ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Was There A Bible Deletion

Martin Luther changed the Bible, and when he was asked about it, he said, "Just tell them Dr. Luther wants it that way."

Where did HE get the authority to change the Bible and declare the deletion canonical?

Moderator - What deletion?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Monk_Brendan on 6/11/16
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Post a New Blog



Brendan and Cluny,

Gentlemen,

The both of you can not or will not provide Historical Evidence for your "Claims."

We have seen from a historian and many many church fathers that the Apocryphal has not been "Scripture."

Remember, Laodicea.

You see, you have to give "Evidence." not "Sola Ekklesia."

Please do that in honesty to be believed...
---john9346 on 7/3/16


john9346, I suggest you go to the wiki that is Orthodox, and look up SEPTUAGINT.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/3/16


John 9346 said, "To factor in Brendan's Inquiry, "Before the reformation?"

Yes, John, all of the Churches before the Reformation accepted the WHOLE BIBLE, All 73 books.

True, some individuals did not like this or that book, thinking them not on the order of Divinely inspired. But even a saint is allowed to have a bad day, aren't they? Be real. Perfection is only for God.

Even Peter and Paul were difficult to work with, and when THEY got together, well, iron sharpens iron.
---Monk_Brendan on 7/2/16


\\He stating that the apocrypha books of Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus were not placed in the ark.\\

Please read what I said earlier the last time you said this.

\\Again, remember the question that I am asking you and Brendan to please answer, "Has the Apocrypha Books always been accepted as "Scripture."\\

By the Pre-Reformation Churches as a whole? Yes, regardless of what individual writers might have said.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/1/16


Only the Pentateuch was placed in the Ark.
---Samuelbb7 on 7/1/16




Cluny,

Listen to John of Damascus.

He stating that the apocrypha books of Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus were not placed in the ark.

Again, remember the question that I am asking you and Brendan to please answer, "Has the Apocrypha Books always been accepted as "Scripture."

To factor in Brendan's Inquiry, "Before the reformation?"
---john9346 on 7/1/16


John 9346 said, "Sir, this is where the Glossa Ordinaria will answer this Historical Question I would ask for the sake of truth that you please do dilegence to read and study..."

John, I though I had downloaded the Glossa, however, it was a Doctoral Dissertation about how it was translated to English. No real content. Would you happen to know where I can get an e-book of the English Version?
---Monk_Brendan on 7/1/16


Athanasius stated that the Apocryphal Books were inventions of heretics for example, (The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles."

Festal Letter 39:7.

Also, the council of Laodicea doesn't mention these books either as well as Maccabees.



It is
---john9346 on 7/1/16


\\"There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark." \\

In this point, St. John of Damascus is in error if he intended to say the ENTIRE Hebrew canon was placed in the Ark.

It wasn't, since a substantial part of the Hebrew OT was composed after the destruction of the First Temple.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/1/16


Brendan states, "The so-called "Apocrypha" was not an issue until after the Reformation,"

Sir, this is where the Glossa Ordinaria will answer this Historical Question I would ask for the sake of truth that you please do dilegence to read and study...

Not sure of your point regarding Trent I believe my statement was clear to whom it was for.

Lets remain on topic with Substantiveness it will only help those who are here genuinely seeking the truth...

Thank You,

John
---john9346 on 6/30/16




"There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark."

(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-NiceneFathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Series Two, Volume IX, John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Chapter XVII).
---john9346 on 6/30/16


\\Error, Melito of Sardis, Origen, and Athanasius followed Jerome,Augustine, Philo, and Josephus (Listing the Hebrew Canon as the Jews did).\\

That doesn't change the simple fact that the ORTHODOX Church accepts them.

Origen himself had so many errors he's not accepted as an authority by ORthodox.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/30/16


I forgot to mention that Melitio of Sardis wanted to exclude Nehemiah and (along with Luther) Esther as well.

Do you agree with him on this as well?

If not, why not?

The fact remains that if you buy an ORTHODOX edition of the Bible, it will contain these books.

Deal with it.

While I'm at it, Augustine of Hippo is not the universal solvent for the Orthodox that he became in the west.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/30/16


Thank you Monk Brendan. For that information about your affiliation.

Many Scholars before and after Luther have pointed to these books not being proper to be part of Scripture. A position taken by Hebrew Scholars as well.

We need to find agreement on the parts of the Bible we all agree too.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 6/29/16


Cluny states, "But they are exceptions."

Tell us, Exceptions by whom sir??

Cluny states, "The Orthodox Church as a whole accepts these books."

Error, Melito of Sardis, Origen, and Athanasius followed Jerome,Augustine, Philo, and Josephus (Listing the Hebrew Canon as the Jews did).
---john9346 on 6/29/16


John 9346 said, "But Jerome,Augustine, Philo, Aquila, etc. states historically that these books were never "Canonical."

I cited Trent because it is Nicole's Authority on the bible."


It might be Nicole's authority, but as I have repeatedly said, Trent was a local council, and is not binding on Eastern Catholics.

Please remember, John, that we are in communion with Rome, but not UNDER Rome
---Monk_Brendan on 6/29/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


Folks, please remember a couple of things before you think of challenging me.

The so-called "Apocrypha" was not an issue until after the Reformation, when MEN took it on their own authority to change the Bible. ALL of the Apostolic Churches have held them as Sacred Scripture, and not as something less important.

The LOCAL council of Trent was a reaction to the Reformation, to condemn the principles and doctrines of Protestantism and to clarify the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church on all disputed points.

I am not a "Roman" Catholic. I am an Eastern Catholic, in communion with Rome.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/29/16


\\But Jerome,Augustine, Philo, Aquila, etc. states historically that these books were never "Canonical\\

But they are exceptions.

The Orthodox Church as a whole accepts these books.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/29/16


Brendan states, "
To quote from Orthodoxwiki, The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books are books of the Old Testament that are accepted by the Orthodox Christian Church but are not accepted by Protestants as part of its official canonical contents, but of close association with the Bible."

But Jerome,Augustine, Philo, Aquila, etc. states historically that these books were never "Canonical."

I cited Trent because it is Nicole's Authority on the bible.
---john9346 on 6/28/16


John 9346 said, "...can you show...any of us on this blog that the Apocrypha... were always accepted as "Scripture." before the Council of Trent in 1546?

Everyone note, the 7 books Nicole is talking about didn't receive canonicity until Trent in 1546....


To quote from Orthodoxwiki, The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books are books of the Old Testament that are accepted by the Orthodox Christian Church but are not accepted by Protestants as part of its official canonical contents, but of close association with the Bible.

The Orthodox didn't attend and do not recognize the Council of Trent

BTW, Trent was a local council to which the Eastern Catholics weren't invited
---Monk_Brendan on 6/28/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Nicole states, "
If the first text (Bible) had 73 Books, how can you accept 66 books from a Ex-RC Priest who had a 73 book Bible, but believes you SHOULDN'T have the same Scripture as he???"

Nicole, ma'am, can you show to any of us on this blog that the Apocrypha Books were always accepted as "Scripture." before the Council of Trent in 1546?

Everyone note, the 7 books Nicole is talking about didn't receive canonicity until Trent in 1546.

So my question to her is can she show to any of us on this blog that the Apocrypha Books were always accepted as "Scripture." before the Council of Trent in 1546??
---john9346 on 6/28/16


John 9346 said, "BTW, as a complement, I really like dialogging with you:-)"

Thanks John. But it's not a big deal. Iron sharpen iron, you know?
---Monk_Brendan on 6/27/16


The gospel of Thomas, for example, was a forgery written in the 3rd or 4th century A.D., claiming to have been written by the apostle Thomas. It was not written by Thomas. The early church fathers almost universally rejected the gospel of Thomas as heretical. It contains many false and heretical things that Jesus supposedly said and did. None of it (or at best very little of it) is true. The epistle of Barnabas was not written by the biblical Barnabas, but by an imposter. The same can be said of the gospel of Philip, the apocalypse of Peter, etc.

I agree with this statement. Lots of books and letters and FABLES were written OT and NEW, but not all are the Inspired WORD OF GOD. That's the difference Nicole.
---kathr4453 on 6/27/16


As far as omitting the books left out, would appear they do not support the ones left in. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.---kathr4453 on 6/26/16

It doesn't take a rocket scientist be able to count up to 100 either.

If the first text (Bible) had 73 Books, how can you accept 66 books from a Ex-RC Priest who had a 73 book Bible, but believes you SHOULDN'T have the same Scripture as he???

Luther EDIT the Bible. A difference from Translating.

If you would admit he edited the Bible and quit saying he translated the Bible I wouldn't say a WORD.

Please look up these words.'
'Translate' and 'Edit'

You don't have to have a English Major either to know the difference.
---Nicole_Lacey on 6/27/16


Send a Free Musical Ecards Ecard


Brendan said, "But it is not, by itself, part of Scripture. If you want me to use just the Bible, then you must do the same, and not consult any extra-Biblical texts."

I never stated that it was,however, it is a fact of history that can not be denied.

It is also the epicenter of your Post Question.

You have posted 2 blogs pertaining to the bible and the gloss addresses the objections/questions you are raising.

In addition, just because I reference the gloss it has nothing to do with denying Sola Scriptura

BTW, as a complement, I really like dialogging with you:-)
---john9346 on 6/26/16


Nicole, who said anything about leaving out whole text of scripture.

The reason we have a Strongs is that it is Greek and Hebrew .... Not German and Spanish.

We see in the Hebrew and Greek there are four different words that English only has one word for....LOVE. This is true for many many words. That is why it is so important to go back and look up the original word. If someone didn't know that, and translated a Bible from English to German without ever using the original Greek and Hebrew, what a mess that would be.

As far as omitting the books left out, would appear they do not support the ones left in. It does t take a rocket scientist to see that.
---kathr4453 on 6/26/16


John 9346 said, "I am not sure of your point, The Glossa Ordinaria is a document of Church History pertaining to the bible translation."

But it is not, by itself, part of Scripture. If you want me to use just the Bible, then you must do the same, and not consult any extra-Biblical texts.

On the other hand, (and you better believe this would not be a good choice for you) if you want to continue using extra Biblical texts, then so can I.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/25/16


Question, from where did Luther translate? From Latin, or from the original Greek and Hebrew?---kathr4453

REALLY? I don't care.
Translate the WHOLE BIBLE, not what you believe should be in a Bible.

If you translate the Bible from Spanish to German that gives you permission to LEAVE OUT parts of the Bible?

Translating doesn't mean paraphrasing. Which means to condense a subject or shorting the subject to give the same meaning affect.

No one can do that with the Bible.

How would you like it if someone translated Genesis leaving out the events of Cain and Abel, Noah's flood and Abraham's Servant finding a wife for Isaac just because he didn't believe it wasn't factual or placed into Genesis in ERROR?

---Nicole_Lacey on 6/24/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Brendan,

I am not sure of your point, The Glossa Ordinaria is a document of Church History pertaining to the bible translation.

It gives us a close look of what really happen in history referencing the bible.
---john9346 on 6/24/16


John 9346, you're so interested in the Glossa Ordinaria. The Glossa is not, in fact, Holy Writ.

I have not had time to read it all the way through, and I ask you for the time to do so. Two-three weeks should be enough.

However, these extra-Biblical texts that you keep suggesting we comment upon are just that--extra-Biblical. As a result, they do not have anywhere near the weight that I give to Scripture.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/24/16


Cluny said, "Like you're trying to do to me?"

lol
Not sure how putting information to ask others to think meets the criteria of "Forced Believing."
---john9346 on 6/24/16


\\Noone will never know and love the truth if they are always told by someone else what and how they are to believe.\\

Like you're trying to do to me?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/24/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Cluny,

I'd suggest reading the Glossa it will help you to better understand.

There are a lot of things many don't know that is why I post/cite/quote so those who genuinely love and just want to know the truth can find the truth...

Noone will never know and love the truth if they are always told by someone else what and how they are to believe.
---john9346 on 6/23/16


Samuel BB said, "Also Luther knew that a number of previous reformers were executed. So he knew by taking his stand he would probably be murdered."

And yet he died in bed, of ill health. All of the Apostles (except John) died a martyr's death. Other martyrs died in the same time period. St. Thomas More, for instance.

What does it mean when a "reformer" of the Church is mostly ignored, especially in reference to his death, by the hierarchy of the Church?
---Monk_Brendan on 6/23/16


\\Cluny,

Sir, the Glossa Ordinaria was used prior to 1054 AD it modeled Jerome's Rules for Translating.
---john9346 on 6/21/16\\

Not according to what I've read.

Furthermore, I had never even heard of it until you mentioned it.

The FACT remains that Orthodoxy holds these disputed books to be inspired and part of the Bible.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/23/16


True Martin Luther had a sharp tongue and a nasty temper.

But then Papal leaders had declared him a heretic to be burned alive at the stack.

Also this was before the counter reformation when many church leaders were in fact evil people who displayed their hatred for the poor and others. Also Luther knew that a number of previous reformers were executed. So he knew by taking his stand he would probably be murdered.
---Samuelbb7 on 6/21/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Cluny,

Sir, the Glossa Ordinaria was used prior to 1054 AD it modeled Jerome's Rules for Translating.
---john9346 on 6/21/16


john9346, the Glossa Ordinaria means absolutely NOTHING to the Orthodox, as it was compiled a good two centuries AFTER the West had fallen away.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/21/16


'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon, here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc.


"the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon.

The Glossa Ordinaria



---john9346 on 6/20/16


John 9346 said, "And what did they change that was written?"

Luther, in his open letter on translating, said, "But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing."

He admits to adding "Sola" to his translation of Rom 3:28 in his German text. That is a change, is it not?

To restate the question, if everything was complete, why did Luther and Calvin seem to think it was okay to change what was written?"
---Monk_Brendan on 6/21/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Brendan states, "Again, Luther was setting himself up to be the leader of a religion. He did not have it thrust upon him as some Popes did."

No sir remember he didn't want to leave the church of rome he was forced to leave.

Brendan asked, "If everything was complete, why did Luther and Calvin seem to think it was okay to change what was written?"

And what did they change that was written?
---john9346 on 6/20/16


John 9346 said, "I have heard it said, "2 wrongs don't make a right."

In the context of the letter, the papists were just as wrong, but I don't see you calling their Leadership Abilities in to questioning.

Also, you stated that Luther
was "Anti-Semitic.", but it could be argued that a lot of the church fathers were "Anti-Semitic."


But no one has asked me to rule on their leadership. Since you ask, some of them were bad Popes. Alexander VI being one of the worst. And I will admit that there was a lot of Anti-semitism in Europe at the time.

Again, Luther was setting himself up to be the leader of a religion. He did not have it thrust upon him as some Popes did.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/20/16


Brendan,

I have heard it said, "2 wrongs don't make a right."

In the context of the letter, the papists were just as wrong, but I don't see you calling their Leadership Abilities in to questioning.

Also, you stated that Luther
was "Anti-Semitic.", but it could be argued that a lot of the church fathers were "Anti-Semitic."

I once read a man argue that John Chrysostom was "Anti-Semitic."
---john9346 on 6/20/16


Considering Wycliffe had to go back and interpret from the original Greek and hebrew, because the translation to Latin was butchered, and if Micha is saying Luther translated from all three, it is possible that there were some things not properly interpreted. Today we have umpteen different versions who omit this and that. One version leaves out "only begotten son" and just says only son. One version uses the word Oracle instead of " The Word of the Lord". Unfortunately ORACLE has a totally different definition.
---kathr4453 on 6/20/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Kathr said, "The message of Salvation is complete. The Gospel of salvation from Genesis to Revelation is complete."

Question to you: If everything was complete, why did Luther and Calvin seem to think it was okay to change what was written?

"Question, from where did Luther translate? From Latin, or from the original Greek and Hebrew?"

He used Latin, plus Hebrew and Greek
---Monk_Brendan on 6/20/16


/from where did Luther translate? From Latin, or from the original Greek and Hebrew?\-kathr4453 on 6/20/16
-Answer: Yes
---micha9344 on 6/20/16


The message of Salvation is complete. The Gospel of salvation from Genesis to Revelation is complete.

Question, from where did Luther translate? From Latin, or from the original Greek and Hebrew?
---kathr4453 on 6/20/16


Luther was the scholar translating the Bible into German. He was the one responsible for the content. He wanted them to know that the books of the Apocrypha were not considered by him and many other scholars and Jews to not be part of scripture.

They and us can decide what to think.
---Samuelbb7 on 6/19/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


Moderator, I said, "I understand he was angry. But calling his detractors names is not the way to take out his anger.

More in Part II"


Where is the Part II that I posted? It is important that people understand what I was talking about when I was talking to John 9346.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/19/16


John 9346 said, "Sometimes calling people names does fit the behavior they are displaying. What is to be judged is the motivation or intent of the heart."

I have learned, lately, that calling people names is childish. I have repented before God.

But that is not the point of this discussion between us.

Childish behavior--whether in the case of Leon or Luther is still childish. As Martin Luther was setting himself up as the leader of his own church, he should not have been so glib with calling people papist donkeys, etc.

I understand he was angry. But calling his detractors names is not the way to take out his anger.

More in Part II
---Monk_Brendan on 6/18/16


This is patently false Luther never deleted any books he actually translated the apocrypha, but like Jerome he made it clear that the Apocryphal Books were not Canonical--john9346 on 6/16/16

Your own statement just proved that Luther deleted the books from the Bible.

To translate means to state exactly what is said.
Not give your OPINION.
Not to say "They said this, but I won't say it because they were wrong, or made a mistake. So I will tell you what should have been said or what is correct."

Who made Luther supreme leader and decider of what should be or not in the Bible for MILLIONS OF PEOPLE?

Revelation 22:18
---Nicole_Lacey on 6/18/16


Brendan,

I do not believe I misunderstood you.

Although you said you would speak to your superior, the truth is you would act...

Sometimes calling people names does fit the behavior they are displaying. What is to be judged is the motivation or intent of the heart.

Not sure why people think being passive is right and being assertive is wrong
---john9346 on 6/17/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


John 9346 said, "You see, when we are wronged we will do everything in our ability to defend ourselves."

John, you misunderstand me. I said if Fr. Basil allowed, I would seek legal redress. As it is, legal redress was unavailable for Luther. But calling people names (which I have done upon occasion, to my shame) is childish. I doubt if anybody on these blogs would follow me out of a fire, much less to be a spiritual leader--which I would never seek.

Note that my first caveat on my original answer was "I would ask my monastic superior, and if he allowed..." I also mentioned that Fr. Basil is a great one for turning the other cheek.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/17/16


Brendan,

You see, when we are wronged we will do everything in our ability to defend ourselves.

Luther did what he felt was right now if he had tried to kill his enemies then you would be 100 percent correct.
---john9346 on 6/16/16


John 9346 said, "If I had stolen your book and was receiving all of the money and the publicity for it, I am sure you would not sit quietly by and do nothing to stop me especially if you published the book to buy everyone in your monastary cassocks."

You can be sure of that, but I am not. I would ask my monastic superior, and if he allowed, I would ask a lawyer for a "cease and desist" order against you.

If all else failed, I would ask my superior if the monastery would sue. I know Fr. Basil (my superior). He is a great one for turning the other cheek. I don't think it would even get that far. He would probably deny me to ask a lawyer for a C & D letter.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/16/16


John 9346 said, "First, I find it a "Double Standard." that you will criticize Luther, but you will not condemn the papist for their plagiarism and what they were doing to him."

You did not ask my opinion of the crime. It was wrong.

Also, you asked, "Lastly, answer the question, Would it also be right to plagiarize your book,yet, at the same time I am condemning you??"

No, but that would be an issue between you and God.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/16/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


Nicole states, "How can you accept Luther's wisdom to delete 7 books."

This is patently false Luther never deleted any books he actually translated the apocrypha, but like Jerome he made it clear that the Apocryphal Books were not Canonical...

As a professor of theology, Luther viewed the apocrypha based on the Glossa Ordinaria which followed Jerome's Rules of Translating the apocrypha.
---john9346 on 6/16/16


Moderator, you asked what deletion?

You do know that Luther was a RC priest who had all 73 books compiled into the Bible?

Remember the RCC was here before Luther.

How can you accept Luther's wisdom to delete 7 books (and parts of other OT books like Ester) of the Bible?

Even the 1st edition of the King James Bible had 73 books.

Does that not anger anyone? Your beloved Bible shorten.

It upset me because my grandmother had an incomplete Bible.
She deserved better but Luther robbed her.
---Nicole_Lacey on 6/16/16


Brendan,

Luther did show mercy and respect to the man who plagiarised his book by not stating his name, he even said at 1 point that what they were doing to him tickled him.

If I had stolen your book and was receiving all of the money and the publicity for it, I am sure you would not sit quietly by and do nothing to stop me especially if you published the book to buy everyone in your monastary cassocks.

if Luther lived in our day, those of the papist would be in court (illegal).
---john9346 on 6/15/16


Brendan,

You said:

"However, I have never seen such an egotistical, bigoted point of view from a church leader in my life."

First, I find it a "Double Standard." that you will criticize Luther, but you will not condemn the papist for their plagiarism and what they were doing to him.

Secondly, with much respect to you, you are only judging him through the lens of the RCC.

Next, tell us, where in this letter does he claim an authority higher than the pope.

Lastly, answer the question, Would it also be right to plagiarize your book,yet, at the same time I am condemning you??
---john9346 on 6/15/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


///...Besides, I don't like being called a papist donkey.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/15/16///

Alrighty then! How about a papist MONKEYMAN? LOL
---Leon on 6/15/16


John 9346 said, "Brendan, Tell us, would it be right for me to attack you if you published a book in Arabic when I don't even know the language?

Would it also be right to plagiarize your book,yet, at the same time I am condemning you??"


It might not be right, but it would not be right for ME to attack you in print and on the web for your plagiarism!

I do understand the letter. I understand that he is angry about both the plagiarism and the condemnation, and I don't fault him for his anger. But his answer to his enemy should be one of love, not name calling.

Come on, John, this is about loving Jesus and your neighbor, even if your neighbor is your bitterest enemy!
---Monk_Brendan on 6/15/16


John 9346, I have read the whole letter, and I must admit that some of his complaints may have some areas of truth.

However, I have never seen such an egotistical, bigoted point of view from a church leader in my life. In my years, and in my research, I have seen, and read about church leaders, from Jim and Tammy to Billy Graham and several popes. Nobody has had the arrogance of Dr. Luther. And he does claim a higher authority than the Pope.

Besides, I don't like being called a papist donkey.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/15/16


Brendan ask, "For instance, in speaking about Catholics, he says, "I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot."

Well sir you must understand what is going on.

Those of the pope were attacking his work when they themselves didn't know German.

They condemned his translation then they plagiarized it.

Luther invested a lot of time and effort in this translation even working with the "Prooven." in helping him to translate.

Brendan, Tell us, would it be right for me to attack you if you published a book in Arabic when I don't even know the language?

Would it also be right to plagiarize your book,yet, at the same time I am condemning you??
---john9346 on 6/15/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


John 9346 said, "Sir, the statement you have attacked in 2 blogs, ""Just tell them Dr. Luther wants it that way."" is a letter written in 1530 on translation."

Thank you, John.

First of all, I see a great lack of humility in this letter, and a great lack of love for his enemy.

For instance, in speaking about Catholics, he says, "I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot." Is this the love of Jesus?
---Monk_Brendan on 6/15/16


Brendan,

You said:

"He wrote so many things. So point me to the letter you have in mind, and give me a chance to read it and meditate on it."

As a monk, in dealing honestly and truthfully, I would think you would have thought before speaking??

Sir, the statement you have attacked in 2 blogs, ""Just tell them Dr. Luther wants it that way."" is a letter written in 1530 on translation.



---john9346 on 6/14/16


Brendan said, "In martin Luther's 95 theses, #9 says, "Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity."

Sir, when Luther wrote the 95 Theses he was wanting to have a conversation about the condition of the church at this time.

Luther never wanted to leave the church of rome, but remember the pope excommunicated him so he had no other choice.

Luther was a very "Committed Monk." he used to sleep on a cold floor during the Winter Time and wore out his confesser by confessing his sins to him.
---john9346 on 6/14/16


John 9346 said, "...Sir, as I asked you on the blog, "Strike Books from Canon."
Do you understand the context??
Sir, have you ever read this full letter?"


In martin Luther's 95 theses, #9 says, "Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity."

If the Holy Spirit is IN the Pope, then how can he be evil? That is the same as the Pope being a born-again, Spirit filled believer!

But to be specific, which letter that you are talking about? He wrote so many things. So point me to the letter you have in mind, and give me a chance to read it and meditate on it.

Fair Enough?
---Monk_Brendan on 6/14/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


Michael E. said, "Since monk omits the word "German" what is the basis of his question?"

My understanding is that the only languages Luther spoke were German, Latin, Greek, and possibly Hebrew and Aramaic. Seeing as how he was trying to "reform" the Church, I would assume he spoke and wrote in German. It is obvious in my question that Luther was not speaking in Latin, Greek, Spanish or English. Therefore, anyone could assume that his translation was in German, and not Middle English
---Monk_Brendan on 6/13/16


Brendan states, "Martin Luther changed the Bible, and when he was asked about it, he said, "Just tell them Dr. Luther wants it that way."

Sir, as I asked you on the blog, "Strike Books from Canon."

Do you understand the context??

Sir, have you ever read this full letter?

Cluny had it right when he stated, "A text without a context is a pretext."
---john9346 on 6/13/16


monk says
//Martin Luther changed the Bible, and when he was asked about it, he said, "Just tell them Dr. Luther wants it that way."
Where did HE get the authority to change the Bible and declare the deletion canonical?//
Since monk omits the word "German" what is the basis of his question?
---michael_e on 6/13/16


Chria, Monk Brendan was not talking about the KJV, but Luther's deliberate mistranslation of the Bible into German.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/13/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


"Are you trying to get me to believe that the King James Bible, printed in 1600, was around for Luther to peruse when penning his GERMANBible in the 1500s? Try again.

Do you speak, read or write German? If not, you'll just have to trust me."

No Monk, I was not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just made an observation. When I read your post, I simply looked in the KJV which I often use, to see what was written there.
I have not studied much of what versions were written when, by whom, what changes were made etc.
As for German, I know but a few words. I just trust the Lord to direct study, as of yet, that has not included German,
---Chria9396 on 6/13/16


Chria said, "...adding the word "alone" to the German translation of Rom 3:28.KJV reads "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

No word "alone" here.

Or in Rom 4:15, he adds the word "only" before wrath (again in German.)"KJV: "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."

KJV is used by many"


Are you trying to get me to believe that the King James Bible, printed in 1600, was around for Luther to peruse when penning his GERMAN Bible in the 1500s? Try again.

Do you speak, read or write German? If not, you'll just have to trust me.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/12/16


Monk, "adding the word "alone" to the German translation of Rom 3:28."

KJV reads "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

No word "alone" here.

"Or in Rom 4:15, he adds the word "only" before wrath (again in German."

KJV: "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."

No "only" here.

KJV is used by many
---Chria9396- on 6/12/16


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.