Matthew 6:7 "vain repetitions", the Rosary and Vatican Versions

By Faith Alone

Junior Member
Oct 17, 2013
2,738
87
✟10,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Again, stating that it is creepy doesn't de-legitimize a theology. It's pretty much just ad hominem.

You would use the word "theology" and a debate term to support unScriptural mechanical prayer? Your position is untenable being outside the confines of the inspired Message God sent directly to us:

2 Tim 3:15-17
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All ...scripture.... is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing.... the word of truth.


I probably would have not much problem with the rosary if Jesus was front and center...which He is not.
Any honest student of the Scriptures would not hide behind man-made tradition and so-called "church history" to prove a point.
Do you even know the origin of prayer beads?
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Take the Bible Agnostic Test. Then get back to us about your ever changing NIVs, OK?

Chicago state - Another King James Bible Believer

As for your NIV, which of these NIVs is your "true" one?

What About The “New” NIV of 2011?

What about the NIV 2011? - Another King James Bible Believer

Which KJV is yours? The 1611? The 1760s version? The Oxford? the Cambridge? KJV onlyism is a heresy and one of a most pernicious kind, calling into question peoples' salvation on the basis of an ENGLISH translation of the Hebrew / Greek text. It is, frankly, HEIFERDUST!
 
Upvote 0

By Faith Alone

Junior Member
Oct 17, 2013
2,738
87
✟10,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The words which the Holy Spirit teaches is the Greek and Hebrew. Any translation may have errors, including the KJV. I once was a KJV cultist but no longer am once I found out the truth. The reason I say "cultist" is that someone would definitely remember me if they dissed my KJV.

The best translation I have found is here:


The Companion Bible Condensed Online Study Bible
 
Upvote 0
Feb 2, 2013
3,492
111
✟19,178.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
You would use the word "theology" and a debate term to support unScriptural mechanical prayer?


Your argumentation involved calling it "creepy", which I then replied to.


Your position is untenable being outside the confines of the inspired Message God sent directly to us:
2 Tim 3:15-17
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All ...scripture.... is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


This, like everything else that has so far been presented, does not support your assertion against the Rosary prayers.

2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing.... the word of truth.


Neither does this.


I probably would have not much problem with the rosary if Jesus was front and center...which He is not.


Have you ever even read what a Rosary involves? Did you know that there are four different mysteries of the Rosary, each of which is a meditation on episodes of the life and death of Jesus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosary#Mysteries_of_the_Rosary

I recommend praying a Rosary and seeing for yourself :)

Any honest student of the Scriptures would not hide behind man-made tradition and so-called "church history" to prove a point.


"By Faith Alone" is a great example of man-made tradition.

Do you even know the origin of prayer beads?

I think they originated in Hinduism, but why does that matter?

Prayer beads in Christianity date back to the 200s and maybe earlier. They were used to count the Jesus Prayer:

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner"
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,802.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Take the Bible Agnostic Test. Then get back to us about your ever changing NIVs, OK?

If I thought the "test" was impartial; an unbiased consideration of the various Bible translations and led to a recommended Bible translation based on accuracy and study of the Greek and Hebrew texts, I might think about it. But I suspect it was devised by a KJB only-ist and will "prove" exactly what he or she wants it to.
There is another KJB only-ist on these forums, (at least one), and their starting point is that the KJB alone is true, infallible, the ONLY word of God. No discussion is possible because they already have their conclusion and will no listen to anything else. So their posts are not so much, "let us discuss this; what do you think?" but "this is the truth, I am right, why don't you believe it?"

As for your NIV, which of these NIVs is your "true" one?
What About The “New” NIV of 2011?

The Bible is true. Everything that I said about changing language still stands and doesn't affect the truth of the Gospel and God's Holy word.

Maybe you could define what you mean by "true"? It seems you mean that every word is literal, infallible, cannot be changed. This is not what true means, and that is not the case with the KJB anyway. This is probably why they brought out a NEW KJB some years ago.
How do you think people read God's word and believed before the KJB came along? It's only 400 years old; Christianity is over 2000.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,802.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
None so blind as those who refuse to see, huh, Strong?

That might apply to some; not to me.

Hint - True means true historically as well as theologically. You both failed the Bible Agnostic Test and the Logic 101 test as well. Congratulations.

But I am a born again Christian, saved by Jesus, filled with his Spirit, love the Bible and am going to heaven. :)
I haven't failed any "test" set by God - only yours. And that doesn't matter.
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
Strong, I am not at all questioning whether or not you are a Christian. What I am calling into serious doubt is your ability to think straight and use some logic and God given common sense. It appears you did at least look at The Bible Agnostic Test. You just didn't like what you saw. I was using the various Bible versions out there and showing just a little bit of all the confusion and contradictions that are found in today's Bible Babble Buffet versions. Your ever changing NIVs fall way short and nobody believes they are God's infallible words; not even you.

But "true" means "true" and not false or contradictory, and your NIV utterly fails the truth test. But I am not questioning if you are a Christian. That never came up at all.

For any who are interested, here is The Bible Agnostic Test, and it is found in a statement about what most Christians say they believe about the Bible. Do you know what God wrote?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Strong, I am not at all questioning whether or not you are a Christian. What I am calling into serious doubt is your ability to think straight and use some logic and God given common sense. It appears you did at least look at The Bible Agnostic Test. You just didn't like what you saw. I was using the various Bible versions out there and showing just a little bit of all the confusion and contradictions that are found in today's Bible Babble Buffet versions.

I fear that, if anyone here has failed Logic 101, it is you. The only thing that the rather incoherent "Bible Agnostic Test" shows is that you personally don't like anything except the KJV.

In fact, versions like the NIV and ESV are very good (though not perfect) English translations of the inspired originals. Better translations than the KJV, in fact.

And yes, what God inspired was a set of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek documents -- not some English book written 16 centuries after Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,802.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Strong, I am not at all questioning whether or not you are a Christian. What I am calling into serious doubt is your ability to think straight and use some logic and God given common sense.

You want logic and common sense?

1 The KJV was produced in 1611, or thereabouts, on the orders of King James.
2 It was not around for the first 1600 years of the church.
3 It was not even the first Bible to have been produced in English.
4 Other forummers here have said that there is more than one version of the KJB.
5 The KJB is not perfect. One obvious mistake I came across recently is Hebrews 4:8. The author has been talking about Moses leading the nation of Israel out of the land of Egypt. He then says; "For if Jesus had given them rest, then he would not afterward have spoken of another day." Clearly, in the context, it should read Moses, or maybe Joshua.
6 If the KJV is THE only true and uncorrupt Bible around, what in the world did they do before they had it? What of the apostles, early church and church fathers? What in the world did Jesus - who IS the truth and the Word - do before he had King James around to insist that a "proper" Bible be produced?
7. If you claim that the NIV, for example, is untrue and corrupt, then it follows that a) God allows a corrupt version of his word to exist, b) that he continues to save, heal, challenge etc through it. In other words, are there "corrupt" Bibles? Doesn't matter one bit because God's work of salvation, healing, sanctification continues and his kingdom is still advancing. There are thousands of Christians who have lived, served God and done his will, all without the help of the KJV. Is/was that all invalid because the "correct" version was not used?
8 You may not be openly making the accusation, but my feeling is that you think that those who read Bibles that are "corrupt and untrue", are somehow second class Christians, or at least gullible, unthinking and taken in by advertising rather than "logic". Otherwise why insult people and infer that they are not real Christians and "Bible agnostics"? The only point I can see to a thread like this, is to point out that the KJV is the only true Bible and we should all be reading it. But what if we don't?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
He then says; "For if Jesus had given them rest, then he would not afterward have spoken of another day." Clearly, in the context, it should read Moses, or maybe Joshua.

Every 20th Century translation I've seen, including the ASV of 1901 and the New King James, has "Joshua" there.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkiz

Newbie
Dec 3, 2013
353
119
✟9,036.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Discussing doctrine is not attacking anyone.

Furthermore...prayer is the language of the new nature sown by the seed of the Word of God by faith. Prayer and worship is not a 1, 2, 3 repeat after me. That is shallow and meaningless.

Quite frankly, it is shameful and sinful to degrade and demean the way that anyone prays.
Anyone who prays the Rosary knows full well that the focus and purpose is to focus on what Jesus Christ has done for them. Who are you to discredit how another Christian prays? Mary is not worshiped through the Rosary. Period. Jesus is. Anything that 'you' claim about it being vain or repetitious simply shows your limited understanding of what the Rosary actually is.

I have provided Scripture. I received zero responses...because they are Truth. Do you only read the Scriptures ONCE? Or do you read them repeatedly? The Hail Mary, the Our Father and the Glory Be are ALL rooted in Scripture. Nearly word for word. You and others have failed miserably to acknowledge and respond to that irrefutable fact. Even by the theology of 'bible alone', being acceptable for prayer (and where is THAT found in Scripture anyway?) you have no grounds to decide that any person is praying in a 'vain and repetitious' manner. By calling the Rosary anything less than a fully Scriptural prayer, you display your willingness to attack other Christians, which St. Paul most certainly expressly forbids.

Only you and God know why reciting Scripture is so upsetting to you. If praying the Rosary is so upsetting to you, which means that repeating passages of Scripture are so upsetting to you, then you will have to take it up with The Lord Himself and explain your position to Him. I am comfortable enough in HIS WORD to repeat His Word, without ceasing, and remain completely confident that He has instructed all of us to call on Saints to intercede on our behalf, both alive on earth and alive in Heaven! For our God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living! Those in Heaven are far more alive than I currently am, and they are closer to God than I currently am. Scriptures themselves reveal this to be True.

I am praying a Rosary today on your behalf that He may show you that those in Heaven can and do pray to Him for all of our souls.

Peace in Christ
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
You want logic and common sense?

1 The KJV was produced in 1611, or thereabouts, on the orders of King James.
2 It was not around for the first 1600 years of the church.
3 It was not even the first Bible to have been produced in English.
4 Other forummers here have said that there is more than one version of the KJB.
5 The KJB is not perfect. One obvious mistake I came across recently is Hebrews 4:8. The author has been talking about Moses leading the nation of Israel out of the land of Egypt. He then says; "For if Jesus had given them rest, then he would not afterward have spoken of another day." Clearly, in the context, it should read Moses, or maybe Joshua.
6 If the KJV is THE only true and uncorrupt Bible around, what in the world did they do before they had it? What of the apostles, early church and church fathers? What in the world did Jesus - who IS the truth and the Word - do before he had King James around to insist that a "proper" Bible be produced?
7. If you claim that the NIV, for example, is untrue and corrupt, then it follows that a) God allows a corrupt version of his word to exist, b) that he continues to save, heal, challenge etc through it. In other words, are there "corrupt" Bibles? Doesn't matter one bit because God's work of salvation, healing, sanctification continues and his kingdom is still advancing. There are thousands of Christians who have lived, served God and done his will, all without the help of the KJV. Is/was that all invalid because the "correct" version was not used?
8 You may not be openly making the accusation, but my feeling is that you think that those who read Bibles that are "corrupt and untrue", are somehow second class Christians, or at least gullible, unthinking and taken in by advertising rather than "logic". Otherwise why insult people and infer that they are not real Christians and "Bible agnostics"? The only point I can see to a thread like this, is to point out that the KJV is the only true Bible and we should all be reading it. But what if we don't?


Hi Strong, and yet you remain both a bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in ANY language. And, Yes, your NIVs, along with the ESV, NASB are the new Vatican Versions. Get over it and get yourself the real Bible - God's infallible Book - the King James Bible.

Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"

Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer

“Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth..is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird...and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication...Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Revelation 17:2-5; 18:2-4

Just a small part of the documentation you will see here if you actually read it is this -



I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:

"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".


The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

This from their own site -

THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
Originally Posted by Strong in Him View Post
He then says; "For if Jesus had given them rest, then he would not afterward have spoken of another day." Clearly, in the context, it should read Moses, or maybe Joshua.

Every 20th Century translation I've seen, including the ASV of 1901 and the New King James, has "Joshua" there.


Now to address the issue of why the King James Bible and many others correctly translated the literal Jesus as Jesus in both Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, concerning which Daniel Wallace says: “Why the KJV has ‘Jesus’ here is a mystery to me. “ -

In Hebrews 4:8 we read: "For if JESUS had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."

Likewise in Acts 7:45 we have: "Which also our fathers that came after brought in with JESUS into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David."

The Greek texts all literally have the name JESUS in these two places, though the contexts refer to the man Joshua. Joshua himself is a pictorial "type" of our Lord Jesus Christ. Joshua, along with Caleb, did believe God had given them the promised land, but the rest of the people entered not in because of unbelief. Later this same Joshua ('Jesus' in Greek) led the people into the land. The promised land typifies the spiritual rest from our own works which was accomplished by the greater Jesus, the Son of God Himself.

Other Bible versions that read JESUS in Acts 7 and Hebrews 4 like the King James Bible are the Latin Vulgate, Wycliffe 1395 - "For if Jhesus hadde youun reste to hem, he schulde neuere speke of othere aftir this dai.", the Great Bible 1540, Taverner's Bible, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1852 - ""For if Jesus had given them rest, he would never have afterwards spoken of another day." then it footnotes "Jesus"... Josue, who in Greek is called Jesus." , the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, Etheridge Translation 1849, the Emphatic Diaglott 1865, Darby's translation 1890, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Emphatic Diaglott version of 1865, The Accurate New Testament of 2008, the Holy Scriptures English Jubilee bible of 2010 and the Urim-Thummin Version of 2001. The latest Catholic version, the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version goes back to the Greek reading and reads: "For if Jesus had offered them rest, he would never have spoken, afterward, about another day."

The Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras of both 1569 and 1999 also read like the KJB, as does Cipriano de Valera 1602 (in both Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) the Reina Valera Nuevo Testamento of 1858, Spanish Jubilee Bible 2000 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez bible, all reading: "Porque si Jesús les hubiera dado el Reposo..." The Latvian N.T. also says Jesus - "Jo ja Jēzus būtu ievedis tos mierā", and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Isus" in both Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8.

John Calvin’s Latin translation kept the name as Jesus - “Nam si Iesus requiem illis praestitisset”

The Aramaic Bible in Plain English reads: "For if Yeshua, son of Nun, had given them rest, he would not afterward have spoken of another day."

The Geneva Bible also comments regarding Hebrews 4:8 - "For if (b) Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." - (b) He speaks of Joshua the son of Nun: and as the land of Canaan was a figure of our true rest, so was Joshua a figure of Christ.

Joshua himself was called by four different names including Jeshuah Nehemiah 8:17; Joshua in Joshua 1:1; Jehoshuah in Numbers 13:16, and Oshea in Numbers 13:11. He is mentioned only twice in the New Testament, once in Acts 7:45 and again in Hebrews 4:8. In Greek his name translates as Insous, or Jesus in English. This is exactly the same way "Jesus" is spelled in every case.

Both Hebrews 4:8 and Acts 7:45 the literal Greek "Jesus" refers to the man Joshua, who himself believed God and is the "type" of the true Jesus, who indeed does lead us into the promised land and gives us rest from our own labours. The type and the antitype both have the same name. God Himself inspired the Bible in this way to teach a spiritual lesson.

John Gill remarks in his commentary that Joshua "was an eminent type of Jesus Christ. There is an agreement in their names, both signify a saviour, Joshua was a temporal saviour, Christ a spiritual one; and in their office they were both servants; and in their qualifications for their office, such as wisdom, courage, faithfulness, and integrity. Joshua was a type of Christ in many actions of his life; in the miracles he wrought, or were wrought for him; in the battles he fought, and the victories he obtained."

Bible commentator Matthew Poole (1852) also notes: "Joshua was a type of Jesus, who brings believers into the true rest of the heavenly Canaan as he did Israel into a literal one - Acts 7:45."

The King James Bible and all the others are not in error, as some allege. Rather it gives a literal translation of the Greek name Joshua, and reveals the "type" or divine foreshadowing of the fulfillment which was completed in the Son of God.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,802.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Strong, and yet you remain both a bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in ANY language. And, Yes, your NIVs, along with the ESV, NASB are the new Vatican Versions. Get over it and get yourself the real Bible - God's infallible Book - the King James Bible.

So you can't answer my questions then; thought not.

YOU say I am a "Bible agnostic"; what does that even mean, in terms of my salvation and living the Christian life?
Why has God allowed me to follow him for 30+ years, and grow in faith, using an apparently corrupt Bible?

You believe what you like; salvation is through faith in the Lord Jesus, not the KJB. There were millions of Christians and Bible scholars in the world before King James was even a twinkle in his dad's eye.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,802.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by Strong in Him View Post
He then says; "For if Jesus had given them rest, then he would not afterward have spoken of another day." Clearly, in the context, it should read Moses, or maybe Joshua.

Now to address the issue of why the King James Bible and many others correctly translated the literal Jesus as Jesus in both Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, concerning which Daniel Wallace says: “Why the KJV has ‘Jesus’ here is a mystery to me. “ -

In Hebrews 4:8 we read: "For if JESUS had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."

Likewise in Acts 7:45 we have: "Which also our fathers that came after brought in with JESUS into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David."

The Greek texts all literally have the name JESUS in these two places, though the contexts refer to the man Joshua. Joshua himself is a pictorial "type" of our Lord Jesus Christ. Joshua, along with Caleb, did believe God had given them the promised land, but the rest of the people entered not in because of unbelief. Later this same Joshua ('Jesus' in Greek) led the people into the land. The promised land typifies the spiritual rest from our own works which was accomplished by the greater Jesus, the Son of God Himself.

Other Bible versions that read JESUS in Acts 7 and Hebrews 4 like the King James Bible are the Latin Vulgate, Wycliffe 1395 - "For if Jhesus hadde youun reste to hem, he schulde neuere speke of othere aftir this dai.", the Great Bible 1540, Taverner's Bible, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1852 - ""For if Jesus had given them rest, he would never have afterwards spoken of another day." then it footnotes "Jesus"... Josue, who in Greek is called Jesus." , the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, Etheridge Translation 1849, the Emphatic Diaglott 1865, Darby's translation 1890, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Emphatic Diaglott version of 1865, The Accurate New Testament of 2008, the Holy Scriptures English Jubilee bible of 2010 and the Urim-Thummin Version of 2001. The latest Catholic version, the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version goes back to the Greek reading and reads: "For if Jesus had offered them rest, he would never have spoken, afterward, about another day."

The Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras of both 1569 and 1999 also read like the KJB, as does Cipriano de Valera 1602 (in both Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) the Reina Valera Nuevo Testamento of 1858, Spanish Jubilee Bible 2000 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez bible, all reading: "Porque si Jesús les hubiera dado el Reposo..." The Latvian N.T. also says Jesus - "Jo ja Jēzus būtu ievedis tos mierā", and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Isus" in both Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8.

John Calvin’s Latin translation kept the name as Jesus - “Nam si Iesus requiem illis praestitisset”

The Aramaic Bible in Plain English reads: "For if Yeshua, son of Nun, had given them rest, he would not afterward have spoken of another day."

The Geneva Bible also comments regarding Hebrews 4:8 - "For if (b) Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." - (b) He speaks of Joshua the son of Nun: and as the land of Canaan was a figure of our true rest, so was Joshua a figure of Christ.

Joshua himself was called by four different names including Jeshuah Nehemiah 8:17; Joshua in Joshua 1:1; Jehoshuah in Numbers 13:16, and Oshea in Numbers 13:11. He is mentioned only twice in the New Testament, once in Acts 7:45 and again in Hebrews 4:8. In Greek his name translates as Insous, or Jesus in English. This is exactly the same way "Jesus" is spelled in every case.

Both Hebrews 4:8 and Acts 7:45 the literal Greek "Jesus" refers to the man Joshua, who himself believed God and is the "type" of the true Jesus, who indeed does lead us into the promised land and gives us rest from our own labours. The type and the antitype both have the same name. God Himself inspired the Bible in this way to teach a spiritual lesson.

John Gill remarks in his commentary that Joshua "was an eminent type of Jesus Christ. There is an agreement in their names, both signify a saviour, Joshua was a temporal saviour, Christ a spiritual one; and in their office they were both servants; and in their qualifications for their office, such as wisdom, courage, faithfulness, and integrity. Joshua was a type of Christ in many actions of his life; in the miracles he wrought, or were wrought for him; in the battles he fought, and the victories he obtained."

Bible commentator Matthew Poole (1852) also notes: "Joshua was a type of Jesus, who brings believers into the true rest of the heavenly Canaan as he did Israel into a literal one - Acts 7:45."

The King James Bible and all the others are not in error, as some allege. Rather it gives a literal translation of the Greek name Joshua, and reveals the "type" or divine foreshadowing of the fulfillment which was completed in the Son of God.

Anything to avoid admitting that the KJV has made a mistake!
Yes, the name JESUS and JOSHUA are the same. But the KJV text here reads as though it was Jesus - I.e Christ, the Son of God - who was not able to give them rest. That is obviously not the case. Jesus said "come to me all who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28). There is no question of Jesus Christ not being able to give rest to people. The text is clearly referring to Joshua, son of Nun, Moses' successor.
Any Christian reading this will realise this, note that the KJV has made an error, but understand, or be able to work out, to what it refers. It doesn't affect the author's argument or teaching of the passage; we don't say:he's made a mistake, therefore NONE of Hebrews is true."
Only people who are unable to admit that the KJV is incapable of any kind of error will come up with other explanations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwimac
Upvote 0

By Faith Alone

Junior Member
Oct 17, 2013
2,738
87
✟10,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Vain. Adjective.

Hail Mary, full of Grace, The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women (Luke 1:28)
And blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus (Luke 1:48)
Holy Mary, mother of God (Luke 1:43)
Pray for us sinners (Luke 2:35, John 2:5, Luke 20:38)
Now and at the hour of our death. Amen. (Rev. 2:10)

Mary does NOT hear you. Mary is DEAD until the resurrection. There is NO platonic immortal soul that leaves the body at death. Death is not the gateway to life. Psalm 6:5; 31:17. Genesis 2:7 says man BECAME a living soul and was NOT given a soul. Body plus breath=LIFE.
Eccl 3:19-21 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Job 14:10 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?
Job 34:15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.
Ps 115:17 The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.

Our body returns to dust just like the animals but the spirit (breath) of man goes back to God. If man is not dead but in another form of life when he dies so must it be said of the animals. There is no distinction between the death of the saved and the unsaved in the passages above. They tell us what happens at death and that is apart from man’s acceptance or non-acceptance of God. As far as death is concerned the same is applied to both believers and unbelievers.

Jesus Himself repeats His prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane. (Matt. 26:39;42:44). He additionally teaches us exactly HOW to pray in the Our Father. Are you suggesting that a person should not pray THIS prayer often? Are you suggesting that Jesus was wrong to repeat His prayer in the Garden? Or was saying it just once enough, and the Scriptures are wrong to indicate that Jesus repeated Himself with 'vain and repetitious prayer'?

Do you even know why Jesus prayed that prayer in the Garden? Matthew 42:44 is not in my Bible.
Jesus said He had not come BUT to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). That prayer that was given to the disciples was for the nation about to undergo persecution and just before revealing His mission on the Cross. “Give us this day our daily bread”. Does that ring a bell? It is ISRAEL that was given manna daily in the wilderness. We do not pray such things. “Thy Kingdom COME” has YET to come. Jesus is NOT reigning as King over the nation Israel YET in His Personal Presence. The Lord's prayer forms a part of the Sermon on the Mount and that prayer is not for the gentiles!
http://www.christianforums.com/t7838712/


St. Paul teaches us to 'pray without ceasing.' (1Thess. 5:17). Are we to ignore this too? (Rom. 1:9. St. Paul tells us that HE prays without ceasing.)

Not germane to the discussion but tell me this. How do you pray every waking minute of your Christian life? I know.

We are also instructed to pray for others (James 5:16)...or do you think asking others to pray for you is also 'vain' or 'repetitious'? Or are those in Heaven somehow not righteous? (Rev. 21:27) For the prayers of the righteous man is powerful and effective (also James 5:16). Or do you think that the mother of our Lord is not in Heaven, and therefore not righteous?

I do not think ANYONE denies prayers for others among the LIVING. What does Revelation 21:27 have to do with it? The Lamb's book of life is the Lamb's book of MARTYRS and not what Christendom has imagined. Again. Mary is DEAD.

Those in Heaven surround us as a great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1). They stand before the Throne of God and offer our prayers to Him (Rev. 5:8). Inter sessions are pleasing to God (1 Tim. 2:1-4). Intersessions are even commanded by Him. (John 15:17).

The “cloud of witnesses” are those listed in Hebrews 11 that have gone before and have DIED in the faith and are examples for us to follow. A serious misapplication you have there, but I know you will not let it go. Jesus is...THE...faithful witness (Revelation 1:5; Hebrews 12:2).

Do you deny these Biblical Words as Truth?

They no longer retain Biblical Truth when misapplied.

Before you condemn how others ask for prayer or how they pray, it would serve you well to discern all of what God has to say about prayer, and not just the parts you feel you can attack others over.

No one is condemning the person but is an attempt to ENLIGHTEN, Dearly Beloved.

Peace in Christ

Ten fold to you and thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkiz

Newbie
Dec 3, 2013
353
119
✟9,036.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married


Mary does NOT hear you. Mary is DEAD until the resurrection. There is NO platonic immortal soul that leaves the body at death. Death is not the gateway to life. Sorry, but Scripture doesn't support you view of life (or apparently lack of life in your case) after death.

Eph. 3:14-15- we are all one family in heaven and on earth, united together, as children of the Father, through Jesus Christ. Our brothers and sisters who have gone to heaven before us are not a different family. We are one and the same family. This is why, in the Apostles Creed, we profess a belief in the "communion of saints." There cannot be a "communion" if there is no union. Loving beings, whether on earth or in heaven, are concerned for other beings, and this concern is reflected spiritually through prayers for one another.

Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 - this family is in Jesus Christ, the head of the body, which is the Church.

1 Cor. 12:12,27; Rom. 12:5; Col. 3:15; Eph. 4:4 - we are the members of the one body of Christ.

Rom. 8:35-39 - therefore, death does not separate the family of God and the love of Christ. We are still united with each other, even beyond death.

Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30 - Jesus converses with "deceased" Moses and Elijah. They are more alive than the saints on earth.

Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38 - God is the God of the living not the dead.

Luke 15:7,10 – if the angels and saints experience joy in heaven over our repentance, then they are still connected to us and are aware of our behavior.

John 15:1-6 - Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. The good branches are not cut off at death. They are alive in heaven.

1 Cor. 4:9 – because we can become a spectacle not only to men, but to angels as well, this indicates that angels are aware of our earthly activity. Those in heaven are connected to those on earth.

1 Cor. 12:26 - when one member suffers, all suffer. When one is honored, all rejoice. We are in this together as one family.

1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2 - now we see in a mirror dimly, but in heaven we see face to face. The saints are more alive than we are!

Heb. 12:1: we are surrounded by a great glory cloud (shekinah) of witnesses. The “cloud of witnesses” refers to the saints who are not only watching us from above but cheering us on in our race to heaven.

1 Peter 2:9; Rev. 20:6 - we are a royal family of priests by virtue of baptism. We as priests intercede on behalf of each other.

2 Peter 1:4 - since God is the eternal family and we are His children, we are partakers of His divine nature as a united family.

1 Cor. 1:2; Rom. 1:7 - we are called to be saints. Saints refer to both those on earth and in heaven who are in Christ. Proof:

Acts 9:13,32,41; 26:10; 1 Cor. 6:1-2; 14:33; 2 Cor. 1:1; 8:4; 9:1-2; 13:13; Rom. 8:27; 12:23; 15:25,26, 31; 16:2,15; Eph. 1:1,15,18; 3:8; 5:3; 6:18; Phil. 1:1; 4:22; Col 1:2,4,26; 1 Tm 5:10; Philemon 1:5,7; Heb. 6:10; 13:24; Jude 1:3; Rev. 11:18; 13:7; 14:12; 16:6; 17:6;18:20,24; Rev 19:8; 20:9 - in these verses, we see that Christians still living on earth are called "saints."

Matt. 27:52; Eph. 2:19; 3:18; Col. 1:12; 2 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 5:8; 8:3-4; 11:18; 13:10 - in these verses, we also see that "saints" also refer to those in heaven who united with us.

Dan. 4:13,23; 8:23 – we also see that the angels in heaven are also called “saints.” The same Hebrew word “qaddiysh” (holy one) is applied to both humans and angels in heaven. Hence, there are angel saints in heaven and human saints in heaven and on earth. Loving beings (whether angels or saints) are concerned for other beings, and prayer is the spiritual way of expressing that love.


Psalm 6:5; 31:17. Genesis 2:7 says man BECAME a living soul and was NOT given a soul. Body plus breath=LIFE.

Eccl 3:19-21 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Job 14:10 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?
Job 34:15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.
Ps 115:17 The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.

Our body returns to dust just like the animals but the spirit (breath) of man goes back to God. If man is not dead but in another form of life when he dies so must it be said of the animals. There is no distinction between the death of the saved and the unsaved in the passages above. They tell us what happens at death and that is apart from man’s acceptance or non-acceptance of God. As far as death is concerned the same is applied to both believers and unbelievers.

II Thess. 1:9. Our souls are immortal. If, as you claim, they are not, then who or what exactly is doing all of this eternal suffering? Suffering isn't a state if there is nothing there to experience the suffering. And since suffering is said to be eternal, as it does in this passage, then there must be something eternal (immortal) there to experience this suffering.

Do you even know why Jesus prayed that prayer in the Garden? Matthew 42:44 is not in my Bible. My citation error. Should be 42;44.
Jesus said He had not come BUT to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). That prayer that was given to the disciples was for the nation about to undergo persecution and just before revealing His mission on the Cross. “Give us this day our daily bread”. Does that ring a bell? It is ISRAEL that was given manna daily in the wilderness. We do not pray such things. “Thy Kingdom COME” has YET to come. Jesus is NOT reigning as King over the nation Israel YET in His Personal Presence. The Lord's prayer forms a part of the Sermon on the Mount and that prayer is not for the gentiles!
http://www.christianforums.com/t7838712/




Not germane to the discussion but tell me this. How do you pray every waking minute of your Christian life? I know.



I do not think ANYONE denies prayers for others among the LIVING. What does Revelation 21:27 have to do with it? The Lamb's book of life is the Lamb's book of MARTYRS and not what Christendom has imagined. Again. Mary is DEAD.



The “cloud of witnesses” are those listed in Hebrews 11 that have gone before and have DIED in the faith and are examples for us to follow. A serious misapplication you have there, but I know you will not let it go. Jesus is...THE...faithful witness (Revelation 1:5; Hebrews 12:2).



They no longer retain Biblical Truth when misapplied.



No one is condemning the person but is an attempt to ENLIGHTEN, Dearly Beloved.



Ten fold to you and thanks.

Peace in Christ
 
Upvote 0

LadyOfMystery

Heart of Gold
Mar 25, 2007
38,436
8,272
36
North Carolina
✟278,993.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Mod Hat ON

Hi everyone! :wave:
I just wanted to give everyone a friendly reminder of the following rule:

Flaming
●
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
● Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.


And also let everyone know this thread has went through a mini clean up.

Have a great day and always remember you can PM staff or make a thread in MSC if you have any questions or concerns. :thumbsup:

Mod Hat OFF
 
  • Like
Reactions: brinny
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums