# What if they were found?



## hobbs27 (Sep 15, 2013)

There's a lot of books spoken of in the bible that have been lost in time. What if they were found in a tomb or cave somewhere today...would you treat them as Gods word? What would be the standard today to consider a book inspired by God? I know they are all OT but would you consider the info provided to connect some links maybe?

Just a sample of some of the books for the naysayers..

The book of wars of the Lord..spoken of in Numbers 21:14

2Samuel 1:18  mentions the book of Jasher

1Kings 11:41 Acts of Kings...and there are many more lost books.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 15, 2013)

The book of Enoch is VERY intersting. Mentioned several times in the NT. But more important is this. Enoch was for a long time considered an implant that was based on our NT Matthew. Something like 100 times Enoch uses Matthew almost word for word. As if the writer is refering to Matthew. But after the discovery of the dead sea schrools, we now have a dating verified as to which came first. Just the opposite of what was thought. Matthew is basing his book off Enoch. This validates the early church conformation of Enoch. A book they held in high esteem. I think it was purposely sweep aside because of it's use of "Son of man", not validating the target doctrine. As a side note, only the first 66 chapters are considered the original. The others are considered by historians to have piggybacked a ride somewhere later on.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 15, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> The book of Enoch is VERY intersting. Mentioned several times in the NT. But more important is this. Enoch was for a long time considered an implant that was based on our NT Matthew. Something like 100 times Enoch uses Matthew almost word for word. As if the writer is refering to Matthew. But after the discovery of the dead sea schrools, we now have a dating verified as to which came first. Just the opposite of what was thought. Matthew is basing his book off Enoch. This validates the early church conformation of Enoch. A book they held in high esteem. I think it was purposely sweep aside because of it's use of "Son of man", not validating the target doctrine. As a side note, only the first 66 chapters are considered the original. The others are considered by historians to have piggybacked a ride somewhere later on.



Ive got the 3 books of enoch and have only got through the ethiopic book so far, but WOW!  It sure fills in some holes if it truly is Gods word.


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 15, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> There's a lot of books spoken of in the bible that have been lost in time. What if they were found in a tomb or cave somewhere today...would you treat them as Gods word? What would be the standard today to consider a book inspired by God? I know they are all OT but would you consider the info provided to connect some links maybe?
> 
> Just a sample of some of the books for the naysayers..
> 
> ...



Just my opinion here, but IF any books were found which gave us neccesary additional information about salvation, that would mean God's word hasn't been read/believed for hundreds of years.  I have to believe a God powerful enough to speak the world into existence could ensure that people throughout the Christian age could obtain the necessary information needed to be saved.  When I go back and research info about the development of the biblical canon, I see God's providential hand.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 15, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Just my opinion here, but IF any books were found which gave us neccesary additional information about salvation, that would mean God's word hasn't been read/believed for hundreds of years.  I have to believe a God powerful enough to speak the world into existence could ensure that people throughout the Christian age could obtain the necessary information needed to be saved.  When I go back and research info about the development of the biblical canon, I see God's providential hand.



Maybe the new information doesn't pertain to salvation but History. God doesn't really need to give us written word as he could have tattooed it on our hearts.
Maybe Satan hid the other Books. 
It could be that we didn't need them until now. God could let us find the missing books to help us through another dispensation.


----------



## M80 (Sep 15, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Just my opinion here, but IF any books were found which gave us neccesary additional information about salvation, that would mean God's word hasn't been read/believed for hundreds of years.  I have to believe a God powerful enough to speak the world into existence could ensure that people throughout the Christian age could obtain the necessary information needed to be saved.  When I go back and research info about the development of the biblical canon, I see God's providential hand.



I'm with Bama on this one. I think God gave us just what we need


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 16, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Just my opinion here, but IF any books were found which gave us neccesary additional information about salvation, that would mean God's word hasn't been read/believed for hundreds of years.  I have to believe a God powerful enough to speak the world into existence could ensure that people throughout the Christian age could obtain the necessary information needed to be saved.  When I go back and research info about the development of the biblical canon, I see God's providential hand.



 I dont think anything found today would have a negative effect on salvation, but what if we found something today that was useful for us today and not for folks over the past 2 thousand years?
 God put those books in The Book for a reason dont you think?


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 16, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> There's a lot of books spoken of in the bible that have been lost in time. What if they were found in a tomb or cave somewhere today...would you treat them as Gods word? What would be the standard today to consider a book inspired by God? I know they are all OT but would you consider the info provided to connect some links maybe?
> 
> Just a sample of some of the books for the naysayers..
> 
> ...



The standard for being inspired would be the same as when the books were chosen to be included into cannon. The standard used is known. I read it just a few days ago. I'm just back from a night shift and will have to search the link again if you want it.

I can list perhaps three items ( from memory) required to claim it as inspired.

a) It has to be an esteemed and treasured book from a religious community.

b)It has to be an original book in that the religious community must know who wrote it if possible and that it is not corrupted  by editing or additions outside of tradition it was written...

c. It must conform, according to church fathers or the people chosen by the church to decided if books are inspired, that the books holds true to what is known of the trinity, or what is known that is of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These cannot contradict themselves in a book said inspired. For example a book that some would claim to be inspired yet it would deny the devinity of Jesus or that the world was the battle ground of two Gods would not pass standard...

*****Note my words are a layman's words, I'm not a scolar on this matter.)


----------



## Israel (Sep 16, 2013)

Any word that confirms to you the Lordship of Jesus as revealed by the Holy Spirit is inspired.
Yes, even that "Yield" sign at the end of your road.
At the end of all our roads.
Being free is a peculiar estate...cause it also means being free of having to decide through whom or what you will allow the ever speaking God to commune with you.
I wonder what the rocks and stones were speaking to Stephen hurled in hatred and anger...I believe it was "I love you, oh, how I love you!"


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 16, 2013)

Israel said:


> Any word that confirms to you the Lordship of Jesus as revealed by the Holy Spirit is inspired.
> Yes, even that "Yield" sign at the end of your road.
> At the end of all our roads.
> Being free is a peculiar estate...cause it also means being free of having to decide through whom or what you will allow the ever speaking God to commune with you.
> I wonder what the rocks and stones were speaking to Stephen hurled in hatred and anger...I believe it was "I love you, oh, how I love you!"



Agree!


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 16, 2013)

Gordon, thanks for that info. I don't think people would ever allow any scripture to be added as inspired by God even if it met all the criteria..do you?


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 16, 2013)

Though the Greek Septuagint was composed no later than the second century BC with 39 books and the Apocrypha, the first set of "criteria" that I've found was from the Jewish council of Jamnia toward the end of the first century AD.  Their criteria was...
* Books had to conform to the Pentateuch
* Books had to be written in Hebrew
* Books had to be written in Palestine
* Books had to be written prior to 400 BC

Regarding the NT books, it seems this criteria was used by most compiling different lists shortly after the close of the first century...
* Books had to be written by an apostle or someone known to have been a close associate of an apostle
* Since book's authorship was limited to these, a book had to written in the first century 
* Books written to support heresy were not eligible
* Books had to have to enjoyed "widespread usage" among churches in different regions; those utilized only in certain areas were not included
* Books had to have been proven to be useful in the work of congregations and individuals within the church

Some of these things regarding the NT compilation, looking at it solely from a modern-day perspective, may seem to be somewhat sketchy.  One of the BIG things that is vital to realize is that for one generation after the apostle's death, church members still enjoyed the gifts of the Holy Spirit - which included prophecy and discernment.  Thus, spread out across the world until the middle of the second century were those possessing the ability to know if something was or was not the authentic word of God.  As a result, you can see the validity of the "widespread usage" idea (for example).

As with today, there were many good spiritual books which were composed at the same time the letters of the NT were being composed - but that didn't mean they should be part of the NT canon.  Only "inspired books" were included... as it should have been.  And at that time (early in the second century), there were many people very qualified to make a determination regarding what should/should not be included as "Scripture."


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 16, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe the new information doesn't pertain to salvation but History. God doesn't really need to give us written word as he could have tattooed it on our hearts.
> Maybe Satan hid the other Books.
> It could be that we didn't need them until now. God could let us find the missing books to help us through another dispensation.



2 Peter 1:3 indicates God has given to us (in His word) "all things that pertain to life and godliness".  I see that as a clear statement that there is no need for an "additional revelation"... outside of the books of the bible.

Here's the thing about the scenario proposed by Hobbs as the first post in the thread.  Somehow or another, we would have to believe that we (hundreds of years removed from that time) are better qualified to make a determination of what should/should not be included in the NT canon.

At the end of the first century/into the second century, the church still had men like Polycarp - who was a pupil of the apostle John.  There were still people alive who had seen Jesus - or heard direct teachings regarding Christianity from inspired apostles.  In addition, for one generation following the death of the apostles, brethren would still utilize gifts of the Holy Spirit (which came through the laying on of hands by the apostles)... gifts which included prophecy and ability to "test" or "discern" things.  IF books existed then which were inspired of God, SOMEONE in the church would have been aware of their existence - and would have brought them forward to be included in a canon.  

As an example, early church fathers knew the book of Enoch existed... but they didn't attempt to include it in the biblical canon.  Why?  It's hard to go back and determine the exact reason, but they didn't.  Even though many of them cited it in their writings, they never referred to it as Scripture.  Those closest to the time period of the writings were qualified in a unique way to make these determinations... and we have to trust that God's hand was in this process - especially when it comes to knowing everything which pertains to the salvation of our souls.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 16, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> 2 Peter 1:3 indicates God has given to us (in His word) "all things that pertain to life and godliness".  I see that as a clear statement that there is no need for an "additional revelation"... outside of the books of the bible.
> 
> Here's the thing about the scenario proposed by Hobbs as the first post in the thread.  Somehow or another, we would have to believe that we (hundreds of years removed from that time) are better qualified to make a determination of what should/should not be included in the NT canon.
> 
> ...



So you feel the window of divine inspiration has been closed? Why was it opened for such a short period? 
I can't discount what Polycarp knew but we could have inspired religious experts of our time period to help us fully understand lost books.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 16, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> Gordon, thanks for that info. I don't think people would ever allow any scripture to be added as inspired by God even if it met all the criteria..do you?



Well obviously some have, even ( as in all cases I can think of) when it did not meet criteria. Some have added testament to testament. Others have edited the words of the aposles to say what they believe and even claiming in doing so, to be only innocently or partly to the light for the world which decieves. 

I think that since all is in Christ for us... baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit would be far more beneficial to salvation then one's disability to understand Revelation for example and make of it what it is not, for example.

Many still believe that the prospect of "not going to heaven" is fearful to a sinner. And the sinner in turn judging a christian without mercy as he does, judging the hypocracy he sees in the man of Christ, that of using the curses of the Old Testemant to spur-on the sinner and  the fallen, to Christ--How is this not a book written in the heart! 

Personally I have a hard time with this book. Is it Christ? Or is it the well intended groom knowing how to bridle a horse  and working his harness accoss of the back of the image of God in his  concern  for the Good News?

Perhaps..."a light that shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overpower" is the very word and work we need to find and looking up onto the cross and body of Christ crucified-- it is all in all.

OH man what is the glory of God? 

Perhaps...


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 16, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> So you feel the window of divine inspiration has been closed? Why was it opened for such a short period?
> I can't discount what Polycarp knew but we could have inspired religious experts of our time period to help us fully understand lost books.



Absolutely, I believe Divine inspiration is closed.  Why else would 2 Peter 1:3 say what it does if there is anything else lacking?  No one today is "inspired" of God... that ability was limited to the early years of the church.  BTW, the ability to serve as a prophet (speaking a direct revelation from God) in the first century church was received when apostles laid hands on people... how can receive the gift today if the apostles are all dead?


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 16, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> So you feel the window of divine inspiration has been closed? Why was it opened for such a short period?
> I can't discount what Polycarp knew but we could have inspired religious experts of our time period to help us fully understand lost books.



Sorry... didn't touch on your question of "why for only a short time period".  The reason of "why and when" comes down to communicating God's will to people.  In the first century, there weren't any copies of what we now call "the New Testament"... a full collection of the 27 books that we have today wouldn't be fully assembled until the late second century (at earliest).  Thus, there was a need for "direct revelation" through the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit (i.e. the gift of prophecy).  People in Rome, for instance, didn't have the ability to open up the book of Matthew and read of Jesus' life/death/resurrection.  Through gifts like prophecy, they received this knowledge.

Once the NT letters were written and collected, there would no longer be a need to have "direct revelations" from God... because people could read God's word for themselves.  For instance, I don't need someone today to miraculously (via a gift of the Holy Spirit) tell me that Jesus' deity was proven by His ability to perform miracles... the NT tells informs me of that fact.  Further, John 20:30-31 tells people that when one reads of Jesus' miracles, they lead him/her to believe in Him and have salvation.

Today, there is no need for additional "inspiration" UNLESS the NT doesn't give us "all things that pertain to life and godliness"... as 2 Peter 1:3 states.  IF inspiration continues today, then we have no grounds to reject Joseph Smith's "modern-day revelation"... nor any other book that a man claims is "from God".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 16, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Today, there is no need for additional "inspiration" UNLESS the NT doesn't give us "all things that pertain to life and godliness"... as 2 Peter 1:3 states.  IF inspiration continues today, then we have no grounds to reject Joseph Smith's "modern-day revelation"... nor any other book that a man claims is "from God".



2 Peter 1:3
His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

How can you know for sure this means only the written word of God? What about the inspired words said or written after Peter said this in 2 Peter 1:3?


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 16, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> 2 Peter 1:3
> His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.
> 
> How can you know for sure this means only the written word of God? What about the inspired words said or written after Peter said this in 2 Peter 1:3?



The tense in which he said it... "has given", not "will be given".  While it could be expanded to mean additional things besides the written word (i.e. gifts of the Holy Spirit), it would INCLUDE the written word.

Question... why would we need something additional to the written word of God today?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 16, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Absolutely, I believe Divine inspiration is closed.  Why else would 2 Peter 1:3 say what it does if there is anything else lacking?  No one today is "inspired" of God... that ability was limited to the early years of the church.  BTW, the ability to serve as a prophet (speaking a direct revelation from God) in the first century church was received when apostles laid hands on people... how can receive the gift today if the apostles are all dead?



 Maybe just occasionally if we are obedient we are all inspired of God as a witness....


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 16, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> Maybe just occasionally if we are obedient we are all inspired of God as a witness....



I'm not sure we're all on the same page when it comes to the meaning of "inspiration".  "Inspiration" the way I am referring to it means that someone has the ability to pen written materials on behalf of God in an inerrant manner, like is mentioned in 2 Peter 1:19-21.

This usage is different than being led by the teachings of God's word... it's different than saying someone may be providentially led by God in some manner or another.  I'm solely referring to the ability someone has to pen a letter directly from God to man.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 16, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> I'm not sure we're all on the same page when it comes to the meaning of "inspiration".  "Inspiration" the way I am referring to it means that someone has the ability to pen written materials on behalf of God in an inerrant manner, like is mentioned in 2 Peter 1:19-21.
> 
> This usage is different than being led by the teachings of God's word... it's different than saying someone may be providentially led by God in some manner or another.  I'm solely referring to the ability someone has to pen a letter directly from God to man.



I do understand the two different inspirations but why can't there be lost or undiscovered books? Why can't God lead modern man to these books? I do understand what Peter said but maybe the new books could be delievered for a new purpose.
Why did God lead men to find the Dead Sea Scrolls or was it just an accident? 
Why did Martin Luther do what he did? Was he driven by God? What's the difference in Martin Luther and Joseph Smith?


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 16, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I do understand the two different inspirations but why can't there be lost or undiscovered books? Why can't God lead modern man to these books? I do understand what Peter said but maybe the new books could be delievered for a new purpose.
> Why did God lead men to find the Dead Sea Scrolls or was it just an accident?
> Why did Martin Luther do what he did? Was he driven by God? What's the difference in Martin Luther and Joseph Smith?



The Dead Sea Scrolls did not bring any new information to the table regarding God's word - it simply verified what had been believed all along (i.e. that certain books belonged in the bible).  Nowhere in the DSS discoveries was there an "additional book" found and brought to the biblical canon.

Martin Luther didn't have to be "inspired" to do what he did.  Anyone could read the bible and compare what it said to the practices of the Catholic church... and see the problems that Luther saw.  Smith, on the other hand, claimed to have a "new" revelation from God.  However, when you compare what he wrote with the bible, there are clear differences.

What you're suggesting with your line of reasoning is either (1) people can't read/understand the bible without some kind of special direct leading from God, (2) what is found in the written word is not sufficient - there's a need to add something more, and/or (3) people being led DIRECTLY by God in the 1st/2nd century somehow "overlooked" a book that was supposed to be included in the biblical canon.  What's causing you to think one or more of these are correct???


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 16, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> I'm not sure we're all on the same page when it comes to the meaning of "inspiration".  "Inspiration" the way I am referring to it means that someone has the ability to pen written materials on behalf of God in an inerrant manner, like is mentioned in 2 Peter 1:19-21.
> 
> This usage is different than being led by the teachings of God's word... it's different than saying someone may be providentially led by God in some manner or another.  I'm solely referring to the ability someone has to pen a letter directly from God to man.



 Im with you and understand well where you are coming from, but to get us back on topic, how would you respond to the discovery of , " The book of Wars of the Lord"  written of by Gods inspired words in Numbers 21:14?

 Wouldnt it strike your interest, wouldnt you want to read it? 
 If you did read it and it made connections to things previously unknown to you, would you accept it as Gods word since it is mentioned in Gods word?


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 16, 2013)

regards The book of wars...of the Lord. From Cracked.com:

 Quote: {The importance of a book allegedly written by God (either directly or indirectly), cannot be overstated. If this book had survived, it would be in the same category as The Bible. You know. The greatest-selling and most influential book in the history of time. ----, there are religious sects that are formed based on single sentences in the Bible and full religions dedicated to finding secret codes within the text. Any addition or change to The Bible, even if they're slight, would have had a huge impact on the face of history} End Quote

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article/1836...at-would-have-changed-world_p2/#ixzz2f5raK2iC


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 16, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> What you're suggesting with your line of reasoning is either (1) people can't read/understand the bible without some kind of special direct leading from God, (2) what is found in the written word is not sufficient - there's a need to add something more, and/or (3) people being led DIRECTLY by God in the 1st/2nd century somehow "overlooked" a book that was supposed to be included in the biblical canon.  What's causing you to think one or more of these are correct???



(1) I feel the Holy Spirit helps us to understand not only the Bible but everything spiritual.
(2)The Bible is enough but as we learn we yearn to learn more. We have Sunday School lessons, sermons, books that aren't directly inspired, & schools of religion text books. 
(3) I'm not saying the books or literature WAS suppose to be included at that time. God didn't want it to. It didn't fit into his plan at that time. It wasn't needed. It may never be part of his plan. All I'm saying is it could be possible that God will let modern man aware of information if it is in his plan to do so. I do not know if this is truly possible but feel it is possible. Maybe these new scriptures will only be for extra knowledge to live in a new dispensation that hasn't come yet.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 16, 2013)

Were the other books mentioned in the Bible forbidden or lost? Would it be wrong for us to read these forbidden books? God didn't want them in the Bible, does it go against his teachings to read other literature as even earlier transcripts? 
Christians have done all sorts of things over the years as a group that didn't have God's blessing. Maybe man forbid the books and God will lead man to return the forbidden books to their rightful place.
Maybe God controls everything and maybe he doesn't.


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 16, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Were the other books mentioned in the Bible forbidden or lost? Would it be wrong for us to read these forbidden books? God didn't want them in the Bible, does it go against his teachings to read other literature as even earlier transcripts?
> Christians have done all sorts of things over the years as a group that didn't have God's blessing. Maybe man forbid the books and God will lead man to return the forbidden books to their rightful place.
> Maybe God controls everything and maybe he doesn't.



As I've mentioned prior, if there was a need for it now, 2 Peter 1:3 is not factual because God hadn't given to man everything which was needed.  Regarding God's control of the process of forming the canon, think about this... 2 Peter 3:9 tells us He wishes all people to repent and thus be saved.  Yet, for hundreds of years, people have been without information needed to actually do that.  Would that not make God dishonest... or not powerful enough to make sure they could have access to the gospel?  It is indeed a matter of faith to accept what we currently have as God's word.

Regarding reading these non-canonical books, it's not wrong to read them - some of the best information from the intertestimental period about Jewish history comes from books people wanted to include in the OT canon.  It's when we elevate them to the same level as Scripture that the problem arises - that was what the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day did with their written collection of oral traditions - and Jesus clearly condemned their elevation of those traditions to "Scripture".


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 16, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> Im with you and understand well where you are coming from, but to get us back on topic, how would you respond to the discovery of , " The book of Wars of the Lord"  written of by Gods inspired words in Numbers 21:14?
> 
> Wouldnt it strike your interest, wouldnt you want to read it?
> If you did read it and it made connections to things previously unknown to you, would you accept it as Gods word since it is mentioned in Gods word?



I see your argument here, but I don't know if I could rightly classify a book as "Scripture" solely because it's mentioned/cited in the bible.  Sometimes in the NT, secular writers/historians/philosophers are cited for a particular statement... but that doesn't mean their work was inspired of God.  In addition, I have to faithfully believe that if it was essential to our faith, God would have providentially preserved it in such a way it would have been included in the OT canon.  BTW, some researchers believe the Wars of The Lord was possibly a hymnal... very similar to the Psalms.


----------



## Israel (Sep 17, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> As I've mentioned prior, if there was a need for it now, 2 Peter 1:3 is not factual because God hadn't given to man everything which was needed.  Regarding God's control of the process of forming the canon, think about this... 2 Peter 3:9 tells us He wishes all people to repent and thus be saved.  Yet, for hundreds of years, people have been without information needed to actually do that.  Would that not make God dishonest... or not powerful enough to make sure they could have access to the gospel?  It is indeed a matter of faith to accept what we currently have as God's word.
> 
> Regarding reading these non-canonical books, it's not wrong to read them - some of the best information from the intertestimental period about Jewish history comes from books people wanted to include in the OT canon.  It's when we elevate them to the same level as Scripture that the problem arises - that was what the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day did with their written collection of oral traditions - and Jesus clearly condemned their elevation of those traditions to "Scripture".



"Which" people there, are to be trusted? The adopters...or the rejectors?

What if truth must always be revealed...regardless of all the means we perceive as a "leg up"?

Gen 12:1  Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 


Perhaps it is only in the leaving all we have ever known that a mystery hidden from ages past, is discovered?

A man had written recently...he didn't want to speak no made up babbling...what if we discover all we have ever known...is the made up stuff...even these letters on this cyber page...but truth abides...somewhere...to be found?


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 17, 2013)

Israel said:


> "Which" people there, are to be trusted? The adopters...or the rejectors?
> 
> What if truth must always be revealed...regardless of all the means we perceive as a "leg up"?
> 
> ...



For anyone who has never researched the issue, I'd highly suggest that you do so.  Until you go back and see all the things which went into the process of assembling these biblical books, you're operating solely from a 21st century perspective.  Until you go back and see the various places in the NT where these OT books are called "Scripture", it sounds like a very arbitrary process - one which could be filled with errors, bias, and subjectivity.  I'm not saying Israel or anyone else hasn't researched this subject... but the things I'm hearing said in this thread makes me wonder if people have actually studied the topic.

Whenever the biblical canons were formed, it was a VERY thorough process.  People involved in that process didn't take their responsibility lightly - they fully understood they were dealing with God's word.  In terms of time, they were very close to the "source"... and they were familiar with the battles some had over inclusion/exclusion.  There is a good reason the books of the Apocrypha shouldn't be included in the OT canon... but until one goes and searches for the reasons, our minds wonder "why shouldn't these books be included?"  Granted, I don't blindly put my faith in people and the things they do, but when you study the subject you realize you're not putting faith in the people as much as you're putting faith in the process and criteria that was utilized.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 17, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> regards The book of wars...of the Lord. From Cracked.com:
> 
> Quote: {The importance of a book allegedly written by God (either directly or indirectly), cannot be overstated. If this book had survived, it would be in the same category as The Bible. You know. The greatest-selling and most influential book in the history of time. ----, there are religious sects that are formed based on single sentences in the Bible and full religions dedicated to finding secret codes within the text. Any addition or change to The Bible, even if they're slight, would have had a huge impact on the face of history} End Quote
> 
> Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article/1836...at-would-have-changed-world_p2/#ixzz2f5raK2iC




This has got to be the first time cracked.com has been cited as a reference in the Spiritual forum.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 17, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> For anyone who has never researched the issue, I'd highly suggest that you do so.  Until you go back and see all the things which went into the process of assembling these biblical books, you're operating solely from a 21st century perspective.  Until you go back and see the various places in the NT where these OT books are called "Scripture", it sounds like a very arbitrary process - one which could be filled with errors, bias, and subjectivity.  I'm not saying Israel or anyone else hasn't researched this subject... but the things I'm hearing said in this thread makes me wonder if people have actually studied the topic.
> 
> Whenever the biblical canons were formed, it was a VERY thorough process.  People involved in that process didn't take their responsibility lightly - they fully understood they were dealing with God's word.  In terms of time, they were very close to the "source"... and they were familiar with the battles some had over inclusion/exclusion.  There is a good reason the books of the Apocrypha shouldn't be included in the OT canon... but until one goes and searches for the reasons, our minds wonder "why shouldn't these books be included?"  Granted, I don't blindly put my faith in people and the things they do, but when you study the subject you realize you're not putting faith in the people as much as you're putting faith in the process and criteria that was utilized.



Not the writers themselves but were the people involved in the process of picking & choosing the books inspired by God?


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 17, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Not the writers themselves but were the people involved in the process of picking & choosing the books inspired by God?



Art... have you done any research into the subject?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 17, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> For anyone who has never researched the issue, I'd highly suggest that you do so.  Until you go back and see all the things which went into the process of assembling these biblical books, you're operating solely from a 21st century perspective.  Until you go back and see the various places in the NT where these OT books are called "Scripture", it sounds like a very arbitrary process - one which could be filled with errors, bias, and subjectivity.  I'm not saying Israel or anyone else hasn't researched this subject... but the things I'm hearing said in this thread makes me wonder if people have actually studied the topic.
> 
> Whenever the biblical canons were formed, it was a VERY thorough process.  People involved in that process didn't take their responsibility lightly - they fully understood they were dealing with God's word.  In terms of time, they were very close to the "source"... and they were familiar with the battles some had over inclusion/exclusion.  There is a good reason the books of the Apocrypha shouldn't be included in the OT canon... but until one goes and searches for the reasons, our minds wonder "why shouldn't these books be included?"  Granted, I don't blindly put my faith in people and the things they do, but when you study the subject you realize you're not putting faith in the people as much as you're putting faith in the process and criteria that was utilized.


Where are you getting this info. I would like to study this. I suspect that those winning the battle for orthodox tried to justify their doctrine, claiming all others are heritics who did not conform to there beliefs. Point is that they kicked out everything that contridicted what it was they believed. Example being the book of Enoch. A book considered inspired for many generations until it was swept under a rug because it gave us the real definition of "the son of man". And during the 4th century, anyone having unaurthorized religious material was guilty of a capital offense. Everything contridictory was burned. Our canon was not chosen by a process. It was forced down the throats of mankind by suppression, laws and sometimes death. Those claiming they used a strict process are only justifying their own belief. They assume they are right


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 17, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Where are you getting this info. I would like to study this. I suspect that those winning the battle for orthodox tried to justify their doctrine, claiming all others are heritics who did not conform to there beliefs. Point is that they kicked out everything that contridicted what it was they believed. Example being the book of Enoch. A book considered inspired for many generations until it was swept under a rug because it gave us the real definition of "the son of man". And during the 4th century, anyone having unaurthorized religious material was guilty of a capital offense. Everything contridictory was burned. Our canon was not chosen by a process. It was forced down the throats of mankind by suppression, laws and sometimes death. Those claiming they used a strict process are only justifying their own belief. They assume they are right



You make a lot of assertions that simply don't agree with the accurate record of how books were included in the canon... specifically "it was not chosen by a process".  One of the best books I've read on the subject was written by Neil Lightfoot... "How We Got the Bible".  You can also check out sources like "A General Introduction to the Bible" (Geisler and Nix).  

I'm not in a position to either condemn or condone some of the things which took place by the Catholic church in their actions to further/suppress the truth... I didn't live in that day and didn't know what challenges they were facing by those disagreeing with them.  However, the truth stands... and you can find evidence long before the 4th Century that a canon was being formulated... and a Catholic council saying it was so is NOT the reason we should accept or deny the books of the bible as "canonical".  As I earlier stated, I'd encourage you to dig into the subject.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 17, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> You make a lot of assertions that simply don't agree with the accurate record of how books were included in the canon... specifically "it was not chosen by a process".  One of the best books I've read on the subject was written by Neil Lightfoot... "How We Got the Bible".  You can also check out sources like "A General Introduction to the Bible" (Geisler and Nix).
> 
> I'm not in a position to either condemn or condone some of the things which took place by the Catholic church in their actions to further/suppress the truth... I didn't live in that day and didn't know what challenges they were facing by those disagreeing with them.  However, the truth stands... and you can find evidence long before the 4th Century that a canon was being formulated... and a Catholic council saying it was so is NOT the reason we should accept or deny the books of the bible as "canonical".  As I earlier stated, I'd encourage you to dig into the subject.



At the council of Nicea, Constantine awarded Euesibus with the task of producing 50 bibles for the churches. These would be the standard. All else heritical. Yes, they were already being considered as inspired, he just put to rest the public controversy over the matter. Problem was those writings burned. We don't know what they contained.


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 17, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Example being the book of Enoch. A book considered inspired for many generations until it was swept under a rug.



This is clearly an overstatement.  There was opposition to the book of Enoch as well as support for it... but it is very important to notice the support for it as a canonical work was based on Jude 14-15.  The assertion?  Since Jude referenced a prophecy of Enoch, that meant the book of Enoch was inspired.

Yet, there are questions about this assertion that have a solid foundation.  First, did Jude reference a written work of Enoch... or a prophecy of Enoch?  Just because a man in the OT was a prophet didn't automatically mean he was inspired by God to write a book of the bible.  Second, which sections of the book of Enoch would have been inspired?  Most who study it conclude there are several sections... and they try to make all sections "inspired of God" based on what may have been said about one section.  Third, Paul twice noted poets from a non-Christian background as being accurate in their statements/writings about things (Acts 17:28, Titus 1:12ff).  Did the reference mean anything they wrote would've been inspired of God?  Hardly.

To say "the book of Enoch was considered inspired for many generations"?  Come on now.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 17, 2013)

Here is what is missed by the suppression of Enoch. Everytime Jesus used the term "son of man", applying it to himself, he was claiming to be that one described in the book of Enoch. The description of "son of man" preceeded Jesus. So for him to claim this for himself, we should pay close attention to what is said about the Son of man in Enoch. Think about it... we have nothing in regards to descriptive as to the meaning of son of man from our NT.  It entirely comes from Enoch. Jesus validated this book, proved by Matthew's recording of Jesus stating phrases taken directly from Enoch, some 100 times, says historians


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 17, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> At the council of Nicea, Constantine awarded Euesibus with the task of producing 50 bibles for the churches. These would be the standard. All else heritical. Yes, they were already being considered as inspired, he just put to rest the public controversy over the matter. Problem was those writings burned. We don't know what they contained.



You're looking at the council of Nicea... you need to look a lot earlier than that.  Find out what you can about things like the Muratorian Fragment... writings from men like Papias, Justin, Tatian in the second century... third century testimony by men like Iranaeus, Clement, and Tertullian.  Don't throw the baby (the biblical canon) out with the bathwater (the injustices/possible crimes of the Catholic church in later years).


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 17, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Here is what is missed by the suppression of Enoch. Everytime Jesus used the term "son of man", applying it to himself, he was claiming to be that one described in the book of Enoch. The description of "son of man" preceeded Jesus. So for him to claim this for himself, we should pay close attention to what is said about the Son of man in Enoch. Think about it... we have nothing in regards to descriptive as to the meaning of son of man from our NT.  It entirely comes from Enoch. Jesus validated this book, proved by Matthew's recording of Jesus stating phrases taken directly from Enoch, some 100 times, says historians



You are assuming the book of Enoch was written BEFORE the NT books... which is an assumption. Outside of Jude 14-15 (which I referenced above), there are NO places in the NT where Jesus or anyone else cited a possible quote from the book of Enoch and attributed it to Enoch.  Therefore, to say Jesus "validated the book"... come on. 

By the way, when you say "historians", realize that the vast majority (if not all) of them don't believe in the bible was actually inspired of God.  They believe it came from one person copying another or writing what was heard from another.


----------



## Timber1 (Sep 17, 2013)

Didn't Joseph Smith find some lost scriptures?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 17, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> You are assuming the book of Enoch was written BEFORE the NT books... which is an assumption. Outside of Jude 14-15 (which I referenced above), there are NO places in the NT where Jesus or anyone else cited a possible quote from the book of Enoch and attributed it to Enoch.  Therefore, to say Jesus "validated the book"... come on.
> 
> By the way, when you say "historians", realize that the vast majority (if not all) of them don't believe in the bible was actually inspired of God.  They believe it came from one person copying another or writing what was heard from another.


In an earlier post I stated how for years people thought that since so many phrases from Enoch were in Matthew that the book of Enoch must have been written after Matthew. But once the dead sea schrolls were found, we now realize that it is just the opposite, that Matthew was not just using Enoch as a basis but rather Jesus was quoting from Enoch and Matthew was recording it.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 17, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> This has got to be the first time cracked.com has been cited as a reference in the Spiritual forum.



Do onto the least and it shall be unto me...


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 17, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Absolutely, I believe Divine inspiration is closed.  Why else would 2 Peter 1:3 say what it does if there is anything else lacking?  No one today is "inspired" of God... that ability was limited to the early years of the church.  BTW, the ability to serve as a prophet (speaking a direct revelation from God) in the first century church was received when apostles laid hands on people... how can receive the gift today if the apostles are all dead?



 I dont argue against the inspired word of God but.. 

I think there is a timing issue if you want to use this verse 2 Peter 1:3 to support your theory.

1. The books Im talking about were written before 2 Peter

2. The "window of inspiration" you speak of came way after 2peter was authored.

3. 2Peter was not the last recorded scripture to have been considered inspired.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 17, 2013)

Have you guys ever seen what I call 3rd Peter? It was credited to Peter, yet some say no. It is VERY different from the others. Basically a walk through he11 where he describes what he is seeing. I think it can be viewed at "Early Church writings"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 17, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Have you guys ever seen what I call 3rd Peter? It was credited to Peter, yet some say no. It is VERY different from the others. Basically a walk through he11 where he describes what he is seeing. I think it can be viewed at "Early Church writings"



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html Controversal in the fact that at one place speaking of Jesus on the cross, "he felt no pain".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 17, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html Controversal in the fact that at one place speaking of Jesus on the cross, "he felt no pain".


While your there, You can see some of the books that were rejected


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 17, 2013)

Timber1 said:


> Didn't Joseph Smith find some lost scriptures?


----------



## Israel (Sep 17, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> For anyone who has never researched the issue, I'd highly suggest that you do so.  Until you go back and see all the things which went into the process of assembling these biblical books, you're operating solely from a 21st century perspective.  Until you go back and see the various places in the NT where these OT books are called "Scripture", it sounds like a very arbitrary process - one which could be filled with errors, bias, and subjectivity.  I'm not saying Israel or anyone else hasn't researched this subject... but the things I'm hearing said in this thread makes me wonder if people have actually studied the topic.
> 
> Whenever the biblical canons were formed, it was a VERY thorough process.  People involved in that process didn't take their responsibility lightly - they fully understood they were dealing with God's word.  In terms of time, they were very close to the "source"... and they were familiar with the battles some had over inclusion/exclusion.  There is a good reason the books of the Apocrypha shouldn't be included in the OT canon... but until one goes and searches for the reasons, our minds wonder "why shouldn't these books be included?"  Granted, I don't blindly put my faith in people and the things they do, but when you study the subject you realize you're not putting faith in the people as much as you're putting faith in the process and criteria that was utilized.



This is a more than fair response to my post.

But, in this, have you ever considered what Paul may have gone through regarding what is written...to what he came to know? Have you ever thought about the things he had read...when confronted with the reality of the God whom he thought he had served zealously, only to discover that in his blindness he was not only off the mark completely...but opposing him?

Have you ever asked...how does one go from this:

Deu_21:23  His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God; ) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. 

To this:

Jesus is Lord.

Apart from the work of God totally undoing a man's previous understandings...even of scripture?

We look backwards...standing on shoulders of men who have labored to divorce themselves from their own understandings and often say...of course this is so...it is written...yet have we, even in our seemingly sincerest agreements...come to the God that has undone us as thoroughly as they?

One may say ...all the more reason for the necessity of scripture...and I could not disagree. But in that, all I see is all the more necessity to know the God of understanding, lest we be carried away in our own.

Many have said, and continue to say, a man's revelation must "line up with scripture" to which I can only say the plumbline is set, the cornerstone laid, a King crowned.
Who hung upon a tree.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 17, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Art... have you done any research into the subject?



Yes but not enough to hurt my religious beliefs.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 17, 2013)

Seriously though when we have discussions about the Bible's roots or what is early scripture, some people tell us it's not important. 
The Bible is important to all Christians but not all Christians are too concerned with how it was put together.
I must admit I should do more real research on the Bible's origins and what scriptures Jesus quoted or mentioned. If Jesus and the Prophets quoted them then they are important.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 17, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> This is clearly an overstatement.  There was opposition to the book of Enoch as well as support for it... but it is very important to notice the support for it as a canonical work was based on Jude 14-15.  The assertion?  Since Jude referenced a prophecy of Enoch, that meant the book of Enoch was inspired.
> 
> Yet, there are questions about this assertion that have a solid foundation.  First, did Jude reference a written work of Enoch... or a prophecy of Enoch?  Just because a man in the OT was a prophet didn't automatically mean he was inspired by God to write a book of the bible.  Second, which sections of the book of Enoch would have been inspired?  Most who study it conclude there are several sections... and they try to make all sections "inspired of God" based on what may have been said about one section.  Third, Paul twice noted poets from a non-Christian background as being accurate in their statements/writings about things (Acts 17:28, Titus 1:12ff).  Did the reference mean anything they wrote would've been inspired of God?  Hardly.
> 
> To say "the book of Enoch was considered inspired for many generations"?  Come on now.



OK another question, were all the books written by the prophets themselves or did some use scribes or other writers?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 17, 2013)

I think we have all we need, yet it is an interesting topic. But I need the highlights, like a football game. Most of those writings are super boring, but certain things within are interesting.


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 17, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> In an earlier post I stated how for years people thought that since so many phrases from Enoch were in Matthew that the book of Enoch must have been written after Matthew. But once the dead sea schrolls were found, we now realize that it is just the opposite, that Matthew was not just using Enoch as a basis but rather Jesus was quoting from Enoch and Matthew was recording it.



It is thought by some that what you are saying (that Jesus quoted from the book of Enoch) is true... but find one time where Jesus attributed any quotation to the book... or to Enoch himself.  In fact, even if He had quoted Enoch, that would not have been any indication whatsoever to showing the BoE was inspired because Enoch DIDN'T write it!

The fact that some of the gospel accounts have similar ideas to the book of Enoch means nothing without concrete proof like I mentioned above (Jesus attributing a quotation to a source).  The Jews of the first century had many sayings which were utilized in their assemblies... so the fact that similar sayings exist - that's reading what people want to read into the text.

Have you ever studied the contradictions the book of Enoch has with the canonical books of the bible?


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 17, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> OK another question, were all the books written by the prophets themselves or did some use scribes or other writers?



Not sure why you'd be asking... but many believe Paul used a scribe (among others).  It doesn't really matter whether he personally wrote a book or had a scribe copy verbatim what he dictated... it's still his words which were selected by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 17, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I think we have all we need, yet it is an interesting topic. But I need the highlights, like a football game. Most of those writings are super boring, but certain things within are interesting.



Like I mentioned before, a lot about what we know of the Jews during the intertestimental period comes from books of the Apocrypha... some are really useful for historical purposes.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 17, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Not sure why you'd be asking... but many believe Paul used a scribe (among others).  It doesn't really matter whether he personally wrote a book or had a scribe copy verbatim what he dictated... it's still his words which were selected by the Holy Spirit.



No reason, just curious. 
I appreciate your input to these discussions. Sometimes it appears we pile up and pick on the same person. I don't think it is anything personal, just something that happens. We've all been on both sides.

If you don't mind me asking, do you have any professional studies in theology? I don't think it matters much as to our salvation but you appear to have ventured more into the learning part of religious matters. 
Although I don't always agree, I do appreciate your input whether it be accredited academics or just laymen learning.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 17, 2013)

Here are a few of my basic questions. Why didn't God inspire one person to collect the books of the Bible? Why did a council of men take great responsibility and time to collect these books? Joseph Smith finding a buried collection of books sounds like a better way for God to reveal his word than a council of men.
Why doesn't the Holy Spirit inspire us with the real true meanings of every single verse? It's as if early Christians had it easier than us with the Holy Spirit revealing than now if we have to interpret the Bible on our own.
The writers were inspired, the compilers were inspired, the translators were inspired. Why aren't we inspired? Why leave it up to us stupid humans to try and understand the true meaning of every verse?
It's almost like God is trying to show us this is an impossible task just like following the law was. Like we should be more spiritual and less religious. 
I could be way off course with these thoughts, reel me in.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 17, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I think we have all we need, yet it is an interesting topic. But I need the highlights, like a football game. Most of those writings are super boring, but certain things within are interesting.



I too would probably get bored  researching every aspect of the Biblical canonization process. 
I'm not a big football fan so watching a whole game is boring. I used to watch these NFL game of the week videos that were just the highlights of the game combined into about 30 minutes. That held my interest.
As I mentioned earlier, we all should research the beginnings of our Bible and even earlier scriptures. Earlier scriptures probably contained more than the Old Testament as we know it.
I still can't discount the Roman government's involvement in what is included in our Bible.


----------



## Israel (Sep 18, 2013)

What if God doesn't have to be discovered, but is so humble the only way he can be missed is to be purposely ignored?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 18, 2013)

Israel said:


> What if God doesn't have to be discovered, but is so humble the only way he can be missed is to be purposely ignored?



I like this...God doesn't have to be discovered...just realized!


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 18, 2013)

Israel said:


> What if God doesn't have to be discovered, but is so humble the only way he can be missed is to be purposely ignored?



Romans 1:18ff claims that the existence of God can and should be realized when man looks around the creation.  However, what exactly can be understood about God by simply observing?  Thus, it encourages mankind to look deeper for this Creator... and that's where the bible enters the picture.

Many things can be known simply by looking at nature... but a lot of things can only be known through revelation.  Take, for instance, a tornado.  Someone ignorant of God's word, but aware that there is a Creator MAY say "a tornado is the Creator's way of expressing his anger towards someone".  Yet, when you open up God's word, you realize that Satan actually has caused tornados in the past... and that God may allow a tornado to be utilized to accomplish something that is truly special (per Romans 8:28).  Not trying to get off the topic of the thread... but just pointing out the search for any understanding about God/His will for us is going must lead one to the bible at some point.  That's the reason this is a very important discussion.


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 18, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> No reason, just curious.
> I appreciate your input to these discussions. Sometimes it appears we pile up and pick on the same person. I don't think it is anything personal, just something that happens. We've all been on both sides.
> 
> If you don't mind me asking, do you have any professional studies in theology? I don't think it matters much as to our salvation but you appear to have ventured more into the learning part of religious matters.
> Although I don't always agree, I do appreciate your input whether it be accredited academics or just laymen learning.



Early on as a Christian in my life, I didn't know the first thing about most of the matters that crop up on this forum.  Over the years, though, I've come to believe what I believe based on what I've studied and learned from the word - I got away from simply accepting what I was told by religious people.

During that journey, I've been able to be in circumstances where I was asked a lot of questions... and that makes me dig even deeper than I did before.  I've taken some classes in the theological realm, but to be honest the best learning has been done through a lot of reading and study on my own.  Case in point is the study of the biblical canon... I was introduced to it in a class once... but it took additional study to come to where I am today on the subject.  Sorry if I came across the wrong way last night responding to you.


----------



## Bama4me (Sep 18, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Why didn't God inspire one person to collect the books of the Bible? Why did a council of men take great responsibility and time to collect these books?



Haven't the foggiest idea.  Will say, however, that when a multiplicity of people are involved in a project, personal bias and subjectivity is usually decreased - same is true about a translation of the bible (multiple translators is usually better than just one).  Both the Jews (regarding the OT) and the leaders of the early church seem to realize the sacredness of identifying "God's word".



Artfuldodger said:


> The writers were inspired, the compilers were inspired, the translators were inspired. Why aren't we inspired?



I would make the case that only the writers were inspired, not the scribes, compilers, or translators.  As I've stated previously, that's not to say God's hand was involved in the process, but it was done in a non-miraculous way.  Writers of biblical books were "led" in a miraculous way... that is something that ended shortly after the first century times.



Artfuldodger said:


> Why doesn't the Holy Spirit inspire us with the real true meanings of every single verse? It's as if early Christians had it easier than us with the Holy Spirit revealing than now if we have to interpret the Bible on our own.



There's no proof in the New Testament which claims first century Christians were "inspired" to know the true (as opposed to false) meanings of what God told them.  Yes, the Holy Spirit guided the apostles into "all truth" (John 16:13), but that doesn't mean He "inspired" them to know all things about every revelation without any effort on their part.  In Acts 2, people didn't need a "miraculous measure" of the Holy Spirit to hear/understand Peter's message - they were able to use their ability to reason (that God gave them) and understood the message.  

In 1 Thessalonians 5:20, Christians were told to "test all things".  They would not have been told that IF they had been given EVERYTHING regarding understanding.  They, even in that day, were encouraged to compare things that were "claimed to be true" against the standard God had given them through direct revelation.  If you look at Acts 17:11, you see a really good illustration - when Paul went to Berea and preached to Jewish people, they examined the (OT) Scriptures to verify what he was teachings as "truth."

In 2 Peter 3:16, there's a telling statement which speaks to what you've asked above.  The Holy Spirit led Peter to say that "some things in Paul's letters were hard to understand". Many who read Paul's words didn't automatically "know the truth" did they?  No... there were those who "twisted" (or distorted) his writings.

Now, with all that said, I DO believe the Holy Spirit aids us today in understanding the word... but not through some type of "direct miracle" done for/to us.  I mentioned "how" this occurs earlier... the best commentary ON the bible IS the bible.  When you encounter a biblical idea in one verse or passage, find other places in the bible where it's used and a fuller understanding will result.  Will give you an example to show you what I'm talking about.

In James 3:1, we read "not many of you" should become a teacher."  Yet, in Hebrews 5:12, the writer claimed that by that point (in their maturity) "you ought to be teachers."  It seems, at surface level, these two passage contradict one another... one says "don't be a teacher" and another says "you should be a teacher".  Which one is it?

Whenever you come to an alleged contradiction, ask these three things.
*  Is the same thing/person under consideration?
*  Are the statements referring to the same time period?
*  Is the language used in the same sense?

First question, the answer is "yes".  The Greek word that is translated "teachers" is the same in both verses.  Second... it's possible different time periods are under consideration.  James (likely the James of Acts 15:13ff/Galatians 2:9) was writing to Jewish Christians who had been dispersed - likely referring to the events of Acts 8:1ff.  From contextual clues, it's likely these Christians were "young" in their faith... and a leader they had been separated from was writing them.  It MAY be many of them shouldn't become teachers because of their immaturity in the faith - and doing so before maturing would incur judgment.

The recipients of Hebrews, also Jewish, had sacrificed very greatly to come to Christ (10:32ff).  We don't know, though, how long they had been Christians.  It COULD have been they were more mature in the faith than those addressed in the book of James.  OR, it could be that possibly those who were addressed in Hebrews were primarily priests who had previously taught people the Law of Moses (Acts 6:7 says many priests obeyed the faith).  Thus, it's possible we see a difference because there was a difference in their maturity.

Third... "teacher" could have been used in a different sense.  In Hebrews 5:12, for instance, the meaning of the passage could have been "you should be teaching others the gospel and bringing them to Christ" (evangelistic-type teaching).  In James 3:1, maybe a classroom/assembly setting was under consideration.  BOTH senses are used to refer to the idea of "teaching" in the NT.

Notice, in the course of the illustration, how I've allowed the bible to comment on itself.  In (1) knowing who James was, (2) who he was addressing, (3) trying to glean background on the Hebrew recipients, and (4) searching the concept of "teach" in the NT, I've understood possible ways these two passage could be brought into agreement.  I didn't need a miraculous guiding of the Holy Spirit to do this... I simply am using God's word and the common sense he gave me to try to understand.  Sorry so long.


----------



## Inthegarge (Sep 19, 2013)

Great discussion but all I can say is God is big enough to insure that the Word is exactly what He wants it to be...Any books, etc. found today would not change God or His plan.....


----------

