/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

First, follow the Bible. Then you will find fellow believers of the faith and become a church member according to what Christ commands you in his word. There is only one Bible and one right answer.

This is of course assuming your goal is one of obedience to the Scripture of God. If you just want a political or social club, like someone with a lot of worldly sway and political power, that is and always has been outside the scope of this.

>>855632

Do you not understand that Catholicism itself began as a LARP and always has been? During the end of the last Roman persecution this group proved themselves to have no part of the church by going along with the destruction of the Scripture. This splinter sect was later officially founded as (Roman) Catholicism by the Roman Emperor with him as its head in 313 AD (see the history of the council of Arles, A.D. 314 for more on this).

Only a church that aligns with the primitive, first-century early church and holds the apostles' writings as inspired Scripture and will not create its own traditions of men should be under consideration here.

As Paul wrote in Colossians 2:8–

>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Likewise, the Lord Jesus told us that He is with us until the end of the world, that the church is built on Christ and that the gates of hell shall never prevail against His church. And we got our Bible from successive generations of believing Christians, not Catholicism. This sect has added apocrypha and other changes to the inspired books, including changes to both the New Testament and the Old which we do not accept.

However, some protestant sects, which split out from Rome and brought along many of their manmade traditions, have begun to accept these changes, which also appear in the modern (non-KJV) versions. Glad to have the opportunity to make that clear.

>>855668

>And we got our Bible from successive generations of believing Christians, not Catholicism

You got your Bible from successive generations of believing Christians within Catholicism.

>>855669

2 Peter 3:16 is a good verse to describe the Douay Rheims. They did wrest the scriptures unto their own destruction. As God said in Revelation, 'if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.'

>You got your Bible from successive generations of believing Christians within Catholicism.

They added apocrypha and made other changes to the Scripture. Don't compare the Holy Bible with the corruptions of these more modern versions. Thanks for your response and hope that made it clear, if it was not already.

>>855671

The original Bible had the Apocrypha because the Catholic Church originally compiled it that way. Your bible is incomplete because Martin Luther removed the Apocrypha. People like him and you are who 2 Peter 3:16 is referring to. Your Bible is a bastardized shadow of ours.

Also, who were these successive generations of baptist "christians" you speak of? They are nowhere in the annals of history and there is no archeological evidence to support their existence. They are nothing more than figments of you imagination. Your church was started by John Smyth in 1609, not Jesus.

>>855711

>Your Bible is a bastardized shadow of ours.

Look, it has long been proven that the Vulgate editions that immediately preceded the 1590 Sixtine and 1592 Clementine versions is inaccurate to the original Greek and Hebrew. Are you claiming that the Latin version existed first?

Or are you saying, as the leadership of Catholicism often implies, that there are actually multiple versions that are all true at the same time, despite their differences and contradictions? Because if so, then that automatically puts you in the camp of modernists along with them.

>Your church was started by John Smyth in 1609

It all begins with Jesus. That is where the New Testament comes from, as well as the Old seeing as He is Lord and inspired all Scripture. Scripture is what I follow and what my church follows, not later manmade traditions like all sectarians do. The Lord Jesus Christ said that he is with us until the end of the world. The Lord Jesus also said that He would build His church upon Christ and promised that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it. Look at the above chart for proof that this is what I believe— >>855668

Thanks for posting.

>>855714

I know what you mean, but just because someone comes from a certain place doesn't mean they all think alike. So I wouldn't necessarily assume that is what people there believe now. The church may have started in Jerusalem, but that doesn't mean we follow whoever happens to be in control of it now. Just because Jerusalem was taken over by a false religion doesn't mean anything regarding the faith. It just means the inhabitants of that place are not godly or Biblical.

>>855152

High Church Presbyterianism + Boehmian Theosophy

>>855723

I see that the church lives rent free.

>>855733

Of course they do. We all "have" the apocrypha, in the sense that it still exists. But it has consistently been designated as not inspired or God-breathed Scripture via the identification which is correctly given it as "apocrypha," (the most literal translation from the Greek meaning "put out of sight.") See this definition of the word from the year 1755.

>>855753

The septuagint we have today was written by Origen after the New Testament. The original one was probably only a translation of the five books of Moses, as that is what the historians originally say about it. Origen could easily have put those Greek quotes into his version of the Sept. that was written after the New Testament. All are agreed that he made modifications to it.

>and everybody else is going to hell

If you reject the word of God, you will be judged according to your works. Like it is written in Hebrews 2:3-4,

"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?"

This is true even if you were born into a certain country, family or church. One must personally be a believer in order to be saved.

>Ignores all church councils

There was a council in Carthage around the year 200 that required a profession of faith to take place before every baptism. This was held by Agrippinus at that time. Later on, there was a schism by Catholics over this who wanted to do infant baptisms and were enraged that the church didn't accept their false and invalid baptisms. They wanted everyone to join in their debauchery with them. They also wanted to use the state (Constantine) to destroy their enemies on this account, as well as erase the shame from the fact that they had sinned by turning over the Scriptures to be burned until Constantine showed up. It looks like they didn't succeed to destroy either our church or the Scriptures though. Christ was correct, and He is with us until the very end of the world (Matth. 28:20). "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

>>855756

Anonymous, please remain calm. Remember what the apostle Paul said, "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth". Your railing accusations are not really doing much. Here are two sources I was able to find in five minutes supporting my claim. The first one is from the Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject. So this is not just my idea. It seems like later people have created their own versions, which Origen ultimately mashed together in the 3rd century AD sometime after the New Testament was already written, and that has come down to us today through the codex vaticanus, codex sinaiticus, and codex alexandrinus, all of which post-dating Origen.

But let's get into some of the changes that this version of the septuagint contains: In Genesis 46:27, the LXX of Origen's Hexapla reads, "75," but the Biblical Hebrew version says "70."

—

The interesting thing about this is that the only place in the Bible where 75 persons is actually mentioned in the original texts of the Bible is in the New Testament, in Acts 7:14. It is clear that someone took the number 75 from Acts and placed it in their Greek translation of Genesis in order to make it match. The problem is that this creates a contradiction. Because Joseph didn't invite himself to Egypt (as it says in Acts 7:14), but Joseph is written in the list of people in Genesis 46 nonetheless. Because these are two distinct lists of people. In actuality, the list of 70 people in Genesis includes Joseph, but the group of 75 people mentioned by St. Stephen in Acts 7 does not include Joseph or his two sons, but it does include the wives of the patriarchs, thus bringing the number up to 75. By clumsily trying to change Genesis 46:27 to match Acts 7:14, Origen or someone before him accidentally created a contradiction in the text. Not only that, but they changed Exodus 1:5 in the same way to say 75, proving it was not a mere accident. But the final proof that the septuagint is faulty is the fact that Deuteronomy 10:22 correctly says 70 in both the Hebrew as well as the Septuagint! – Origen must have forgotten to change Deuteronomy 10:22 as he had changed Exodus 1:5 and Genesis 46:27, because it still says seventy in the Greek version. If you don't believe me, check for yourself. This proves that the Greek version was altered to match Acts 7:14, and that the editors of the version of the Septuagint that reaches us today likely had access to the New Testament.

Not only that, but in Genesis 5 there are contradictions in the same version of the Septuagint, where Methuselah is made to outlive the flood by 14 years through the changing of the ages and years of giving birth around.

—

I could go on with other changes, such as deleting one eighth of the book of Jeremiah and other things wrong with this copy of the LXX. But the main thing that should be said is that there is no way that a translation of a text that was originally Hebrew can be a better source to use than the original Hebrew itself. If we have the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament as it was given to Moses, and the rest of the prophets, why on earth would we default to using anything else?

>>855767

Are you that one poster that the owner decided to banish from this board a number of months ago for his inability to listen or adhere to the basic standards of conduct that every follower of Christ should have no problem adhering to? If so, long time no see. It looks like you made it almost three months.

>Look at all this kiked handwaving

More like facts, and I don't see you with any inkling of a response to them. I would welcome actual discussion on whether or not any of the things I said was accurate. But you seem to concede that what I said was accurate since you couldn't point out anything wrong with it.

So, here is some more information regarding Origen's copy of the Septuagint.

>Missing sections from Jeremiah (1844 LXX edition used by Brenton):

7:1

8:10b-13a

10:6-9a, 9c-10

11:7-8

17:1-5a

25:13b-14

27:1, 7, 12b-13, 20b-21

29:16-20

30:10-11, 22

33:14-26 (half of entire chapter)

39:4-13

46:26

48:44b-47

49:6

51:44b-49a

52:2-3, 15, 27b-30

>Verses removed and replaced w/ different reading:

27:17

46:1

>Additional verses removed in the 1935 edition LXX:

2:1

27:17

30:15

46:1

In total, about 2700 words are removed from the LXX version of Jeremiah, representing about 1/8 of the book. In Jeremiah 37:1, the name "Coniah the son of Jehoiakim" is also replaced with "Jehoiakim." But this is inaccurate because it makes Zedekiah the immediate successor to Jehoiakim, when it is known that Coniah (aka Jehoiachin or Jeconiah) ruled between these two kings for three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9).

If you'd like me to point out some other inaccuracies and mistakes, such as where messianic prophecy was removed in the book of Jeremiah and elsewhere in Origen's copy, I'd be glad to. The second half of Jeremiah 33 is gone from Origen's rescension, including this verse:

>Jeremiah 33:15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.

Notice what Jeremiah says in this verse which is removed from the Septuagint. The branch of righteousness will grow up unto David. This is obviously referring to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Yet this reference is removed by the Septuagint. There are more examples, for instance in Psalm 2:12 if we would like to continue this discussion.

>to distract from the fact that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint throughout the New Testament.

If I wrote a book that had sections of the Old Testament in it as quoted by the apostles, does that mean they read my book, or did I copy it from the New Testament? The apostles quoted indirectly from the Old Testament in some places, and then Origen copied their quotation, verbatum, into his Greek translation called the LXX centuries after the fact. There's no particular reason to think otherwise. That doesn't mean that anyone before Origen read the translation. It just means Origen put it there like that — or possibly someone whom Origen copied.

>If it was good enough for Jesus and the apostles and the authors of the New Testament and the earliest Christians, it's good enough for me.

So now you're just staight up bearing false witness without any providing evidence. I would like to believe you if you did have evidence, but so far no reason has been presented for why. There is no need to resort to this level of un-Christlike dialogue either.

>Listen, schlomo, your jew tricks might work on protestants

Yet you want us to use a translation that was, according to the original story, produced by a bunch of apostate Jews in Egypt, and abandon the original version? The Roman Catholic crowd has a lot of judaized elements compared to my local, strictly Bible-believing church. I'm not so sure of any reason I should believe any of this. It's pretty obvious what the authentic version is. It is the one that is in the original languages, doesn't delete 1/8 of the book of Jeremiah and have basic internal counting errors such as that in [Genesis 5] of the hexaplar Septuagint, where Methuselah lives 14 years after the flood.

>but they aren't going to fly with me.

Oh, so pride is your modus operandi. I would instead prefer to honor our Lord Jesus Christ far above myself.

<But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. - Jeremiah 9:24

Like I said >>855716 The Lord Jesus Christ said that he is with us until the end of the world. Christ the Lord also said that He would build His church upon Christ, and promised that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it. So no deceptions or false witnesses are going to turn me away from the truth of God's eternal word. Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are His judgments - Amen.

>>855772

>When I open my Bible to the New Testament and read a passage from someone quoting Old Testament scripture, I can flip to the Old Testament and read the scripture quoted because my Bible is complete.

So can everyone that has the KJV. There are zero examples of this being the case otherwise.

For instance, it is often misattributed that the KJV has problems with the following six places in the New Testament:

— Psalm 40:6 and Hebrews 10:5

— Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23

— Deuteronomy 32:43 and Hebrews 1:6

— Isaiah 61:1 and Luke 4:18

— Psalm 22:16

— Isaiah 42:4 and Matthew 12:21

But actually, all six of these can be shown to exist in the standard, 1611 or 1769 KJV Old Testament. The second and fifth cases are immediate: the correct translation is already there, but modern scholars have tried to change the translation of Hebrew words incorrectly, thus causing confusion in some more modern Bible versions.

—

The first case with Hebrews 10:5 is not a problem because "opening of the ear" is already associated with the formation of the body, see Isaiah 48:8, "Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb."

The third reference is not required to be in Deuteronomy. It is actually found in Psalm 148:2. This makes sense because the verse before Hebrews 1:6 is a quote of Psalm 2:7, while the verse after it is a quote of Psalm 104:4. Making it a quotation of Psalm 148:2 actually makes more sense.

The fourth example is not an issue either, because when Isaiah 61:1-2 is combined with Isaiah 42:7, the whole quote is there. On the contrary, if the modern Septuagint version of Isaiah is used, the phrase "the opening of the prison to them that are bound," is now missing (but it is found in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61:1), nor can it be found by going elsewhere in Isaiah. So the Septuagint actually does worse in matching the New Testament quote here.

Likewise, Matthew 12:17-21 is clearly a combined quote of two parts of Isaiah. That is why verse 21 starts with "And," which also corresponds with the fact that either version of Isaiah contains extra text past the end of Isaiah 42:3 that is not contained in the quotation of Matthew 12. Specifically, the part where it says, "He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law." That's not in Matthew 12. So Matthew 12:20 must contain the end of the first part of quotation, and Matthew 12:21 is from another section of Isaiah, which could be any of the following:

Isaiah 11:10-12 KJV,

Isaiah 14:32 KJV,

Isaiah 25:3-4 KJV,

Isaiah 26:2-4 KJV,

Isaiah 50:10 KJV,

Isaiah 57:13 KJV,

Isaiah 65:1 KJV.

—

An interesting change that the Septuagint makes to Isaiah 42:4 however, is that it changes where it says "He shall not fail nor be discouraged," into "He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged,"

Clearly, "not failing" is far different than "shining out." The one who shall not fail is clearly referring to Christ. But the change to the statement by Origen's LXX almost implies a similarity to the "shining one," aka Lucifer, who is mentioned over in Isaiah 14:12.

Other than this list of six Bible references and Romans 3:10-18, I have not seen anyone provide a concrete example of the supposed pattern of following the Septuagint (which I just proved in these cases to be false). I would like to see if anyone knew a single example.

As far as Romans 3 in the KJV, it meets the following quotations from the Old Testament in the same Bible; you can check for yourself.

>Romans 3:10-18

vv. 10-12 are from Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3

v. 13a,b is from Psalm 5:9

v. 13c is from Psalm 140:3

v. 14a is from Psalm 10:7

v. 14b is from Psalm 64:3

v. 15 is from Proverbs 1:16

v. 16a is from Proverbs 10:29

v. 16b is from Proverbs 13:15

v. 17 is from Isaiah 59:8

v. 18 is from Psalm 36:1