Published on February 28, 2007 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion
The Bible is one of the most widely owned books, a best seller of all times, but, sad to say, one of the least read. Many people simply do not understand what the Scripture is. Many have never learned that it is God's revelation of himself to humanity and describes who He is and how we can have a relationship with Him.

Another reason it's not read or mainly overlooked is that it's wrongly assumed that it lacks authenticity. In many opinions, the Bible, both the OT and the NT are nothing but exaggerated myths and stories written by men and at best only partially true. Many that believe this to be true have never really cracked it open to read it for themselves. They believe it because it's easier that way. It's much easier to believe that than to search it out for themselves. It takes time. They in no way believe this could be genuinely true or believe it to be a divinely inspired book because they have not been personally acquainted with the Author. Once you meet him, the book suddenly takes on a whole new significance.

The bible is a remarkable collection of 66 books united by a common theme of God's redeeming love for humanity. Just the fact that these books were collected, agreed upon and accepted as the Word of God is itself a miracle of God's providence. Some believe it was only a church council that met behind closed doors accepting some and rejecting others that made this decision on what we are holding today. Some believe that these books just happened to be collected with no special criteria. Some others still think the decision was made as a result of some sinister plot of censorship by the big whigs in the CC.

But let's look at the truth. When God authorized the writing of these books the people recognized it as such and preserved it. For example in the OT Moses wrote "all the words of the Lord." (Ex 24:4) and these writings were laid in the ark of the covenant (Deut 31:26). The writings of Joshua (Josh 24:26) and Samuel whose words were put "in a book, and laid....before the Lord" (1 Sam 10:25). The same is said for Jeremiah and Daniel (Dan 9:2).

As the number of books increased the subsequent generations honored them as the Word of God. Ezra possessed a copy of the law of Moses and the prophets (Neh 9:14, 26-30) and was responsible for gathering together the OT canon. Not all Jewish literature was considered inspired. For example the book of Jashar existed (Josh 10:13), the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num 21:14 and others (1 Kings 11:41).

As the canon grew, it was often described as "Moses and the prophets." Later it was the "Law, Prophets and the Writings." Jesus himself mentioned this threefold division when he spoke of the OT (Luke 24:44). I think he mentioned just about every OT writer in the gospels.

To be fair some have questioned some of the OT books at one time or another. Some thought Song of Solomon was too graphic in a sexual way. Esther not once mentions God so some thought it wasn't inspired. Some scholars thought Ezekiel was anti-Mosaic. But most Jewish scholars did not question these books and were regarded as canonical soon after they were written. We can see now they are in complete harmony with the other books of the OT and fit quite nicely with the OT as well. It was the provential hand of God who kept these books together.

So the canon of the OT was closed in about 400 BC. Some call this time the 400 silent years. The silence ended with the birth of the Savior.

So we know that the OT is based on the Hebrew OT canon that was accepted by the Jews. This is the same canon that Christ gave credibility to by his frequent references to as the Word of God.

Therefore these OT books were selected by the Jews without the benefit of a council to debate each books. While there were some disagreements at times the decision was never in the hands of any select committee. In AD 90 in Jamnia a council met and the canon of the OT was on its agenda. This council basically only ratified the books that the Jews had accepted 500 years earlier. These books had already proven themselves as authentic.

I believe God himself is the true author of both the OT and the NT. He carefully chose human authors to write down his message for us. He used diff men from all backgrounds, experiences and personalities. He spoke his words to them and thru them to us via the Holy Spirit. He used their individuality to express his message to us and he left nothing out. There is nothing missing from the word of God.

When I meet people that scoff or tell me they've not read it I challenge them to give it one year of their life. What's one year? Take one year, read it daily, inspect it, meditate on it, ask God (if he's really there) to reveal himself. Most of us will live until we're 70 or so. If we find it's not what it's claimed to be, then you can with great assurance say with certainly it's not inspired. Otherwise, you're only voicing an opinion on a book you've not researched for yourself. It's a win-win. If the truths in there are not truths at all, then you have lost nothing. If the truths in there are indeed life giving truths, and you recognize it as so, you have gained eternity with God. So what's a year in comparison to all eternity? Isn't it worth it to at least check it out?

I wanted to go into the NT canon but maybe next time.


"The Bible is worth all the other books which have ever been printed." Patrick Henry

"I gleaned more practical psychology and psychiatry from the bible than all other books." George W. Crane

"I thoroughly believe in a unviersity education for both ment and women; but I believe a knowledge of the Bible without a college course is more valuable than a college course without the Bible." William Lyons Phelps





Comments (Page 2)
7 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Mar 07, 2007
another thought Lula.....

Christ always always when he quoted from the OT prophets or law first said he was quoting from them...."thus says the prophet" or "it is written" Didn't he do that with Satan in his temptation repeatedly? "It is written...." and he was quoting directly from Moses' book Deut. You're not showing me that with your quotes. It's vague at best.

you can take any quote and make them fit. I bet I could take quotes from the internet and say they are quoting scripture because it may fit...but in all reality they never intended to be.

My guess from reading what you quoted from Wisdom and Tobias tho would be they quoted from the OT prophets. Like I said before, although I do not think those books are inspired they are not bad books. Some of them have very good things to say and some have great historical content. But they were never meant to be put with the other 66 books because they don't fit the criteria. They were not able to stand the test put to them.






on Mar 07, 2007
those of the Calvary breed . . .


and what breed is that?

on Mar 07, 2007
My two cents on the apocrypha (though neither of you women care, because you both think I'm going to hell). From the Lord himself.

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
on Mar 07, 2007
and SC you are quoting from.....?????
on Mar 07, 2007
and what breed is that?


As in the Calvary churches. Their pastors are some of the most vitriolic, rotten people I've ever met . . .

and SC you are quoting from.....?????


Why, the Lord of course.














(In the Doctrine and Covenants. Okay, go ahead, lambaste my religion, tell me I'm going to hell.)
on Mar 07, 2007
Their pastors are some of the most vitriolic, rotten people I've ever met . . .


Really? Why is that? What have they done? I've met one that was pretty bad myself but he was asked to leave the organization. They basically pulled him out from their group.

As far as I know the Calvery church (under Chuck Smith) is pretty good. I'm not an expert on their particular beliefs but from what I do know, I believe their doctrine sound.

Why, the Lord of course.


you say with a smile........which Lord are we talking about?

(In the Doctrine and Covenants. Okay, go ahead, lambaste my religion, tell me I'm going to hell.)


no, I wouldn't do that. I've been there and you know that. I don't believe their doctrine is sound and you know that too. As far as hell? Well that's between you and God.

I don't adhere or recognize any other book than the bible. So the Doctrine and Covenants would be no diff to me than the books of Ellen White, Bertrand Russell, Emanuel Swedenborg or the Quran. And I think you know that as well.



on Mar 07, 2007
Why is that? What have they done? I've met one that was pretty bad myself but he was asked to leave the organization. They basically pulled him out from their group.


The pastor of the Calvary in Albuquerque spoke poorly of any other church every sunday. What was his name again? I'd have to go look. One time, he verbally accosted me in the middle of Wal-Mart, simply because I was a missionary for the LDS church. He told me, to my face, in front of a dozen or so people, that I was an emissary of the devil and that I was going to hell.

And that's been my experience with every Calvary pastor. Albuquerque, Farmington NM, Santa Fe, Ogden UT. That vitriol simply drips from their lips. You might think their doctrine is sound, but their hearts are full of the devil's bile.
on Mar 07, 2007
I want to be a Mormon.


It's certainly fun when people who act all pious tell you that sort of thing to your face.

I just laughed at him.
on Mar 07, 2007
I'm sorry to hear that SC but please don't lump them all in together. There are renegades in all religious organizations. I like the Baptist Group be it Independent or Southern (for the most part) but yet we have the Westboro Baptist Church (probably Independent) giving a bad name to all the Baptists out there. I'm sure you can find this as well even in the Mormon faith....yes?

And you're right SC doctrine is nothing without a heart.
on Mar 07, 2007
I don't mean to lump them all together . . . but when EVERY experience you have with a church is negative . . . it's a relatively good assessment. Their members were some of the least "Christian" people I'd ever met as well. They were the ones that made me say, "Man, I'm glad you say Mormons aren't Christians 'cuz I'd rather go to hell than be stuck in heaven with you and your hypocrisy."
on Mar 07, 2007
KFC---Please read the following from a Senior Protestant pastor about what he thinks of the value of using Greek and the translation and quotes from the NT using the OT Septuagint.


The Value of New Testament Greek in Ministry
An Informal Talk by Timothy B. Savage, Th.M., Ph.D., Senior Pastor of Camelback Bible Church - March 1999
(The following information was presented during an informal talk with Dr. Tim Savage. These paragraphs are the main points of that talk, reconstructed from my notes. This information is used by permission from the speaker.)

The Value of Using Greek as a Minister

He feels that to be a pastor is a great responsibility and privilege – a pastor has an enormously important challenge: to convey the word of God, which is the most important thing ever fallen on human ears. Preaching is a monologue, not a dialog, and God promises to bless it. "I will communicate it best when I see clearly." Greek is a gloriously descriptive language, a means to a glorious end. Our first love is the Lord Jesus Christ, not Greek – it is a means to know Him.

Greek it is a descriptive language and has much clarity as opposed to English.
This is because of things like noun declensions and suffixes-specifically the genitive and dative cases have so many rich interpretations.
And biblical authors exploit the riches in verb inflections.
Greek word order is important for showing emphasis but we miss this in the English language and translations.
When we read Greek we are forced to concentrate and think carefully about what we are reading. When we read in English we may miss what a paragraph is saying.
Because of the value of the Septuagint (LXX), Greek is equally important for the study of the Old Testament.
Eight or nine times out of ten, Paul’s references to the Old Testament were closer to the LXX than to the Hebrew.

For instance when he quotes the O.T. in 2 Corinthians 4:6 and says, "out of darkness light shall shine," most people would think that he is quoting Genesis chapter one. But in Genesis it is a totally different construction in the Greek LXX. The only place the O.T. uses these words is in Isaiah 9:2, referring to the light of the Messiah. (Isaiah has a theology of ‘light’ and ‘glory’.) In Isaiah we find the same paradoxes of ‘light’ and ‘darkness’, and ‘glory’ and ‘shame’. This is the same as Paul in Corinthians.
The meaning of languages and the study of linguistics. Meaning is found instinctively in languages. But how do we distill the meaning?
Sadly, in our past we say that we arrive at meaning based on our own interpretation, not the meaning inherent in the language. It has become too subjective.
We have evacuated texts of their meaning, so that as a society we are confused, lost in a sea of meaninglessness. We assert that, "Only I can decide the truth."
But, we can find meaning in texts, especially in God’s text. When we jettison that, we are lost as a society.
on Mar 07, 2007
Their members were some of the least "Christian" people I'd ever met as well.


well that's normal. It usually works that way. The Pastor is the example for his flock. If he's not behaving in a Christian way, he's apt to keep those that are more like him than not. Otherwise the flock would be getting together and going to the head of the denomination which is what happened here.

Lula.....I absolutely agree with what you put up in your last posting. I actually am in the GK almost daily. I teach it as I teach the scriptures. Right now I'm teaching Col 1 and these GK words I've covered already:

Syndoulos=fellow servant
gnosis=knowledge
hikanoo=made us meet
eikon=icon
proteuo=preeminence
pleroma=fulness
katoikeo=reconcile
apokatallasso=reconcile

and that gets me only to v22. Tonight I learned three new Hebrew words in Genesis 34:2 that I didn't know previously but it made it very clear that Dinah was forcibly raped in Gen 34. Only using the Hebrew in Gen were we able to see it wasn't consensual. In the English it could have been seen that way.

on Mar 08, 2007
KFC, I think one point that we should agree is that the whole idea of Jesus and the Apostles,especially St.Paul, quoting from the OT was to use the closest interpretation of what they were trying to teach at the moment of their teaching.

What OT canon does the New Testament quote most often? Not the Hebrew Canon, since the majority of the New Testament was composed in Greek. The Scripture used for most Scripture quotations in the New Testament is the same used by the Ethiopian Jews mentioned above and the same used by Christians in the earliest centuries of the Church -- it's the Septuagint.

One of the reasons that the Septuagint is of value is that expresses the opinions of the Jewish people in the times prior to Christ, during an age where later opinions of him could not have biased their writings or thoughts with respect to Christian issues. In some cases also, it may well reflect an earlier text than the present Hebrew.

Check this one out. Isaiah 7:14 became a controversial verse for Jews and Christians practically from the start -- but it reflects a pre-Christian Jewish interpretation of the admittedly more vague Hebrew text. The Septuagint used the word "virgin" in its translation, and after Christians came on the scene and used this word as prophetic of the type of birth Christ it became an embarrassment to the Jews.

What this verse said about the virgin birth of the Messiah, together with the fact that the Septuagint was the version quoted by the authors of the New Testament, combined with its widespread use before and after the time of Christ caused many to think that the LXX itself was inspired. Another strong reason that many believed in the Septuagint inspiration was that a legend sprang up about its composition -- that the books were translated independently by 72 scholars and that they arrived at, word for word, the identical translation.

In any event, one must recognize that at the time the New Testament was written the Septuagint was in wide use and was widely respected by the authors of the New Testament and the Jewish people living at that time -- otherwise the New Testament writers would not have made use of it.

Here are some other quotes from the NT, the Greek Septuagint, and the Hebrew. Again, as far as I can tell, the Septuagint is used for more precise interpretation of whatever the Apostle or evangelist was teaching. Also, this comes in very handy for a person like me who has no Greek concordance or references.

New Testament (NT)
Septuagint (SEPT)
Masoretic Hebrew (HEB)

NT---Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us). SEPT.---Isaiah 7:14 behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.
HEB---Isaiah 7:14 Behold, a virgin* shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel
-----------------------------------------
NT---Matthew 2:6 And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
SEPT.---Micah 5:2 And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel;
HEB.--Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel;
------------------------------------------------
NT---Matthew 2:15 Out of Egypt have I called my son.
SEPT.----Hosea 11:1 and out of Egypt have I called his children. HEB.---Hosea 11:1 and called my son out of Egypt.
-----------------------------------------------------
NT---Matthew 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted because they are not.
SEPT.---Jeremiah 38:15 A voice was heard in Rama, of lamentation, and of weeping, and wailing; Rachel would not cease weeping for her children, because they are not.
HEB.---Jeremiah 31:15 A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.
-----------------------------------------------------
NT---Matthew 3:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
NT---Mark 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
NT---Luke 3:4-6 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways [shall be] made smooth; And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
NT---John 1:23 He said, I [am] the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
SEPT---Isaiah 40:3-5 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low: and all the crooked ways shall become straight, and the rough places plains. And the glory of the Lord shall appear, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God: for the Lord has spoken it.
HEB---Isaiah 40:3-5 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see [it] together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken [it].
on Mar 08, 2007
What OT canon does the New Testament quote most often? Not the Hebrew Canon, since the majority of the New Testament was composed in Greek. The Scripture used for most Scripture quotations in the New Testament is the same used by the Ethiopian Jews mentioned above and the same used by Christians in the earliest centuries of the Church -- it's the Septuagint.


It doesn't matter Lula. That's what I'm trying to tell you. The OT in Gk or in Hebrew says the same thing. It was changed to GK for more readability during the time of the GK emphire. The NT writers were quoting from the OT whether it be the GK Septuagint or not. They NEVER quoted from the Aprocrypha. You have yet to show me where one NT quote comes out of the Apocrypah.

So again I have no problem with the GK Septuagint and am wondering why you are so pushing it here. We are in agreement. So you don't have to convince me on this. I'm already with ya. Just show me where Christ, Peter, Paul or any other NT writers quoted from the Apocrypha which is what we started discussing.
on Mar 08, 2007
Reply • Quote (Citizen)little-whipMarch


A text taken out of context is nothing more than a pretext.
7 Pages1 2 3 4  Last