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 5)
7 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7 
on Mar 14, 2007
"no, he doesn't require it. We have our own English translation that is fine. But for those that want to go a bit deeper to understand exactly what is being taught, it's beneficial.


And yet, we have hundreds of years of people in one denomination or another saying women must be silent, etc. An all-powerful God who intended an inerrant book, and who could get it put together in such a way, and yet walked off from it before the majority of the world read it? I find that odd...
on Mar 14, 2007
find that odd...


well chalk it up to human nature and the strong pull of sin. Again it started right in the garden. We want to go our own way and look for those that will tickle our ears to help us get there.

People are lacking in biblical literacy today. It's much easier to believe what they are being told than to find out for oneself. Someday, tho we stand before almighty God with nobody but ourselves to blame for how we treated his word. I believe if people truly searched out the scriptures all this wouldn't be happening. You can see the warning to the 7 churches in Revelation 1-3 about this...."don't let them in."

Keep in mind that Satan was a great quoter of scripture himself. But you can be sure he always twisted it to his advantage. Should God not have left it behind for us knowing that it would be ill used?




on Mar 14, 2007
[quote]"1 Timothy 2:11-12 (King James Version)

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.[/quote


Verse 8 is more concerned with the gesture of raising of the hands at prayer and St.Paul was teaching about how external stances adopted during prayer should reflect one's inner attitude. Whatever gestures one does in and of itself isn't pleasing to God, what is pleasing is the sign of respect where man humbles himself interiorily. Of men, St.Paul cautions not to approach prayer with earthly ambitions and women need to be sure vanity doesn't creep in.

Verses 9 & 10 are St. Paul's remarks how what he has previously stated about men applies to women. For these things, they are put on the same level, however, in the liturgy of the synagogue, only men were allowed to lead the prayers. Women were kept in an area apart and had no active role whatsoever. St.Paul also teaches that for their attendence at liturgical acts (the early form of the Mass), he offers suggestions about proper dress and grooming similiar to what St.Peter says in his first letter. The essence of these guidelines remain unchanged through today: Christian women should dress with an elegance that reflects modesty appropriate to devout Christianity.

Verses 11-14 has St.Paul giving general regulations for liturgical assemblies. The prohibition of permitting no woman to teach is not an absolute one; it refers only to public acts of worship. In order to make it clear that he is not just giving a personal opinion, he sets the prohibition into context of the divine plan of Creation and biblical account of the Fall. His arguments are not sociological ones, not confined to a particular culture, They are theological arguments. St.Paul spoke vigourously about the basic equality of man and woman in Gal. 3:28 and certain women helped him spread the gospel. What he is saying is simply this. The essential equality of man and woman does not mean that they have identical roles in the Chruch 1Cor.14:33-35. Also, although woman are forbidden to teach in a public, official setting, (role of heirarchy) they can and should teach in the context of religious education and family life.

Verse 15 has St.Paul stressing that marriage is a holy calling and some heretics were arguing the contrary 1Tim.4:3. Elsewhere, St.Paul speaks of the excellence of virginity. 1Cor.7:25-38.
Bottom line: these teachings are to be applied to daily life. What St.Paul says here, while it should be interpreted in the light of condition at the time, these teachings, nonetheless, have perennial value.
on Mar 14, 2007
"People are lacking in biblical literacy today."


Literacy isn't a requirement for salvation, is it? Odd that God would put the souls of men in the hands of other men when He could just do it himself...

"Keep in mind that Satan was a great quoter of scripture himself. But you can be sure he always twisted it to his advantage. Should God not have left it behind for us knowing that it would be ill used?"


Obviously God wants Satan to do everything that Satan does according to your book, because not only does God allow it, He invites it. Granted, I don't believe such mythologies for an instant, but you're the one that believes that stuff...

...so, I guess you really can't predict what God might do to set pitfalls and traps for us to fall into, if you believe in that kind of a god.
on Mar 14, 2007
"Bottom line: these teachings are to be applied to daily life. What St.Paul says here, while it should be interpreted in the light of condition at the time, these teachings, nonetheless, have perennial value."


As does the copy of Aurelius' Meditations I have on my desk. That doesn't mean it was intended to be an inerrant spiritual guide for people 2000 years later. To be honest, not even the Bible claims that...
on Mar 15, 2007
Literacy isn't a requirement for salvation, is it? Odd that God would put the souls of men in the hands of other men when He could just do it himself...


well it's an important part of it. But no, you can hear the gospel, accept it and be saved. The thief on the cross wasn't very literate I'm sure. Neither were the fishermen at the first I'm sure.

Is odd your new favorite word? Everything seems odd to you Baker....lol.

God ALWAYS works thru people. Fist thru the Prophets and then the Apostles and then they sent us out as apostles (little a) which means sent out ones.

...so, I guess you really can't predict what God might do to set pitfalls and traps for us to fall into


no Satan sets the traps, God pulls us out. Check out the life of Joseph if you want to talk the pits. God is in the search and rescue business. It's Satan that's into the destruction business.

"But as for you you thought evil against me, but God meant it to good, to bring to pass as it is this day to save much people alive."

God takes the bad in our lives and can turn it around for good.

Tragedy and hardships that come into our lives can either draw us closer to God or away from him. The same SUN (SON) that melts wax, hardens clay.

on Mar 16, 2007
As does the copy of Aurelius' Meditations I have on my desk. That doesn't mean it was intended to be an inerrant spiritual guide for people 2000 years later. To be honest, not even the Bible claims that...


I also read daily Lenten meditations. They are meant for a different purpose than that of the Holy Bible. The Bible was intended to be and is an inerrant spiritual guide and has other good uses as well. The Chruch is a living society and the Bible greatly influences theology, the liturgy (the Pope has ordered some changes be made over the next couple of years {not fast enough to suit me!} in which some of the prayers of the Mass will fall in line more closely with the Latin text), and even catechetics. Of course, all of the doctrinal and moral teachings are based either explicitly or implicitly on the Catholic version.

So, the 73 Books of the Canon is the Chruch's official list of sacred writings all written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible contains divine revelation and in conjunction with sacred Tradition and teaching authority of the Chruch constitute the rule of Catholic Faith. The Canon was fixed and determined by Tradition and teaching authority of the Church as far back as the Council of Rome around 382. If your into such things, the putting together of it is a remarkable read in and of itself. Of course, I believe the Church is the maker and official interpreter of the Bible....I imagine, no, I'm sure, KFC would disagree.

The Bible only principle that sprang out of the Protestant Revolution is wrong. The Bible isn't intended to be a sole rule of faith. Instead, it's intended for instruction, meditation, spriitual reading, encouragement, devotion and also serves as proof and testimony of the Church's doctrines and divine authority as I have addressed so often. As a complete and exclusive guide to heaven in the hands of every person, though, can never be. That just doesn't make sense.

That doesn't mean it was intended to be an inerrant spiritual guide for people 2000 years later. To be honest, not even the Bible claims that...


Actually, in 2Tim.3:16-17 we read, "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." Perhaps, KFC can come up with others.

In 1Tim. 3:15, the Bible itself calls the Chruch and not it the "pillar and ground of the truth". And I'll be quick to say that this passage doesn't diminish the BIble, it just meant that the authority of the Church was to be emphasized. Another thing is that the idea of the Scripture's authority existing apart from the authority of the teaching Church is utterly foreign to the early Chruch and was so for 1500 years before the printing press made Bible more easily available.
on Mar 16, 2007
"Actually, in 2Tim.3:16-17 we read, "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." Perhaps, KFC can come up with others."


Hrm, given the Bible didn't exist when that was written, I find it odd that it could be referring to it. Much less the translations. When Paul was talking about "scripture", you really think he was referring to his own letters to the churches?
on Mar 16, 2007
Hrm, given the Bible didn't exist when that was written, I find it odd that it could be referring to it.


It's not odd at all. The bible didn't exist as a bound book with all the books put together but the scriptures were always considered inspired.

Jesus often refered back to the "scriptures."

"Have you not read this SCRIPTURE; "The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner." Mark 12:10

"I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and you took me not; but the SCRIPTURES must be fulfilled." Mark 14:49

"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came and the SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN." John 10:35

Jesus himself said scripture cannot be broken.

Peter put Paul's writings on par with the other "scriptures"

"As also in all HIS (speaking of Paul) epistles speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrestle as they do also the other SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 2:16

And of course we have Paul write what Lula mentioned above. Just because they were not formally bound together in one book didn't make them any less inspired. All the church did was recognize these inspired books and put them together in one book that we now recognize as our bible.

on Mar 16, 2007
Jesus was not speaking about Paul's writings, because Paul hadn't written them yet. The fact that they weren't bound together means you have no clue, whatsoever, as to what Paul meant by "scriptures". As has been shown, they cite work in the NT that we consider apocryphal.

We don't consider the book of Enoch to be scripture, but many early church fathers did. Others believed that Pauls letters weren't inspired scripture. Others believed that letters by other early church leaders were scripture; Clement, if I recall correctly. So the idea that you can say that Paul said "scripture" and meant the exact words you hold in your hand is, frankly, silly.

You toss a bunch of passages that use the word "scripture", ignoring the fact that you HAVE NO CLUE if you and Paul, or even Jesus, are talking about the same works.

on Mar 16, 2007
I know that you are going to say that Jesus can see into the future. Before you do, I'd like to know how, if we can retroactively apply things to broad terms like "scripture", why do you deny the Mormons that right? You can say that Jesus looked into the future and saw the KJV, but He didn't see the Book of Mormon?

They say he was talking about their book when he said "Scriptures". When you deal with post-dating prophecy, you have to deal with the fact that your deus ex mechina solution is also usable to any degree, by any one. For that matter, Muslims believe that Jesus also was a prophet of their religion.

Do you really think that that narrow set of literature is so obviously to everyone what Jesus was talking about? If so, a lot of people aren't seeing the obvious. God would let them all be so misled? Why?
on Mar 16, 2007
The fact that they weren't bound together means you have no clue, whatsoever, as to what Paul meant by "scriptures".


I would assume that Paul was also talking OT (like Jesus)as he and the other Apostles pointed to them in their own writings.

The church fathers put the Apostle's writings alongside the OT as sacred scripture. That was a huge criteria for the NT canon. Each and every book either had to be written by an Apostle or closely associated with one like Luke.

We don't consider the book of Enoch to be scripture, but many early church fathers did.


who? I gave a list around here somewhere of the ones that didn't. Who are you thinking of? Jerome didn't even buy the Apocrypha, forget about the book of
Enoch.

You toss a bunch of passages that use the word "scripture", ignoring the fact that you HAVE NO CLUE if you and Paul, or even Jesus, are talking about the same works.


not really because quite often they quoted from the same books they considerd scripture. Christ quoted as I've said before from just about every OT book. He even verified the whole OT with one line, the line about the first and last murder in the OT. From Abel to Zacharaus he said.






on Mar 16, 2007
I know that you are going to say that Jesus can see into the future.


nope, wasn't even going in that direction. But that doesn't mean he can't. Of course I know he can. But when Jesus was talking scriptures, he was talking the OT scriptures already acessible to them.

Are you familiar with Ezra? Check out Chap 8.

It was after the Babylonian captivity and the people are gathering to hear the scriptures. We see Ezra standing on a pulpit of wood (first mention), we see Ezra opening the "book". We see the people stand up (in reverence) and we see him preaching from it. We see the formula for teaching today. We see it says in v8:

"So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly and gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading."

These are the same scriptures that Jesus was referring.

God would let them all be so misled? Why?


It's not God who is misleading them. It's Satan. Remember he's the prince of darkness. The scriptures are filled with warnings. Look at the letters to the seven churches in Rev 1-3. Each letter mentions the praises and condemnations of those seven churches. You keep seeing the warning "don't let them in. Don't let them in. Oh, you let them in." It's the world creeping into the church.

The world is filled with darkness. We think it's not but it's totally dark in a spiritual sense.

"For , behold the darkness shall cover the earth and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon you and his glory shall be seen upon you. And the Gentiles shall come to your light and kings to the brightness of your rising." Isa 60:2

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Jesus.

It's only obvious for those who are in the light. It's not for those still in the dark.







on Mar 16, 2007
Jesus was not speaking about Paul's writings, because Paul hadn't written them yet. The fact that they weren't bound together means you have no clue, whatsoever, as to what Paul meant by "scriptures". As has been shown, they cite work in the NT that we consider apocryphal.


In this case, Both Jesus and St.Paul were speaking about the OT scriptures. It could have been the Hebrew Scriptures or the Septuagint that were both around, just not bound and looking like the one on your desk. He could have been referring to the first 5 books, or the Pentateuch, the historical books, the Wisdom books, Job, Proverbs, Psalms or the Prophets books e.g. Isaias, Jeremiah, etc.

Just because a verse or two was cited from books that didn't make the inspired canonical list, doesn't in any way discount the inspired book that cited it. Just the fact that the Apostle quoted from the books points that the part they quoted was correct and without error.

We can thank the various Catholic Councils from 382 on, for deciding which books would make up the NT canon.


on Mar 16, 2007
"Just because a verse or two was cited from books that didn't make the inspired canonical list, doesn't in any way discount the inspired book that cited it. Just the fact that the Apostle quoted from the books points that the part they quoted was correct and without error."


And just because people who never met Jesus decided 300 years later what THEY thought "scripture" means doesn't mean that it was the same thing Jesus or Paul or anyone else at the time had in mind.

"who? I gave a list around here somewhere of the ones that didn't. Who are you thinking of? Jerome didn't even buy the Apocrypha, forget about the book of
Enoch. "


Clement, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and others. Clement was the one that accused the Jews of rejecting it because it lent credence to Christ through its prophesy. If I am not mistake Tertullian actually called it "Holy Scripture", but I'll have to check to find a citation.
7 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7