Eph. 6:11-18 doesn't need to be a quote or a reference from the Old Testament. It doesn't need to be a quote or reference from anywhere.

But, here are some. Is. 11:5, Is.52:7, Is. 59:17

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

And what YOU'LL never understand is that it's about Jesus - and Jesus equates Himself with His CHURCH, His Bride (Acts 9:4-5, 1 Tim. 3:15, Heb. 1:22-23).

As you may well see, and I am sure every one else on here can see I do know that JEsus associates Himself with "His" church, just not yours, You are the one that is making it ourt that your is His, not Him. Oh and teh JWs, Mormans ans SDA will all take you on in that regard.

 

[bbyrd009]

and Hitler...


it is a dangerous thing imo to believe you have arrived at a spiritual place (the "Promised Land") where you no longer need to change your mind. This seems to be predominant in Christians, and is marked by a conviction that you know, what the Book says that you do not know.

 

[epostle1]

There are many legitimate Old Testament verses which speak of the same subjects given. Paul doesn't need the apocryphal book of 'Wisdom' to do that.

Stranger

But he used them anyway, just like the rest of the NT authors, the Ethiopian Jews and the early Church Fathers used the Deuterocanon as legitimate Scripture. You have been ripped off by one person's opinions 500 years ago.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Apocrypha was what all literate first-century Jews were reading, alongside the Scriptures. Paul almost certainly knew it well - so it would be very surprising if nothing found its way from the Apocrypha into his writings. Just because Protestants don't consider it authoritative, doesn't mean it can't contain good stuff.

And Paul was quite happy to quote from pagan writers, if it helped him to make a point! (Acts 17:28) The fact that he does so doesn't make their writings inspired by God; so if he does borrow from the Apocrypha, it doesn't automatically make the Apocrypha inspired either.

But when the NT writers use the formula, "It is written..." that is always followed by a quote from Scripture.

And the point here is that the Deuterocanonical Books are not "Apocrypha".
they are ONLY considered "Apocrypha" by Protestants who reject them.

The fact that over 150 NT verses are taken from the Deuterocanonical Books illustrates the fact that Jesus and the NT writers studied from the Deuterocanonical Books.

They weren't rejected from the OPEN 1st century Jewish Canon until LONG after Jesus ascended to Heaven and the destruction of the Temple.
Ergo - YOU hold to a POST Christ, POST Temple Jewish Canon that was decided by a Rabbinical school because they were trying to combat the effects of the many Jews who were converting to Christianity.

We Catholics hold to the SAME Canon of Scripture that Jesus and the Apostles studied from.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As you may well see, and I am sure every one else on here can see I do know that JEsus associates Himself with "His" church, just not yours, You are the one that is making it ourt that your is His, not Him. Oh and teh JWs, Mormans ans SDA will all take you on in that regard.

And i have asked you at least a DOZEN times to point me to that Church that was established by Jesus in the 1st century - and you have FAILED.
The ONLY Church that existed for a thousand years was the Catholic Church until the split with the Orthodox in the 11th century.

WHICH of the almost 50,000 Protestant sects existed during this time??
Can you document that existence like I can with the Catholic Church??

When you can do that - then you might have something - but, so far, it's been a miserable failure to present any information . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

and Hitler...


it is a dangerous thing imo to believe you have arrived at a spiritual place (the "Promised Land") where you no longer need to change your mind. This seems to be predominant in Christians, and is marked by a conviction that you know, what the Book says that you do not know.

It's even more dangerous to reject Christ by rejecting his Church (Luke 10:16).

 

[BreadOfLife]

First of all, Eph. 6:11-18 doesn't need to be a quote or a reference from the Old Testament. It doesn't need to be a quote or reference from anywhere.

But, here are some. Is. 11:5, Is.52:7, Is. 59:17

Stranger

And NONE of those verses matches [SIZE=10pt]Eph. 6:13-17 [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]as closely and specifically as[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Wisdom 5:17-20 - [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]not even when they are combined.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

 

[mjrhealth]

no we burnt them all and wrote it in latin so no one but the lraned could read them. But that Luther Guy, bah

 

[epostle1]

The Apocrypha was what all literate first-century Jews were reading, alongside the Scriptures. Paul almost certainly knew it well - so it would be very surprising if nothing found its way from the Apocrypha into his writings. Just because Protestants don't consider it authoritative, doesn't mean it can't contain good stuff.

And Paul was quite happy to quote from pagan writers, if it helped him to make a point! (Acts 17:28) The fact that he does so doesn't make their writings inspired by God; so if he does borrow from the Apocrypha, it doesn't automatically make the Apocrypha inspired either.

But when the NT writers use the formula, "It is written..." that is always followed by a quote from Scripture.

Because Paul used pagan scriptures once and Dueterocanonical scriptures many times does not mean the Deut. are pagan. It's a senseless non-sequitur argument. The Greek Bereans had been using them for 200 years before Christ, and no one argues the Bereans were "searching" in pagan scriptures.

When you cross reference "It is written", to the relevant OT verses, the spoken word is always before the written word. "It is written" is a self defeating argument for sola scriptura.