The Word of God (Scripture)

[David1701]

21 minutes ago, farouk said:

See also verse 4;  and the Majority/Textus Receptus has the phrase in verse 1 also.

That's right.  It's many of the modern versions that remove some words in Rom. 8:1, as they do in numerous other places.

[farouk]

1 minute ago, David1701 said:

That's right.  It's many of the modern versions that remove some words in Rom. 8:1, as they do in numerous other places.

I appreciate and use the King James - in English.

[David1701]

3 minutes ago, farouk said:

I appreciate and use the King James - in English.

So do I; although, I also use several other versions.  It's good to compare and contrast different translations, for various reasons.

[farouk]

Just now, David1701 said:

So do I; although, I also use several other versions.  It's good to compare and contrast different translations, for various reasons.

Bible study is helped by more formal versions, rather than paraphrastic ones.

 

[JimmyB]

24 minutes ago, David1701 said:

That's right.  It's many of the modern versions that remove some words in Rom. 8:1, as they do in numerous other places.

Of course.  It's impossible that the KJV translators couldn't have added the words to 8:1 (and other places) because God Almighty dictated His holy words through them (in 17th Century Englyshe no less).

Modern versions are simply more accurate than the flawed King James, which was created upon the orders of a secular king (using inferior sources) to codify his brand of Protestantism.

[JimmyB]

34 minutes ago, farouk said:

Bible study is helped by more formal versions, rather than paraphrastic ones.

 

Each Bible translation has a methodology ranging from most "literal" to conveying the most accurate meaning.  "Literal" is in quotes because there are numerous differences between the ancient source languages and English: vocabulary, verb tenses, idioms, etc.  It is impossible to produce a literal translation from ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek into English, regardless of the time the translation was produced.

Only a very few translations are paraphrases.  Every translation explains its purpose and methodology in the introduction.  Some lean toward translating the meaning of the text, others lean toward a word-for-word translation.   It is strongly advisable to read the introduction, then decide if that is the methodology you prefer.  The New American Standard Bible is considered to be the most literal translation of the Bible by many people. 

Personally, I prefer the new NRSVue, the NET, and the NIV (in that order).  Also, the New, New Testament is very interesting reading.  When I want to read an Englyshe translation, I prefer the 1599 Geneva Bible to the King James.

Edited January 25, 2023 by JimmyB

[farouk]

3 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

Each Bible translation has a methodology ranging from most "literal" to conveying the most accurate meaning.  "Literal" is in quotes because there are numerous differences between the ancient source languages and English: vocabulary, verb tenses, idioms, etc.  It is impossible to produce a literal translation from ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek into English, regardless of the time the translation was produced.

Only a very few translations are paraphrases.  Every translation explains its purpose and methodology in the introduction.  Some lean toward translating the meaning of the text, others lean toward a word-for-word translation.   It is strongly advisable to read the introduction, then decide if that is the methodology you prefer.  The New American Standard Bible is considered to be the most literal translation of the Bible by many people. 

Personally, I prefer the new NRSVue, the NET, and the NIV (in that order).  Also, the New, New Testament is very interesting reading.  When I want to read an Englyshe translation, I prefer the 1599 Geneva Bible to the King James.

Well, I do like to use the King James.

[enoob57]

On 1/24/2023 at 9:46 AM, The_Patriot21 said:

The living word is the Bible. You cannot separate the two. If what you believe is against the Bible, then it's not the living word of God.

You can't add a definition to a word, to make it say what you want it to. That's not the word of God, that is an excuse to push in your own agenda. And that is all I have to say on the matter.

The Spiritual directing of written format makes it live within us yet remains contextually objective in examination... Scripture speaks for itself ... The Holy Spirit makes it living within our hearts by the new birth... well said Pat!

[Mr. M]

7 hours ago, David1701 said:

Election is to salvation, not merely service.

 

Election is to service/stewardship, not merely salvation.

That is what I have taught and fully elaborated upon. 

All this response demonstrates is how someone can flip a couple

of words and change a teaching to say exactly opposite what was 

given. Whether by deviousness or ignorance I don't really care. Busted.

7 hours ago, David1701 said:

You are contradicting the word of God.

Rom. 11:5-8 (Webster)

Oh really? Let's look at just what you highlighted.

 

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded {blinded: or, hardened}

So what is clearly stated is that other than a remnant of Israel, the rest

were blinded. It does not say condemned to eternal damnation. So if that 

is what you are implying, you are not teaching Biblical doctrine, but by

definition teaching a doctrine of men, by interpreting a statement to 

mean something that is not being said for whatever devious purposes.

Paul goes on to say that their blindness is only temporary to serve God's

purpose for extending the Gospel of His Son to the Gentiles. I will leave

it to anyone interested to read the entire chapter for context. 

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

I did not ask for what purpose God has saved you.  I asked from what God has saved you.

Perhaps you would like to answer the question asked, rather than pretending that I asked a totally different question.

There was no pretentiousness in my response, I merely posted a statement

more consistent with the topic at hand. You want an answer to your

impertinent question, I will be brief: [G3709] wrath

I leave it to you to fully see how this word is used differently in context,

as wrath of man rather than wrath of God. Even that is used both to

describe God's reaction to that generation's rejection of their Messiah,

and the wrath to come, spoken of in at least a half dozen scriptures, 

and the best answer. Now in keeping with your tone, first let me say

that  "everybody knows that" and "was there a point in you asking?

Not that I am interested in an answer, I have had my fill of your insouciance.

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

22  What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: {fitted: or, made up}

 If you would align your teaching with the Messiah's in the Gospels, you

would know that the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction left the earth

long ago. This is not a reference to "wrath to come" but to that generation.

Matthew 23:

35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, 

from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of

Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 

36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

This is classic misinformation, as you claim to teach Biblical doctrine, but

all you offer in support is a couple a statements by Paul out of context.

Everybody knows that Paul is the most maligned of teaching, and by those

who claim to teach scripture, yet offer no support from as a minimum:

Isaiah (esp. 40-66), the Messianic Psalms of David, not the mention the 

four Gospels and perhaps Acts. There is no Biblical doctrine that can be

taken from a few statements by Paul, out of context.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak

according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The present Gospel toward natural Israel is rightly comprehended

beginning here.

Isaiah 40:

1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.

2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare

is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received

of the Lord's hand double for all her sins.

Two temples, two judgments accomplished. What remains is to 

speak comfort and consolation to Israel. This is confirmed in Romans

11, from which you have incorrectly quoted:

30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy

through their disobedience, 

31 even so these also have now been disobedient,

that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 

32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, 

that He might have mercy on all. (or is it send them to hell?)

Would you say that historically the Church has been an instrument 

of mercy, comfort, and consolation toward Israel?

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

do you understand what Phil. 2:12,13 means?

Yes, but thanks anyway.

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

It's very simple: God has chosen to save some of Adam's hell-deserving race, before the foundation of the world.  He predestines these to salvation, by grace, through hearing the gospel and through faith in his Son.  The rest are left in the sin they desire and are left to the consequences of that sin.

Eph. 1:3-6 (Webster)

So let's look at this one closely. Nowhere in the meager scripture reference

you have provided is there any reference to "Adam's hell-deserving race". You

go on to day that the elect are chosen for salvation and the rest are left to

their hell-deserving, sinners destiny. 

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
  5 Having predestinated us to the adoption of children to himself by Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will,
  6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Looking at what you have highlighted, nothing supports the hell-deserving

comments made above. And yet you ask?

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

What are you talking about?  I've not condemned anyone!  Quit the false accusations.

Asked and answered.

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

Okay, so you don't believe in salvation by grace alone.

Nope, what I said twice now is even now in the quote you posted.

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

I quoted you as saying the doctrines of grace is the Gospel. 

My response was that the Full Gospel is much more than saved

by Grace alone. I have fully supported my position and I am 

sure as the Truth I taught not going to repeat myself.

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

What religion are you;

Right! No problems with your tone at all, just a supercilious and 

inappropriate question that only someone not given to truth would ask.

Surely you weren't expecting an answer, and this is all you get.

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

I believe in POTS

Cute. I assume you keep that POT nice and shiny so you can see yourself.

Don't really care for acronyms. 

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

You are repeatedly misrepresenting what I post.

And you have not responded to any of my posts in good 

faith either. I have said all I need or intend to share in this

thread. If you ever want to start a thread on Romans 9-11,

which you have consistently and historically  mutilated,

I am confident that many members would love to discuss your

interpretations.

 

[Mr. M]

1 hour ago, Rosie1jack2pauline3 said:

I disagree... doctrine is derived from Scripture and there is only one doctrine...  objectivity of Scripture is the only way to know The God of Scripture!

This is more strictly defined in scripture as "in the mouth of two or 

three witnesses every matter must be established". To explain,  people

quote a scripture and explain what it means to them, claiming they are

expounding Biblical doctrine. This is not the Way. A quote by Peter is verified

in Isaiah, or a Psalm of David, or Mosaic Law because all scripture is profitable

for "instruction in righteousness", (Torah). What you are failing to comprehend

my dear sister is that you are talking about something totally different.

What Brother enoob is teaching and you are so rudely and wrongly calling

false, is Logos, and the use of 'written word' for instruction and did need

some clarification, but not at all incorrect, which I have provided.

What you are describing quite inaccurately is Rhema, or'spoken word'.

The problem is you are using written word to essentially falsely describe.

I don't want to say that you are teaching false doctrine,

I discern from your writing that you are immature in the Word of Truth,

quoting a whole lot of scripture, to teach Rhema. When you are trained

in the Word of Life you will have right comprehension. The Living Word

comes as an enfolding light. If you feel that God is speaking to you as 

you read the Bible, by grace I believe He is, but if you are going to make

this claim and teach Biblical doctrine, you must follow the rule of Logos

and confirm your claims with other witnesses, which you do in many

cases, but it is often by rote, and inaccurate. This is revealed to me by

a heavy-handedness in over quoting scriptures, some which don't quite

actually apply to the teaching, but are "related scriptures", connected

by word study and can provide wonderful insight and scriptural

knowledge, but not enlightening Rhema word, which I will now describe

to you. First, put your Bible away .  Sit quietly before His presence,

and when you are "drawn into His presence" you will be surrounded

by an enfolding, swirling, shimmering, living Light that "speaks", 

but in groanings that cannot be uttered. At the bush, Moses is said

to hear The Voice from a "consuming fire". It is more accurately an

enfolding "flame of fire" which is actually a swirling light, or in 

the case of an actual fire, a swirling heat that mystics have meditated

on and listened to the voice of demons for eons. The 'spoken word'

must be received into you heart as the already described groanings,

sighs, or as some rabbinical sources as "utterances", such as the

ten utterances heard by all on Sinai. What actually terrorized them

was they were not hearing with their ears! The Spirit (or demon for

pagans) must speak to the heart of man. This is heard like a voice,

but actually registers in a completely different area of the brain.

Here is more scripture, beyond my description of the "flame of fire".

Ezekiel 3:10 Moreover He said to me: Son of man, receive into your

heart all My words that I speak to you, and hear with your ears. 

The second witness is this:

Psalm 62:11 God has spoken once,
Twice I have heard this:
That power belongs to God.

This verse has several Talmudic Sage interpretations that are inconsistent,

such as "the writer is referring to the first and second giving of the Torah",

which is very good. It is also describing Ezekiel 3:10 received by the son of man,

who is glorified by the cross, and who is necessary to receive much heavenly

messages described by the Lord as "angels ascending and descending upon

the son of man", and must be received in the same way, from the heart, 

to the Voice, received by a mind that has been spiritually renewed.

Believe it or not, this has actually been scientifically proven by a 

researcher of psychology named Dr. Julian Jaynes, who did studies

on schizophrenics (i.e. the demon possessed) and using brain wave

studies proved that what secularists call "auditory hallucinations",

are always received in a non-auditory region on the opposite hemisphere

of the brain than were words we hear with our physical ears. When

the Voice tells the son of man, "hear with your ears" He is referring to

"spiritual ears" of an enlightened mind.

Now to better explain the enfolding light of God's Spoken word, 

once you are drawn into His presence, the Living Word surrounds

you with spiraling, waves and particles of light which follow simple

mathematical number sequences, called in science, for example,

Fibonacci spirals, and other mathematical relationships that are

found throughout nature, and are visual representations of "the 

Word of God", the very creative force behind nature. The Glory of

God is that this spiraling light speaks! As I have already described.

Moses would sit and listen to when the enfolding cloud rested over

the Ark,

Numbers 7: 89 Now when Moses went into the tabernacle of meeting 

to speak with Him, he heard The Voice of One speaking to him from

above the cover that was on the ark of the Testimony, from between

the two cherubim; thus He spoke to him.

David did the same thing, he would sit before the Ark and hear The 

Voice of Yahu, by the Anointing. That is why a true anointed man

of God does not need a teacher.

1 John 2:

20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One,

and you know all things. 

21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth,

but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?

He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 

23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; 

he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning.

If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also

will abide in the Son and in the Father. 

25 And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life.

26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to 

deceive you. 

27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you,

and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing 

teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie,

and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

A true teacher of the Anointing speaks Truth, because he does not

speak from his own understanding, but what he receives, he presents

unto the Ecclesia. I am such a man of God who is speaking to you now.

This is a wonderful day for me, because I received permission from the

Spirit to share on this forum what I was never allowed to on CF.com

for the past three years, which is a very dark place of excess head know-

ledge and was not found worthy to receive. There are many on this forum

also, but they are committed enough for the chastening of the Spirit and

receive correction. I now understand the Lord was training me to discern

spirits in a written form, and how to correct in meekness. Now, let the 

Word of God come Forth. Get ready, get ready, get ready!

O happy day! More to come soon.

In Spirit and in Truth,

James, brother in Christ

Minister Monardo, unto all the brethren beloved in Christ,

Berit Shalom