Infallibiliy of the Bible?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I admittedly rushed the part about the "Greek stuff coming later."

Hellenization ran rampant through Judaism for hundreds of years BC, creating all kinds of crazy variants of "scripture". The job of the canonizers was to identify and remove Greek-influenced texts from the Bible.

Did they do a perfect job? No. Ecclesiastes probably should have been discarded, along with parts of Proverbs.

And when Jesus said "Sophia is justified by her children", it makes me pause and wonder if He really said that. But, He was probably being sarcastic, and we need an emoji indicating that in the Greek.
...

What does this do to the bedrock of Christian Theology...that the Bible is the infallible Word of God? What do Paul and James have to say...especially James.

Rather than take it "off topic," I'm opening a new topic, responding to partial statements in your post from "No place like hell" (above). You make interesting points about the scriptures...what should be canonized and what maybe shouldn't have been included.

That brings us to Paul and James differ and justification by faith v. works.

From Paul:
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (works)

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Then there's this little jewel from James:
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

We all heard WL's opinion that the book of James should not be in the Bible...was he right?

Is it possible (likely) that God allowed the book of James to be canonized for a specific reason? We are told several places to "test all things".

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

There is some good stuff in James, but v. 2:24 is a showstopper.

Nell

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Nell

What does this do to the bedrock of Christian Theology...that the Bible is the infallible Word of God? What do Paul and James have to say...especially James.

Rather than take it "off topic," I'm opening a new topic, responding to partial statements in your post from "No place like hell" (above). You make interesting points about the scriptures...what should be canonized and what maybe shouldn't have been included.

That brings us to Paul and James differ and justification by faith v. works.

[dot dot dot]

We all heard WL's opinion that the book of James should not be in the Bible...was he right?

Is it possible (likely) that God allowed the book of James to be canonized for a specific reason? We are told several places to "test all things".

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

There is some good stuff in James, but v. 2:24 is a showstopper.

Nell

Nell, I respect your bravery, and willingness to engage, in opening this thread. I will try not to bloviate too much, but will attempt to summarize my experience in this matter.

As part of the LR, and before and after, it was pushed upon me the infallibility doctrine. Many churches, including the LR, include a statement about infallibility as the NUMBER ONE item of faith. As if we must agree on that before we go on to the next statements.

As a youth, when I was exposed to 'alternate views', I felt duty-bound to defend belief #1. It was a fine and glorious day when I realized that I could question the text without losing my faith.

In fact, my faith has strengthened, not lessened, after this decision.

So for what makes UntoHim extremely nervous is exactly what saved me from walking away.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Nell, I respect your bravery, and willingness to engage, in opening this thread. I will try to bloviate too much, but I will try to summarize my experience in this matter.

As part of the LR, and before and after, it was pushed upon me the infallibility doctrine. Many churches, including the LR, include a statement about infallibility as the NUMBER ONE item of faith. As if we must agree on that before we go on to the next statements.

As a youth, when I was exposed to 'alternate views', I felt duty-bound to defend belief #1. It was a fine and glorious day when I realized that I could question the text without losing my faith.

In fact, my faith has strengthened, not lessened, after this decision.

So for what makes UntoHim extremely nervous is exactly what saved me from walking away.

I don't really mean to set out to prove the Bible is fallible. I can't say that I believe that. But, I will just look for a simple (scriptural) explanation of the apparent contradiction between the verse in James' book vs. the verses in Paul's books.

I'm assuredly not the first to come across these two verses...side by side...and scratched my head? Am I? Surely the "church fathers" have noticed an apparent contradiction.

I'll pick just one of Paul's verses: Romans 3:28 and James' showstopper.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (works)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

We certainly don't question that God Himself, as the Holy Spirit, is indeed infallible.

Nell

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Nell;108451

I'll pick just one of Paul's verses: Romans 3:28 and James' showstopper.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that [B

a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law[/B]. (works)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Nell

Paul also said this just a few verses earlier:

2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

and again:

2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

So before we pick on James too much, we need to figger this out!

[countmeworthy]

My quick take on James is it is not written to us, the non Jewish believers. And while most here might think I am nuts for what I am about to write, after some digging I am good with my theory which I am about to share.

James addresses the 12 tribes (of Israel) in the very beginning of his letter:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

It’s not written to the gentile church! The gentile church knew nothing of the 12 tribes of Jacob/Israel. And Most if not everyone here did not grow up Jewish, never went to synagogue.

So in James 2:24 where it says Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only., I believe it is written to the Jews living during the tribulation. During that time, people are not going to be living like we are today. I can’t imagine how it’s going to look but just like in the days of Moses, and during the millennium reign, they are going to have to follow the law.

It could also have been written to the Jewish converts who did not know how to communicate with God the Holy Spirit on a personal level.

I think the reason there is so much controversy and confusion over this book is because it is not written to us, though we certainly can learn a thing or 2 from James.

Same goes for the book of Hebrews. Though I have learned and grown so much from that book, who is it addressed to ? The converted HEBREWS!! But I can honestly say it is written to us too, at least to me,

The point is, the letter is addressed to the converted HEBREWS.

Why does the gentile church need to know that it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Hebrews 10:4 ?

The converted gentiles knew nothing of the sacrifices, burnt offerings, peace offerings etc. that the Israelites/ Jewish people had to abide by in the OT. When I got saved, in fact all of us, I /we learned what the Blood of Jesus did for us and it’s power over our lives. I knew nothing about the sacrifices the Israelites made. I only knew of the 10 commandments and the parting of the Red Sea thanks to the movie !

The converted Jews (poor fellows) had to learn to walk by the Spirit all of a sudden. Had to learn to trust in the Spirit of Jesus.

They could eat “unclean” food (pork for example) if they wanted to. They had to learn to trust in the cleansing Blood of Jesus not the blood of bulls and goats. They did not have to go to an earthly high priest for Jesus was now their and ours Great High Priest.

I believe many Jews are going to be reading the book of Hebrews during the trib too. IF it’s available. Who knows what it’s going to be like.

Anyway, I am glad I am understanding that the Bible is written for us all to read but it is not all written TO US. It is very clear we can and have learned a lot from the OT but it is more historical and prophetic. It has cleared up a lot of questions and confusion for me.

That’s my take for whatever it’s worth.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Nell

We all heard WL's opinion that the book of James should not be in the Bible...was he right?

No, the whole premise for his argument is the opening lines of the letter. James writes to the 12 tribes and witness Lee says he didn’t see the full vision of the gentiles also being grafted in (I’m paraphrasing). James wrote this letter before what is known as the Council in Jerusalem which occurs in Acts 15. The early church was still learning, and that council is an example of the learnings. It settled the pondering question of, do gentiles need to become Jews to be Christians.

Also, James didn’t receive the vision that Peter received in Acts 10 which was one of the main components to the acts 15 decision.

Just because James addresses just the Jews and not the gentiles is a weak argument and in my opinion doesn’t discredit the rest of the book.

James didn’t fit into the God’s Economy framework WL interpreted the Bible from, which is in hindsight a red flag. If your predisposed box you try to fit the Bible into doesn’t fit the Bible, maybe the box is wrong.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

My quick take on James is it is not written to us, the non Jewish believers. And while most here might think I am nuts for what I am about to write, after some digging I am good with my theory which I am about to share.

James addresses the 12 tribes (of Israel) in the very beginning of his letter:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
...
That’s my take for whatever it’s worth.

Thanks Carol, for your thoughtful response. I understand what you're saying. Yet the question remains. What would the good Bereans have to say about what James said...even to the 12 tribes. It has to be true, right?

From James' perspective, are believers justified by faith, by works, or is justification a combo-deal? It's generally accepted that the fruit of justification by faith will be good works. Yet, you can't say one thing to one group and another thing to someone else...can you?

From a recent Watchman Wednesday:
"Absolute loyalty to the Truth is a matter that must have priority in the life of every Christian . . . . It is possible, and indeed it not infrequently happens, that a (Christian) modifies the Truth because he is influenced by men, or by circumstances, or by his own desires. The truth is absolute, and it demands undeviating loyalty of all men under all circumstances. All we possess we can sacrifice if need be, but the Truth we dare not sacrifice. We must never seek to bend it to our purpose, but must always bow to it."
The Normal Christian Worker, Chapter 1, Watchman Nee

Is James 2:24 true? "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

My quick take on James is it is not written to us, the non Jewish believers. And while most here might think I am nuts for what I am about to write, after some digging I am good with my theory which I am about to share.

James addresses the 12 tribes (of Israel) in the very beginning of his letter: James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

It’s not written to the gentile church! The gentile church knew nothing of the 12 tribes of Jacob/Israel. And Most if not everyone here did not grow up Jewish, never went to synagogue.

So in James 2:24 where it says Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only., .

Anyway, I am glad I am understanding that the Bible is written for us all to read but it is not all written TO US. It is very clear we can and have learned a lot from the OT but it is more historical and prophetic. It has cleared up a lot of questions and confusion for me.

I would also endorse these principles. Like myself, countmeworthy has friends in Pentecostal churches who seem to apply the OT to the church. The latest here is to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles in the church.

Going back to James' word here, "by works a man is justified," my question is always, "what kind of works are you referring to?" Is this not a question that must be addressed? So much confusion surrounds this one word "works." WL also confused the use of this word, and its counterpart "dead works."

Let me say more. If by "works" James means circumcision, kosher, Sabbath, Passover, holidays, etc., then I would say "no, we are NOT justified by works." See Acts 14-15. But, if by "works" James means loving others, preaching the Gospel, hospitality, assembling, etc., then I would agree. If there is none of this in our lives, then you can be sure that our faith is dead. Can we even claim to be justified?

[Zezima]

Is he even talking about being justified before God?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let me say more. If by "works" James means circumcision, kosher, Sabbath, Passover, holidays, etc., then I would say "no, we are NOT justified by works." See Acts 14-15. But, if by "works" James means loving others, preaching the Gospel, hospitality, assembling, etc., then I would agree. If there is none of this in our lives, then you can be sure that our faith is dead. Can we even claim to be justified?

Exactly! I view James as the first of the NT books to be written, therefore he had nothing prior written regarding the new Spirit way of the new covenant to go on. So it's like a transition book from the old to the new in many ways.

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Anyway, I am glad I am understanding that the Bible is written for us all to read but it is not all written TO US.

Indeed.

And I believe the word of God(the Bible) is infallible, but men's doctrines and teachings could be wrong.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Indeed.

And I believe the word of God(the Bible) is infallible, but men's doctrines and teachings could be wrong.

I believe a LOT of it is. Most believers follow a pastor’s teaching. The attitude is “my pastor said it. So it must be true.” “ Brother Lee said it, so it must be true.

Example of Lee and the LR: I don’t ever recall Lee addressing ( maybe he did???) the Spirit of God as the Holy Spirit. He addressed Him as the Life Giving Spirit which is absolutely fine with me. But did Lee ever address the Life Giving as the Holy Spirit ( never mind the Holy Ghost!)

And thus the congregants followed Lee to my knowledge, in addressing the Holy Spirit as The Spirit. Not that that’s wrong. But the die hard Leeists won’t address our God as the Holy Spirt, because Lee didn’t.

Another personal example. Umpteen years ago, in the early 80s, I went to a Pentecostal service. I was enjoying the singing and was in the Presence of the Lord worshipping Him. I was then tapped on my shoulder. I was asked to go to the front and receive the Holy Spirit. I replied ‘I am already saved and have the Holy Spirit inside me”. I finally figured out they wanted me to speak in tongues.

So YES! I believe men’s doctrines and teachings are often wrong. I too have been wrong in my beliefs. But the more we seek the Lord for understanding, His Holy Spirit opens our eyes to comprehend understand.

Blessings and Peace of Christ

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Exactly! I view James as the first of the NT books to be written, therefore he had nothing prior written regarding the new Spirit way of the new covenant to go on. So it's like a transition book from the old to the new in many ways.

That makes sense Sons to Glory. Here’s why I think you might very well be correct. In Acts when thousands of people were getting saved, most if not all being saved were Jews. It was not till Acts 9 and Paul came into the scene that the non Jewish People, the gentile heathen started getting saved. So James may have been one of the first NT books written.

Thank You for the insight and revelation.

In Chynna Phillips words,
“Jesus is my Rock and that’s how I roll”

[SpeakersCorner]

The Bible has to be inerrant and infallible. Why? Because God could not allow an errant and fallible book about Him to exist. How it’s inerrant and infallible may be quite complex but trust me on this one, it’s inerrant and infallible.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

The Bible has to be inerrant and infallible. Why? Because God could not allow an errant and fallible book about Him to exist. How it’s inerrant and infallible may be quite complex but trust me on this one, it’s inerrant and infallible.

yeah but what about the KJV? Is it infallible in its translation? I can with confidence say "no".

So why did God allow that?

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

yeah but what about the KJV? Is it infallible in its translation? I can with confidence say "no".

So why did God allow that?

Amen Timotheist!

Gods WORD is inerrant but man loves to create his idols....

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

yeah but what about the KJV? Is it infallible in its translation? I can with confidence say "no".

So why did God allow that?

You make a good point. All translations err in one way or another. But those errors, usually the result of an ideological bias, are part of the complexity I noted. The ark of the covenant was holy and perfect but it was mishandled as poor Uzzah found out.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

The Bible has to be inerrant and infallible. Why? Because God could not allow an errant and fallible book about Him to exist. How it’s inerrant and infallible may be quite complex but trust me on this one, it’s inerrant and infallible.

Trust you? Seriously? I don’t think so.

We trusted a few men who demanded our trust, who did not earn it and didn’t deserve it. You are free to express your opinion, but we will continue this discussion while testing all things, including your opinions.

Nell

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Nell

Trust you? Seriously? I don’t think so.

We trusted a few men who demanded our trust, who did not earn it and didn’t deserve it. You are free to express your opinion, but we will continue this discussion while testing all things, including your opinions.

Nell

Sadly you have no sense of humor.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Nell

Trust you? Seriously? I don’t think so.

We trusted a few men who demanded our trust, who did not earn it and didn’t deserve it. You are free to express your opinion, but we will continue this discussion while testing all things, including your opinions.

Nell

Also, please go ahead and boot me from this site. It’d make you happier and it’d probably be good for me.

SC

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Nell

Trust you? Seriously? I don’t think so.

We trusted a few men who demanded our trust, who did not earn it and didn’t deserve it. You are free to express your opinion, but we will continue this discussion while testing all things, including your opinions.

Nell

Actually, no need to cancel me, I’m cancelling myself. Goodbye to Ohio, GlorytoGod, and others who at least tried to accommodate other views.

SC

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

yeah but what about the KJV? Is it infallible in its translation? I can with confidence say "no".

So why did God allow that?

Then can you "confidently" tell me which version you think it's infallible in translation?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Nell

What does this do to the bedrock of Christian Theology...that the Bible is the infallible Word of God? What do Paul and James have to say...especially James.

Rather than take it "off topic," I'm opening a new topic, responding to partial statements in your post from "No place like hell" (above). You make interesting points about the scriptures...what should be canonized and what maybe shouldn't have been included.

That brings us to Paul and James differ and justification by faith v. works.

From Paul:
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (works)

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Then there's this little jewel from James:
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

We all heard WL's opinion that the book of James should not be in the Bible...was he right?

Is it possible (likely) that God allowed the book of James to be canonized for a specific reason? We are told several places to "test all things".

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

There is some good stuff in James, but v. 2:24 is a showstopper.

Nell

The Times They Are A-Changin'! I never thought I'd see the day when the moderator of LCD would question the infallibility of the Bible.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

The Bible has to be inerrant and infallible. Why? Because God could not allow an errant and fallible book about Him to exist. How it’s inerrant and infallible may be quite complex but trust me on this one, it’s inerrant and infallible.

Did you mean to say that? Wouldn't you agree that most books about God are errant and fallible?

[awareness]

There are around 5500 manuscripts of the NT. None of them agree with each other.

And the canon was developed not by inspiration, but by acceptance of churches. It was not inspired and inerrant.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Actually, no need to cancel me, I’m cancelling myself. Goodbye to Ohio, GlorytoGod, and others who at least tried to accommodate other views.

SC

SC!

Take a step back and reconsider! Remember you and I can't possibly understand the affect we are having because we don't see everything as we would like too. The answers you are recieving show evidence of your affect. You are shaking what some thought to be solid ground. Disturbia is a good thing but it works both ways in those who can't see all things.
Trust God my friend...
Walk by faith like so many others did before you and defend the faith!

“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
**2 Corinthians‬ *10:5‬ *NIV‬‬

Peace like a river...

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Then can you "confidently" tell me which version you think it's infallible in translation?

Sadly, I cannot. The YLT is likely the most faithful, but reading that one will try your patience! Yet, I do refer to it now and again when researching the other translations.

Another sad thing: The Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew OT was also not a fair translation, and the damage done to Judaism and the young church as a result was extensive. I guess you could say the LXX “created” the Sadducee sects and the Christian Gnostics.

Another very sad thing: the Latin Vulgate was a horrible translation, having been a translation from the LXX instead of the original texts, and thus twice removed from the original stuff. This translation takes credit for the rapid decline of the RCC, setting up the stage for the flawed start to the Protestant movement, and the flawed KJV.

God has allowed this pattern to repeat itself for centuries. Therefore, my position given these indisputable facts (trust me, but verify), is that holding on to this idea that we have infallible and inerrant words today, while noble in its intent, is not something I can have faith in.

Especially making it the primary item of faith, even listed before the statement on the Trinity in many denominations. (Including the LR, which led to the practice of pray-reading)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Trust you? Seriously? I don’t think so.

We trusted a few men who demanded our trust, who did not earn it and didn’t deserve it. You are free to express your opinion, but we will continue this discussion while testing all things, including your opinions.

Nell

SC did NOT say to trust him Carte Blanche, but to trust him that God and the Bible are inerrant and infallible.

I just don’t understand why you switched things up to insult another poster. Have not you also attested to the authority of God and His Word? Isn’t this what we are willing to live and die for?

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Sadly, I cannot.

It's interesting. You can't 'confidently' say which version is infallible in its translation but can ‘confidently’ say KJV is not.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

It's interesting. You can't 'confidently' say which version is infallible in its translation but can ‘confidently’ say KJV is not.

I realize this is an item of faith for many of you, and deflective responses like this are to be expected.

Ignore me and go in peace, if I offend.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Times They Are A-Changin'! I never thought I'd see the day when the moderator of LCD would question the infallibility of the Bible.

I somewhat agree with you. But to be clear, I have one verse, James 2:24, that I question and test. As Timotheist said, the Latin Vulgate contained errors. These errors were one of the reasons for the protestant reformation.

As an outcome of the reformation, men decided that the Bible was the "final authority." I believe that the Bible is authorative, but that God Himself is infallible, I believe that the Holy Spirit is infallible, having the final authority. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone)... to believe the Bible alone is our highest authority, excludes the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I consider myself a good Berean. James has caused quite a stir, down to questioning who he was talking to and the kind of works he was referring to. If we are to believe James, without questioning, this might make all of us heretics. If we are to believe James' words are infallible, would we have to close our minds to all questionings and buy in to an even greater controversy that justification is by works and some faith and/or James wasn't talking to us. In fact, would we need to delete Acts 17:11 from our Bible? But...but...but...

Which is more important, giving the Bible authority over God Himself and the Holy Spirit who lives in us, or the book? I think the overall point is that God is God. I have always believed that the word and the Holy Spirit are in agreement and without conflict. Without the leading of the Holy Spirit in handling the word, we would be in endless questionings. In many cases, some are in endless questionings because of interpretations of men anyway. Where would we be without the leading of the Holy Spirit? We would likely be where we are now.

What is the point of all this? Knowing God; being led by the Holy Spirit; having a personal relationship with the One who inspired those who wrote his words down. The words of Paul overwhelm the one verse written by James. This is a solid test (I think). When one tiny voice contradicts the overwhelming evidence of justification by faith, the Holy Spirit gives me the assurance that...justification is indeed by faith with works being a fruit...at least that's how I think of it.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I realize this is an item of faith for many of you, and deflective responses like this are to be expected.

Ignore me and go in peace, if I offend.

It sure would be nice if some posters would read up on translations, inerrancy, infallibility, and the like.

[Timotheist]

Nell, that post would get a "like" from me, if I could!

It ultimately boils down to "It's not what you know, but Who you know."

We, myself included, focus a lot on the "what".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

It's interesting. You can't 'confidently' say which version is infallible in its translation but can ‘confidently’ say KJV is not.

In its day the KJV was the best translation of the Bible into early 17th century "Shakespearean" English using the method of "formal equivalence." Unfortunately King James, who sponsored the translation work, wrongly "authorized" his own Version, placing the approval of the Monarchy upon it. His official mandate reigned supreme throughout the English-speaking world almost 3 centuries.

The KJV scholars used the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts they could gather. The 19th century brought tremendous archeological discoveries in the Mideast, both confirming and improving the manuscripts possessed by Textual Critics. None of the improvements exposed errors in the common faith, rather they merely highlighted the unavoidable transcriptions from 2 millennia of scribes.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Nell

I somewhat agree with you. But to be clear, I have one verse, James 2:24, that I question and test. As Timotheist said, the Latin Vulgate contained errors. These errors were one of the reasons for the protestant reformation.

As an outcome of the reformation, men decided that the Bible was the "final authority." I believe that the Bible is authorative, but that God Himself is infallible, I believe that the Holy Spirit is infallible, having the final authority. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone)... to believe the Bible alone is our highest authority, excludes the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I consider myself a good Berean. James has caused quite a stir, down to questioning who he was talking to and the kind of works he was referring to. If we are to believe James, without questioning, this might make all of us heretics. If we are to believe James' words are infallible, would we have to close our minds to all questionings and buy in to an even greater controversy that justification is by works and some faith and/or James wasn't talking to us. In fact, would we need to delete Acts 17:11 from our Bible? But...but...but...

Which is more important, giving the Bible authority over God Himself and the Holy Spirit who lives in us, or the book? I think the overall point is that God is God. I have always believed that the word and the Holy Spirit are in agreement and without conflict. Without the leading of the Holy Spirit in handling the word, we would be in endless questionings. In many cases, some are in endless questionings because of interpretations of men anyway. Where would we be without the leading of the Holy Spirit? We would likely be where we are now.

What is the point of all this? Knowing God; being led by the Holy Spirit; having a personal relationship with the One who inspired those who wrote his words down. The words of Paul overwhelm the one verse written by James. This is a solid test (I think). When one tiny voice contradicts the overwhelming evidence of justification by faith, the Holy Spirit gives me the assurance that...justification is indeed by faith with works being a fruit...at least that's how I think of it.

Nell

"A good Berean." Mark 10:18, ESV: And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."" Knowledge puffs up" I Corinthians 8:1. Why not confess that you don't know rather than indict the Book of James over an apparent conflict? You're following Witness Lee in this error. All he did was reveal his own limited understanding of the phenomenon of inspiration. Now you're doing the same. I'm glad we can talk about it. I never felt the liberty to talk to Lee about anything.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by zeek

"A good Berean." Mark 10:18, ESV: And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."" Knowledge puffs up" I Corinthians 8:1. Why not confess that you don't know rather than indict the Book of James over an apparent conflict? You're following Witness Lee in this error. All he did was reveal his own limited understanding of the phenomenon of inspiration. Now you're doing the same. I'm glad we can talk about it. I never felt the liberty to talk to Lee about anything.

We’ll, that hurt.

I’m not a good Berean. I’m just a plain ol’ Berean. Better?

I confess. I don’t know. I’m not an authority on James. But I do suggest you do a little fact checking…I said in plain English, 1 (one) verse in the book of James, not the whole book of James. I.e., “But to be clear, I have one verse, James 2:24, that I question and test.” Count’em. One. Uno. Un. One verse does not a book make.

Who did you follow in misrepresenting what I actually said? Lee? You even quoted the full text of what I said, then you misrepresented me. I suppose you’re an authority on the “phenomenon of inspiration”. I’m limited in my understanding of a lot of things.

Regardless, talk away. Feel better?

Nell

[Timotheist]

Paul wrote this in chapter 2:

Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

This sounds a bit James-ish don't you think?

I touched on this verse on another thread, but I think it can be brought up again here.

When I compare this verse to the parable about the sheep and the goats, I see a link: that there is a way to eternal life that does not necessarily involve belief.

So one can be saved by works <gasp>.

So did Paul contradict himself? I don't think so. I am beginning to understand that Paul summarized one path to salvation in Chapter 2, followed by a "better salvation" in chapters 3-8. Then in Chapter 11 he describes a third path to salvation:

1) Gentiles who did not hear the gospel still can inherit eternal life, simply through their deeds. (2:6)

2) Jews are saved simply by being Jews.. "all Israel will be saved" (11:25).

3) Paul describes the NT good news, that which involves the indwelling Holy (Sanctifying) Spirit. (Ch 3-8)

Groups 1 and 2 do not have the Spirit, but can still be saved. We in the third group have the opportunity to inherit much more than eternal life... We are candidates from which the Lamb will choose His Bride.

Given this understanding, James and Paul are not in conflict (or at least less so). Others have already pointed out that James was talking to scattered Israel, and not to "us". To Groups 1 and 2, deeds are of primary importance. James cites two OT examples in that chapter: Abraham and Rahab. They represent Groups 1 & 2, and will be saved. Other, less obedient, Israelites will be saved as well, following the path described by the "rich man" in the Luke account. And I feel confident that both Abraham and Rahab will be made Holy during the kingdom.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Nell

We’ll, that hurt.

I’m not a good Berean. I’m just a plain ol’ Berean. Better?

I confess. I don’t know. I’m not an authority on James. But I do suggest you do a little fact checking…I said in plain English, 1 (one) verse in the book of James, not the whole book of James. I.e., “But to be clear, I have one verse, James 2:24, that I question and test.” Count’em. One. Uno. Un. One verse does not a book make.

Who did you follow in misrepresenting what I actually said? Lee? You even quoted the full text of what I said, then you misrepresented me. I suppose you’re an authority on the “phenomenon of inspiration”. I’m limited in my understanding of a lot of things.

Regardless, talk away. Feel better?

Nell

How have I misrepresented you? Was it not you who started this thread and posed the question "Infallibility of the Bible?"

If one verse in James' epistle is wrong, can the book be said to be infallible? Logically no.

If a verse in the book of James is wrong and that book is in the Bible, can the Bible be infallible? Logically no.

I did not misrepresent you. I looked at your proposition in terms of what it would mean for the extant canon of the Christian Bible if it were true.

Perhaps you did not see the logical implications of your proposition when you presented it. No problem. Do you see now?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Sadly, I cannot. The YLT is likely the most faithful, but reading that one will try your patience! Yet, I do refer to it now and again when researching the other translations.

Another sad thing: The Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew OT was also not a fair translation, and the damage done to Judaism and the young church as a result was extensive. I guess you could say the LXX “created” the Sadducee sects and the Christian Gnostics.

Another very sad thing: the Latin Vulgate was a horrible translation, having been a translation from the LXX instead of the original texts, and thus twice removed from the original stuff. This translation takes credit for the rapid decline of the RCC, setting up the stage for the flawed start to the Protestant movement, and the flawed KJV.

God has allowed this pattern to repeat itself for centuries. Therefore, my position given these indisputable facts (trust me, but verify), is that holding on to this idea that we have infallible and inerrant words today, while noble in its intent, is not something I can have faith in.

Especially making it the primary item of faith, even listed before the statement on the Trinity in many denominations. (Including the LR, which led to the practice of pray-reading)

I have a cousin that's a conservative Southern Baptist. He wanted to learn to read the NT koine Greek. So he went to school to learn Koine Greek.

It was there where he learned about the manuscripts. That they didn't agree with each other. It made it hard for him to read the original Greek, in that it was consistent.

He started out a believer in the inerrant inspired word of god, but after learning Greek he could no longer hold to that view. He had to lie at his church, that held that view, which was all of them.

He told me in private, about all of it. Telling me he'd deny saying it.

[Nell]

Zeek,

Originally Posted by zeek

How have I misrepresented you?

Originally Posted by Nell

I somewhat agree with you. But to be clear, I have one verse, James 2:24, that I question and test.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
...
Nell

Originally Posted by zeek

... Why not confess that you don't know rather than indict the Book of James over an apparent conflict? ...

Done. Confessed.
What do you call it when someone tells the forum you "indicted the book" when you "questioned" and "tested" one verse? What do you call that?

Originally Posted by zeek

How have I misrepresented you?

Asked and answered--twice.

Was it not you who started this thread and posed the question "Infallibility of the Bible?"
If one verse in James' epistle is wrong, can the book be said to be infallible? Logically no.
If a verse in the book of James is wrong and that book is in the Bible, can the Bible be infallible? Logically no.
I did not misrepresent you. I looked at your proposition in terms of what it would mean for the extant canon of the Christian Bible if it were true.
Perhaps you did not see the logical implications of your proposition when you presented it. No problem. Do you see now?

I did start the thread (obviously) and chose to craft my comments based on one verse in the book of James. I get to do that.

I'll put my points in writing. You do the same.Your points are valid. Thank you, Zeek, for your comments on the ramifications of questioning even one verse in a book. I chose not to raise these points because I like to limit the scope of a post in favor of focusing attention more narrowly. I get to do that, too. It's a personal preference, a writing style that I think helps communication. Regardless, you raised the points for me...thanks again.

I had asked a couple of times about the veracity of James 2:24. Is it true? That was important to me, too, and a narrowing of the scope.

One motivation for starting this topic, is that God the Spirit IS INFALLIBLE, and the importance of knowing the infallible God.

We are told how the noble Bereans tested the scriptures, so we get to do that too.

Nell

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Nell

Zeek,





Done. Confessed.
What do you call it when someone tells the forum you "indicted the book" when you "questioned" and "tested" one verse? What do you call that?



Asked and answered--twice.

I did start the thread (obviously) and chose to craft my comments based on one verse in the book of James. I get to do that.

I'll put my points in writing. You do the same.Your points are valid. Thank you, Zeek, for your comments on the ramifications of questioning even one verse in a book. I chose not to raise these points because I like to limit the scope of a post in favor of focusing attention more narrowly. I get to do that, too. It's a personal preference, a writing style that I think helps communication. Regardless, you raised the points for me...thanks again.

I had asked a couple of times about the veracity of James 2:24. Is it true? That was important to me, too, and a narrowing of the scope.

One motivation for starting this topic, is that God the Spirit IS INFALLIBLE, and the importance of knowing the infallible God.

We are told how the noble Bereans tested the scriptures, so we get to do that too.

Nell

Actually, I think that according to Acts the Bereans were testing the teachings of Paul by comparing them with the scriptures, not testing the scriptures themselves.

The notion that it's OK to test what the Bible says is new to this forum as far as I am aware. As I recall, in the past if people did that they were reprimanded, their posts were deleted, and they were expelled from this website if they persisted.

Is being allowed to test the Bible a special privledge that you have as moderator? Or, are you leading the way so that others can question or test the Bible too? Where do you draw the line?

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have a cousin that's a conservative Southern Baptist. He wanted to learn to read the NT koine Greek. So he went to school to learn Koine Greek.

It was there where he learned about the manuscripts. That they didn't agree with each other. It made it hard for him to read the original Greek, in that it was consistent.

He started out a believer in the inerrant inspired word of god, but after learning Greek he could no longer hold to that view. He had to lie at his church, that held that view, which was all of them.

He told me in private, about all of it. Telling me he'd deny saying it.

And that's the big problem. A brother who founded an independent Bible institute mentioned it in his sermons many times. Many young men started out as believers and then ended up denying it because of the exact problem your cousin encountered.
Think about it, when this kind happened, who's making a profit out of it?

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

And that's the big problem. A brother who founded an independent Bible institute mentioned it in his sermons many times. Many young men started out as believers and then ended up denying it because of the exact problem your cousin encountered.
Think about it, when this kind happened, who's making a profit out of it?

how many other people, who were told they must believe in something perfect, have been damaged by the truth?

I would suspect very many. I was temporarily damaged, now I resent the fact I was put through this. Why put people through this trauma? It makes no sense. To me, it is the same thing as insisting the shroud of Turin is real, and then someone reads an article that proves it was a painting. Totally unnecessary.

To perhaps paraphrase Nell’s point: the Spirit is Holy, not the text.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

how many other people, who were told they must believe in something perfect, have been damaged by the truth?

I would suspect very many. I was temporarily damaged, now I resent the fact I was put through this. Why put people through this trauma? It makes no sense. To me, it is the same thing as insisting the shroud of Turin is real, and then someone reads an article that proves it was a painting. Totally unnecessary.

To perhaps paraphrase Nell’s point: the Spirit is Holy, not the text.

Many "why" questions, such as "why did God allow ... this," can be answered by this fact: God has an enemy. This enemy was first described as "more subtle than any beast of the field."

The woman in the garden answered for us simply "I was deceived." The woman was led to believe something that was not true, thus she was deceived. Whenever we discover we were led to believe something that was not true, our first reaction is usually either "why?" or "whodunnit?" God often gets the blame.

Around here, Witness Lee gets a good bit of the blame...he was deceived too... . Paul told us in Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

How can we survive this wrestling match? We're over-matched, out-gunned. Left to our own devices, we're in big trouble. Yet, we have God's word and we have the infallible Holy Spirit as Rhema.

There's this:

"According to the venerable Strong's Concordance (#G4487), Rhema means an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically) on a particular matter or topic. Thayer's Greek Definitions defines the word as something that has been uttered, in either the past or the present, by a living entity.

The first time Rhema is used in the New Testament is during Jesus' forty-day temptation by Satan. Jesus, after being tempted to feed himself through a miracle after fasting for a long period, responds with the following.

But He (Jesus) answered and said, "It is written (logos), 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word (Rhema) that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4, HBFV) "

https://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/...rms/rhema.html

From childhood I was taught more about the written word (logos) than the spoken word (rhema) of God. Matthew 4:4 is amazing. We live not by "bread alone" (the written word) but by EVERY WORD.

What does "every word" mean? IMHO it often (not always) means the written word plus the spoken word. Spoken by who? The Holy Spirit Himself.

Who is Jesus talking to in Matthew 4:4? The devil himself. This takes us back to the garden. The devil who deceived the woman is still at it. He's out to deceive the Son of God who came to take him down. The devil knows he's a goner, yet this doesn't deter him one bit.

Timotheist, your comment above "how many other people, who were told they must believe in something perfect, have been damaged by the truth? I would suspect very many. I was temporarily damaged, now I resent the fact I was put through this. "

How many other people? All of us. We were all deceived...to one extent or another we still are (deceived). The extent being, how long it takes for the Rhema to break through.

We were taught to rely on Logos (scripture, bread) more than (EVERY word) including Rhema. The workings of the devil were minimized...not by our teachers, flesh and blood, but by the devil himself...that was his plan...he's a liar.

I think this might be the thing that has virtually paralyzed the church today. The impact of the church on the world, not to mention the members, is compromised, again IMHO, because she is not helping the brothers and sisters in the Lord to know God via His Rhema along with Logos, AND, the church has minimized the workings of God's enemy, the subtle, lying deceiver.

I'm going to stop now before I have to moderate myself for going on and on.

Nell

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Sadly, I cannot. The YLT is likely the most faithful, but reading that one will try your patience! Yet, I do refer to it now and again when researching the other translations.

Another sad thing: The Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew OT was also not a fair translation, and the damage done to Judaism and the young church as a result was extensive. I guess you could say the LXX “created” the Sadducee sects and the Christian Gnostics.

Another very sad thing: the Latin Vulgate was a horrible translation, having been a translation from the LXX instead of the original texts, and thus twice removed from the original stuff. This translation takes credit for the rapid decline of the RCC, setting up the stage for the flawed start to the Protestant movement, and the flawed KJV.

God has allowed this pattern to repeat itself for centuries. Therefore, my position given these indisputable facts (trust me, but verify), is that holding on to this idea that we have infallible and inerrant words today, while noble in its intent, is not something I can have faith in.

Especially making it the primary item of faith, even listed before the statement on the Trinity in many denominations. (Including the LR, which led to the practice of pray-reading)

Luckily, the minister of the age was granted a vision that no one else saw. He was able to correctly interpret the Bible regardless of the hand-me-down translations over the years.

Originally Posted by Zezima

Luckily, the minister of the age was granted a vision that no one else saw. He was able to correctly interpret the Bible regardless of the hand-me-down translations over the years.

He also claimed that he was led by the spirit and it was the spirit that told him all of the corrections to the Bible he needed to make. The spirit also told him to write a whole lot of abominations throughout his writings about who God is, His purposes, His church. This spirit also led him to say and make up “truths” that contradict the Bible almost constantly in every book or chapter.

So I guess if I go by this thread here, or if there is even a single verse in the Bible, even half of verse (as “the oracle” used to like to poach half-verses to create a truth), then there isn’t such a thing that exists in this world as absolute truth, 100% accurate and pure. There is absolutely nothing a person can use to test the current winds of teaching and revelations against, as Bereans did to Paul when he was starting his ministry. It’s all up to YOU, or ME to see and feel how my spirit leads me.

Sounds like we should just all go back to the local church, and experience that “oneness” of spirit once again, since you know it’s all about it, and the people there sure know this spirit and will point everyone into a right direction. They sure were right when they say, “you are deceived if you leave the visions of recovery”. Maybe time to have a “come to Jesus moment”. I guess some of us can already admit that they are deceived, but some of us hardheaded goats still need to be dealt with.


Tags: Sarcasm, satire, 99.90% truth, all about I, “come back, we need you”!, how you feeling?, no offense, there is no true translation, I’m a candidate with no spirit, Be brave!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Nell

There's this:

"According to the venerable Strong's Concordance (#G4487), Rhema means an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically) on a particular matter or topic. Thayer's Greek Definitions defines the word as something that has been uttered, in either the past or the present, by a living entity.

The first time Rhema is used in the New Testament is during Jesus' forty-day temptation by Satan. Jesus, after being tempted to feed himself through a miracle after fasting for a long period, responds with the following.

But He (Jesus) answered and said, "It is written (logos), 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word (Rhema) that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4, HBFV) "

https://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/...rms/rhema.html

From childhood I was taught more about the written word (logos) than the spoken word (rhema) of God. Matthew 4:4 is amazing. We live not by "bread alone" (the written word) but by EVERY WORD.

What does "every word" mean? IMHO it often (not always) means the written word plus the spoken word. Spoken by who? The Holy Spirit Himself.

Who is Jesus talking to in Matthew 4:4? The devil himself. This takes us back to the garden. The devil who deceived the woman is still at it. He's out to deceive the Son of God who came to take him down. The devil knows he's a goner, yet this doesn't deter him one bit.
...

We were taught to rely on Logos (scripture, bread) more than (EVERY word) including Rhema. The workings of the devil were minimized...not by our teachers, flesh and blood, but by the devil himself...that was his plan...he's a liar.

...

Nell

I don't mean to have any negative effect, but I'm a little confused here. When Jesus says, "it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out through the mouth of God", isn't Jesus talking about actual bread?

Jesus had been fasting for 40 days and nights and the devil tempts Him to turn stones into bread -- a huge temptation for a starving man in His youth. The devil wasn't telling Jesus to turn stones into some written words was he?

Jesus' response simply says that man shall not live only on physical bread (actual flour, water, yeast, plus heat = bread) but on what comes from God's mouth. It would be strange for Jesus to tell the devil of all "people" not to live off the Scriptures alone because the devil sure isn't living off Scriptures alone in the first place! Jesus is just saying that what God has said sustains Him more than actual bread does. It's not a commentary that Scripture is insufficient.

Jesus says, "it is written that man shall not live by bread alone." He doesn't say, "what is written IS bread, and man shall not live by it".

In the next exchange, Jesus again says, "it is written", but this time He says, "It is written, you shall not test the Lord your God". This doesn't mean that what is written is a test to God.

I think logos versus rhema is one of these things that, upon looking at how they are used, would show the "written versus spoken" thing might not be quite right.

Here is a link to a blog post about it: https://reflectingtheologian.com/logos-and-rhema/

I'm not saying the guy's conclusions are right, or that we should automatically believe him. I'm just including that link because he already did the work of finding and arranging verses, using John and Ephesians as examples, and marking which ones use logos and which use rhema, and at least from what I see, it's difficult to conclude a significant difference between the two, as they both seem to be used in overlapping ways.

Trapped

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Just saying

He also claimed that he was led by the spirit and it was the spirit that told him all of the corrections to the Bible he needed to make. The spirit also told him to write a whole lot of abominations throughout his writings about who God is, His purposes, His church. This spirit also led him to say and make up “truths” that contradict the Bible almost constantly in every book or chapter.

So I guess if I go by this thread here, or if there is even a single verse in the Bible, even half of verse (as “the oracle” used to like to poach half-verses to create a truth), then there isn’t such a thing that exists in this world as absolute truth, 100% accurate and pure. There is absolutely nothing a person can use to test the current winds of teaching and revelations against, as Bereans did to Paul when he was starting his ministry. It’s all up to YOU, or ME to see and feel how my spirit leads me.

Sounds like we should just all go back to the local church, and experience that “oneness” of spirit once again, since you know it’s all about it, and the people there sure know this spirit and will point everyone into a right direction. They sure were right when they say, “you are deceived if you leave the visions of recovery”. Maybe time to have a “come to Jesus moment”. I guess some of us can already admit that they are deceived, but some of us hardheaded goats still need to be dealt with.

Tags: Sarcasm, satire, 99.90% truth, all about I, “come back, we need you”!, how you feeling?, no offense, there is no true translation, I’m a candidate with no spirit, Be brave!

Just saying,

Thanks for just saying. You're a trip! Please register and join in!

I tend to agree with what I think you are saying. I have only personally experienced maybe 3 times in my entire life where I can say "that was God that spoke that to me". All the other times are me fumbling around not knowing if it's my digestion rumbling, my own head creating stuff, or wishful thinking. I would be worried about way too many things if I didn't have the concrete words of Scripture to turn to and examine what I am unsure about against it.

Of course, as awareness and some have said, the Bible itself doesn't come without it's own issues to contend with - e.g., how many of the many transcript discrepancies are significant or change the story in an actually meaningful way, etc? But the Scripture is grounding, or else quite literally anyone can claim whatever they want about what God said to them, and we have no way to test the validity at all. Many, many cult leaders have claimed God told them all kinds of thoroughly evil and unrighteous things (for example, if you have Netflix, watch "Keep Sweet: Pray, and Obey" about the polygamist FLDS cult that endorsed child marriage and other horrific things......shudder......or, rather, don't watch it), and if the congregants had just known to hold those unrighteous "divine commands" up to the Bible, so many would have been saved from a lifetime of trauma and abuse.

Trapped

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Nell

From childhood I was taught more about the written word (logos) than the spoken word (rhema) of God. Matthew 4:4 is amazing. We live not by "bread alone" (the written word) but by EVERY WORD.

What does "every word" mean? IMHO it often (not always) means the written word plus the spoken word. Spoken by who? The Holy Spirit Himself.

We were taught to rely on Logos (scripture, bread) more than (EVERY word) including Rhema. The workings of the devil were minimized...not by our teachers, flesh and blood, but by the devil himself...that was his plan...he's a liar.

I think this might be the thing that has virtually paralyzed the church today. The impact of the church on the world, not to mention the members, is compromised, again IMHO, because she is not helping the brothers and sisters in the Lord to know God via His Rhema along with Logos, AND, the church has minimized the workings of God's enemy, the subtle, lying deceiver.

Nell

Forgive me for cherry-picking your post some . . . but I have to say this is one of the best things I've heard you state! Yes Yes YES! We need BOTH the written and spoken word! Again - well said.

[Zezima]

Paul wrote in 2nd Timothy that all scripture is God breathed. What’s interesting is he wrote this before the canonized version of the Bible that we know today was decided upon. That means some books that aren’t cannon, Paul believed were God Breathed.

Unless you meet in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, where they have a much different cannon than most Christian groups in the usa.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Zezima

That means some books that aren’t cannon, Paul believed were God Breathed.

Thanks for this one Z! I just know this will spoil this for all of us....but could you please explain further?
-

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

how many other people, who were told they must believe in something perfect, have been damaged by the truth?

Kindly define 'have been damaged by the truth,' and "truth,' please. Did you mean when the truth of "something" is revealed, it damages people?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Forgive me for cherry-picking your post some . . . but I have to say this is one of the best things I've heard you state! Yes Yes YES! We need BOTH the written and spoken word! Again - well said.

Thanks,
Nell

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Kindly define 'have been damaged by the truth,' and "truth,' please. Did you mean when the truth of "something" is revealed, it damages people?

An example of “truth”, from Wikipedia:

The Masoretic Text[a] (MT or ��; Hebrew: נֻסָּח הַמָּסוֹרָה, romanized: Nūssāḥ Hammāsōrā, lit. 'Text of the Tradition') is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the mas'sora. Referring to the Masoretic Text, mesorah specifically means the diacritic markings of the text of the Hebrew scriptures and the concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Tanakh which note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of words. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE). The oldest known complete copy, the Leningrad Codex, dates from the early 11th century CE.

The differences attested to in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that multiple versions of the Hebrew scriptures already existed by the end of the Second Temple period.[1] Which is closest to a theoretical Urtext is disputed, as is whether such a singular text ever existed.[2] The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century BCE, contain versions of the text that are radically different from today's Hebrew Bible.[3] The Septuagint (a Koine Greek translation made in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE) and the Pe****ta (a Syriac translation made in the 2nd century CE) occasionally present notable differences from the Masoretic Text, as does the Samaritan Pentateuch, the text of the Torah preserved by the Samaritans in Samaritan Hebrew.[4] Fragments of an ancient manuscript of the Book of Leviticus found near an ancient synagogue's Torah ark in Ein Gedi have identical wording to the Masoretic Text.[5]

The Masoretic Text is the basis for most Protestant translations of the Old Testament such as the King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and New International Version. After 1943, it has also been used for some Catholic Bibles, such as the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. Some Christian denominations instead prefer translations of the Septuagint as it matches quotations in the New Testament.[6]

This is not the whole truth, but it raises serious questions about the authority of both the Hebrew and Greek texts that we consider canonical today.

Could say a lot more, especially about the last sentence, but I will stop here. I do not think Nell had this in mind when she entitled this thread.

The damage done to me is when I realized that the foregoing was common knowledge, withheld from me by my spiritual leaders who drilled into me that I had in my hands a “holy” Bible, infallible and inerrant. I came close to walking away. Actually, I did walk away. When I came back for another try, it was on my terms, not theirs. I have been blessed beyond measure by studying the Bible from this viewpoint.

And it is not Dangerous to do so.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I don't mean to have any negative effect, but I'm a little confused here. When Jesus says, "it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out through the mouth of God", isn't Jesus talking about actual bread?

Definitely. Actual bread. But not "bread alone". That's the way I read it.
...

It's not a commentary that Scripture is insufficient.

Agreed.

Jesus says, "it is written that man shall not live by bread alone." He doesn't say, "what is written IS bread, and man shall not live by it".

In the next exchange, Jesus again says, "it is written", but this time He says, "It is written, you shall not test the Lord your God". This doesn't mean that what is written is a test to God.

I think logos versus rhema is one of these things that, upon looking at how they are used, would show the "written versus spoken" thing might not be quite right.

Here is a link to a blog post about it: https://reflectingtheologian.com/logos-and-rhema/

I'm not saying the guy's conclusions are right, or that we should automatically believe him. I'm just including that link because he already did the work of finding and arranging verses, using John and Ephesians as examples, and marking which ones use logos and which use rhema, and at least from what I see, it's difficult to conclude a significant difference between the two, as they both seem to be used in overlapping ways.

Trapped

I'm not so much out to engage in the validity of the way logos and rhema are interpreted. There are cases to be made from multiple directions. We do know that "Bread" is a "word picture" from the beginning of the Bible to the end. There is a lot that can be said, as you and your source have aptly done.

From my POV, what's important to me, is that logos and rhema exist in my life, personally, on a daily basis. That's what my life and living is about. Sometimes the written words "jump off the page" at me. Sometimes not. While writing on the forum, sometimes I struggle over the right word in a certain place. I try to be aware of the point I'm trying to make and that the Holy Spirit might like to have some input in how I represent Him. I obviously don't always get it right, but I try to be aware that this forum is not about me and what I think...apart from the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Awhile back, I was driving and the traffic was a mess. I was trying to hold my own, keeping my place in line while trying to avoid getting creamed. A thought came to me..."let them all go...". Huh? Where did that come from? At the time, and to this writing, I understood that this was rhema. Spoken to me. Personally. Along with this word "let them all go," I was happy to...let them all go. I lost my place in line. I didn't get creamed. I was able to relax and get to where I was going safely.

Wow! That was awesome! I will never forget this experience. As small, seemingly insignificant, thing in my life, God weighed in. I like this rhema stuff. It's sometime referred to as a "still, small, voice".

As I said previously, in this regard, the church has not helped us to "know the Lord" as that still, small, voice. Today's church focuses on logo. I hope to call attention to rhema. There will be mistakes. That's when we talk to Him and ask Him "What happened? I messed up. I need Your help." Talk to Him. He will talk back.

Nell

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thanks for this one Z! I just know this will spoil this for all of us....but could you please explain further?
-

The Bible as you most likely know it today has 66 books, wasn’t always so. There are a fair amount of written pieces (books, letters, gospels) that didn’t make it into canon. Canon is defined by a Church accepting that book. When Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, apart from parts of the Old Testament used by Jews, there was no official or formalized Bible like we have today. Letters were circulated during that time, churches may have had a few letters but they didn’t have a put together work.

Through different councils, it was decided what content to include in canon (what books the church would read aloud in liturgy). For example, the Catholic Church had an 80 book Bible for a while.

Anyways, my point is when Paul said that all scripture is God breathed, his idea of what was scripture or what he knew to be scripture looked very different than what we know it to be today.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Zezima

The Bible as you most likely know it today has 66 books, wasn’t always so. There are a fair amount of written pieces (books, letters, gospels) that didn’t make it into canon. Canon is defined by a Church accepting that book. When Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, apart from parts of the Old Testament used by Jews, there was no official or formalized Bible like we have today. Letters were circulated during that time, churches may have had a few letters but they didn’t have a put together work.

Through different councils, it was decided what content to include in canon (what books the church would read aloud in liturgy). For example, the Catholic Church had an 80 book Bible for a while.

Anyways, my point is when Paul said that all scripture is God breathed, his idea of what was scripture or what he knew to be scripture looked very different than what we know it to be today.

Paul didn't even have the gospels, that were written and published anonymously after Paul.

[Timotheist]

The Masoretic text trimmed about 1500 years of history from earlier versions.

Now THAT was a lot of scissoring!

[UntoHim]

Timotheist, awareness, Zezima and others.

As interesting as biblical textual criticism is, I'm afraid that such "criticism" is beyond the purview of this forum. After all, aren't there enough controversial subjects surrounding the teachings of Nee and Lee, and the history of the Local Church without delving into matters that most of have very little knowledge of or formal education in?

Some people are coming here to get answers and to get help. Some people have been hurt, abused and discouraged, and the last thing they need to hear a bunch of knuckleheads going back and forth about things of which they have little to no significant knowledge of. They also don't need to have their faith in the Bible as the Word of God unnecessarily challenged. There are already enough challenges for us current and former Local Church members to have to deal with without having to get into the weeds of textual criticism.

This is NOT a call or invitation by me for some open debate about this.

Here is Nell's 2nd post in the thread. Yu'all are welcome to continue if you want to address what she brings up here:

Originally Posted by Nell

I don't really mean to set out to prove the Bible is fallible. I can't say that I believe that. But, I will just look for a simple (scriptural) explanation of the apparent contradiction between the verse in James' book vs. the verses in Paul's books.

-

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Timotheist, awareness, Zezima and others.

Some people are coming here to get answers and to get help. Some people have been hurt, abused and discouraged, and the last thing they need to hear a bunch of knuckleheads going back and forth about things of which they have little to no significant knowledge of. They also don't need to have their faith in the Bible as the Word of God unnecessarily challenged.

Here is Nell's 2nd post in the thread. Yu'all are welcome to continue if you want to address what she brings up here:

-

I get you.

Unfortunately, As one of those hurt by the extreme teachings of the LR, this was a big part of the hurt. Just saying. For many, this subject is a harsh reality that ex members have to face when they leave the shelter of the cult. If they don’t find the answers here, then they may fall away.

I admit I get carried away when this topic comes up, but truly I am just trying to help.

I suggest you figure out a way to provide that help, as well. Perhaps a brief “read only” page that presents enough info that provides comfort to those who are questioning?

Now, back to Nell’s topic.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Paul wrote this in chapter 2:

Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

This sounds a bit James-ish don't you think?

So can one can be saved by works, apart from having the indwelling Spirit? Even in this NT age?

The whole chapter speaks to this possibility, so this verse is not yanked out of its context.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I suggest you figure out a way to provide that help, as well. Perhaps a brief “read only” page that presents enough info that provides comfort to those who are questioning?

Well I just said this is not up for debate....but since you brought it up. I figured out a way to provide help about 15 years ago when I started this forum. At this point, technically, I am only 1/564th of the voices on this forum. And this is more than fine with me. The more the merrier. But no matter how many, or no matter how few, come to participate, the mission to help people, both within and without the religion of the Local Church of Witness Lee, remains the same - That people would come to know, see and experience the genuine Gospel and the genuine Jesus, and to come to know, to see and experience the glorious fact that to be a Christian means to follow the Person and work of our Lord Jesus, and leave behind all the false teachings, harmful practices and sordid history that spring forth from the person and work of 李常受; Lǐ Chángshòu; Witness Lee.

Local Churchers have enough "Read Only" in their lives. What they need is some human interaction. And this is what a public forum is all about.
-

Originally Posted by Trapped

Just saying,

Thanks for just saying. You're a trip! Please register and join in!

Trapped

Hey Trapped,

I appreciate the invite, but I think I’ll stick to maybe couple times a month visits just to check and see the latest and the greatest from the local church. Plus, for people like me the shelf life on the forum like this is probably like 5 business days before I get 🤐🤐, hopefully I didn’t offend anyone there 😉. I just come and get updated once in a while, and it’s enough for couple weeks. I always wish there was more exposing of this movement going on here, rather that trying to introduce some other private interpretations on random topics, which I can find pretty much anywhere else. Maybe when that day comes, I’ll be more willing to jump in!

I’m not very positive to say the least to anything associated with this movement, so maybe getting a twitter account or telegram is a way to go, unless the locals have infiltrated those platforms. 🧐🫣 #DCP #Blended #Protectatallcosts.

Thanks

P.S.
For those who are always looking for something to get offended about, just consider this post as satire, 😊👍!

[Ohio]

The underlying foundation of this forum from day one has always been to stand on the Bible as God’s Word along with the greater Body of Christ. The former Alt-Views Sub-Forum became a never ending rabbit hole of age old attacks on this Christian foundation.

UntoHim, sorry to hear about the trials you have endured, yet the proving of your faith is more precious than gold.

[Zezima]

The original post that started this thread asked a question about why a book was included in canon.

Posters then discuss what canon means and when canon was decided

Moderators:
-“As interesting as biblical textual criticism is, I'm afraid that such "criticism" is beyond the purview of this forum”
-“They also don't need to have their faith in the Bible as the Word of God unnecessarily challenged”

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Zezima

The original post that started this thread asked a question about why a book was included in canon.

Posters then discuss what canon means and when canon was decided

Moderators:
-“As interesting as biblical textual criticism is, I'm afraid that such "criticism" is beyond the purview of this forum”
-“They also don't need to have their faith in the Bible as the Word of God unnecessarily challenged”

Can we add these rules to the sidebar so we can be clear.
- Discussing the history of the Bible = Criticism
- Discussing the authorship of the Bible is discouraged because it may lead to people questioning their beliefs. We can’t allow critical thought.

Question Everything!
Your future does depend on your seeking.
Doing as you say Zezima suggests that if you have a question don't ask if it breaks orthodoxy. I believe even Jesus would frown on this...

"Ask and it shall be given"
"Seek and Ye shall Find"
"Knock and the door will be opened."

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Just Saying

Hey Trapped,

I appreciate the invite, but I think I’ll stick to maybe couple times a month visits just to check and see the latest and the greatest from the local church. Plus, for people like me the shelf life on the forum like this is probably like 5 business days before I get 🤐🤐, hopefully I didn’t offend anyone there 😉. I just come and get updated once in a while, and it’s enough for couple weeks. I always wish there was more exposing of this movement going on here, rather that trying to introduce some other private interpretations on random topics, which I can find pretty much anywhere else. Maybe when that day comes, I’ll be more willing to jump in!

I’m not very positive to say the least to anything associated with this movement, so maybe getting a twitter account or telegram is a way to go, unless the locals have infiltrated those platforms. 🧐🫣 #DCP #Blended #Protectatallcosts.

Thanks

P.S.
For those who are always looking for something to get offended about, just consider this post as satire, 😊👍!

Just saying,

I get it. Glad you can stop by as much as you can, at least.

To be honest, unless there is more revealed, I'm not sure how much more exposing can occur here. The forum has been around for some time and has had many participants and many topics. A lot has been exposed. I think that's one reason why, over time, people eventually drop off in posting, because there is no "new" exposing. But there are still scriptural topics that people are trying to figure out if they were misled by the LC about, hence, the topics we see a lot of today. My main benefit in the scriptural topics is that, as I usually disagree with about 1/3 of what is posted, it forces me to go to the Bible to see what it really says. That exercise has been invaluable.

P.S. A Twitter campaign sounds great......are you volunteering?

[awareness]

Is it necessary to believe that the Bible is infallible to be saved?

That's never stated by Jesus.

Infallible is only mentioned once in the whole KJV Bible:

Act_1:3* To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

No mention of the Bible.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Just saying, P.S. A Twitter campaign sounds great......are you volunteering?

I will just state this: there will be a day, I don’t know when, but I’ll let my voice be heard whether on Twitter, YouTube or elsewhere. After reading the comments made by UntoHim, I’ll just state that I can relate to some things. This is not 70s or 80s in the recovery, this is 2022, but this leopard just can’t change their stripes even if it wants to. Hopefully you will understand.

Thank you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Question Everything!
Your future does depend on your seeking.
Doing as you say Zezima suggests that if you have a question don't ask if it breaks orthodoxy. I believe even Jesus would frown on this...

"Ask and it shall be given"
"Seek and Ye shall Find"
"Knock and the door will be opened."

Does Jesus (or any of the apostles) give us any examples of questioning scripture?

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Does Jesus (or any of the apostles) give us any examples of questioning scripture?

No. Not at all.

But given our history of succumbing to MOTA interpretations/steering/brainwashing. Our newfound wisdom shouldn't be placed on the shelf so readily. As with the No place like hell questions. Imho, hell was maliciously woven into the gospel changing it into fear news instead of the good news.

The prolific theologians that have given us the creeds and doctrines which defined orthodoxy also struggled with character deficiencies and control issues much like the MOTAS we've been exposed too in our age.

Wisdom screams tread carefully otherwise as we know deception is deceptive......

Peace brother Ohio!

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Does Jesus (or any of the apostles) give us any examples of questioning scripture?

Jer 7 (YLT)

22 For I did not speak with your fathers, Nor did I command them in the day of My bringing them out of the land of Egypt, Concerning the matters of burnt-offering and sacrifice,

23 But this thing I commanded them, saying: Hearken to My voice, And I have been to you for God, And ye -- ye are to Me for a people, And have walked in all the way that I command you, So that it is well for you.

Posted without comment.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Nell

What is the point of all this? Knowing God; being led by the Holy Spirit; having a personal relationship with the One who inspired those who wrote his words down. The words of Paul overwhelm the one verse written by James. This is a solid test (I think). When one tiny voice contradicts the overwhelming evidence of justification by faith, the Holy Spirit gives me the assurance that...justification is indeed by faith with works being a fruit...at least that's how I think of it.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do
(John 14:12)

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
(1 Corinthians 11:1)

I believe that James' declaration that "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" should be taken in light of the Lord Jesus' words to his disciples in John 14. According the context surrounding James' declaration (vrs 18-26) and coupled with Jesus' declaration in John 14, it is apparent that James was not talking about works of the law, but works as they flow from faithfulness to God and his word. I think that this is what James was getting at when he proclaimed: "You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works".

I think Nell sums it up quite well in saying:

Justification is indeed by faith with works being a fruit

I think this tread was mistitled. In any event, I must stress that arguments surrounding the infallibility of the Scriptures are beyond the purview of this forum, and I'm sorry to say that I am inflexible about this.
-

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I must stress that arguments surrounding the infallibility of the Scriptures are beyond the purview of this forum, and I'm sorry to say that I am inflexible about this.

I recall when I came to the forum years ago, I asked "How do you know God cares?" And IIRC I put the question in the "alt-views" section. I could definitely imagine that I could just as easily have asked, "How do you know the Bible is trustworthy?" These are the kinds of things that particularly church kids can be extremely bothered by when they step out of the local church environment of lies. You end up wondering what, if anything, that you were told, is even remotely true.

Are we saying that those kinds of needs would be turned away? Or does the inquisitive nature of it make it acceptable just because it's not outright arguing against?

Thanks,

Trapped

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do
(John 14:12)

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
(1 Corinthians 11:1)

I believe that James' declaration that "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" should be taken in light of the Lord Jesus' words to his disciples in John 14. According the context surrounding James' declaration (vrs 18-26) and coupled with Jesus' declaration in John 14, it is apparent that James was not talking about works of the law, but works as they flow from faithfulness to God and his word. I think that this is what James was getting at when he proclaimed: "You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works".

I think Nell sums it up quite well in saying:

I think this tread was mistitled. In any event, I must stress that arguments surrounding the infallibility of the Scriptures are beyond the purview of this forum, and I'm sorry to say that I am inflexible about this.
-

I agree.

Scriptures are infallible.

Interpretations are not.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I recall when I came to the forum years ago, I asked "How do you know God cares?" And IIRC I put the question in the "alt-views" section. I could definitely imagine that I could just as easily have asked, "How do you know the Bible is trustworthy?" These are the kinds of things that particularly church kids can be extremely bothered by when they step out of the local church environment of lies. You end up wondering what, if anything, that you were told, is even remotely true.

Are we saying that those kinds of needs would be turned away? Or does the inquisitive nature of it make it acceptable just because it's not outright arguing against?

Thanks,

Trapped

While I understand the heart behind the forum mission, I worry about what it means when this kind of person comes across it.

To use a tough parallel type example to illustrate, if someone was sexually assaulted by someone they trusted (which isn't too far off from what many have experienced in the local church....a violation of their person by the people they trusted), the response would not be to tell that person the positives of a healthy physical marriage relationship. That would be painful, triggering, and overwhelming, and provide zero support for that victim.

The victim needs to be able to ask questions like "are relationships even worth it" or "can any people be trusted" or even be allowed to say things like "I'm never getting married" without some kind of reaction or adverse response. Because that's where the person is in relation to what happened to them, and that's what they are actually struggling with. The response of "questions about the sanctity of physical marriage relationships are not allowed" would be another wound to an already wounded person. They would already be struggling with mountains of complex feelings about what happened to them, and then such a response would make them feel like what they are feeling.....which is the most normal feeling in the world....is itself wrong.

Just throwing it out there for a discussion that, I apologize, I am aware is not one that has been put up for discussion, but as far as I'm concerned it drills to the core of this entire thing and is something that at least should be allowed to be discussed, even if the discussion occurs while the participants know it won't affect anything.

Thanks.

Trapped

[UntoHim]

Trapped, thanks for your thoughtful inquiry.

I think my post speaks for itself, but I guess I'll have to elaborate.

I'll start with quoting what Nell wrote in the "Forum Mission Statement" module: "Our desire is to share with others who were hurt and broken by their experiences, and hopefully help others find their way back to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the true Gospel".

It is my belief (and Nell's belief as well) that the Bible, that is the accepted canon of Scriptures, is the Word of God, and that it is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:17). We also believe that the Bible contains all of the essential items of "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) . And as such a canon, as such a container, it stands alone as the authoritative, inerrant instrument by which we know the One true God - that is the Trinity - The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These Scriptures also contain the one true Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and accurately and truly present his Person and Work, that is his life, death and resurrection, and that if one "confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believes in their heart that God raised him from the dead, they will be saved." (Romans 10:9)

To be sure, there are some secondary, non-essential descriptive and prescriptive teachings, instructions, recommendations and narratives throughout the Bible, and I suppose that we can debate the necessity of coming to complete agreement on these, but the basic essentials listed above are not up for questioning or debate on this forum. There is a big difference between one who is experiencing a crisis of faith, and is coming to our forum in good faith, looking for answers to good-faith questions and concerns, and someone coming to do nothing but tare down and denigrate. We've seen both on this forum, and I think we can all recognize the difference.
-

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think this thread was mistitled. In any event, I must stress that arguments surrounding the infallibility of the Scriptures are beyond the purview of this forum, and I'm sorry to say that I am inflexible about this.
-

I agree. Bad title. Very sorry. In my personal life the Word and the Holy Spirit are inseparable in knowing the Lord with the living and available One being a constant confirmation of His presence in my life and living.

As a former member of the LC, I was taught to know WLee's ministry and obey those who had inherited its execution after Lee's death. It became difficult to "survive" if you didn't know, follow and obey "the brothers". I found it impossible to stay out of trouble. Hence, instead, I had to learn there was a system and to remain I had to learn how to work that system. Eventually, I couldn't do it anymore.

Now, when I read the word, I've said this before, I talk to the Lord about what I'm reading and ask Him questions, or tell Him "I don't get it." "What is this talking about?" Amazingly, when I first "joined the LC" the sharing was actually from the "pure" word. It was so rich and real, we often sat for 2 hours on, on the edge of our seats, on Sunday morning...listening...two brothers shared. When one finished, the second one began where #1 left off. It was amazing. It was truth.

As a result when WLee went off the rails, the anointing of the Holy Spirit was gone. I compared this speaking I heard in the beginning to what I was hearing later on. Not even close. When you hear the truth, it's unmistakable. It never goes away. When you here a lie, that should be unmistakable too. How does that happen? The Holy Spirit.

I've never had a question as to whether God cares or not. I knew Him as a child and He seemed to always be with me. Always a presence. For a long time I didn't know this "presence" was Him, until he showed Himself to me. I realize that not all have my history. I think this is a good question to ask Him. "God how am I supposed to know that you care (about me)?" Ask questions. Tell Him what you think. If you're not sure about something you believe you've heard, talk with a trusted confidant. We need Him and we need each other.


Nell

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Trapped, thanks for your thoughtful inquiry.

I think my post speaks for itself, but I guess I'll have to elaborate.

I'll start with quoting what Nell wrote in the "Forum Mission Statement" module: "Our desire is to share with others who were hurt and broken by their experiences, and hopefully help others find their way back to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the true Gospel".

It is my belief (and Nell's belief as well) that the Bible, that is the accepted canon of Scriptures, is the Word of God, and that it is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:17). We also believe that the Bible contains all of the essential items of "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) . And as such a canon, as such a container, it stands alone as the authoritative, inerrant instrument by which we know the One true God - that is the Trinity - The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These Scriptures also contain the one true Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and accurately and truly present his Person and Work, that is his life, death and resurrection, and that if one "confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believes in their heart that God raised him from the dead, they will be saved." (Romans 10:9)

To be sure, there are some secondary, non-essential descriptive and prescriptive teachings, instructions, recommendations and narratives throughout the Bible, and I suppose that we can debate the necessity of coming to complete agreement on these, but the basic essentials listed above are not up for questioning or debate on this forum. There is a big difference between one who is experiencing a crisis of faith, and is coming to our forum in good faith, looking for answers to good-faith questions and concerns, and someone coming to do nothing but tare down and denigrate. We've seen both on this forum, and I think we can all recognize the difference.
-

That's the clarification I asked for on post #41.

[HERn]

Quote from Nell. “Now, when I read the word, I've said this before, I talk to the Lord about what I'm reading and ask Him questions, or tell Him "I don't get it." "What is this talking about?"”

Thanks for reminding us of a healthy way to read and interact with God’s infallible Word!

[Ohio]

I have been thru some horrible trials, despairing of life itself, questioning everything and everyone, betrayed by those closest to me, but what literally preserved me thru it all, both before and after my salvation, was the conviction that Jesus is God, and the Bible was His Word.

It is also my belief that the absence of these convictions, ever declining in the world today, explain so much of what we read in the news. They have tremendous keeping power. I have never once questioned them.

[manna-man]

I cherish God and his word for without it where would I be?
I do however question and test those who deliver it. If I learned one thing from the LR, it was how quickly something that was so good could turn so bad.
What amazed me the most was how a greater number of saints, had no issue accepting the ministry spin on leaders such as Bill Mallon and John Ingalls which both poured out their lives for the Lord and even us.
I have no doubt this type of activity is nothing new. It is a behavior we've seen woven throughout the scriptures a picture of a stiff necked people whom God chose to love and pour his life out for.

I believe we are responsible to discern/recognize behavior test all things and recieve accordingly...

Peace

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by manna-man

I cherish God and his word for without it where would I be?
I do however question and test those who deliver it. If I learned one thing from the LR, it was how quickly something that was so good could turn so bad.
What amazed me the most was how a greater number of saints, had no issue accepting the ministry spin on leaders such as Bill Mallon and John Ingalls which both poured out their lives for the Lord and even us.
I have no doubt this type of activity is nothing new. It is a behavior we've seen woven throughout the scriptures a picture of a stiff necked people whom God chose to love and pour his life out for.

I believe we are responsible to discern/recognize behavior test all things and recieve accordingly...

Peace

Definitely agree with questioning and testing all “delivery systems.”

In the face of sexual scandals by the Lee Family, both Bill and John advocated for a return to the Word of God, and btw the same truth seeking and searching that brought blessing to the LC in the beginning. But things had really changed. The scriptures were now the danger WL feared most. WL had gone so far astray that he was regularly questioning the Bible, primarily Psalms, Proverbs, James, etc.

Both Bill and John et al needed to be discredited. “Rebellious, conspiratorial lepers” would do. Almost 20 years afterwards, a friend told me that Bill’s “return to the pure word was a tactic of the enemy.” Imagine that. The LC faithful now used “the ministry” to discredit the Word of God. That train had gone off the tracks.

[zeek]

James writes in order to encourage his readers to live consistently with what they have learned in Christ. He condemns various sins, including pride, hypocrisy, favoritism, and slander. Therefore, I think that the Epistle of James may be a particularly relevant to us who once followed Witness Lee, because it constitutes a defense of Christian virtues which Witness Lee assaulted and where he erred.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Zezima

No, the whole premise for his argument is the opening lines of the letter. James writes to the 12 tribes and . . .

Also, James didn’t receive the vision that Peter received in Acts 10 which was one of the main components to the acts 15 decision.

Just because James addresses just the Jews and not the gentiles is a weak argument and in my opinion doesn’t discredit the rest of the book.

James didn’t fit into the God’s Economy framework WL interpreted the Bible from, which is in hindsight a red flag. If your predisposed box you try to fit the Bible into doesn’t fit the Bible, maybe the box is wrong.

I think Z summarized the bulk of the issues well.

To me, the real issue is that outside of the Gospels and Acts, the writings were really not written to everyone. Not saying they were not to be applicable or meaningful to everyone, but that they were writing to a specific audience, not to everyone. And don't forget, outside of occasional references to the Gentiles (as dogs) and the Samaritans, the Gospels themselves do not really address anyone outside of Israel. Should we distrust them for it? Of course not.

As for the James v Paul controversy, it is really evidence of the problem of using the term "infallibility" to discuss it. What do we mean by infallible? That the original writings (which we no longer have) are perfect, but not clearly anything else? That our understanding of what the words we read (in our language, possibly with the help of biblical language scholars) mean is right and therefore part of what is infallible? (Has anyone bothered to see what Paul was telling those various letter recipients to do — works — as a result of the spiritual things that he told them? I think he might have written James' letter for him if he had half the inclination.)

If infallibility only applies to the words as originally written in their native language (at that time), then it is not very meaningful. We have so little of those writings. Even if you apply all the presumptions about how the scribes copied and recopied, when you get to the Septuagint, which was in Greek rather than Hebrew and/or Aramaic, there are passages that really do not say the same thing. Or hinted that it was the "breath" in the words that mattered, not the specific words.

In any case, it is an argument of faith, not of structure, grammar, linguistics, and so on.

Seems that if you believe in the God of Abrahan, Isaac, Jacob, Peter, James, John, etc., then the bible is what it says it is. It is "scripture," comes from the breath of God, and is profitable for teaching . . . . It is really not important that we determine that everything it says is literally, historically, scientifically, etc. true as we know things to be. It is only important that we approach it as the revelation of God in the manner in which he revealed himself. And that was in stages over centuries.

The whole James v Paul controversy is what being dogmatic about infallibility produces. It layers one set of presumptions about the scripture over it and declares anything that even hints at being different heretical. Paul seems to preach faith while James seems to contradict Paul and preach works. That is only true in an understanding of the scripture in which there is no place for works. Further, there is nothing in the letter from James denying that the salvation we receive is not based on the work of Jesus and not ourselves. But rather, having claimed to receive that salvation, the works we do, or fail to do, say a lot about our claim to having actually had faith to receive that salvation.

Most of the time that I see any actual use of "infallibility," it is not in reference to some doctrine about what the Bible is, but in reference to it as supporting doctrine X over doctrine Y. The "infallible" Word of God supports doctrine X, not doctrine Y. And in making that claim, the whole "infallibility of the Bible" ceases to be about the origins of the Bible and becomes about who has the correct understanding of the Bible.

While I do have a problem with any who want to claim real faith in Christ while dismissing part or all of the Bible as irrelevant, the understanding of or belief about the Bible is not a prerequisite for faith.

The only real infallibility of the scripture is that it correctly reveals God through people who were inspired to write (or tell) what was revealed to them at their time and place.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

The Bible has to be inerrant and infallible. Why? Because God could not allow an errant and fallible book about Him to exist. How it’s inerrant and infallible may be quite complex but trust me on this one, it’s inerrant and infallible.

And it is in the "quite complex" part that so many people have issues with the whole idea.

In addition, the inerrant and infallible Bible that so many talk about is in reference to areas outside of those "quite complex" areas. And sometimes without any consideration that there are such issues.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Another sad thing: The Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew OT was also not a fair translation, and the damage done to Judaism and the young church as a result was extensive. I guess you could say the LXX “created” the Sadducee sects and the Christian Gnostics.

And yet it would appear that Jesus (or at least the Gospel writers quoting him) used the LXX. Go figure. Makes some aspects of the "errors in translation" seem less important. Maybe getting the precise words is not as important as the whole of what is being said.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

. . . But to be clear, I have one verse, James 2:24, that I question and test.

Somehow this verse does not seem so difficult. It is about context. Because of Abraham's faith, he acted. He did not declare that he had faith and then not act. Failure to act would have put Abraham's righteousness in question. We may not like the words used, but works and faith were required, and v 25 does not say works rather than faith but works with faith. Further, it does not say in the pre-Christ era or the example that faith is not required, or that works are required for the initial spark of salvation in us.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by OBW

And yet it would appear that Jesus (or at least the Gospel writers quoting him) used the LXX. Go figure. Makes some aspects of the "errors in translation" seem less important. Maybe getting the precise words is not as important as the whole of what is being said.

I guess it was OK for you that the LXX spawned the Holy Mother of God heresy?

But I agree with you that God is not concerned about the text, because He allowed this to happen. Jesus was in a position to fix the problem.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I guess it was OK for you that the LXX spawned the Holy Mother of God heresy?

Like most all heresies, the "Holy Mother of God heresy" was not spawned from the actual translation from the original into the lingua franca of the day, the heresy was spawned from the ignorant and idolatrous hearts and minds of mere mortals. And so it is to this very day.

Jesus was in a position to fix the problem.

Well he didn't, and that should be a big indication that there was no problem to begin with.
-

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Like most all heresies, the "Holy Mother of God heresy" was not spawned from the actual translation from the original into the lingua franca of the day, the heresy was spawned from the ignorant and idolatrous hearts and minds of mere mortals.

Well he didn't, and that should be a big indication that there was no problem to begin with.
-

Oh I wish you were correct on this point. The LXX contained a lot of Greek “Wisdom literature”, which promoted the Goddess Sophia, as “the Mother of us all”.

I’ve been thinking that Jesus likely did teach his disciples about the scriptures, but the words were not recorded.

[UntoHim]

So you think it's possible that Jesus promoted the goddess Sophia? That's pretty far out there, Timmie, even for you!

Maybe you could point us to where the Scripture writing apostles promoted the goddess Sophia? But wait...YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T.

So what's your point? That the Catholic Church and maybe Eastern Orthodox continue to use non-canonical writings and therefore Protestants should not be using what has been accepted canon for centuries?
-

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Oh I wish you were correct on this point. The LXX contained a lot of Greek “Wisdom literature”, which promoted the Goddess Sophia, as “the Mother of us all”.

Galations tells us the New Jerusalem is the mother of the believers.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So you think it's possible that Jesus promoted the goddess Sophia? That's pretty far out there, Timmie, even for you!

Maybe you could point us to where the Scripture writing apostles promoted the goddess Sophia? But wait...YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T.

So what's your point? That the Catholic Church and maybe Eastern Orthodox continue to use non-canonical writings and therefore Protestants should not be using what has been accepted canon for centuries?
-

I have no clue where you got this thought…. I just said that I think Jesus taught them how to read the scriptures. I guess I had to clarify that statement for you.

It is the second and third generations who were led astray, despite having Paul’s discernment

[UntoHim]

Ok, let me try again:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So what's your point? That the Catholic Church and maybe Eastern Orthodox continue to use non-canonical writings and therefore Protestants should not be using what has been accepted canon for centuries?

-

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, let me try again:

-

I have been wanting to ask you what you mean by “accepted canon”

The Protestant canon, and that one only?

And was the LXX an accepted canon, just because it was the only Greek edition?

My position is that both Protestant and Catholic canons are suspect. The Protestant version is better, but it did not go far enough.

Btw, i was only responding to Mike and now to you.

I am preparing a longer statement that I will post soon. It will likely be my last.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I have been wanting to ask you what you mean by “accepted canon”

Oh, I don't know, I guess the one that had been accepted by the earliest of the church fathers and Christian community, going all the way back to the end of the 1st Century. If you study early Church history you would know that.
-

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Oh, I don't know, I guess the one that had been accepted by the earliest of the church fathers and Christian community, going all the way back to the end of the 1st Century. If you study early Church history you would know that.
-

I have studied the history and there was no canon defined at the end of the first century. They used the LXX and relied on more NT writings than what is considered canon today.

If I can summarize your demands about what can or cannot be discussed on your forum:

1) the canon is the only authoritative source.

2) it is inerrant and infallible

3) The doctrine of the Trinity is the only viewpoint that can be discussed

I guess I need to thank you for this clear direction. As I have issues with all three statements, I have come to the conclusion that this forum is not for me.

You should probably delete my blog “Timotheist Exposed”, as it is all about exposing flaws in the four gospels. We can’t have visitors reading that material, can we. Continue to believe that Jesus was crucified on Friday, if that floats your boat.

[UntoHim]

Timotheist and others.

This is a public forum. There are millions of public forums on the Internet covering just about every subject under the sun. There are probably over a million forums covering Christian/religious subjects. Even if you narrowed down your interest to forums that only cover matters related to Christianity, you would still have to choose between thousands upon thousands.

A forum must have a dominating subject. It must have a controlling theme. The dominating subject and controlling theme of LocalChurchDiscussions.Com, at least ostensibly, is "Making sense of the 'Lord's Recovery' Movement". At one point a thread was started entitled "Recovering From The Recovery", and I think this might be a better sub-header. I think I'll have our on-staff tech guy change that ASAP! In any event, I would like to point us to our Mission Statement which says "This forum is administered and moderated by former members of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Many of the forum participants also are former members of the Local Church of Witness Lee. As such, we believe we have experiences beneficial to others who have left the Local Church and have been damaged while faithful to that group. Our desire is to share with others who were hurt and broken by their experiences, and hopefully help others find their way back to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the true Gospel. To that end, we will be working hard to ensure that this forum comes in alignment with that purpose." It should come as no surprise that by "true Gospel" we mean the common, orthodox understanding of the Person and Work of our Lord Jesus Christ (aka his life, death, resurrection and bodily ascension to the right hand of the Father), and the common, orthodox understanding of the Trinity - to wit - God is One Being in three Divine Persons, all equal in essence, love, power and purpose.

Brothers and sister, friends and detractors, defenders and doubters, lurkers and trollers: The answer to false teachings and false religion is not for one to move to another set of false teachings and another false religion. In most cases, this is taking a person "from the frying pan to the fire". The answer to false teachings and false religion is a return to the true, genuine, unadulterated, biblical Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints", and a true devotion to "the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer". And yes, we will continue to be working hard to ensure that this forum comes in alignment with that purpose.
-

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Timotheist and others.

This is a public forum. There are millions of public forums on the Internet covering just about every subject under the sun. There are probably over a million forums covering Christian/religious subjects. Even if you narrowed down your interest to forums that only cover matters related to Christianity, you would still have to choose between thousands upon thousands.

A forum must have a dominating subject. It must have a controlling theme. The dominating subject and controlling theme of LocalChurchDiscussions.Com, at least ostensibly, is "Making sense of the 'Lord's Recovery' Movement". At one point a thread was started entitled "Recovering From The Recovery", and I think this might be a better sub-header. I think I'll have our on-staff tech guy change that ASAP! In any event, I would like to point us to our Mission Statement which says "This forum is administered and moderated by former members of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Many of the forum participants also are former members of the Local Church of Witness Lee. As such, we believe we have experiences beneficial to others who have left the Local Church and have been damaged while faithful to that group. Our desire is to share with others who were hurt and broken by their experiences, and hopefully help others find their way back to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the true Gospel. To that end, we will be working hard to ensure that this forum comes in alignment with that purpose." It should come as no surprise that by "true Gospel" we mean the common, orthodox understanding of the Person and Work of our Lord Jesus Christ (aka his life, death, resurrection and bodily ascension to the right hand of the Father), and the common, orthodox understanding of the Trinity - to wit - God is One Being in three Divine Persons, all equal in essence, love, power and purpose.

Brothers and sister, friends and detractors, defenders and doubters, lurkers and trollers: The answer to false teachings and false religion is not for one to move to another set of false teachings and another false religion. In most cases, this is taking a person "from the frying pan to the fire". The answer to false teachings and false religion is a return to the true, genuine, unadulterated, biblical Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints", and a true devotion to "the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer". And yes, we will continue to be working hard to ensure that this forum comes in alignment with that purpose.
-

I joined Local Church Discussions for the discussions/fellowship.
As I have stated before, the local church at one point was very good untill well....we know what happened.

Recently I commented on A link of which in it's content pushed strongly the word Hell. A word everyone knows was added to the Bible. (Which adds a plethora of many concepts into the gospel equation.)

The first couple of responses were favorable at least to me because I thought at the time there was an openness to topics. I even stated early in the new discussion that the topic did make sense in this forum because the topic to my knowledge was rarely or never dealt with deeply, just superficially imho.
Well, we saw where this lead.
I don't think I made much of an impact if any here but I do recognize quite a few of those who have been faithful to the core who have invested a gynormic amount of time here and have helped make this group relevant.

I understand Untohims frustration for the group and will honor his demands by leaving.
Don't mean to be a drama king but hey, you guys have a way of growing on one...
I've enjoyed coming here getting to know some of the new members and thoroughly enjoyed reading the posts from the timeless members whether I agreed with them or not. (I mostly did agree...)

When one can't freely open up and show concern about something so important
( at least in my minds eye..) or when someones concern is deemed irrelevant and cancellable. Imo this reaks of blinder vision.
Hey I get it...millions of sites out there. It's too easy to spew negativity so it's time to leave. Remember...it's all about character.
I added my email to my signature. At some point in the future there will be 1,000,001 sites out there....stay tuned and The Lord Jesus be with you All!

Peace.....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by manna-man

When one can't freely open up and show concern about something so important (at least in my minds eye..) or when someones concern is deemed irrelevant and cancellable. Imo this reaks of blinder vision.
Hey I get it...millions of sites out there. It's too easy to spew negativity so it's time to leave. Remember...it's all about character.
I added my email to my signature. At some point in the future there will be 1,000,001 sites out there....stay tuned and The Lord Jesus be with you All!

Peace.....

manna-man, there was a time when this Forum allowed tangents in almost any direction, and discussions went everywhere indeed (remember Alt-Views?) They were interesting at times, even fascinating, but in the end, there was little benefit for the stated mission of helping former members exiting the Recovery.

UntoHim has simply asked that discussions remain within those bounds. You surprised me when you commented on his request, "when someone's concern is deemed irrelevant and cancellable. Imo this reaks of blinder vision." Sorry, but this is not fair. You have only been asked to limit your "concerns" to the boundaries requested. It's a fair request. It's not unreasonable.

I hope you can stay. Your LC inputs have been very helpful over the years. Personally, I would never have posted here if the Moderator/Forum Mission did not recognize the authority of scriptures and embrace the orthodoxy of the common faith handed down to us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I have come to the conclusion that this forum is not for me.

Nor for me .... I gave up the Baptist when I joined the LC.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by OBW

Somehow this verse does not seem so difficult. It is about context. Because of Abraham's faith, he acted. He did not declare that he had faith and then not act. Failure to act would have put Abraham's righteousness in question. We may not like the words used, but works and faith were required, and v 25 does not say works rather than faith but works with faith. Further, it does not say in the pre-Christ era or the example that faith is not required, or that works are required for the initial spark of salvation in us.

Originally Posted by OBW

Somehow this verse does not seem so difficult. It is about context. Because of Abraham's faith, he acted. He did not declare that he had faith and then not act. Failure to act would have put Abraham's righteousness in question. We may not like the words used, but works and faith were required, and v 25 does not say works rather than faith but works with faith. Further, it does not say in the pre-Christ era or the example that faith is not required, or that works are required for the initial spark of salvation in us.

Right!

Come now, there is no need to question the veracity of either James or Paul’s writings for they complement each other... something Witness Lee either couldn’t understand or didn’t want to (because it would expose him as a fraud with no good works?).

By works of law shall no flesh be justified indeed (note “works of law” here). And true faith in the living God, and the Son He sent, justifies us before God. Such a faith results in actions (works) of faith that also justify us (James’ point, faith without works is dead, but faith with works shows it is living). Reread the whole second chapter of James to see his context (saints weren’t giving mercy to the poor who came in to their meetings, but were giving preference to the rich (hmm, sound familiar LCers?) and get his whole point, including Abraham’s act of faith (after he believed God, he offered Issac up in faith). Got faith? Then where are your works that demonstrate it?

God’s word is perfect indeed, both Old and New Testaments, as delivered to us by a living, Sovereign God.

This is what scripture says of itself:

Psalm 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalm 18:30 https://biblehub.com/psalms/18-30.htm

2 Samuel 2:31 https://biblehub.com/2_samuel/22-31.htm

https://biblehub.com/blb/james/2.htm

https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Just saying.

I will just state this: there will be a day, I don’t know when, but I’ll let my voice be heard whether on Twitter, YouTube or elsewhere. After reading the comments made by UntoHim, I’ll just state that I can relate to some things. This is not 70s or 80s in the recovery, this is 2022, but this leopard just can’t change their stripes even if it wants to. Hopefully you will understand.

Thank you.

Just saying,

Sorry for my delay in responding to you here - I look forward to that day when your voice is heard.

Trapped

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

To perhaps paraphrase Nell’s point: the Spirit is Holy, not the text.

Rom. 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Rom. 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

Nice. Thank you.

The following quotes are from WL, regarding the Bible. Although he starts out very good in his description of Scriptures, it’s the last sentence that he uttered where he crossed out everything that was previously stated.

Throughout the six thousand years of human history there have been countless writings of significant value in various fields, such as philosophy, science, and religion. Up to this day, however, in the whole world every person of integrity and fair-mindedness—whether he is a God-fearing person or an atheist, a Christian or a non-Christian—recognizes that the Bible is the most outstanding and profound book in human culture. From what I have personally experienced in this matter, I can only affirm that I cannot express with human language what kind of effort and how much time we have to devote to the study of the Bible. The division of the sections of the Bible is of profound significance, and even the arrangement of the books of the Bible inspires admiration. If the sequence of the Bible were arranged according to man's natural concept, then the proper significance would be lost. Therefore, the order of the books of the Bible has profound significance. The chapters of each book of the Scriptures are also divinely arranged. The things that are stated explicitly, of course, have profound significance; however, certain things that are not mentioned are even more profound in their significance.
CWWL, 1986, vol. 2, "The Economy of God and the Mystery of the Transmission of the Divine Trinity,"

Revelation 22:18-19

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

We know how much of the Lord’s Recovery is built on things “not mentioned”, but ether inserted into a text, or outright misinterpreted to fit his personal agenda.