To cover or not to cover ?

[Guest Butero]

"  Others want to make a joke of God's Word, and that is fine.

"

 

It is great that you take His Word seriously, like the Psalmist of 119.

I do take God's Word serious, but I do take issue with one thing you said.  I don't agree with you that the story of the woman taken in adultery is not valid because "it doesn't appear in the oldest manuscripts."  If I were to make copies of the Bible today, and in my rush, leave out portions of the original text and bury them now, and 20 years down the road, make more copies of the Bible, but this time include every word, the ones I buried 20 years ago are older, but not complete. 

 

I have an old set of the Bible on tape where a verse was accidentally left out, and a new set on cd where the omission was added back in.  Which one is correct?  The new one of course.  The age of the manuscripts doesn't mean anything.  I go by the Textus Receptus, and I only recognize Bibles as legitimate that use the TR as their foundation. 

[enoob57]

When 'I' is the subject of nearly every sentence we need to ask ourselves

by what authority to do 'I' speak... my own or God's! It is something we

all must do for it is the vulnerability of the fallen human condition.

We all so much want to set in the chair of right but sorry... that Seat

'IS' already taken by Our Lord and when we speak, as He Speaks from His

Love, it shall be recognizable by The Grace from which Those Words are formed...

Love, Steven

[enoob57]

Passages in the Bible are speaking to a people in a certain culture in the who, what, where,

why and when to arrive at a certain point. Ignoring context then become pretext not of God.

Once that study is complete you may take that point and apply it across the board in life.

But take that context away and you will come up with something other than the point. As you

have already stated you reject this culture thing- just saying so that we are all clear on

understanding of God's Word and why you say what you do here in these threads... Love, Steven

[Guest Butero]

When 'I' is the subject of nearly every sentence we need to ask ourselves

by what authority to do 'I' speak... my own or God's! It is something we

all must do for it is the vulnerability of the fallen human condition.

We all so much want to set in the chair of right but sorry... that Seat

'IS' already taken by Our Lord and when we speak, as He Speaks from His

Love, it shall be recognizable by The Grace from which Those Words are formed...

Love, Steven

When someone desires to be a teacher, they need to know something about the Bible.  To tell us that only two men brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus shows a lack of basic knowledge, and that such a person needs to return to the milk of the Word before they try to take on meat. 

 

None of what you said has anything to do with the passage in question.  It is a smoke screen.  You have been attacking scripture and telling people that you assure us we don't need to concern ourselves with it, because I suppose you have inside knowledge that God doesn't care if we follow it.  I never believed that when you said it the first time, and having read your reasons why we shouldn't follow it, including that comment about only 2 witnesses, I really don't give it any credibility. 

[Guest Butero]

Passages in the Bible are speaking to a people in a certain culture in the who, what, where,

why and when to arrive at a certain point. Ignoring context then become pretext not of God.

Once that study is complete you may take that point and apply it across the board in life.

But take that context away and you will come up with something other than the point. As you

have already stated you reject this culture thing- just saying so that we are all clear on

understanding of God's Word and why you say what you do here in these threads... Love, Steven

Lets look at this argument.  Supposedly, there were homosexuals in the church, and lesbian women would cut their hair short and men would have long hair.  As Kwikphilly pointed out earlier in the thread, we still have homosexuals today who do the same thing.  Many lesbians cut their hair very short, so nothing has changed.  Even if I was to entertain this cultural context, it changes nothing.  God is the same yesterday, today and forever. 

[enoob57]

When 'I' is the subject of nearly every sentence we need to ask ourselves

by what authority to do 'I' speak... my own or God's! It is something we

all must do for it is the vulnerability of the fallen human condition.

We all so much want to set in the chair of right but sorry... that Seat

'IS' already taken by Our Lord and when we speak, as He Speaks from His

Love, it shall be recognizable by The Grace from which Those Words are formed...

Love, Steven

When someone desires to be a teacher, they need to know something about the Bible.  To tell us that only two men brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus shows a lack of basic knowledge, and that such a person needs to return to them milk of the Word before they try to take on meat. 

 

None of what you said has anything to do with the passage in question.  It is a smoke screen.  You have been attacking scripture and telling people that you assure us we don't need to concern ourselves with it, because I suppose you have inside knowledge that God doesn't care if we follow it.  I never believed that when you said it the first time, and having read your reasons why we shouldn't follow it, including that comment about only 2 witnesses, I really don't give it any credibility.

We know what you have written and the continual pounding of it does not make it

any more weightier than when you first wrote it! I love you for your belief in

Jesus but I am preparing myself with His Words to give an account for myself to

Him and I am doing so completely without the consideration of your acceptance or

not... as we have split in our agreement at a contextual cultural level. One area

in which I have been convinced by Godly Teachers that there is weight to the need

of such considerations as not to bring about a misconception of Paul's writing.

Love, Steven

[Guest Butero]

 

 

When 'I' is the subject of nearly every sentence we need to ask ourselves

by what authority to do 'I' speak... my own or God's! It is something we

all must do for it is the vulnerability of the fallen human condition.

We all so much want to set in the chair of right but sorry... that Seat

'IS' already taken by Our Lord and when we speak, as He Speaks from His

Love, it shall be recognizable by The Grace from which Those Words are formed...

Love, Steven

When someone desires to be a teacher, they need to know something about the Bible.  To tell us that only two men brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus shows a lack of basic knowledge, and that such a person needs to return to them milk of the Word before they try to take on meat. 

 

None of what you said has anything to do with the passage in question.  It is a smoke screen.  You have been attacking scripture and telling people that you assure us we don't need to concern ourselves with it, because I suppose you have inside knowledge that God doesn't care if we follow it.  I never believed that when you said it the first time, and having read your reasons why we shouldn't follow it, including that comment about only 2 witnesses, I really don't give it any credibility.

 

We know what you have written and the continual pounding of it does not make it

any more weightier than when you first wrote it! I love you for your belief in

Jesus but I am preparing myself with His Words to give an account for myself to

Him and I am doing so completely without the consideration of your acceptance or

not... as we have split in our agreement at a contextual cultural level. One area

in which I have been convinced by Godly Teachers that there is weight to the need

of such considerations as not to bring about a misconception of Paul's writing.

Love, Steven

 

And I know what you have written.  It says what it says, but we don't have to follow it because:  1.  David was made King, even though he was short, and God said not to judge him by his height.  2.  A woman was brought to Jesus according to you by two individuals, and Jesus didn't condemn her  3.  The disciples were accused of violating the Sabbath and Jesus defended them.  It seems like I am leaving something out?  I am supposed to look at those things and come up with an obvious comparison why I should disregard the passage. 

 

That being said, what were the conditions that have supposedly changed?  Are there no homoosexuals today?  Why would this passage have less weight now than then?  I might also add that none of this is correct anyway.  The hair length is a sign of being under submission to authorities, as was acknowledged by several people who posted here.  It was then, and it still is today.  It is a sign to people, and to the angels when they see us. 

[enoob57]

The point of the comment, which you are joyfully harping on , was the fact that it is written

Deut 17:6

6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy

of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

KJV

As this was the directive from which I took the plural out of Sadducees and Pharisees

and indicated that if only the one of each group made up two- yet there was plural and the

fact she was caught in the very act 'Which the Lord did not deny was true'... I summoned

you to 'why' did you not ask the Lord - why did you not stone her! Your misunderstanding of

what I wrote and your apparent conlusion over your misunderstanding to view me as a neophyte

have been well recorded ... The whole of the interaction was to get you to see Jesus was

fulfilling His Word as to His purpose in coming as per The Will of The Father

John 3:17

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;

but that the world through him might be saved.

KJV

As you know the law was completed in The Lord and it is His Life that we wear... Within should

be The very Same Spirit that Was He! The fact that today with the increase of sin to such a

proportion that The Love of God within us-> we are growing cold to the point of religious bent in

our pursuit of Him in eat this way, wear that way etc. ... Let's not and return to the heart

of the matter. To put it simply the long and short haired people are doing the same sins thus

we can no longer distinguish ourselves in our beliefs by the hair and as it is God Who examines

the heart! Let it be there and not reliance on the letter of doing by appearance sake when it is

pointless any longer for doing so! Love, Steven

[Guest Butero]

The point of the comment, which you are joyfully harping on , was the fact that it is written

Deut 17:6

6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy

of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

KJV

As this was the directive from which I took the plural out of Sadducees and Pharisees

and indicated that if only the one of each group made up two- yet there was plural and the

fact she was caught in the very act 'Which the Lord did not deny was true'... I summoned

you to 'why' did you not ask the Lord - why did you not stone her! Your misunderstanding of

what I wrote and your apparent conlusion over your misunderstanding to view me as a neophyte

have been well recorded ... The whole of the interaction was to get you to see Jesus was

fulfilling His Word as to His purpose in coming as per The Will of The Father

John 3:17

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;

but that the world through him might be saved.

KJV

As you know the law was completed in The Lord and it is His Life that we wear... Within should

be The very Same Spirit that Was He! The fact that today with the increase of sin to such a

proportion that The Love of God within us-> we are growing cold to the point of religious bent in

our pursuit of Him in eat this way, wear that way etc. ... Let's not and return to the heart

of the matter. To put it simply the long and short haired people are doing the same sins thus

we can no longer distinguish ourselves in our beliefs by the hair and as it is God Who examines

the heart! Let it be there and not reliance on the letter of doing by appearance sake when it is

pointless any longer for doing so! Love, Steven

 

If you really want to get technical Enoob, Jesus told them that anyone there without sin should cast the first stone. He never even told them not to stone her.  He just knew how they would react, since Jesus is all knowing.  Once the witnesses were gone, even under the law of Moses, nobody was allowed to stone her. 

 

As for the passage on hair length, it is not a sin issue, but it does matter.  It is a sign of submission.  It shows people and the angels that the man is not alone, but is under the authority of his head, Jesus Christ.  It shows the people and the angels that the woman is not alone, but is under the authority of her husband and Jesus Christ.  When people don't follow this teaching, it is a sign they are in rebellion, acting on their own, and even if people don't understand this principle, the angels do. 

[EnochBethany]

 

"  Others want to make a joke of God's Word, and that is fine.

"

 

It is great that you take His Word seriously, like the Psalmist of 119.

I do take God's Word serious, but I do take issue with one thing you said.  I don't agree with you that the story of the woman taken in adultery is not valid because "it doesn't appear in the oldest manuscripts."  If I were to make copies of the Bible today, and in my rush, leave out portions of the original text and bury them now, and 20 years down the road, make more copies of the Bible, but this time include every word, the ones I buried 20 years ago are older, but not complete. 

 

I have an old set of the Bible on tape where a verse was accidentally left out, and a new set on cd where the omission was added back in.  Which one is correct?  The new one of course.  The age of the manuscripts doesn't mean anything.  I go by the Textus Receptus, and I only recognize Bibles as legitimate that use the TR as their foundation. 

 

Greetings Butero:

 

1) The mss evidence is against the Woman in Adultery pericope;

2) The story is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.

3) My sheep hear my voice:  I don't hear the voice of the Lord there.

 

My method of determining the correct variation when mss vary:

 

1) Prefer the Older reading.

 

As time goes by, making hand copies or copies of copies of copies . . .,

errors creep in.  Persons may make comments in margins of a ms (scholia).  Centuries later, a scribe may not know if the comment was a correction -- a scribe caught his own error & put the correction in the margin.  So a later scribe may incorporate a comment into the text in making his copy.

 

As time goes by, the errors increase.

 

2) Prefer the reading supported by different families of text.  For example, if all the readings of one class were found only in Egypt, but the other reading is supported by Egypt, Syria, Antioch, Rome, and Spain; the reading supported by different families is preferred.

 

3) Reject the reading which has an obvious mechanical explanation (e.g., dittography);

 

4) Prefer the reading which agrees with the rest of the Bible as opposed to one that contradicts the rest of the Bible.  God cannot contradict Himself.  At the same time caution should be exercised when it can be seen that an obtuse knucklehead thought the verse contradicted scripture, when it actually does not.

 

The omission of the John 8 Pericope has overwhelming manuscript support.