Psalm 151 Inspired or not?

[MahogonySnail]

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=psa...version=nrsvae

This psalm is ascribed to David as his own composition (though it is outside the number*), after he had fought in single combat with Goliath.
1I was small among my brothers,
and the youngest in my father’s house;
I tended my father’s sheep.


2My hands made a harp;
my fingers fashioned a lyre.


3And who will tell my Lord?
The Lord himself; it is he who hears.*


4It was he who sent his messenger*
and took me from my father’s sheep,
and anointed me with his anointing-oil.


5My brothers were handsome and tall,
but the Lord was not pleased with them.


6I went out to meet the Philistine,*
and he cursed me by his idols.


7But I drew his own sword;
I beheaded him, and took away disgrace from the people of Israel.

[aspen]

sola scriptura is hanging in the balance, here........

What about the last verses in the gospel of Mark? If they are not (I believe the book of Mark was finished off by a Medieval monk), why are they included in the Bible?

[socperkins]

This Psalm doesn't seem very important...or I should say, it doesn't seem (to me) to be inspired by the Spirit. Interesting read though.

sola scriptura is hanging in the balance, here........

What about the last verses in the gospel of Mark? If they are not (I believe the book of Mark was finished off by a Medieval monk), why are they included in the Bible?

Sola Scriptura isn't really affected as it sees (or at least, historically sees) authority resting in the original manuscripts not in copies printed later. I agree with you that the ending of Mark is very suspect. Doesn't appear in the earliest we have and suddenly appears later.

John's account of the woman caught in adultery also has this problem.

As for this Psalm: It being ascribed to David is not enough for me to buy it. Not especially familliar with its textual issues, though. But getting someone's name put on it is not enough for me.

[resurrection33]

There are a lot of apocryphal writings that some people think should be added to the Bible. I think the Bible is long enough.

[MahogonySnail]

I agree it's not saying anything we don't already know.

[Nuhen]

Originally Posted by resurrection33

There are a lot of apocryphal writings that some people think should be added to the Bible. I think the Bible is long enough.

I couldn't disagree more. I would never say I've had "enough" of G-d's Word. I'd LOVE for there to be more Scripture!

[Slepsog4]

There are only 2 significant manuscripts that do not contain the long ending of Mark. These 2 don't agree with each other in many places. One of these 2 has a blank space set apart which is just the right size for the passage. Implication is that the compiler knew of it, thought it genuine and left space for it should he get a copy later.

Looking at the manuscript evidence, I don't think that there is any serious challange to the long ending of Mark. You have two early manuscripts without it and one very late minuscule. There is some support from ancient translations but not enough to seriously undermine the passage.

[oopsies]

Originally Posted by MahogonySnail

I agree it's not saying anything we don't already know.

That is what came to mind. I don't know if it's divinely inspired or not but it doesn't mentioned anything outside of what we already believe or what the rest of the Bible tells us.

[MahogonySnail]

So even if it was inspired, it would be useless. Like that very short book.. 3 john?

[oopsies]

Originally Posted by MahogonySnail

So even if it was inspired, it would be useless. Like that very short book.. 3 john?

If it were inspired, then it should be placed in its appropriate place in the Bible. That does not necessarily mean it is useless. Use it as a reinforcement of what you do know to be true if you will. As for 3 John, well, you can say the same about Revelation if that's the view you hold. I trust that the people who put the Bible together were divinely guided.

[MahogonySnail]

No one ever quotes 3 John to prove their point. And I've never heard a sermon about it. It seems that divine inspiration is not enough. It must also be useful to us. The only useful verse in the whole of 3 John is:

3Jn 1:2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

Which is used by prosperity teachers to prove that we should be in wealth and health.


This verse for example, does nothing for me, it doesn't even come from God's mouth it comes from Paul:


3Jn 1:13 I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee:

[Lifelike]

You guys are funny. Due to how imortant the Word of God is to the Jews i think it was preserved accurately, but also god is able to preserve His Word, and He has done it. The earliest manuscipts arent necessarily right just because the are older, remember the manuscipts that we get the KJV from dont even originate from the oldest manuscripts we have, the orginate from elsewhere. so just because they are not as old doesnt mean that they are wrong, they didnt come after, from the same line (then they would definately be obviously corrupt). Being older does not PROVE that they are more accurate. And the older manuscripts come from unsavoury places (Alexandria/ Egypt - which was full of gnostisicm...) Thats enough to make me at least a little sceptical of them. The textus receptus was the widely received text by the early church fathers, and i believe that it is the preserved Word of God. Notice that the other line from Alexandria removes thousands and thousands of references to Jesus as God, about his blood and anything that gives the Gospel POWER. This is understandable due to the fact that the aexandrians did not believe that Jesus was God but believe more in self worship and that we are Gods. Funny too that Westcott and Hort chose these manuscripts in their translations - they were freemasons and new agers. This isnt heresay, its documented and easily obtainable information. To see the extent of the corruption you need to look at the scriptures not found in many of the modern translations, ie NIV and just about every other more modern version. Its not just Mark... We do need to remember there is an adversary that prowls like a roaring lion, and he's a deceiver. The textus receptus has been handled by Godly men. Even therights to the NIV has been bought by Rupert Murdock, just look at his magazines - they are full of the occult, torot, psychics, gossip and porn ... and his new versions use words like New World Order, and are heavily flavoured by the new age. Check out Les Garrett for more detailed info, hes a very stable, biblical, balanced researcher and scholar and a friend of the ministry i belong to. His book Which Bible Can We Trust is a comprehensive guide to bible translations and origins.

[resurrection33]

Originally Posted by Nuhen

I couldn't disagree more. I would never say I've had "enough" of G-d's Word. I'd LOVE for there to be more Scripture!

Isn’t the Lord always speaking to us?

[oopsies]

Originally Posted by MahogonySnail

No one ever quotes 3 John to prove their point. And I've never heard a sermon about it. It seems that divine inspiration is not enough. It must also be useful to us. The only useful verse in the whole of 3 John is:

3Jn 1:2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

Which is used by prosperity teachers to prove that we should be in wealth and health.


This verse for example, does nothing for me, it doesn't even come from God's mouth it comes from Paul:


3Jn 1:13 I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee:

Well, sometimes a verse/book may not be particularly useful to us but when we are in need/trouble, the Holy Spirit could put the verses into our head and then at that moment, we will understand their use.

[MahogonySnail]

Amen. God told me He'd send me an email by bringing this verse to memory:

3Jn 1:13 I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee:

Originally Posted by Lifelike

You guys are funny. Due to how imortant the Word of God is to the Jews i think it was preserved accurately, but also god is able to preserve His Word, and He has done it. The earliest manuscipts arent necessarily right just because the are older, remember the manuscipts that we get the KJV from dont even originate from the oldest manuscripts we have, the orginate from elsewhere. so just because they are not as old doesnt mean that they are wrong, they didnt come after, from the same line (then they would definately be obviously corrupt). Being older does not PROVE that they are more accurate. And the older manuscripts come from unsavoury places (Alexandria/ Egypt - which was full of gnostisicm...) Thats enough to make me at least a little sceptical of them. The textus receptus was the widely received text by the early church fathers, and i believe that it is the preserved Word of God. Notice that the other line from Alexandria removes thousands and thousands of references to Jesus as God, about his blood and anything that gives the Gospel POWER. This is understandable due to the fact that the aexandrians did not believe that Jesus was God but believe more in self worship and that we are Gods. Funny too that Westcott and Hort chose these manuscripts in their translations - they were freemasons and new agers. This isnt heresay, its documented and easily obtainable information. To see the extent of the corruption you need to look at the scriptures not found in many of the modern translations, ie NIV and just about every other more modern version. Its not just Mark... We do need to remember there is an adversary that prowls like a roaring lion, and he's a deceiver. The textus receptus has been handled by Godly men. Even therights to the NIV has been bought by Rupert Murdock, just look at his magazines - they are full of the occult, torot, psychics, gossip and porn ... and his new versions use words like New World Order, and are heavily flavoured by the new age. Check out Les Garrett for more detailed info, hes a very stable, biblical, balanced researcher and scholar and a friend of the ministry i belong to. His book Which Bible Can We Trust is a comprehensive guide to bible translations and origins.

The newer translations follow in the tradition of the KJV whose translators supported the continual work of revising their work. I challenge you to compare the textus recepticus with the Nestle text on the most important 25 NT passages and critique the difference. I would be glad to post the two on those twenty-five. I would also challenge you to a test on the language of the KJV using passages from the Bible to demonstrate that the language of the KJV is neither your language nor mine.

[Lifelike]

Originally Posted by charisenexcelcis

The newer translations follow in the tradition of the KJV whose translators supported the continual work of revising their work. I challenge you to compare the textus recepticus with the Nestle text on the most important 25 NT passages and critique the difference. I would be glad to post the two on those twenty-five. I would also challenge you to a test on the language of the KJV using passages from the Bible to demonstrate that the language of the KJV is neither your language nor mine.

Haha sounds like a challenge, give me a little time to respond, I might as well do it right.. Post your 25 and I'll get back to u

[Lifelike]

Something else too, speaking of things in the bible that are "not useful" because they don't add anything to what we already know... God repeats Himself a lot in the bible. Should we chuck these? I mean how many times does he need to say it? And when israel leave Him for other Gods AGAIN and AGAIN! Should they merely have written - yes they did it again - just like the last time. And then when God says he'll restore them! Should we maybe just chop it all down into 1 story and just put X1000 next to it n maybe a list of dates or something ?? Haha - I am just being sarcastic in case u haven't realized.... Who are we to say what is inspired or not? Or what should or shouldn't be in the word. Logic and hitorical evidence can only go so far and then there's
just God, and He says what's what, and we are just humbled by His might.