# Books of the Bible



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

Madman wanted me to provide some background proof to my charge that the Bible has been changed and books adopted and rejected according to political and other reasons.

We opted not to continue a hijack of someone elses thread so I'm starting this one.

I believe this is the right forum since it is a post about which books have been accepted and which ones rejected as part of the Bible. (especially new testament)

and here was my reply.

Well lets see my documentation is as follows:

How many gosples were considered for inclussion in the new Testament?

The Gospel of the Hebrews didn't make the cut. Why?
The Gospel of Thomas didn't make the cut either, Why?
The Gospel of Peter same situation
The Gospel of Judas same
The Coptic Gospel of Egyptians same question

A council of men sat and determined that only the 4 Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were needed.

That is the proof that some books were chosen and other left out it's common knowledge history of your religion yet you seem not to know anything about it.

The Gnostic Bibles were burned and destroyed or simply left to rot because they conflicted with the mainstream roman catholic at the time churches views.

Any simple google will lead you to documentation of this historic fact and the fact that a Gnostic bible scroll set was recovered by archeologists recently and yet these gospels were not included in the Roman Catholic Bible.


The Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant versions of the New Testament are all different, some include books that others do not.

How much more proof do you need Madman or is this enough. 

Additional proof starts here for you Madman.

A list of books accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church as part of the Bible that are not accepted as part of the Protestant Bible.

1 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (different than Ecclesiastes) 
Baruch
The Epistle of Jerimiah

There are 9 more should you require them.


----------



## Lowjack (Oct 5, 2010)

What is the argument ?
Many of the Gnostic Books which were clearly found not to have being written by the apostles as they claim were left out, nothing wrong with that, now other books which shoud have being added were not, Specially those of Hebrew Studies and Historical Books.


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

My position Lowjack is simple, although I'm sure it will not meet your approval. 

In another post I stated one reason for my doubt of the bible as infallable and uncorrupted by man was

"Too many revisions, books added, subtracted, considered, and then if not accepted sometimes burned"

Now some of the books considered I'll agree were evaluated and determined to be forgeries (a real cynic could say that they found them forgeries because they started with a bias, but I'll leave that argument for some better schooled than I am.)

My point remains man's corrupting influence on the bible is most notably seen in the fact that we have records of books of the bible being added and subtracted by councils of men. And those councils have so often been convened for political not religious purposes.

OK a bit more cynical than I intended to make that.


----------



## Madman (Oct 5, 2010)

TTom,

I simply questioned your data.  It is evident by your response that you too believe some of the books you mentioned may have been forgeries, for whatever reason. (Which diminishes the credibility of your answer significantly.)

I do not know of any books that have been added or removed from the Bible since it was canonized.  The councils were called to combat the heresies of the day.  For instance the First Council of Nicaea was called to address Arianism, at that time they agreed that the Bible should be canonized and the nature of God, Son, Holy Spirit, etc. should be put forth in a manner that had been handed down by the apostles.

If a letter was deemed heretical it was excluded.  A mere cursory study of the councils and The Bible will make it quite clear why those books were excluded.  

It is a shame that so many people today don’t believe that God has the ability to direct prayerful men in the safe keeping of His word.  Perhaps that is more a reflection of their character, intentions, and agenda, then of the councils.

As for searching Google, I have never been a big fan of internet info.  Wiki is the database of choice of many on this forum; some of us choose to use published material with the references, cross references, footnotes, etc. 

There is no need for condescension i.e.  “How much more proof do you need Madman or is this enough.”

However in response:

First of all your list is not proof, it is simply that a list.  Research, like Crubear provided, would be helpful.  I have studied the councils for years and the canonization of the Bible, we may not agree on the outcome, but after many years I am confident that God has kept his revelation to man intact. 

Second, there is no need for your attitude. 
We are all adults here and can act as adults not school children. Therefore statements like - “common knowledge history of your religion yet you seem not to know anything about it.” --- are unnecessary.

I would ask you keep them to yourself, they sound sophmoric and those posting here deserve better.

I look forward to future civil discussions.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 5, 2010)

I'll not take the time here to copy/paste or regurgitate what has been covered in this forum in the past.

Books were included and excluded for legitimate reasons. Among them:

1. Books that were not written or dictated by an Apostle.
2. Books that were not written by a contemporary of the Apostles, but years, decades, and even a century or more after the deaths of the Apostles.
3. Books expressing theology inconsistent and contrary to books of known authorship and accepted validity.
4. Books that added no new and verifiable information.

What many of the uneducated still fail to acknowledge is the simple fact that before any council was convened, there was a core of books of known origin that were generally accepted by the majority of churches as Holy Scripture with a contingent of writings of lesser credibility, uncertain origin, of lesser value in doctrinal teaching, and with points of conflict with the more trustworthy manuscripts, all of this existing around 90 to 120 A.D. 

The other point worth mentioning is that with over 25,000 ancient biblical manuscripts or partial manuscripts, it is a fact that any reasonable doubt as to the consistent transmission of the Bible to present day language is blown away and completely without merit.

Do your homework on modern biblical scholarship and the only conclusion one could reasonably draw is that we have essentially the same content in modern texts that they had in the 1st century and earlier. Anything else is just wishful thinking by the naysayer community.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 5, 2010)

Well put Madman & GT....no reason to add more.

Amazing how some want to re-write history to further their religious cult.


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

Log and speck Madman, Log and speck

"Are you saying your bias about the Bible having "Too many revisions, books added, subtracted, considered, and then if not accepted sometimes burned" comes from a childrens game or do you have factual documentation?"


You start off baiting me by intimating that my ideas on the potential for corruption of the bible came from a children’s game and then calling me for attitude and sophmoric? Log/ speck.

I dropped to the level I evaluated your question to be.



GT you say they all had justified reasons to be excluded. That can be stipulated to for many of the gnostic bible texts, the cynic in me still says that your 3. and 4. are exactly what I was talking about when it comes to people maintaining political and religious power.


The differences between Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Protestant bibles though presents a different and much more in my line of thinking example. Mutual excommunication by the respective Popes of each East/ West branch based on theology and the resulting difference in which books are accepted and rejected from the bibles. That's politics and power, men being fallible. The same thing happening during the Reformation and the elimination of books from the bible by protestant branches mirrors the same revisions of what books are in and what books are out.

That's not God working or else there would be One Universal decision not 3 different sects each deciding that this book is in and that book is out.


----------



## Madman (Oct 5, 2010)

A good resource is Josh McDowell's book – Evidence that demands a verdict.
Lots of footnotes and references to follow.  

Want to learn something new.  Read an old book.
My maternal grandfather.


----------



## Madman (Oct 5, 2010)

Log and Speck,  ironic the non-believers can only find Biblical references to display their frustration.


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

No frustration I'm calling you out on your display of hypocrisy is all.

You open with a slap and then want to call foul when it is returned.


----------



## Madman (Oct 5, 2010)

> Originally Posted by TTom
> I assume with every step removed I am from the person's actual statement that bias and inaccuracy has crept in, just the way it does when you play the telephone game.



The telephone game was your remark.  I was asking if you wanted to equate the great councils with a children's game.


I can see with your convoluted reasoning how you ended up where you are.


----------



## Madman (Oct 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> Well they tend to be a bit of each. body ritual is a gnostic experiencial pathway.





TTom said:


> The Gnostic Bibles were burned and destroyed or simply left to rot because they conflicted with the mainstream roman catholic at the time churches views.



Sometimes we let our bias’ show.


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

If you wanted to see if I compared the great councils with the game of telephone you would have used those words, and my reply would have had a different tone, but you didn't.

You chose words that were easily read as a slap. They were taken as such, and that set the tone.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> GT you say they all had justified reasons to be excluded. That can be stipulated to for many of the gnostic bible texts, the cynic in me still says that your 3. and 4. are exactly what I was talking about when it comes to people maintaining political and religious power.
> 
> 
> The differences between Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Protestant bibles though presents a different and much more in my line of thinking example. Mutual excommunication by the respective Popes of each East/ West branch based on theology and the resulting difference in which books are accepted and rejected from the bibles. That's politics and power, men being fallible. The same thing happening during the Reformation and the elimination of books from the bible by protestant branches mirrors the same revisions of what books are in and what books are out.
> ...



While the scholarship may have been exercised at a considerably higher level, to the trained mind determining the difference between qualified texts and disqualified texts, it is no more complicated than the old testing we endured as children.

A. pear  B. apple  C. horse  D. banana

Which one does not belong?

I suppose from you admission of cynicism that if  93 students answer C and the other 7 out of 100 answer B, then the motive for grading the answer of the 7 wrong is necessarily political or religious in nature. Really, the margins were not far removed from my example with regards to inclusion or exclusion in the Canon. 
Your contention is pretty much untenable when the facts are considered from a neutral position. You really appear to be strongly predisposed to bias against Scripture being accurate and authoritative. Sure speaks to your lack of impartiality.


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

Well since you asked, oh wait no you ddn't but chose to assume.

In the first post 

The word gnostic with a lower case speaks to an approach to spiritual exploration. To know through direct experience.

In the second post a separate different context posting Gnostic Bible with a capital letter refers to the specific group of Christians and their history and documents.

Yes bias is always revealed, I admit to my biases, some lie about theirs.


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

GT your bias seems at odds when you state 93 nswering A

The 3 Largest sections of the Christian Church have 3 different answers to the question What books are to be included in the bible.

The division of the answers is far from 93% A

1 billion catholics say one thing A
1/4 of a billion Eastern Orthodox say B
 and Half a billion Protestants say C


----------



## Madman (Oct 5, 2010)

Madman said:


> Are you saying your bias about the Bible having "Too many revisions, books added, subtracted, considered, and then if not accepted sometimes burned" comes from a childrens game or do you have factual documentation?



Some on here are always looking for a fight.  I choose to let those on the other end of the keyboard have the benefit of the doubt until they show otherwise.  




TTom said:


> Well since you asked, oh wait no you ddn't but chose to assume.



You are rapidly approaching that point.


I'll let you have the last word on this.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> GT your bias seems at odds when you state 93 nswering A
> 
> The 3 Largest sections of the Christian Church have 3 different answers to the question What books are to be included in the bible.
> 
> ...



And they agree on how many books? On a more personal note, I have absolutely no issue with the RC Canon or the EO Canon. I simply don't use them, but they certainly have my blessing to use what they choose. They will receive no condemnation from me on the matter. I really don't see one as right and the other two as wrong. God has a way of using just the Gospel of John, Ephesians, or Romans to save some. If He can save an Ethiopian eunuch with Isaiah, well, surely you can see my point.


----------



## crackerdave (Oct 5, 2010)

gtparts said:


> I'll not take the time here to copy/paste or regurgitate what has been covered in this forum in the past.
> 
> Books were included and excluded for legitimate reasons. Among them:
> 
> ...



 What a perfect description of much of what gets posted in the "spiritual forum!"

A very wise man once said "There is nothing new under the sun."


----------



## formula1 (Oct 5, 2010)

*Re:*

I am confident that by the Spirit that God gave us exactly what He wanted us to have in the Scriptures.   A Good God could give no less to His creation.


----------



## earl (Oct 5, 2010)

Some of the posts here are humorous when you look at all the books and commentaries that modern day Christians use in conjunction with their Bibles. Yet the men who wrote them are no closer to Christ's times than the authors excluded way back when. 
LJ has stated that the Talmud is a commentary ,yet he references it continually . 
Once again it comes down to how and where you want your point to be.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 5, 2010)

We're all fortunate that all writings were 'tested' to separate the true gospel from the false teachings that were widespread in the 1st century.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 5, 2010)

Hello guys, The time period that the bible was "canonized" was filled with persucutions all done in the name of Jesus. It was a terrible corrupt time with the most powerful dominating. It was not as though they just wrote the scriptures. They had been around for some time. Some of the church fathers saw some books as inspired and some not. Lots of different opinions. After studying through most of the rejected books with the exception of a few extreme ones, my opinion is that they contained no contridictions to the others. They could have been included. I don't see why they should have been but could have been. You could google "early church writings".


----------



## gtparts (Oct 5, 2010)

earl said:


> Some of the posts here are humorous when you look at all the books and commentaries that modern day Christians use in conjunction with their Bibles. Yet the men who wrote them are no closer to Christ's times than the authors excluded way back when.
> LJ has stated that the Talmud is a commentary ,yet he references it continually .
> Once again it comes down to how and where you want your point to be.



Fail to see the humor. 

Commentaries are study tools. The sure aren't up for selection to be included in any canon I am aware of. The advantage of commentaries is the additional scholarship that is available to help understand Scripture. I don't have to speak and read ancient Hebrew or koine Greek, nor get access to ancient manuscripts to have that additional information and insight. Why drive a nail with a rock when there is a hammer available. I believe it was Henry Ford who basically said he need not know everything about building cars, he only needed to know those who had that specific knowledge (or something to that effect).

Same story with the Talmud, a scholarly tool from some of the best minds on Torah and Judaism. If I wanted a Jewish perspective, I would sure include it in my sources of study.

  A little surprised you would take a poke at scholarly pursuits, earl.


----------



## earl (Oct 5, 2010)

I was poking at the statement about the Council being the only qualified people to make judgement calls on the Bible. My point was that even today we look to others to help with our decisions,just as you pointed out.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 5, 2010)

Madman and gtparts have made some good comments, but I just wanted to add a point regarding this:



TTom said:


> A council of men sat and determined that only the 4 Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were needed.



The same four gospels we have today were known and accepted by the church long before Nicea or any other council.

St. Irenaeus wrote this in the 2nd century:

_The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, 'O sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself '. For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of a man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church. Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these._

And Origen wrote this in the late 2nd century/early 3rd century:

_Matthew to be sure and Mark and John as well as Luke did not 'take in hand' to write, but filled with the Holy Ghost have written the Gospels. 'Many have taken in hand to compose a narrative of the events which are quite definitely familiar among us' . The Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many, of which one is entitled 'The Gospel according to the Egyptians', and another 'The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles'. Basilides also has presumed to write a gospel, and to call it by his own name. 'Many have taken in hand ' to write, but only four Gospels are recognized. From these the doctrines concerning the person of our Lord and Savior are to be derived. I know a certain gospel which is called 'The Gospel according to Thomas' and a 'Gospel according to Matthias', and many others have we read - lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine that they posses some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the Church has recognized, which is that only the four Gospels should be accepted. _ 




TTom said:


> A list of books accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church as part of the Bible that are not accepted as part of the Protestant Bible.
> 
> 1 Esdras
> Tobit
> ...



These books are included in the Orthodox canon, but they are not considered to be equal to the Old and New Testaments.  They are merely considered "worthy to be read".


----------



## Madman (Oct 6, 2010)

Spot on CenterPin.


----------



## earl (Oct 6, 2010)

Any comments on how Revelation made the cut ?


----------



## Big7 (Oct 7, 2010)

earl said:


> I was poking at the statement about the Council being the only qualified people to make judgement calls on the Bible. My point was that even today we look to others to help with our decisions,just as you pointed out.



Well.. Your "polk" was spot on as the Council is the ONLY authority. Good job!


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2010)

earl said:


> Any comments on how Revelation made the cut ?



what is your question?  why should it not be included?


----------



## earl (Oct 7, 2010)

If modern man with all his resources can't give a reasonable explanation of it , how could first century guys make a unanimous decision to include it ?


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 7, 2010)

earl said:


> If modern man with all his resources can't give a reasonable explanation of it , how could first century guys make a unanimous decision to include it ?



Actually, Revelation "made the cut" much later.  St. Athanasius included it in his canon (which included the same NT books we have today) in the late 4th century.  Certain parts of the church rejected it even after that.


----------



## earl (Oct 7, 2010)

Why ?


----------



## Sammus (Oct 7, 2010)

> Actually, Revelation "made the cut" much later. St. Athanasius included it in his canon (which included the same NT books we have today) in the late 4th century. Certain parts of the church rejected it even after that.



I hate to make my first post in disagreement, but that statement isn't factual.

The Muratorian fragment lists Revelation, as does Irenaeus, Clement, and Tuertullian. The dates of these listings range from c170-207C.E. 

Another point. I didn't notice it in the previous posts, so my apologies if it has already been mentioned, but the Bible itself acts as its own guide. In other words, most books of the Bible verify the authenticity of other books. For example, by quoting Isaiah, Jesus verifies its inclusion in the Holy Scriptures. I can give you other examples, but you get the idea.


----------



## earl (Oct 7, 2010)

Sammus said:


> I hate to make my first post in disagreement, but that statement isn't factual.
> 
> The Muratorian fragment lists Revelation, as does Irenaeus, Clement, and Tuertullian. The dates of these listings range from c170-207C.E.
> 
> Another point. I didn't notice it in the previous posts, so my apologies if it has already been mentioned, but the Bible itself acts as its own guide. In other words, most books of the Bible verify the authenticity of other books. For example, by quoting Isaiah, Jesus verifies its inclusion in the Holy Scriptures. I can give you other examples, but you get the idea.




Welcome to forums.

Any examples for Revelation ?


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 7, 2010)

Sammus said:


> I hate to make my first post in disagreement, but that statement isn't factual.



Sure it is.  I didn't say St. A was the first, just that he included Rev along with every other NT book -- and he did.

Rev was certainly counted as scripture by Christians before St. A.  Others did not accept it, however, and there were many who doubted it's authenticity long after St. A.


----------



## Sammus (Oct 7, 2010)

> Any examples for Revelation ?


You mean citations from other books of the Bible? Only by the slimmest of evidence. 
All I can think of is Jesus' conversation with Peter after His resurrection. Peter asked regarding John, "Lord, what will this man do?" 
Jesus reply: "If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?" John 21:21,22. 

In a sense, John did live to see Jesus, as it were. Note John's statement at Revelation 1:10 "By inspiration I came to be in the Lord's day..." 
Enough to convince the skeptic? Hardly. The believer? Perhaps. 

Revelation, you might say, is backwards-compatible. The only way to unravel the mystery is to compare the visions to other, older visions of Old Testament. 

Compare the beasts of Revelation with the beasts of Daniel. The locust swarm of Rev. 9 with a very similar vision in the book of Joel. The measurement of the holy city to the temple vision of Ezekiel. The reference to Satan as the 'original serpent' in chapter 12 to the serpent of Genesis. 

The expression 'Armageddon' is prone to misuse and confusion until it is compared to 'the valley of megiddo' and the battles fought in its vicinity. 

I could go on, but you get the point. It's impossible to discern the meaning of Revelation without the rest of Scripture. Revelation is so interwoven with Scripture it is impossible to separate it. Revelation is the climax of the Bible, plain and simple. 

Of course, the real clincher is the fact that there are prophecies in Revelation that people alive today have seen fulfilled, even if they didn't know it at the time, but we won't go into that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 7, 2010)

earl said:


> Why ?



Not sure of all the reasons.  One I have heard is that the Montanists were really into apocalyptic literature.  Since their other ideas were discredited, they tainted Rev also.

I'll do some more research.


----------



## earl (Oct 8, 2010)

Of course, the real clincher is the fact that there are prophecies in Revelation that people alive today have seen fulfilled, even if they didn't know it at the time, but we won't go into that.

Might as well. I have all the time in the world.


----------



## Sammus (Oct 11, 2010)

> Might as well. I have all the time in the world.


Heh, me and my big mouth 

Give me a little time to work up a proper reply, and I'll try to answer that for you.


----------



## earl (Oct 11, 2010)

Looking forward to you and cpf.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 11, 2010)

earl said:


> I have all the time in the world.



Unfortunately, I do not.  Been swamped at work, but I did a quick search and found this.  Check out page 23 and 24 here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=06...#v=onepage&q=opposition to revelation&f=false


----------



## earl (Oct 11, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> Unfortunately, I do not.  Been swamped at work, but I did a quick search and found this.  Check out page 23 and 24 here:
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=06...#v=onepage&q=opposition to revelation&f=false





Well alrighty . Thats gonna take a while to read . I love Google books.
Thanks


----------



## SneekEE (Oct 11, 2010)

Many of those "books" or "gospels" didnt make the cut just as the gospel of Earl or Sneeky and most fortune cookies  proly wouldnt either.


----------



## Lowjack (Oct 11, 2010)

Sammus said:


> You mean citations from other books of the Bible? Only by the slimmest of evidence.
> All I can think of is Jesus' conversation with Peter after His resurrection. Peter asked regarding John, "Lord, what will this man do?"
> Jesus reply: "If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?" John 21:21,22.
> 
> ...



Excellent ! Welcome to the Forum


----------



## Sammus (Oct 14, 2010)

Before we can get into some of the visions of Revelation that have been fulfilled in modern times, we need to establish a few points first. My apologies if this is stuff you already know. I also apologize for the meandering nature of my reply. I can't just point to a scripture and say 'see, right there, this happened in our day'. Unfortunately, it's not that simple!

First, what is Revelation? It's a book of visions. According to some counts, 16 in all. A careful study of that tricky little verb 'signified' in 1:1 reveals that the Revelation was given in signs, or word-pictures. So if you're expecting a literal dragon to call forth a host of fearsome beasts from the sea, you're in for a bit of disappointment, or at least be willing to take comfort in old Godzilla movies.

When does the Revelation take place? 1:10 indicates that it happens during a period of time called the 'Lord's Day'. When is that? The Lord's Day is closely linked to the Last Days, or the End Times, if that's how you like to say it. (See Matthew 24:3.) Some folks think that we are living during that time. I happen to be one of them.

So, what we have is a book of symbolism that describes events in our own day. A Divine mystery. Unraveling this mystery requires a lot of patience, study, humility, and prayer. The good news is that clues for most of the visions are spread throughout the Bible. That's what I meant by Revelation being backwards-compatible. If it were just the ramblings of some loon on the isle of Patmos, the book wouldn't fit. But it's not, and so it fits nicely exactly where it is: at the end.

Revelation 6:1-8 is one of the most misunderstood, misapplied portions of scripture in the Bible. Movies, books, even video games have used the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse as a springboard to the deep, dark psyche of our society. Yet, for the honest student of the Bible, we have to separate popular understanding with Bible truth. We have to let the Book tell us what the vision means. Well, the Bible, and a healthy dose of prayer.

The vision opens with Jesus, pictured as a Lamb, opening the first of seven seals. One of the four living creatures speaks, and out rides the first Rider. Who, or what, does the Rider picture? Verse two gives us the following details: He is riding a white horse. He is wearing a crown. He wields a bow. He goes forth to complete a conquest. At first glance, this could picture anyone, but a deeper look narrows down the field to only one possibility. The first and greatest clue is that the rider is on a white horse. Picture a rider, a king, in fact, on a gleaming white stallion. How is 'white' used in Revelation? Look up these verses: 1:14, 4:4, 7:9, 20:11. These verses make it clear that Revelation associates 'white' with cleanliness and holiness. The Rider is therefore holy, waging his warfare in God's behalf. The second clue is the crown. This rider is a king. This clue greatly narrows down the field. In Revelation, the only righteous ones who wear crowns are Jesus and the 24 elders of chapter 4. The 24 elders are always pictured acting as a group; it doesn't seem likely any of these would be pictured as receiving a crown on his own. That leaves Jesus as the white rider. Does the rest of Scripture bear this out? Yes.

At 19:11 Jesus is pictured leading the armies of heaven on, you guessed it, a white horse. Verse 14 reveals that the armies that follow him likewise ride white steeds. At Psalms 2:6-8, Jesus is appointed by God as King. He is given nations as his inheritance, which he breaks with an iron scepter. Notice how closely the description of the white Rider of Revelation 6:2 matches the prophetic description of Jesus found at Psalm 45:4-7 "And in your splendor go on to success; ride in the cause of truth and humility and righteousness, and your right hand will instruct you in fear-inspiring things. Your arrows are sharp - under you peoples keep falling - in the heart of the enemies of the king. God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever; the scepter of your kingship is a scepter of uprightness. You have loved righteousness and you hate wickedness. That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your partners." Notice the part about the arrows? That's no coincidence, but rather an example of the Bible's harmony.

So Jesus, pictured as a Lamb, reveals how he, as the white Rider and God's appointed King, sallies forth to war at God's appointed time. What follows the white Rider is a prophetic picture of what the Lord's Day will look like, a prophecy that parallels parts of Matthew 24 and Luke 21, and that we, our parents, and our grandparents have seen fulfilled.

Well, I'm pooped. I'll post the rest tomorrow if I can!


----------



## hawglips (Oct 20, 2010)

Sammus said:


> ...the Bible itself acts as its own guide. In other words, most books of the Bible verify the authenticity of other books. For example, by quoting Isaiah, Jesus verifies its inclusion in the Holy Scriptures. I can give you other examples, but you get the idea.



However, there are lots of books or revelations referenced throughout the Bible that are not found in it.  

For example:

Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14); the book of the covenant (Ex. 24: 7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10: 25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26: 22).


----------



## Lowjack (Oct 20, 2010)

hawglips said:


> However, there are lots of books or revelations referenced throughout the Bible that are not found in it.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14); the book of the covenant (Ex. 24: 7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10: 25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26: 22).



Most Of Those if Not all Can be found in Synagogue Libraries.


----------

