Was the Ante-Nicene Church "Orthodox?"

[saemo]

On May 24, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Jim Stiles said:

That is why I prefer the Majority Text of the New Testament to the Critical Text of the New Testament because it more accurately reflects the scriptural manuscripts that had the imprimatur of the Ante-Nicene church.

 

Then you accept the deuterocanonical?

Edited May 25, 2016 by saemo

[Jim Stiles]

3 hours ago, saemo said:

Then you accept the deuterocanonical?

I accept the Protestant canon of scripture, unless someone can convince me otherwise.

[boblloyd91]

9 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

While I do not agree with the idea of Purgatory, Dante's Divine Comedy is pretty good theology in places.

Think of it as a 14th century Chick Tract.

Lol that's an interesting description, though knowing how they feel about anything Catholic I don't know how much they would agree.

[boblloyd91]

8 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

I have been to one of Jack Chick's Headquarters - one is approx 20-30 minutes from my Home. I get a strange feeling of the atmosphere once in the building.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

 

As a licensed Therapist I believe in all honesty that he has some kind of mental illness. Some of his tracts sound like some of the patterns of what I've heard some paranoid schizophrenic people say

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

I accept the Protestant canon of scripture, unless someone can convince me otherwise.

If it helps any Jim, Joseph Smith prayed about this subject and was told/confirmed that the KJV was sufficiently accurate to use, but that the apocrypha were not scripture. I believe books like the books of the Maccabees have a few points valuable for historical reasons, but I have found them to be internally inconsistent, etc. I believe by that time the prophesied drought of the word of the Lord was taking place, and the priests had gone apostate enough that their writings are merely historical in nature. However, I have referred to them for tidbits like what the Jews considered to be the land of Chittim - like a reference to king Phillip of Macedonia. This puts a damper on the Catholic tendency to follow Jerome saying that the ships of Chittim were from Italy, and that Daniel 11 was fulfilled by these ships being sent to stop Antiochus Epiphanes - an interpretation which causes the vision to fail btw.

By that time the office of high priest became a political appointee of enemies of Judah, and the true Melchizedek priesthood was lost to the people. Thus, Daniel's prophesied stars falling from heaven came to pass, under Antiochus Epiphanes. But the Jews had one last valiant breath under the Maccabees. 

"Chittim" is not the only scripture changed by the Catholic Church, but that is getting into another matter which I will not pursue in this thread. Nonetheless, in some modern Catholic English Bibles Chittim has been changed back but the Douay-Rheims Bible still says "the Romans" at Daniel 11:30 in an apparent attempt to preserve the flawed interpretation of the vision. "The Greeks" would be the more accurate translation.

[Jim Stiles]

On 5/25/2016 at 1:46 AM, saemo said:

Then you accept the deuterocanonical?

Protestants use the Tanakh as the Old Testament canon because it appears to have had the imprimatur of the Old Testament saints.  The documents referred to as Apocrypha by the Protestants do not appear to have been treated as serious as the Tanakh.  Many of the Apocryphal books were clearly written as fiction.  While the book of Job may be fiction, the book was always treated by the Jews with reverence.

[saemo]

7 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Protestants use the Tanakh as the Old Testament canon because it appears to have had the imprimatur of the Old Testament saints.  The documents referred to as Apocrypha by the Protestants do not appear to have been treated as serious as the Tanakh.  Many of the Apocryphal books were clearly written as fiction.  While the book of Job may be fiction, the book was always treated by the Jews with reverence.

Catholics and Orthodox from Greek speaking rites, include the Deuterocanonical because they are in the Ancient Greek translation of the Tanakh; The Septuagint.   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Christian_use. 

 

...that being said, someone gave me the advice that the best Bible translation is the one you'll take the time to read. 😄 With the caveat that there exists some really awful translations that are best avoided. (Off the top of my head, the Good News and New World are two bad translations, best avoided.)

Edited May 28, 2016 by saemo

[Jim Stiles]

23 minutes ago, saemo said:

Catholics and Orthodox from Greek speaking rites, include the Deuterocanonical because they are in the Ancient Greek translation of the Tanakh; The Septuagint.   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Christian_use. 

I have not read enough Luther to be able to defend the Protestant OT canon with any skill.

[saemo]

3 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

I have not read enough Luther to be able to defend the Protestant OT canon with any skill.

No problem, I wasn't really debating. Just conversing.

I was raised on the KJV and have a fondness for it, but it is a 500 year old translation, and there are better translations (technically speaking). And! In modern English that is easier for me to read and understand. For serious study, with the KJV I spend a lot of time looking up Middle English idioms and phrases. 

[RevTestament]

On 05/28/2016 at 3:35 AM, saemo said:

No problem, I wasn't really debating. Just conversing.

I was raised on the KJV and have a fondness for it, but it is a 500 year old translation, and there are better translations (technically speaking). And! In modern English that is easier for me to read and understand. For serious study, with the KJV I spend a lot of time looking up Middle English idioms and phrases. 

I like to study with a restored name KJV. What English version do you like?

[saemo]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I like to study with a restored name KJV. What English version do you like?

New American Bible