Old Testament Version???

[MORTANIUS]

:scratch: Which version is much more precise or beneficial to Christians?

The SEPTUAGINT (4th century B.C.) or HEBREW CANON (90 A.D. formed at the Synod of Jamnia)?

I know I've been brought up on the Hebrew Canon but the more I have learned about it through my studies I'm not sure why we Lutherans use it and not the Septuagint?

I don't want to bore everyone with various facts and so forth, I would just like some opinions on this matter. Maybe this will open up a healthy debate over our choice of Old Testament Scripture. Apocryphal and Old Testament Books differ significantly between the Septuagint and Hebrew Canon through omissions, re-writes, exclusions and so forth. The Septuagant apparently appears much more precise and complete to the fullfillment of a Messiah, while the Hebrew Canon which ommits and re-writes various passages raises some questions!

[LutherNut]

:scratch: Which version is much more precise or beneficial to Christians?

The SEPTUAGINT (4th century B.C.) or HEBREW CANON (90 A.D. formed at the Synod of Jamnia)?

I know I've been brought up on the Hebrew Canon but the more I have learned about it through my studies I'm not sure why we Lutherans use it and not the Septuagint?

I don't want to bore everyone with various facts and so forth, I would just like some opinions on this matter. Maybe this will open up a healthy debate over our choice of Old Testament Scripture. Apocryphal and Old Testament Books differ significantly between the Septuagint and Hebrew Canon through omissions, re-writes, exclusions and so forth. The Septuagant apparently appears much more precise and complete to the fullfillment of a Messiah, while the Hebrew Canon which ommits and re-writes various passages raises some questions!

First, the Hebrew Canon was not formed in 90AD. Jamnia made an official "statement" concerning the Hebrew Scriptures, but the canon was actually set quite earlier. It was the canon that Christ used.

Second, the Hebrew Bible reflects closer the word of God given to the Israelite people to hand down to His Church. The LXX is an invaluable tool to help interpret the HB by helping us see how certain texts were understood in earlier times. But the LXX also contains certain writings that are not canonical and not part of the Hebrew canon.

There're a couple of opinions for ya.;)

[BigNorsk]

Well there's a couple of different things that can be talked about, I'll wander in circles for awhile and if no one stops me I'll eventually get tired.

First of all the Septuagint has been the subject of a lot of myths, some of which would put the KJO people to shame. For instance, it was told that various translators were locked in separate places to work and when they had done their separate translations, the translations were identical. This is really problematic because the style of the Septuagint changes drastically in many places, indicating that there weren't multiples done that were compared but it looks a lot more like people chopped it up into pieces and the skill and style of the people involved comes through in the translation.

Now if the before 250 AD date that is commonly ascribed to the LXX is accurate, the idea that the original contained the Apochrypha is pretty difficult to believe from the standpoint that many of the Apochryphal books were not written, according to best consensus until after that date. Certainly some of them came after the LXX.

There isn't strong evidence that the Apochryphal books were even a part of the LXX in the first century. It doesn't seem that the books are quoted exactly, there may be some allusions, but they definitely are not quoted and referred to as scripture in the New Testament.

The earliest LXX's that contain the Apochryphal books that have been found are fourth century. Maybe older ones will come to light with time, but not yet. The earlies references that talk of them being in the Septuagint are also fourth century. There are earlier church father references, some favorable and some not favorable, but not references that speak of them in the LXX.

Flavius Josephus the first century Jewish Historian, clearly stated that there were only 22 books believed to be divine. Those would be the same books today found in the Hebrew and Protestant Canons. They are the same as the 39 books we have they were simply combined.

In short, any arguement that the canon of the LXX is the correct canon and that it contained the Apochryphal books at the time of Jesus is making an arguement from suppositions for which there is no significant evidence, and there is indeed more evidence the other way. They were not parts of the original LXX and did not get added until later, probably after the first century.

That, added to the fact that they are of low quality and contain errors in fact are pretty strong evidence that they should be excluded. That they are part of the LXX at the time of Jesus has not been demonstrated, it is assumed.

Marv

[BigNorsk]

Another thing that is used to give weight to the LXX is that the quotes of scripture in the New Testament tend to be like the LXX. That is really not surprising. The LXX was held in high esteem by the Christians and really was the Bible of the Christians at the time the majority of the New Testament books were written.

It should be noted that the authors, when they wrote the passages were quoting things that Jesus said years earlier. Should we believe that Jesus spoke in Aramaic except when he was quoting scripture. I doubt it. Most likely he spoke usually in Aramaic. Maybe sometimes quoting scirpture in Greek, maybe sometimes in Hebrew. It wouldn't be surprising that the authors writing about the events of years earlier would write the passages in agreement with the Bible that was being used, the LXX even if the LXX wasn't exactly the words that Jesus spoke. We tend to think of quotes that way, as precise exact, word-for-word, but there is little evidence that the writers of the New Testament thought that way. There was in all likelihood some convergence in the words that Jesus spoke and the LXX.

Of interest is that the languages of the synagogs was Hebrew and Aramaic at the time of Jesus, not the Greek that was used outside the area. The passages would be read in Hebrew, and a translator would provide the Aramaic translation as they went. He wasn't to do a literal word for word translation and he wasn't supposed to add either. Fascinating stuff. Especially where the Targums get so interpretive they would probably be in the class of the Cotton patch paraphrase rather than anything we would recognize as a translation.

This is the basis for the even older than the LXX Aramaic Targums. Michael Marlow has some interesting references (http://www.bible-researcher.com/aramaic.html) to the practice on his site. I'm sure he has stuff on the LXX too if you look around.

We see certain things coming through fromt he Aramaic, for instance the word maranatha is pure Aramaic. There are also people who think the original scriptures were in Aramaic and they give some interesting arguements, but I think the absence of texts kind of speaks against that, though some passages that cause us some problems are probably due to the translation from the Aramaic to the Greek that happened in writing the books.

The image that the LXX was everywhere and widely used by Jesus and the Apostles is less likely than often presented. It was used outside the area, and there were certainly copies used in Israel. But the synagogs in Israel were not Greek based, at least I haven't seen references to it.

The LXX did become repidly the text of choice in the church. Maybe it was due to the difficulty and expense of getting scriptures in Hebrew, maybe it was kind of seen as a waste to do so, since even the Jews used Aramaic at the same time as the Hebrew, and those Christians who weren't Jewish wouldn't have been able to handle the Hebrew and Aramaic. So the Greek dominated for awhile, with Latin showing up very rapidly in the Roman empire.

Marv

[C.F.W. Walther]

QUESTION: What is the LXX?

ANSWER: A figment of someone's imagination.

EXPLANATION: First, let's define what the LXX is supposed to be. An ancient document called "The Letter of Aristeas" revealed a plan to make an OFFICIAL translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in Greek. This translation was to be accepted as the official Bible of the Jews and was to replace the Hebrew Bible. Supposedly this translation work would be performed by 72 Jewish scholars (?), six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The supposed location of the work was to be Alexandria, Egypt. The alleged date of translation was supposedly around 250 BC, during the 400 years of silence between the close of the Old Testament in 397 BC and the birth of Christ in approximately 4 BC (due to a four year error in the calendar).
It has become known as the Septuagint, "The Interpretation of the 70 Elders". Also it is represented by the Roman (?) numerals whose combined value is 70, hence L-50, X-10, X-10. Why it isn't called the LXXII I'll never know.
This so called "Letter of Aristeas" is the sole evidence for the existence of this mystical document. There are absolutely NO Greek Old Testament manuscripts existent with a date of 250 BC or anywhere near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of such a work being contemplated or performed.
When pressed to produce hard evidence of the existence of such a document, scholars quickly point to Origen's Hexapla written around 200 AD, or approximately 450 years later than the LXX was supposedly penned, and more than 100 years after the New Testament was completed. The second column of Origen's Hexapla contains his own (hardly 72 Jewish scholars) Greek translation of the Old Testament including spurious books such as "Bel and the Dragon", "Judith" and "Tobit" and other apocryphal books accepted as authoritative only by the Roman Catholic Church.
Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18).
Thus we see that the second column of the Hexapla is Origen's personal, unveilable translation of the Old Testament into Greek and nothing more.
Eusebius and Philo, both of questionable character, make mention of a Greek Pentateuch. Hardly the entire Old Testament and not mentioned as any kind of an officially accepted translation.
Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eusebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentateuch had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. It most certainly cannot be a portion of any pretended official Old Testament translation into Greek. We can rest assured that those 72 Jewish scholars supposedly chosen for the work in 250 BC would be just a mite feeble by 150 BC.
Besides the non-existence of any reason to believe such a translation was ever produced are several hurtles which the "Letter of Aristeas", Origen's Hexapla, Ryland's #458, and Eusebius and Philo just cannot clear.
The first one is the "Letter of Aristeas" itself. There is little doubt amongst scholars today that it was not written by anyone named Aristeas. In fact, some believe its true author is Philo. This would give it an A.D. date. If this were true, then its REAL intention would be to deceive believers into thinking that Origen's second column is a copy of the LXX. A feat that it has apparently accomplished "in spades".
If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.
First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.
Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.
(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare join such a forbidden enterprise.
(2) It is obvious to any reader of the Bible that the Jews were to be distinctly different from the Gentile nations around them. Unto them was given such distinct practices as circumcision, Sabbath worship, sundry laws of cleansing and their own homeland. Added to this is the heritage of the Hebrew language. Even today, practicing Jews in China and India refuse to teach their children any language but Hebrew. The Falasha Jews of Ethiopia were distinct among the many tribes of their country by the fact that they jealously retained the Hebrew language as an evidence of their Jewish heritage.
Are we to be so naive as to believe that the Jews who considered Gentiles nothing more than dogs, would willingly forsake their heritage, the Hebrew language, for a Gentile language into which would be translated the holiest possession of all, their Bible? Such a supposition is as insane as it is absurd.
"What then," one might ask, "of the numerous quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament that are ascribed to the LXX?" The LXX they speak of is nothing more than the second column of Origen's Hexapia. The New Testament quotations are not quotes of any LXX or the Hexapla. They are the author, the Holy Spirit, taking the liberty of quoting His work in the Old Testament in whatever manner He wishes. And we can rest assured that He certainly is not quoting any non-existent Septuagint.
Only one more question arises. Then why are scholars so quick to accept the existence of this LXX in the face of such irrefutable arguments against it? The answer is sad and simple.
Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of it. And many more to be well enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study. By comparison a working knowledge of Greek is easily attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity.
But stop and think. Even if such a spurious document as the LXX really did exist, how could a Bible critic, who, in reference to the King James Bible, say that "No translation has the authority of the original language, " claim in the same breath that his pet LXX has equal authority with the Hebrew Original? This scholarly double-talk is nothing more than a self exalting authority striving to keep his scholarly position above those "unschooled in the original languages."
If you accept such an argument, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!

Compliments of Jack Chick :)

[LutherNut]

What is interesting to note is that the supposed 70 or 72 scholars set out to translate the Torah, not the entire 22 book Hebrew canon, into Greek. The translations of the other writings came over a great period of time, even into the period of the writing of the Apochrypha (some of which were originally written in Greek rather than Aramaic or Hebrew).

[Protoevangel]

Compliments of Jack Chick
Ok now...


...


Ahem.


...


:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:


...


Ok, I think I feel better now.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Ok now...


...


Ahem.


...


:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:


...


Ok, I think I feel better now.

I knew you'd like that Dan :)

[MORTANIUS]

I appreaciate the responses, but by admission of Jewish scholars, they confirm 90 A.D. and various revisions based on some of what various responses here have stressed.

However, one thing my Proffessor pointed out was that the Pharisees hostile towards the Jews believing in Jesus Christ were the ones who at Jamnia, reconsolodated their authority by revision of Scripture without a clear and sound reason to do so.

The only objections carried today against the Septuagint stem from the Sadduccees who never believed in afterlife, a Messiah etc. of which had been incorporated into the revision of the Hebrew Canon.

Of course, many points made by some of you are valid, but I'm not convinced!

Afterall, when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it is most often from the Septuagint.

These things are troubling me as of late.

[DaRev]

Afterall, when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it is most often from the Septuagint.

These things are troubling me as of late.

They key here is "most often" but not exclusive.

Whether the original autographs of the NT contained the LXX quotes or not is debatable. It was most likely that the audience that the particular writings were intended for would be familiar with the Greek version.

It is assumed that Matthew's Gospel was originally penned in Aramaic, so it would most likely not have quoted from the LXX but rather used a direct Hebrew quote, but since the autographs are lost, we have no real way of knowing. The LXX may have been used by the translator(s), not necessarily by Matthew.

As for your question, it makes more sense to rely on the original tongue of the word of God when possible. Thus, the Hebrew texts of the OT are preferred.

[MORTANIUS]

They key here is "most often" but not exclusive.


Precisely the point! If erroneous as some claim the Septuagint to be, then what does that say about Christ who is recorded by His Disciples to have quoted the Septuagint?

For example, the Virgin Birth is a good example of Septuagint citation, and yet some people call the Septuagint a book full of errors or myth.

Do you see why this troubles me? :(

[DaRev]

Precisely the point! If erroneous as some claim the Septuagint to be, then what does that say about Christ who is recorded by His Disciples to have quoted the Septuagint?

For example, the Virgin Birth is a good example of Septuagint citation, and yet some people call the Septuagint a book full of errors or myth.

Do you see why this troubles me? :(

Anyone who calls it myth is a fool.

The LXX is one of the most valuable resources we have in interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures. It is usually the first thing examined when working with a difficult text.

I still hold that the Hebrew texts are preferable.

[MORTANIUS]

Thanks DaRev for the reassurance.

[BigNorsk]

Precisely the point! If erroneous as some claim the Septuagint to be, then what does that say about Christ who is recorded by His Disciples to have quoted the Septuagint?

For example, the Virgin Birth is a good example of Septuagint citation, and yet some people call the Septuagint a book full of errors or myth.

Do you see why this troubles me? :(

Oh sure I can see it, but does it bother you that some people might be shoving in errors and myth into today's LXX and that today's LXX very likely isn't the same as it was during Jesus' time?

People argue about the dates the Apochryphal books were written, but I've seen some work that looks pretty good that at least some of the Apochrypha wasn't even written at the time of Christ. If that's true, they couldn't have been in the Septuagint then. Should we accept them then on the basis that they are in the Septuagint version that people have today?

Any discussion of canon can be troubling, but arguements should get tested. It seems to me that many of the arguments for the Septuagint are actually based on pietistic myths and speculations and they only stand up in an environment where one is told not to question anything, just accept is because that's the way it's always been, at least since Tuesday.

Origen talked about the 22 books of the Hebrew Canon and then he talked about the Apochryphal books. He did all that work on the Septuagint yet he saw a definite division. Were the Apochryphal books just in the Septuagint of even his time just as they appear to be today? If they were, how did he see that clear separation?

I think the preponderance of the evidence is that the Apochryphal books were not in the either the Hebrew Scriptures, the Aramaic Targums or even the Greek Septuagint at the time of Christ. Yet we are supposed to accept them as canonical because the arguement is that they were. I don't think the arguement holds water.

If you take the canon that was used in the synagogs it seems to me the evidence is that it is the same canon that was officially recognized in the first century. As I already stated, the historian, Flavius Josephus, doesn't portray there to be this reaction against the Septuagint that resulted in the Hebrew canon. He doesn't portray that the Apochryphal books were even there to be considered. Really strange if all kinds of people were running around proclaiming them scripture. I'd be real interested in finding the reaction against the Christians story to be told by someone who was there at the time. It seems more to be a speculation added by people long after, I haven't found it recorded as what anyone there or close to there said. So far, I have to put it in the category of historical myth.

Marv

[MORTANIUS]

Oh sure I can see it, but does it bother you that some people might be shoving in errors and myth into today's LXX and that today's LXX very likely isn't the same as it was during Jesus' time?
Marv

My good BigNorsk, but one can say the same of modern English translations or in any modern language of our day. You would have to give me a sampling of an example of difference between the 'then' and 'now' copies, as I have only (as far as the University claims) is truthful to the originals, although translated into english.

I tend to agree with you about the Apocryphal books that usual contain notes detailing the same points of fact you make regarding date of authorship and so forth.

I'm still going to look into this issue further this fall at the University.

For now, does anyone know of Martin Luther's reasoning for approaching the Rabbis that provided the Hebrew Canon? I've been looking at some books but they don't really provide any detail regarding the communications between Luther and these Rabbis.

[filosofer]

As for the dating of the canon, Andrew Steinmann wrote an excellent book, The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon (Concordia Academic Press, 1999). He provides very strong evidence that the canon was established prior to the appearance of the LXX Torah, in fact, prior to 400 BC.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Anyone who calls it myth is a fool.

The LXX is one of the most valuable resources we have in interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures. It is usually the first thing examined when working with a difficult text.

I still hold that the Hebrew texts are preferable.

Jack Chick does serve a purpose and even though he is questionable. He also is usefull in his own way.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Westcott and Hort setting up fake Spetuagint.

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/septuagint_&_facts.htm

[Protoevangel]

Jack Chick does serve a purpose and even though he is questionable. He also is usefull in his own way.Yea, as a bad example! ;)


The Ex-Orthodox for Christ is just as full of vile filth as Chick, too.


Truly poor sources of information to fill your head with. :(


:scratch:

[LutherNut]

Yea, as a bad example! ;)


The Ex-Orthodox for Christ is just as full of vile filth as Chick, too.


Truly poor sources of information to fill your head with. :(


:scratch:

Friends don't let friends read Chick Tracts.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Chicks my hero :thumbsup: :clap: :thumbsup: :clap:
Don't knock him.:mad: His tracks have helped plant the Spiritual seed for MANY in the biker community. More than I can probably say for anybody on this forum.

[LutherNut]

Chicks my hero :thumbsup: :clap: :thumbsup: :clap:
Don't knock him.:mad: His tracks have helped plant the Spiritual seed for MANY in the biker community. More than I can probably say for anybody on this forum.

How about showing the bikers a BIBLE instead of that Jack Chick garbage???

[Protoevangel]

Chicks my hero
Don't knock him.:mad: His tracks have helped plant the Spiritual seed for MANY in the biker community. More than I can probably say for anybody on this forum.
Oh, please! http://media.teamxbox.com/forum/smilies/shakehead.gif

Anyone who claims that Islam, Communism, Freemasonry, the New Age Movement, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust were all actually secret plots by the Catholic church is definitely my hero too!

Did you know that all protestants names are recorded in the Vatican's computers, for some future prosecution? Jack Chick says so, so it must be true! Shhh! If they find out we know, they'll kill us!

Especially nice is that he denies infant baptism, denies that baptism is salvific, denies the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, promotes "magic prayer" salvation, denies the efficacy of confession/absolution, claims that any Bible other than the King James is actually Catholic and Satanic corruptions, promotes pre-millennialist heresy, and claims all rock music is Satanic.

Nice hero Rad! http://www.phparena.net/forums/images/smilies/extras/puke.gif

[C.F.W. Walther]

Oh, please! http://media.teamxbox.com/forum/smilies/shakehead.gif

Anyone who claims that Islam, Communism, Freemasonry, the New Age Movement, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust were all actually secret plots by the Catholic church is definitely my hero too!

Did you know that all protestants names are recorded in the Vatican's computers, for some future prosecution? Jack Chick says so, so it must be true! Shhh! If they find out we know, they'll kill us!

Especially nice is that he denies infant baptism, denies that baptism is salvific, denies the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, promotes "magic prayer" salvation, denies the efficacy of confession/absolution, claims that any Bible other than the King James is actually Catholic and Satanic corruptions, promotes pre-millennialist heresy, and claims all rock music is Satanic.

Nice hero Rad! http://www.phparena.net/forums/images/smilies/extras/puke.gif


I said the "my hero" facetiously but since you guys are so adament about knocking him why don't y'all tell me how many bible's/tracts you've passed out or witnessnes to people about? You have to consider who you are witnessing to when you use this material and be selective in it's use. It's only a foot in the door and the Lutherans could use some pointers on how to witness to these guys and not knock people that do.

I'd like to see some of you characters come with me on a rally to Sturgis or Ft.Lauderdale and do some witnessing and sharing and see how long you'd last. Or come with me to the jails and see how long you'd last with someone backs you in a corner and gets in your face about your beliefs. Don't knock the poeple that do your dirtly work for you and the way they do it. You can just sit back and write a check and let someone else do it so you don't get your hands dirty.





:scratch:

[LilLamb219]

That's right, pour the guilt of the law on us that we aren't doing enough and must be everywhere at all times, tirelessly handing out tracts all day, all night, to everyone we encounter. Don't forget to change clothes a million times a day to fit the person you're handing it out to. And don't forget to change the way you speak because the person just might want to hear you talk the way they talk. And don't forget to completely change who you are and become someone you don't recognize...just because God won't work through us if we don't.

:(

I can be facetious too.

God uses even the ones who falsely preach, despite their errors but I won't raise them up in honor. I'll give the credit to God to work to bring people to faith even though a lot of other muck needs to be filtered through first by Him.

[Protoevangel]

I said the "my hero" facetiously but since you guys are so adament about knocking him why don't y'all tell me how many bible's/tracts you've passed out or witnessnes to people about? You have to consider who you are witnessing to when you use this material and be selective in it's use. It's only a foot in the door and the Lutherans could use some pointers on how to witness to these guys and not knock people that do.

I'd like to see some of you characters come with me on a rally to Sturgis or Ft.Lauderdale and do some witnessing and sharing and see how long you'd last. Or come with me to the jails and see how long you'd last with someone backs you in a corner and gets in your face about your beliefs. Don't knock the poeple that do your dirtly work for you and the way they do it. You can just sit back and write a check and let someone else do it so you don't get your hands dirty.





:scratch:
You know what, you are right Rad, I don't do enough. But like Lillamb says, thanks for blindly slamming the law like a hammer on everyone who isn't Jack. When I do witness, my witness is to the truth, and is not laced with lies, anti-Christian doctrine, and hatred.

Hey, I bet Fred Phelps and his godhates****.com, godhatesamerica.com, and smellthebrimstone.com etc., and their picketing of American soldier funerals touches a lot of people with their message too. Maybe you could slam the Lutherans here, and uphold Fred and his phollowers as your next "righteous example?"

[LutherNut]

I said the "my hero" facetiously but since you guys are so adament about knocking him why don't y'all tell me how many bible's/tracts you've passed out or witnessnes to people about? You have to consider who you are witnessing to when you use this material and be selective in it's use. It's only a foot in the door and the Lutherans could use some pointers on how to witness to these guys and not knock people that do.

I'd like to see some of you characters come with me on a rally to Sturgis or Ft.Lauderdale and do some witnessing and sharing and see how long you'd last. Or come with me to the jails and see how long you'd last with someone backs you in a corner and gets in your face about your beliefs. Don't knock the poeple that do your dirtly work for you and the way they do it. You can just sit back and write a check and let someone else do it so you don't get your hands dirty.


Why in God's good name would ANYONE want to do outreach to ANYBODY using that Jack Chick garbage??!??!?

Use the Bible, Rad! Use the Gospel! Use the truth!
Those Chick tracts are nothing but fire starting material... in more ways than one!!!
Even "Ablaze!" is 1000's of times better than that crap!!

I can't believe that anyone would even consider that those hate-filled, anti-Christian tracts are good for anything but spreading hate, deceit, and confusion!!


:prayer: God help those who have been influenced by that trash.

[C.F.W. Walther]

You're facetious remark is meant to be a slur to my character and I don't appreciate it LilLamb. I have been a biker most of my adult life and I don't put on "faces" for anyone. I just found a good use for all the knowledge that I've gained in that community and I know what will get their attentions. Jesus ministered to the whores and publicans and tax collectors and zealots and murderers and if I'm to be Christ-like why should I not follow his example. Since you think it's a joke to use "tracts" and make fun of the way I witness then you would also think anyone else that doesn't follow a set prescribed Lutheran witnessing program is doing a bad job to? I was out doing this before Ablaze was in vogue. How can you guys be so critical of someone witnessing to the unsaved.

Don't know what this "law" thing you're talking about maybe it's just the Holy Spirit convicting your or your guilty conscience talking to you because it sure isn't me.



:scratch:

[LutherNut]

You're facetious remark is meant to be a slur to my character and I don't appreciate it LilLamb. I have been a biker most of my adult life and I don't put on "faces" for anyone. I just found a good use for all the knowledge that I've gained in that community and I know what will get their attentions. Jesus ministered to the whores and publicans and tax collectors and zealots and murderers and if I'm to be Christ-like why should I not follow his example. Since you think it's a joke to use "tracts" and make fun of the way I witness then you would also think anyone else that doesn't follow a set prescribed Lutheran witnessing program is doing a bad job to? I was out doing this before Ablaze was in vogue. How can you guys be so critical of someone witnessing to the unsaved.

Don't know what this "law" thing you're talking about maybe it's just your guilty conscience talking to you because it sure isn't me.



:scratch:

Who are you to tell people on this board that they are not witnessing their faith!??!!? How do you know that the people here are NOT doing such, perhaps even longer than you??!!?? How pompous and arrogant can one be??:confused: :eek:

And how dare you compare yourself to Jesus by using "Chick Tracts" to witness God?? Jesus promoted the truth and love. Jack Chick promotes hatred and lies and confusion.

I would think that someone who truly wants to witness to the unsaved would use something that presents the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Chick Tracts do no such thing.

[Protoevangel]

How can you guys be so critical of someone witnessing to the unsaved.
Amazing! Such twisting of the truth of what has been said here. Absolutely no one has been critical of witnessing to the unsaved.

How can you be so uncritical of lies and antichristian doctrine?

:scratch:

[C.F.W. Walther]

Who are you to tell people on this board that they are not witnessing their faith!??!!? How do you know that the people here are NOT doing such, perhaps even longer than you??!!?? How pompous and arrogant can one be??:confused: :eek:

And how dare you compare yourself to Jesus by using "Chick Tracts" to witness God?? Jesus promoted the truth and love. Jack Chick promotes hatred and lies and confusion.

I would think that someone who truly wants to witness to the unsaved would use something that presents the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Chick Tracts do no such thing.


There you go putting words in people's mouth. I didn't say anything about anybodies else's witnessing their faith. You just want to take away from what we are talking about and it isn't me saying anything about other people witnessing. You're the one that brought that up----not me. I'm telling you what I do and what I think is right and you have no right critisizing what I do. OR MY METHODS!!

If it tounches you consciences, like I said before, then maybe that's good.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Amazing! Such twisting of the truth of what has been said here. Absolutely no one has been critical of witnessing to the unsaved.

How can you be so uncritical of lies and antichristian doctrine?

:scratch:

You havn't been paying attention then have you Dan!!

As I've said I've been very selective on what I use and I don't use all Chick publishes. How many time do I have to say it? I don't use anything that goes against Lutheran teaching so make of it what you want.

[Protoevangel]

I didn't say anything about anybodies else's witnessing their faith.
Excuse me?

I'd like to see some of you characters come with me on a rally to Sturgis or Ft.Lauderdale and do some witnessing and sharing and see how long you'd last. Or come with me to the jails and see how long you'd last with someone backs you in a corner and gets in your face about your beliefs. Don't knock the poeple that do your dirtly work for you and the way they do it. You can just sit back and write a check and let someone else do it so you don't get your hands dirty.
Yep, that's what I thought I'd read...Didn't say anything about it, eh, Rad?

But don't worry about us, we'll just sit back and write a check and let you do our dirty work for us...

:scratch:

[C.F.W. Walther]

Excuse me?


Yep, that's what I thought I'd read...Didn't say anything about it, eh, Rad?

But don't worry about us, we'll just sit back and write a check and let you do our dirty work for us...

:scratch:


Read it again.....S....L....O.....W.....L.......Y. I was critisizing the way you were critisizing the way I was doing it not critisizing your witnesing and seeing if you all had the "guts" to do it my way. Obviously not, the way things have been twisted around in here to suit your purposes.

[Protoevangel]

You havn't been paying attention then have you Dan!!

As I've said I've been very selective on what I use and I don't use all Chick publishes. How many time do I have to say it? I don't use anything that goes against Lutheran teaching so make of it what you want.
Consider the source, Rad.

So, what you are saying is, you pick and choose what this antichrist publishes? Ok, I suppose that it's all better now.

Someone who openly professes such antichristian doctrine is ok, if you are selective, but something like Ablaze is just plain wrong? :scratch:

Read it again.....S....L....O.....W.....L.......Y. I was critisizing the way you were critisizing the way I was doing it not critisizing your witnesing and seeing if you all had the "guts" to do it my way. Obviously not, the way things have been twisted around in here to suit your purposes.
Read the whole thread again, S....L....O.....W.....L.......Y.

All of my criticism was against Chick and his doctrine, not against you or "the way" you were "doing it". You simply chose to take personal offence at it, and tangle yourself up in this maze of half-truths and callings of coward. Stop pretending I am targeting you, when it is Satan's messenger of hate and lies who I am criticizing.

Use tracts all you want. But if you can take a little friendly advice, just try to be a little more selective of your sources.

Try these on for size:
CPH (http://www.cph.org/cphstore/Find.asp?find_part_desc=tracts&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=submit)
Lutheran Tract Mission (http://tracts.lll.org.au/)

[C.F.W. Walther]

I'm tired of all these petty squabblings and will turn it back over to the people that want to answer the OP's original questions. The ones that are really important not the ones that makes up real life and real events.

Thanks for the info on the tracks but I don't see anything in there that helps when some druged out biker gets in my face and calls me a Christian coward or when some biker chick comes and tells me her husband has tried chocking her and should she cut his throat when he's sleeping.................... But thanks anyway.

[LutherNut]

There you go putting words in people's mouth. I didn't say anything about anybodies else's witnessing their faith. You just want to take away from what we are talking about and it isn't me saying anything about other people witnessing. You're the one that brought that up----not me. I'm telling you what I do and what I think is right and you have no right critisizing what I do. OR MY METHODS!!

If it tounches you consciences, like I said before, then maybe that's good.

EXCUSE ME!??!??!!?

I seem to remember reading this:


Chicks my hero
Don't knock him. His tracks have helped plant the Spiritual seed for MANY in the biker community. More than I can probably say for anybody on this forum.


We have no right to criticize you, and yet you apparently have every right to make such sarcastic and imbecillic remarks as this???!!??

UNBELIEVEABLE!!!!:doh: :doh: :doh:

[LutherNut]

Thanks for the info on the tracks but I don't see anything in there that helps when some druged out biker gets in my face and calls me a Christian coward or when some biker chick comes and tells me her husband has tried chocking her and should she cut his throat when he's sleeping.................... But thanks anyway.

And I suppose that jack Chicks hate filled propaganda is the way to go with these people, instead of God's word??

:prayer: God help them, please!!!

[LilLamb219]

Jesus ministered to the whores and publicans and tax collectors and zealots and murderers and if I'm to be Christ-like why should I not follow his example.

I apologize if you thought I was attacking your character. I wasn't. I was very offended that you claimed that the people here on this board weren't doing as much as you are (or Jack Chick) in the way of evangelizing, when you don't even know us.

As for the quote above, Jesus didn't have to change Himself to reach out to the people. Sure, He spoke with them, hung out with them and ate with them, but He didn't have to change the way He dressed or acted for them in order for the Gospel message to be effective.

[DaRev]

Despite the uncalled for sarcasm in this thread, I do concur with those who speak against the use of Chick Tracts to witness the Gospel.

True, some of them do contain correct teaching, but so does parts of the Koran (belief in one God and the virgin birth of Christ for examples) but we certainly would not at all use the Koran to witness the Gospel.

There are much better tracts and other means to witness to the biker community. Here is an example of what one church in Connecticut did: Lutheran Beacon. (http://www.selc.lcms.org/beacon_editions/beacon070806.pdf)
(Read the article on the "Blessing of the Bikes.")

[C.F.W. Walther]

Despite the uncalled for sarcasm in this thread, I do concur with those who speak against the use of Chick Tracts to witness the Gospel.

True, some of them do contain correct teaching, but so does parts of the Koran (belief in one God and the virgin birth of Christ for examples) but we certainly would not at all use the Koran to witness the Gospel.

There are much better tracts and other means to witness to the biker community. Here is an example of what one church in Connecticut did: Lutheran Beacon. (http://www.selc.lcms.org/beacon_editions/beacon070806.pdf)
(Read the article on the "Blessing of the Bikes.")

I would be interested in reading the article but it wouldn't come up on the link. Do you have another link?
The Lutheran Church, as I know it, has no motorcycle ministry and this would be interesting to read. I've had to join ministries that are evangelical and reformed type and it's hard to witness to people when you have them hanging around telling you what they think should be said. Even the prison ministries are mostly the same group and they control the classses, witnessing and services.

Two years ago I went to a joint prison seminar with the LCMS and ELCA in Chicago and because of monetary problems within ELCA they dropped the program. Since then I heard the LCMS had a seminar but I didn't find out about it in time and would like to hook up with the LCMS group again. Any info would help----thanks




:scratch:

[Protoevangel]

Hi Rad,

The link worked fine for me. Is your browser set up to read pdf's?

Otherwise, perhaps you could right-click on the link and "Save As."

If that dosen't work for you, I would be willing to copy-paste the text of the article here, if no one has any other ideas.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Yea I can read pdf's so I right clicked on it and saved it and will read it later--thanks

[Protoevangel]

Yea I can read pdf's so I right clicked on it and saved it and will read it later--thanks
:thumbsup:

[MORTANIUS]

Had I known this post would provoke such immature responses I would not have posted this topic.

I wanted a healthy debate or opinions on this matter, and not a battle for who is less or better informed.

[filosofer]

I would encourage you to examine the book I referenced in post #16.

In Christ's love,
filo