THE BLOOD IS REMOVED IN THE NEW BIBLES

[Gerbolski]

Don't kid yourself, until the churches can forgive each other until the individuals can accept each other as brothers and sisters God is going to come down so hard on the Christian churches you will not believe it. Because the Christians know better than anybody while other than the Jews of the great salvation that they have received and yet they want to bicker about it for the littlest stupid things that are just so ridiculous. The Christians are as bad as the Israelites with the Muslims arguing over the stupid things and not bothering to see that they are still brothers and sisters and Sons and Daughters of Abraham. We of course are the adopted children of Abraham

So then God's standards are stupid to you ? Promoting lying in the apocrypha, and magic is ok with you ?

 

[Gerbolski]

Are you promoting Catholicism, Protestantism or just simply the bible ?

 

[Bill]

No Bill, Jesus is the way the truth and the life, not any denomination, true forgiveness is not absence of truth.

And would you not agree that if something promotes lying, magic and contradicts it's own self, that it should not be reliable ?
God does not make us to be brainless people.

And the Spirit does not contradict himself.

It is not the love, love gospel, it is the be separate unto him gospel, to were love is not absent from truth.

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

So what you're saying is that the scripture is not the scripture of Jesus

Hypocrite

Who is the author of The Bible?

 

[Bill]

So then God's standards are stupid to you ? Promoting lying in the apocrypha, and magic is ok with you ?

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

Try reading and listening to what I am saying to you.

Who is the author of the scripture?

If Jesus is not the author of the scripture why do you believe it?

You cannot take away from the word of God and sit there and say well that doesn't agree with me. That's hypocrisy. You're better off just saying that you don't understand what the Apocrypha is versus condemning it. Because when you condemn it then you're condemning the word of God, the word of God that was in the scripture before the Reformation. The word of God that was in there from the beginning when the book was first put together first assembled. Obviously those who were called by Jesus to put the book together, to bring the various writings into the same book that we referred to as the Bible, they followed the Holy Spirit. So who are you or anyone else to say that those guys who are following the will of the Holy Spirit, we're not following the will of the Holy Spirit and we're not putting the words of the Lord into the scripture?

 

[Gerbolski]

Oh well I guess you will defend it no matter what, even though it would be easy to disprove it, by showing what it says, but you seem not to be open to that, but in the end what are you really in it for Bill ?

You defend Catholicism as if it is the bible, and you cannot show scripture so we can find it in scripture, is your doctrine a mixture of mysticism, Catholicism and tradition ?

I am not trying to be mean, but by the answers you give, even in other threads, it seems to be in that direction.

Just because there were old books in the past, does not mean they are part of the bible, we know that the old testament was written in Hebrew.

In the case of the apocrypha, it says it was mainly written in Greek.

Now here is a bit more info on this:

(Why We Reject the Apocrypha - Faith Pulpit)

(...What Books Belong in the Old Testament?

The word canon means “ruler” or “standard” by which something is judged. In this context it refers to the books that belong in the Bible. Notice that Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant versions of the Bible have the exact same books in the New Testament. There is complete agreement on this. The disagreement comes over how many books there are in the Old Testament. Protestant versions of the Bible contain 39 Old Testament books, while Roman Catholic versions contain 7 more books plus some additions to the books of Daniel and Esther. Eastern Orthodoxy accepts all of these plus 3 extra books! If you want to look at these books, find a copy of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible that contains the Apocrypha, and the table of contents will separate the books according to those that are accepted by the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox religions. The word apocrypha means “hidden.” Sometimes these books are called “deuterocanonical,” which means “belonging to a second canon.”

How Did the Apocryphal Books Become Part of Some Bibles?​

Actually no one knows for sure how the apocryphal books came to be part of some copies of the Old Testament. Many, however, think that the extra books were added when the Old Testament (originally written in Hebrew) was translated into Greek. This Greek translation of the Old Testament is called the Septuagint and was produced by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt about 250 B.C. This theory is based on the fact that the earliest copy of the Septuagint available today contains these extra books, while none of the Hebrew Scriptures contain them. These books, along with the rest of the Bible, were translated by Jerome into Latin around A.D. 400, but Jerome himself did not think they belonged in the Old Testament.

Why Don’t We Accept the Apocryphal Books?​

(1) Even though the Septuagint existed in New Testament times and was available to the New Testament writers (the Book of Hebrews quotes from the Septuagint), there are no direct quotations from the Apocrypha in the New Testament nor does the New Testament refer to any apocryphal books as part of Scripture. (2) No general church council in the first four centuries of Christian history endorsed apocryphal books. While some early Christians thought highly of these books, others, such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Jerome opposed them. (3) While Augustine accepted the Apocrypha, his list is not exactly the same as that found in Catholic Bibles [for example, he omitted Baruch, which is in the Catholic Bible, and he included 1 Esdras, which is not in the Catholic Bible]...)

The apocrypha never was part of the Hebrew old testament that they had, and even some of the guys you would highly esteem, rejected them, but of course Augustine accepted them to a degree.

And the Alexandrian text, which had corrupt texts in a big way, had them.

 

[Bill]

Oh well I guess you will defend it no matter what, even though it would be easy to disprove it, by showing what it says, but you seem not to be open to that, but in the end what are you really in it for Bill ?

You defend Catholicism as if it is the bible, and you cannot show scripture so we can find it in scripture, is your doctrine a mixture of mysticism, Catholicism and tradition ?

I am not trying to be mean, but by the answers you give, even in other threads, it seems to be in that direction.

Just because there were old books in the past, does not mean they are part of the bible, we know that the old testament was written in Hebrew.

In the case of the apocrypha, it says it was mainly written in Greek.

Now here is a bit more info on this:

(Why We Reject the Apocrypha - Faith Pulpit)

(...What Books Belong in the Old Testament?

The word canon means “ruler” or “standard” by which something is judged. In this context it refers to the books that belong in the Bible. Notice that Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant versions of the Bible have the exact same books in the New Testament. There is complete agreement on this. The disagreement comes over how many books there are in the Old Testament. Protestant versions of the Bible contain 39 Old Testament books, while Roman Catholic versions contain 7 more books plus some additions to the books of Daniel and Esther. Eastern Orthodoxy accepts all of these plus 3 extra books! If you want to look at these books, find a copy of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible that contains the Apocrypha, and the table of contents will separate the books according to those that are accepted by the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox religions. The word apocrypha means “hidden.” Sometimes these books are called “deuterocanonical,” which means “belonging to a second canon.”

How Did the Apocryphal Books Become Part of Some Bibles?​

Actually no one knows for sure how the apocryphal books came to be part of some copies of the Old Testament. Many, however, think that the extra books were added when the Old Testament (originally written in Hebrew) was translated into Greek. This Greek translation of the Old Testament is called the Septuagint and was produced by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt about 250 B.C. This theory is based on the fact that the earliest copy of the Septuagint available today contains these extra books, while none of the Hebrew Scriptures contain them. These books, along with the rest of the Bible, were translated by Jerome into Latin around A.D. 400, but Jerome himself did not think they belonged in the Old Testament.

Why Don’t We Accept the Apocryphal Books?​

(1) Even though the Septuagint existed in New Testament times and was available to the New Testament writers (the Book of Hebrews quotes from the Septuagint), there are no direct quotations from the Apocrypha in the New Testament nor does the New Testament refer to any apocryphal books as part of Scripture. (2) No general church council in the first four centuries of Christian history endorsed apocryphal books. While some early Christians thought highly of these books, others, such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Jerome opposed them. (3) While Augustine accepted the Apocrypha, his list is not exactly the same as that found in Catholic Bibles [for example, he omitted Baruch, which is in the Catholic Bible, and he included 1 Esdras, which is not in the Catholic Bible]...)

The apocrypha never was part of the Hebrew old testament that they had, and even some of the guys you would highly esteem, rejected them, but of course Augustine accepted them to a degree.

And the Alexandrian text, which had corrupt texts in a big way, had them.

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

What I was trying to show you is that it's Jesus who brings these books together not man. It's through the Holy Spirit and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that brought these people together to bring together the gospel.

Jesus is the author and the orchestrator of the way the scripture was set up. There are books that may be eligible to be part of the Bible in our opinion but through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, those who were following the insight did not feel it was. That's why you don't find books like Enoch and others in the scripture.

What I was trying to say is that books like Baruch and Maccabees one and two and a variety of others that we call the Apocrypha were all part of the original text. And what I'm trying to say is if these who were led by the Holy Spirit set them in the scripture in the first place. Those who were led by Jesus to place these books into the original Bible who are we to tell God what should be there and what should not be there

 

[Gerbolski]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

What I was trying to show you is that it's Jesus who brings these books together not man. It's through the Holy Spirit and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that brought these people together to bring together the gospel.

Jesus is the author and the orchestrator of the way the scripture was set up. There are books that may be eligible to be part of the Bible in our opinion but through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, those who were following the insight did not feel it was. That's why you don't find books like Enoch and others in the scripture.

What I was trying to say is that books like Baruch and Maccabees one and two and a variety of others that we call the Apocrypha were all part of the original text. And what I'm trying to say is if these who were led by the Holy Spirit set them in the scripture in the first place. Those who were led by Jesus to place these books into the original Bible who are we to tell God what should be there and what should not be there

They were not in the original Hebrew bible, I have proven that.

 

[Bill]

They were not in the original Hebrew bible, I have proven that.

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

That does not matter, it was part of the original Christian Bible. The bible was brought together in roughly the year 300, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Author of His Word, no one else. It doesn't matter the language that it's written in, what matters is it from Jesus

 

[Gerbolski]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

That does not matter, it was part of the original Christian Bible. The bible was brought together in roughly the year 300, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Author of His Word, no one else. It doesn't matter the language that it's written in, what matters is it from Jesus

Oh well I know you will defend it no matter what it says, wether legends contradictions and lies, and most in the early church did not receive it as bible, but of course people like Augustine did, which he was full of heresies.

 

[Gerbolski]

Oh well I know you will defend it no matter what it says, wether legends contradictions and lies, and most in the early church did not receive it as bible, but of course people like Augustine did, which he was full of heresies.

And of course the Catholic church once fully formed, gradually received it as scripture, which what they formed was heretical, it was an apostasy of back then.

 

[Gerbolski]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

That does not matter, it was part of the original Christian Bible. The bible was brought together in roughly the year 300, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Author of His Word, no one else. It doesn't matter the language that it's written in, what matters is it from Jesus

Via the old testament, it was put together way before this time.

 

[Bill]

Via the old testament, it was put together way before this time.

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom.

How do you believe that Jesus is your lord and savior if you are not using the New Testament?

And if you are using the New Testament where exactly are you getting the information from?

 

[Bill]

Via the old testament, it was put together way before this time.

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

My friend, there isn't any Bible that is in the world today that did not come out of the group who were brought together that put together the Bible as it is now. The group of monks who were brought together were part of the original Church.

Your own prejudice against the Catholic Church is uncalled for. You are so hung up on the ideologies of people who hate the Catholic Church that you have no clue what you're talking about when you talk about the Catholic Church. It would be like listening to some Catholic that's so hung up on being Catholic and not recognizing the gift from God from the Protestant churches.

You wonder why I get so upset when I see this bologna that goes on "Tit for Tat" , and the constant bickering did I see not just from the Protestants to the Catholics but the Catholics to the Protestants as well.

You need to get Beyond this bologna, you need to get Beyond this prejudice that you and all the other Protestants have. If you want to get to heaven. Because God does not accept this type of behavior. And the same thing goes for the Catholics those of them who follow the very same issues and make the very same argument from their side. They also are in jeopardy of losing their salvation because of the bologna that goes on.

This is why I tell you with full confidence, that the two witnesses, the two golden lampstands of whom I am one of them will come down on you guys those of you who choose to continue to dish out this bologna. Because you throw away what is the truth, which is love God with all your heart love God with all your mind love God with all of your strength love God with all of that you are and love your neighbor as yourself. Without love you are nothing. And God's justice will come down on you so hard you won't even know what to do.

I am warning you, do not follow this path of destruction, do not follow this path of hate do not follow this path of unforgiveness. If you do you'll lose everything.

 

[Gerbolski]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

My friend, there isn't any Bible that is in the world today that did not come out of the group who were brought together that put together the Bible as it is now. The group of monks who were brought together were part of the original Church.

Your own prejudice against the Catholic Church is uncalled for. You are so hung up on the ideologies of people who hate the Catholic Church that you have no clue what you're talking about when you talk about the Catholic Church. It would be like listening to some Catholic that's so hung up on being Catholic and not recognizing the gift from God from the Protestant churches.

You wonder why I get so upset when I see this bologna that goes on "Tit for Tat" , and the constant bickering did I see not just from the Protestants to the Catholics but the Catholics to the Protestants as well.

You need to get Beyond this bologna, you need to get Beyond this prejudice that you and all the other Protestants have. If you want to get to heaven. Because God does not accept this type of behavior. And the same thing goes for the Catholics those of them who follow the very same issues and make the very same argument from their side. They also are in jeopardy of losing their salvation because of the bologna that goes on.

This is why I tell you with full confidence, that the two witnesses, the two golden lampstands of whom I am one of them will come down on you guys those of you who choose to continue to dish out this bologna. Because you throw away what is the truth, which is love God with all your heart love God with all your mind love God with all of your strength love God with all of that you are and love your neighbor as yourself. Without love you are nothing. And God's justice will come down on you so hard you won't even know what to do.

I am warning you, do not follow this path of destruction, do not follow this path of hate do not follow this path of unforgiveness. If you do you'll lose everything.

I believe in the whole bible, and no there was groups apart from Augustine and Constantine, that actually Constantine persecuted, you avoid many scriptures just so you can have your Catholicism which is not in the bible, you can have your queen of heaven, which God speaks against any queen of heaven in Jeremish, now that is idol worship.

And the bible speaks against praying to the dead, yet Catholicism does that, and it ressembles the old Babylonian religion, yet you ignore all of that, now that is idol worship.

You get angry over something that is not defendable, you waste your time defending something that is not biblical, you flater people a lot so they listen to you.

Why not just defend Jesus, the Father and Holy Spirit, and defend having a relationship with God, and taking up your cross, you would do well to do that, unless you do not believe in that, that you try to add to this, but you cannot add to God' s grace

 

[Gerbolski]

I am warning you, do not follow this path of destruction, do not follow this path of hate do not follow this path of unforgiveness. If you do you'll lose everything.

There is no unforgiveness at all, it is just concern for truth, and I am very concerned about you, you ignore way too many things, you cannot even confront some things.

 

[Christ4Ever]

[Colossians 1:14 KJV] "In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:"

[Colossians 1:14 NIV] "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

The New Bibles remove "through his blood". It is through the blood of Christ that we have forgiveness
and justification

Dear Brother,
Good! Not all do, but many of them do exactly as you say.

Knowing the exclusion is important to know, which makes one wonder the why. Is it solely because of the manuscripts used for that particular translation or something more nefarious behind it. Those would be difficult to answer, if one does not know those who translated the manuscripts and which ones they used. However, what you can do is take it one step forward with this difference, which is a reasonable ask most will have, which is, "Why is this important?"

God bless you and keep the faith.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/

 

[Christ4Ever]

Okay boys! @Gerbolski @Bill
How about you both take this to Private Message with each other?

I do not believe that much benefit will be gained by others from you all's exchanges. All you are doing is letting off steam, and trying to push a point that really identifies the problems inherent in translations from varied manuscripts but does nothing to getting to the bottom of the problem, without making mostly unproven allegations on the "why".

Keep in mind that it is the Holy Spirit that provides us the discernment needed to not only to understand the Word of God, but He brings it to mind when we have the need as well.

With the Love of Christ Jesus Brothers.
Moderator
Nick
\o/

 

[joestue]

a friend of mine worked with and knows one of the translators for the original NIV.

the purpose of the translation was to make an english bible for second or third english readers who have a 6th grade understanding of english.

it was never intended to be a rigorous study bible for first language english readers.