what other "biblical" bible would you add?

[eddif]

Dear Boother eddif, Strongs G1345 has one meaning of the word “Righteousnss” as a righteous act or deed.
Rev 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness G1345 of saints.

A different interpretation is that of the word “Righteousness” which we read in 1 Jn 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness G1343 is righteous, even as he is righteous. Strongs 1343 renders this: in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God.

This all has to do with the bride who will be the joint heir of Christ. All born of God are heirs, but not all suffer or endure with Him. Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; IF so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. This is a reward for her service of faith and love.

Everything we are is due solely on the basis of Jesus’ shed blood, and because of that all in Christ will be clothed in white. 1 Cor 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

You also said: "I tend to wonder if Revelation 6:11 is where the right for / the actual garment comes from (being martyred saints). If I am wrong and convince others I am right I am in terrible error."
To me the Smyrna church are one part of the bride
Rev 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. These represent those that die before Jesus' coming for them in the air; the others are them alive which patiently keep the word of God of Rev 3:10, the Philadelphia church. These two of the seven churches have crowns. Worthy of a queen?

Hey.
There is no telling how many times my 5lb Strong's followed me into church and my wife would freak as I tried to sneak a peak at a word. As much as I respect Strong; I still feel the best he did would not be excepted as an added book in the bible. Any comment we make may be colored by our background. I do believe in revelation (with conformation).

I actually was not even attempting to see if your statement was correct . I started a Greek class once, but found out it reeked of the denomination in charge of the class. Another denomination Greek word study yielded a different approach to meaning. In fact the study of creation is an outgrowth of frustration in trying to rightly divide the Word.

I am for the Body of Christ and not against it. You might not recognize which part of the body I am. I may also respond at times when I miss what someone else says. It takes a lot to function correctly as a whole body.

eddif

 

[BigSodaExposer]

Add the to bible at your peril. The bible is complete as it is.

Which bible?

 

[jasonc]

the ajkv 1611 had the extra books. just saying. if wasn't a Christian and believed as I once did, then when a Christian handed me that and didn't tell me I would assume the extra books were inspired.

 

[Edward]

I am saying that one should hear the word only from the Holy Bible.If you choose to read other books that is your choice.Revelation 22:18-19 does not say it is ok to read any other books other than the Bible.I think it is dangerous to hear the word from any other source than the Holy Bible.

The important consideration would be, what you are looking for in said book, would it not?

I agree doctrine and how we live our life should only come from the Bible not other books. When I read them I was not seeking doctrine, I only read them because they were mentioned in the bible and I had this crazy thought that if they are mentioned by name in the bible they can not be bad. I just got a better understanding of OT life, and some things were expounded upon that were basic short stories in the bible.

Amen brother! This is what I mean. I don't read Enoch or Jasher looking for the Gospel or a doctrine. I have the canonized scriptures for that. But let's face it, if these two books were referenced in scripture by righteous men, is that not like a good housekeeping seal of approval for them?

Common sense, brothers and sisters. We're not trying to replace scripture with Enoch or Jasher, that's not the books purpose. But some very good and useful information is available through the reading of these books. And as with everything, if you read these books, they are to be approached prayerfully.

 

[Knotical]

Which bible?

The most accurately translated version is the NASB.

 

[Edward]

The most accurately translated version is the NASB.

I heard that a new version is going to out soon and is supposed to be an attempt to give absolute accuracy with regard to the original language. It will be called the ISV (International Standard Version)

I don't think it's out yet, but should be soon.

 

[TimothyW]

Interesting, and may I ask why?

Here's my reasoning.

The author says that his name is John.
("He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God...", "John to the seven churches...", "I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation...")
Traditionally, this was believed to be the Apostle John, the writer of the Gospel of John, but he doesn't say that he is or isn't the same "John".

The author of the Gospel of John never calls himself "John", he calls himself "the disciple that Jesus loved" (John 21:20, and other places). Why would he start calling himself "John" in the Book of Revelation? But Apocalyptic Literature often was written by people claiming to be someone else. There was another Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Peter, which was certainly NOT written by the Apostle Peter (It was written after Peter's death). An anonymous Apocalypse writer would call himself John, but the real John probably would not have.

John pastored a church in Ephesus. Tradition has it that he died and was buried in Ephesus. According to the Book of Revelation, the events of Revelation happened on the Island of Patmos. If John was leading a church in Ephesus, how did he get to Patmos? It's possible, but as I said, it is problematic.

When I read the end of the Gospel of John, it appears to have a few different stopping places, as if John wrote the Gospel and then someone reminded him of another event, so he put that down too, until finally he writes (almost in frustration) "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Would someone who wrote that go on to write 3 or 4 more books? Maybe, but it is problematic. Not impossible, but it raises questions in my mind.

John says "So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”". This seems to me like something an old man, close to the end of his life would write. If it is, then John finished writing his gospel near the end of his life. So when did he go to Patmos and write the Apocalypse?

There are some wild stories about John, that he was able to preach while being boiled in oil, and came out of the oil by divine intervention, that he was forced to drink poison but the poison couldn't kill him. It is possible that the story of his exile to Patmos is also untrue, the only evidence that he ever was in Patmos is the Book of Revelation. If it was written by the same John, then John was in Patmos. There is no other evidence that he was there. He spent his life as the Pastor of a church in Ephesus and died there. I believe that is is probable that someone else put his name on the Apocalypse that they wrote.

 

[Eugene]

Here's my reasoning.
The author says that his name is John.
("He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God...", "John to the seven churches...", "I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation...")
Traditionally, this was believed to be the Apostle John, the writer of the Gospel of John, but he doesn't say that he is or isn't the same "John".

The author of the Gospel of John never calls himself "John", he calls himself "the disciple that Jesus loved" (John 21:20, and other places). Why would he start calling himself "John" in the Book of Revelation? But Apocalyptic Literature often was written by people claiming to be someone else. There was another Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Peter, which was certainly NOT written by the Apostle Peter (It was written after Peter's death). An anonymous Apocalypse writer would call himself John, but the real John probably would not have.

John pastored a church in Ephesus. Tradition has it that he died and was buried in Ephesus. According to the Book of Revelation, the events of Revelation happened on the Island of Patmos. If John was leading a church in Ephesus, how did he get to Patmos? It's possible, but as I said, it is problematic.

When I read the end of the Gospel of John, it appears to have a few different stopping places, as if John wrote the Gospel and then someone reminded him of another event, so he put that down too, until finally he writes (almost in frustration) "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Would someone who wrote that go on to write 3 or 4 more books? Maybe, but it is problematic. Not impossible, but it raises questions in my mind.

John says "So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”". This seems to me like something an old man, close to the end of his life would write. If it is, then John finished writing his gospel near the end of his life. So when did he go to Patmos and write the Apocalypse?

There are some wild stories about John, that he was able to preach while being boiled in oil, and came out of the oil by divine intervention, that he was forced to drink poison but the poison couldn't kill him. It is possible that the story of his exile to Patmos is also untrue, the only evidence that he ever was in Patmos is the Book of Revelation. If it was written by the same John, then John was in Patmos. There is no other evidence that he was there. He spent his life as the Pastor of a church in Ephesus and died there. I believe that is is probable that someone else put his name on the Apocalypse that they wrote.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him (Jesus), to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.

Dear Brother TimothyW, I would ask that if Jesus was to identify His servant John above as the one Whom He loved, would that have changed Who gave the message, the purpose of Jesus’ angel, or the effect and purpose of Jesus’ reign in His Day. Is that wonderful message to be believed to the glory of God? Thanks.

 

[TimothyW]

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him (Jesus), to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.

Dear Brother TimothyW, I would ask that if Jesus was to identify His servant John above as the one Whom He loved, would that have changed Who gave the message, the purpose of Jesus’ angel, or the effect and purpose of Jesus’ reign in His Day. Is that wonderful message to be believed to the glory of God? Thanks.

If a book is not inspired but claims to be a message from God would that change how we view it? What is your criteria for inclusion in the canon?

 

[follower]

I heard that a new version is going to out soon and is supposed to be an attempt to give absolute accuracy with regard to the original language. It will be called the ISV (International Standard Version)

I don't think it's out yet, but should be soon.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... didn't the scribes and the pharisees have accurate Scripture ? ... ... ... ... ... ... ... and have it memorized backwards and forwards ? (so to speak)

 

[Eugene]

If a book is not inspired but claims to be a message from God would that change how we view it? What is your criteria for inclusion in the canon?

I'm not a scholar in the writing or inclusion of books of the bible, but it does fill in kingdom end times prophesy. Are you saying it shouldn't be a part of the word of God? I hope problematic passages due to my ignorance, or someone's supposition to eliminate something I don't understand yet is not going to be the criterion I use to ignore what I consider scripture. There are many portions of what has been proclaimed canon I war with, but I don't allow it to afflict my faith in those parts I do believe.

 

[Kathi]

Read Everything. Let God sort it out.

That is a poor Christian choice.

 

[follower]

Let Yhwh sort it out. THEN read everything that HE says to. (He is Sovereign, King, Know-it-all Perfectly)

like the believers in acts, burn all the garbage/"instead of Christ" books.

 

[TimothyW]

I'm not a scholar in the writing or inclusion of books of the bible, but it does fill in kingdom end times prophesy. Are you saying it shouldn't be a part of the word of God? I hope problematic passages due to my ignorance, or someone's supposition to eliminate something I don't understand yet is not going to be the criterion I use to ignore what I consider scripture. There are many portions of what has been proclaimed canon I war with, but I don't allow it to afflict my faith in those parts I do believe.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be included as "part of the word of God" or that it should be.

Read Everything. Let God sort it out

That is a poor Christian choice.

Why is that? Do you feel that we Christians are easily led astray? Should I have a supervisor over me, telling me which books are acceptable and which should be burnt before reading?
How do you tell which books are worth reading without first reading the books? Don't Christians have the Holy Spirit to guide them? Isn't He capable of sorting the good from the bad? But if I haven't read a book, how do I ask God whether it belongs in the burn pile or the keep pile? I'm not really a big fan of book burnings anyway. What did Henry Jones say to the Nazi Officer in the third Indiana Jones movie?

 

[Edward]

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... didn't the scribes and the pharisees have accurate Scripture ? ... ... ... ... ... ... ... and have it memorized backwards and forwards ? (so to speak)

I don't know, did they?

I think the confusion from different translations stems from not translating them correctly at all but rather paraphrasing the words. The new version, the International Standard Version (ISV) will be different from the IPV (International Paraphrased Versions) in that, it is to be an actual translated rather than paraphrased version.

 

[follower]

books on witchcraft or the talmudic or roman kind for instance, never have to be read, not for any reason. they should be burned unless Yhwh intervenes , (or maybe buried or just thrown away),
many modern and older books / manuscripts likewise may be dismissed just because the Spirit of Yhwh makes it clear. (and always in line with all of Yhwh's Word).
remember it is written "take care what you listen to" and "guard your heart more than anything" and so on.....

 

[follower]

I don't know, did they?
I think the confusion from different translations stems from not translating them correctly at all but rather paraphrasing the words. The new version, the International Standard Version (ISV) will be different from the IPV (International Paraphrased Versions) in that, it is to be an actual translated rather than paraphrased version.

okay, think for a minute ...... since any and all of the translations available to us came much later than the scribes and pharisees had (which also YESHUA read when He Read in the Temple or elsewhere),
nothing we have today can be as accurate as they had (i.e. if not the original, much closer to the original, and with Yeshua's blessing/approval (apparently) ) ... ... ...

even the 'best' ones in english today (all of them that i've ever been aware of or seen) have errors that no one wants to or knows to talk about.

 

[Edward]

Yeah, good thing we have the Holy Spirit for illumination, huh?

 

[Roro1972]

The important consideration would be, what you are looking for in said book, would it not?



Amen brother! This is what I mean. I don't read Enoch or Jasher looking for the Gospel or a doctrine. I have the canonized scriptures for that. But let's face it, if these two books were referenced in scripture by righteous men, is that not like a good housekeeping seal of approval for them?

Common sense, brothers and sisters. We're not trying to replace scripture with Enoch or Jasher, that's not the books purpose. But some very good and useful information is available through the reading of these books. And as with everything, if you read these books, they are to be approached prayerfully.

I read somewhere that in OT times they gathered together and the/a priest would read these books aloud for all to hear. the wording in Joshua 10:13 would make me think they heard the same words before when they must have been read out of Jasher. this verse implies everyone listening at the time had heard the same thing from the book of Jasher.

 

[Edward]

I read the same thing. What you say rings a bell for me.