The Bible can it be trusted?

Theophilos

Active member
show us the proof that
1) the Fourth Book of Maccabees was in the collection of LXX Scrolls Timothy studied as a child:
2) Timothy considered 4th Maccabees as Scripture
3) Paul considered 4th Maccabees as Scripture
4 Maccabees is not in the canon of the Roman Catholic or Greek Church, but it does appear in some Russian Orthodox bibles. Catholics would classify it as part of holy tradition.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Timothy was the uncircumcised son of a gentile Greek father and a Greek-speaking Jewish mother (Acts 16:1). He was not circumcised until after he met Paul (Acts 16:3).

Timothy is a Greek name (= honoring God). Timothy's mother's name is Greek (Lois = most desirable), as is his mother's mother name (Eunice = good victory). All the biblical evidence shows he spoke Greek but had no knowledge of Hebrew.

The scriptures that Timothy studied a child had to be the Greek Old Testament. The same scriptures have been used continuously in Greek-speaking churches since the time of the apostles.
Still does not mean he did not speak Hebrew. No evidence he used Greek Texts.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
4 Maccabees is not in the canon of the Roman Catholic or Greek Church, but it does appear in some Russian Orthodox bibles. Catholics would classify it as part of holy tradition.
was it in your beloved LXX?

Let's cut to the chase: do you consider the LXX to be divinely inspired?
 
Last edited:

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Non - Catholic Christians falsely interpret the scriptures because as many non - orthodox denominations as currently exist, there are as many interpretations. So none of these interpretations can be trusted - they all get it terribly wrong.
And the fact that they contradict the Roman Catholic Theology is evidence that they actually got it RIGHT.
 

Theophilos

Active member
Still does not mean he did not speak Hebrew. No evidence he used Greek Texts.
The word "synagogue" comes from Greek. The language of the synagogues outside of Israel was Greek at the time of the apostles:

They read their sacred scriptures in Greek (the LXX), and even used the Greek language in their synagogue services. But they were still acutely conscious of being Jews, and not Greeks, in religion.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/expositor/series9/1924-08_128.pdf See page 130.

Greeks (Greek-speaking gentiles) are mentioned repeatedly as being part of synagogues in the Book of Acts (17:4, 18.4, etc.) . They would not have been there if the service was in Hebrew.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
The word "synagogue" comes from Greek. The language of the synagogues outside of Israel was Greek at the time of the apostles:

They read their sacred scriptures in Greek (the LXX), and even used the Greek language in their synagogue services. But they were still acutely conscious of being Jews, and not Greeks, in religion.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/expositor/series9/1924-08_128.pdf See page 130.

Greeks (Greek-speaking gentiles) are mentioned repeatedly as being part of synagogues in the Book of Acts (17:4, 18.4, etc.) . They would not have been there if the service was in Hebrew.
its just a translation: (like the King James or the Vulgate)
get over it
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Sacred Scripture can be trusted. The most accurate English translation is the Douay Rheims Bible.
What is your measure? Papal myth? Seeing as there is no one to one correspondence between languages was it ignorance, foolishness, or the evil one who has convinced some that the extra hop in language improves the accuracy of a translation?
Individual interpretations of Sacred Scripture cannot be trusted as is clearly evidenced by the thousands of contradicting Protestant sects, each following their founder's interpretation of scripture. The reality is that each individual

Protestant interprets scripture for themselves and believes whatever they want based upon their fallible and limited knowledge, all the while, of course, claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.
The Papal church is no different since the allegorical method of interpretation is an almost anything goes method of translation. That is the whole point of Trent attempting to dictate what will be the correct interpretation going forward.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Non - Catholic Christians falsely interpret the scriptures because as many non - orthodox denominations as currently exist, there are as many interpretations. So none of these interpretations can be trusted - they all get it terribly wrong.
Don't you even believe your supposed first Pope? Just as their were false prophets among the people there will be false teachers among you, 2 Peter 2:1. According to the Papal mythological history, the people he was writing to would be a part of the papacy.

Peter's instruction as to what people were to believe is found in 2 Peter 1:15-21: They were to believe the Scriptures and the Apostolic and eye witness regarding Christ.

"This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you: in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken by the Holy Prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior:" 2 Peter 3:1-2, KJV

Please note that there isn't a word about purported successors, not a syllable about the development of doctrine, nor any mention of an ongoing ever increasing infallible tradition.
 

balshan

Well-known member
The word "synagogue" comes from Greek. The language of the synagogues outside of Israel was Greek at the time of the apostles:

They read their sacred scriptures in Greek (the LXX), and even used the Greek language in their synagogue services. But they were still acutely conscious of being Jews, and not Greeks, in religion.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/expositor/series9/1924-08_128.pdf See page 130.

Greeks (Greek-speaking gentiles) are mentioned repeatedly as being part of synagogues in the Book of Acts (17:4, 18.4, etc.) . They would not have been there if the service was in Hebrew.
why not Jewish people today speak many languages I am sure that was the case in Jesus' day. You seem to think they could not speak more than one language.

Jesus would have spoken Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek and probably Latin.

https://hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/jesus_hebrew.html Jesus would have received a good Jewish education and religious discussion were in Hebrew, when He spoke with the religious leaders of his day at 12, it would have been in Hebrew. The same would have applied to Timothy with his mother and grandmother.


In the first installment of this study we looked at instances where the “Aramaic” (Συριστι) or “Hebrew” (Εβραιστι ) language was specifically referred to by name in the New Testament. As it turns out there are eight explicit citations of Hebrew and none of Aramaic...
In the next installment of this study we will continue exploring these Semitic linguistic phenomena in the New Testament, as well as looking at other literature from the late Second Temple Period that can help us gain a more thorough understanding of the linguistic world of first century Palestine. Until then you may find it thought provoking to revisit the scene of the Messiah’s crucifixion knowing that the words He spoke at one of the most pivotal moments in history were clearly spoken in Hebrew. It is merely icing on the cake to return to John 19:20, which we briefly glanced at in the previous article, and note that the sign Pilate hung over the cross was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew…and, interestingly enough, not in Aramaic.

 
Last edited:

balshan

Well-known member
Hebrew was certainly the language of instruction in schools, as well as the language of prayer and Torah reading. The language of instruction in the house of study also most certainly was Hebrew, and this was likely the case regarding instruction in the synagogue. It would seem that Hebrew was spoken in the marketplaces of Jerusalem (Jerusalem Talmud, Pesahim 37d), but there is not enough information to determine whether this also was the case in other cities. It is not impossible that there were religiously uneducated people who did not understand Hebrew and were conversant only in Aramaic. There is some evidence for this linguistic phenomenon beginning in the second century C.E., but it is unlikely that such was the case in the first century.

Although the Jewish inhabitants of the land of Israel in the time of Jesus knew Aramaic and used it in their contacts with the ordinary, non-Jewish residents, Hebrew was their first or native language. It is especially clear that in enlightened circles such as those of Jesus and his disciples, Hebrew was the dominant spoken language.


It seems there is far more support for Hebrew being the spoken language among religious Jewish people at the time of Christ.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Sola Scriptura is totally workable. God says do not steal, no excuse, no mitigating circumstances the word is clear, God's will is clear. It is RCs false interpretation, changing the meanings of word used in scripture, adding to scripture that throw doubt on scriptures. If you trust God's word then you will not accept the false interpretations and doctrines of your institution. If something goes against scripture it is not God's will. The practice praying to the dead goes against scripture. Putting Mary up as co this and that goes against scripture.

Sola Scriptura is workable-----when the Church is the divinely authorized teacher as it is in Catholicism.

Sola Scriptura as it is in Protestantism is not workable because in Protestantism everyone is essentially their own pope.

Note that it is misrepresentation of the Catholic position to suggest that the meaning of Scripture is unclear. Catholics are not claiming that the Scriptures are unintelligible without the Church. We are claiming that the Church is the divinely authorized teacher; Scripture is analogous to a divine text book.
Your tradition cannot be trusted as it turns to the natural world and philosophies (which are pagan) to interpret and understand the Lord. God has clearly stated in His Word:

1 cor 3:19

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness”;

James 3:15

This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic.

So justifying false practices and beliefs using the world is demonic.
I agree with everything above.

You are assuming that the RCC teaches worldly wisdom and man made teachings.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
I don't think it makes a difference to catholics what translation it is. They don't believe the truth of scripture, they only believe what the RCC men tell them to believe.

The RCC men are not God.
As I point out, there is one the RCCs call "Holy Father" 😱 (John 17;11), despite Jesus' explicit command in Matthew. (And, no, I never called my dad, "Father")

--Rich
 

Maxtar

Active member
As I point out, there is one the RCCs call "Holy Father" 😱 (John 17;11), despite Jesus' explicit command in Matthew. (And, no, I never called my dad, "Father")

--Rich
Once again we see that men calling other men "Father" is not without precedent in the Holy Scriptures and the Catholic Church's use of the word to call their priests that name is not a violation of God's Holy Word in any way.

1 Cor 4 :14 I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

St. Paul calling himself a father? Why how can this be?

Romans 4 :10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Calling a man (Abraham) father? I thought Jesus was against such a thing?
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Sola Scriptura is workable-----when the Church is the divinely authorized teacher as it is in Catholicism.
You disagree with your purported first Pope with regard to sola Scriptura, Scripture as lord and master over all other writings on Earth. Peter, knowing that he would die soon, 2 Peter 1:14, turned his readers to the Scriptures, the OT, and the Apostolic eye witness regarding Christ and the faith, 2 Peter 1:15-21.

He then warned them, those who were according to Papal mythology would be part of the Roman Catholic church, and told them that there would be false teachers among them, 2 Peter 2:1-3. Again, according to Papal mythology that would be fale teachers in their church. Peter, who was among those whose minds were opened to understand the Scriptures by the risen Lord, and who being guided by the Holy Spirit in his writing, didn't know or mention a thing about the purported authority of his purported successors.

The story tellers have authority over their stories and no one begrudges them that. But there will always be an objection when the story tellers attempt to pass off their stories as a right interpretation of Scripture and to claim authority over the Scriptures as if they produced, gave, or defined them to or for the world.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
The canon of the Greek-speaking Jews was larger than the Hebrew canon of the Pharisees used in Judea.
You've shot down your claim with that statement. There is no indication that the canons of Greek speaking and Aramaic speaking Jews were different. But even if we suppose for the sake of argument that there was a difference then why couldn't the mythological Papal church agree on what that canon was? It is no secret that different canons were in use and sanctioned in the one church of the Roman Empire.
These are the scriptures that the Bereans used to confirm Paul's preaching (Acts 17:11), and Paul specifically praises these scriptures that Greek-speaking Timothy studied as a child:
They were used because the translation was in their language. A person doesn't read Bel And The Dragon, Daniel chapter fourteen in the LXX, to verify what Paul said of Moses from the Exodus or Deuteronomy.
The Greek-speaking Jews were the earliest Christian converts, and their scriptures were the basis of the original bible of the Church. Trent merely confirmed Christian scriptures used from the time of the apostles.
The Greek speaking Gentiles were among the first Gentiles to receive Jesus. Trent formally recognized as canonical some of the books used by Greek speaking Gentiles of the undivided Church of the Roman Empire.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member

Once again we see that men calling other men "Father" is not without precedent in the Holy Scriptures and the Catholic Church's use of the word to call their priests that name is not a violation of God's Holy Word in any way.

1 Cor 4 :14 I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.
St. Paul calling himself a father? Why how can this be?

Romans 4 :10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Calling a man (Abraham) father? I thought Jesus was against such a thing?
You are totally skipping over the point that Mica made:
RCs "don't believe the truth of scripture, they only believe what the RCC men tell them to believe" and "The RCC men are not God"
and my response:
"there is one the RCCs call 'Holy Father' 😱 (John 17; 11)".

So, you agree with the popes' abrogation of a title that Jesus used to address God the Father.
 

Maxtar

Active member
Again, on whose say-so? The RCC's, of course!
The Bible say so. I just posted verbatim the words used by St. Paul.

You are totally skipping over the point that Mica made:
RCs "don't believe the truth of scripture, they only believe what the RCC men tell them to believe" and "The RCC men are not God"
and my response:

And I reject her opinion. The Catholic Church has arrived at it's theological outlook with the assent of the whole Church through hundreds upon hundreds of years. First with the ECF's, then with all the Bishop's who followed them, and then with all the theologians who also weighed in. The "men" whom you folks constantly bring up are actually those who arrived on the scene in the 15th century who suddenly decided things for themselves, and I say they are the men and what they put forth whom you both follow as you live out your relationship with God.
"there is one the RCCs call 'Holy Father' 😱 (John 17; 11)".

So, you agree with the popes' abrogation of a title that Jesus used to address God the Father.

I agree that there is no problem with men calling other men father as the scriptures so clearly point out, even if the word "Holy" precedes the name. This has to be kept in the proper context and that context is that one should not see any other man as God the Father and there is no orthodox believing Christian (Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) that does so.
 
Top