5 Interesting, Forgotten Things About the Bible

5 Interesting, Forgotten Things About the Bible

As summer rolls on, I’m starting to prepare lessons for the coming academic year. Here are a few fun and interesting things most people either didn’t know or simply forgot about the Bible.

  1. Adam and Eve didn’t eat apples. Well, probably not, anyway. The reason tradition (lowercase ‘t’) tends to give us apples is that, in Latin, apple and evil can both look like the same word, malum. Check out the actual biblical account of Genesis 3. I doubt they ate the forbidden fruit and then, realizing they were naked, ran all over the garden looking for an apple tree just to accommodate a language that wouldn’t exist for at least many centuries. What’s more likely? The forbidden fruit was probably fig and our first parents covered themselves in fig leaves. Fig leaves are not only fashionable, they’re penitential – fig leaves contain latex, which has a tendency to make some people itch.
  2. Ummm...No. Different Seth.

    Adam and Eve had a third son. If you didn’t know this, congratulations! You’re a typical Catholic. My recommendation: read the Bible more often, and don’t just skip the parts you think are boring. Plenty of people don’t know the Book of Genesis very well because they’ve written off the whole Torah (that’s the first 5 books). Don’t be like them. The Book of Genesis is a great read that really sets the stage for everything after it. Anyway, Adam and Eve had a third son and named him Seth. Many scholars believe Seth’s descendants are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2, who married the “daughters of men” (Cain’s descendants), thus corrupting the whole human race and precipitating the Flood (yes, pun intended).

  3. Melchizedek may have been WAY older than he seemed. After the Flood, there was a rather embarrassing and shameful incident involving a little too much wine and a little too much naked. Noah’s son, Ham, gloated about seeing his father’s nakedness (which may have been a euphemism for a type of incest with Noah’s wife), while Shem and Japheth, Noah’s other sons, carefully covered up their father. Ham was given a curse while Shem was given a blessing. According to the Jewish tradition written down in Scripture commentaries called targumim, Shem went off toward the land that would become Canaan and built a city. That city came to be called Salem (Hebrew for peace), from which Melchizedek came to bless Abraham (Genesis 14:17-24). If this tradition is correct, Melchizedek is Shem, and several centuries old. You can find an interesting reflection on this here. What’s the implication? Adam was a priest, the high priest of all creation, and he must have passed on his priesthood. We can track that priesthood, passed through the righteous men of each generation, sometimes being lost to history and obscurity but then rising up again, all the way from Adam to Melchizedek to David to Jesus. It’s this priesthood that Jesus is a member of, the final member. It’s also this priesthood all our priests are ordained into. Yes, Father, your ordination goes back to Adam, but you already knew that, didn’t you?
  4. The Hebrews may have been a group known to Egyptian history as the Hyksos. Josephus, the 1st century Jewish historian, recounts the words (#14 on the link) of an Egyptian historian, Manetho, in describing what he believes was an Egyptian account of the incursion of the Hebrews into Egypt. Here are a few highlights: “Men of ignoble birth out [came] of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an expedition into our country,” who “demolished the temples of the gods.” The men built a palace and stronghold at Avaris (Goshen, see Genesis 46:34) and were called Hyksos, which could mean “Shepherd-Kings” or also “Captive Shepherds” (the biblical tradition of double meaning). After several hundred years of ruling, they were driven out and returned home where “they built a city in that country which is now called Judea, and that large enough to contain this great number of men, and called it Jerusalem.” Disregarding what could easily be spin from the Egyptian account, that sounds an awful lot like the Hebrews, doesn’t it? Moreover, it would explain how the Hebrews came to be enslaved when “a new king, who knew nothing of Joseph, rose to power in Egypt” (Exodus 1:8). A new king could certainly interpret the once favorable relationship with the Hebrews in a new, negative light.
  5. Jesus died and rose for you because He loves you. I dare say this is the most widely forgotten fact in the Bible. You and I forget on a daily basis that Jesus paid the ultimate price out of His merciful love. Our forgetfulness of God and remembrance of ourselves, pride, is the reason we sin. We need to remember what Jesus did for us.

There are lots more where these came from! What are some of your favorite forgotten things about the Bible?


  1. The latex in the Fig was the easiest way to stick the leaf on , so Eve would leaf it alone . . Has our faith become deeper, or misguided! Do we put our faith in humanity , ‘cos I feel we need to put our faith in Jesus Christ. Is HE preparing us again? The ‘Right time’ I believe is hear and NOW. Look at reading again ROM.1: 18-32 . . I believe we are needing a ‘renew’, so we need to prepare for a Baptism of the Holy Spirit, as the battle has already begun on Earth.REV.12:7-8. I’m sure the battle will involve the whole BIBLE!

  2. 1. That Elijah did not die, and was ‘assumed’ into Heaven we know, but does one remember that Enoch (Henoch) was also assumed into Heaven?

    2. That Elijah and Enoch are to return at the end of time to announce the second Advent (Apoc. 11).

    3. When Our Lord was struck on the cheek at His Passion, he did not ‘turn the other cheek’, but challenged the person who stuck him.

    • If Elijah and Enoch did not die, then there were already two sinless men in existence when Jesus came on the scene. (Rom 6:24) Thus there was no need for a spotless Lamb to die for us. “Assumption”, no matter whose, is not a scriptural teaching.
      The idea “Elijah and Enoch are to return at the end of time” fits what Paul prophesied: “For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” The coming of Christ has been prophesied by himself, in Mt 24,25; Lu 21; Mr 11, and other places in scripture.

      • You are forgetting about original sin, which contaminated both Enoch and Elijah (who may or may not have had personal sin) as well as John the Baptist (who did not have personal sin). And yeah, they were “translated”, not assumed; the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into Heaven (and had been preserved from original sin).

        As for unsound doctrine, an excellent candidate is the rejection of all doctrines not explicitly laid down in Scripture. It is both a fable that came about long after St. Paul, and is, ironically enough, not laid down in Scripture itself — which is scarcely surprising, since none of the divinely inspired books of the Bible contain a table of contents to the Bible as a whole.

        • Scriptural responses, all Douay.
          Howard: “You are forgetting about original sin, which contaminated both Enoch and Elijah (who may or may not have had personal sin) …John the Baptist (who did not have personal sin”
          Jas 5:17: “Elias was a man passible like us: and with prayer he prayed that it might not rain upon the earth. And it rained not for three years and six months. And he prayed again. And the heaven gave rain: and the earth brought forth her fruit.”
          1 John 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (N.b. “we” includes the one whom you call “Saint” [sanctified] John. How much more so, then …)
          Howard: “And yeah, they were “translated”, not assumed;”
          Gen 5:24: ” And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him.”
          Douay, at least, does not use assumed or translated in Howard’s way. Enoch then died in some way “For the wages of sin is death.” He will live again in the new world, though, because of “the grace of God, life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
          Howard: “Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into Heaven”
          Bible: Neither that title nor the end of her earthly course are used. Paul refers to her once: “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law:” And, as to that, “For the end of the law is Christ [not Mary]” and “Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ [not Mary].” Nothing about Ephesus, assumption, or sinlessness (Luke 2:22 ff.)
          Howard: “an excellent candidate [for unsound doctrine] is the rejection of all doctrines not explicitly laid down in Scripture. It is … a fable that came about long after St. Paul,”
          2 Tim 3:16,17: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect [i.e., complete], furnished to every good work.”
          Sola scriptura is a derogatory phrase often used by Catholics in “refuting” scriptural teachings that are contrary to Magisterium. It was never a bible teaching: Nehemias 8: “And they read in the book of the law of God distinctly and plainly to be understood: and they understood when it was read. And Nehemias … and Esdras the priest and scribe, and the Levites who interpreted to all the people …” You have your interpreters, I have mine. Which stay close to God’s word? In fact, the ones I cite here are in God’s word!

          • If the scripture is enough for salvation, why did the scribes, the priests, and Pharisees cannot recognise Jesus as the Son of God when Jesus came? Is it because the New Testament hasn’t written?

          • Allen, scripture is furnished by Jehovah to instruct us in ‘profitable things, to govern the way we should walk.’ They are ‘commandments to which we should harken.’ Isa 48:17,18, Douay.
            From Genesis to Revelation scripture shows us right worship and wrong worship. Much of the latter is tied to the coming of traditions of men into Israel and Christian congregation, the “Israel of God”. (Gal 6:16) Please consider one such warning, at 1 Tim 4:1-5. It says that false Christians would try to convince us that a Christian leader must be unmarried, or that abstaining from meat at any time is a Christian obligation. Since the Bible is “the word of God”, it follows that such forced teachings must be “spirits of error and doctrines of devils”.
            A careful reading of your own Bible should show you that the mainstream religious leaders of Jesus’ day rejected him as Messiah for selfish reasons. (See John 11:45-48 especially.) That is happening now, in “the Lord’s Day”. (Rev 1) Why else would Jesus himself, Paul, and Peter warn Christians of opposers to come after his leaving, both from the world and from within Christianity? Note the extended warning Paul gives at 2Tim 3:1-5; it begins, “Know also this, that in the last days shall come dangerous times.” Many “lay” Jews, and a few leaders, did recognize Jesus as the Messiah- there were 120 at that first meeting at the Pentecost of 33 CE. (Acts 1)
            When you work on your car, I trust you use the manufacturer’s manual for it, to avoid rendering it dangerous or inoperable. I hope also you’ll use the “manual” furnished by our Creator in examining your spiritual life. Acts 17:11. I have always benefited from it.

          • Doug,

            1 Timothy 4:1-5 doesn’t say that false prophets and false ascetics will forbid the marriage of priests specifically. It suggests that they will be against marriage altogether. The Catholic Church has a sacrament for marriage, which is about the loftiest view we can have of it. St. Paul was warning Timothy about Gnostics sects, which already existed and were beginning to infiltrate the Church.

          • oug,

            It says that false Christians would try to convince us that a Christian leader must be unmarried, or that abstaining from meat at any time is a Christian obligation.

            According to the scripture, there is no mentioning “Christian leader” as you mentioned. You can refer to KJV also.

            Besides that,

            Since the Bible is “the word of God”

            I do agree the Bible is the word of God. But, can you please show me where the statement comes from?

            If we read the scripture, we can find that “the word of God” is mentioned related to “hear”, “speak”, “preach”, but not “read” or “write”. So, “the word of God” is something invisible, but only can listen.

            And if you read Luke 24:44-45, it mentioned about “scripture”. From here, we know that, unless our mind is opened, we cannot understand the “scripture”. It is the “Word of God” opens the mind, not the “scripture” itself opens the mind.

            Yes, I also use the “manual” furnished by God in examining my spiritual life as you do.

  3. And if you know the Aramaic Bible, you’ll see that the word in Genesis for “serpent” is HIWYA, a form very close to the name Eve, Aram. HAWWA. This fact was not ignored by the rabbis. Read Fr. McNamara’s interesting introduction to the Targums and the New Testament.

  4. There is no indication what the forbidden fruit was. Even under the most literal interpretation, it could have been any fruit, including something that does not exist today.

    The Hyksos appear to have been a different Semitic group than the Hebrews.

    • I didn’t say for sure what the forbidden fruit was, just that fig seems much more likely than apple.

      As for the Hyksos, from what I’ve seen, there’s a lot of division on that, which is why I said it was possible, not certain. However, I tend to listen to ancient scholars like Josephus before modern scholars. I think modern scholars suffer from the assumption that they know better simply because they are modern, while we must remember that ancient scholars had access to a living tradition that had not yet been lost to time.

      • Josephus’ writings, such as they exist, are not without flaws. And most of us use the Whiston translation because it’s in the public domain. (Some perhaps not, because W. was an Arian. :-) ) There are better ones available, for a price.
        “ancient scholars had access to a living tradition” – and access to documents that have disappeared since. Note that Herodotus, ‘the father of history’, quoted written sources when he could and indentified traditions as such. He also showed a healthy skepticism for traditions.

      • I recommend ON THE RELIABILITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT by K.A. Kitchen.

        It’s also worth remembering that ancient scholars also had their own agendas. Josephus is interesting, but not entirely trustworthy.

      • I too will stick with the fig being the forbidden fruit, as they covered their nekkid-ness with fig leaves. Didn’t they?

  5. It was Ham who saw Noah’s unfortunate state, but Noah cursed Ham’s son Canaan, who apparently was the forefather of the Canaanites, which included pretty much all of the peoples that Israel had to displace – Amorites, Philistines, Jebusites, etc. Jerusalem by the time of David and the Israelite conquest belonged to the Jebusites and was called Jebus.

    That Melchizadek was Shem is conjecture, not biblical. The Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent appears to disagree with the idea. One implication of Shem being Melchizadek is that the notion that Melchizadek is a foreshadow of our Lord (Heb 7:1-3) would be obscured. It might be that the connection of Shem and Melchizadek was proposed precisely to counter the notion conveyed in letter to the Hebrews.

    • Canaan was cursed directly, yes, but it’s clear from context and the Table of Nations that Shem’s descendants in general don’t do well.

      I grant that Melchizedek’s identification with Shem is conjecture and I see the motivation the 1st century Jews would have had for spreading that around, but supposing it is true, it doesn’t actually harm what Paul had to say in Hebrews. The link I provided in the article has an explanation.

      • From your link: “Did people really live that long back then? We don’t know” … unless we take the Bible as history; Jesus did, at Mt 24, Lu 11, and other places. (“That the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, who was slain between the altar and the temple” e.g.)
        The oral ‘passdown’ from Shem/Melchizedek to Abraham can be extended from Adam to Moses in very few links. This would show that Moses was writing his history from reliable sources, not to mention inspiration. (“Primitive” societies do the same today.)
        Some think the curse on Ham to be somewhat harsh for an accidental viewing of his father’s embarrassment. (Shem and Japeth acted differently, on better information.) It’s possible that Cain inserted himself into the incident in a disrespectful manner.

      • Regarding your point about “malum”,
        Is it a valid point, given that the Bible was not written in Latin?
        What is the word used in the greek? Or Aramaic?

        On a different note: “Yes, Father, your ordination goes back to Adam, but you already knew that, didn’t you?”
        That sounds a bit arrogant, doesn’t it?

        • In the Hebrew, the Septuagint Greek, and the Latin, the word always means simply “fruit.” My point doesn’t require that the Bible be written in Latin; it was that the similarity between the Latin words for apple and evil probably led to some confusion wherein Latin-speaking people believed that if evil were ever symbolized by a fruit, it would be an apple. Thus, the assumption may have been made that the apple was the evil fruit of the garden. The exact source of the apple as the evil fruit, however, is lost to history. Thus, it is “forgotten” and a part of this list.

          As for the second bit, no, I don’t think it’s arrogant. I was acknowledging that many priests are very familiar with the roots of the priesthood, and it was perhaps a back-handed lament that that theology is not more commonly known.

          • “malum”: I’ve been taught that the KJV-era translators erred on the side of caution [for once!]. Recognizing that the fruit (1) wasn’t specified and (2) could not be any modern species, they used a generic word.
            “priests are very familiar with the roots of the priesthood”
            But, as I noted earlier, Adam was not in fact a patriarch (‘family priest’) until after the Fall. Until then his task was obedience to the divine command to “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it,” Gen 1:28, Douay. That was the form of worship given him; no robes, no blood sacrifices, no altars.
            So the statement “and he must have passed on his priesthood” must be incorrect. What he passed on was sin, not sacrament.

          • Doug, on what grounds do you argue that Adam was only a priest after the Fall? Robes, animal sacrifices, and altars are not essential to being a priest. I would retain that most central to priesthood is the mediator role. Adam was a mediator between God and the rest of creation from his first moment. It is his high priesthood as man, the pinnacle of creation, that he handed on.

          • “Adam was a mediator between God and the rest of creation” Let’s see, step by step according to history.
            From Genesis 1 & 2, Douay: “And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself” ‘Mediator’ to the animals.
            “And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man” Now he has one ‘parishioner’. Their form of worship- given by Jehovah- was (as I noted) “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.”
            Adam did ‘mediate’ with a human in that he passed on God’s instructions to his wife; implied in Gen 3: “And the woman answered [Satan], saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat … God has commanded us …”
            When Adam’s parishioner ‘came to confession’ he joined in her twofold sin. (1) They agreed with Satan that Jehovah had withheld something good from his creatures, thus calling Jehovah a liar and an incompetent father (cf. Isa 48:17,18), and (2) taking Satan as their sovereign and lawgiver instead of Jehovah. Cf. Rev 4:11.
            Adam still ‘qualified for the priesthood’? I think not, because of the consequences: Death. As I said, he ‘passed on’ sin, not sacrament.

            To make a link between Adam and B16 with his robes, rituals, traditions of men, and the rest is a leap to be made only by those already committed to believing that their priesthood is ordained by God. Catechism, not Christ.

            Scripture specifically says that Jehovah made “priests” of Melchizedek, Aaron, and Jesus. Nothing of Adam.

          • Doug, I think your bias is showing. You seem to think that when I say “priest,” I mean the term primarily in the sense we Catholics are used to. The priesthood as we have it today has a lot of extraneous things added to it that are merely a part of tradition. Those don’t make up what a priest is at heart.

            At his core, a priest is one who offers sacrifice. There are different types of sacrifice. The sacrifice that ends in the death of a victim is a sacrifice for after the Fall. Nevertheless, there is every indication that Adam was to sacrifice (that is, to make sacred by offering) himself – and by extension of his authority, his family (at that point, just his wife) and all creation – to God. It’s before the Fall that Adam is given authority over creation, and therefore established as a mediator who communicates with God for creation. It’s also before the Fall that the Sabbath is established as a day of rest and worship. Adam was indeed a priest, although of a type the rest of the world has never known. Adam’s priesthood consisted in a self-offering of praise, worship, and a virtuous life. He failed in that; nevertheless, he retained the priesthood, just as David did after his sin.

            I’m intrigued by your inclusion of Aaron as a priest. He was, of course, a Levitical priest, but St. Paul spent a lot of effort emphasizing that Aaron’s priesthood was different from Christ’s priesthood. Likewise, I’m intrigued by your exclusion as David. Since David performed several explicitly priestly duties but was not punished as Saul had been for the same, one can assume he was a priest. It becomes more clear when one notices that David conquered Jerusalem, which had been Salem, the city of Melchizedek. Being a Judahite, David could well have inherited the priesthood of Melchizedek and specifically looked to conquer Jerusalem in order to restore the priestly city.

            Lastly, let’s try to avoid the polemic assumptions. I believe in Christ, who established a Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit and administrated by bishops, who wrote a Catechism. I don’t equate the two and I certainly don’t replace one with the other.

            God bless,


          • Micah writes, “The priesthood as we have it today has a lot of extraneous things added to it that are merely a part of tradition” S/b “as we Catholics have it today” (key word: tradition)
            “there is every indication that Adam was to sacrifice” No indication in God’s word, as I noted. No sacrifice needed in Eden: “And God blessed them…” All that was needed was obedience.
            Our sacrifice today is the same and doesn’t require priestly offices: “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is to say, the fruit of lips confessing to his name.” Hebrews 13, Douay. Cf. Ps 69:30, Hosea 14:2, 1 Cor 9:16, Mt 7:21.
            “[Adam] retained the priesthood, just as David did after his sin.” No priesthood specified; none retained. What David- an imperfect man- retained was his kingship. Levi and Judah were different men. (Remember Uzziah?)
            You are too easily “intrigued”. I said, “Scripture specifically says that Jehovah made “priests” of Melchizedek, Aaron, and Jesus. Nothing of Adam.” Those are factual statements, not meant to ‘intrigue’. “Being a Judahite, David could …”
            Not according to Jehovah, which brings me to my final point: My bias IS showing- Bible, yes; traditions of men, no.

          • Whether you agree or disagree with tradition is extraneous to the conversation. The Bible, of course, explicitly supports Tradition, but that is another debate entirely.

            Your argument completely ignores mine. I told you what “sacrifice” meant to us and you simply continued to use your own definition. Obviously, based on your narrow definition of blood-sacrifice, I don’t agree with your broader argument. I cannot help or change your understanding of sacrifice except by pointing you to the word itself: sacrifice is sacer (holy) and facere (to make). A sacrifice is to make something holy, generally by offering it to the service of God. Therefore, we all make sacrifices and are all called to do so. Why? Because in a sense, we are all priests, the whole human race. That began with Adam, who carried priesthood and was meant to make a sacrifice of praise and rest on the Sabbath. The Bible need not say it explicitly, neither the ancient audiences nor the Church today were foolish enough to need everything spelled out in the clearest terms.

            As for David, he was a priest as well, and that much is clear from an honest reading of the Bible. Saul lost the crown for sins against the priesthood and acting in the role of a priest. David, however, offered sacrifice without any problems. Why? David had the priesthood of Melchizedek, and that is why he conquered Jerusalem, the city of Melchizedek.

            As for traditions of men, how about the use of “Jehovah” as God’s name? That’s an entirely unbiblical corruption of the Divine Name, based, oddly enough, on some bad scholarship by Catholics. Funny that you should use a bad human tradition to argue against tradition.

  6. Actually, Adam and Eve didn’t just have a “third” son, Seth, they had “other sons” and daughters as well (Gen 5:4).

    • Indeed, but it’s pretty likely that Seth was the third, given that he is mentioned just after the Cain and Abel story and not as late as 5:4.

      • I don’t doubt it, Micah. Abel plus Cain = 2; minus Abel = 1; plus Gen 4:25 (Seth) = 3.

  7. Micah Murphy writes, “Adam was a priest, the high priest of all creation”. Adam was not a patriarch (‘family priest’) in fact until after the Fall. Until then his task was obedience to the divine command to “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it,” Gen 1:28, Douay. That was the form of worship given him; no robes, no blood sacrifices, no altars.
    So the statement “and he must have passed on his priesthood” must be incorrect. What he passed on was sin, not sacrament. Paul tells us that Melchezidek was totally outside the Law- no predecessors- so that Ps 110 is indeed about the only other qualified man, Jesus. “A Psalm of David [the speaker]. Jehovah [God] saith unto my [David’s] Lord [God’s Son], Sit thou at my right hand, Until I [God] make thine [the Son’s] enemies thy footstool … Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek.” (ASV) (An accurate translation of the Hebrew makes the cast of characters plainer.)
    Your last statements under (3), it seems to me, raise more questions than they answer about Catholic dogma, but that’s another history.

  8. On a funny note Baseball is in the Bible. Gen 1 In the Big-inning :)

    • Wah-wah.

    • There’s at least one Bible that mentions the fastball (though not clocked- no radar guns in John’s day). Babylon the Great will be ‘cast down with a swift pitch’ or something like that. (Revelation)

  9. Allen says, or writes, or something that is “the word of Allen”:
    “It says that false Christians would try to convince us that a Christian leader must be unmarried, or that abstaining from meat at any time is a Christian obligation. According to the scripture, there is no mentioning “Christian leader” as you mentioned. You can refer to KJV also.”
    Douay has “forbidding to marry”; as with all of Paul’s general statements it applies to all Christians. The RCC says adamantly that its priests must be celibate, or unmarried. As you well know. If you want to make the claim that ‘priests are not Christians’ I will find it hard to disagree with you. :-) Remember, 1 Tim 4 is a prophecy; celibacy and meatless Fridays seem to me to be its fulfillment.
    (Other religions have similar rules, but the RCC Church claims to be THE Christian religion. 2TIm 4:3,4 say specifically that ‘some would turn away from the truth to false teachings, not that Buddhists or Hindus would have certain dogmas.)

    The Word of Allen says: “I do agree the Bible is the word of God. But, can you please show me where the statement comes from?”
    I count this as a specious question, but I’ll answer it this one time.
    “Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,” said Jesus at Lu 24. That’s Jesus, the one you worship as God. Not “magisterium”, or a priest who can’t read 1 Tim 4 without getting perplexed, or the Baltimore Catechism. Jesus is just one of the Worthies I use to help me understand the Word of God. Some others are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John…
    Here’s a quote you might find illuminating: “Now these are David’s last words. David the son of Isai said: The man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob, the excellent psalmist of Israel said: The spirit of the Lord has spoken by me and his word by my tongue.”
    And this: “For prophecy [which we have written in our Bibles] came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.”
    My task is to show folks the Word of God; some listen, some don’t. Mt 10:7; 2Tim 4:2; Ezek 17.

    • Doug, I will insist that you do not use bigoted jabs at our priests. I don’t insult your intelligence even though I disagree entirely with you.

      Thread closed. Keep it charitable and humble next time.


  1. 5 interesting, forgotten things about the Bible... - Christian Forums - [...] [...]
  2. WEDNESDAY EVENING EXTRA | Big Pulpit - [...] 5 Interesting, Forgotten Things About the Bible – Micah Murphy, Truth & Charity [...]
  3. “Priest, Prophet, and King” | St. John - [...] 5 Interesting, Forgotten Things About the BibleAs summer rolls on, I’m starting to prepare lessons for the coming academic…