Faith – From the Bible Cyclopedia A.R Fausset 1911

Faith. Heb. xi. 1, ” the substance of
things hoped for (i.e., it substantiates
God’s promises, the fulfilment of
which we hope, it makes them present
realities), the evidence (elenchos, the
‘ convincing proof ‘ or ‘ demonstration’)
of things not seen.” Faith
accepts the truths revealed on the
testimony of God (not merely on their
intrinsic reasonableness), that testimony
being to us given in Holy Scripture.
Where sight is, there faith
ceases (John xx. 29, 1 Pet. i. 8). We
are justified (i.e. counted just before
God) judicially by God (Rom. viii.
33), meritoriously by Christ (Isa. liii.
11, Rom. v. 19), mediately orinstrumentally
by faith (v. 1), evidentially
by works. Loving trust. Jas.ii. 14-26,
” though a man say he hath faith,
and have not works, can (such a)
faith save him ?” the emphasis is on
“say,” it will be a mere saying, and
can no more save the soul than saying
to a” naked and destitute brother,
be warmed and filled” would warm
and fill him. ” Yea, a man (holding
right views) may say, Thou hast faith
and I have works, show (exhibit to)
me (if thou canst, but it is impossible)
thy (alleged) faith without thy
works, and I will show thee my faith
by my works.” Abraham believed,
and was justified before God on the
ground of believing (Gen. xv. 6).
Forty years afterwards, when God
did “tempt,” i.e. put him to the test,
his justification was demonstrated
before tbe world by bis offering Isaac
(xxii.). ” As tbe body apart from
(choris) the spirit is dead, so faith
without the works (which ought to
evidence it) is dead also.” We might
have expected faith to answer to the
spirit, works to the body. As James
reverses this, he must mean by
“faith” here the form of faith, by
“works” the working reality. Living
faitb does not derive its life from
works, as the body does from its
animating spirit. But faith apart
from the spirit of faith, which is
love (whose evidence is works), is
dead, as the body is dead withmt the
spirit ; thus St. James exactly agrees
with St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiii. 2, ” though
I have all faith . . . and have not
charity (love), I am nothing.”
In its barest primary form, faith is
simply crediting or accepting God’s
testimony (1 John v. 9-13). Not to
credit it is to make God a “liar” ! a
consequence which unbelievers may
well start back from. The necessary
consequence of crediting God’s testimony
(pisteuo Theo) is believing in
(pisteuo eis ton hvAon, i.e. trusting
in) the Son of God ; for He, and salvation
in Him alone, form the grand
subject of God’s testimony. The
Holy Spirit alone enables any man
to accept God’s testimony and accept
Jesus Christ as his Divine Saviour,
and so to ” have the witness in himself
” (1 Cor. xii. 3). Faith is receptive
of God’s gratuitous gift of eternal
life in Christ. Faith is also an obedience
to God’s command to believe
(1 John hi. 23) ; whence it is called
the ” obedience of faith ” (Rom. i. 5,
xvi. 26; Acts vi. 7), the highest
obedience, without which works seemingly
good are disobediences to God
(Heb. xi. 6). Faith justifies not by
its own merit, but by tbe merit of
Him in whom we believe (Rom. iv.
3, Gal. iii. 6). Faith makes the interchange,
whereby our sin is imputed
to Him and His righteousness is imputed
to us (2 Cor. v. 19, 21 ; Jer.
xxiii. 6 ; 1 Cor. i. 30). ” Such are we
in the sight of God the Father, as is
the very Son of God Himself”
(Hooker) (2 Pet. i. 1; Rom. iii. 22,
iv.6, x. 4; Isa. xlii. 21, xiv. 21, 24,
25).

Was Rudolf Kittel a Nazi like his son Gerhard Kittel?

Rudolf Kittel’s son was a Nazi. We all know the story behind it, his son was tried and convicted of war crimes and also wrote the “Nazi bible”. His name was Gerhard Kittel.

But was Rudolf Kittel a Nazi? There is actually no evidence that supports this theory, not quotes, no evidence at all. So we really shouldnt misquote and attack Rudolf Kittel for being a Nazi if we have no evidence. However, that is not to say his Hebrew Old Testament was accurate or even near accurate. That however is the not the purpose of this post.

The purpose of this post is to say that Rudolf Kittel should’nt be called a Nazi if he really was’nt a Nazi.

I’m not defending any of his writings or his translation of scriptures. I’m only saying there is no evidence to say he was a Nazi.

Oh and really, grow up, there is not big difference between Rudolph Kittel and Rudolf Kittel. Sure some people misspell his name, probably because most encyclopedias spell his name Rudolf instead of Rudolph.

Spelling errors in the King James bible? Oh the horror

Most people that are from the Wescott and Hort cult claim that the 1611 King James version was full of spelling errors. Oh the horror. The thing is the English language was not standardized yet. That was still the developing stages of the English language as we know it today.

Most of the attacks from the Wescott and Hort only cult are from things that doesnt really change any doctrine like most of the new versions. If you look closely the King James Version of the bible was in fact one of the things that made English what it is today.

Most people that claim a bunch of spelling error dont even have the vocabulary of the KJV. They dont understand the “big words” even though they are English. The bible says study to show yourself approved. They can only find small minor misspellings and grammar errors.

Its because they dont really have ammunition that they need to destroy the God’s word. The new versions remove “God was manifested in the flesh”, They remove “Christ” many many times. They remove the Zephaniah prophecy, they change doctrine such as lucifer falling from heaven, they change creation to evolution. The list goes on.

 

Why write about bible versions?

Apart from the fact that this is really my interest, the history of the bible that is. Why would anyone write about bible versions? Isnt all bible versions basically the same? Isnt it like attacking other Christians? Well the answer to the last two questions is no.

The bible says in Ephesians 5:11 that we should :

Eph 5:11  And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

So we should reprove or expose people that are of the “unfruitful works of darkness”. The point is not very much focused on them but rather on their work. The point is not to bash other people.

Secondly, a lot of people involved in translating bible versions are not really Christians and they sneak in error and heresies into the new bible versions.

James Strong and Henry Joseph Thayer was on the translation committee for the 1885 Revised Version

NPG x132403,'The Revisers of the New Testament 1881',by and after Samuel Alexander Walker

The two most used dictionaries on e-sword and in general for bible studies is the Thayer and Strong dictionaries. Have you ever wondered if these guys actually believed the bible? Well i cant tell you whether they did or did not but what i can tell you is that they were both on the translation committee for the Revised Version of 1885. As far as I can tell they werent part of the Theosophical society as Wescott and Hort were.

In 1891 Thayer wrote that he disagreed with the theory of Biblical inerrancy, that is that the bible is free of errors. He also claimed that this did not detract from his belief in the soundness of Christianity.

James Strong also worked closely with the translators of the 1885 Revised Version.

Does this make them “wrong” or unbelieving? Well i dont know. I guess that is not for me to say.

 

Codex Sangallensis

codexsangallensis

Codex Sangallensis is a collection of medievil era manuscripts or books currently housed at Abbey Library of Saint Gall in St. Gallen, a old city in Switzerland.

Interesting to note in the book:

Keep Reading →

King James Version, what does James mean anyway?

kjv1611

The name James as far as I can tell has its origins in Hebrew. The name actually means “Supplanter”. The usual meaning of the name James is “He who supplants”.

I’m not really one that goes into secret meanings and such but its interesting to note that the King James Bible is also referred to as the Authorized Version.  Its also interesting to note that when you say King James Bible you are actually saying the Bible that supplants other bibles.

One dictionary has the meaning in two words:

-Supersede

-replace

Interesting information i’d say.

Obama is a freemason

Obama, yes Barack Obama is one of the most famous members of the Prince Hall Masons and he is also not only a freemason, he is a 32nd degree freemason.

Barack Hussein Obama attended the Scottish Rite Masonic Center in Des Moines on the 27th of December 2007 and gave a speech. There is more evidence but i just wanted to say that.

 

Original Aramaic Bible in Plain English

The Original Aramic Bible in Plain English is an English translation of the Aramic Peshitta. It contains only the new testament as well as Psalms and Proverbs of the Old Testament. The bible version is one by David Bauscher a pastor and science teachers.

 

 

More evolution in the Amplified bible

The Amplified is not an accurate translation. For instance in Genesis 1 lets look at a few verses:

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

8And God called the firmament Heavens. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

13And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

19And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

I guess you get the picture. there is a huge difference between the first day and one day.

One day reads almost like a fairy tale, once upon a time there was a fairy tale land.

Not only that, it also promotes the idea of evolution claiming that it could be any day. It was just “a fourth day” and not THE fourth day.

New American Standard Bible

I find it amusing that people usually claim that the New American Standard Bible is very close to the original greek and Hebrew, it seems they dont tell us exactly which Hebrew that is. The New Testament for the NASB is the Novum Testamentum Graece of Nestle-Aland while the Old Testament is Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Septuagint.

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is based on the Leningrad Codex. Although the Leningrad Codex is similar to the Masoretic the New Testament is definitely not by a long shot the original text used in the King James Version. They did not use the Textus Receptus.

Copyright and trademark to the NASB text are owned by the Lockman Foundation. The same people that own the copyright for the Amplified bible although the Amplified bible is owned by both Zondervan and The Lockman foundation.

 

What new testament books are in the bodmer papyrus

papyrus_75a

The Papyrus Bodmer is quite the collection of manuscripts. Starting with bodmer papyrus II we have almost the entire book of John. That is the gospel of John. This manuscript according to most “scholars” is Alexandrian text type probably because its old.

I know I said almost complete but John 2-5 is missing as well as John 7-14 and most after this is just scattered bits. The date as determined by … I dont know how they determined the date to be honest. Obviously it doesnt contain the pericope of the adulteress because John 7-14 is missing. Also known as Papyrus 66

Next we have Bodmer V which contains Proverbs 1:1-21:4. Its dated 5th century.

Then there is Papyrus Bodmer VII-IX. It contains 1 and 2 Peter and the book of Jude. It also contains Psalms 33 and 34.Manuscript also known as Papyrus 72. This is the earliest account of Jude being 3rd century

Bodmer X contains the Epistle of Corinthians to Paul and Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians and dates 3th century.

Papyrus Bodmer XIV contains parts of Luke, 3rd century

Papyrus Bodmer XV contains parts of John 3rd century XV and XIV is also known as Papyrus 75. Agrees with Codex Vaticanus.

Papyrus Bodmer XVII is dated 7th century and according to Wikipedia contains the following:

The surviving texts are verses: Acts 1:2-28:31 †; James 1:1-5:20 †; 1 Peter 1:1-2,7-8,13,19-20,25; 2:6-7,11-12,18,24; 3:4-5; 2 Peter 2:21; 3:4,11,16; 1 John 1:1,6; 2:1-2,7,13-14,18-19,25-26; 3:1-2,8,14,19-20; 4:1,6-7,12,18-19; 5:3-4,9-10,17; 2 John 1,6-7,13; 3 John 6,12; Jude 3,7,11-12,16,24

Bodmer XXIV contains Psalms 17:46 to 117:44 and is dated 4th century

Bodmer XLVI — Daniel 1:1-2

Papyrus Bodmer L  Matthew 25-26; 7th century

Bodmer III — John 1:1-21:25; Genesis 1:1-4:2; 4th century

Bodmer VI — Proverbs 1:1-21:4; 4th/5th century

Bodmer XVI — Exodus 1:1-15:21; 4th century

Bodmer XVIII — Deuteronomium 1:1-10:7; 4th century

Bodmer XIX — Matthew 14:28-28:20; Romans 1:1-2:3; 4th/5th century

Bodmer XXI — Joshua 6:16-25; 7:6-11:23; 22:1-2; 22:19-23:7; 23:15-24:2; 4th century

Bodmer XXII (Mississippi Codex II) — Jeremiah 40:3-52:34; Lamentations; Epistle of Jeremiah; Book of Baruch; 4th/5th century

Bodmer XXIII — Isajah 47:1-66:24; 4th century

Bodmer XL — Song of Songs

Bodmer XLI — Acta Pauli; 4th century

Bodmer XLII — 2 Corinthians

Bodmer XLIV — Book of Daniel

New bible version: The voice

thevoicebible

The voice seems to be rather shocking. I bet that is what the guy that wrote it intended. The biggest reason any Christian would skip right over this version is because “Jesus Christ” is not found in it. The two words together are not found, they are probably found separate though but not together.

David Capes, lead scholar for The Voice claims that this bible version is “a more accurate translation for modern American readers”. Yeah right.

Frank Couch is executive editor and publisher of The Voice.

Matthew Paul Turner worked on several Psalms and the book of Esther.

I dont know if these people are Christians or not but you gotta have some guts to put out rubbish like this. Who cares what man says, they have to answer to GOD on day.

Jesus Christ is who the bible is about. Yeshua, Jesus the Son of God, the Christ.

The Voice was published by none other than Thomas Nelson publishers.