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

Explain Daniel 3:57-88

Can any Protestant please explain why Luther would remove Daniel's telling all the works of God to praise God in Daniel 3:57-88?

I think I see a hidden TRUE reason in those verses. See if you can see it as well?

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The End Times Signs Bible Quiz
 ---Nicole_Lacey on 4/8/18
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



The "Jews" were entrusted with the preservation of the word of God for future generations. Act 7:38 They were specifically instructed "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deu 4:2 Thus my questions on 4/18/18 which were not answered with Rom 3:2. Resulting in my question on 4/23/18, the facetiousness I was referring to in my last post was in repeatedly asking you questions that I knew you could not answer. If the apocrypha was Gods word, then it should have remained. If it was not, then it should have never been included in the first place.
---josef on 4/24/18


"The LordJesus Christ the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity only delights in truth not lies and heresy."
That sounded like an accusation. What about my posts would you considered heresy, or a lie?
---josef on 4/24/18


joseph said, "John I was simply being facetious, and it's gone on long enough. My apologies. There were good reasons for the apocrypha omission, reasons that I personally agree with. Be blessed."

Sir, these matters are not joking matters remember people are reading what we write and we all must decide will we lead to truth or deception in writing...

The LordJesus Christ the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity only delights in truth not lies and heresy...



---john9346 on 4/24/18


John I was simply being facetious, and it's gone on long enough. My apologies. There were good reasons for the apocrypha omission, reasons that I personally agree with. Be blessed.
---josef on 4/24/18


joseph said, "How did that give them the right or authority to change or omit that which did not suit them."

Sir, again like Paul tells you they were the ones who Yahweh entrusted with the OT were they not?

"And I repeat, The Jews in charge of scripture didn't believe Jesus was the Christ, why should we take their word as concerning what is or is not inspired of the Father?"

Simply, because the books that you are arguing for contradict each other and the Totality of Scripture. The argument your making would be valid if the Jews omitted Messianic Prophecies, but Scriptures addressing Messianic Prophecies are in full view...

Joseph, have you ever read the apocrypha sir??
---john9346 on 4/23/18




Nicole I think you have misunderstood me. "It is not for me to argue your belief" spawn from the realization that you honestly believed what you were sharing, and it wasn't for me to attempt to convince you otherwise. I had already shared what I believed, and you didn't ask me a question, but rather offered a rebuttal. Which let me know that you were settled in your belief.
---josef on 4/23/18


"Sir, the Jews were the ones entrusted with the Scriptures like Paul inspired of the Holy Spirit tells you..." How did that give them the right or authority to change or omit that which did not suit them. And I repeat, The Jews in charge of scripture didn't believe Jesus was the Christ, why should we take their word as concerning what is or is not inspired of the Father?
---josef on 4/23/18


Josef, please tell me when I disrespect you?

I gave you answer thinking I was debating you. Your response to me was immediate accusing me of being angry.

Please point out in my post where I was rude to you?

I NEVER have a problem saying SORRY.

Samuel: Dear Nicole Jesus is saying talking about the resurrection not people living in heaven. Mat 22:31//

Jesus first address how people live in Heaven before stating they are alive in Heaven during their conversation.

//There is a Christian movie called Hell and Mr. Fudge. You might enjoy it.---Samuelbb7 on 4/22/18

Never heard the movie, but will keep it in mind
---Nicole_Lacey on 4/23/18


"Maybe you take it as a argument because you not happy with the outcome." Actually Nicole, I had no expectancy as concerning outcome. As I have said so often, one convinced against ones will is of the same opinion still. I am more than willing to debate and listen to reason, as long as I receive the same courtesy, and can see a productive exchange of viewpoints without assumptions, redundancy, or offense. I simply share, and like yourself, I believe what I share to be scripturally based, and attempt to document, fully realizing that my understanding is fallible. However, it is shared honestly.
---josef on 4/23/18


joseph ask, ""Regarding the Jews see answer in Rom 3:2." How does that answer my question?"

Sir, the Jews were the ones entrusted with the Scriptures like Paul inspired of the Holy Spirit tells you...
---john9346 on 4/23/18




The problem with Paul which is pointed out by Peter is that some misuse his words and twist them to make Paul say false doctrine.

The problem is not with the words of Paul. But People who don't want to listen and ignore those points they disagree with.

Instead of using all scripture they take some and reject what they don't want to hear. A very human trait. But we are to live for and follow Jesus not our wishes. AGape
---Samuelbb7 on 4/23/18


Dear Nicole Jesus is saying talking about the resurrection not people living in heaven.

Mat 22:31

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

So no there is no evidence of the dead not being dead.

There is a Christian movie called Hell and Mr. Fudge. You might enjoy it.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 4/22/18


//Because it seems Protestants try to win a debate using Paul's words over Jesus' Words//
Christ sent Paul.
Paul a chosen vessel (Acts 9:15).
Paul spoke Gods words. (1 Thess 2:13)
The Lord gave Commandments to Paul.(Gal 1:12, 1 Thess 4:2)
The Lord commands men to receive whom he sends (John 13:20)
Some reject his special apostleship. If their doctrine is questioned, they say, we follow Peter, we follow Jesus, while rejecting what Jesus gave to Paul.
Paul responds to rejections epistle. (1 Cor 1:11, 2 Cor 11:5, 1 Thess 4:8)
The Father, Son, and Spirit confirmed Pauls message. He was not behind any of the apostles in authority, having been sent by the Lord himself.
If anyone rejects Paul, they reject Christ.
---michael_e on 4/22/18


Josef, we are not arguing but debating.

Maybe you take it as a argument because you not happy with the outcome.

I am proving how Matthew is speaking about people are ALIVE after immediate death on earth.

But if you refuse to listen to Jesus who am I to believe you will listen
---Nicole_Lacey on 4/22/18


"Jesus not only corrects them about our marriage status (which is none) in Heaven but people who died are NOT DEAD while Jesus walked on earth and during their conservation stating they were ALIVE as they spoke."
Nicole I have no idea how you received that understanding from that conversation, however It is not for me to argue your belief.
---josef on 4/22/18


Nicole the problem is the topic of conversation is the resurrection from the dead. Not are the dead now alive.

The topic is the resurrection.

Mat 22:31

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
---Samuelbb7 on 4/22/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


Josef, please quote from Jesus not Paul.

Because it seems Protestants try to win a debate using Paul's words over Jesus' Words

Go to Matthew.
In Matthew 23:22-32 the Sadducees are clearly speaking about men dying and rising after death. So they give Jesus a scenario of a woman marrying 7 brothers on earth.

Jesus not only corrects them about our marriage status (which is none) in Heaven but people who died are NOT DEAD while Jesus walked on earth and during their conservation stating they were ALIVE as they spoke.

If you discredit Jesus' statement of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob being alive, then you have to say Jesus is wrong about marriage status in Heaven since He spoke about both issues at the same time.
---Nicole_Lacey on 4/22/18


Nicole are the dead called spirits or souls? Verse 86 mentions both.

Luke 20:38 explains Mat. 22:32

"He is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. KJV
"He is the God of the living, not the dead, for they are all alive to him". NLT

"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." NIV

"Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him" RSV

The dead does live, but only in the mind plan and purpose of the Father. Rom 14:8,9
---josef on 4/22/18


Josef: Nicole how does the verses prove people are aware of their surroundings after death?---josef on 4/12/18

Because they are claiming 2 groups of people praising God.

He speaks of Servants of the Lord and other people living in the verses prior to 86 esp. V82 Bless the Lord all people on earth.

V86 Bless the Lord, spirits and souls of the righteous, sing praise to Him and Highly exalt Him forever.

That proves the Dead people are NOT Dead but alive as Jesus said in Matthew 22:32.
---Nicole_Lacey on 4/21/18


"Regarding the Jews see answer in Rom 3:2." How does that answer my question? "Let God be true but every man a liar." Rom 3:4
---josef on 4/20/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


Joseph:

Regarding the Jews see answer in Rom 3:2.

Next, . The books of the apocrypha were written during (the-400-years of Silence) between the Book of Malachi and the Birth of Christ The writer of Maccabees tells us about this time. See, 1 Maccabees 4:46, 9:27, and 14:41.
---john9346 on 4/19/18


"Those who read them in this sense the Jews."
The Jews in charge of scripture didn't believe Jesus was the Christ, why should we take their word as concerning what is or is not inspired of the Father?
"Because it was added later in the time when there were no prophets in Israel." And you know this how?
---josef on 4/19/18


Joseph ask:

"Understood by whom John?"

Those who read them in this sense the Jews.

"Question John, according to scholarship, were the verses apart of the manuscripts as being authored by Daniel?"

no

"If so, why included part of the chapter, and exclude another?"

Because it was added later in the time when there were no prophets in Israel.

You see, a book had to meet a Prophetic standard, a Wide Concensus among believers (Jews), and be Messianic Centered and focus.
---john9346 on 4/19/18


What many fail to recognize is that the Jews knew this part of Daniel existed, but they also knew it was not, "Inspired." of Yahweh.

Yes, it could be read for
a hymn or chant, but its no different than you or I writing a hymn to Yahweh of which I do, but what I write is not, "Inspired." of Yahweh...
---john9346 on 4/19/18


Send a Free Apostate Church Tract


"They were understood to be read only for encouragement and fiction, never "Inspired." Understood by whom John? As I stated the verses make for a lovely religious chant or hymn. Question John, according to scholarship, were the verses apart of the manuscripts as being authored by Daniel? If so, why included part of the chapter, and exclude another? Who thought themselves qualified to edit the word of God? If He indeed inspired the verses to be written originally, then they were inspired, and no man had the authority to dismiss them. If they wasn't included in the originals, who do you think had the audacity to add uninspired verses to Gods word? If His word has been altered how can we know truth from fiction?
---josef on 4/18/18


joseph said, "What I found in the NRSVCE is Dan 3:57-88, which are the verse I was originally inquiring about."

Sir, just so you know that is of the apocrypha. It has been rejected by the church as not, "Divinely Inspired and Authoritative." They were understood to be read only for encouragement and fiction, never "Inspired."

---john9346 on 4/17/18


cluny said, "Actually, so does the Bible."

Show us one verse that does?
---john9346 on 4/16/18


cluny said, "Actually, they were removed by Protestants."

So Jerome, Malito of Sardis, John of Damascus, and the Glossa Ordinaria must be protestant because these fathers and the work reject the Apycropha Books...

There are Multiple Blogs where you have been corrected in this error even so much so that you started disagreeing with the fathers who contradicted you.

One Noted Blogs is the 7-ecumenical Councils...

The you
---john9346 on 4/16/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


joseph said, "What I found in the NRSVCE is Dan 3:57-88, which are the verse I was originally inquiring about."

Sir, just so you know that is of the apocrypha. It has been rejected by the church as not, "Divinely Inspired and Authoritative." They were understood to be read only for encouragement and fiction, never "Inspired."
---john9346 on 4/16/18


\\ I can't comment on something I know nothing about. \\

Why not? Many other people here do so all the time.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 4/15/18


\\when catholics reject the Scriptures as being the Infallible Rule of Faith and Practice for Christians\\

Actually, so does the Bible.

||The Roman Catholic Church have added books to the bible did you know this??||

Actually, they were removed by Protestants.
All lthe pre-reformation Churches of the East have had them since the translation of the LXX.

Doesn't it bother you to say things that have NO BASIS in reality, john?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 4/14/18


"Can you explain how you have found the understanding of Manuscript Evidence" If manuscript evidence is not readily available, it irrelevant to me. I can't comment on something I know nothing about. What I found in the NRSVCE is Dan 3:57-88, which are the verse I was originally inquiring about.
---josef on 4/14/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


joseph said, "Never mind John I found what I was looking for in the New revised Standard version Catholic addition."

Can you explain how you have found the understanding of Manuscript Evidence (Textual Criticism, the canon, etc.) when catholics reject the Scriptures as being the Infallible Rule of Faith and Practice for Christians. Roman Catholics do not concern themselves with what you and I have been discussing because all you need is the Roman Catholic church to define doctrine??

The Roman Catholic Church have added books to the bible did you know this??
---john9346 on 4/14/18


Never mind John I found what I was looking for in the New revised Standard version Catholic addition. I agree with the verses, all aspects of creation should praise and highly exalt the Creator. To answer the post question, I have no idea, makes for a lovely religious chant or hymn. Nicole how does the verses prove people are aware of their surroundings after death?
---josef on 4/12/18


\\
many of the copies have errors and discrepancies. How do you know?\\

It's an historical fact that in the Temple at the time of the Savior, there were THREE variant texts of the torah.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 4/11/18


Joseph said, "Nothing they said can be verified. They offered no solid documentation."

False, the videos are very Attention to Detail how much deal you listen sir?

Joseph said, "So far no one has, perhaps you can and will?"

Sir, I've provided you a reference and your rejecting so if I provide you books and other sources be honest will you read them and search them?
---john9346 on 4/11/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


Joseph,

When the manuscripts are compared with each other, they're errors. You see, the Early Manuscripts are what is the closest to the Original. Example, Mark 16:9-21 is not in the Majority Text and the Adulterous Woman was added.
---john9346 on 4/11/18


On what bases do you have when you said, "only unfounded conjecture."?? Nothing they said can be verified. They offered no solid documentation. I saw it as the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

Sir, tell us, have you ever heard of manuscripts before I mention it to you? Yes I've heard, but never seen. I have asked those who have mentioned them to point me to them or where they can be found online. So far no one has, perhaps you can and will?

many of the copies have errors and discrepancies. How do you know?
---josef on 4/11/18


Joseph ask, If we don't have the originals, where did the copies originate?

The copies come from those who copied the original,however, many of the copies have errors and discrepancies.

Joseph ask, If the copies could be maintained why not the originals?

What do you mean by maintained? you have to keep in mind that many copies/works were burned persecution was colossal during this time.
---john9346 on 4/11/18


joseph ask, "Are you sharing what you know of Father's word John or what you think based solely on what you've heard?"

If anyone shares things that are not stated in Scripture then the question must be asked, "Are we sharing Father's Word?" Mk 16:9-21, Jn 7:53-8:1-11?

On what bases do you have when you said, "only unfounded conjecture."??

Sir, tell us, have you ever heard of manuscripts before I mention it to you?
---john9346 on 4/11/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


Nicole, it's not a question of Luther removing this bassage, containing the Benedicite omnia opera and Benedictus es Domine.

It's a difference between the Masoretic Hebrew text of Daniel, and the LXX text, which is based on an OLDER Hebrew version than the Masoretic.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 4/10/18


"Manuscripts are the coppies of the Original Autographs. Since we don't have the Original Autographs we do,however, have coppies upon coppies of the Original Autographs." If we don't have the originals, where did the copies originate? If the copies could be maintained why not the originals?
"For more information, see, Textual Critic Scholars Dr. James White and Dr. Daniel Wallace their lectures you can see on Youtube." I received no viable, as in practicable or workable information from watching these lectures, only unfounded conjecture. Are you sharing what you know of Father's word John or what you think based solely on what you've heard?
---josef on 4/10/18


Joseph said, "Perhaps you can provide those missing verses and where they can be found?"

Yes sir, Mark 16:9-21.

John 7:53-8:1-11.

The number of the beast Rev 13:18 is 616 not 666.

Manuscripts are the coppies of the Original Autographs. Since we don't have the Original Autographs we do,however, have coppies upon coppies of the Original Autographs.

For more information, see, Textual Critic Scholars Dr. James White and Dr. Daniel Wallace their lectures you can see on Youtube.
---john9346 on 4/9/18


John all of that is beyond my knowledge. Perhaps you can provide those missing verses and where they can be found? What manuscript evidence are you referring to? Stating that there is such without documentation is useless.
---josef on 4/9/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


joseph said, "Since the verses are missing from most versions of the bible, how can we know, or determine their validity? Or attempt to ascertain why they were excluded."

We have Manuscript Evidence (Textual Criticism) by that we know what was and wasn't in the "Original Scripture.

Examples, The Adulterous Woman was not in the original, Mark 16:9-21 was not in the original, and 666 is not the Number of the Beast its 616.

There are about 400,000 variances in Scripture and we have about 6000 Manuscripts of The Original Scripture.





---john9346 on 4/9/18


Since the verses are missing from most versions of the bible, how can we know, or determine their validity? Or attempt to ascertain why they were excluded. Please copy and paste them here, so that we might discuss them.
---josef on 4/9/18


Within those verses missing out of KJV are a group of people that proves they are aware of their surroundings after death.
---Nicole_Lacey on 4/8/18


Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.