Right now i'm reading a book called "Reading Jesus". This book chronicles a writer's journey through the Gospels and intertwines her own experiences with a discussion of them. I love to read and enjoy hearing different points of view, but sortof stumble when she starts discussing Catholicism. My mother is Catholic and i studied some Catholic "how to" books but never could grasp it. I like how it doesn't feel i'm being preached to, it's like a normal conversation.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
What are you reading right now?
- Thread starter Moxy
- Start date
Nothing so high minded for me. I'm reading "Dawn of Wonder", which is a fantasy novel.
Ugh Nothing. I haven't quite sorted out my reading glasses so reading actual physical books is murder. I am going through Proverbs 16 right now tho (on the computer)
I'm reading a forum thread about what people are reading.
Come on, someone had to.
Finished the second book of a trilogy called Golden Son. Not buying the 3rd book right now mostly because of costs though.
Thinking of going back to my roots and rereading some Orson Scott Card, Ben Bova or maybe Bradbury. The Illustrated Man was one of my favorites.
Come on, someone had to.
Finished the second book of a trilogy called Golden Son. Not buying the 3rd book right now mostly because of costs though.
Thinking of going back to my roots and rereading some Orson Scott Card, Ben Bova or maybe Bradbury. The Illustrated Man was one of my favorites.
UntoldGlory said:
Don't get any ideas lol, i'm not that high minded. Usually i like to read murder mysteries from authors like Jefferson Bass (who is based on a real m.e. from the Body Farm in TN i think).
Speaking of Catholicism. My mom is Catholic and she gave me a Catholic Bible. There are some writings in there from authors not found in the traditional Bible. Has anyone else read those? What do you think? I read some of the writings of Sirach last night and was blown away by how spot on it was about todays society. Anyone else read his writings? The author, Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sirach originally wrote it in Hebrew from 200 to 175 BC.
The extra books in the Catholic bible are fascinating. Tobit gives the most detailed description of a marriage in all of scripture. 1 Esdras gives the most intimate account of the personal interactions between a man and his concubine in scripture, illustrating clearly that a concubine is a wife not something dodgy. 2 Esdras refers to the coming Messiah in ways that line up far more clearly with the New Testament than any other book, even calling Him by the name "Jesus"! Sirach gives the clearest direct statement in scripture that men shouldn't get up to mischief with their daughters. I haven't read them as much as I would have liked to, but I do find them very valuable, and increasingly think that it was a mistake for the Protestant reformers to remove them from the canon.
Mathematically speaking they don't belong. Research Ivan Panin.
If you research nothing else I suggested research Ivan Panin!
He completely set scripture in stone as Yah's work
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
If you research nothing else I suggested research Ivan Panin!
He completely set scripture in stone as Yah's work
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
The Apocrypha, Enoch, Jasher, Jubilee's etc. Still have their place in referencing and historical study.
Don't get me wrong I love them.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Don't get me wrong I love them.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
torahlovesalvation said:
TLS i did google Panin and found a bible study site that discussed his research and methods. But they were pretty downcast on Panin's work. I have heard of the study of numeric patterns before in scripture. The site said that his methods were also used to validate numerous other works including the Book of Mormon. What say you to this? I didn't read anything about only a certain amount of works are revelant.
Very curious. Had not heard of this. I knew he tried it on Apocrypha in other works.
It is my understanding Mormon was written in reformed Egyptian.
It only works in Greek and Hebrew
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
It is my understanding Mormon was written in reformed Egyptian.
It only works in Greek and Hebrew
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I am actually currently researching the feasibility of making a computer program that would allow those of us who are not mathematicians to study his work.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
torahlovesalvation said:
TLS that is not saying all websites are reputable either. I realize there are two sides to every story, and sometimes you only get one side. But i'm curious why some of the other works don't belong in the Bible according to this type of study? I have went on several websites and haven't found any mention of them.
If the texts do not have a flowing numerological pattern they are not in line with what he discovered in Scripture. Added books or texts from other religions Etc.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
How interesting, the same night i'm discussing a topic related to Ecclesiasticus a suggested page from facebook pops up with an article about it even though i never searched for it on there....
The deuterocanonical books, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch, were discussed. They note that the first-century Christians--including Jesus and the apostles--effectively considered those seven books canonical. They (Jesus and the apostles) quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that contained these seven books. More importantly, the deuterocanonicals are clearly alluded to in the New Testament. Furthermore it reads that Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This changed when Martin Luther removed them.
I guess since i grew up in a non religious home, then attended a church that promoted false doctrine, i'm open to hearing more about religious topics because i'm lacking in knowledge. Does anyone disagree/agree with the assertions made above? Why?
The deuterocanonical books, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch, were discussed. They note that the first-century Christians--including Jesus and the apostles--effectively considered those seven books canonical. They (Jesus and the apostles) quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that contained these seven books. More importantly, the deuterocanonicals are clearly alluded to in the New Testament. Furthermore it reads that Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This changed when Martin Luther removed them.
I guess since i grew up in a non religious home, then attended a church that promoted false doctrine, i'm open to hearing more about religious topics because i'm lacking in knowledge. Does anyone disagree/agree with the assertions made above? Why?
Enoch is also cited in multiple occasions in the New Testament, so I consider it at least worthy of careful study given the apostles considered it to be.
DID SOMEONE SAY ENOCH???
I'm full on about Enoch. I regard his book to be canon for a number of reasons I find compelling.
This leads me to be open to the idea of books that are "God breathed" that have been kept out our current English protestant bible.
The idea of Jesus' presumed endorsement of the Septuagint is a subject of concern to me, because I hold to it rather firmly. At the same time, when quoting the Septuagint, Jesus quotes it exactly, even to the extent of repeating the convention of using "Lord" (kurios) where the Hebrew text clearly says YHWH. This is a mystery to me.
Also, if there are books in the deuterocanon that neither Jesus nor the apostles quoted from or referenced, I would hesitate to call Jesus' quotation from the Septuagint a blanket endorsement of that book.
I imagine the rebuke to run something like this:
"If you have accepted a book on the testimony of an apostle, without regard to its exclusion from most collections; why would you accept another book because of its inclusion in a different collection, WITHOUT the testimony of an apostle?"
And sadly that rebuke would hit home, because I have not examined ANY of those texts. I sure talk a lot about things I know nothing about...
I'm full on about Enoch. I regard his book to be canon for a number of reasons I find compelling.
This leads me to be open to the idea of books that are "God breathed" that have been kept out our current English protestant bible.
The idea of Jesus' presumed endorsement of the Septuagint is a subject of concern to me, because I hold to it rather firmly. At the same time, when quoting the Septuagint, Jesus quotes it exactly, even to the extent of repeating the convention of using "Lord" (kurios) where the Hebrew text clearly says YHWH. This is a mystery to me.
Also, if there are books in the deuterocanon that neither Jesus nor the apostles quoted from or referenced, I would hesitate to call Jesus' quotation from the Septuagint a blanket endorsement of that book.
I imagine the rebuke to run something like this:
"If you have accepted a book on the testimony of an apostle, without regard to its exclusion from most collections; why would you accept another book because of its inclusion in a different collection, WITHOUT the testimony of an apostle?"
And sadly that rebuke would hit home, because I have not examined ANY of those texts. I sure talk a lot about things I know nothing about...
In the Qumran scrolls, there are at least fragments of every Biblical text, plus many we would consider apocryphal such as Enoch - except Esther, which is not there. And is the only book that doesn't mention YHWH. Which suggests the librarians at Qumran considered Enoch more valid than Esther. Given the OT canon we use is that set by the Pharisees many years after Christ when forming rabbinical Judaism, I am quite open to the suggestion that their list could be wrong.
FollowingHim said:
Totally radical.