You added "Enoch" into the discussion
|July 19 2010, 5:50 PM |
If you read Ken's initial post (unless I missed it), you would not find any reference to Enoch or the Book of Enoch. You're the one who FIRST made a comment on the book ... and the discussion has gone on about Enoch since.
Nobody has ever suggested that the Book of Enoch should be a part of or be added to the books of the Bible, inspired or not inspired.
I would urge you to read Joe Spivy's post above very carefully and thoroughly. You will see that quoting from other sources, including from old manuscripts that have been uncovered in the last few centuries, simply validate that the Bible is indeed God's Word.
66 books is Sufficient
|July 20 2010, 1:05 AM |
Yes, Donnie, I did mention about Enoch first. I did so because Ken continues to lament on and on about those who would give their own 'private interpretation' of the Scriptures, yet he does the same.
The book of Enoch, no matter how old a manuscript, is still NOT a part of the Holy Inspired Scriptures.
Maybe we need to add you to the list? This list is for those who simply don't put faith in God that He will protect His Mighty Word. Again, if God wanted Enoch to be a part of the Scriptures, it would have been.
Also, I don't need to quote any other source than that of the 66 Inspired Books of our Lord.
If you care to do so, then that would be on your head.
The Book of Enoch or the Writings of Al Maxey? Which?
|July 20 2010, 2:00 AM |
"Nobody has ever suggested that the Book of Enoch should be a part of or be added to the books of the Bible, inspired or not inspired." That's what I said earlier.
It seems that you're making an argument with yourself.
Did you read Joe Spivy's post earlier? Yes? No?
Just the Truth........please
|July 20 2010, 1:25 PM |
"BTW, to my knowledge, nowhere in the Bible is there a specific list that states which books belong to the Biblical Canon and which do not. Just something to think about."
"Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. The fact of the matter is that there is no place in the written Word of God where God Himself through Scripture gives a specific list of the books that are to be placed in the Biblical Canon and those books that belong outside the Biblical Canon. A "Table of Contents" added by a printer in front of a Bible does not constitute such a list."
Donnie, the above posts are Dr. Crump's. Maybe you or Dr. Crump could shed some light on what on what he is alluding to. Thanks!
Re: Just the Truth........please
|July 20 2010, 3:25 PM |
Let me just briefly respond.
What you quoted from Dr. Crump is not a misstatement.
I think it would help us understand how the books of the Bible as God's inerrant Word were compiled by learning [from] the history of the "canon of the Bible." I think we can pretty much agree that the "canon of the Bible" refers to "the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included therein."
There's a lot of information online that should be of great help to all of us. Google "canonicity" or "canon of the Bible" or other variations that will link to various sources regarding this matter.
For example, a study of the Old Testament Canon would be beneficial if we do a comparative look at the table of books included in the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic [Latin Vulgate] and Protestant canons. What do various sources say about the Apocryphal books contained only in the Catholic Bible?
The above is a good source. There are others.
Re: Just the Truth........please
|July 20 2010, 3:54 PM |
Donnie, thanks, I will do a some research.
Dr. Crump, you should take Donnie out to dinner!
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: 66 books is Sufficient
|July 23 2010, 12:18 PM |
The title of Dave's post should read "66 Books Are Sufficient." A plural subject requires a plural verb.
66 Books Is sufficient
|July 29 2010, 1:13 AM |
A plural subject DOES require a plural verb.
The 66 books is singular.....66 being ONE....COMPLETE.
William Crump, some people never learn.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: 66 Books Is sufficient
|July 29 2010, 9:47 AM |
The phrase "66 Books" is PLURAL. The Bible is composed not of one book but 66 individual books. The word "Bible" comes from the Greek Biblia, meaning "books"--plural, yet the word "Bible" itself implies the entire collection of sacred books. Therefore, if you say "66 Books," which is plural, that requires a plural verb. Now if Dave wanted to use a singular verb, he should have used the following title: "The Bible, Comprising 66 Books, Is Sufficient." "Bible" in that case is singular and therefore requires a singular verb.
Yes, Dave, you'll never learn.
Enoch is told many times in the Bible
|July 22 2010, 11:27 AM |
The "Enoch" story is told many times in the Bible. For instance "Christ" is God working through instrumental means: Word, Spirit, Grace, Pillar, Cloud, Rock, Water.
The Spirit OF Christ spoke through the Prophets and then Later through Jesus of Nazareth to the apostles. In Spirit and in Jesus, Christ always defines the CENI which is simple enough for most: Preach the Word by Reading the Word on the REST DAY. Rest FROM "creating spiritual anxiety through religious rituals: rhetoric, music, drama.
The Prophets and Apostles are clearly defined as the TEACHING resources to be read and discussed in the ekklesia / synagogue: Always a school of the Word, NEVER a "praise service" which always separated feminine/effeminate from the Rational/Spiritual.
Jer. 8:7 Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times;
......and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming;
......but my people know not the judgment of the LORD.
Jer. 8:8 How do ye say, We are WISE,
and the law of the LORD is WITH US?
......LO, CERTAINLY IN VAIN MADE HE IT;
......THE PEN OF THE SCRIBES IS in vain.
Jesus called the Scribes, hypocrites by naming speakers, singers and instrument players.
Is. 56:10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant,
......they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark;
...... sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.
Is. 59:13 In transgressing and lying against the LORD,
......and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt,
......conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.
Jer. 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying,
......The temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah,
......the temple of Jehovah, are these.
WISE IS: Sophos A. skilled in any handicraft or art, clever, mostly of poets and musicians, Pi.O.1.9, P.1.42, 3.113; en kithara s. E.IT1238 (lyr.), cf. Ar.Ra.896 (lyr.),
Sophis-tês , ou, ho, master of one's craft, adept
Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel;
......Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. Jeremiah 7:21
For I spake NOT unto your fathers, nor commanded them
...... in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt,
......concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: Jeremiah 7:22
But this thing commanded I them, saying,
......Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people:
......and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you,
......that it may be well unto you. Jeremiah 7:23
But they HEARKENED NOT, nor inclined their ear,
......but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart,
......and went backward, and not forward. Jeremiah 7:24
Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day,
......I have even sent unto you all my servants the PROPHETS,
......daily rising up early and sending them: Jeremiah 7:25
Yet they HEARKENED NOT unto me, nor inclined their ear,
......but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers. Jeremiah 7:26
You will find Christ in the prophets radically condeming the Civil-Military-Clergy complex as liars, robbers and parasites. Christ through Nemiah--who restarted the READING Holy convocation--lay the blame on the Israelites who fell back into idolatry as soon as they had been baptized in the Red Sea and given spiritual water and food from the ROCK.
So, why is it that you will never find a changeling quoting the Prophets? Because they are mostly still the "temple builders and sacrificial ritual rebuilders."
The writing Prophets and the writing Apostles is "that which is written for our learning" after we silence the "doubtful disputers" who teach their own "preferences."
Joe's Spivey's Take
|July 22 2010, 7:51 PM |
Donnie, Joe missed it too. Not surprising, especially when he said..."The Bible includes quotes from uninspired individuals whose statements are false. The fact they are quoted does not validate the statement. For an example of this see Genesis 3:1-5."
Donnie, this is clearly one of those 'duhhhh' moments. No one is saying that the serpent was inspired. Tell Joe to read AND LISTEN. Some people obvioulsy have lost the time honored traditon of how to listen. The serpent was not inspired, but the author who SPOKE about what the serpent said WAS inspred to write it.
Again, a 'duhhhhhhhhh' moment.
Again, whatever was not included, whether it was the book of Jashar, or whatever, was not inlcuded for a reason.
Also the article about the Bible being 65 percent complete is not valid. It is 100 percent complete. God saw to that.
Anyone who doesn't believe that the Holy Scriptures aren't fully complete with everything we need, then they don't believe that God is Who He says He is!
Whatever books were left out, whatever prophecies were untold, is still not a valid reason to say that the Scriptures are incomplete.
Enoch may have been mentioned and quoted, but that doesn't give a man any reason to add to what God has already laid down in writing.
Hey guys, why not say now that the men who compiled the translations weren't led by God.
You really haven't expounded on that yet.
Joe Spivet goes a bit beyond the truth when he say that the NT guotes pagan authors. There are no pagan authors fof the New Testament. The inspired authors quote pagans, but these pagans DID NOT write the books of the NT. None of the passages by Joe Spivey support that any written words in both the NT or OT are uninspired. Yes, the INSPIRED authors do quote from Satan, and Pharaoh and other ungodly men, and no one is questioning that. Again, the art of listening is not held in high regards by Joe S.
Barking at the wrong tree
|July 23 2010, 2:54 PM |
Joe said, "The Bible includes quotes from uninspired individuals whose statements are false. The fact they are quoted does not validate the statement. For an example of this see Genesis 3:1-5."
I do not see why you are arguing that point, Dave. You are actually agreeing with Joe that the serpent was not inspired, but that the author (or the writing of the lie -- but not the lie itself) was inspired. So, I wouldn't refer to that as a "duh" moment. There are both good deeds and evil deeds (murder, theft, etc.) that are recorded in the inspired Bible. The Bible is also comprised of biographical, historical, instructional and other information for man to gain knowledge and wisdom from and for the child of God to learn to actually serve and live for Him.
The linked-to article stating "that the biblical text is more than sixty-five percent incomplete" was simply to inform the reader that it was Massimo Franceschini, an Italian convert to Mormonism, who made that suggestion. Clearly, you have taken that statement out of context as if it the informative article conveyed the notion that the Holy Scripture is incomplete and lacks evidence of being complete and inspired. That's not the case.
There's no argument among true believers of God's truth that: " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (II Tim. 3). Yet, we are admonished to: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15).
Rather, the argument lies upon your being adamant to anyone quoting from the Book of Enoch. Why are you so opposed to that? But yet you quote from one prominent change agent in the brotherhood, Al Maxey.
When you do a search on any of the following phrases in the Bible -- "book of" or "acts of" or "chronicles of" -- you will find scores and scores of those references and soon learn that many of these books, acts and chronicles are nowhere found in the Bible.
Does that make the Bible incomplete? No!!! Does that make the Bible not totally inspired? No!!! In fact, it all supports as evidence that God's Word is truly inspired and plenary. It validates what we already know and accept that God's Word is the absolute truth.
What's being argued then? Nothing but your insistence that quoting from the Book of Enoch is a conspiracy to discredit the Bible. It does not do that, Dave.
The Art of Listening
|July 24 2010, 11:36 AM |
I regret that my point concerning the words of the serpent was apparently unclear. I appreciate Concerned's explanation. Here are some of the points I meant to convey:
1) A quote of an individual or from a book does not mean the individual or book is inspired
2) Listening to the quote, in context, should allow the reader to understand whether it is to be taken as a true or false statement (the serpent's statement was false as the context indicates)
3) The books of the Bible, the canon, are inspired - they are complete - there is no need for any addition or subtraction
My point with the serpent, an apparent duhhhh moment, was that when an individual is quoted it does not mean the individual is inspired. This applies equally to Satan, Pharaoh, or Enoch.
It was never my intent to imply we are missing any books in the canon of the Bible. My listing of numerous books which are mentioned in the Bible, but are not a part of the canon, was meant to illustrate that "uninspired" books, and authors, are mentioned in the Bible.
The articles point about the Bible being "65% incomplete" has already been addressed by Concerned. It was a quote of someone who rejected the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures. I take the opposite position the Bible is complete, without need of addition or subtraction.
It was not my intent to go beyond the truth concerning pagan authors. I will maintain my earlier position- pagan authors are quoted in the New Testament. This should not challenge anyones faith or their confidence in the reliability of the scriptures. Ive read over my earlier statement and Im unable to discern anything which would indicate I believed there are pagan authors of the New Testament."
Paul himself specifically quotes an uninspired writer, Epimenides (read "pagan"), in Titus 1:12. Paul writes, Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." The quotation does not imply agreement with every word Epimenides had written. It was not meant to assert that Epimenides was inspired. It was simply, as Paul admited, a quote of a pagan author (and I suspect even Paul would have admitted it was a hyperbole).
Ill attempt to listen more carefully in the future and hold the art of listening in higher regard. Again, I regret any confusion caused by my earlier response.
So there will be no confusion concerning my first response, I will attempt below to provide greater clarity as to my intent. Specifically, I was responding to two related questions raised earlier in the discussion. They appeared to me to be valid questions. They are listed below.
Question #1: Therefore, is Jude the only example of an inspired epistle quoting from non-inspired material, or should the very fact that Jude quotes from Enoch be a sufficient example to cause Christianity to re-evaluate its position that the Book of Enoch is not an inspired work?
Question #2: Given the Biblical precedent of inspired men quoting from inspired books, can anyone give a valid reason why Jude would quote from the Book of Enoch if the latter were not an inspired work?
My earlier post was meant to aid in addressing these questions.
Answer #1: Jude is not the only example of an inspired epistle (or author or speaker) who quoted from non-inspired materials.
Answer #2: A quotation from an individual does not mean a book associated with or ascribed to that individual is necessarily inspired.
There may be value in securing a copy of the Book of Enoch and reading it. It is possible that some individuals, when they have read through its content in its entirety, will begin to understand why there is little evidence it was considered canonical by the Hebrews, the early Christians, or even the members of the Qumran Community who gave us the Dead Sea Scrolls.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: The Art of Listening
|July 24 2010, 4:23 PM |
So apparently some believe that even though Enoch made a prophecy about God, as Jude says, Enoch was still not inspired. It would seem hard to believe that someone who made a prophecy about God Himself was not inspired to do so. Apparently that prophecy was true. Jude never refuted Enoch's prophecy, nor did Jude denounce Enoch's prophecy as false. Therefore, if it were possible that some, like Enoch, who made prophecies were not inspired, then that would call into question the inspiration of all the prophets in the Bible. Suffice it to say that if a person made a prophecy about God and the Bible did not refute it, then the person who made that prophecy was indeed inspired. The bottom line: Enoch was inspired to make his prophecy about God.
Quote, Person, Book
|July 25 2010, 8:13 AM |
Jude 14 & 15 would indicate the words quoted from Enoch are true.
This is not the same as saying the the entire Book of Enoch is inspired.
When Paul quoted a pagan he indicated those particular words were true.
This does not mean everything spoken by the individual is inspired.
|July 26 2010, 2:47 PM |
William Crump said.."So apparently some believe that even though Enoch made a prophecy about God, as Jude says, Enoch was still not inspired. It would seem hard to believe that someone who made a prophecy about God Himself was not inspired to do so."
You need to check out Joe's last response.
There is no direct correlation between Enoch's quoted prophecy and his book. You see the quoted prophecy in the book of Enoch, YET, that does not mean the book of Enoch is inspired. NOR does that mean that the quote from Jude came from the book of Enoch. Notice the differences.
Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. (NASB) Jude 1:14-15
. . . Behold, he will arrive with ten million of the holy ones in order to execute judgment upon all. He will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything that they have done, that which the sinners and the wicked ones committed against him. - Enoch 1:9
One says 'thousands' while the other 'ten million.' One says that "He will destroy the wicked ones' while the other doesn't mention destruction but 'judgement' and convicting the ungodly, as in bringing them to understand that they have sinned against God and to give them time to repent.
Bottom line, William Crump, IF.....God would have wanted the book of Enoch to be a part of His written Word, it WOULD have been.
It is not.
Joe Spivey, thank you for your clarification and accept my apology for being so harsh.
Donnie, same ole same ole for you. You can always seem to bring about your 'Donnie's judgment' tirade. As far as Al Maxey or any other man goes....I serve no man....only God and Jesus. I didn't have to tell you that, for you already knew it. It's just Donnie Cruz being Donnie Cruz.
Donnie, there is a remedy for not being you. It's called Jesus Christ. Ask Him and He will replace your will with His.
Comparing apples and apples ... this time
|July 26 2010, 10:45 PM |
It's just comparing: (1) Ken's quoting from [the Book of] Enoch -- who walked with God [Gen. 5:22,24] -- to validate what God's truth is saying all along and (2) Dave's quoting from Articles by Al Maxey -- change agent, RM revisionist, church re-organizer -- to validate his newly acquired beliefs.
There's no judgment there -- just comparison. There's no tirade, either.
|July 27 2010, 3:20 PM |
The thing about Al Maxey is......you want the church the way you want it, and there are those of us want to return it to it being about Praising God. You need to get away from worrying about your a capella, or your fine building, or what YOU want. It is about serving others and pleasing God. Donnie, that is they only reason you put down instrumental music. It's because YOU don't like it. It's not what you PREFER. It's not in line with your traditions, so anything out of line you want to hiss and moan about. You have yet to show any Scriptural basis for condemnation of instrumental music. It doesn't have anything to do with you pleasing God. You just continue to want to sit in your cushioned pew singing your a capella songs, and stay comfortable. Having your comfort over pleasing God isn't going to get it Donnie. The church that you have in mind is in no way similar to the first century church.
If you took away the building (nice lighting, and warmth or A/C, cushy seats), your PA system (bet you thought I would leave the PA out, right William Crump?), your song books, and take away the harmony with the songs, would you be close?
No, because those who worship our Lord must do so in Truth and Spirit, and even if you got the setting right Donnie, you seem to want to forget that part. It's all about what you feel most comfortable with, instead of what God really wants.
"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
You're back to "apples and oranges" again
|July 27 2010, 5:59 PM |
And that's your reason for quoting from a change agent and re-organizer of the Lord's church, Al Maxey.
You don't hear me make any argument for non-essentials: kitchen sink and utensils, indoor toilets.
I'm glad you're showing your true color -- your love for inanimate, lifeless musical objects and devices being used to "enhance worship."
You're in the very tiny minority of mechanical-music worshipers in the church. And speaking of the early New Testament church, there was no musical idolatry as such. So, be careful about giving the WRONG impression that churches of Christ use musical instruments (dulcimer, sackbut, piano).
Like You Say....Showing Your True Colors
|July 28 2010, 4:05 PM |
You call Al Maxey a re-organizer, but you have done the same. It's called hypocrisy. Your traditions have shaped and RE-ORGANIZED the worship setting into what YOU want and prefer. Traditions in and of themselves are not the problem....it's those like you want to rewrite traditions as Scripture. Any changes to the CHANGES that have already been made is sinful, according to you. You say that you can't make changes to the changes that you have made.
You say that instrumental music is a change. Did they have four part harmony with the first century church?
Again, it is called hypocrisy. Just don't mess with the changes that you guys have made and everything is cool. BEWARE OF THE CHANGES OF THE CHANGES.
Nope...doesn't work that way.