BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54

BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54

  • JALTUS

    Votes: 29 87.9%
  • s9s27s54

    Votes: 4 12.1%

  • Total voters
    33
Status
Not open for further replies.

Explosived

New member
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

Redeemed, I have been told over and over that everyone has their own Bible, WHEN are they going to start to read and study it and get their heads out of their critical apparatus?








Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7
 

Redeemed

New member
Originally posted by Explosived "Even if Calvin was wrong for executing Servitus, that does not automatically falsify his beliefs."-Redeemed

You mean murder don't you?

Was Calvin a "civil authority"?
Actually, Explosived, executing was exactly the word I meant to use.... IF Calvin was a "civil authority" in Geneva.

There are varying accounts of his role in Geneva. Some claim that he wasn't even a citizen and thus not allowed to hold public office at all. Some claim that he was the law himself -- the "Dictator of Geneva" or the "Pope of Geneva". Some even claim that he lit the match himself, although there seems to be no proof of this.

All I am saying is that "IF" Calvin was the civil authority as many claim, then his actions are defined as "execution", not "murder". Now, I'm not saying that Calvin exercised his God-given civil authority in a Godly manner. The fact that God establishes authorities does not imply that they are Godly -- witness our own government here in the States. The authorities may kill someone unjustly, but it is "execution" by definition, not "murder". In an unjust execution, the individuals involved may be just as guilty before God as if they had personally committed murder, but it is still "execution" by definition.
 
P

Pilgrimagain

Guest
Executed is definately the right word. And Ginger, why are you taking Rapts side in this? I thought you were to take God's side?
 

rapt

New member
There most certainly ISN'T any precedent in scripture for most of the things Jaltus mentioned. That's because they are not scriptural, some are not even based on any scriptural principal. Seminaries, Sunday School, (required) Sunday meetings, Christians holding political office, building church buildings, NONE of those things were seen practiced nor condoned by the early church. They did travel using the common modes to do so, so that's not unscriptural. But to try to use any of the beforementioned to try to justify a "Christian" military is incorrect. It's just another attempt at baptizing paganism like Constantine did. I don't believe his vision of a cross and hearing a voice tell him "In this sign conquer" was of God at all; no more than Mary appearing to little children at Fatima and telling them to say the rosary.
 
Last edited:

Redeemed

New member
Re: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

Re: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

Originally posted by Explosived
Redeemed, I have been told over and over that everyone has their own Bible, WHEN are they going to start to read and study it and get their heads out of their critical apparatus?
By "get their heads out of their critical apparatus" I am assuming that you are making a veiled reference to a lewd and profane phrase commonly used by the world. I am disappointed.

You constantly accuse people of being ignorant or denying the truth, but you fail to defend your position from the scriptures. Bible-believing folks want Biblical defenses.
 

rapt

New member
Both Babylon and Asseria bore the sword of the Lord. They were both USED by God, but neither were saved. They were later DESTROYED. God can use the BASEST of men, for we see in Daniel the Word saying that he sets up the basest to rule over men. Isn't that evidenced by the fact that God rules the universe, yet he allowed such criminals as Nero, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, the Ayatol Komini, and many many more evil men to rule?

So what does Romans 13 mean when it says "He is the minister of God for thee to good"? Does this only apply to "good" rulers? I don't think so! God uses the most evil to do His work, like when he sent Babylon to DESOLATE Jerusalem, and later Rome to do the same thing! God accomplished what He saw as "good" to destroy those bloodthirsty, self-deceived hypocrits who hated Him. But He also protected His own, the remnant was saved in both cases.

So there's my interpretation of Romans 13. I don't believe for one minute that there is any indication that just because God uses a military or a police force that the individuals are saved because they are called "the minister of God".
 
P

Pilgrimagain

Guest
Hmm, they never used the computer to pass on doctrine either, guess we had all better just shut up then. Using the computer is just not Biblical.
 

Redeemed

New member
Originally posted by rapt But to try to use any of the beforementioned to try to justify a "Christian" military is incorrect.
There is a difference in a "Christian military", as you use the term, and Christians being in the military. God ordained civil authority, including militaries, just as he ordained marriage and the church. It is a good institution, as is everything God creates and ordains. God gave specific principles of operation to each institution He ordained. When those principles are followed, His institutions are beautiful things indeed. However, all of God's institutions can be abused -- the government, the church, and the family. God doesn't prevent their abuse.

To say that a Christian should not be in government, or the military, makes as much sense as saying Christians shouldn't be in a marriage or in church government! If the opposition arises because Christians may be required to kill, you fail to acknowledge the separation of authority and responsibility among God's institutions. God did not tell the elders of the church to "bear the sword". The authority and responsibility for execution of criminals was specifically delegated to the government. The authority and responsibility for defending a nation was specifically delegated to the government, not individuals or the church.

God never intended the Church to take up arms and form a military -- a "Christian military" as you mentioned. That responsibility falls to the government. God never intended the elders of the church to take up a rod against other people's children. That responsibility falls to the parents.
I don't believe his vision of a cross and hearing a voice tell in "In this sign conquer" was of God at all.
Nor do I. Anything done "in God's name" that is contrary to God's Word is not of God.
 

Redeemed

New member
Originally posted by rapt So what does Romans 13 mean when it says "He is the minister of God for thee to good"? Does this only apply to "good" rulers? I don't think so! God uses the most evil to do His work, like when he sent Babylon to DESOLATE Jerusalem, and later Rome to do the same thing! God accomplished what He saw as "good" to destroy those bloodthirsty, self-deceived hypocrits who hated Him. But He also protected His own, the remnant was saved in both cases.
Rapt,

Yes, God can use good and evil men to His purposes. However, He intended government to be Godly. He did not ordain corruption. His description of government in Romans 13 is His INTENDED role, not necessarily the reality. Just as Christians who have died to sin and arise to walk in newness of life do not always demonstrate that in their lives, so governments do not always act as "ministers of God for good". God also intended government to NOT bear the sword in vain, but they often do so by not executing criminals when they should. Thus injustice reigns in a society.
So there's my interpretation of Romans 13. I don't believe for one minute that there is any indication that just because God uses a military or a police force that the individuals are saved because they are called "the minister of God".
Did someone state or infer that individuals in the military or police force are saved because they are called "the minister of God"? I must have missed that. Being "the minister of God" simply means that God ordained them to carry out His purposes in civil government, whether they do or not.
 

Explosived

New member
Re: Re: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

Re: Re: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

Originally posted by Redeemed
By "get their heads out of their critical apparatus" I am assuming that you are making a veiled reference to a lewd and profane phrase commonly used by the world. I am disappointed.

You constantly accuse people of being ignorant or denying the truth, but you fail to defend your position from the scriptures. Bible-believing folks want Biblical defenses.

Redeemed, I have never considered you a Bible believer in the slightest.

The FACT remains that this statement by Jaltus, "There is also no precedent for Christians to pray in Jesus' name. There is also no precedent for meeting on Sundays." is false according to the Holy Bible. Anyone who has ever studied or read the Bible knows that.
 

Redeemed

New member
Re: Re: Re: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

Re: Re: Re: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

Originally posted by Explosived Redeemed, I have never considered you a Bible believer in the slightest.
Ouch! Feel better now? :(
 
P

Pilgrimagain

Guest
Probably not. I think he doesn't get enough fibre and it makes him irritable.
 

bill betzler

New member
God ordained civil authority, including militaries, just as he ordained marriage and the church. It is a good institution, as is everything God creates and ordains. God gave specific principles of operation to each institution He ordained. When those principles are followed, His institutions are beautiful things indeed.

Redeemed, surely you have never been in the military.

New military slogan:

"""""Join now, it's a beautiful thing.""""":D
 

Ginger

New member
How about this one?

Colossians 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
 

Jaltus

New member
Bill,

Yes, you got my point. A command is not a precedent.

rapt,

You still have not told us what Romans 13 means. You need to shut up until you put up.
 

Redeemed

New member
Originally posted by bill betzler


Redeemed, surely you have never been in the military.

New military slogan:

"""""Join now, it's a beautiful thing.""""":D
Yes, Bill, I have served in the military and still serve the military through my current job.

Perhaps you missed the context of my statement. I said, "God gave specific principles of operation to each institution He ordained. When those principles are followed, His institutions are beautiful things indeed."

Would it not be a beautiful thing if government ruled according to God's principles? How bout if families lived by God's principles? Churches? Everything God designs is good and beautiful, but man always finds a way to make it ugly.
 

Huldrych

New member
Luther research for Solly

Luther research for Solly

Hey Solly,

I haven’t forgotten you, Bro! Most of this post has to do with Bolsinger's 1545, but the note at the bottom I think is probably closer to what your original question was looking for.

I finally got word back from Dr. Bolsinger. Here is his reply:

Heb. 2:2 Denn so das Wort fest worden ist,....

Hier ist nicht Zeit und Platz für eine Geschichte der Lutherbibel: Nur soviel: Nach 1545 wurde an jeder folgenden Auflage unkontrollierte und nicht autorisierte Änderungen vorgenommen. Gegen Ende des 16Jhdts hat man auf kurfürstlichen Befehl alle diese Änderungen verworfen und ist zum 1545 Ausgabe zurückgekehrt. Das Comma Joh. und einige andere kleinere besserungen (z.B. äußerste in Mt 8:12)wurden ebenfalls bei dieser Gelegenheit in den Text aufgenommen.

Dieser auf kurfürstlichen Befehl wiederhergestellte Text von 1545 wurde zur Standardausgabe der dt Bibel deren wichtigste Ausgabe in den nachfolgenden Jahren nicht mehr in Wittenberg sondern in Halle gedruckt wurden. Von dort sind die ersten ernsthaften weltweiten Missionanstrengungen basierend auf der dt. Bibel ausgegangen. Dort haben Niemeyer und Bindseil im 19Jhdt als letzte Verteidigung eine kritische Ausgabe der dt Bibel herausgebracht, die in Rechtschreibung etc. modern ist.

Ich habe mich was Rechtschreibung etc. betrifft an die bei Harms erscheinende Ausgabe gehalten.

Es soll nicht unerwähnt bleiben daß das Komma schon ab den 30Jahren des 16Jhdts in verschiedenen Ausgaben der deutschen Bibel die in Basel, Frankfurt und Nürnberg erschienen enthalten war.

Wenn Du es genau aus erster Hand wissen willst empfehle ich Dir" MGW Panzer, Entwurf einer vollständigen Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzung D. MArtin Luthers vom Jahr 1517an bis 1581" Ich habe eine 1968 bei Grüner in Amsterdam nachgedruckte Ausgabe. Die oben erwähnte kritische Ausgabe des 1545 Texts die Mitte des 19Jhdts von Bindseil und Niemeyer (dem damaligen Chef der Halleschen Waisenanstalten und der Cansteinschen Bibel Anstalt) ist leider antiquarisch schwer erhältlich. Ich selber besitze bisher nur das AT.

Der Nachdruck der originalen Schreibfehler von 1545 durch die dt. Bibelgesellschaft scheint mir mehr in Feindschaft als in Liebe für dieses Buch begründet zu sein.

freundliche grüße
michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Hatfield" <Hatfield@connections.com>
To: <Michael.Bolsinger@t-online.de>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 10:24 PM
Subject: Unrevidiert?

Sehr geehrter Herr Bolsinger,

Ist die von Ihnen angebotene 1545 Version der Luther Bibel echt unrevidiert? Vor ein Paar Tage vergleichte ich ein Paar Versen aus der 1545 mit der 1912, um eine Frage über 1. Joh 5,7 zu antworten. Da schlug ich nach bei dem Faksimile der von Hans Lufft in Wittenberg gedrückte 1545, die ich habe. Es hat mir überrascht, daß diese Verse (von den himmlischen Zeugen, dem Vater, dem Wort, und dem Geist) nicht zu finden war. Es gibt Fußnotizen in meiner 1912, daß diese Verse sich nicht in Luthers eigener Übersetzung finde.

Ich möchte keine Debatte anfängen. Ich suche nur eine Erklärung, warum Ihre elektronische Versionen der 1545 sich als "unrevidiert" behaupten kann, wenn diese Verse nicht in Martin Luthers ursprünglichem Text steht.

Danke,
Jeremy Hatfield

And for the benefit of those who don’t know German (or are somewhat rusty or Unerfahren with it):

Heb 2:2 For if the word is steadfast...

There isn't time and place for a history of the Luther Bible: only so much: after 1545 uncontrolled and unauthorized changes took place on every succeeding print run. Towards the end of the 16th century all these changes were, by order of the Elector [historical note: the electors were princes of distinction who had the power to elect the Emperor.], rejected and turned back to the 1545. The Comma in John and other small improvements (for example, including [the formerly nonpresent] "outermost" in Mt. 8:12) were likewise taken up in the text by this event.

This text of the 1545, which was restored by electoral command, became the standard edition of the German Bible. In the following years, its most important edition was no longer printed in Wittenberg, but in Halle. From there, the first serious worldwide mission efforts based on the German Bible went out. There, as a last defense, Niemeyer and Bindseil produced a critical edition of the German Bible, which is in the modern mode of spelling and punctuation.

I kept myself to Harm's current edition of spelling and pronunciation when it came to such matters.

It should not remain unmentioned that for the thirty years after the 16th century, the comma remained, preserved in various editions of the German Bible, [such as the one] in Basel, Frankfurt, and Nuremberg.

If you want to know this in greater detail first-hand, I recommend MGW Panzer, "Outline of a Complete History of the German Bible translation of Dr. Martin Luther from the years 1517 to 1581." I have a 1968 reprint from Grüner in Amsterdam. The aforementioned critical edition of the 1545 text of the middle of the 19th century by Bindseil and Niemeyer (who was at the time head of the Halle Orphan's Institute and the Canstein Bible Institute) is, unfortunately, antiquarian and hard to come by. I myself own only the Old Testament right now.

The reprint of the original printing errors of the 1545 by the German Bible Society seems, to me, to be based more in hatred for the book than in love for it.

Friendly greetings,
michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Hatfield" <Hatfield@connections.com>
To: <Michael.Bolsinger@t-online.de>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 10:24 PM
Subject: Unrevised?

Dear Mr. Bolsinger,

Is the version of the 1545 Luther Bible you offer truly unrevised? A few days ago I was comparing a couple of verses from the 1545 with the 1912, in order to answer a question about 1. John 5:7. For that reason, I referred to a facsimile of the 1545 printed by Hans Lufft in Wittenberg that I have. It surprised me that this verse (about the heavenly witnesses, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit) was not found there. There are notes in my 1912 that this verse is not found in Luthers own translation.

I don't want to start a debate. I'm only looking for an explanation, why your electronic version of the 1545 can claim itself as "unrevised," when this verse does not appear in Martin Luther's original text.

Thank you,
Jeremy Hatfield

My assessment so far? On the outset, I’m very skeptical. I’m thankful that he does me the courtesy of referring me to an historical work (which I will look for, but unfortunately, it sounds like it might be a very hard work to find outside of Europe, much less the Interior of Alaska), but there is a lot in his reply to me that doesn’t add up.

#1: He states that errors appeared in print runs of the Luther Bible towards the end of the 16th century. That sounds like a good argument, except that Hans Lufft was the one who first printed the Luther Bible, starting with Luther's first edition in 1534, and is known for printing the first revisions of Luther's Bible as well. That leads me to conclude that the 1545 which the unnamed Kurfürst commanded a return to was none other than that which was first printed by Hans Lufft (a facsimile of which I have in my possession).

#2: He compares the Luther 1545 with other German Bibles printed around that time regarding a comma in a certain verse (I don't know what comma he was talking about in John. I was referring to 1. John 5:7). Well, if he wants to go the route of comparing Germanic Reformation Bibles, this also must be taken into consideration:

The Zwingli Bible reads the verse as "Drei nämlich sind es, die Zeugnis ablegen, 8Der Geist und das Wasser und das Blut; und die drei gehen auf eins." Now, in all fairness, that is quoted from a 1931 revision (I have a facsimile of the 1531 ordered and should arrive in a few weeks), which has a footnote about the "heavenly witnesses" wording, but notes that this is only found in several Latin manuscripts of the 4th century, and a few Greek Bibles of the 15th century onwards. But it is not included as a main part of the text, as it neither is in any Luther version.

#3: While he does not say so (and I have asked for clarification), Bolsinger seems to base his 1545 on a 19th century critical edition (read, revision), it is only the Old Testament. This doesn't seem to leave him any solid reference point for writing 1. John 5:7 the way he did.

Conclusion, based on what evidence I have gathered: Bolsinger's 1545 is not the original, unrevised 1545. If he wants to claim it as a revised version based on the Luther 1545, that would be fine, but in no way should he be passing it out as the original, "unrevised" 1545. And unfortunately, it seems that many online Bible sites are using his texts under that pretense.

Here's something else I came across, Solly. I think when a lot of King James enthusiasts tout the Textus Receptus, they are referring to the TR of 1550. There, you do find mention of the heavenly witnesses.

However, I managed to get hold of an electronically-rendered Byzantine manuscript (thanks to the SWORD Project) which I think predates the 1550. The wording of 1 John 5:7 in that version would explain why the Luther and Zwingli versions render that verse the way they do.

Hope that helps, Bro!

Blessings,
jth
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top