The Resurrection of the Body

Today's reading touched on a topic that I have been thinking more about lately.  Have you noticed that the Christian idea that there will be a bodily resurrection is dying out among mainstream Christians?  It is more popular now to think that we will be leaving our inferior bodies behind, to become be joined with God in spirit or as "pure energy."


The resurrection of the dead was a hot topic in the time of Jesus.  It has become an accepted tradition that we don't really think about much today, but at the time your view of the resurrection depending on what you accepted as Scripture and your view of tradition versus a literal interpretation of that Scripture.



Luke 20:27-38
Some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, came forward and put this question to Jesus, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us, If someone's brother dies leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.  Now there were seven brothers; the first married a woman but died childless. Then the second and the third married her, and likewise all the seven died childless.  Finally the woman also died.  Now at the resurrection whose wife will that woman be? For all seven had been married to her."

Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry; but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise.  That the dead will rise even Moses made known in the passage about the bush,
when he called out 'Lord, ' the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."



The Sadducees were trying to ask Jesus a trick question here. Who were the Sadducees?  They were the Jewish group whose worship centered around the Temple, rather than the synagogues.  Like the fundamentalists of today, they rejected oral tradition and insisted on a literal interpretation of Scripture.  This is why they did not believe in a bodily resurrection, because it did not appear in the Torah.  Yes, you read that correctly, the idea of a bodily resurrection does not appear in the Torah.  Because Jesus is replying to the Sadducees, who do not accept anything but the Torah, his restrains his answer to the Torah in reply.

Not to criticize Jesus or anything, but I always found his reply a little lacking in proof for the resurrection of the dead.  I always thought God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because he was the God that they worshiped.  Still, this verse is one that we Catholics reach to as proof that the dead are not unaware of us.  If "his is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive" then we can pray for the dead, and they can pray for us, because they are alive with God.

The Jewish belief in a bodily resurrection was only gradually developed.  Scholar N.T. Wright writes, "When we turn to ancient Judaism the picture is both very similar and very different.  The Hebrew Sheol, the place of the dead, is not very different from Homer’s Hades.  People are asleep there; they can sometimes be woken up, as with Saul and Samuel, but to do so is dangerous, and forbidden. That is the picture we get from most of the Old Testament. . . The Sadducees deny the world to come altogether, reminding us that resurrection was and remained an explicitly political doctrine, about God turning the present world and its power structures upside down.  Thus the Pharisees’ belief in the resurrection was part of their generally revolutionary ideology: as in Daniel and Maccabees, resurrection was an incentive to martyrdom."

N.T. Wright references the books of Maccabees, which is one of the books which was removed from the protestant canon because it contained references to praying for the dead.  Yet removing Maccabees also removes some of the most explicit references to a coming bodily resurrection.

2 Maccabees 7:1-2, 9-14

It happened that seven brothers with their mother were arrested and tortured with whips and scourges by the king, to force them to eat pork in violation of God's law. One of the brothers, speaking for the others, said: "What do you expect to achieve by questioning us?  We are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our ancestors."

At the point of death he said: "You accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the world will raise us up to live again forever. It is for his laws that we are dying." After him the third suffered their cruel sport. He put out his tongue at once when told to do so, and bravely held out his hands, as he spoke these noble words: "It was from Heaven that I received these; for the sake of his laws I disdain them; from him I hope to receive them again."

Even the king and his attendants marveled at the young man's courage, because he regarded his sufferings as nothing.  After he had died, they tortured and maltreated the fourth brother in the same way.  When he was near death, he said, "It is my choice to die at the hands of men with the hope God gives of being raised up by him; but for you, there will be no resurrection to life."




Clearly, Christians today believe in a bodily resurrection because it is explicit in the New Testament scriptures.  But the belief in a bodily resurrection by Jesus and the Pharisees was based on their acceptance of oral tradition, and of the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books such as the books of Maccabees. 

How To Study the Bible

 Candy has a post today on how to study the Bible.   Previously, she has recommended some study Bibles, but at this moment, she seems to be taking a break from them.

When I come across something I don't understand, or wish to study further, then I refer to the center column references in my Bible. I'm not currently using a study Bible - just a simple reference Bible. Often I understand the Scripture in question just by looking at its references. If not, then I may look up some of the key words from that Scripture in the concordance at the back of my Bible, and see if I can find related verses that way.

At other times she has recommended the Dake, despite his views on the Trinity, and the Scofield.  Of course, we know that she ONLY uses the King James Version.

But here is the passage which really caught my eye:


Before I look up references and other related Scriptures, I first read further. There have been so many times when I had a question while I was reading, but reading further cleared it up for me. I had one of those moments just a few days ago. Right now, I'm studying in Genesis and Matthew. I was in Genesis chapter 19, where the angels were visiting Lot, to warn him of the coming judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. Before they could get down to business, a group of perverted sodomites were banging at Lot's door, wanting to sodomize the two angels that were Lot's guests.

Here's what used to boggle me... Lot offers his two daughters instead, and tells the sodomites that they can do what they want with his two daughters. Well, the Sodomites refused, and the angels came over and blinded the perverts.

I kept on reading, and then I saw it - Lot said that his two daughters were virgins, and that the Sodomites could do with them as they pleased. Lot was lying. In fact, it was not likely that his daughters were even in the house with him. Later in the same chapter, we read that his daughters are married. We read of this when we see that the daughters' husbands refused to leave Sodom, so only Lot, his wife, and his two daughters escaped before the town was destroyed.

However, the family was not left untouched from being in such a perverted, sinful environment. The wife disobeyed the angels, and turned to look at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, so she was turned to a pillar of salt. Meanwhile, the two daughters got their father drunk, and committed incest with him, so that they could have children to carry on the family name - NOT a good thing.

All of this study occurred in about 2 minutes or less, as I read the chapter and "saw" it, LOL.

 Candy says that Lot was lying about his daughters being virgins.  She says that they are, in fact, married, and probably not even in the house.

Genesis 19:14And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
 ¹⁵And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

We can see that the daughters were at home, because of verse 15.  Verse 14 speaks of his daughters being married, but since they were not living with their husbands and Lot referred to them as virgins, then it is likely that they were betrothed.  Betrothal was as serious as marriage.

You can see this illustrated with Mary and Joseph, who were betrothed but not married:

Matthew 1:19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Betrothal was so serious, that it needed a divorce to be broken.

It seems to me that Candy is trying to find a way to say that Lot wasn't REALLY going to let his daughters be raped by a mob.  But I find that surprising, since Candy prides herself on her knowledge of the Bible.  As she wrong in October of 2008:

I would like to let you know a little about me. I learned about proper doctrine from none other but the Bible. I've read through the Bible over 18 times (KJV). 

If Candy is so familiar with the Bible, then it seems to me that she would remember a similar instance from the book of Judges where the Father certainly was not lying.  From Judges, chapter 19:

²⁰And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.
 ²¹So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
 ²²Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
 ²³And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
 ²⁴Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
 ²⁵But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
 ²⁶Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.
 ²⁷And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
 ²⁸And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered.

In the end, it was the concubine and not the virgin daughter who was gang-raped to death.  But there was no indication that the master would not have turned over his daughter.

The codes of hospitality in the Middle East were so important, that a man would turn over his daughters, or pay anything from his household, rather than have any harm come to come to someone who had sought shelter under his roof.

They are both sad stories.  But I do not think Lot was lying.

Whoa, Candy posted my comment.  I wish I knew in advance if she was going to do that so I would spend a little more time composing them.  Anyway, here is the conversation so far:

I wrote: There is a similar story in Judges 19. In the Middle East, a man would certainly offer his daughters rather than have harm befall someone who was taking shelter under his roof.

You know that the daughters were there, because of verse 14. I believe they were "betrothed" rather than married. Notice that Joseph was going to seek a divorce from Mary, although they were not married. Lot's daughters would have still been virgins living under his roof if they were betrothed.

She replied:  Where does it say that Lot's daughters were there with him? Also, the chapter is clear that they were married.

I also don't buy into that "middle east custom."

When referring to the daughters being there, the context was in the city, not in that very house. The angels told Lot that if he had anyone else in Sodom, besides his wife, daughters, and sons in law, that he should warn them as well.

There is nothing in that chapter that tells us that his daughters were with him, from what I can find, and there is nothing in this chapter that tells me they weren't married - on the contrary, it literally says there were married.

Kelly, I understand that that is what you believe, but that's not what the Scriptures say. They say "marriED." :-)

I wrote: Oops, I meant verse 15:
And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

Yes, I know it clearly says that they were married. 

But again, what about Judges 19?  No one was lying in that case.



She doesn't buy into that middle eastern custom, huh?  Well, I think it's pretty horrific, too, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

EDIT- Since Candy deleted the comments on her post, here are some of the others:

Debio-Candy,
Upon first examination I am thinking Lot's daughters may have not been married but promised or enguaged because it says they were with him. He went to his sons in law and they wouldnt listen but he took his daughters who were with him out of the city. I will have to study it further.

Debio- Gen19:15 thy two daughters, which are here ( this verse implies that he only had two daughters and they were both still at home)

The angels told Lot to Arise, take thy wife and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.
vs 14 Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get ye out of this place; for the Lord will destry this city. Be he seemed as one that was mocked to his son in law.( this verse implies that they were not actually married yet.

There are many instances in the bible where an enguaged couple is called married. For instance, Joseph was going to divorce Mary and everyone knows they werent married yet. The angel told him not to get a divorced.

It could be that Lot had daughters who were actually married and other daughters who were virgins who were still at home.
vs 30 sounds like there were just two daughters, the elder and the younger.

They didnt think they would have anyone to mate with so they got Lot drunk and laid with him each one. So they each got pregnant.

Candy replied- "which are here" calls us back to an earlier verse in the chapter:


"And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place"


"Here" clearly refers to in the city, not specifically in the house only.


Also, verse 15 "are here" also refers to in the city. In fact, the KJV translators were divided over how to best convey this in English, so they put the alternate Hebrew translation on the side, which says:


"And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are found; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city."


Even if "are here" did refer to in the house at that time, it doesn't mean that the daughters lived in that very house.


When Joseph and Mary were espoused, it said "espoused:"


"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." -Matthew 1:18

The Noble Bereans

We're getting a bit long in the comments on the prior post, so I thought I would post a new one up for continuing discussion.

Jennie wrote: The Lord didn't GIVE us the church, we ARE the church. He gave us the Holy Spirit and His word and the Spirit gifts each of us in different ways, including men who can teach and lead others. We all have the Holy Spirit to teach and guide us, however, and have the responsibility to compare teachings to scripture, as those often cited Bereans did.

Barbara replied: Never mind that in the context of Acts 17 the Bereans were obviously comparing Paul's teachings to the Hebrew Scriptures (not the NT). Secondly the Bereans are being held up as nice guys because they are willing to listen to give Paul's story a fair chance instead of rising up against him like those in Thessalonica. Third, no where does it say that to be a like a Berean one must compare teachings to scripture on a regular basis to make sure they are true or that everyone should be like the Bereans to be a Christian.

If anything, the Berean story reflects fair-minded tolerance for listening to another's viewpoint and giving it fair consideration instead of just striking out at those who say things you don't want to hear.

I understand that "being a Berean" has become some sort of rallying cry for some sola scriptura Christians, but I think it has been blown way out of Biblical context.


Barbara reminded me privately of an article written by Steve Ray for Catholic apologetics magazine This Rock, back in 1997. It is available online here.

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book," in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.

If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the "dogs," not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

Catholic Encyclicals on the Bible

I recently found a blog run by Catholic professors of Scripture and Theology called The Sacred Page. I see that Moonshadow is ahead of me on this one.

Contrary to what Candy and others assert, the Bible is not banned for Catholics. Bible study is encouraged, and it has been the subject of several papal writings.

The three papal encyclicals on the Bible.

These are:

1. Pope Leo XIII,

Encyclical Letter On the Study of Sacred Scripture,

Providentissimus Deus, 1893

2. Pope Benedict XV,

Encyclical Letter Commemorating the Fifteenth Centenary of the Death of St. Jerome,

Spiritus Paraclitus, 1920

3. Pope Pius XII,

Encyclical Letter Promoting Biblical Studies,

Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943

As I'm reading through these encyclicals again, I'm struck by what a treasure trove of teaching they are on a whole host of issues: inspiration, inerrancy, interpretation, the literal and spiritual senses of Scripture, the role of the Scripture in the spiritual life and mission of the Church, and on and on.

As you can see by the dates, this Catholic interest in the Bible even pre-dates Vatican II. Perhaps some of you would be interested in giving Mary and the Pope a rest, and discussing our commonalities and differences in views on the Bible.

Some previous topics of interest from VTC:
The Catholic Bible
Bible Catholics
The Catholic View of Scripture

Hebrews, Matthew and John 6

The discussion on the Early Church Fathers started to morph into a discussion of the Eucharist and scripture, particularly with a passage in Matthew 24 and Hebrews 9.


Kelly and I have done John 6 at great length in the past and you can find those here.

Jennie wrote:

It is wonderful that God rained manna on our fathers and they were fed with daily food from heaven. And so it is written: Man ate the bread of angels. Yet those who ate that bread all died in the desert. But the food that you receive, that living bread which came down from heaven, supplies the very substance of eternal life, and whoever will eat it will never die, for it is the body of Christ. Ambrose of Milan, treatise On the Mysteries was originally spoken to newly baptized Christians around the year 370 AD.

This quote is apparently referring to John 6. I would like to give a few scriptures to show why Jesus in John 6 is not referring to Christ literally giving us His body and blood to eat, and that the bread is not literally the 'body, soul, and divinity of Christ' or the whole Christ.

Matthew 24:23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

 
This passage says that if anyone tells you that Christ is here or there on earth DO NOT BELIEVE IT and DO NOT GO OUT to look for Him, because His coming will be 'as the lightning come from the east and flashes to the west'

.
John 19:30 He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
Hebrews 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

Jesus finished His propitiatory work on the cross and for those who believe in Him, their sins are forgiven and there is no more need for an offering for sin.

Hebrews 9:25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

This passage says that He appeared once to put away sin by His sacrifice of Himself, not often, and that He will appear for those who eagerly await Him a SECOND TIME, APART FROM SIN, for salvation. He will appear a second time when He comes back to earth, 'just as He ascended' the first time. He will appear 'apart from sin' that is, not as a sacrifice for sin. He does not come back as a physical perpetual sacrifice. Every word of Hebrews denies this doctrine. He sat down at the right hand of the Father in victory over sin and death and having finished His suffering, He intercedes for us against our accuser the devil.

 

Let's look at Matthew 24 in it's entirety. I will emphasize some parts I want to use to make a point.

 Matthew 24

Signs of the End of the Age

 ¹Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. ²"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."  ³As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
 ⁴Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. ⁵For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,^[a]' and will deceive many. ⁶You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. ⁷Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. ⁸All these are the beginning of birth pains.
 ⁹"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. ¹⁰At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, ¹¹and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. ¹²Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, ¹³but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. ¹⁴And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
 ¹⁵"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'^[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— ¹⁶then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. ¹⁷Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. ¹⁸Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. ¹⁹How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! ²⁰Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. ²¹For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. ²²If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. ²³At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. ²⁴For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. ²⁵See, I have told you ahead of time.
 ²⁶"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. ²⁷For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ²⁸Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
 ²⁹"Immediately after the distress of those days
   " 'the sun will be darkened,
      and the moon will not give its light;
   the stars will fall from the sky,
      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'^[c]
 30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. ³¹And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
 ³²"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. ³³Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it^[d]is near, right at the door. ³⁴I tell you the truth, this generation^[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. ³⁵Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The Day and Hour Unknown

 ³⁶"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,^[f] but only the Father. ³⁷As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; ³⁹and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ⁴¹Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

Jennie is trying to say that we can't refer to the Eucharist Jesus Christ because of this passage.  I say she has totally misinterpreted it.  What Jesus clearly referring to in this passage is to be aware of false prophets who are claiming to be him. Clearly the Eucharist does not proclaim itself verbally, "I am the Christ."  Christ's verbal silence in the Eucharist is part of His power - the power of just being, of being "I Am."  So Matthew 24:4 does not refer to the Eucharist in any way shape or form and it's a mighty stretch to try to connect it.   Also Matthew 24:26 again refers to a false Christ claiming to be in the desert, or the upper room, or could be the street corner or the stadium or stage.  But the Eucharist is present  only in a very specific holy place- in the tabernacle of a Catholic church being distributed by the church or in hospitals, nursing homes, prisons etc. by specially trained ministers of the Eucharist.  Matthew 24 doesn't cut it for disproving the Eucharist either.

And I can't resist just saying Christ does say we do not know the hour or the day.  I feel sorry for Christians who spend so much time and energy worrying about it. Be like the birds of the field or like a little child and don't worry about things that you can't control anyway.

Now let's look at Jennie's other passage in context.

Hebrews 9

The Blood of Christ

 ¹¹When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,^[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. ¹²He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. ¹³The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. ¹⁴How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,^[c] so that we may serve the living God!  ¹⁵For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
 ¹⁶In the case of a will,^[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, ¹⁷because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. ¹⁸This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. ¹⁹When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. ²⁰He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."^{[e] 21}In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. ²²In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
 ²³It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. ²⁴For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. ²⁵Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. ²⁶Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. ²⁷Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, ²⁸so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

This passage explains why it was necessary for Christ to become the new sacrifice and why we refer to Him as the Lamb of God. And with Christ's sacrifice comes the new covenant. Catholics know this and we do not re-sacrifice Christ over and over again. Instead we take part of the ever-living sacrifice that is once and for all and not bound by time and space.

Incidentally this is what St. Paul also taught:

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

I think it is pretty clear that Matthew 24 has been totally misinterpreted as well as Hebrews. Bible believing Christians really need to quit looking for ways to avoid it and consider that when Christ says, "This is my body," he actually meant it!


Update: Jennie blogged on this too.

Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

I have a non-sleeping teething baby here, so most of this will be pasted from previous posts, but we'll see what I can get done in five minutes . . .

A new post by Candy today with some new material, but mostly several points she has written about previously all in one very long article.

We are called to follow Jesus. Jesus was baptized, and He tells us that we should be baptized as well. If a saved person doesn't get a chance to get baptized before death, that is no problem, because we are saved through faith in Christ, not through water baptism:

Catholics call this "baptism by desire."

CCC 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." -Luke 23:39-43

Two thieves were hung on crosses by Jesus. One did not believe on him, but the other chose to have a saving faith in Christ before his death. This thief was not able to jump off of the cross and get baptized before his death, yet Jesus affirms that he is saved, when he says that he is going to paradise.

No, baptism isn't required for salvation, but in normal circumstances, it should follow it:

Jesus has the power to tell someone that he will enter paradise, but that does not mean that it is not necessary. Baptism is the normal means ordained by Jesus.

From John 3 Birth versus Baptism:

The first thing that Jesus does after speaking with Nicodemus is to begin baptizing in 3:22.

Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women

Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts: 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The eunuch in Acts 8 needs to be baptized after believing in Jesus. Paul, who was made an apostle by Jesus Himself, was baptized immediately in Acts 9:18.

In Matt 28:19 Jesus commands "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" linking teaching and baptism.

Also, Acts 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter was following Jesus' command in Mark 16: 16 where He says "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Why would Jesus say in John 3 that we should be born and believe, when He says everywhere else that we should be baptized and believe? Clearly, when unless you take the verse out of context of other verses, you should conclude that by "born of water" Jesus meant baptism.

You really can't get more clear than 1 Peter 3:21, which states "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

For a more in depth study of baptism in Scripture, I suggest (as always!) reading through the Scripture Catholic site.

We can also look to see how the early Christians interpreted these verses. Although many fundamentalists feel that the early Church fell into error, most people feel that this didn't occur until after the Council of Nicea in 325. All of the early Church Fathers interpret John 3:5 as referring to water baptism. You can read a sample of their words here.

In Candy's article on the Trinity, she pointed to Cyprian of Carthage as support for her point. On the point of baptism he wrote "[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).

Catholic Catechism paragraph 1257:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" -1 Peter 3:20-21

Noah and his family saved by water? This is only possible if they were in the ark first - else they would have died. Just as baptism only saves us, if we get on the ark first. That ark is our conduit to salvation. Without the protection of the ark, the water will not save us.

We are saved through faith, and we get baptized to show that faith, and that we are being obedient to Christ. If Noah and his family got into the ark, but it never rained, and there was no flood, then did the ark save them? No, it was just an empty shell. Just as faith without works (obedience to God) is dead.

Your baptism doesn't count, unless it occurs after you've gotten onto the ark - after you've gotten saved. Then, you are saved through faith which is a living faith, and that is what drove you to get baptized. Faith without works is dead, but works without faith is as well.

This is a bit more developed than her previous comments on that verse.

Catholics interpret the ark as prefiguring the Church. I'd like to write more on this, but again, I can't at the moment.

Jesus is God, and God wrote the Bible. We are to do what the Bible instructs us to. The Bible instructs us to get baptized after salvation. This, of course means that infant baptism doesn't count as a biblical baptism - it's just getting a baby wet.

We wrote about infant baptism here and here.

Furthermore, baptism is full immersion, not a sprinkling on the head. Read of all of the baptisms in the Bible, and they involved immersion. Look at the Greek word for baptism, and it literally means "to immerse."

Baptism is full immersion, and only "counts" if it is after salvation - else it's just a person getting wet.

What I really want to know is if baptism is just a symbol and doesn't mean anything, then why does it matter if it is full immersion or not? Odd that the churches which believe baptism is a sacrament accept almost any baptism as valid, while those who believe that baptism doesn't mean anything are the ones who often require re-baptism.

You see, there are thousands upon thousands of people walking around, claiming to be Christians, but their life doesn't reflect their Christianity at all. They have a dead faith.

We are called to walk in the spirit, as per such Scriptures as Galatians 5, Romans 8, etc.

When you walk in the spirit, you automatically show your faith by your works.

If the works are produced automatically, then what about free will? What role does grace play in all of this? Candy rarely writes about grace.

A previous post on Candy's "automatic fruit producing" theology.

World's Oldest Bible

The world's oldest Bible is now available online, and it contains the deuterocanonical books.

I wonder if this is the one Candy claims was found in a monastery trashcan? It came from the monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai.

Candy's Changing Bible

Candy is writing on speaking in tongues today (technically known as glossolalia).

Open your Bible, and look at 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Now, if you have a Nelson King James Study Bible (a fabulous Bible, BTW, but, like all study Bibles, it has its doctrinal flaws and imperfections)

All study Bibles have doctrinal flaws and imperfections, but not Candy's interpretations . . .

What jumped out at me in her entry is her double standard on Bible translation. Let me refresh your memory of her view of Roman Catholic translation:

Vatican says - The Holy See Vatican says that the Catholic Church ("The Church") has the right to pass down traditions, and that these traditions hold as much water as the very Bible itself. reference 1

God says - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. -Mark 7:13

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. -Colossians 2:8

My Notes: This is WHY God gave us the Bible, so that we have His Word, written down, so that we don't have to depend on traditions to know what is right. Any tradition that goes against scripture, or that adds to it, is a tradition not needed, and could be eternally harmful.

Yet Candy writes today:

"Unknown tongues (lit. "tongue"): Omit unknown in this chapter whenever it occurs with tongues; it was supplied by the translators. Paul's discussion of tongues follow the same idea as the tongues in Acts which were foreign languages miraculously heard and translated by the recipients." Page 1784

I believe the above note to be wrong. The KJV translators were right to insert unknown in the text, because it makes the text more clear to the English ear. Acts chapter 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 are both speaking of the gift of tongues, BUT, they are speaking of two different types of tongue gifts. There is a distinction here, which a lot of people seem to miss. Remember, the Bible is full of fine distinctions like this.

So, adding to Scripture is wrong when Catholics do it, but not when the King James translators do it? I know, because the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the King James translators are divinely inspired. Really, she favors the KJV translation because it agrees with her interpretation.

She spends most of her article claiming an important distinction between "other tongues" and "unknown tongues" and then looks to Paul to approve her interpretation. But what are her proof texts?

Remember, forget what your church teaches on tongues, and let's see what the apostle Paul thinks of tongues. Does he approve of speaking in tongues? Let's read what he said on the matter:

"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all"- vs 18

"Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." -vs. 39

These verses only say "tongues" and do not specify unknown or other. Was Paul speaking in other tongues or unknown tongues?

Also, in typical Candy manner, she neatly pretends to best the Baptist argument against speaking in tongues while she never even presents their theological basis. From my understanding (and I'm always open to correction here, folks) Baptists don't deny that Paul or any of the early Christians spoken in tongues. They only feel that that particular gift was for the apostolic age and does not continue to the modern day.

Want to see how whacked out those Catholics are? Look at those Methodists?

In today's rant Candy lets us know that she didn't know anything much about Christianity until the age of 17, which means that while she was courting, marrying, modeling, moving, having children and becoming a computer whiz - she learned everything there was about the bible and church history - sorta

In today's screed she tells the reader she is not a Calvinist, and then she delves into her belief in predestination! I'm not an expert on either, but it sounds to me that her view has much in common with the Calvinist view. Feel free to opine on that!

And as I was reading the post I thought maybe the Catholics had dodged a bullet - but nope - she managed to jump from predestination and Calvinism to this:


God knows man's heart, and that man craves power. To be able to speak for God, is too much power for man to handle. Therefore, He gaves us His Written Word, to keep man, and his tendency to change things over time, in check. The Roman Catholic Church, which ignored much of the Bible from their church's beginning, became even more and more corrupt through the years, because of their not adhering to the Word of God. When churches stray from the Bible, then they start introducing false doctrine. Some churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, claim that their teachings of man and traditions, hold equal validity to the Word of God. Yet, you'll find that where their traditions differ from the Bible, they choose to follow their traditions as the correct course. This is why such churches as the Methodist church now allow gay clergy, even though the Bible is crystal clear that that is not supposed to be. Traditions, or peer pressure, is taking presidence over the Word of God in many churches of various denominations.


Clearly somehow Candy never learned that the Methodists were never part of the Catholic Church. They were started in 1739 by John Wesley and came out of the Church of England. The Church of England of course broke with the Catholic Church when Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and take a different queen! The Pope, adhering to you know, what the bible says, forbid the divorce and that was the beginning of the break up.

What Candy never gets back around to acknowledging is that the Catholic Church's true stand on homosexuality, which is very similar to her stand.

I found her post, and that paragraph in particular to be historically and theologically inaccurate and lacking focus. It is also misleading and rife with errors.

It's simply, more of the same.

Our Debt to the Monks

I guess not everybody knows what happened to the bible between the time of St. Paul and his correspondence and the time of the Reformation. So this is a little bit of info of what happened before the age of the printing press.

From Henry Graham's Where We Got the Bible:

Our Debt To the Monks, page 74.

Day by day, year after yer, the monks would persevere in their holy labors, copying with loving care every letter of the sacred text from some old manuscript of the Bible, adorning and illuminating the pages of vellum with pictures and illustrations in purple and gold and silver colouring, and so producing real works of art that excite the envy and admiration of modern generations. Some Bishops and Abbots wrote out with their own hands the whole of both the Old and New Testaments for the use of their churches and monasteries. Even nuns, and this point I would bring under special notice- nuns took their share in this pious and highly skilled labour. We read of one who copied with her own hands two whole Bibles, and besides made six copies of several large portions of the Gospels and Epistles. Every monastery and church possessed at least one, and some possessed many copies of the Bible and the Gospels. In those ages it was a common thing to copy out particular parts of the Bible (as well as the whole Bible); for example, the Gospels or the Psalms or Epistles so that many who could not afford to purchase a complete Bible were able to possess themselves of at least some part which was specially interesting or popular. This custom is truly Catholic, as it flourishes amongst us today. At the end of our prayer books, for instance, we have Gospels and Epistles for the Sundays and various publishers, too, have issued the four Gospels separately each by itself and the practice seems to me to harmonise entirely with the very idea and structure of the Bible, which was originally composed of separate and independent portions, in use in different Churches throughout Christendom. And so we find that the monks and clergy often confined their work to copying out certain special portions of Sacred Scripture, and naturally the Gospels were the favourite part.

The work, we must remember was very slow, and expensive as well. Dr. Maitland reckons that it would require ten months for a scribe of those days to copy out a Bible; and that L 60 or L 70 would have been required if he had been paid at the rate that lawstationers pay their writers. Of course, with the monks it was a labour of love,and not for money; but this calculation of Dr. Maitland only refers to teh work of copying; it leaves out of account the materials that had to be used, pen and ink and parchment. Another authority (Buckingham) has made a more detailed calculation, and assuming that 427 skins of parchment would have been needed for the 35,000 verses, running into 127,000 folios, he reckons that a complete copy of Old and New Testaments could not have been purchased for less than L 218. Yet Protestants stare in astonishment when you tell them that not everybody could sit by the fireside in those days with a bible on his knees!

Hebrew Roots Bible

Candy is still stuck on Bible talk, so I thought I should add some more comments.

Last night a business colleague and hubby had a short meeting. Turns out, this man is a Christian, and loves to study the Bible. I was surprised, when hubby came home with a new Bible version for me to check out. The colleague was convinced that this new Bible version is more correct than the KJV.

Many people are convinced that there are other Bible translations more correct than the KJV, because some translations are based on older manuscripts which had not been found at the time the KJV was made.

Well, the second I saw the list of manuscripts it was translated from, I could tell that not only is this new translation inferior to the KJV, but it is even inferior to the NIV! I did some research on the man who made this translation, and uncovered some scary information. I also read some passages from this Bible, and found that it is missing whole verses, and portions of verses, just like the other new Bible versions. That new version Holy Bible is not a Holy Bible, but a Holey Bible. It is an incomplete Bible, like all new versions are. WHOLE verses missing in many places. Partial verses missing in literally thousands of places.

I'm curious as to how she read "some passages" from this Bible and determined that there were partial verses missing "in literally thousands of places." Sounds as if she read thousands of passages while she perused it.

Like most new Bible versions, this translation claims to be translated from the "oldest texts," which is a falsity started by Westcott and Hort. These manuscripts may be on the oldest material (because no one bothered reading these texts, so it didn't get worn out.) However, the pure facts lay out that none other but the Massortetic text and the Textus Receptus texts are the oldest, most accurate, and are exact copies of the originals. These great texts are the ones underling the KJV, Geneva, and the other great Bibles of the past.

About a year and a half ago, Candy did a book study on And Understandable History of the Bible. Elena wrote a series at the same time as Candy did, going through the book chapter by chapter. You can find all of the information on Westcott and Hort, and the various manuscripts in Elena's series.

Then, I looked at the very first Biblical prophecy of Jesus, in Genesis 3:15. This new version says that Jesus AND Mary crush the serpent's head together. EXCUSE ME?!!! The real Bible says that JESUS is the redeemer. Mary is not a co-redeemer, she is but a fellow sinner who was chosen as a vessel in whose womb Jesus was incubated. I haven't seen such a botching of Genesis 3:15 since I studied the old Dewey Rheims Bible of Roman Catholicism.

Didn't she just write in the last entry that she never read the Douay-Rheims Bible? I notice she also seems to be back to implying that Mary was not Jesus' biological mother. I would guess she thinks that God placed at already fertilized egg into her womb. But I will stick to the Gen 3:15 issue . . .

Let me refer you to a portion of my Something About Mary post.

Vatican says - "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." - The Roman Catholic version of Genesis 3:15 Reference - The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible

God says - [Note: It is undisputed in Christian circles that Genesis 3:15 is the first biblical Messianic prophecy.] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [the seed of the woman] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

First, it is important to note that Candy quotes from the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is sort of the Catholic King James Bible. We even have Douay-Rheims-only-ists in the Catholic Church. Because we've got something for everyone!

At any rate, the Douay-Rheims Bible is not the currently favored translation. The US Conference of Bishops uses the New American Bible.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

Footnote: The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because "the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman's offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

The official Catholic Catechism uses the New Revised Standard Version. The NRSV states "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel."

The Catholic Church agrees that this verse is the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. See paragraph #70: Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.

So, I guess if the question is which translation is correct, the Vatican has conceded the point. However the verse is translated, the meaning remains the same.

As an article James Akin wrote for This Rock on the topic of this verse explains, "Therefore, though the she/her and he/his readings of Genesis 3:15 are different, both are true, and Catholics have long recognized this. A footnote provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner, in his revision of the Douay-Rheims version, states, "The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head."

What is this Bible version I'm writing of? It's the HRV - Hebrew Roots Version. Shocking name as well, since much of its Old Testament is not translated from the HEBREW Massoretic texts, but from the Septuagint, which is a severely corrupted Greek translation of the Hebrew texts. This Greek Septuragint is rejected by fundamental Jews. I have a Jewish Bible, and it is translated from the correct HEBREW Massortetic texts, not from a Greek translation.

As I wrote yesterday, she is contradicting her beloved KJV translators when she tears down the Septuagint so severely. The Jewish Encyclopedia calls the Septuagint "the oldest and most important of all the versions" and admits that a major reason why it fell out of favor with Jews was a distrust "accentuated by the fact that it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith." The Jews eventually adopted a version of the Old Testament text based on a manuscript written by Aaron Ben Moses Ben Asher in the early tenth century.

The HRV Bible is a Roman Catholic Bible, and I can prove it. Maybe I'll write up an article about it tonight or tomorrow, depends on my other plans. :-) (Cliff-hanger, anyone?)

I would guess she says this because the guy who translated the Hebrew Roots Version of the Bible claims to have a doctorate from a Catholic seminary. Only, he might not really have the doctorate. And it isn't a real Catholic seminary. If you're interested, you can wade deep into the muddy waters here.

Me, I'm content to chalk it up to another Jesuit plot. Oh, if only he'd claimed to have had a doctorate from Boston College. Then we'd know it was true for sure!

Bible Talk

Candy has posted an extremely long post about her favorite Bible version.

I get a lot of questions about which Bible I would suggest to people to get. I have avoided answering that question in the past, because I was still trying to find the "perfect" one for me.

As she posts King James Only articles at least monthly, I don't see how she's shy about endorsing that version. I suppose she means this specific Nelson version, but I've seen her recommend the Dake Annotated version multiple times before, too. Maybe she meant she has thus far avoided answering that question in December?

My parents had two Bible versions in the house - the King James Version, and the Dewey Rheims Roman Catholic version. I didn't know those were different versions, I just thought that since they were by different publishers, they had different names. However, I never read from the Dewey Rheims; I was always drawn to only read from the KJV. But alas, I didn't understand the Bible until after I got saved, many years later.

I see that she doesn't let a chance go by to get in a dig at the Catholic Church. First, it is named the Douay-Rheims Bible. That particular version is the King James equivalent in the Catholic Church. Usually, if people have a Douay-Rheims version, it is an old family copy, such as the one that I have. We discussed other Catholic versions the last time Candy was recommending the Dake.

Amazing! After I got saved, I could sit down and read the Bible, and I could understand it! Oh, how excited I was, and still am! :-D You see, as the book of Ephesians teaches us, after a person truly gets saved, God's Holy Spirit comes to live within them, and that person is thereby sealed by God's Holy Spirit. With the help of God's Holy Spirit, I was able to read the Bible, and read it with understanding.

Candy usually tells Catholics that if they would only read the Bible, they would see the errors of their Church and truly be able to be born again Christians. This new statement from her makes it seem as if it would be pointless for us to read our Bible until we get saved, because we wouldn't be able to understand it. That also makes the case of the Bereans, who searched the Scriptures to see if Jesus was truly the Christ, not fit her theology.

I refuse to read any Bibles with the Apocrapha in them. The very word "appocrapha" means "hidden, or spurious." How very fitting - especially in the spurious sense. The apocrapha isn't the Word of God. This is why it has always been rejected by Jews and Christians of old. The other, and more common definition, of apocrapha is "hidden." This tells us right there that the apocrapha is false. The Bible tells us that nothing is hidden of God. The Bible is against religious esoteric nonsense.

If it is only the word "apocrypha" that bothers her, that should be easy to fit. The books to which she is referring are actually the deuterocanonical books. The apocrypha refers to books such as the Gospel of James, that were not included in the New Testament.

Second, I would like to point out that these books were not rejected by the Jews. The Jewish festival of Hannukkah comes from the book of Maccabees.

The apocrapha was never included in the 1611 KJV Bible. Because of Jesuit pressure, the translators were forced to put the apocrapha between the Old and New Testaments, but they refused to include it within the Bible text itself. It was considered words of man - and that is why it was put between the Testaments, and not included in them. In later printings, publishers were finally allowed to remove those spurious books from between the Testaments.

I hate to break it to Candy, but if it was between the Old and New Testaments, then it IS within the Bible. We're supposed to believe that these translators were divinely inspired to translate the ONLY valid English translation of the Bible, yet God allowed them to be corrupted just enough to include the deuterocanonical books? Later printings implies that they were only in the 1611 version, but they were not removed from non-Catholic Bibles until the 1800s.

Chronologically, these books were written in the time period between the close of the Old Testament canon, and the writing of the New Testament. The deuterocanonical books were written in Greek, rather than Hebrew, and were included in the Septuagint. They were read in the Synagogues, and Jesus quoted from them.

The translators of the KJV defended the Septuagint in their preface, which Candy has posted previously.

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God.


I'm also curious as to how she thinks the Valdois had valid Bibles when they included at least some of the deuterocanonical books as well.

Previous entries on this topic:
apocryphal=false?
Apocrypha--Not a Jesuit plot
More on Jesuits and the KJV
Closed Canon

To Jennie

Edited to add: I am familiar with the Berean Beacon. I wrote about Richard Bennett here, his testimony here, and commented on one of his articles here. I wrote a review of Far From Rome, Near To God and whatever the corresponding nun book was called here.

Hello Jennie, I appreciate your very polite comments. I enjoy a good civil discussion! My comment was starting to get quite long, and I'm not great at putting links in comments, so I decided to make this its own post.

Like Elena, I was raised moderately Catholic, but did not really decide to claim my heritage, so to speak, until I was an adult. I have a bachelor's degree in Religious Studies, and much of what I learned in my secular university verified the truth of the "Catholic version" of history. I have never been to Catholic school, and did not even own a Catholic Bible translation until I was in my early 20's. You might not like the NIV any better, but it led me to the Catholic Church. Especially verses such as these. I am often struck, reading through the book of Acts, how much the early Church sounds like the Catholic Church. Ordination, forgiving sins, collecting relics, etc.

Regarding the 10 commandments, rest assured that the Catholic church does prohibit idolatry, regardless of how we break a segment of text into a group of ten.

The Bible was not available to the common people because the common people could not read. Literacy is still not 100% even in America, much less the entire world. Throughout the centuries, the Scriptures have been read during Mass, so the common people would be familiar with the Bible, even if they could not read it themselves.

The preface to the King James Bible tells of early vernacular versions of the Bible:

“Much about that time [1360], even our King Richard the Second’s days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . . . So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, . . . but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any Nation; no doubt, because it was esteemed most profitable, to cause faith to grow in men’s hearts the sooner, . . .”

The history of English Bible translation (preceded earlier by editions in the earlier common language of Anglo-Saxon) is very long, starting with Caedmon in the 7th century, Aldhelm (c. 700), the Venerable Bede (d. 735), followed by Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert (all in Saxon, the vernacular language of that time in England). King Alfred the Great (849-99) translated the Bible, as did Aelfric (d.c. 1020). Middle English translations included those of Orm (late 12th c.) and Richard Rolle (d. 1349).

Vernacular Bibles in many languages appeared throughout the early and late Middle Ages (after Latin ceased being a common, widespread language). Between 1466 and 1517 fourteen translations of the Bible were published in High German, and five in Low German. Raban Maur had translated the entire Bible into Teutonic, or old German, in the late 8th century. Between 1450 to 1520 there were ten French translations, and also Bibles rendered in Belgian, Bohemian, Spanish, Hungarian, and Russian. 25 Italian versions (with express Church sanction) appeared before 1500, starting at Venice in 1471.

I wrote about the Waldensians/Valdois here. I found information in an online Reformation museum that said the Waldensian Bibles to which you allude, included some of the deuterocanonical books, such as Tobit and Maccabees.

That link also includes information on the idea that there were groups of underground born again Christians hidden throughout the centuries. I have not found any historical evidence for the existence of such hidden Christians.