What does the “Bible alone” mean?

[enoob57]

11 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The Jews don't recognize John the Baptist as a prophet.

According to the Scriptures yes they (Jews) thought John was a prophet:
Matthew 11:7-10 (NKJV) [7] As they departed, Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? [8] “But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Indeed, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. [9] “But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet. [10] “For this is he of whom it is written:
‘Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.’

Matthew 14:5 (NKJV) [5] And although he wanted to put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. 
 

[Omegaman 3.0]

3 hours ago, anynmsfmly said:

I believe that Psalm 151 is considered an Apocrypha book ? ? At least that is what i read when i tried searching this................ Why isn't Psalm 151 considered apart of the Bible ? ? ?

I think that is a great question Any, but mostly because I get to play teacher and expand upon it.

Generally speaking, we get our Old Testament from the Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic Text. The custom of the Jews was to hand copy, letter by letter, the manuscripts. They did this both to make copies and to preserve the text since age and use have a way of destroying paper and skins that the scriptures were written on.

The oldest Masoretic Texts that we have, date to the 9th and 10th centuries. That makes them basically more than 1000 years+ more recent that the originals.

Personally (and this is just me) I have some reservations about the Masoretic Text. I was noticing in my readings of the New Testament, that I would run across phrases like:

"This was done in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah . . . " blah blah blah. I would go and look up the Old Testament to see what it said, and often it was a poor match. This was puzzling to me! Then one day, I was reading in the Septuagint, one of these passages and noticed that it was a match for the New Testament quote. It was then I realized, that the New Testament writers often quoted the Septuagint.

Now, what was interesting to me about that, was than most of the time that there were differences between the New Testament and the Old Testament that was being quoted, that they were Messianic prophecies. Why would that be the case? My suspicion is, that in spite of the history of great care that Jews took in copying the scriptures, they like all other people, are human, and have biases. I see it as possible, that the Masoretes noticed that these prophecies could be construed to point to Jesus as the Messiah. Since they did not believe that, they likely saw Jesus as a false prophet, and a danger to Judaism. I suspect that with good intentions, they made minor alterations to help to prevent Jews from falling into the heresy that was Christianity. I cannot prove this, it is just a speculation on my part.

It makes a lot of sense that the Septuagint would be cited in the New Testament. The New Testament writers were typically Jews, writing to people whose primary language was Koine Greek. The apostles were not scholars, and they knew that themselves. Rather than attempt or risk making a bad translation, the Septuagint was a sensible resource to use. By the way, Koine Greek is the language that our New Testament was written in.

Now, back in the days of Alexander the Great, he was conquering the known world. He was a young king of Macedon, a Greek Kingdom. As a conquering king, he was running into some problems. As he conquered foreign lands he absorbed their people into his army. There was a language barrier, but he came up with a brilliant way to deal with it. He wanted his foreign officers to obey his commands, but understood how easily they could get it wrong being of different languages. When King Alex said jump, he wanted them to jump, not hop!

His solution was to essentially re-invent his own language. He simplified his language (Greek) into a version with a smaller vocabulary, and where meanings tended to be more specific, more easily understood correctly. We call this language Koine (koy nay), which just means common. It was common it more than one sense, but mostly what it means is that it was a language that was common across all the lands that Alexander conquered. It was somewhat like English is in our modern world, broadly understood.

One of the lands he conquered was Egypt. In Egypt, there was a city named after him, Alexandria! Over time, the language came to be the main spoken and written language of  Alexander's empire.

In Alexandria, there came to be a population of Helenistic (Greek speaking) Jews. Hebrew was dying out. Some of the Biblical scholars among them began working on translating the Hebrew (our Old Testament) into a Koine Greek version. This was to preserve the scriptures effective loss (being that they were written in a dying language) and to keep a version of their Bible readable for future generations, who were Greek speaking, and of course they understood that Greek was not just in Alexandria, but across the known world.

This has been a real blessing to us. For one thing, we get a second witness of what was in the mind of Jewish scholars hundreds of years before the 1st coming of the Christ. An example that comes to mind is the prophecy of the virgin birth.

In Matt 1:23 it says:

“Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel” (which means, “God with us”). Now, if the Messiah was to be born of a virgin, then there are not a lot of candidates to consider. How many people can make that claim. Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah, are not going to be fond of an Old Testament passage about a virgin birth. Jewish apologists have a response to this.

They tell us that in the Hebrew (Isaiah 7:14):

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

That the word "virgin" there, is the Hebrew word "almah", and that while almah can mean virgin, it can also just mean a young woman of marriageable age. They are not wrong about that. However, with a little thought, a young woman conceiving a son, is not much of a sign. On the other hand, a virgin getting pregnant, and bearing a son IS a sign.

So, which is it? Well in the Septuagint, the Hellenistic Jews used the Greek word παρθένος (parthenos), which though not bulletproof, is more strongly and consistantly, means virgin. This tells us that hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus, Jews understood that that the Messiah would be the result of a virgin birth.

Okay, that was a lot of info, and a bit off track, but I think the back ground was useful, to understand the circumstances of the creation of the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture), and now on to the short answer to your question about Psalm 151.

As I said, most of our Bible get their Old Testament, from the Masoretic text. The Masoretic Text, does not contain Psalm 151. Psalm 151 is the Septuagint. Should it be in our Bibles? Is it inspired by God? I do not know, but this is why it is not there.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, enoob57 said:

According to the Scriptures yes they (Jews) thought John was a prophet:
Matthew 11:7-10 (NKJV) [7] As they departed, Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? [8] “But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Indeed, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. [9] “But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet. [10] “For this is he of whom it is written:
‘Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.’

Matthew 14:5 (NKJV) [5] And although he wanted to put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet.

Show me in Jewish literature where the priests of the Levitical order considered John a Prophet.  Matthew quoting one or more people as witnesses to John baptizing in the river hardly solidifies John's position as a prophet.  Jesus spoke of John as a prophet to his apostles but they certainly were not Levitical in authority. By the same reasoning, are you arguing the books Maccabeus, Tobit, Esdras, et al, belong in the Bible?  Are you advocating the Roman Catholic bible?

[enoob57]

2 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Show me in Jewish literature where the priests of the Levitical order considered John a Prophet.  Matthew quoting one or more people as witnesses to John baptizing in the river hardly solidifies John's position as a prophet.  Jesus spoke of John as a prophet to his apostles but they certainly were not Levitical in authority. By the same reasoning, are you arguing the books Maccabeus, Tobit, Esdras, et al, belong in the Bible?  Are you advocating the Roman Catholic bible?

For me the Scripture itself is enough verification for anything when it comes to the truth... and what I believe is a problem for you and your reasoning...

[Omegaman 3.0]

Yeah, it is not as though the Bible did not directly say, as enoob quoted, that the Jewish leaders knew that Jews who were hearing John considered John to be a prophet.

We can either accept the word of God as inspired scripture as it claims, or we can run looking for some Jewish literature which is not inspired, to tell us that things in the New Testament are in error. Being a Christian, I'll take the believe the Bible option.

If I was guided by priests of the Levitical order, what would I find? In some cases, I would find unbelievers, I'd rather follow inspired writers! Bloodlines do not make people spiritual authorities, the Spirit does that!

[enoob57]

On 8/16/2020 at 12:38 AM, Jayne said:

It's best that they part and both cannot be right or may be both are wrong. But beating a dead horse gets no one anywhere.

It does make the meat more tender  

[Leonardo Von]

On 8/12/2020 at 12:00 PM, Markesmith said:

What does the “Bible alone” mean?

Bible is the collection of books that comprise the Holy Scripture, as well as the addition made by man (for instance, biblical key, biblical commentary, maps, biblical concordance, division in chapters and verses, epigraphs, etc.).

[Hobie_]

On 8/12/2020 at 11:00 AM, Markesmith said:

What does the “Bible alone” mean?

Really the Bible alone? Even one verse?

Or the Bible plus scripture scholars?

Or the Bible plus a consensus of believers?

Or the Bible plus Tradition? (Tradition defined as doctrine that is handed down, not mere human tradition)

Or the Bible plus the teaching of the apostles?

I would like to know what you think it means not Wikipedia!

The Word which was with God and was God was considered the giver of the words in scripture, so thus they were divine. Nothing could be taken out or added. No tradition of men, no philosophy or ideas of men, no rites or sacraments of men put in, and yet...

[JohnD]

On 8/12/2020 at 10:00 AM, Markesmith said:

What does the “Bible alone” mean?

Really the Bible alone? Even one verse?

Or the Bible plus scripture scholars?

Or the Bible plus a consensus of believers?

Or the Bible plus Tradition? (Tradition defined as doctrine that is handed down, not mere human tradition)

Or the Bible plus the teaching of the apostles?

I would like to know what you think it means not Wikipedia!

The Bible alone does not save.

John 5:39–40 (AV)
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

You can miss the point of scripture entirely... without the access key:

2 Peter 1:20–21 (AV)
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

All scripture is prophetic and comes from the Holy Spirit:

2 Timothy 3:16–17 (AV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

John 16:13 (AV)
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.

1 John 4:1 (AV)
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

The way you do this is:

Acts 17:11 (AV)
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

It's God's story. We are wise to let Him tell it.

Man's interpretations and doctrines only lead to hell.

Mark 7:13 (AV)
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Mark 7:7 (AV)
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

The overall point Jesus was making in Matthew 16:13-23 is the contrast between the things of God and the things of man. The first one (from the things of God) got Simon commended and renamed Peter (rock) verse 17. The second one (from the things of man) got Simon chastised and called Satan.  verse 23.

In John 8:43-45 Jesus spelled out why humanity opposes God and cannot understand or even hear His words of truth. Yet we can't wait to rush to man's interpretation of scripture and of historic events and of future events. This traditions says this, that tradition says that. This denomination believes this, that denomination believes that. 

It only matters what is true.

And now you know the one way to find the truth.

[Willa]

On 8/12/2020 at 1:58 PM, Markesmith said:

What about tradition? 
 

2 Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I believe that only the tradition given by the apostles themselves were reliable.  The Scriptures are full of warnings of false apostles and bad teachings coming into the church. So unless the teachings were from the Apostles or the testimony of their followers as to the authenticity of the Epistles, the oral traditions were unreliable if not false and dangerous.

traditions —(Jamison, Faucet & Brown) truths delivered and transmitted orally, or in writing (2Th 3:6; 1Co 11:2; Greek, “traditions”). The Greekverb from which the noun comes, is used by Paul in 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3. From the three passages in which “tradition” is used in a good sense, Rome has argued for her accumulation of uninspired traditions, virtually overriding God’s Word, while put forward as of co-ordinate authority with it. She forgets the ten passages (Mat 15:2, Mat 15:3, Mat 15:6; Mar 7:3, Mar 7:5, Mar 7:8, Mar 7:9, Mar 7:13; Gal 1:14; Col 2:8) stigmatizing man’s uninspired traditions. Not even the apostles’ sayings were all inspired (for example, Peter’s dissimulation, Gal 2:11-14), but only when they claimed to be so, as in their words afterwards embodied in their canonical writings. Oral inspiration was necessary in their case, until the canon of the written Word should be complete; they proved their possession of inspiration by miracles wrought in support of the new revelation, which revelation, moreover, accorded with the existing Old Testament revelation; an additional test needed besides miracles (compare Deu 13:1-6; Act 17:11). When the canon was complete, the infallibility of the living men was transferred to the written Word, now the sole unerring guide, interpreted by the Holy Spirit. Little else has come down to us by the most ancient and universal tradition save this, the all-sufficiency of Scripture for salvation. Therefore, by tradition, we are constrained to cast off all tradition not contained in, or not provable by, Scripture. The Fathers are valuable witnesses to historical facts, which give force to the intimations of Scripture: such as the Christian Lord’s day, the baptism of infants, and the genuineness of the canon of Scripture. Tradition (in the sense of human testimony) cannot establish a doctrine, but can authenticate a fact, such as the facts just mentioned. Inspired tradition, in Paul’s sense, is not a supplementary oral tradition completing our written Word, but it is identical with the written Word now complete; then the latter not being complete, the tradition was necessarily in part oral, in part written, and continued so until, the latter being complete before the death of St. John, the last apostle, the former was no longer needed. Scripture is, according to Paul, the complete and sufficient rule in all that appertains to making “the man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2Ti 3:16, 2Ti 3:17). It is by leaving Paul’s God-inspired tradition for human traditions that Rome has become the forerunner and parent of the Antichrist. It is striking that, from this very chapter denouncing Antichrist, she should draw an argument for her “traditions” by which she fosters anti-Christianity. Because the apostles’ oral word was as trustworthy as their written word, it by no means follows that the oral word of those not apostles is as trustworthy as the written word of those who were apostles or inspired evangelists. No tradition of the apostles except their written word can be proved genuine on satisfactory evidence. We are no more bound to accept implicitly the Fathers’ interpretations of Scripture, because we accept the Scripture canon on their testimony, than we are bound to accept the Jews’ interpretation of the Old Testament, because we accept the Old Testament canon on their testimony.