God's plan

[Gob]

He had been bitten at least eight times before, having spent the last 21 years handling poisonous snakes and fire in the name of God.



But Pentecostal Pastor Jamie Coots died from his dangerous denomination at the weekend, having been bitten by a rattlesnake at his small Kentucky church and refusing to seek medical attention.
The father-of-two was known for practicing an extreme and rare Christian tradition of snake handling, based on an interpretation of the King James Bible, Mark 16: 17-18, which reads: 'And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.'

Coots starred on the National Geographic show Snake Salvation, which profiled the few serpent-handling preachers in Appalachia, and had appeared on numerous documentaries and shows about the snake practices at his church in the rural town of Middlesboro, which are illegal.
Coots comes from four generations of religious snake handlers and believed they couldn't hurt him as long as he had the power of God.

According to WYKT, emergency crews responded to reports of a snakebite victim at Coots church, Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name, about 8.30pm Saturday.
A rattlesnake had bitten Coots on his right hand but he had gone home before emergency workers arrived.
Officials then went to his house and urged Coots to accept medical care, but he refused.
They left at 9.10pm.

Police then received a call indicating that Coots had died.

He was found dead in his home about 10pm.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's what happens when you refuse to acknowledge that Mark 16 was added at a later date and is not authentic. Newsflash: Jesus never said it. Idiots.

[Big RR]

Meade--I've heard that same charge a number of times, yet I see the end verses of mark 16 in every Bible I've read (are you aware of any translations which don't have them?). Since I understand you belong to a Christian denomination which insists on biblical literalism, and also insists that every word in the bible is divinely inspired, how do you reconcile this? I fully concede that the bible contains many errors, both in translation and in the actual transcription, not to mention errors in which writings were included as canonical and which are not, but once you admit that any or all of those errors may be included, how can you decide which part of the bible is the true "word of god" and which is not? This is more than saying that it is something which should be seen as allegorical rather than literal, but that these verses are not part of the word of god even though they are in the bible.

Please understand that I am asking this question in earnest, and would love to hear your answer.

[MajGenl.Meade]

No worries Big RR. I don't know of anyone (although wouldn't be surprised if there are some - just a bit disappointed) who believes that an English language Bible (and which one would that be?) is necessarily without human error and is itself the inerrant and infallible divinely inspired WOG. The correct statement of belief, as I understand it, applies to the original autograph - not to the various translations of which there are many thousands in many languages. If I were a good Roman, I'd probably have to think that only a Bible put out by the Roman church was valid. Fortunately, as you point out, I believe the word of God rather than the word of some human usurper.

I was sloppy re Mark 16 wasn't I? Should have allowed 16:1-8 as authentic translation (rather than addition or clarification or an attempt to rediscover a "lost" ending). I don't know of any Bibles that absolutely exclude it because there is no definitive evidence against vss. 9-20. I like this explanation:

The ending of the Gospel of Mark is a matter of considerable debate. Many textual critics believe that the text of Mark concludes with v. 8, the remainder having been added at a later time by a redactor (editor). Those who argue for a “shorter ending” (v. 8) base their conclusion primarily on internal evidence (difference of style and vocabulary between vv. 9–20 and the rest of Mark). Others argue that v. 8 is simply too abrupt for a conclusion. Therefore, the presence of the abrupt termination convincingly argues that the original ending has been lost. Two other and different endings are attached to ancient manuscripts. All of this is sufficient to suggest that the precise ending of Mark remains unknown. Properly interpreted, the verses included in the text here will not cause erroneous doctrinal concepts to arise. However, no doctrine ought to be built on the basis of these verses alone

Emphasis added
Believer's Study Bible. 1997, Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

It's very debatable. Some of the early church fathers referred to the "long end" version - one cited the short version; the Vulgate has a big blank and the earliest actual manuscripts do have section 9-20 but not all early Mss. do. The NIV claims the "two best" ancient Mss. do not have it.

The question is, as always, does it change anything? And it doesn't. It can and does for those idiots who base an entire "signs" doctrine on vs. 18. They would no doubt cite Paul's experience of being bitten by a snake and surviving (Acts 28:3-5) although Paul by no means voluntarily "picked it up" and was by no means putting God to the test. I reject any similarity of the cases (other than the word "snake" or "serpent").

BTW I disagree about what is and is not canonical - it's a fairly spurious claim for a lot of spurious works, much later than the 1st and even 2nd century AD. Mind you, I'd have no problem if someone tossed the apocalypse of St John out.

None of this (including acknowledging the difficulty of Mark 16:9-20) has any bearing on whether a correct and valid understanding of the divine word can be and is known. I'd have no problem if an English translation did leave out those particular verses. If something has been lost from Mark, it's more likely that vss. 19 and 20 are close to what was written/intended. Some people think that issues such as this are "evidence" that everything from "In" (Gen 1:1) to "Amen" (Rev 22:21) was actually added by later editors. Rather silly.

I'd like to ask you, if I may, to provide some detail on all these "errors, both in translation and in the actual transcription" that you mention. I don't mean "differences" by that - since some might publish a phrase as "Christ Jesus" and others "The Lord Jesus Christ" and yet others "the Lord Jesus" - all variants but not errors. It is a serious enquiry.

Cheers
Meade

[Big RR]

Meade--thanks for your answer. If I get a chance I will try to put some examples of transcription/translation errors, but I mentioned it more to basically say that I believe it is inevitable to have these errors/differences creep in.

However, I do find it interesting about the "original autograph" being the inerrant words, as opposed to the translations. Firstly, because I think we rarely, if ever, have access to the originally prepared texts; indeed, I think that many of the gospels, for example, were prepared over a period of time, with pieces added and lost (indeed, this is why the last verses of Mark 16 are questioned by some)--we have no real original to go by. Secondly, whenever I have been witnessed to by someone quoting the bible, it is always the latest current translation into English, which may or may not be based on ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, or whatever writings. I have been told many times when I question about the use of a specific word in context (e.g. Jesus' condemnation of "divorce") I'll get the pat answer "well that's what the word of God says and stand by it". For those persons, the possibility of a translation error is not something they would accept. I am happy to hear that others, like yourself, view it differently.

As for what is and is not canonical, my point was only that persons ascribing inerrancy to the bible are also ascribing that same inerrancy to the persons who chose which books would be part of the canon and which would not. It is unavoidable. It has nothing to do with the validity, proof of antiquity of other writings, only in the selection process.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Good points Big RR. Thanks to you too. Yes, there is no "original autograph" of any of 'em. As a divorced person, I've often been troubled by Biblical statements but am content that I'm disqualified as an Elder in "my" church in the USA but was invited to become an Elder here in the Presby SA one. I don't think either has the "wrong" idea but the issue has no bearing on "salvation". I sympathise with the "current translation" problem we both are faced with at times - I often find that strict KJV people are almost worse than JWs or Mormons. Almost but not quite! What's your take on this "divorce" thing? My own is that Jesus stuck with the "God hates divorce" thing but stated that a man (or I suppose a woman) who divorces a spouse for adultery is not making them an adulterer by the act of divorce. I don't believe he ever says that divorcing for reasons of adultery is "OK".

Of course, believing that something might occur is not nearly the same thing as saying (or believing) that it did occur. So I'm always intrigued to find out what these "errors" might be. Who knows - I might agree that some are indeed errant (chance!). I think that 2Tim 2:20-21 has some possible confusion - but on the other hand it doesn't actually matter.

[Big RR]

Meade--re the divorce issue, it's been a while but I think it might be a matter of translation. Personally, I think there is a difference between divorce where the spouse (the female one in the passages in question) is left without any means of support, and one in which the divorced man recognizes he has an obligation to her. I once read that the original translation read not "divorce" but something more like "cast her out", and that is what is condemned. You had a responsibility to the person you divorced--at that time it was probably more of a financial one, but now it would be more of a challenge to treat each other with respect, not with hatred and a single minded pursuit of "winning". And this is in line with the other teachings in those passages--reconcile with those who wrong you (and those you have wronged) and avoid swearing, just tell the truth all the time (so that yes means yes and no means no). And also in line with Jesus statement of the law--love god and love your neighbor as yourself. Much as the Pharisees (and we lawyers) might have it, god's law is not a minefield full of traps and loopholes, but an exhortation to do what is right (Micah said pretty much the same thing).

[Gob]

You'd think an infallible supernatural being would be able to......

[Crackpot]

... Overcome our predilection towards oversimplification and self delusion?

[Big RR]

Gob--if there really is an infallible being, how many things could be labeled as black or white to him/her/it? And how easy would it be for him/her/it to explain the shades of gray to fallible beings who want right and wrong to be cast only as black or white?

[Gob]

Gob--if there really is an infallible being, how many things could be labeled as black or white to him/her/it? And how easy would it be for him/her/it to explain the shades of gray to fallible beings who want right and wrong to be cast only as black or white?

What's the point of us then? God set us up to fail? Or was it all Eve's fault?

[Crackpot]

Personally I think it's as Brian said "you've got to figure it out for yourselves"

[Big RR]

To a certain extent I agree with CP; IMHO the point is the journey toward figuring "it" out. Information can be provided, but it is up to us to develop and understanding. We're not set up to fail, but set up to learn.

[Crackpot]

That is more or less what I'm getting at if the bible the aches one thing is that when it comes to life there are no easy answers.

[Gob]

And all these cults are there to help us on our ways...


..all claiming to have the one true interpretation....

2 Catholicism

2.1 Catholic Church
2.1.1 The Latin Church
2.1.2 Eastern Catholic Churches
2.1.3 Marian movement
2.2 Other churches and movements
2.2.1 Independent (self-identified as Catholic)

3 Eastern Orthodox

3.1 Eastern Orthodox Church
3.2 Other churches

4 Oriental Orthodoxy

4.1 Other Churches

5 Church of the East
6 Other early Christians
7 Protestantism

7.1 Pre-Lutheran Protestants
7.2 Lutheranism
7.3 Anglicanism
7.3.1 Anglican Communion
7.3.2 Other Anglican Churches
7.4 Calvinism
7.4.1 Continental Reformed churches
7.4.2 Presbyterianism
7.4.3 Congregationalist Churches
7.5 Anabaptists
7.6 Brethren
7.7 Methodists
7.8 Pietists and Holiness Churches
7.9 Baptists
7.9.1 Spiritual Baptists
7.10 Apostolic Churches – Irvingites
7.11 Pentecostalism
7.12 Charismatics
7.12.1 Neo-Charismatic Churches
7.13 African Initiated Churches
7.14 Messianic Judaism / Jewish Christians
7.15 United and uniting churches
7.16 Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
7.17 Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
7.18 Southcottites
7.19 Millerites and comparable groups
7.19.1 Adventist (Sunday observing)
7.19.2 Adventist (Seventh Day Sabbath/Saturday observing)
7.19.3 Church of God movements (Sunday observing)
7.19.4 Church of God movements (Seventh Day Sabbath/Saturday observing)
7.19.5 Sabbath-Keeping Movements, Separated from Adventists
7.19.6 Sacred Name groups
7.19.7 Movements not related to the Millerites but comparable to them
7.19.7.1 Sabbath-Keeping movements, predating the Millerites
7.20 British-Israelism
7.21 Christian Identity
7.22 Miscellaneous/Other

8 Nontrinitarian groups

8.1 Latter Day Saints
8.2 Oneness Pentecostalism
8.3 Unitarianism and Universalism
8.4 Bible Student groups
8.5 Swedenborgianism
8.6 Christian Science
8.7 Other non-Trinitarians

9 New Thought
10 Esoteric Christianity
11 Syncretistic religions incorporating elements of Christianity
12 Other

[Lord Jim]

And let's not forget The Gospel Of Stroppygob:

"If God existed He'd have ordered things the way I think He ought to..."

[Gob]

If he has any sense he would.

[MajGenl.Meade]

And all these cults are there to help us on our ways... ..all claiming to have the one true interpretation....

How come you left out all the various cults of atheism (very keen on claiming they have the only truth) and the many varities and mutually exclusive Islamic, Zoroastrianism, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, etc etc etc - and just concentrated on organizations on the Hebrew/Christian side of things?

The Supreme Being has made it clear - in the Bible. What is not clear? Or do you mean the manner in which humans have chosen to make mistakes, sometimes even deliberate ones, in order to promote their own human agenda, opposed to the clear instruction of the Bible?

[Daisy]

The Supreme Being has made it clear - in the Bible. What is not clear?

Which Bible? I watched a BBC program last week about Bible Hunters, that found various versions of the Gospels knocking around in dusty old crypts, with enormous differences. They particularly cited the Gospel of Mark where the end has been changed several times over the centuries.

These are the interpretations of MEN

I'll trust a copy of the Bible when I get one that's been signed by the author.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade--re the divorce issue, it's been a while but I think it might be a matter of translation

I've no argument with your views on responsibility, respect and so on - very fine. What I don't get is the connection to what Jesus said about divorce?

Mat 5:31-32 "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

απολυση and απολελυμενην rendered "divorces" and "divorced". To free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: - (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.

G630 ἀπολύω apoluō Thayer Definition:
1) to set free
2) to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer)
2a) a petitioner to whom liberty to depart is given by a decisive answer
2b) to bid depart, send away
3) to let go free, release
3a) a captive, i.e. to loose his bonds and bid him depart, to give him liberty to depart
3b) to acquit one accused of a crime and set him at liberty
3c) indulgently to grant a prisoner leave to depart
3d) to release a debtor, i.e. not to press one’s claim against him, to remit his debt
4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate. The wife of a Greek or Roman may divorce her husband.
5) to send one’s self away, to depart

Mark 10:2-12 (and in Matt 19 I think) Jesus uses apoluō in speaking of Deut 24:1 re "bill of divorce", the key word being H3748 כְּרִיתוּת kerı̂ythûth. BDB Definition: 1) divorce, dismissal, divorcement.

The discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees was entirely about the grounds on which a man (in Mosaic law) could divorce/set aside/put apart/etc. his wife - there being a contractual "bill" cutting the bond apart.

Mal 2:16 popularly rendered "God hates divorce" in various ways also says "God hates putting away" and so on when a man decides he doesn't love her any more and divorces her.

Clearly He is not in favour of divorce with compensation and making a nice arrangement to share the kids' upbringing - he is against divorce period.

How is the translation an issue here?

Thanks
Meade