• Love God, and love one another!

    Share your heart for Christ and others in Godly Love

    https://christianforums.net/forums/god_love/

  • Want to discuss private matters, or make a few friends?

    Ask for membership to the Men's or Lady's Locker Rooms

    For access, please contact a member of staff and they can add you in!

  • Wake up and smell the coffee!

    Join us for a little humor in Joy of the Lord

    https://christianforums.net/forums/humor_and_jokes/

  • Need prayer and encouragement?

    Come share your heart's concerns in the Prayer Forum

    https://christianforums.net/forums/prayer/

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes coming in the future!

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

    Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.

Difference between Scripture and Bible

The "quotes" aren't as precise as you would like but there are many of them with a word or two changed with the substance being the same or really similar... Kinda like some of the Yoda quotes flourishing on the internet.

And I still state that Enoch is not scripture. Just selected portions as quoted.

The "Son of man" term is one used by various cultures to mean various things. Enoch used it as a backhanded reference to the "Seed of the Woman" as scripture teaches in Genesis 3. Jesus did the same.
 
This is how the devil sees the King James bible i have today..

William Tyndale was put to death – strangled with an iron collar (garrotted) and burnt at the stake – for translating the Bible into English, and this was not just any translation. It was the basis of the King James version and every other English version, so I understand. In reviewing some biographical information on Tyndale I also learned how incensed he was at the practice of scholastic disputation because even scholars were prevented from reading and studying the Bible until they had done years of study:

http://www.theredmountainpost.com/burned-at-the-stake-for-translating-the-bible-into-english-7420/

and it continues to be under attack..

tob
 
The issue is, truly, not which books or verses are scripture but is instead at the root of the issue. The root of the issue is, "Who is God?" There is a curse in the Bible, found twice in the Jewish Bible and three times in the Christian version. It is found in the last chapter of the Revelation and if one believes it, then God is Omnipotent and nothing in the Bible is not the Word of God, save the Apocrypha, a history of the four hundred years of silence.
All of the Canonized scriptures are the Word of God, Scripture.
 
JohnDB said:
The "quotes" aren't as precise as you would like but there are many of them with a word or two changed with the substance being the same or really similar... Kinda like some of the Yoda quotes flourishing on the internet.

And I still state that Enoch is not scripture. Just selected portions as quoted.

The "Son of man" term is one used by various cultures to mean various things. Enoch used it as a backhanded reference to the "Seed of the Woman" as scripture teaches in Genesis 3. Jesus did the same.
Click to expand...
Enoch might contain some truth but it is, in no manor, equal to the Word of God.
 
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active and full of power [making it operative, energizing, and effective]. It is sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating as far as the division of the soul and spirit [the completeness of a person], and of both joints and marrow [the deepest parts of our nature], exposing and judging the very thoughts and intentions of the heart.

IF I didn't believe that Jesus was "alive" and "with(in)" me, I wouldn't bother.

What are we to make of print on paper? That's a deep probe that His Spirit will vivify, just as it was so vivified in the Apostles, from what was written prior in the O.T. from which they took their lead "in the Spirit."

The Spirit of Love uncovers wonders. His Judgment corrects our reading lenses. One consistency I have found is that every "reflector" reflects differently, and this points to the facts of our respective states of very real individual subjectivity. I have had close, very close examinations of my own subjectivity. I did not "like" what I found, but I did find it quite factual. This subjectivity is also in The Hands of God in Christ, that leads us to seek and to actually "find" His Eternal Mercy, as to our needs of same.

I am needy, for sure. And this is a good need to abide in, of His Mercy.

We might for example examine the intimacies of the High Priest, going before the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies, and see some sets of rituals and performances as a past matter, no longer applicable OR we can see present applicability that was put forward previously by physical examples of Spiritual Matters. The Mercy Seat in the O.T. was external. Today, He, this Seat is shown to be "internal."

The Word first speaks and shows to the natural, then the Spiritual. This is the Way God always speaks, as is His Habit and Pattern of expressions. He still speaks in this way.

We all see naturally first. Then Spiritually. The natural man fears to spiritualize his sights, and has a naturally hard time coming to grips. Paul delineated these difficulties here, among other citings:

1 Cor. 15:
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Betwixt is our present struggles of sights.
 
I don't really want to open a can of worms, although my reply is within the boundaries of the OP, I believe that the Book of Enoch's rejection from Canon was a tragic error. I no longer have a copy, and don't remember who I lent it too. I'm trying to recall the name of a theologian who stated that Enoch identified where cosmetics for the women of those times came from. He said it was demonic. He also shared his opinion that the women influenced the men on the Canon Committee not to include Enoch in Canon because of his bias against women.

True? Personally, it sounded like Truth to me! Dr. John MacArthur in at least one of his books, that I own and have read, favors Enoch.

So, Mr. Classik the difference between Scripture and the Bible? Here's my answer. Scripture includes the Book of Enoch, but the Bible excludes it.
 
Chopper said:
Hi Bill - You Dried Out Old Corn Cob You! :wave :oops :topic
Click to expand...
Good afternoon, Chopper. I have the first 25 or so pages of text written for tthe book A Journey To War. That should translate into about fifty boo pages. Still writing.
 
th1b.taylor said:
Good afternoon, Chopper. I have the first 25 or so pages of text written for tthe book A Journey To War. That should translate into about fifty boo pages. Still writing.
Click to expand...
O my friend, that will be a great book for sure. Wow, "A Journey To War" I sure want one, no matter the cost, it'll be worth it.
 
Chopper said:
I don't really want to open a can of worms, although my reply is within the boundaries of the OP, I believe that the Book of Enoch's rejection from Canon was a tragic error. I no longer have a copy, and don't remember who I lent it too. I'm trying to recall the name of a theologian who stated that Enoch identified where cosmetics for the women of those times came from. He said it was demonic. He also shared his opinion that the women influenced the men on the Canon Committee not to include Enoch in Canon because of his bias against women.

True? Personally, it sounded like Truth to me! Dr. John MacArthur in at least one of his books, that I own and have read, favors Enoch.

So, Mr. Classik the difference between Scripture and the Bible? Here's my answer. Scripture includes the Book of Enoch, but the Bible excludes it.
Click to expand...
Actually,
When reviewing a book, letter, or prophecy to be admitted into cannon there were a hundred tests placed upon the writing. Where the rules had exceptions (as in Daniel as an example) the rules were strictly adhered to.

One of the rules was that it be of a single author, another was that it couldn't disagree with already established scriptures. Clarity and new information contained therein was needed. Absolutely the truth based upon reliable Witnesses.

The Book of Enoch fails all of these tests.
Daniel's exceptions are exceptional to begin with as he allowed the Babylonian King to insert one chapter and he recognized Jeremiah's prophecy before the 100 year mark had passed. (Another set of rules)

The book's authorship was of course a falsehood and it was written sometime around 150 BC in the Arabian peninsula. (According to scientists who study this stuff)

The book is a great example of the syncretism between Judaism and Mazdaism.(Zoroastrianism)

The work was highly popular but always considered fiction. Even I &II Maccabees weren't (Apocrypha) considered as holy or high ordered as Joel and Enoch fell below Apocrypha. It was considered Talmudic at best (invented stories filling in gaps in scripture like what Cain said to Abel to get him into the field)...but mostly just entertaining fiction.
 
JohnDB said:
Actually,
When reviewing a book, letter, or prophecy to be admitted into cannon there were a hundred tests placed upon the writing. Where the rules had exceptions (as in Daniel as an example) the rules were strictly adhered to.

One of the rules was that it be of a single author, another was that it couldn't disagree with already established scriptures. Clarity and new information contained therein was needed. Absolutely the truth based upon reliable Witnesses.

The Book of Enoch fails all of these tests.
Daniel's exceptions are exceptional to begin with as he allowed the Babylonian King to insert one chapter and he recognized Jeremiah's prophecy before the 100 year mark had passed. (Another set of rules)

The book's authorship was of course a falsehood and it was written sometime around 150 BC in the Arabian peninsula. (According to scientists who study this stuff)

The book is a great example of the syncretism between Judaism and Mazdaism.(Zoroastrianism)

The work was highly popular but always considered fiction. Even I &II Maccabees weren't (Apocrypha) considered as holy or high ordered as Joel and Enoch fell below Apocrypha. It was considered Talmudic at best (invented stories filling in gaps in scripture like what Cain said to Abel to get him into the field)...but mostly just entertaining fiction.
Click to expand...
The book also contains many of the myths that were popularly held onto. Kinda like "step on a crack and break your mother's back"

The fruit from the tree of good and evil was something of a red muscadine of sorts.

And if writing was so evil of origin why did God and Moses teach a nation how to and propel them to elites in culture over the rest of the world.

Also we actually have copies of the "missing letters of Paul". They reveal nothing new but the language used can be contorted to mean something other than what Paul obviously intended. So they were never included.
(Paul repeated himself often)
 
Classik said:
Some refer to Bible verses as scripture.
Click to expand...

Classik,

What is your own answer to the question you ask? How do you reach that conclusion?

Oz
Classik said:
I'm sincerely asking to learn.
Click to expand...

If you read the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of 'bible', you'll find that it is an old term for 'book' or an eminent books, e.g. the fisherman's bible. Of course it also refers to the gathering of 66 books into one book that is called Scripture in the Christian church.

However, to want to differentiate between Bible and Scripture is superfluous because the Bible for the Christian is a large book that contains Scripture. Therefore, I conclude that to try to separate Bible from Scripture would be like trying to convince me that the Brisbane Times online newspaper is a newspaper but it doesn't matter about the articles in the newspaper. There would be no newspaper if it were not for the articles.

In like manner, there would be no Bible without their being Scripture contained in it. Scripture determines that there is a Bible. No Scripture = No Bible.

Oz
 
JohnDB said:
Actually,
When reviewing a book, letter, or prophecy to be admitted into cannon there were a hundred tests placed upon the writing. Where the rules had exceptions (as in Daniel as an example) the rules were strictly adhered to.

One of the rules was that it be of a single author, another was that it couldn't disagree with already established scriptures. Clarity and new information contained therein was needed. Absolutely the truth based upon reliable Witnesses.

The Book of Enoch fails all of these tests.
Daniel's exceptions are exceptional to begin with as he allowed the Babylonian King to insert one chapter and he recognized Jeremiah's prophecy before the 100 year mark had passed. (Another set of rules)

The book's authorship was of course a falsehood and it was written sometime around 150 BC in the Arabian peninsula. (According to scientists who study this stuff)

The book is a great example of the syncretism between Judaism and Mazdaism.(Zoroastrianism)

The work was highly popular but always considered fiction. Even I &II Maccabees weren't (Apocrypha) considered as holy or high ordered as Joel and Enoch fell below Apocrypha. It was considered Talmudic at best (invented stories filling in gaps in scripture like what Cain said to Abel to get him into the field)...but mostly just entertaining fiction.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your :twocents worth. Personally, I side with those who believe Enoch belonged in Canon.
 
OzSpen said:
Classik,

What is your own answer to the question you ask? How do you reach that conclusion?

Oz


If you read the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of 'bible', you'll find that it is an old term for 'book' or an eminent books, e.g. the fisherman's bible. Of course it also refers to the gathering of 66 books into one book that is called Scripture in the Christian church.

However, to want to differentiate between Bible and Scripture is superfluous because the Bible for the Christian is a large book that contains Scripture. Therefore, I conclude that to try to separate Bible from Scripture would be like trying to convince me that the Brisbane Times online newspaper is a newspaper but it doesn't matter about the articles in the newspaper. There would be no newspaper if it were not for the articles.

In like manner, there would be no Bible without their being Scripture contained in it. Scripture determines that there is a Bible. No Scripture = No Bible.

Oz
Click to expand...
So are you saying that you edit out the parts you "don't like".
 
Chopper said:
O my friend, that will be a great book for sure. Wow, "A Journey To War" I sure want one, no matter the cost, it'll be worth it.
Click to expand...
Actually, You set me back on course and I was thinking you need a copy before it can ever go to print... from the dummy crazy enough to do those things.
 
OzSpen said:
What influences you to ask that question? I in no way inferred that.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I reread and figured out that you were going on about the term "Bible" and its usage.

The principle I was asking about isn't a new one or uncommon. (Unfortunately)

I was confused and curious and sought clarity of your position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top