Why are there so many versions of the Bible?

[biotheist]

well as you posted, even the bible says that scripture cant give you life, and those where the words that Jesus spoke.Our life is in Him no where else.

Yes, I don't think it can. But today many think by just reading the bible and having a cross saves them, this somehow grants you eternal life.

How?

 

[biotheist]

the Bible clarifies when you "believe all things." find that imo

Well, what does that mean "Believe all things." I beieve in my friend to beat his drug addiction, is that what it means?

 

[biotheist]

oh, i think the difference in Breath and written recoreded words is pretty clear

you already know what the Spirit in your ear is

Not in my ear, but my bowls.

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes, I don't think it can. But today many think by just reading the bible and having a cross saves them, this somehow grants you eternal life.

How?

Hmm. Well, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, right. That is how most people are introduced to God now. through religion. We find Christ from a fear of hell. And Nehushtan is waiting, there in Kings, for when one seeks further, if they do. So if/after you reject the Hippie that God sends you, that guy or girl spouting Love Your Neighbor, that wasn't serious enough about God i guess--for me, anyway--then you either become Atheist or Fundie, lawless or legal, and of course it is as invalid to say these do not have eternal life, as it is invalid to claim that you do, based upon whatever criteria you have evolved, that you expect God to have faith in you and follow, just because you have interpreted a certain passage a certain way. Imo that ends up just being another way to say that you are God, denying that you actually do not know.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, what does that mean "Believe all things." I beieve in my friend to beat his drug addiction, is that what it means?

well, Scripture is alive, being God~Breathed, and so i would hesitate to define a meaning for that passage, but It seems to me to be discussing "beliefs" as opposed to "faith," and you might be said to have faith that your friend would beat his drug addiction, so iow beliefs and faith are conflated, even in Scripture, and so these have to be personally defined first so that they clarify imo. This requires that one dig a little in the Book, and check the Lex when the Book is not clear as to whether It is talking about faith or beliefs, pistin or likchi, until you get the hang of that and the context makes it obvious to you. Which, to a lot of people, a bunch of Christians, it seems the two are pretty synonymous. Their faith consists of their beliefs, relies on their beliefs, or descends from their beliefs, in their mind, yes? When it is actually the other way around; your beliefs descend from your faith, as surely as the Book descended from the Word.

So, i guess that can be a tough slog, for some people? Separating the two? Some people cannot even hardly do it i guess. In order to have faith, Thomas had to see with his eyes. So iow his faith descended from his beliefs, and Christ condemned this by elimination 'Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed (had faith)? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed (have faith)."' And the same faith is exhibited in Bible worshippers, or in worshipping anything, for that matter, that is not God; the belief describes the faith, "Rapture-believers," so that the faith becomes tied up in the belief, and now--not to pick on Rapture-believers, because i certainly don't know; it is just the first thing came to mind ok--if Rapture fails, their faith is destroyed, which a better example might be in tithing, i see this going on with my mom right now, she has a strong faith, but has come to believe in Prosperity, somewhat, being of that generation, and i can see that she is expecting her financial cup to runneth over based upon her financial giving, and she is reading books now titled "Why isn't my giving working?" etc, iow i can see it affecting her faith.

So imo "Love believes all things" is something to be contemplated, more than defined, but imo it kind of points to how we limit God to our understanding, to the set of "beliefs" that we have accepted as "true," and then start defending--to the death--as if we knew, when we are plainly told that we do not know, and the faith of Thomas is no faith at all, and believing only what we can see (read) is not sufficient. So i think the passage is more about finding the difference in faith v beliefs, wrapped up in a little conundrum in such a way that the Thomases of the world are being addressed. People in general seek to "know" something, and look for "facts" to support what they "know," and lock onto verses that "verify" some belief, when we are cautioned, in several places, not to start getting all-knowing and sure of ourselves in this manner, that it is a trap. "Love believes all things," along with the supporting vv, "don't dispute festivals," "don't judge another man's servant," even "many rooms in My Father's house," the parable of the Two Sons, on and on, many indicators that one should have faith in God while being confident that they don't know jack iow.

So, as kind of already came out, i believe that if someone else believes Muslims are lost, and/or bloodthirsty savages, generally speaking, they are going to manifest this to the next Muslim they meet, and they are going to get just what they believed, hostility, etc, whereas i might see the same Muslim as warm and erudite, a brother iow, and i am going to get warm and erudite from him, because i too am manifesting what i believe at the moment, so then Love believes all things, because Love is not predicated upon beliefs. If Muslims are your enemies, and my friends, then it does me no good to suggest that you are much closer to a Muslim than, say, a Jew, or that Muslims love you; all pointless. I believe Muslims are your enemies, and all of the wishing in the world does not change that.

Not meaning to pick on a sore spot, i just can't think of a more ready analogy.

 

[bbyrd009]

Not in my ear, but my bowls.

ok, well that is just using a different analogy, right. Some people get it this way, and some get it easier that way.

Many people can relate to the part of themselves that is in the image of God, coming to them as a "still, small voice," even if no "ear" is technically involved. Interesting to me that you relate Spirit more to bowls; i have heard others say this, but it doesn't resonate much with me for some reason, don't know why not. Spirit/Breath is very immediate to me, very now, so i seek to understand the bowl analogy, as it is prolly more patient lol.

 

[bbyrd009]

if you know something, for a fact, then by definition you do not have faith; you have "knowledge."

 

[Stranger]

There is a true 'knowing' that the Christian has that is by the Spirit. This is not a knowledge from the world. But it is true knowledge. So, we come to Christ by faith. Our spirit is born-again. And we now have the ability to know the things of God.

(1Cor. 2:12) " Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."

(1John 5:13) "These things have I written unto you that belileve on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

Thus we who believe on Jesus Christ as our Saviour do not 'wonder' if it is so. We 'know' it is so. Faith opens the door to knowledge the world cannot have.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

well, sounds good, but there is a Scripturally defined way to deceive oneself, too, and to make a great show of pretending to God, while manifesting fear and scarcity. Which it seems our church model has accomplished, sad to say. But i guess that is what is needed, in order for a better model to manifest. You cannot serve God and Mammon, and of course we are all about Mammon, we even pledge allegiance to it, don't we

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why are there so many versions of the Bible? Catholic version has 73 books and Protestant version has 66 books. Which of these versions is authentic and how?

The Catholic Canon is correct.

The entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

One of the two "pillars" of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or "the Bible alone") in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God's Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.

During a period of 37 years at the end of the 4th and the turn of the 5th century, the Canon of Scripture was formally declared and confirmed FIVE times. It is the same canon of Scripture that was around during the Protestant Revolt and that is still in use today by the Catholic Church. It was during the so-called Reformation and subsequent periods that rebellious, prideful men had problems with the canon and decided that some of the books were uninspired. Luther wanted to remove several books including Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli did not believe Revelation to be inspired and wanted to remove it as well.

The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified. It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393). At the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document. 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon. 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

 

[bbyrd009]

"But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon".

and you don't see any problems with "the Church" being reduced to some guys in Rome who just happened to be the ones foolish enough to accept the crown that Christ rejected? Oh, and just happened to also be rich, and powerful? Lol, ok.

 

[mjrhealth]

and you don't see any problems with "the Church" being reduced to some guys in Rome who just happened to be the ones foolish enough to accept the crown that Christ rejected? Oh, and just happened to also be rich, and powerful? Lol, ok.

glad you responded tired of beating my head against a wall, good thing God is patient with man.....

 

[BreadOfLife]

and you don't see any problems with "the Church" being reduced to some guys in Rome who just happened to be the ones foolish enough to accept the crown that Christ rejected? Oh, and just happened to also be rich, and powerful? Lol, ok.

glad you responded tired of beating my head against a wall, good thing God is patient with man.....

The Church isn't reduced to "some guys in Rome." Whoever told you that was lying.
The Church the mystical Body of Christ.

Peter and Paul established the Church's earthly headquarters in Rome.
Where better than the place that needed it most?

 

[bbyrd009]

Peter and Paul established the Church's earthly headquarters in Rome.
Where better than the place that needed it most?

well imo this is why Christians and Catholics should not be debating Scripture, i guess. You must have got that from a Catholic Bible, maybe? Is that in there? The Church has an "earthly" headquarters? Have you contemplated how ridiculous that statement is in the light of the rest of the Bible? Do you have a single, lonely Verse to Witness this statement? Because for every one you come up with, i will quote 20 that deem it a lie, ok? And i could prolly quote 50:1. This is what happens when a person lets someone else be responsible for their salvation, with all due respect.

 

[BreadOfLife]

well imo this is why Christians and Catholics should not be debating Scripture, i guess. You must have got that from a Catholic Bible, maybe? Is that in there? The Church has an "earthly" headquarters? Have you contemplated how ridiculous that statement is in the light of the rest of the Bible? Do you have a single, lonely Verse to Witness this statement? Because for every one you come up with, i will quote 20 that deem it a lie, ok? And i could prolly quote 50:1. This is what happens when a person lets someone else be responsible for their salvation, with all due respect.

First of all - I would ask that you stop with all of the nonsense about "Christian" vs. "Catholic".
Catholics ARE Christians. In fact - we were the very FIRST Christians, historically.

As for the Church having an earthly headquarters - I don't know why you would have a problem with that. EVERY single Protestant denomination has an earthly headquarters.
Jesus gave His Church SUPREME earthly Authority. He promised that whatever His Church ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21).

I would LOVE for you to deem these verses a "lie" as you claim you can . . .

Matt 16:18-19
And so I say to YOU, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide YOU to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

 

[mjrhealth]

Matt 16:18-19
And so I say to YOU, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Lets do this in context


Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

which rock??? revelation.. I am not a learned man but this whole discussion was about God revealing to man, oh but needs to be taking out of conetxt to make a whole rellgion, one great big fat lie. And i am sorry, you where not teh first christians you where the first catholics, teh first relgion from which came all the other religions all opposing God and all at odds with one another, the first Christians where the ones who heard teh Gospel and had teh Holy Spirirt fall upon them and that was long before your religion was established.

And dont tell me i know nothing I was born and raised a cathoilic so have seeing it for myself and it has nothing to do with God cept in name only.

 

[bbyrd009]

Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

ok, why aren't you listening to me, then? See how that can be made into self-serving yack, there?

And let's not forget that Christ called Peter "Satan" too, ok, which i understand does not fit with your program too well, oh well. But i don't expect you to reply to that, either, i guess that will just send you off on some other pointless, unScriptural rant.

And i never said "Christianity VS. Catholic," that came from you. And i got that "the headquarters of the Church is in Rome" from you, right here

"Peter and Paul established the Church's earthly headquarters in Rome."

and asked you to back it up, which of course you cannot, because the Church has no "earthly headquarters," except in the minds of those who seek power and authority, like Peter did when Christ told him to get behind him, like you will be doing when you run out of arguments against Scripture and common sense. Some guy built an ice cream castle and put a crown on Peter, made up of a single verse with no witness, and you bought it, just like many other people who want to sit on a fence and direct traffic, and can't face Scripture head on, but need to feel superior to everyone else, so sorry about your luck, join the crowd on that wide, wide path.

Now i am not inclined to exegete Scripture to blind people, but since you asked, and intimated that i am claiming some Scripture is a lie, even though you cannot reply to my Scripture,

15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.18And I tell you that you are Peter,b and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hadesc will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven.” 20Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

it becomes obvious that if you take the blinders off, and stop letting some guy covered in vainglory read/feed you little bits of the Bible from their warped, self-serving perspective that Christ the Messiah is the Rock, and 18a is installed as sucker-bait double talk because Peter means rock, and Christ was pointing at the Revelation, not Peter, who is after all called Satan" and even "evil" in more than one place by Christ, and also violates "the flesh profits nothing," and a bunch of other Scripture that i doubt you are familiar with, if It is even still in your human-altered version of the Bible, ok.

Furthermore, binding and loosing is given to anyone who follows Christ, which means you or me or anyone, and has nothing to do with Peter specifically, ok.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_and_loosing

See that there is no "vs" because there is no competition, and you just need to choose, Catholic or Christian, what's it gonna be, and keep reading from your imaginary bible, if you want to stay Catholic, and if you ever want to crack a real One, recog that you are going to become an "ex-Catholic," just like streams, rivers; oceans of your predecessors have done. Personally i got no problems with Catholics, as long as they don't start pretending they know what Scripture says, and telling me Paul was suicidal and stuff.

I mean did you, at any time, give the people who taught you this stuff any money?

Lol. It is harsh, i know, but it is a completely fair question. Do yourself a favor and stop pretending you know stuff, when the Bible will assure you that you don't, and stop asking ignorant combative questions from "Why?" and face the music, if you want to get real. Deal with some of that Scripture that you glossed over, because your priest isn't answering your email on it or whatever. No offense meant.

 

[bbyrd009]

Lets do this in context

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

which rock??? revelation.. I am not a learned man but this whole discussion was about God revealing to man, oh but needs to be taking out of conetxt to make a whole rellgion, one great big fat lie. And i am sorry, you where not teh first christians you where the first catholics, teh first relgion from which came all the other religions all opposing God and all at odds with one another, the first Christians where the ones who heard teh Gospel and had teh Holy Spirirt fall upon them and that was long before your religion was established.

And dont tell me i know nothing I was born and raised a cathoilic so have seeing it for myself and it has nothing to do with God cept in name only.

wow, you posted this as i was writing mine up there, and you got to "Revelation" too, sweet. See, it isn't a puzzle

 

[mjrhealth]

wow, you posted this as i was writing mine up there, and you got to "Revelation" too, sweet. See, it isn't a puzzle

no glad you are around so few see, getting used to your ramblings but the truth is in tehre.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Lets do this in context

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

which rock??? revelation.. I am not a learned man but this whole discussion was about God revealing to man, oh but needs to be taking out of conetxt to make a whole rellgion, one great big fat lie. And i am sorry, you where not teh first christians you where the first catholics, teh first relgion from which came all the other religions all opposing God and all at odds with one another, the first Christians where the ones who heard teh Gospel and had teh Holy Spirirt fall upon them and that was long before your religion was established.

And dont tell me i know nothing I was born and raised a cathoilic so have seeing it for myself and it has nothing to do with God cept in name only.

You may have been "raised" Catholic but it is blindingly clear that you were ignorant of your faith as a Catholic.
First of all - the "Rock" that is spoken of in Matt. 16:18 is none other than Peter - and I'll prove it to you in the proper linguistic context.

As you know, the Lord said to Peter, “And so I say to you, you are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”
YOU believe Peter is not the Rock but that the Rock refers to his confession of faith. It couldn’t be Peter because the Greek words used here are Petros, meaning, small stone and Petra, meaning, large mass of rock. Other non-Catholics say that the Rock is Jesus because he is referred to as "Rock elsewhere, including, Matt. 21:42 and 1 Pet. 2:3-8. The problem with this is that Jesus didn’t speak Greek to his Apostles - he spoke Aramaic.

What Jesus actually said was, “And so I say to you, you are KEPHA, and upon this rock KEPHA I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”
This is why St. Peter is referred to as Cephas in many of St. Paul’s letters, because Cephas is the closest Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, Kepha.

There is another problem for anti-Catholics. Petra is a feminine Greek noun and could hardly be used to describe a man, so the word was translated as Petros in Scripture because it was being used in reference to a man. I would ne similar to calling him "Patty" instead of Peter.

Finally - as to Catholics being the first Christians - we are the ONLY Church that can trace ourselves back to Jesus and the apostles in an UNBROKEN line of succession.
YOUR sect cannot make that claim nor can ANY other sect. We see the name "The Catholic Church" being used as a TITLE as early as AD 107 in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius of Antioch.
Linguistics, history and context are NOT your friend . . .