The KJVO Myth - Phony As A Ford Corvette !

[disciple Clint]

Jesus himself did not write anything. We have only writings of the apostles and its true that their quotations of the OT correspond to Septuagint more frequently than to modern masoretic text. But not always.

So there was not one perfect source of Scriptures in those times (like it is not today). But the Septuagint line of Scriptures was used much more frequently than others.

The modern Masoretic texts did not exist in the time of Jesus they were written sometime after the 7 century c.e. so it is an absolute certainty that Jesus did not quote them. The Septuagint was in existence prior to the time of Jesus and was in common use in His time. Jesus was literate and likely wrote something but there is no evidence of that. No need to take my word for a fact.
What Bible Did Jesus Use?
In Which Passages Does Jesus Quote the Septuagint, and Where Does the New Testament Allude to the Septuagint?
What Bible Did Jesus Use? - Bible Study Tips

 

[disciple Clint]

I'm glad to hear that you understand that. But many disagree with that view. Claiming a "closed canon" and Cessationism.

Saint Steven said: ↑
This is actually one of the problems with having a Bible. People think it is a replacement for hearing directly from God. Which you just confirmed. Thanks.

I would agree with a close canon but not Cessationism.

 

[Radagast]

The modern Masoretic texts did not exist in the time of Jesus they were written sometime after the 7 century c.e. so it is an absolute certainty that Jesus did not quote them.

Obviously the Masoretic texts were copied from earlier Hebrew texts that did exist in the time of Jesus.

And when we look at NT quotes of the OT, some of them are recognisably the Septuagint, and some of them are something that looks exactly like the Masoretic.

 

[solid_core]

The modern Masoretic texts did not exist in the time of Jesus they were written sometime after the 7 century c.e. so it is an absolute certainty that Jesus did not quote them. The Septuagint was in existence prior to the time of Jesus and was in common use in His time. Jesus was literate and likely wrote something but there is no evidence of that. No need to take my word for a fact.
What Bible Did Jesus Use?
In Which Passages Does Jesus Quote the Septuagint, and Where Does the New Testament Allude to the Septuagint?
What Bible Did Jesus Use? - Bible Study Tips

There was so called proto-masoretic text. It seems that there were several textual lines of the OT around the first century.

One was used by Christians, the second one was adopted by Jews later, to get rid of the Christian arguments taken from the "Septuagint" line of Scriptures. It later became what we know as Jewish masoretic text.

 

[Radagast]

I would agree with a close canon but not Cessationism.

To deny a closed canon is to claim that there are people walking around today whose words are just as authoritative as those of Jesus and the Apostles.

I don't think I'd have much in common with somebody who claimed that.

 

[solid_core]

To deny a closed canon is to claim that there are people walking around today whose words are just as authoritative as those of Jesus and the Apostles.

I don't think I'd have much in common with somebody who claimed that.

Loose canon does not have to mean that todays writings have the same level of authority as the writings of the first century, but it may mean that there is no reason to limit the Scriptures to the selected 66 books of the Bible while dismissing other ancient writings.

There are also various levels of authority inside the closed canon. For example, the song of songs does not have the level of authority of Genesis, of Isaiah or of the gospel of Matthew.

 

[Saint Steven]

I would agree with a close canon but not Cessationism.

Glad to hear that you disagree with Cessationism.

The idea of a "closed canon" infers that the New Testament was "written" like a book that ended with the last chapter being the book of Revelation. When in fact the canon was a collection of books assembled and voted on in the fourth century. The term "closed canon" is also used to claim that the revelation of God to humankind is complete and that there is no new revelation that can come from God now. (a gag order on God speaking today)

 

[Radagast]

There are also various levels of authority inside the closed canon.

Not in my branch of Christianity, there isn't. Nor in any other branch of Christianity I'm familiar with.

 

[Radagast]

The term "closed canon" is also used to claim that the revelation of God to humankind is complete and that there is no new revelation that can come from God now. (a gag order on God speaking today)

I'm sure you know that it doesn't mean that at all: it means that any new direct revelation is not authoritative for the Church as a whole, the way that Scripture is.

Most Continuationists accept a closed canon, in fact.

 

[Saint Steven]

To deny a closed canon is to claim that there are people walking around today whose words are just as authoritative as those of Jesus and the Apostles.

I don't think I'd have much in common with somebody who claimed that.

God doesn't play by our rules. He speaks when he wants and through whom he chooses. He even chose a donkey once to speak to Balaam. Who are we to claim what is more or less "authoritative"?

 

[solid_core]

Not in my branch of Christianity, there isn't. Nor in any other branch of Christianity I'm familiar with.

I have never heard of any branch of Christianity that based any doctrines on books like Ester, Song of Songs and similar.

So we all know its true, even though not clearly said.

 

[Radagast]

God doesn't play by our rules. He speaks when he wants and through whom he chooses. He even chose a donkey once to speak to Balaam. Who are we to claim what is more or less "authoritative"?

"God just spoke to me and told me that you are wrong. That word is authoritative for you."

Do you see my issue?

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm sure you know that it doesn't mean that at all: it means that any new direct revelation is not authoritative for the Church as a whole, the way that Scripture is.

Most Continuationists accept a closed canon, in fact.

Yes, I understand that. But most Cessationists that I have encountered don't. One of their claims is that the "perfect" that was to come (1Cor.13:10) is the closed canon.

Saint Steven said: ↑
The term "closed canon" is also used to claim that the revelation of God to humankind is complete and that there is no new revelation that can come from God now. (a gag order on God speaking today)

 

[Saint Steven]

"God just spoke to me and told me that you are wrong. That word is authoritative for you."

Do you see my issue?

Yes. That would be an abuse of the gift. And probably an indication that it was not from God at all. Nothing strengthening, encouraging or comforting in that message.

Typically God gives someone a puzzle piece to deliver. They have no idea what it means. It is up to the recipient to determine if and when it fits, if at all.

1 Corinthians 14:3
But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.

 

[Radagast]

I have never heard of any branch of Christianity that based any doctrines on books like Ester, Song of Songs and similar.

I've seen Esther used in the interpretation of parts of Revelation.

I've seen the Song of Songs used allegorically to talk about Jesus.

I've seen the Song of Songs used not allegorically to counsel married couples.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

 

[Radagast]

It is up to the recipient to determine if and when it fits, if at all.

Well, that moves authority from God's word to the recipient. History tells us where that leads.

I'll stick with the closed canon, thanks.

 

[Saint Steven]

Well, that moves authority from God's word to the recipient. History tells us where that leads.

I'll stick with the closed canon, thanks.

It's the same spiritual mechanism (for lack of a better word) that alerted us to the inspired words of scripture which were canonized. And the same mechanism that speaks to us when we read today. It's the word or phrase that stands out from the rest in a passage being read. Or something being said that resonates with us on a deep level.

It's no wonder that we have people in the church who don't have a personal relationship with God. Because the church has told them it is not something for them to have. That the best they can hope for is a relationship with the "authorized" Church as an institution.

 

[Radagast]

never mind

 

[Saint Steven]

never mind

No risk, no reward.

Has God never spoken to you individually?

 

[robycop3]

I understand that the Hebrew is difficult here, and the the Living Bible and NLT may have been influenced by the Vulgate translation. But what is the English word that angry men shout when they are referring to an adulterous woman? Because that would be the literal translation.

And there are other passages where the Hebrew unambiguously uses words far worse than the one you carefully did not say.

But they're not rendered in English, using English scatology. I'm sure Hebrew has some "cussing" in it, too.