Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

The Mark Of The Beast, The Coming Of The Anti-Christ,The Dead Sea Scrolls

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Mark of the Beast
Mark of the Beast

It is no secret that there is a constituency which dwells in the Barbados Underground who enjoys a robust religious debate. In recent times there has been rich discussion about the Jewish Talmud, The Promises of God and currently The Bible And The Qur’an, Brothers Kept Apart. This group is comprised of Atheists, Agnostics, Christians and  others, we even noticed the description Apathiest.

Surprisingly to the BU household the religious conversation has attracted a healthy following based on what we see from back here. We hope that we are not twisting any arms but there are some Christian events which require clarification.

  • The BU household wishes to ask our religious luminaries to explain how they perceive revelations linked to  the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls can potentially reshape religion as we know it.
  • Explain the Mark of the Beast and the much discussed the coming of the Anti-Christ.

Attached is a Power Point Presentation which has been in circulation for sometime which some believe is the Mark of the Beast exposed!

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

820 responses to “The Mark Of The Beast, The Coming Of The Anti-Christ,The Dead Sea Scrolls”

  1. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    JJ, let us look at the way John uses Law (nomos) as distinct from the word commandment (entole).

    The following is a complete list of the usages of the word “Law” in the writings of John:

    “For the law (nomos) was given through Moses: grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17). “Philip found Nathanael and said to him, ‘We have found Him of whom Moses in the law (nomos) and also the Prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph” ( Jn. 1:45). ” Did not Moses give you the law (nomos), and yet none of you carries out the Law (nomos)? Why do you seek to kill me?” (Jn. 7;19). “If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath that the Law (nomos) of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? (Jn. 7:23). “But this multitude which does not know the Law (nomos) is accursed ” (Jn. 7:49). “Our Law (nomos) does not judge a man, unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” (Jn. 7:51). ” Now in the Law (nomos) Moses commanded us to stone a woman; what then do You say?” (Jn. 8:5). “Even in your Law (nomos) it has been written, that the testimony of two men is true” (Jn. 8:17). “Jesus answered them, ‘Has it not been written in your Law (nomos), I SAID YOU ARE GODS?” (Jn. 10:34). “The multitude therefore answered Him, ‘We have heard out of the Law (nomos) that Christ is to remain forever…” ((Jn. 12:34). “But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law (nomos). ‘THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.” (jn. 15: 25). “Pilate therefore said to them, ‘Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law (nomos)…” (Jn. 18:31). “The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law (nomos), and by that law (nomos) He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.” (jn. 19:7).

    The word Law (nomos) is NOT used in Revelation>

    The following is a complete listing of the word “commandment” in the writings of John.

    “No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again, This ‘commandment’ [entole] I received from My Father” (Jn. 10:18). “For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me ‘commandment [entole], what to say, and what to speak. And I know that His ‘commandment’ [entole] is eternal life; therefore the things I speak just as the Father has told Me” (Jn. 12: 49-50).

    “A new ‘commandment’ [entole] I give to you, that you LOVE one another, even as I loved you, that you also LOVE one another” (Jn. 13:34). “If you LOVE Me, you will keep My ‘commandments’ [entole]” (Jn. 14:15). “He who has My ‘commandments’ [entole] and keeps them, he it is who LOVES Me; and he who LOVES Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him” (Jn. 14:21). “But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me ‘commandment’ [entole], even so I do…” (Jn. 14:31). “If you keep My ‘commandments’ [entole], you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My father’s ‘commandments’ [entole], and abide in His love” (Jn. 15:10). “This is My ‘commandment’ [entole] that you LOVE one another, just as I have loved you” (Jn. 15:12). “And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His ‘commandments’ [entole]. “The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His ‘commandments’ [entole], is a liar, and the truth is not in him” ( I Jn. 2: 3-4). “Beloved, I am not writing a new ‘commandment; [entole] to you, but an old ‘commandment’ [entole] which you have had from the beginning; the old ‘commandment’ [entole] is the word which you have heard. On the other hand, I am writing a new ‘commandment’ [entole] to you, which is the true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining” (I Jn. 2: 7-8). “And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His ‘commandments’ [entole] and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. And this is His ‘commandment’ [entole], that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and LOVE one another, just as He ‘commanded’ [entole] us. And the one that keeps His ‘commandments’ [entole] abides in Him, and He in him. And we know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us” (I Jn. 3: 22-24). “And this ‘commandment’ [entole] we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also” (I Jn. 4:21). “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His ‘commandments’ [entole]. For this is the love of God, that we keep His ‘commandments’ [entole]; and His ‘commandments’ [entole] are not burdensome” ( I Jn. 5: 2-3). ” I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received ‘commandment [entole] to do from the Father. And now I ask you, lady, not as writing to you a new ‘commandment’ [entole], but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another ” ( 2 Jn. 1: 4-5). “And this is LOVE, that we walk according to His ‘commandments [entole]. This is the ‘commandment’ [entole], just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it” (2 Jn. 1:6).

    The word “commandment” [entole] is used only two times in Revelation 12: 17, and 14:12.

    Why do you think, that the Holy Spirit inspired John, to make such a clear distinction in using two different words as He pened Scripture, Law (nomos), and ‘commandment(s)’ (entole)?

    Because, the contrast is made between the Old Covenant, Mosaic Law, specifically the Ten Commandments, which are now kept and ‘fulfilled’ by and through LOVE, as expressed in the Justified believers heart, through the indwelling Holy Spirit, DAILY toward God our Father, and DAILY to one another.

    When we LOVE as Christ has commanded us to LOVE, yeilding our lives every single day of the week, to His Lordship, manifesting the fruit of the Holy Spirit, the LAW of LOVE, fulfills the Righteousness of the Law in true liberty and blessed freedom in Christ Jesus, to the Glory of God the Father.

    We have the imputed Righteousness of Jesus, (Actus Forensis) forensic act, i.e., the actualization of a legal state or condition, such as occurs in the ‘Justification’ of the sinner by God on accoount of faith. The sinner is not made just, but is, by the will of God, declared just, legally or forensically, and is thenceforth in a condition of being justified or counted reghteous.

    Actus Justificatorius: Justificatory act or operation; viz., the formal appropriation of the divine ‘actus forensis’ of justification in the believer, the realization or recognition that God no longer counts one as sinful, but as righteous in Christ Jesus.

    This then goes to the very heart of why, “The Christian stand under ‘the perfect law of liberty’ which enables him to ‘fulfill’ the righteousness of the ‘Law’ by the imperative of Love.”

    This has NOTHING to do with observing a day, (Sabbath)!

  2. Technician Avatar
    Technician

    I understand where you are coming from GP…BUT…haven’t these others claimed or still claim to be the true word.

    I work along with other technicians, one is Pentecost, one is Jehovah’s Witness and the other is a Baptist preacher.
    I dont think I need to tell you the amount of trouble I cause with the question I ask on mornings…LOL.

    My point is that each of them believe that they are following the true word and trust me ….they believe in it.

    So, to me, a non believer in this, can you see the trouble I would have trying to figure out who is true?!?
    I think I will ask again in the morning 🙂

  3. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Technician ma boy

    I can claim what ever I wish, and your friends can claim what they wish, but when ANY OF US departs from the WORD it is easy to know who is who. We all ready know that the Jehovah’s Witness are really ARIANS. So that is an easy cult to dismiss, even though one admires their zeal in door to door personal work.

    I can just imagine the amount of trouble you cause with your questions.

    I imagine that each of your friends believe that they are following the true word and that they all sincerely believe their positions. Being sincerely WRONG is still WRONG . You can tell them that LOL. I expect that both the Pentecostal; chap and the Baptist preacher should be closest to the truth.

    You don’t have to determine who is true. All you need to do is RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH FOR YOURSELF!

    BTW I think that you are getting some good teaching on this forum though. I know you don’t like Zoe too much; but the post above is in the top drawer.

  4. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Technician

    If you read Zoe’s last post you will see how to deal with those who think that you MUST worship on the Sabbath, and make one point a false doctrine, and then build a denomination thereon.

    Here is a good clear example of what Jesus told the people of his day in Mark 7 Verse 8: “You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.”

  5. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    Don’t dismiss any cult. What is now christianity was a cult. We know that in any rumour there is some truth. The Romans claimed that the disciples took the body of christ away and ate it.

    Well it is also very conspicuous that one of the rituals of christianity is to eat the body of Christ and drink his blood. This is so distasteful that can only be described as devilish by any standards.

    The act is now symbolised.

  6. Annonymous Avatar
    Annonymous

    It is noteworthy that a discusion which has been conducted at a fairly high level has descended to the level of faecal effluent!

    All church goers of all denominations KNOW that the disciples did NOT take the body of Christ away to eat it.

    All church goers of all denominations KNOW that no one eats the body of Christ nor do they drink his blood.

    Serious folk who understand the Bible know that sharing the cup and bread at Communion services is ONE OF THE TWO ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH AND NOT RITUALS!

    Any one with Basic understanding knows that Jesus did not expect his disciples in the early Church to literally eat his body or drink his blood.

    Everyone knows that in no denomination has any participant in Communion Services at any time through the centuries or today eat the body of Christ nor do they drink his blood.

    Only the devil himself, or one of his demons would think that remembering Christ (the purpose of breaking the bread and sharing the cup) is “distasteful” or describes such metings “as devilish by any standards.”

    Can you percieve the Spirit of Antichrist here?

  7. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    JJ, Let us now look carefully at Paul’s letter to the Galatians, where his polemic against the Judaizers in seeking to bring the young Galatian Christians back under the Law, by insisting that circumcision was necessary for salvation.

    Paul was righteously angry, “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so FOOLISH? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, does he do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Gal. 3: 1-3,5).

    Yes, Paul is essentially here dealing with ‘Justification’ how one is Saved, and his central focus is, that IT IS NOT by any adherence to any LAW ritual from the Old Covenant; but, circumcision is what the Judaizers were attempting to impose on the Galatian saints. This is why Paul vehemently stressed:

    “I DO NOT frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the ‘law’ then Christ is dead in vain.” ( Gal. 2:21)

    Sabbatarians will hastly agree that Paul is right, re Justification, that one cannot be Justified by the Law; but then going on to deal with their ‘sabbath’ imposition as been valid.

    However, Paul goes on ever further in his argument from chapter 3, verse 10.

    “For as many as are of the works of the ‘law’ are under the CURSE; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth NOT in ALL things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” (v.10).

    ‘Under a curse’ (hupo kataran) Picture of the curse hanging over them like a Damocles’ sword. Paul quotes Deut 27: 26, the close of the curses on Mt. Ebal. The idea is made clearer by the participle (gegrammenois) and ‘biblioi’ (book), the curse becomes effective only when the law is violated. The emphasis is on “continueth” (emmenei) and ‘all’ (pasin).

    “And the law is NOT of faith: but, the man that does them shall live in them.” (v.12)

    “The law is not of faith” (ho nomos ouk astin ek pisteos), Law demands complete obedience, and rest not on mercy, faith, grace.

    Paul goes on to build his argument:

    “Christ hath redeemed us from the CURSE of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” (v. 13).

    The Law has nothing to do with the notion of receiving ‘right standing’ as a gracious gift from God, as a result of trust in Him.

    From here on Paul goes even deeper and further back than the giving of the ‘Law’ to prove his point.

    “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the ‘promise’ of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet it it be confirmed, NO man disannulleth, OR addeth to it.”
    (vv. 14,15).

    It is here that Paul now swings around to meet the ‘Law’ keeping Judaizers head on, by taking them back to Abraham, long before the Law of Moses was instituted. Why talk about Abraham, they will say, when the real question is the Law?

    Well, Abraham stood at the very beginning of God revelatory process. It was only centuries later, God gave the law of Moses, to really show and reveal to man, his utter depravity before a Holy, Righteous God.

    Paul then proceeds:

    “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He said not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” (v.16).

    But surely, some might argue, even if this were the case, the later Law would have annulled any such earlier ‘arrangements’ with Abraham. Here is Paul, the ecclessiastical lawyer, at his best. He swoops down like a hawk at his possible or real opponent.

    Listen to God’s Word, as Paul writes through Divine inspiration and anointing.

    “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, (The Abrahamic Covenant), the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years AFTER, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” (v. 17).

    “Fellow Christians’ here is an ordinary human illustration. even it is is only a last will and testament that has been ratified, NO-ONE can set it aside, or add a codicil. The promises were made to Abraham “and his posterity.” This refers to Christ. But, the real point is this: Once a will and testament has been already ratified by God, NO LAW coming four hundred and thirty years later can anul it and make void the promise which it contained. This is because, if the ‘inheritance’ of salvation comes through the Law, then it has ceased to be in fulfillment of a promise. But, God gave it, ONCE and for ALL, as a gracious gift to Abraham, by promise. The suppressed apodosis is: ‘Therefore the law could not possibly change the conditions of salvation, from being the underserving reception of a promise to being the merited reception of desert or ‘wages”.

    When Paul has illustrated his point at the human level, then he will apply it to the spiritual problem using the argument.

    The next verse, 18, is potent with meaning, for it takes us way up, after our initial ‘Justification’ right up into our ‘Glorification’ in Heaven.

    “For if the ‘inheritance’ be of the Law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise,” (v.18)

    The word ‘kleronomia’ ‘Inheritance’ translated in the paraphrase as ‘inheritance of salvation’ means the actual ‘enjoyment’ of the benifits already promised under the will. Paul will return to this concept in 4:1, where the Christian is ‘kleronomos, ‘heir’. In Scripture, the ‘kleronomia’ or ‘inheritance’ is inseparable from the gift of the Spirit, the ‘arrabon’ ‘the guarantee’ or ‘pledge’, of our inheritance (Eph. 1:14)

    Therefore, Paul forcefully argues, that the ‘inheritance’ which is the Gift of Eternal Life, which starts with ‘Justification’ continues on with ‘Sanctification’ and is finally consummated in Heaven, when we are ‘Glorified’ cannot in ANY WAY be attained, sustained, or retained by anything to do with the Law, that is legalistic observance of any particular day, (sabbath-keeping) for the ‘Promise’ which guarantees the Inheritance IS Solely by Grace through Faith, from beginning (Justification) to full consummation in Heaven, Glorification.

    Law ( Circumcision, Sabbath keeping, etc) and Grace (Christ Jesus) simply do not mix.

    Because the Law is a unit, obedience to it CANNOT be selective (3:10) James 2:10).

    “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to DO THE WHOLE LAW. Christ is become of NO EFFECT unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are FALLEN FROM GRACE. (Gal, 5: 3,4).

    “For ALL THE LAW (Circumcision, Sabbath, etc) is FULFILLED in one word, even this; Thou shall LOVE thy neighbour as thyself.” (v.14).

  8. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Mauscripts part 1

    Earlier in this thread there was a short debate about manuscripts. In seeking my essays on Law & Grace to respond to Zoe’s amazing exegesis above, I found instead my essay on Factors to be considered when determining the age of a manuscript, which I wrote in early 2001 as an assignment in my MDiv program in Apologetics. I hope that some will find it enlightening

    The first issue to look at is what is meant by “manuscript.” Manuscripts are written, as opposed to printed, copies of the original text or of a version either of the whole Bible or of a part thereof.

    A Bible manuscript is simply a handwritten copy of a portion of the Bible dating to before the invention of the printing press (mid 1400s). These could be copies of the entire New or Old Testament (NT), portions of it (such as just the Gospels or just the epistles of Paul, or Isaiah) or simply fragments of a book of the NT, or the OT. They are of several types.

    On page 48, of Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands A Verdict, we read that “factors to be considered when determining the age of a manuscript include materials, letter size and form, punctuation, text divisions, ornamentation, color of ink, texture and color of the parchment.” We will use this classification as far as possible in this discussion as we pursue this topic.

    Age is sometimes indicated by a note in the manuscript itself; but the date, when not suspected of falsification, may simply be transcribed from the exemplar. However, as dated manuscripts are usually not very old, recourse must be had to various palæographic indications which generally determine with sufficient accuracy the age of Greek and Latin manuscripts. Hebrew palæography, though more uncertain, presents fewer difficulties, inasmuch as Hebrew manuscripts are not so old. Besides, the exact age of a copy is, after all, only of minor importance, as it is quite possible that an ancient manuscript may be very corrupt while a later one, copied from a better exemplar, may come nearer to the primitive text.

    However, other things being equal, the presumption is naturally in favour of the more ancient document, since it is connected with the original by fewer intervening links and consequently has been exposed to fewer possibilities of error.

  9. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Mauscripts part 2

    MATERIALS
    Writing materials for the preparation of manuscripts included papyrus, parchment, vellum, ostraca, stones, clay tablets and wax tablets.

    PAPYRI:

    The earliest manuscripts are know as papyri. Certainly in the Roman Empire of the first three centuries of our era, papyrus was the ordinary writing material.

    They are so called because they were written on papyrus. This material was produced from strips of pith taken from the stem of the Egyptian water-plant the papyrus plant. Strips of the plant were laid beside and on top of another, moistened and pressed together and cut into the desired size. Generally, these sheets were then arranged into scrolls. But the early Christians, instead, folded them down the center and bound them together into what is known as a “codex.”

    Since we know that papyrus enjoyed popular use until about the third century AD, it is clear that documents on papyrus tend to be dated from 300AD backwards. However, since papyri were of several qualities, and varying thicknesses and surfaces, and because it was a perishable material, one can appreciate that the various possible stages of decomposition of manuscripts on papyri would pose severe problems in attempts to date such documents with great accuracy.

    Those papyri which were preserved in dry areas such as the sands of Egypt or in the caves like those at Qumran where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, are easier to date. Nevertheless, the oldest papyrus fragment known dates back to 2400 BC

    Papyrus was very fragile, became brittle in air, crumbled with use, could not resist the disintegrating force of moisture and was quite impracticable for book-form. All papyrus manuscripts of every sort are lost to us save such as were buried in exceedingly dry soil, like that of Upper and Middle Egypt.

    Here the ignorant at one time wantonly destroyed vast quantities of papyrus manuscripts. Egyptian excavators now prevent such destruction and keep on adding to our very considerable collections of papyri.

    It is more than likely that the New Testament sacred writers or their scribes used ink and rolls of fragile papyrus for their autographa (II Cor.,3; II John, 12).

    These original manuscripts probably perished towards the end of the first or the opening of the second century. We find no trace of them in either the Apostolic or the apologetic Fathers, — unless we except Tertullian’s words, “the authentic letters of the Apostles themselves”, which are now generally set aside as rhetorical.

    A significant proof of the early loss of the autograph copies of the New Testament is the fact that Irenæus never appeals to the original writings but only to all the painstaking and ancient copies, to the witness of those that saw John face to face and to the internal evidence of the written word .

  10. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Manuscripts part 3

    PARCHMENT

    In the fourth century, parchment began to be used for preparing manuscripts. This a more durable writing material prepared from the dried shaved and scraped hides of skins of sheep, goats, antelopes and other animals. The hair and flesh were removed and the hide trimmed to size, polished and smoothed with chalk and pumice stone.

    Parchment was used until paper became popular in the twelfth century. Documents on parchment tend therefore generally date from the fourth to the twelfth century.

    Manusripts were also made on vellum or calf skin, and Harold Greenlee says the oldest leather scrolls date from around 1500 BC.

    Egypt clung to her papyrus rolls until the eighth century AD and even later. Vellum had been used before the time of Christ (cf. Pliny, “Historia Naturalis”, xiii, 11), and during the time of the Apostles (II Tim., iv, 13). In the third century, it began, outside of Egypt, to supersede papyrus; in the early part of the fourth century vellum and the codex, or book-form, gained complete victory over papyrus and the roll-form.

    When Constantine founded his capital of the Byzantine Empire, he ordered Eusebius to have fifty manuscripts of the Bible made on vellum (somatia en diphtherais) for use in the churches of Byzantium (Vita Constant., IV, 36). To the fourth century belong the earliest extant Biblical manuscripts of anything but fragmentary size.

    Some vellum manuscripts of the greatest importance are palimpsests (from Lat. palimpsestum, Gr. palimpsestos, “scraped again”), — that is, they were long ago scraped a second time with pumice-stone and written upon anew.

    The discovery of palimpsests led to the reckless, bigoted charge of wholesale destruction of Biblical manuscripts by the monks of old. That there was some such destruction is clear enough from the decree of a Greek synod of A.D. 691, which forbade the use of palimpsest manuscripts either of the Bible or of the Fathers, unless they were utterly unserviceable (see Wattenbach, “Das Schriftwessen im Mittelalter”, 1896, p. 299).

    That such destruction was not wholesale, but had to do with only worn or damaged manuscripts, is in like manner clear enough from the significant fact that as yet no complete work of any kind has been found on a palimpsest.

    The deciphering of a palimpsest may at times be accomplished merely by soaking it in clear water; generally speaking, some chemical reagent is required, in order to bring back the original writing. Such chemical reagents are an infusion of nutgalls, Gioberti’s tincture and hydrosulphuret of ammonia; all do harm to the manuscript.

    Wattenbach, a leading authority on the subject, says: “More precious manuscripts, in proportion to the existing supply, have been destroyed by the learned experimenters of our time than by the much abused monks of old.”

    The pen which was used on vellum, parchment and papyrus is said to have been in use as early as the first millennium in Mesopotamia, in the form of the reed cut to a flat chisel shape to enable thick and thin strokes to be made with the broad or narrow sides. If the stroke thickness made with the quill pen introduced by the Greeks in the third century BC differed, then examining documents written with ink can be dated by examining this parameter.

    Rolls or scrolls were made by gluing sheets of papyrus together and winding these on long strips around a stick. Since classic authors wrote on papyrus scrolls until about the third century AD, we can often assume that any scroll we are asked to date will have been written prior to this period.

    In order to make reading easier and less cumbersome , papyrus sheets were assembled in leaf form and written on both sides similar to a book. Since Christianity is said to be the prime reason for the development of the codex book, we can assume that codices can be dated after about the end of the first century.

  11. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Manuscripts part 4

    LETTER SIZE AND FORM
    Minuscule writing which was created in the ninth century was a script of smaller letters in a running hand. Since Hebrew was written without vowels until 900 AD and the coming of the Massoretes this is of great use in dating a manuscript.

    Writing was either uncial or minuscule. Greek manuscripts are divided into two classes according to their style of writing — uncials and minuscules.

    UNCIALS:
    The uncials are the first kind of manuscript written on parchments. They are so called because the entire text was written in capital Greek letters, which were deliberately and carefully executed About 290 uncials have been recognized. They date from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries.

    Uncials were written with large and disconnected letters. These letters were not capitals but had a distinctive form: epsilon, sigma, and omega were not written EPSILON, SIGMA, OMEGA, as are those capitals in inscriptions; rho, phi, psi, and at times upsilon were prolonged above or below the line.

    Words were not separated; neither accents nor punctuation marks were used; paragraphs were marked off only by a very small lacuna; the letters were uniform and artistic; ligatures were used only for the most ordinary words — IC (Iesous), KC (Kyrios), XC (Christos), ICL (Israel), PNA (pneuma), DLD (David), ANOC (anthropos), PER (pater), MER (mater), OUC (pater), CER (soter), OUNOC (ouranos).

    In the sixth century, began a decadence of the elegant uncial writing. Twists and turns were given to certain letters. In the seventh century, more letters received flourishes; accents and breathings were introduced; the writing leaned to the right.

    These later features are obviously pathognomonic for their periods, allowing us to date manuscripts in which they appear.

    The two earliest are “Codex Sinaiticus” and “Codex Vaticanus.” They are named after monasteries on Mount Sinai and in the Vatican, respectively. Both date from the early fourth century. These are also the earliest complete copies of the Bible known. They are also known as, “Aleph” (the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) and “Beta” (the second letter of the Greek alphabet), respectively.

    They are designated with successive English capital letters and a number, with a “0” as the first digit. For instance, “Beta” is designated by B 03.

    The next earliest uncial is “Codex Alexandria” from the fifth century and is designated as “A 02.” The only exception is “Aleph” which uses the Hebrew letter “Aleph” instead of an English letter.

    MINUSCULES:
    The next kind of manuscripts are the minuscules. They are so named since they are written in small connected, letters, and written with a running hand, with capitals only used as in modern day writing.

    These are also called “cursives” (running) because they are written in running script. The minuscules date from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries, at which time they were superceded by print. The earliest is from the year 835 and is located in the Leningrad Public Library. There are about 2,800 know minuscules. They are simply numbered consecutively.

    While uncials held sway in Biblical manuscripts, minuscules were employed in other works. During the ninth century, both uncial and minuscule manuscripts of the Bible were written. The latter show a form of writing so fully developed as to leave no doubt about its long standing use.

    In addition to actual texts of the Greek NT, there are three additional sources to be consulted in textual criticism.

  12. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Manuscripts part 5

    LECTIONARIES:
    The first additional source are the lectionaries. These contain portions of Scriptures that have been divided up into readings for church services. There are approximately 2,200 known lectionaries. They date from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries and are designated by a fancy “l” with a superscript number.

    PATRISTIC CITATIONS:

    The second additional source are patristic citations. These are quotes of the NT in commentaries and other writings of the Church Fathers (church leaders during the centuries immediately following the Apostles). The use of these in textual criticism can be difficult since it cannot always be determined if the writer was copying the Biblical quote directly from a text, quoting it from memory or simply making an allusion to a Scripture verse.

    There are dozens of Church Father’s which can be appealed to. Some of the more important are: Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius (d. 117), Tertullian (c. 160-220), Origen (185-254), Clement of Alexandria (before 215), Hyppolytus (d. 235), Irenaeus (c. 250), Ambrose (c. 340-397), Chrysostom (344-407), and Augustine (354-430). Various abbreviations are used to designate these and other Patristic citations. It is easy to see how one can date the patristic citations. Since we know the period when they lived, manuscripts bearing their signature can be assigned a date appropriately.

    PUNCTUATION

    Until the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, the earliest Hebrew biblical manuscripts were from the ninth century A.D. Pious Jews destroyed worn-out copies to prevent them from falling into impious hands. There were, of course, earlier versions in other languages. With the discovery of the Scrolls, scholars were enabled to move back nearly 1,000 years in the history of the Hebrew text. The fidelity of textual transmission was obvious, for despite numerous variations no major alteration of the text had taken place.

    Some Qumran manuscripts are closer to the LXX or Samaritan than to the Hebrew text, demonstrating that manuscripts with varying texts were in circulation during the first centuries B.C. and A.D., and that no one text had attained unique priority among the scribes of Qumran.

    As Hebrew and Aramaic continued to be living languages during the first 500 years of the Christian era, there was little cause for concern about proper reading of the text. When these languages began to die, a group of Jewish scholars known as Massoretes came into being in Babylon and Palestine. Their work embraces a period roughly between A.D. 600 and 1000. They were, in a sense, successors to the scribes and deeply concerned with the purity and preservation of the text, but their efforts extended beyond care in copying because of the emergence of new problems.

    The Hebrew text had been written without any division between words. Because Hebrew and Aramaic had become dead languages, the words were separated to give ease in reading. To keep the text constant, the Massoretes developed mechanical checks and counted the number of words and letters, noted the number of times the divine name was used or special words appeared, and determined the middle verses, words and letters of individual books.

    Any manuscript that failed on any of these counts was defective. Efforts were made to correct scribal errors, although some “corrections” appear to have been made on dogmatic grounds. The Hebrew text had been recorded without vowels. The Massoretes invented a vowel system which was added to the text to preserve correct pronunciation.

    “ Where the Massoretes questioned the reading, special notations were added, and the Massoretes distinguished between Kethib, what is written, and Qere, what is to be read. Perhaps the best known alteration was the placing of the vowels of ‘Adonai under the tetragrammaton YHWH, indicating that although the name is written YHWH ( Kethib) it is to be read ‘Adonai ( Qere). Most other notations of this kind rest upon grammatical rather than dogmatic reasoning. Massoretic notes placed in the margins of manuscripts became so extensive that they had to be compiled separately.”

    Not all Massoretic traditions were in agreement. Babylonian scholars had developed a vowel system that differed from that of the Palestinian or Tiberias school. Because the Palestinian pattern prevailed, manuscripts with other notations fell into disrepute and began to disappear. Two of the most famous and most authoritative manuscripts by Palestinian Massoretes are from the tenth century: one by Moses ben David ben Naphtali is known as “ben Naphtali,” and the other by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher is known as “ben Asher.” The ben Asher text, the product of a family of Massoretes, is preferred and is the basic Hebrew text used by scholars and translators. The Massoretic text is designated by the letter M.

    I have not been able to find any information in my research with respect to ornamentation, color of ink, texture and color of the parchment in the dating of manuscripts.

  13. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    Anonymous
    “Only the devil himself, or one of his demons would think that remembering Christ (the purpose of breaking the bread and sharing the cup) is “distasteful” or describes such metings “as devilish by any standards.””

    You guys need to wake up and smell the coffee. Why would a God want to be perpetrated in a symbolically cannibalistic way? Why did God require human sacrifice?

    They have you so well steeped in it that they have you describing cannibalistic acts as a noble thing, yet you were not going to indulge in the eating of human or god’s flesh. That is the hypocrisy.

    The thing is that to be a true Christian, you have to indulge. It is a dastardly and distasteful act.

    For you information, this discussion has been conducted, not at any fairly high level at all, it was always and will continue to be at the level of “feacal effluent!” Simply because it is as far or further from the truth as the north pole is from the south; and just as disconnected.

    So here it is you are spewing feacal effluent and feeling it to be so holy.

  14. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Manuscripts part 6

    TEXT DIVISIONS

    Just as differences among language groups over what books were inspired went back to their languages of composition, differences in names and spellings sometimes go back to the languages translators used.

    The name used for the books sometimes depends on the translators or editors, what language they used and how they divided the manuscripts. For instance, did the translator treat Kings and Chronicles as one or separate works? These are parameters that can all be used in dating manuscripts.

    By its threefold division, which antedates the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, into the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, or Hagiographa, the Hebrew Bible differs considerably from the arrangement and order of the Septuagint, which have been adopted by the Vulgate and the Protestant versions.

    The Law contained the five books of Moses in the unvarying order of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

    The Prophets comprised the four books of the Former Prophets, in the unvarying order of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings; and the four books of the Latter Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Minor Prophets (all twelve counted as forming one book). The

    Writings comprised the remaining eleven books, the poetical works, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the five Megilloth, or Rolls (Canticle of Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecelesiastes, Esther), and finally Daniel, Esdras, Nehemias, Chronicles — twenty-four books in all, though perhaps more frequently reckoned as twenty-two by counting Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremias.

    The above order is that of the printed Bibles, which, in the ease of the Latter Prophets and the Hagiographa, differs widely from that prescribed in the Babylonian Talmud, while no fixed order obtains in the manuscripts.

    In this arrangement the most noteworthy differences from the Vulgate are the classifying of the historical books as prophetical, the placing of the Latter Prophets before the Hagiographa, the ranking of Daniel not with the Prophets, but with the Hagiographa, and the grouping together of the five Rolls, which is a witness to the special favour they enjoyed of being read publicly on certain feasts. The Hebrew names for the sacred books of the Pentateuch differ from our own, which are derived from the Septuagint.

    With the arrangement into books, the labours of the earliest editors seem to have ended; they made no further division into sections or chapters. The text at first was a close succession of consonantal letters without vowel-signs or spacing or punctuation to guide the reader; but Jewish scholars through many centuries of painstaking care have provided a most perfect system of helps to the intelligent reading of the Hebrew Bible.

    Words were separated at an early date, perhaps before Christ. This was imperative, as the letters were frequently combined in different ways. The Septuagint translation bears witness not seldom to a combination different from the Massoretic.

    Verse divisions, too, were made by the early scribes, who found this necessary not only to aid the reading, but to guard against the intrusion of new verses.

    Uniformity did not obtain, however, as the Palestinian Jews, we are told, had shorter verses than the Babylonian. The present system is that of neither, but was partly a new arrangement elaborated by the Massoretes. The care taken is shown by the fact that every verse, in fact every letter, was counted by the scribes.

    Our chapter divisions were unknown to early Jewish scholars, who had their own divisions, according to sense, into the open and closed sections.

    A change in subject was marked by the open section, so called because of the vacant space showing its close, which was either the remainder of an unfilled line or a blank line succeeding a full line.

    The closed section began a minor break in thought, indicated only by a short interval of space, the new section recommencing on the same line, or after a brief interval at the beginning of the next line.

    In late manuscripts and in printed Bibles, the open section is indicated by the letter Pe in the vacant space preceding it, the closed section by the letter Samech. It is quite clear that observing this information assists us greatly today in dating manuscripts.

    The Christian division into chapters, invented by Archbishop Stephen Langton about the beginning of the thirteenth century, has gained an entrance into the Hebrew Bible.

    The beginning was made by Rabbi Solomon ben Ismael who first (c. A D. 1330) placed the numerals of these chapters in the margin of the Hebrew text.

    In printed Bibles this system made its first appearance in the first two Bomberg editions of 1518. Arias Montanus, in his Antwerp Bible of 1571, “broke up the Hebrew text itself into chapters and introduced the Hebrew numerals into the body of the text itself” (Ginsburg).

    This, though contrary to the Massoretic directions, is still followed in nearly all printed Bibles on account of its great usefulness. In most instances (617 out of 779) the chapter coincides with one or other of the Massoretic sections.

    In Bomberg’s great Bible of 1547-8, Hebrew numerals were affixed to every fifth verse. It was in the above mentioned Antwerp Bible that the Arabic numerals for all the verses were first placed against them in the margin, though this had been done on a more limited scale in the “Basle Psalter” of 1563.

    A further division of the text was for liturgical purposes. It was the custom in Palestine to complete the Pentateuch in Sabbath readings every three years; the various sections into which the text was thus divided were called sedarim.

    The same name was applied to the sections from the Prophets and the Hagiographa appointed to be read at the same service. The length of a sedar may be judged approximately from the fact that the fifty chapters of Genesis are counted as forty-five sedarim, the forty chapters of Exodus as thirty-three sedarim.

    Instead of the triennial cycle, the Babylonian Jews had an annual cycle, and the Talmud divides the Law into fifty-four sections called Parashiyoth, one for each Sabbath of the interealary year. The corresponding readings from the Prophets were called Haphtaroth, or dismissals, because they were read before the close of the service. (10)

    The first divisions (586 B.C.) were of the Pentateuch into 154 groupings (sedarim) to facilitate its reading in a three-year cycle. Fifty years later it was further sectioned into 54 divisions (parashiyyoth) and into 669 smaller segments to assist in locating references. These were used in a one year reading cycle.

    The Greeks made divisions around 250 A.D. The oldest system of chapter division is from about 350 A.D. in the margins of Codex Vaticanus.

    It was not until the fourth and fifth centuries (A.D.) that biblical manuscripts divided the Gospels into smaller sections. The division of the Bible into chapters and verses is altogether of human invention, designed to facilitate reference to it.

    The first verse indicators varied from spaces between words to letters or numbers. They were not systematically used universally. The first standard verse divisions were around 900 A.D.

    The ancient Jews divided the Old Testament into certain sections for use in the synagogue service, and then at a later period, in the ninth century A.D., into verses.

    Our modern system of chapters for all the books of the Bible was introduced by Cardinal Hugo about the middle of the thirteenth century (he died 1263).

    The division into chapters now followed by all goes back to Stephen Langton a professor at the University of Paris in the 13th century, and afterward Archbishop of Canterbury. This division was then used in the Parisian edition of the Vulgate (Latin translation of St. Jerome).

    The division into verses came with Robert Estienne in the 16th century. The point is that a lot of hands were involved in shaping modern editions and translations of the Bible.

    The system of verses for the New Testament was introduced by Stephens in 1551, and generally adopted, although neither Tyndale’s nor Coverdale’s English translation of the Bible has verses. The division is not always wisely made, yet it is very useful. The Latin Vulgate was the first Bible to incorporate both verse and chapter divisions in both Old and New Testaments.

  15. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Manuscripts part 7
    VERSIONS

    A version is a translation of the holy Scriptures. This word is not found in the Bible, nevertheless, as frequent references are made in this work to various ancient as well as modern versions, it is fitting that some brief account should be given of the most important of these. These versions are important helps to the right interpretation of the Word and also in dating manuscripts.

    1. The Targums. After the return from the Captivity, the Jews, no longer familiar with the old Hebrew, required that their Scriptures should be translated for them into the Chaldaic or Aramaic language and interpreted. These translations and paraphrases were at first oral, but they were afterwards reduced to writing, and thus targums, i.e., “versions” or “translations”, have come down to us.

    The chief of these are, The Onkelos Targum, i.e., the targum of Akelas=Aquila, a targum so called to give it greater popularity by comparing it with the Greek translation of Aquila mentioned below. This targum originated about the second century after Christ. The targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel comes next to that of Onkelos in respect of age and value. It is more a paraphrase on the Prophets, however, than a translation. Both of these targums issued from the Jewish school which then flourished at Babylon.

    2. The Greek Versions.
    The oldest of these is the Septuagint, usually quoted as the LXX. The origin of this the most important of all the versions is involved in much obscurity. It derives its name from the popular notion that seventy-two translators were employed on it by the direction of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and that it was accomplished in seventy-two days, for the use of the Jews residing in that country. There is no historical warrant for this notion. It is, however, an established fact that this version was made at Alexandria; that it was begun about 280 B.C., and finished about 200 or 150 B.C.; that it was the work of a number of translators who differed greatly both in their knowledge of Hebrew and of Greek; and that from the earliest times it has borne the name of

    “The Septuagint”, i.e., The Seventy.
    “This version, with all its defects, must be of the greatest interest, (a) as preserving evidence for the text far more ancient than the oldest Hebrew manuscripts; (b) as the means by which the Greek Language was wedded to Hebrew thought; (c) as the source of the great majority of quotations from the Old Testament by writers of the New Testament.

    3. The Syriac Versions.
    4. The Latin Versions. A Latin version of the Scriptures, called the “Old Latin,” which originated in North Africa, was in common use in the time of Tertullian (A.D. 150). Of this there appear to have been various copies or recensions made. That made in Italy, and called the Itala, was reckoned the most accurate. This translation of the Old Testament seems to have been made not from the original Hebrew but from the LXX.

    This version became greatly corrupted by repeated transcription, and to remedy the evil Jerome (A.D. 329-420) was requested by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to undertake a complete revision of it. It met with opposition at first, but was at length, in the seventh century, recognized as the “Vulgate” version. It appeared in a printed from about A.D. 1455, the first book that ever issued from the press.

    The Council of Trent (1546) declared it “authentic.” It subsequently underwent various revisions, but that which was executed (1592) under the sanction of Pope Clement VIII. was adopted as the basis of all subsequent editions. It is regarded as the sacred original in the Roman Catholic Church. All modern European versions have been more or less influenced by the Vulgate. This version reads ipsa_ instead of _ipse in, Gen 3:15 “She shall bruise thy head.”

    5. There are several other ancient versions which are of importance for Biblical critics, but which we need not mention particularly, such as the Ethiopic, in the fourth century, from the LXX.; two Egyptian versions, about the fourth century, the Memphitic, circulated in Lower Egypt, and the Thebaic, designed for Upper Egypt, both from the Greek; the Gothic, written in the German language, but with the Greek alphabet, by Ulphilas (died A.D. 388), of which only fragments of the Old Testament remain; the Armenian, about A.D. 400; and the Slavonic, in the ninth century, for ancient Moravia. Other ancient versions, as the Arabic, the Persian, and the Anglo-Saxon, may be mentioned.

    6. The history of the English versions begins properly with Wyckliffe. Portions, however, of the Scriptures were rendered into Saxon (as the Gospel according to John, by Bede, A.D. 735), and also into English (by Orme, called the “Ormulum,” a portion of the Gospels and of the Acts in the form of a metrical paraphrase, toward the close of the seventh century), long before Wyckliffe; but it is to him that the honour belongs of having first rendered the whole Bible into English (A.D. 1380). This version was made from the Vulgate, and renders Genesis 3:15 after that Version, “She shall trede thy head.”

    This was followed by Tyndale’s translation (1525-1531); Miles Coverdale’s (1535-1553); Thomas Matthew’s (1537), really, however, the work of John Rogers, the first martyr under the reign of Queen Mary. This was properly the first Authorized Version, Henry VIII. having ordered a copy of it to be got for every church. This took place in less than a year after Tyndale was martyred for the crime of translating the Scriptures.
    In 1539 Richard Taverner published a revised edition of Matthew’s Bible. The Great Bible, so called from its great size, called also Cranmer’s Bible, was published in 1539 and 1568. In the strict sense, the “Great Bible” is “the only authorized version; for the Bishops’ Bible and the present Bible [the A.V.] never had the formal sanction of royal authority.” Next in order was the Geneva version (1557-1560); the Bishops’ Bible (1568); the Rheims and Douai versions, under Roman Catholic auspices (1582,1609); the Authorized Version (1611); and the Revised Version of the New Testament in 1880 and of the Old Testament in 1884.

    However, for many centuries before the division of the Geneva Bible, Hebrew Bibles had been divided into portions, called parashiot* (parasha, singular) in Hebrew.

    These portions-parashiot were literary units. They were divided into two types, open portions and closed portions. An open portion, parasha, was one in which the subject of the portion continues into the next portion. These portions are marked in the Hebrew Bible with “ppp,” The Hebrew letter “p” stands for patuah which means open. A closed parasha, on the other hand,is one that ends a subject. These portions are marked in the Hebrew Bible with “xxx,” the letter “x” stands for sagur which means closed.

    These portions were a division that also facilitated the weekly reading of the Torah in the synagogues. In the Hebrew Bible the parashiot normally received their names by the first word of the parasha, or the first main idea with which the parasha was dealing.

    Each portion was matched with a section from the prophetic writings, and these were called “aftarot.” “Aftara” in the singular is an Aramaic word that means “following” or, as in English “after.” In the gospel of Luke, chapter 4, we are told the story of Yeshua reading the “aftara”.This”aftara” of Isaiah chapter 61, goes along with the reading of Parashat Nitzavim, Deuteronomy, chapter 29:9-30:20. In today’s Jewish reading of the Torah, this parasha is read in the synagogues around the whole world just before the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah. During this time, Jews think of their sins and get ready to start the ten days of repentance, preceding the Day of Atonement–Yom Kippur.

    Jews recommend that one read both the parashiot and the aftarot when one reads the Torah, and that readers,as diligent students of God’s word, ask themselves what made the rabbis choose and match each “aftara” from the prophets with the particular “parasha” from the Torah.

    When one compares the Bible in different languages, especially the Hebrew and the English editions, it immediately becomes clear that there are major differences in the order of the books. In the Hebrew Bible, the five books of Moses, have no logical names The names are taken from the first words of every book. The book of Leviticus is called, “Vayikra” which means “And He called.” The book of Deuteronomy is called in Hebrew,”Devarim”which means “words.” This is so because the text of this book starts with the words, “These are the words of Moses.” Other differences are in the order of the books Ruth, in the English Bible, is related to the period of the Judges, and it is found right after the book of Judges and before the books of Samuel. However, in the Hebrew Bible, the book of Ruth is found after the Minor Prophets, between the Song of Songs and Lamentations. In the English Bible the books of Chronicles are right after the books of Kings. In the Hebrew Bible the books of Chronicles are the last books of the Old Covenant. The same is true with the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. They come just before the books of Chronicles at the very end of the Tanakh in the Hebrew Bible.

  16. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    MANUSCRIPTS PART 8
    Now let us have a closer look to see that there are differences between the chapter and verse division. At times the division to chapters and verses is rather arbitrary and does not fit the logical or literary structure of the text. Let me point out to our readers a few examples of these differences: The Book of Malachi in the Hebrew Bible goes until chapter 3:23. In the English Bible it goes to chapter 4:6. All the material exists in both the Hebrew and the English versions, but the chapter division is different.

    In the book of Joel, we have the reverse condition. The Hebrew Joel has 4 chapters. The English book of Joel has 3 chapters. In the Hebrew, chapter 3 consists of the five verses of the famous prophecy that God is going to pour out His Spirit on all flesh. In the English Bible these five verses appear as verses 28-32 of chapter 2.

    The book of Psalms has the greatest discrepancy between the Hebrew and English versions. From chapter 3 on, most of the Hebrew Psalms have one extra verse than the English edition. The reason is that the English edition joins the opening of the Psalm with the first verse and they become one verse. The Hebrew edition has a separate verse for the opening. In the case of Psalm 80, we see that the Hebrew edition has two extra verses that are all included in the English Bible into one verse.

    These examples serve to demonstrate that the chapter and verse divisions in our Bible are not as universal and old as some might have thought. The Hebrew Bible and the division into “parashiot” in the Torah and “aftarot” in the prophets, was used for many centuries before the modern chapter and verse divisions. However, we must admit that the Jewish people very quickly adopted the chapter and verse system from the “Christian” Bibles. The differences occurred because the “Christian” Bibles underwent a number of corrections with each new translation, but the Hebrew Bible remained and kept the older version of the chapter and verse divisions.

    It is worth our while to know these technical details about our Bibles. This ought to help us find things between our two editions, and also be aware of the fact that the order and names and subdivisions of our Bibles are not divinely given, but are just man made tools and helps for the students of God’s Word.

    All of the evidence that we have gathered from the manuscripts in our possession when pieced together tend to corroborate and strengthen each other piece of evidence.

  17. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Manuscripts part 9

    How do we know when we have found the Truth of an ancient MS?

    Because the Bible is a book, it was initially made up of manuscripts.

    Consequently a primary means for ascertaining its credibility today are the number of copies from those manuscripts which are currently in one’s possession.

    The more copies we have the better we can compare between them and thus know if the document we now read corresponds with the original. It is much like a witness to an event. If we have only one witness to the event, there is the possibility that the witness’s agenda or even an exaggeration of the event has crept in and we would never know the full truth.

    But if we have many witnesses, the probability that they all got it wrong becomes minute.

    Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient world have few manuscripts to which we can refer.

    This is specially true when we consider the secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies of Herodotus’s historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC.

    Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle’s writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today . These are indeed very few.

    When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today!

    Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.

    According to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! These can be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament.

  18. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Manuscripts part 10

    Muslims assert that we have similar problems concerning the large number of years which separate the manuscripts from the events which they speak about.

    Yet, unlike the Qur’an which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Bible such an enormous gap of time between that which the Bible speaks about and when it was written down.

    In fact, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters of John considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of these events, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christian community are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings.

    Had the documents been compiled in the second century as Muslims claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events.

    This same logic can be taken a step further. Take for instance the martyrdoms of James in 62 AD, Paul in 64 AD, and Peter in 65 AD. All were leaders in the nascent church. Thus their deaths were momentous events for the early Christian community. Yet we find none of the deaths referred to in any of the 27 canonized books of the New Testament (and significantly not in Acts, the most comprehensive historical record we have of the early church). The only explanation can be that they were all written prior to these events, and thus likely before 62 AD, or a mere 30 years after the death of Jesus, of whose life they primarily refer.

    A further criticism concerns whether the copies we possess are credible. Since we do not possess the originals, people ask, how can we be sure they are identical to them?

    The initial answer is that we will never be completely certain, for there is no means at our disposal to reproduce the originals. This has always been a problem with all known ancient documents.

    Yet this same question is rarely asked of other historical manuscripts which we refer to constantly. If they are held to be credible, let’s then see how the New Testament compares with them. Let’s compare below the time gaps for the New Testament documents with other credible secular documents.

    There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history.

    Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides’ work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later!

    The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later.

    The chart below reveals the time gaps of these and other works from the ancient world and compares them to the earliest New Testament manuscripts (taken from McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-17).

    What one notices almost immediately from the table is that the New Testament manuscript copies which we possess today were compiled very early, a number of them hundreds of years before the earliest copy of a secular manuscript.

    This not only shows the importance the early Christians gave to preserving their scriptures, but the enormous wealth we have today for early Biblical documentation.

    What is even more significant however, are the differences in time spans between the original manuscripts and the copies of both the biblical and secular manuscripts.

    It is well known in historical circles that the closer a document can be found to the event it describes the more credible it is.

    The time span for the biblical manuscript copies listed above are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years!

    This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.

  19. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Manuscripts part 11

    Because of its importance to our discussion here a special note needs to be given to the Magdalene Manuscript mentioned above. Until two years ago, the oldest assumed manuscript which we possessed was the St. John papyrus (P52), housed in the John Rylands museum in Manchester, and dated at 120 AD

    Thus, it was thought that the earliest New Testament manuscript could not be corroborated by eyewitnesses to the events.

    That assumption has now changed, for three even older manuscripts, one each from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have now been dated earlier than the Johannine account. It is two of these three findings which I believe will completely change the entire focus of the critical debate on the authenticity of the Bible. Let me explain.

    The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years.

    But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD

    It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!

    The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analysed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus.

    Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe.

    After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus.

    The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD

    Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew’s Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier.

    That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy which was written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive.

    This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!

    What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive “IS” for Jesus and “KE” for Kurie or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994).

    This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognised centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript.

    However, if the dates prove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticism levelled against the gospel accounts (such as the “Jesus Seminar”) that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ’s divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD).

  20. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Manuscripts part 12

    We have other manuscript evidence for the New Testament as well:

    Besides the 24,000 manuscripts we have more than 15,000 existing copies of the various versions written in the Latin and Syriac (Christian Aramaic), some of which were written as early as 150 A.D., such as the Syriac Peshitta (150-250 A.D.)

    Because Christianity was a missionary faith from its very inception (Matthew 28:19-20), the scriptures were immediately translated into the known languages of that period. For that reason other written translations appeared soon after, such as Coptic translations (early 3rd and 4th centuries), Armenian (400 A.D.), Gothic (4th century), Georgian (5th century), Ethiopic (6th century), and Nubian (6th century)

    The fact that we have so many translations of the New Testament points to its authenticity, as it would have been almost impossible, had the disciples or later followers wanted to corrupt or forge its contents, for them to have amassed all of the translations from the outlying areas and changed each one so that there would have been the uniformity which we find witnessed in these translations today.

    The practice of reading passages from the New Testament books at worship services began from the 6th century, so that today we have 2,135 lectionaries which have been catalogued from this period (McDowell 1972:52). If there had been a forgery, they too would have all had to have been changed.

    But possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are the masses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers. Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers . In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.. J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.

    Sir David Dalrymple sought to do this, and from the second and third century writings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quoted except for eleven verses . Thus, we could throw the New Testament manuscripts away and still reconstruct it with the simple help of these letters. Some examples of these are (from McDowell’s Evidence…, pg. 51):

    Clement (30- 95 A.D.) quotes from various sections of the New Testament.
    Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) knew the apostles and quoted directly from 15 of the 27 books.
    Polycarp (70-156 A.D.) was a disciple of John and quoted from the New Testament.

    Thus the manuscript evidence at our disposal today gives us over 24,000 manuscripts with which to corroborate our current New Testament. The earliest of these manuscripts have now been dated earlier than 60-70 A.D., so within the lifetime of the original writers, and with an outside possibility that they are the originals themselves. On top of that we have 15,000 early translations of the New Testament, and over 2,000 lectionaries. And finally we have scriptural quotations in the letters of the early Church fathers with which we could almost reproduce the New Testament if we so wished. This indeed is substantial manuscript evidence for the New Testament.
    So what comparisons are there between the manuscript evidence for the Qur’an and the Bible? We know from the historical record that by the end of the seventh century the Arabs had expanded right across North Africa and up into Spain, and east as far as India. The Qur’an (according to later Islamic tradition) was the centrepiece of their faith and practice at that time. Certainly within that enormous sphere of influence there should therefore be some Qur’anic manuscripts which still exist till this day. Yet, there is nothing from that period at all. The only manuscripts which Islam provides turn out to have been compiled in the ninth century, while the earliest corroborated manuscript is dated 790 A.D., written not 1400 years ago as Muslims claim but a mere 1,200 years ago.

    While Christianity can claim more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates and at least 9,300 other early versions, adding up to over 24,000 corroborated New Testament manuscripts still in existence (McDowell 1990:43-55), most of which were written between 25-400 years after the death of Christ (or between the 1st and 5th centuries) (McDowell 1972:39-49), Islam cannot provide a single manuscript until well into the eighth century (Lings & Safadi 1976:17; Schimmel 1984:4-6). If the Christians could retain so many thousands of ancient manuscripts, all of which were written long before the Qur’an, at a time when paper had not yet been introduced, forcing the dependency on papyrus which disintegrated with age, then one wonders why the Muslims are not able to forward a single manuscript from this much later period, during which the Qur’an was supposedly revealed? This indeed gives the Bible a much stronger claim for reliability than the Qur’an.

    Furthermore, while the earliest New Testament manuscripts as well as the earliest letters from the church fathers correspond with the New Testament which we have in our hands, providing us with some certainty that they have not been unduly added to or tampered with, the Qur’anic material which we have in our possession abounds with stories whose origins we can now trace to second century Jewish and Christian apocryphal literature. We know in some cases who wrote them, when exactly they were written and at times even why they were written; and that none of them were from a divine source, as they were written by the most human of Rabbis and storytellers over the intervening centuries after the Bible had been canonized.

    It seems that we have every confidence to think that we have conclusive evidence to conclude that our techniques for dating ancient manuscripts are quite sound, and that we can be quite sure that we have found the truth in the several ancient manuscripts of the Bible in our possession.

  21. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    I hope that this comprehensive study of CANONICITY will be a source of illumination to those with an interest in how we got our Bible.

  22. Hopi Avatar
    Hopi

    @Georgie Porgie………..No it is not. Your bible is nothing more than patchwork.

    Hotep my friend!

  23. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    JJ, You Sabbatarians believe, and erroneously so, that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the ‘Seal’ of God, for the end-time remnant church; that the sign or seal of God, is revealed in the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, and that the mark of the beast is the opposite of this, the observance of the first day of the week, Sunday.

    However, what does the self-authenticating Word of Almighty God say in the New Testament, regarding who IS the ‘Seal’ upon all Justified believers, who is our SEAL?

    The Bible, the Word of God states:

    “You were MARKED in Him with a SEAL, the promised (Sabbath day, NO! The) HOLY SPIRIT” (Eph. 1:13)

    Again, we read:

    “Do not grieve the HOLY SPIRIT of God, with whom you WERE SEALED for the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30).

    On this “Ye were SEALED” A.T. Robertson, A.M., D.D., LL.D., Litt.D, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, gives the following sound exegesis:

    “Ye were sealed (esphragisthete). First aorist passive indicative of ‘sphragizo’, old verb, to set a SEAL on one as a mark or stamp, sometimes the marks of ownership or of worship of deities like stigmata (Gal. 6:17). Marked and authenticated as God’s heritage as in 4:30. See II Cor. 1:22 for the very use of the metaphor here applied to the Holy Spirit, even with the word ‘arrabon’ [earnest]. Spirit [pneumati]. In the instrumental case. (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, The Epistles of Paul, p. 519).

    It is a very serious matter, to either ADD or TAKE AWAY from God’s Word, as we are warned NOT to do.

    Sabbatarians are famous for doing this, they eisegete (read into a text) what is neither explicitely stated, nor even remotely implied, in order to sustain their fabricated, unbiblical ‘dogma’ this is a very dangerous problem with ‘cults’ and cultic systems.

  24. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Again Zoe by referring to the use of words used in the text exemplifies what is sometimes needed in order to RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH!

    Such word studies are done by serious students of the Word when faced with texts that are difficult to understand, or controversial, simply because man likes to adhere arrogantly to his traditions or silly thinking rather than trying to faithfully follow the Word of God.

  25. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    STILL QUOTING Georgie Porgie: “Not only is your definition of the mark of the beast unscriptural and unsensible, but your answer reveals that you have taken the text about what the mark as mentioned in Revelation far out of context.”

    I have yet to write a full explanation of how the Mark of the Beast is related to Sunday observance, mainly because of a lack of time on my part. So far I’ve been gladly giving little morsels of evidence here and there with regards to the mark, while simultaneously answering your other questions and exposing your errors. But please, if you wish to lay such heavy accusations against me, bring some evidence against me to the court room. How is my position any more removed from context than yours?

  26. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “Such denominational dogma and diatribe not supported by Scriptures properly divided in thier context will be severely dealt with on this thread. So take fresh gaurd and exegete correctly.”

    Once again, you have assumed that I am prejudiced with “denominational dogma.” Please read my post on the history of today’s prophetic interpretations and do some research and realize that if anything, YOUR understanding is the one that is part of “denominational dogma.”

  27. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “Please understand that blog members expect the WORD TO BE CORRECTLY DIVIDED, and that TEXT BE QUOTED & DEALT WITH WITHIN THIER CONTEXTS.”

    Should you perhaps consider removing yourself from the blog then?

  28. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “To begin with please explain and exegete Galatians 3: 24-25, even though this has nothing to do with the mark of the beast.”

    Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
    Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

    The Law here is the 10 Commandments. This is the Law which reveals our sin. It FUNCTIONS by condemning us as GUILTY. When we are overwhelmed with our guilt, we realize we cannot justify ourselves but we are in need of a Saviour from sin. Therefore we flee to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Once we are in Christ, we no longer need the Law’s function of overwhelming us with a sense of our sin. This is not to say that the Law is gone but faith establishes the Law (Rom 3:31).

    There is a whole lot to say about these two verses within the surrounding context of Galatians 3. Come back to me with your specific questions and I’ll answer you.

  29. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    Hi Zoe,

    How are you?

    On 27 May you wrote…

    QUOTE: “JJ, If you are in fact a SDA, believing that the SDA church is God’s last-day, true church, or “the remnant church” based primarily on two passages in the book of Revelation, as follows:
    “And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the ‘rest’ of her offspring, who keep the ‘commandments of God’ and hold to the ‘testimony of Jesus’ (Rev. 12:17).
    And;
    “And I fell at his feet to worship him…And he said to me, ‘Do not do that; I am a fellow-servant of yours and your brethren who hold ‘the testominy of Jesus’; worship God…For ‘the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy” (Rev. 19:10) emphasis added.
    JJ, what exactly does “Commandments of God” mean here in this context; and, secondly, what does ‘the testimony of Jesus and the spirit of prophesy’ mean?”

    I’m not SDA and I do not believe that the SDA church is the “God’s last-day, true church, or the remnant church.”

    The “Commandments of God” is His Law – the 10 Commandments. He is unchanging and His Law is unchanging. There is not one Law of the Father and one Law of Christ because there is only One Lawgiver. Christ did nothing of His own but did the will of God and had the Law of God written in His heart.

    The “testimony of Jesus” is the “Spirit of prophecy.” On one level this refers to the Scriptures – the Word of God (Jesus is the Word and He is testifying) came through the Spirit of inspiration as men of old were moved by the Spirit. The Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit. Using this same criteria however, the Spirit of prophecy in an end time eschatological setting, refers also to the writings of Ellen G. White. Please note though, I need not be SDA to hold this position. Neither do I revere Sister White. However, she is clearly a prophetess of God for the last days and was and still is used by God to point the church of our time to present truth.

  30. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    Hello again Georgie Porgie!

    On your 28 May response, you wrote…

    QUOTE: “… you quoted Daniel 12:1, Jeremiah 30:7, out of context and with regard to the fact that these verses refer NOT TO THE CHURCH WHO ARE NOT MENTIONED IN THE OT, AND WHO WILL BE INDEED RAPTURED, then you contradict yourself by quoting Rev 3:10 and Matt 28:20, which DO refer to the church, and the dispensation of the church or the age of grace!”

    You claim I’ve misapplied Daniel and Jeremiah. But you have not offered an alternate application. Please let me know who are referred to in Daniel 12:1 and Jeremiah 30:7 then?

    You seem to equate “the dispensation of the church” with “the age of grace.” Are you implying there was no grace prior to this church age? Are you sure you are not spewing “denominational dogma”?

  31. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “Again John 17:15 refers to the church age, as Christ was speaking to men who represented and stood at the point of the changing of the guard. These men were at the beginning of the Church age.”

    So what age are we in then? Are you saying these words of Jesus are limited to those “men who represented and stood at the point of the changing of the guard.”?

  32. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “When we talk about Rightly dividing the Word of Truth and about Hermeneutics and Dispenstions & Covenants here on BU in the past, folk have frowned and scoffed, but you can see what we mean now, I hope.”

    I haven’t had time yet to go through past BU posts, but just out of curiosity, why have people frowned and scoffed at this?

  33. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “BTW What is spiritual Israel?”

    Those who are true children of God.

  34. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “And what does that have to do with the price of cheese?”

    Nothing =)

  35. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “People from all nations WILL BE PRESENT on earth when the four winds are being loosed.”

    I never said they wouldn’t.

  36. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “144,ooo servants of the Lord (Jews) will be protected as they do their evangelism, after which they are slain.”

    True, except for the last phrase “after which they are slain.” Where does this idea come from?

  37. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “Though the Israelites were present during the 10 plagues in Egypt when Pharaoh was ignoring the warnings of God through Moses, they were NOT affected by any of the plagues in anyway.”

    That’s exactly my point!

  38. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “The Israelites were spared because they were believers at all Sir as you opine! They were delivered by God’s grace at that time. In fact ALL, every single one of them fell in the wilderness after wards except Joshua and Caleb because of THEIR UNBELIEF!
    The Lord spared the Old Testament Hebrews by causing the destroying angel to “pass over” the houses of the believers so the plague would not harm them as A TYPE OF SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST.”

    I’m not sure I understand your first sentence – “The Israelites were spared because they were believers at all Sir as you opine.” Are you saying that it is simply my opinion that the Israelites were spared? Because if you are, then all I can say is that this is also your opinion, and for proof, I cite YOU: “The Lord spared the Old Testament Hebrews by causing the destroying angel to “pass over” the houses of the BELIEVERS so the plague would not harm them…”

    In any case, it seems we both believe the same thing with regards to this.

  39. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “In like manner believers who today believe in the ANTITYPE THE LORD JESUS will be spared.”

    Yes, they will be, as you say “SPARED,” but not raptured out of this world!

  40. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “Fellow, you contradicting yourself when you quote Romans 5:9, which was directed to folk in the church age and refers to the church!”

    How do I contradict myself? I’ve only given a consistent testimony – that salvation is through Christ alone, whether we’re talking about the Israelites back in Egypt, or about Christians today.

  41. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “Romans 5:9, “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” You wrote and correctly so that The Lord protected His own in the Old Testament by the blood of the lamb sacrifice, and He promises to protect us New Testament believers by the “…the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) Both sets of believers show their faith by the blood of Christ, do they not? The Old Testament believers trusted God by a show of faith by placing the blood of a lamb upon the doorposts of their houses, we have the Blood of the Lamb upon the doorposts of the heart.
    But you have taken Psalms 91:10 out of its context to make your pretext or point! Being raptured before the judgements of Rev 6-19 has nothing to do with our dwellings. We wont need to worry about dwellings because John 14 states that In my Father’s house are MANY DWELLING PLACES (translated in the KJV as mansions).”

    What does Psalm 91 refer to then?

  42. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “You wrote
    The obedient true child of God is indeed NOT subject to the wrath of God! So WHO IS the subject of God’s wrath? And correctly cite John 3:36; Rom 1:18; Rom 2:5; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6
    You then ask
    If we are not present during all the time of trouble, please explain these verses:
    Psa.27.5 ; Psa.37.39 and Matt.10.17-22 none of which have nothing to do with the issue at hand Sir.
    Matt.10.17-22 refers from the context to evangelists in the church age.
    Matt 24:9-14 & Matt.24.22-27 & Luke 21:28 refer to the tribulation period and particularly to the Jews again from the context, as Jesus related the answer to the question of the two pairs of brothers to the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, ie Daniel 8
    John.16.33 and Acts.14.22 refers to the trials or testings that believers have been predicted to endure during the Church age. James 1:12 tells us about WHEN we are tested, and both Peter & Paul predict trials or testings and tribulation for believers BUT AT NO TIME DOES THE WORDSAY THAT BELIEVERS OF THE CHURCH AGE WILL GO THROUGH THE GREAT TRIBULATION.”
    Rev.1.7 refers to the epiphanea or glorious coming of Christ or the second phase of the second coming.
    2 Thes 2:9 refers to the rise of antichrist
    Rev.7.14 has nothing to do with folk from the dispensation of the church age or the age of grace, but to do with the dispensation of the tribulation period which lasts seven years.”

    You make up various “ages” and then assign the Scriptures to these ages according to your own fairy tale. Seriously, show me how the verses I’ve given you DON’T (as you claim), apply to the “church age.” Don’t just tell me it doesn’t but please show me using the Scriptures.

  43. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    QUOTE: “JJ I am glad that you are not part of any “denominational dogma.” And I am sorry that your wide reading – and it seems that you have made an effort- has caused you to depart from the truth.
    I do not care whether my beliefs is very prevalent among many Protestant churches today or not. My beliefs are formed from my study of the Word and my wide reading just as you did. I in contrast have not apostasized! LOL I hold to a a pre-trib rapture / futurism end time scenario as you call it because I believe that is what the Bible teaches, and not what mamma taught me or the pastor of the local church etc
    I have read church History and all about the Protestant Reformation
    Though I find the writings of John Nelson Darby generally hard to read because of the English, his teaxchings and that of the Plymouth Brethren and their writers like Grant , Kelly, Ironside ad Arthur Pink are in my opinion all in the top drawer Sir!
    So too are the notes in the margins of Scofield Reference Bible. The Moody Bible Institute and the Dallas Theological Seminary have in general produced great teachers and sound expositors of the Word, including J Vernon McGee, and Hal Hal Lindsey is a joy to listen to as he relates the current world affairs to the Biblical passages that relate to the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ! At least he knows which dispensation to place the chapters from Ezekiel 35-39!
    How can you tell someone that they have fallen for some type of interpretation when very often in your treatise above you routinely quote scriptures out of their context and seek to use them dishonestly to prove your points? How?”

    You’re asking what amounts to what you call “non sequiter”.

  44. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    The masters of Division; they not only divide the word, they also divide men. They are the real scoffers, they scoff at people with differing opinions. They curse them and heap much verbal and mental abuse on those who don’t believe what they believe in;

    The call themselves Christians and they eat flesh and drink blood. You shall know them by their fruit.

    These are the ones the Creator will eliminate in the process of natural selection and ordering. The Creator is the real Anti-Christ.

  45. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    JJ, In responding to GP, re Daniel 12:1 and Jeremiah 30:7, you say:

    “You claimed I’ve misapplied Daniel and Jeremiah. But you have not offered an alternate application. Please let me know who is reffered to in Daniel 12:1 and jeremiah 30:7, then?

    Daniel 12: 1-13, is dealing with Prophecies concerning Israel, not the Church.

    “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy PEOPLE: and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy PEOPLE shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.” (v.1)

    Daniel is prophecying concerning the nation of Israel, ‘A time of trouble’ the last three and one-half years of Daniel’s Seventieth Week (Matt. 24:21-28).

    Classical Interpretation: The classical view sees the ‘time of trouble’ as a resumption of the events of Antiochus IV described in 11: 36-45. But then again, this school of thought suggest that an ultimate antitype may also be found in the events of the Book of Revelation, affirming the principle of mutilevel prophetic fulfillment.

    Michael the archangel is distinctly related to ‘Israel’ by Daniel as prince and guardian over the destinies of that nation (Dan. 10:21; 12:1). During Israel’s unprecedented ‘time of trouble’ (12:1; cf. Jermiah 30:7; Matt 24: 21), he will be active for her welfare when Satan is seeking to destroy her (Rev. 12:7 ff). This seems to be at the outset of the last part of the tribulation period (12: 7).

    Regarding SDA Ellen G. White, you say:

    ‘…please note though, I need not be SDA to hold this position. Neither do I revere Sister White. However, she is clearly a prophetess of God for the last days and was and still is used by God to point the church of our time to present truth.”

    JJ, would you please identify specifically, what areas of Ellen G. White’s vast writings qualify her as ‘a prophetess of God for the last days…to point the church of our time to present truth?”

  46. Ready-Done Avatar
    Ready-Done

    I haven’t read the whole blog but one thing for sure only the people that with the ‘beast’ or have the mark of the beast going to have money, so money is the mark of the beast.

    Those without money is the ones that going to be prosperous.

  47. Ready-Done Avatar
    Ready-Done

    Zoe i like your thinking but why do you use the bible as a reference when speaking about GOD???

  48. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    Ready-Done

    Just like every manufacturer has a manual for its product, GE, Westinghouse, FORD, GM, etc, etc, on how how to care, maintain and look after it; our Creator, Almighty God, has lovingly also given to us, mankind, His manual, His Word to us, the Bible, to those who through the ages, have listened carefully to what Almighty God has said in His Word, have proved Him absolutely faithful to His promises; to those who disregard His instructions, have failed miserably, history is replete with all the evidence.

    I, like multitudes of others, have also proved God’s Word, the Bible, to be true in every respect. He is absolutely faithful to His Word, as there IS NO other way!

  49. Ready-Done Avatar
    Ready-Done

    The Bible was written by man, therefore should be used as a guide and not a ‘manual’, some try to justify their unwavering faith in this book by saying it was inspired by GOD.

    My argument to this is asking a simple question:

    Is not all life inspired by GOD?

    Does God not speak to us each and every day, don’t get me wrong i read the bible and believe in it as well but there are somethings that just don’t add up.

    I believe that to much enfisis is put into the bible by people that don’t even know the history surrounding the bible.

    What needs to be done is that people should look to the law of nature, in other words, the law that all the rest of Gods ‘creations’ follow and we will see the light, not from laws written by man.

    we have been fallowing these types of man made laws and, to no avail they are getting us no where.

  50. JJ Avatar
    JJ

    Good day Georgie Porgie,

    Going on to your other post from May 28, 2009, you wrote…

    QUOTE: “@ JJ
    Re
    RAPTURE DECEPTION – PROOF #1
    2 Pet 3:10 “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
    Now listen to your nonsense ! You write
    Here we see the Word of God declaring the day of the Lord will not only come unexpectedly, it will come with a GREAT NOISE! Does that sound like a secret? How is it possible to hide the fact that the earth, it’s elements, and all the “works” of man upon the earth are burned up on that day? Even if millions of Christians vanish into thin air as some preach, the convulsing and burning planet as well as the great noise all this is going to make will no doubt enlighten the wicked that something out of this world is happening, wouldn’t you think? How do you destroy the earth and all it’s cities without the wicked knowing it?
    THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE
    1-There are two phases to the second coming ;whether you agree or not the WORD SAYS SO .
    2- The day of the Lord is executed over a period of at least 1007 years fro a right division of ALL the Scriptures involved according to the rules of exegesis and interpretation given by Peter himself in 2 Peter 1:20 where he writes Knowing this first, that NO prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    This means that when you want to correctly interpret a verse you need to examine what the other scriptures on the SAME issue say, or else you will be contradicting yourself! Many folk are unaware or disobey Peter’s advice in this verse, muddy up the waters, and then have people saying that the Bible contradicts itself.
    3- Peter in this single verse [ as is common in much of prophecy ( e.g compare Isaiah 61:1-2a with Luke 4:18-19)] points to an event at the BEGINING of the day of the Lord and an event at the END of the day of the Lord.
    The day of the Lord will COME or COMMENCE as a thief in the night. The Lord will come silently swiftly and silently and sieze away the saints just as a thief operates. The phrase “as a thief in the night “ is called in English and Hermeneutics A SIMILE!
    The day of the Lord (which is a time period and not a day as can be seen by rightly dividing all the references to this concept in both OT & NT) will COME TO AND END
    After Armageddon when it is predicted that “the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
    You then misinterpret 2 Pet 3:11-14
    2 Pet 3:11-14 “Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.”
    Verses 11 & 12 are an admonition to believers to live holy and godly lives in anticipation of the day of the Lord. If Peter did not articulate exactly what is meant from a consideration of all the scriptures on the matter, don’t think he did not know what he was saying.
    This passage like the one above DOES NOT place the Lord’s arrival and the Earth’s destruction at the exact same time. You are deliberately dishonestly leaving out the concept of the rapture for which the proof texts are I Thess 4:13-18 & 1 Cor 15:51-57
    How could the events described in these passages occur on the same “day” as the “day” of the hullabolu of the destruction or dissolution of the heavens with fervent heat? THINK MAN THINK!
    If contemporary believers are not to look for an initial secret parousia followed by a great glorious epiphanea what does Titus 2:13 mean? If there is no dividing of events, no two phases, but ONE day and One event, why does one scripture says that the Lord will meet the saints in the air, and another says that he will come down to the Mount of Olives. Why does the scripture talk abut two different resurrections?”

    You are very much embedded in a dream world of fanciful interpretation. Let’s go over what you’ve written here.

    First, you say –

    QUOTE: “1-There are two phases to the second coming ;whether you agree or not the WORD SAYS SO .”

    Nowhere in the Word of God does it say that there are two phases to the Second coming. This is a division that you have eisegetically arrived at. The resurrection of the dead saints, the translation of the living saints (“rapture”), and the destruction of the wicked ALL occur when the Son of Man comes again. We meet the Lord in the air and are taken to the glorious mansions prepared for us in Heaven. These events mark the beginning of the 1000 years. There is no 7 year trib or 3.5 years or any such thing. Satan is bound for 1000 years on earth because there’s no one for him to tempt. At the end of the 1000 years, the wicked are resurrected (second resurrection) when Jesus and His saints and New Jerusalem descend on the Mount of Olives. Satan and the wicked surround the New city and are then destroyed by the Lord. The earth and heaven are made new.

    But back to the issue at hand, Georgie Porgie, let’s get the evidence out now. You say the Word says there are 2 phases – WHERE please? Where are the Scripture verses to be found that support the idea of a “two-phased” Second Coming of Jesus Christ?

    Let me ask you, was Christ’s first coming in TWO phases?

    As Jesus Christ left this earth after His resurrection, as He was ascending up to heaven, His watching disciples were told: “…This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in LIKE MANNER AS ye have seen Him go into heaven.” Acts 1:11. Did Jesus Christ have a TWO-phased departure from earth into heaven after His first coming? Did He go up part of the way, turn around and come back down, and then go back up all the way on a “SECOND” departure? NO! Jesus Christ simply ascended up (in ONE phase) into heaven! And the Bible says He is coming back in LIKE MANNER!

    In one of my first posts, I quoted John 17:15 – “I pray NOT that Thou shouldest take them OUT OF the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil.”

    You said this only applies to those Jesus was speaking to at the beginning of the “church age”. But you forget the context – look at verse 20: Neither pray I for these [i.e., His disciples] ALONE, but for them ALSO which shall believe on Me through their word;”

    The Lord Jesus Christ in verse 20 indicates that He is praying this prayer for ALL future believers as well as for His original disciples! Please note that it is the Son of God who is praying to His Father asking Him NOT to evacuate His followers OUT OF the world. And in verse 20 He adds that His prayer is ALSO for FUTURE believers! My friend, take note that the Son of God is praying AGAINST the pre-trib rapture!

    Once again, and I said this at the beginning, YOU ARE WRONGLY ASSUMING that God MUST evacuate Christians in the end times OUT OF the world in order to keep them safe during the “Great Tribulation”. Your assumption “assumes” that God is NOT able to keep Christians safe here on planet Earth DURING the “Great Tribulation” period. Yet once again, the Bible is full of examples where God kept His children safe IN THE MIDST OF tribulation. I gave the example of the Hebrew captives in Egypt during the plagues.

    Now I’ll cite some more:

    a) Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in Daniel 3 – when Kind N. had these 3 men tossed into the fiery furnace, did God “rapture” them OUT OF the furnace in order to save them? NO! God preserved them IN THE MIDST OF the fiery furnace!

    b) When Daniel in Daniel 6 was thrown in the lions’ den for disobeying the king’s command, did God “rapture” Daniel OFF OF planet Earth in order to save him? NO! God preserved Daniel IN THE MIDST OF the lions’ den!

    c) What about Rahab in Joshua 6 who lied in order to protect the Israelite spies? When Israel then destroyed the city of Jericho where Rahab lived, did God “rapture” Rahab and her family OFF OF planet Earth in order to save them? NO! God preserved Rahab and her family IN THE MIDST OF the destruction of the city!

    We could go on and on. Are these not Scriptural examples for us to consider? Can you not see the common theme here?

    “When thou passest THROUGH the waters, I will be with thee; and THROUGH the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest THROUGH the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.” Isaiah 43:2

    CHRISTIANS ARE NOT “RAPTURED” BEFORE THE TRIBULATION!

    2Th 2:9 [Even Him], whose coming is AFTER the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

    Also read:

    2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him,

    2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

    2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], EXCEPT there come a falling away FIRST, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

    2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

    I’m sure you agree that this “man of sin – the son of perdition” is the antichrist. This “day (of Christ)” in verse 3 is shown in verse 1 to be the “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”, and “our gathering together to Him”. The plain teaching of verse 3 is that NONE of those events take place until there first occurs both a “falling away” (apostasy) AND the revealing of “that man of sin – the son of perdition”! And so, since you subscribe to the theory that “the antichrist” is a FUTURE person who is to come on the scene in the very “end times”, then the above passage would clearly refute the idea that “the Church” is “raptured” prior to this man of sin person being revealed.

    The clear meaning of verse 3 is that Christ’s return to gather up His saints cannot occur UNTIL AFTER the antichrist has been revealed. Tell me how you deal with this!

    I refer you to the gospels once again. Look at Mark 13:24-27

    Mar 13:24 But in those days, AFTER that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

    Mar 13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

    Mar 13:26 And THEN shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

    Mar 13:27 And THEN shall he send his angels, and shall GATHER TOGETHER his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the EARTH to the uttermost part of heaven.

    If the Christians who were “raptured” BEFORE the start of the “Great Tribulation” were ALREADY gathered to the Lord, did they get LOST, so that the Lord has to send His angels out to gather them a SECOND time, along with those who got saved after the rapture and had to go through the great tribulation”?

    Again, if there is only ONE gathering together, and we Christians who are alive at Christ’s return CANNOT PRECEDE those who are raised in the resurrection of the just which occurs at the END of the great tribulation, it sure looks like the above Scripture verses are placing the “gathering together” of Christians AFTER the great tribulation!

    Let me ask you a question. Why would believers be raptured off the planet so that they wouldn’t have to face the horrors of the great tribulation period, when so many other Christians have faced HORRIBLE persecution and tribulation throughout Church history? Why on earth would there be a special class of Christians at the end of the age that gets spared horrible persecution? What about those who get saved DURING the 7 year tribulation under much more stressful and demanding conditions and horrors? Again, HOW ON EARTH can you think that the raptured people are going to get a massive break from horrible persecution and evil when MILLIONS of Christians in other eras faced the most horrible persecution, and quite likely MILLIONS of Christians will be martyred by the antichrist in the future? I personally cannot figure out your logic and I’m continually fascinated with your fantastic twisting of the Word!

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading