FAITH means to COMPLY with what you BELIEVE.

Concerned
Concerned

July 19th, 2010, 9:50 pm #21

Put it any way you want it, but Enoch is not part of the Holy Word of God for a reason. William Crump could be added to the list along with Ken Sublett who just don't believe that God is Powerful enough to keep His Holy Word intact, and fully sufficient. If God would have wanted Enoch to be a part of the Holy Scriptures, you can believe that it would have been.
Jude does not claim to quote from the book of Enoch, but DOES quote from Enoch himself. The Scripture in Jude coincides with the purported book of Enoch, yet this DOES not give it any more legitimate credence than Tolkien's book, The Hobbit.
Those who would give Enoch legitimacy as Inspired Scripture would also ADD other books as well. God led certain men to compile and translate the FULLY COMPLETE Scriptures. Do William Crump and Ken Sublett believe themselves to be vicars of God, led to add more books to the fully complete Word?
Enoch showed himself to be a special man of God, one who loved God, and taken from this earth before death. Let us leave him honored as such.
Dave,

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.
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

July 20th, 2010, 5:05 am #22



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.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

July 20th, 2010, 6:00 am #23

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dave,

"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?[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

July 20th, 2010, 5:25 pm #24

"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!
Quote
Share

Concerned
Concerned

July 20th, 2010, 7:25 pm #25

Rocnar,

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?

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html

The above is a good source. There are others.
Quote
Share

Rocnar
Rocnar

July 20th, 2010, 7:54 pm #26

Donnie, thanks, I will do a some research.

Dr. Crump, you should take Donnie out to dinner!
Quote
Share

Ken Sublett
Ken Sublett

July 22nd, 2010, 3:27 pm #27

You are NOT a disciple if you trust those who "private interpret" meaning "further expounding" or who corrupt the Word meaning "selling learning at retail." The same word speaks of adultery.

http://www.piney.com/Baptism.Mark.16.16.Saves.html

The REPUDIATION of Christ's command which connects "remission of sins with baptism" is one of the end time marks which fits perfectly with the rise of MUSIC which was introduced in the Garden of Eden by Lucifer (Zoe) who was the "singing and harp playing prostitute" which is consistent with the end time Babylon mother of harlots (Rev 17) whose "ministers" are speakers, singers and instrument players: John calls them SORCERERS and so all musical terms define closing the rational or spiritual mind so the garbage will be accepted by those lulled to sleep (the Locust-Muse code) so they can be given the sting of death.

This fits most of the latest spawn of preachers trained to go out and betray godly people. Rebeling against authority is one of the MARKS of Christ prophey about the CHILDREN in Isaiah3.

Jesus used a word (translated in both Latin and Greek) which defines those who do not COMPLY with "he that believeth AND is baptized SHALL be saved" as in REVOLT or TREACHEROUS. They in effect tell Jesus Christ that HE has no power to save.

Remembering that both Jesus through His Apostles were carrying out the search for the TINY REMNANT still alive in Jerusalem who had not bowed to Baal. And that baptism was FOR or IN ORDER to the remission of sins where one's PERSONAL faith is like filthy rags: it is THE FAITH of Jesus Christ which contains the power in contrast to THE LAW which was imposed on those not fit for salvation because of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai.

Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers
rejected the counsel of God against themselves,
being not baptized of him.

The MARK of the MEN who could not or as VIPERS not fit to be baptized would be baptized with WIND and FIRE as the VIPER race. Jesus then MARKED them with the prophecy of Isaiah 3 where the men are marked by music as effeminate:

Luke 7:31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the MEN of this generation? and to what are they like?
Luke 7:32 They are like unto CHILDREN sitting in the marketplace
and calling one to another, and saying,
We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced;
we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept

The Latin for Mark 16:16 defines FAITH as TRUST and not simple believing a fact

Mark 16.[16] qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur

He that BELIEVETH complies with what is commanded.

LATIN:

A. Credo I. Orig. belonging to the lang. of business, to GIVE CREDIT. to give as a loan, to loan, lend, make or loan to any one: (vilicus) injussu domini credat nemini;
II. Transf. beyond the circle of business (very freq. in every period and species of composition).
A. With the prevailing idea of intended protection, to commit or consign something
to one for preservation, protection, etc., to intrust to one, = committo, commendo (cf. concredo)


GREEK:
4100. pisteuo, pist-yoo´-o; from 4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially ones spiritual well-being to Christ): believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.
2. COMPLY, hs oukh hupeixn oude pisteusn legeis; S.OT625, cf. 646 ;


BELIEVETH NOT does not mean "just haven't decided." THE BELIEVETH NOTS refuse to comply or OBEY the direct connection between Baptism and Salvation or remission of sins which is a clear statement of Jesus in several places.

Example:

Soph. OT 625
Oedipus Hardly. I desire your death, not your exile, so that I might show what a thing envy is.
Creon [625] Are you resolved not to yield or believe? (Pisteo)
Oedipus No, for you persuade me that you are unworthy of trust.
Creon No, for I see you are not sane

He that believeth not in Mark 16 says that Jesus is not worthy of trust. The lowly people "justified God" by being baptized: the Pharisees rejected the command of God by NOT being baptized. They made a conscious decision not to trust the INSTRUMENTAL MEANS Jesus had commanded.

Xen. Sym. 8.36 We could all come to one mind, I think, on the point I am trying to make, if we were to consider the question in this way: of two lads, the objects of the different types of love,
which one would a person prefer to trust (Pisteo) with his money, or his children,
or to lay under the obligation of a favour?
My own belief is that even the person whose love is founded on the loved one's physical beauty would in all these cases rather put his trust (Pisteuo) in him whose loveliness is of the spirit.

Diod. 12.15 Now at first glance a man sees nothing wise or outstanding in this law, but when it is explored deeply it is found to be justly worthy of praise.
For if the reason is sought out why he entrusted (Pisteuo) the property of orphans
to one group and the rearing of them to another, the lawgiver is seen to have shown
an unusual kind of ingenuity

"Raw" faith really has no meaning. You might believe that a floating chunk of ice can support your weight and save your live: you have no FAITH in the way it is used to mean TRUST if you refuse to step on that which you "think" might save your life.

BELIEVETH is defined as the <b>opposite of APISTOS or he that "believeth not."</b>

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned

Apistos To express doubt that it is possible.
I. Pass., not to be trusted, and so:
1. of persons and their acts, not trusty, faithless,
by untrustworthy, groundless confidence, Th.1.120; shifty, unreliable, Pl.Lg.775d.
II. Act., mistrustful, incredulous, suspicious, Od.14.150;
b. in NT, unbelieving, 1 Ep.Cor.6.6, a
2. disobedient, disloyal, S.Fr. 627: c. gen., A.Th.876; ekhein apiston . . anarkhian polei, i.e. anarkhian ekhein apeithousan t polei, ib.1035, cf. E.IT1476.
2. Act., distrustfully, suspiciously, Th.3.83; a. tina diatheinai D.20.22.
b. treacherously


Of the numerous examples of how the word is used:

Soph. Trach. 1228
Heracles
No other man but you must ever marry
this woman who has lain with me in love;
no, you, my son, must take her for your own.
Consent! [Pietho listen to, obey)
To disrespect [Apisteo disobey]
me in small matters
destroys the greater favors you have done


he that believeth not shall be damned because that person has looked the free gift of spiritual life in the face and insulted the Grace of Jesus Christ--I think without redemption if they make a profession out of teaching the opposite of what the Bible and historic scholarship confirms.

Never trust your soul to one who is WAGED to sell you the FREE WATER OF THE WORD: Music as sorcery in the Revelation 18 often ment to slip you a "drug" while singing you a lovely song.
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 <b>spake NOT unto your fathers, nor commanded them</b>
...... 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."
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

July 22nd, 2010, 11:51 pm #28

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.

Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

July 23rd, 2010, 4:18 pm #29


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 title of Dave's post should read "66 Books Are Sufficient." A plural subject requires a plural verb.
Quote
Share

Concerned
Concerned

July 23rd, 2010, 6:54 pm #30

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.
Dave,

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: "[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (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.
Quote
Share