| Word of Faith This is a forum for Word of Faith movement members. |
 | | 
12th June 2008, 11:44 PM
|  | Forever Newbie
55      
 | | Join Date: 30th May 2007 Location: Scam Francisco
Posts: 5,925
Blessings: 1,373,372 My Mood 
Reps: 557,149,751,945,943,296 (power: 557,149,751,945,953) | | Originally Posted by didaskalos  Personally I think many of the books of the Bible have been altered to one extent of another.
I know some folks think that God has supernaturally maintained the integrity of the 66 books we call the Bible... but think about it.
Why would God give a warning to not add or remove anything from Revelation if in fact it could not be done? Kind of like the movie "A Few Good Men."
"If the Colonel gave an order and his orders were always obeyed... then why did they have to move Hernandez?"
If the scriptures cannot be corrupted.. then why the warning?
In order to grant wiggle-room for unbelief.
You'll notice God never makes any item of faith airtight, but always allows a way for the minds of men to turn the supernatural into the mundane.
Otherwise, he'd write "repent" in the clouds at sunset, or send angels to preach to people one-on-one, ...or make the Bible completely harmonious.
__________________
Active Participant in the Priesthood of Every Believer,
Inveterate Dunker,
Habituated Glossalalialist,
Gratefully Ingrafted Goy,
Unapologetic Blesser of Modern Israel,
Agent Provacateur Contra T.U.L.I.P.,
Dispensationally Predisposed,
Joyful Ekballoist,
Pentecostal Trapped in a Baptist's Body,
An Unrepentant Chiliast, and
Authentic Practicioner of 1st-Century Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
(and a sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist) |
25th June 2008, 09:32 AM
|  | Forum Pro
49   
| | Join Date: 20th March 2008 Location: Broken Arrow, Ok
Posts: 962
Blessings: 58,961,376 My Mood 
Reps: 9,994,748,559,722,966 (power: 9,994,748,559,726) | | | The King James Bible has stood the test of time. That is what I'm sticking with. I've never even heard of the book of Enoch. |
7th July 2008, 07:09 PM
| | Forever Newbie
55
| | Join Date: 30th May 2007 Location: Scam Francisco
Posts: 5,925
Blessings: 1,373,372 My Mood
Reps: 557,149,751,945,943,296 (power: 557,149,751,945,953) | | Originally Posted by gigman The King James Bible has stood the test of time. That is what I'm sticking with. I've never even heard of the book of Enoch.
If the KJB was good enough for Paul, then why mess with it! 
__________________
Active Participant in the Priesthood of Every Believer,
Inveterate Dunker,
Habituated Glossalalialist,
Gratefully Ingrafted Goy,
Unapologetic Blesser of Modern Israel,
Agent Provacateur Contra T.U.L.I.P.,
Dispensationally Predisposed,
Joyful Ekballoist,
Pentecostal Trapped in a Baptist's Body,
An Unrepentant Chiliast, and
Authentic Practicioner of 1st-Century Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
(and a sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist) |
7th July 2008, 07:11 PM
| | Forever Newbie
55
| | Join Date: 30th May 2007 Location: Scam Francisco
Posts: 5,925
Blessings: 1,373,372 My Mood
Reps: 557,149,751,945,943,296 (power: 557,149,751,945,953) | | Originally Posted by J4Jesus There are some things in the book of Enoch that are not scriptural<snip> Originally Posted by SummaScriptura You should give examples, right?
I didn't think you would. 
__________________
Active Participant in the Priesthood of Every Believer,
Inveterate Dunker,
Habituated Glossalalialist,
Gratefully Ingrafted Goy,
Unapologetic Blesser of Modern Israel,
Agent Provacateur Contra T.U.L.I.P.,
Dispensationally Predisposed,
Joyful Ekballoist,
Pentecostal Trapped in a Baptist's Body,
An Unrepentant Chiliast, and
Authentic Practicioner of 1st-Century Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
(and a sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)
Last edited by SummaScriptura; 7th July 2008 at 07:25 PM.
|
10th July 2008, 11:18 AM
|  | Favoured of the Lord
46 
| | Join Date: 19th September 2006 Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 3,059
Blessings: 130,771 My Mood 
Reps: 176,363,191,217,860,448 (power: 176,363,191,217,869) | | |
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
21st July 2008, 04:14 PM
| | Forever Newbie
55
| | Join Date: 30th May 2007 Location: Scam Francisco
Posts: 5,925
Blessings: 1,373,372 My Mood
Reps: 557,149,751,945,943,296 (power: 557,149,751,945,953) | | Originally Posted by CrusaderKing Enoch is considered part of the pseudographica. As far as I know, the Ethiopian Orthodox are the only ones who consider Enoch scripture and include it in their canon. There was support for the book, namely by Tertullian who accused the Jews of removing it from their canon because it contained prophecies of Christ. After the Council of Laodicea, it was no longer used outside of Ethiopia.
Your facts are fundamentally correct. I would modify a couple points...
1. 1 Enoch is considered part of the pseudepigrapha, by SOME, part of the Apocryphal Old Testament by others, and part of the Bible by others. Its one of those books that people disagree over its classification.
2. The Ethiopian Orthodox are NOT the ONLY ONES who consider 1 Enoch scripture. For instance, though I consider myself in the Protestant stream, I break with that stream over the casting-out of certain Old Testament books from the Bible for which complete originals are only available in a language other than Hebrew, like Tobit for instance. And just because I am Baptist and NOT Ethiopian, does not prevent me from being one of those who consider 1 Enoch scripture as well.
__________________
Active Participant in the Priesthood of Every Believer,
Inveterate Dunker,
Habituated Glossalalialist,
Gratefully Ingrafted Goy,
Unapologetic Blesser of Modern Israel,
Agent Provacateur Contra T.U.L.I.P.,
Dispensationally Predisposed,
Joyful Ekballoist,
Pentecostal Trapped in a Baptist's Body,
An Unrepentant Chiliast, and
Authentic Practicioner of 1st-Century Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
(and a sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist) | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
