Origen’s bible

Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254), one of the most influential early Christian theologians and biblical scholars, primarily used the Septuagint (LXX) for the Old Testament and the Greek New Testament manuscripts available in his time. Here’s a breakdown of the biblical texts he used:

1. Old Testament: The Septuagint (LXX)

   - Origen relied heavily on the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which was the standard version used by Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians.

   - He recognized discrepancies between the Hebrew Masoretic text (used by rabbinic Jews) and the Greek LXX, which led him to compile the Hexapla—a massive six-column comparative Bible that included:

     1. Hebrew text  

     2. Hebrew transliterated into Greek letters  

     3. Aquila’s Greek translation (a very literal Jewish translation)  

     4. Symmachus’ Greek translation (a more literary Jewish-Greek version)  

     5. The Septuagint (LXX)  

     6. Theodotion’s Greek revision (another Jewish recension)  

   - Origen’s goal was to provide a tool for textual criticism and better exegesis.

2. New Testament: Early Greek Manuscripts

   - For the New Testament, Origen used early Greek manuscripts circulating in the 3rd century. These were uncial manuscripts (written in all capital letters) preceding later codices like Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus.

   - He quoted extensively from the Gospels, Pauline epistles, and other NT books, showing that the canon he used was largely similar to what we have today, though debates on some books (e.g., Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter) were still ongoing.

3. Origen’s Influence on the Biblical Text

   - Origen’s textual work (especially the Hexapla) influenced later scholars like Jerome, who used it for his Latin Vulgate translation.

   - Some of his biblical commentaries and homilies preserve early textual variants that help modern scholars reconstruct the history of the Bible.

Conclusion

Origen primarily used the Septuagint (LXX) for the Old Testament and early Greek New Testament manuscripts. His Hexapla was a groundbreaking work in biblical textual criticism, bridging Hebrew and Greek traditions. While he didn’t use a single "Bible" as we think of it today, his scholarship shaped how later Christians understood scripture.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) does not advocate for the exclusive use of one Bible translation

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) does not advocate for the exclusive use of one Bible translation (such as the KJV) but instead emphasizes the authority of Scripture in its original languages and the legitimacy of faithful translations. Below is the proof from the text itself, along with historical context:

________________________________________

1. Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8

"The Old Testament in Hebrew [...] and the New Testament in Greek [...] being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God [...] therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar [common] language of every nation unto which they come [...]"

Key Points:

• Original languages (Hebrew/Greek) are the ultimate authority.

• Translations are necessary for those who do not know Hebrew or Greek.

• No specific translation is endorsed (including the KJV). The focus is on faithful rendering into the common language.

________________________________________

2. Westminster Confession 1.10

"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined [...] can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

Key Points:

• Authority resides in the content of Scripture (God’s Word), not in a specific translation.

• The KJV is not mentioned as the exclusive or "inspired" translation.

________________________________________

3. Historical Context

• The KJV (1611) predated the Westminster Assembly (1643–1653), but the Confession never names it as the sole acceptable translation.

• The Westminster Divines often quoted the Geneva Bible (a predecessor to the KJV) in their writings, demonstrating their openness to multiple translations.

• The Confession’s focus on original languages and the need for vernacular translations inherently rejects KJV-Onlyism, which arose much later (19th–20th centuries).

________________________________________

4. Proof Against KJV-Onlyism

The Confession explicitly:

1. Prioritizes Hebrew/Greek originals over any translation.

2. Mandates translations into every language, rejecting exclusivity.

3. Avoids elevating any post-apostolic tradition (including the KJV) to the level of inspired Scripture.

________________________________________

Reformed Tradition’s View

Reformed churches historically use multiple translations (e.g., ESV, NASB, NIV) as long as they accurately reflect the original texts. The KJV is respected but not dogmatically elevated.

Example:

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) officially affirm the Westminster Standards while using modern translations.

________________________________________

Conclusion

The Westminster Confession does not support KJV-Onlyism. Its insistence on the authority of the original languages and the necessity of vernacular translations aligns with the Reformed principle of sola Scriptura—not sola KJV. Any claim that the Confession endorses KJV exclusivity is a modern revisionist error.

For further study:

• The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary by A.A. Hodge.

• The Making of the 1611 KJV by Gordon Campbell (historical context).

• PCA and OPC position papers on Bible translations.

John Calvin’s use of the Septuagint (LXX) in Institutes of the Christian Religion

John Calvin’s use of the Septuagint (LXX) in Institutes of the Christian Religion reflects his engagement with ancient translations, though he prioritized the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). Below are key instances where Calvin explicitly or implicitly references the Septuagint, along with evidence of his broader reliance on it for scriptural interpretation:

---

1. Institutes 1.13.16 (Trinitarian Doctrine)

Reference: Calvin discusses the Trinity and cites Psalm 110:1 (Dominus dixit ad Dominum meum).

• LXX (Psalm 109:1): "Εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος τῷ Κυρίῳ μου" ("The Lord said to my Lord").
• MT (Psalm 110:1): "נְאֻם יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי" ("The declaration of Yahweh to my Lord").
  Analysis: Calvin uses the LXX’s Κύριος (Lord) for both divine names, aligning with the New Testament (Matthew 22:44) and early Christian Trinitarian arguments. While he acknowledges the Hebrew, the LXX framing reflects his doctrinal emphasis.

---

2. Institutes 2.6.4 (Atonement and Isaiah 53)

Reference: Calvin quotes Isaiah 53:5 to explain Christ’s substitutionary suffering.

• LXX: "τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν" ("by his bruises we were healed").
• MT: "וּבַחֲבֻרָתוֹ נִרְפָּא־לָנוּ" ("and by his wounds we are healed").
  Analysis: Calvin’s phrasing mirrors the LXX’s passive "ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν" (we were healed), aligning with his emphasis on Christ’s vicarious atonement. He likely drew from the LXX here, as it sharpens the theological focus on Christ’s role.

---

3. Institutes 1.8.1 (Authority of Scripture)

Reference: Calvin cites Psalm 119:105 ("Your word is a lamp to my feet").

• LXX (Psalm 118:105): "Λύχνος τοῖς ποσί μου ὁ νόμος σου" ("Your law is a lamp to my feet").
• MT: "נֵר־לְרַגְלִי דְבָרֶךָ" ("Your word is a lamp to my foot").
  Analysis: Calvin uses "lamp" (λύχνος) and "law" (νόμος) from the LXX, blending it with the MT’s "דבר" (word). This synthesis shows his familiarity with both texts.

---

4. Institutes 3.4.27 (Mercy Over Sacrifice)

Reference: Calvin quotes Hosea 6:6 ("I desire mercy, not sacrifice").

• LXX: "ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν" ("mercy I desire, not sacrifice").
• MT: "כִּי חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי וְלֹא־זָבַח" ("for I desire steadfast love, not sacrifice").
  Analysis: Calvin’s wording aligns with the LXX’s "ἔλεος" (mercy), which Jesus also cites in Matthew 9:13. This reflects his reliance on the LXX for Christocentric interpretations.

---

5. Institutes 1.5.12 (Creation’s Testimony)

Reference: Calvin paraphrases Psalm 19:1 ("The heavens declare the glory of God").

• LXX (Psalm 18:2): "Οἱ οὐρανοὶ διηγοῦνται δόξαν Θεοῦ" ("The heavens declare the glory of God").
• MT: "הַשָּׁמַיִם מְסַפְּרִים כְּבוֹד־אֵל" ("The heavens declare the glory of God").
  Analysis: The LXX’s "διηγοῦνται" (declare) matches Calvin’s emphasis on creation’s proclamation, showing his use of the LXX for theological emphasis.

---

6. Institutes 2.10.23 (Law and Gospel)

Reference: Calvin discusses Deuteronomy 30:11–14 ("The word is near you").

• LXX: "ἐγγύς σου τὸ ῥῆμά ἐστιν" ("the word is near you").
• MT: "כִּי־קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר מְאֹד" ("the word is very near to you").
  Analysis: Paul quotes the LXX in Romans 10:8, and Calvin follows this tradition, using the LXX to connect Old Testament law with New Covenant grace.

---

Broader Evidence of Calvin’s Use of the Septuagint

1. Textual Criticism: Calvin frequently compares Hebrew and Greek readings in his commentaries (e.g., Genesis, Psalms), acknowledging the LXX’s value for resolving ambiguities.

2. Apocryphal Citations: Though rejecting the Apocrypha’s canonicity, Calvin quotes books like Wisdom and Sirach (e.g., Institutes 1.5.5), which were part of the LXX.

3. Christological Typology: Calvin relies on the LXX’s messianic phrasing (e.g., "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 LXX) to defend Christ’s virgin birth, even if he prioritizes Hebrew elsewhere.

---

Conclusion

Calvin respected the Septuagint as a bridge between Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament, using it to:

• Support doctrinal arguments (e.g., Trinity, atonement).
• Align with apostolic citations (e.g., Paul’s use of LXX).
• Clarify ambiguous Hebrew passages.

While he prioritized the MT, the LXX informed his exegesis, demonstrating his commitment to a multilingual, textually informed theology. For deeper analysis, consult:

• T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries.
• Richard Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin.
• David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context.

See evil, hear evil, speak evil

In churches with both teaching elders (often pastors) and ruling elders (lay leaders), the process of electing a pastor and safeguarding leadership from false teachings and internal strife requires careful biblical, structural, and relational safeguards. Below is a concise guideline:

I. Election of the Pastor

Biblical Qualifications

1. Ensure candidates meet the standards of 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9 (above reproach, self-controlled, able to teach, etc.).
2. Ruling elders should evaluate candidates’ doctrine, character, and alignment with the church’s confession or statement of faith.

Process

1. Search Committee: Form a team of ruling/teaching elders and congregational representatives to vet candidates.
2. Congregational Involvement: Present the candidate to the congregation for Q&A, a trial sermon, and a vote (if polity permits).
3. Ordination/Installation: Confirm the candidate through prayer, laying on of hands by existing elders (1 Timothy 4:14), and public commitment to the church’s mission.

II. Protecting Leaders from False Teachings

Doctrinal Accountability

1. Confessional Foundation: Adopt a clear statement of faith (e.g., Westminster Confession, Apostles’ Creed) and require elders to affirm it annually.
2. Regular Training: Host theological workshops and encourage ongoing education (e.g., seminaries, trusted resources).
3. Doctrinal Review: Form a committee to evaluate sermons, teachings, and materials for doctrinal soundness.

Spiritual Vigilance

1. Prayer & Scripture: Prioritize corporate prayer and regular Scripture study among leaders (Acts 6:4; Psalm 119:105).
2. Accountability Partnerships: Pair elders with mentors or peers for mutual encouragement and correction.
3. Guard Against Isolation: Invite guest speakers or consultants to provide external perspective and prevent doctrinal drift.

III. Preventing Division and Conflict

Clear Roles and Boundaries

1. Define responsibilities: Teaching elders focus on preaching/shepherding; ruling elders on governance and pastoral care.
2. Rotate leadership roles periodically to avoid power imbalances.

Conflict Resolution

1. Follow Matthew 18:15–20 for grievances, emphasizing private reconciliation before escalation.
2. Establish a mediation team (neutral elders or external advisors) for unresolved disputes.

Culture of Unity

1. Foster humility and grace through regular retreats, shared meals, and testimonies (Ephesians 4:2–3).
2. Address gossip swiftly; require elders to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).

Transparency

1. Hold quarterly meetings for elders to share updates, challenges, and prayer requests.
2. Communicate major decisions to the congregation to avoid suspicion.

IV. Ongoing Safeguards

1. Term Limits: Implement term lengths for elders to prevent burnout and entrenched power.
2. External Oversight: Partner with a denominational body or sister churches for accountability.
3. Congregational Education: Equip members to discern truth (Hebrews 5:14) and report concerns respectfully.

By grounding leadership in Scripture, fostering accountability, and nurturing a culture of love, churches can protect their shepherds and maintain unity amid challenges.

​​Look at my name not even real how can I speak the truth?

​​Look at your name not even real how can you speak the truth?

A name doesn’t validate truth—truth validates itself.

When someone dismisses ideas based on anonymity, they conflate identity with credibility. Let me explain why that’s flawed:

Truth isn’t owned by a name.

Whether I write as “John Smith” or “Anonymous Blogger,” facts remain facts. For example, if I explain that water boils at 100°C, it doesn’t matter if I use my real name—the truth of the statement is independent of who says it, that truth holds even if I’m writing under a pseudonym.

Attacking anonymity is an ad hominem fallacy.

Questioning my name instead of engaging with my arguments shifts focus from what is said to who is saying it. Truth isn’t a resume—it’s rooted in evidence, logic, and consistency. If my claims are false, disprove them with facts. If they’re true, my identity is irrelevant.

Anonymity protects truth-tellers, not liars.

History is full of anonymous voices who spoke truth to power: think of whistleblowers, authors like “Publius” (The Federalist Papers), or even early Christians persecuted for their beliefs. Anonymity isn’t about hiding—it’s about ensuring ideas are judged on their merits, not the speaker’s reputation or vulnerabilities.

Why anonymity?

Maybe I value privacy. Maybe I want ideas, not my persona, to take center stage. Or maybe I’m avoiding backlash for challenging popular narratives. Whatever the reason, the content of my words—not my name—determines their truth.

In short, Truth is a mirror—it reflects reality, not the person holding it. If you doubt my claims, test them. But dismissing truth because of a pseudonym? That’s like rejecting a math theorem because the mathematician used a pen name. The numbers still add up.

The relationship between Scripture’s divine inspiration, translation, and the Holy Spirit’s ongoing work

1. Can God’s "God-breathed" Word Exist in Translations or Modern Languages?

The term theopneustos (“God-breathed”) in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers specifically to the original writings of Scripture (autographs) inspired by God. However, translations into other languages can faithfully convey God’s Word if they accurately reflect the original text.

Example: The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, yet Jesus and the apostles regularly quoted the Greek Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew OT). The Ethiopian eunuch read Isaiah in Greek (Acts 8:30-35), and the Spirit still spoke through it.

God’s Sovereignty Over Language: At Pentecost, the Spirit enabled people to hear the gospel in their own languages (Acts 2:4-11), showing God’s truth transcends linguistic barriers. Translations are valid if they faithfully transmit the original message.

God's truth transcends language. On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), people heard the wonders of God in their own languages—a powerful affirmation that God speaks to all nations.

2. Does the Holy Spirit Work Through Modern Translations (NIV, KJV, etc.)?

John 10:35 (“Scripture cannot be broken”) emphasizes Scripture’s authority, regardless of translation. The Holy Spirit is not confined to specific translations but works through faithful renditions of the original text.

Example: The Ethiopian eunuch understood the gospel through a translated scroll (Acts 8:30-35), and the Spirit guided Philip to explain it.

Practical Reality: No translation is perfect, but reputable versions (NIV, ESV, KJV, etc.) strive to preserve the original meaning. The Spirit illuminates truth to readers through His Word, even in translation (Hebrews 4:12).

Yes. 2 Peter 1:20–21 speaks of how Scripture was originally written under the Spirit's guidance, but the Spirit continues to work in readers and hearers today. Regardless of the Bible version—whether NIV, KJV, ESV, or others—if the translation is faithful to the original meaning, the Holy Spirit can illuminate it to the reader.

Jesus said the Spirit would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). That guidance includes understanding God's Word, not just its original delivery.

So yes, a person reading the NIV may be just as "carried along" in understanding as someone reading the KJV, if their heart is open to God.

3. Is God’s “Living and Active” Word Limited to Greek/Hebrew?

Hebrews 4:12 affirms that Scripture’s power lies in its divine origin, not its language. Just as Jesus, the Logos (John 1:1), transcends culture and language, so does His Word.

Example: Paul preached in Greek, Latin, and local dialects (Acts 21:37-40), yet his message remained God’s truth.

Global Church Evidence: Millions encounter Christ through translations, proving the Word is “living and active” in all languages.

Absolutely. Hebrews 4:12 refers to the dynamic, penetrating power of God’s Word. This power is not confined to any one language. The Word is living because it is empowered by the Spirit who is living.

The same Spirit who inspired Scripture applies it across cultures and languages. This is why the Bible has been translated into over 3,000 languages, and in each, it remains powerful to convict, comfort, and transform lives.

Revelation 7:9 envisions people from "every nation, tribe, people and language" worshiping God—clearly implying that God's Word must reach and work in every language.

4. Does “God’s Word Stands Forever” (Isaiah 40:8) Include the New Testament?

Old Testament Context: Isaiah 40:8 refers to God’s eternal promises in the OT.

New Testament Expansion: Jesus and the apostles treated the NT as equally authoritative (2 Peter 3:16; 1 Timothy 5:18, quoting Luke 10:7 as “Scripture”).

Unified Canon: The Bible is one cohesive revelation. Paul calls all Scripture “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16), implying the completed canon.

So, while the original verse is Old Testament, the truth it expresses—that God’s Word is eternal and unchanging—applies to the whole of Scripture, Old and New.

5. What Does “The Holy Spirit Speaking in Scripture” Mean Across Languages?

The Westminster Confession’s phrase means the Spirit’s primary voice is through Scripture itself, not extrabiblical revelations. This applies to translations when they accurately reflect the original.

In Tamil, Mandarin, etc.: Yes, the Spirit speaks through translations, as He did through the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate historically.

Key Caveat: The Spirit’s illumination depends on fidelity to the original text. A paraphrase or distorted translation may obscure His voice, but a trustworthy translation remains “God’s Word written.”

“The Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” refers to the Spirit’s ongoing role in making the written Word understandable and authoritative for us today. According to Reformed theology (like the Westminster Confession), the Bible is not just a human book—it is the voice of the Spirit of God, and He still speaks through it.

This speaking is not limited by language. When Scripture is faithfully translated into Tamil, Mandarin, Indonesian, or any other language, the Holy Spirit can speak through it, just as powerfully as in English or Greek.

John Calvin said, “Scripture carries its own evidence,” but that the Spirit must open our hearts to receive it. That happens in every culture where God's Word is honored and read with faith.

Summary

Inspiration: Original manuscripts are uniquely “God-breathed,” but translations mediate that truth.

Authority: The Spirit works through faithful translations, not limited to original languages.

Global Reach: God’s Word is “living and active” in all languages, fulfilling the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19).

Discernment: Prioritize translations that balance accuracy (formal equivalence) and clarity (dynamic equivalence).

Thus, while no translation is inspired as the autographs were, the Holy Spirit still speaks powerfully through them to convict, teach, and transform lives worldwide.

Yes, God can breathe Scripture into other languages through faithful translation.

Yes, the Holy Spirit can illuminate the NIV or any version faithful to the original.

Yes, God's Word is active and living in every language.

Isaiah 40:8 is not limited to the Old Testament—it affirms the enduring nature of all God’s Word.

Yes, the Holy Spirit speaks through Scripture in any language where it is rightly translated and reverently read.

Letter to the Church: A Call to Holy Unity

Dear Beloved in Christ,

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I write to you with a heartfelt burden to encourage and exhort the body of Christ to pursue the unity for which our Savior prayed—a unity rooted in His truth, love, and holiness, yet distinct from the patterns of this world. Let us heed the words of Scripture and fix our eyes on the eternal unity we are called to embody.

The Call to Unity in Christ

The Lord Jesus Himself prayed for our unity, declaring, “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21, NIV). This divine unity is not mere agreement but a reflection of the Triune God’s own nature. The Apostle Paul echoes this, urging us to “be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Corinthians 1:10) and to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). Our unity testifies to Christ’s lordship and draws others to Him.

A Warning Against Unity with the World

Yet Scripture also cautions us against compromising with worldly values. James 4:4 sternly reminds us: “Don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.” Similarly, Paul urges, “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2). To “unite with the world” is to dilute the gospel’s power and jeopardize our witness. We are called to be “in the world, but not of it” (John 17:14-16), shining as lights amid darkness (Philippians 2:15).

Heavenly Unity vs. Earthly Unity

1. Unity in Heaven: In eternity, we will experience perfect unity, free from sin and division. Revelation 7:9-10 paints a glorious picture: “a great multitude… from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne… crying out, ‘Salvation belongs to our God!’” Heavenly unity is the fulfillment of God’s plan—a diverse yet harmonious worship of the Lamb, untainted by pride or strife.

2. Unity on Earth: Our present unity is both a foretaste and a struggle. It requires humility, forgiveness, and reliance on the Spirit. Ephesians 4:2-6 calls us to “be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love… There is one body and one Spirit… one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Earthly unity is not uniformity but a shared pursuit of Christ’s mission, resisting worldly divisiveness (e.g., gossip, selfish ambition) while clinging to truth (Philippians 2:2-4).

A Plea and a Promise

Beloved, let us “come out from among them (the world) and be separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17), rejecting compromise with sin, yet fervently loving one another. As we do, we embody the kingdom and anticipate the day when “God will be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28).

May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you “to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:5-6).

In Christ’s love and hope,

An Ordained Minister

Letter to the Churches in Singapore

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. As we await the glorious return of our Redeemer, I write to you with urgency and love, compelled by the Spirit to remind us all of the calling we share in these last days.

The Hour is Near: Be United in Christ

Beloved, the Scriptures warn us that “the days are evil” (Ephesians 5:16), and the signs of the times remind us that the Lord’s coming is at hand. Now is not the hour for division, rivalry, or strife among the body of Christ. Let us heed the words of our Lord: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35). Our unity is not merely a request—it is a testament to the world of His power and truth. Let no quarrel, pride, or disagreement hinder the witness of the Church.

Our True Enemy: Satan and Self

Remember, brothers and sisters, “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12). Do not be deceived: Satan seeks to devour (1 Peter 5:8-9), and the flesh wars against the Spirit (Galatians 5:17). Let us lay aside selfish ambition, repent of division, and stand firm against the devil’s schemes. Our battle is spiritual, and victory is found only in Christ.

Pray for Persecuted Churches

Even now, many of our brethren endure grievous trials. Governments harass congregations by force, seeking to silence the Gospel. Others face spiritual attacks—witchcraft, deception, and oppression—meant to weaken faith and spread fear. These persecuted churches cry out for our intercession. “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way, you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2). Let us weep with those who weep, fast for those under siege, and pray without ceasing for their deliverance and strength.

A Call to Vigilance and Love

In light of these trials, how dare we squabble over trivial matters? Let us instead:

1. Repent of division and seek reconciliation where strife exists.
2. Pray fervently for persecuted believers, asking God to shield them and embolden their witness.
3. Arm ourselves spiritually through prayer, Scripture, and the armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-18).
4. Proclaim hope: The King is coming! Let our lives reflect readiness, holiness, and unwavering faith.

Closing Exhortation

Dear churches, the darkness may rage, but greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world (1 John 4:4). Let us stand together as one body, one bride, “without spot or wrinkle” (Ephesians 5:27), shining His light until the Day dawns.

May the God of endurance and comfort strengthen you, and may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

In His service and yours,

Reverend So and So

“Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20)

John Calvin and his Bible

John Calvin and the Septuagint

Evidence Calvin Read the Septuagint (LXX):  

1. Commentaries and Comparisons:  

   - Calvin frequently referenced the Septuagint in his biblical commentaries. For example, in his Commentary on Acts 7:14, he notes the Septuagint’s variation in the number of Jacob’s descendants (75 vs. the Hebrew’s 70), attributing the difference to textual transmission while affirming the Hebrew text’s primacy.  

   - In his Commentary on Genesis 5, he compares the Septuagint’s longer lifespans for patriarchs with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, concluding that the Hebrew original is more reliable. John Calvin did not conclude the Septuagint as a devilish version. 

2. Respectful but Critical Use:  

   - Calvin acknowledged the Septuagint’s historical value but prioritized the Hebrew Old Testament. He wrote:  

     > "The Septuagint translators have sometimes wandered far from the true meaning, but their labors deserve respect as they opened the way for the Gentiles." (Commentary on Psalm 22:16).  

3. Theological Works:  

   - In the Institutes of the Christian Religion (4.16.14), Calvin cites the Septuagint’s rendering of Isaiah 3:10 to argue against merit-based salvation, showing his engagement with Greek textual traditions.  

Calvin’s Views on Bible Translations of His Day

  

1. Critique of the Vulgate:  

   - Calvin criticized the Latin Vulgate for doctrinal biases, particularly its support of Catholic teachings like purgatory. He argued:  

     > "The Vulgate is often faulty, either through the ignorance or the presumption of the translators, who have dared to twist Scripture to their own purposes." (Institutes, 4.16.14).  

2. Advocacy for Vernacular Translations:  

   - Calvin strongly supported translating Scripture into common languages. He praised the Geneva Bible (1560), which included his theological notes, as a tool for laypeople:   

     > "The Word of God is not to be imprisoned in an unknown tongue but made accessible to all." (Preface to the Geneva Bible). John Calvin did not pursue a perfect Bible in his time.

3. Emphasis on Original Languages:  

   - Calvin insisted that translations must adhere strictly to Hebrew and Greek sources: (John Calvin did not specify which Greek manuscript or text is perfect.)

     > "Translators must not deviate from the genuine sense of the Holy Spirit... even if it offends human ears." (Commentary on 2 Timothy 3:16).  

Calvin’s Opinions on Bible Translators

  

1. Praise for Faithful Translators:  

   - Calvin commended colleagues like Pierre Robert Olivétan, translator of the French Olivétan Bible (1535), for their fidelity to the original texts:  

     > "Olivétan’s work is a faithful mirror of the divine Word, free from human corruption." (Preface to the Olivétan Bible).  

French Olivétan Bible's Sources

Old Testament: Translated directly from the Masoretic Hebrew text, with occasional reference to the Septuagint (LXX) and the Latin Vulgate for difficult passages.

New Testament: Based on Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (3rd edition, 1522) and compared with Luther’s German Bible (1522).

2. Critique of Biased Translators:  

   - He condemned Catholic translators for altering Scripture to support doctrines like papal authority:  

     > "They mutilate, corrupt, and disguise the Word of God... to serve their own superstitions." (Treatise against the Libertines, 1545).  

3. Collaborative Approach:  

   - Calvin collaborated with scholars like Theodore Beza to produce accurate translations, emphasizing teamwork and rigorous scholarship: He did not see his translation perfect without error. 

     > "No single mind can grasp the depths of Scripture; we must labor together in humility." (Letter to William Farel, 1540).  

Conclusion  

John Calvin engaged critically with the Septuagint but prioritized the Hebrew Masoretic Text for doctrinal authority. He championed vernacular translations grounded in original languages, rejecting the Vulgate’s inaccuracies. While he respected diligent translators, he sharply criticized those who distorted Scripture for theological agendas. His legacy lies in balancing scholarly rigor with a pastoral commitment to making Scripture accessible, epitomized in the Geneva Bible and his influential commentaries.

The New Testament (NT) epistles considered "lost"

The New Testament (NT) epistles considered "lost" are those mentioned in the biblical text or early Christian writings but not preserved in the canon. Their absence raises questions about the preservation of Scripture, highlighting the early church’s discernment in canonization. Below is a detailed analysis:

Lost NT Epistles  

1. Paul’s First Letter to Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:9)  

   - Paul references a prior letter warning against associating with immoral people. This letter was either lost or partially preserved (e.g., in 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1).

2. The "Severe Letter" to Corinth (2 Corinthians 2:3–4; 7:8–12)  

   - A sorrowful, confrontational letter written between 1 and 2 Corinthians. Scholars debate whether fragments survive in 2 Corinthians 10–13 or if it was lost entirely.

3. Letter to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16)  

   - Paul instructs the Colossians to exchange his letter with one sent to Laodicea. Some speculate it was the Ephesian circular letter, but no definitive text exists.

4. Potential Third Corinthian Letter  

   - Early traditions (e.g., Acts of Paul, 3 Corinthians) mention correspondence rejected for canonical inclusion due to dubious authorship and content.

5. Jude’s Unwritten Letter (Jude 1:3)  

   - Jude alludes to intending to write about salvation but instead addresses false teachers. The planned letter was never completed or preserved.

6. Non-Canonical Epistles  

   - Epistle of Peter to James: Cited by Clement of Alexandria but not preserved.  

   - Epistle of Barnabas: Early Christian writing sometimes included in NT codices (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus) but excluded from the canon.  

   - Apocryphal Pauline Letters: Forgeries like the Correspondence with Seneca or Marcion’s edited versions were rejected.

Relationship to Scriptural Preservation  

1. Canonization as Discernment  

   - The early church evaluated texts based on apostolic authorship, orthodoxy, and widespread use. Lost epistles were likely excluded due to regional relevance, anonymity, or theological inconsistency.

2. Divine Providence vs. Human Agency  

   - While some texts were lost, Christians affirm the Holy Spirit’s role in preserving essential teachings (e.g., core doctrines of sin, redemption, and resurrection). The canon reflects a curated—not exhaustive—collection.

3. Historical Context  

   - Letters like Paul’s "Severe Letter" addressed temporary issues, suggesting not all writings were meant for universal preservation. The canon prioritized enduring theological instruction.

4. Challenges to Inerrancy  

   - Critics argue lost texts undermine claims of perfect preservation. However, the church’s canonical process emphasizes sufficiency rather than exhaustive retention.

Conclusion  

The lost epistles illustrate the dynamic process of scriptural preservation, where the early church prioritized texts that faithfully conveyed apostolic teaching. Their absence does not negate the NT’s reliability but underscores the intentionality behind the canon. Christians view the 27-book NT as sufficient and authoritative, trusting that God’s purposes were fulfilled through its preservation.

Is Paul's "mark" preserved in Scripture?

2 Thessalonians 3:17, I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:17, Paul emphasizes that his handwritten greeting serves as a "distinguishing mark" (Greek: σημεῖον, sēmeion) in all his letters. This practice was likely intended to authenticate his epistles and guard against forgeries, as false letters circulating in his name were a concern (2 Thessalonians 2:2). Here's a breakdown of its significance and preservation:

1. What was the "mark"?

   - Personal Handwriting: Paul typically dictated his letters to a scribe (amanuensis) but added a final greeting or closing in his own handwriting (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:21, Galatians 6:11, Colossians 4:18). This served as a "signature" to confirm authenticity.

   - Possible Features: In Galatians 6:11, Paul draws attention to writing "with such large letters," which some scholars interpret as a stylistic quirk (e.g., bold script, unpolished handwriting) or a deliberate emphasis to underscore his authority.

2. Purpose:

   - Anti-Forgery Measure: Early Christian communities faced challenges with counterfeit letters (2 Thessalonians 2:2). By adding a personal note, Paul ensured recipients could verify the letter’s legitimacy.

   - Pastoral Authority: It reinforced his apostolic role and personal connection to the churches, even when absent.

3. Is the "mark" preserved in Scripture?

   - Textually Yes, Physically No. Yes, in that we have Paul’s letters preserved in their entirety, including the handwritten closings (like 2 Thessalonians 3:17), which were considered part of inspired Scripture. No, in the sense that we do not have the original physical manuscripts that show Paul’s literal handwriting or his unique script (the actual ink and style).While the original autographs (Paul’s actual handwritten letters) are lost, the mention of this practice is preserved in the biblical text itself. For example:

     - 2 Thessalonians 3:17 explicitly states, "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand."*

     - Similar notes appear in other Pauline letters (e.g., 1 Corinthians 16:21, Philemon 1:19).

   - Symbolic Preservation: The "mark" endures in Scripture as a textual feature, reminding readers of Paul’s intentionality in authenticating his teachings.

4. Scholarly Insights:

   - Some suggest Paul’s handwriting may have been recognizable due to its informal style (he was not a professional scribe) or Aramaic influence (Hebrew/Aramaic letter forms in Greek script).

   - Others propose that the "mark" could include specific phrases or theological emphases unique to Paul, embedded in his personal additions.

Conclusion:

The "distinguishing mark" was Paul’s personal handwritten authentication, preserved not as a physical artifact but as a recurring textual practice within the New Testament. It underscores his concern for doctrinal integrity and relational accountability, ensuring his letters were received as genuine apostolic instruction. This practice also highlights the early church’s care in discerning authoritative writings, a precursor to later canonization processes.

21st-century Christians excluding fellow believers over textual preferences

1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 (KJV)

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."

---

❖ The Wrongs Attributed to the Jews in This Passage:

1. Killing the Lord Jesus – They rejected and crucified the Messiah sent by God (see also Acts 2:23).

2. Killing their own prophets – A long-standing rejection of God's messengers (see also Matthew 23:37).

3. Persecuting the apostles – Opposing those sent by Christ to proclaim the gospel.

4. Not pleasing God – Their actions were directly offensive to God, even while claiming to serve Him.

5. Contrary to all men – Creating division and hostility, not only resisting truth themselves but also preventing others from receiving it.

6. Forbidding the gospel to reach Gentiles – Blocking the expansion of salvation, acting out of pride and exclusivism.

7. Filling up their sins continually – They were persisting in rebellion and piling up judgment.

8. Bringing wrath upon themselves – Divine judgment (historically and spiritually) as the consequence of hardened hearts.

---

❖ Consequences for Modern Jews?

It's important to clarify: Paul's words address a particular group of Jews who actively opposed the gospel in his time—not all Jews, then or now. Modern Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah still fall under the biblical principle that salvation is found in no one else but Christ (Acts 4:12). Without faith in Him, whether Jew or Gentile, there is no eternal life.

But Romans 11 reminds us that God's covenant with Israel still holds prophetic significance. Paul calls this a mystery: “Blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in” (Romans 11:25). God's judgment is real, but His mercy remains extended.

---

❖ Relating This to Christian Behavior Today:

Paul's words were not a blanket condemnation of all Jewish people but a rebuke of those who actively opposed the gospel and persecuted its messengers. This same spirit of religious pride, exclusivism, and opposition to God's grace can infect Christian communities too.

Paul’s critique of divisive behavior applies to Christians who mistreat others over secondary issues like Bible translation preferences (KJV-only) or textual criticism (Textus Receptus debates). Such actions mirror the sins Paul condemns:

Today, some KJV-only or Textus Receptus-only groups exhibit similar behavior:

• They attack or reject faithful Christians who use other legitimate translations (e.g., ESV, NASB, NKJV) or who study from the Critical Text, claiming those people are deceived or even heretical.

• They "chase out" believers from churches or fellowship circles for not agreeing with narrow textual positions—many of which are not central to salvation.

• They hinder spiritual growth and fellowship, not by defending the truth in love, but by exalting a human tradition above gospel unity.

• Spiritual Blindness: Like the Jews who missed Messiah, rigid legalism risks missing Christ’s heart (Matthew 23:24).

• Damaged Witness: Infighting undermines the church’s credibility (John 13:35).

• Divine Discipline: God opposes those who sow discord (Proverbs 6:16-19; James 3:16).

This is not the heart of Christ. Galatians 5:15 warns: “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.” And Romans 14 calls believers to avoid judging one another over disputable matters.

---

❖ How Should One See This Scripture Through Paul's Eyes?

Paul grieved for his people (see Romans 9:1–3), but he did not excuse their rejection of the gospel. His lens was:

• Faithfulness to Christ comes before tribal or traditional loyalty.

• Opposition to God's work—no matter the source—is serious and has consequences.

• The gospel must not be blocked, distorted, or used as a tool of division.

Those who persecute or slander believers over non-salvific issues like Bible translation are walking a dangerous path—not unlike those Paul rebuked. They may believe they are defending truth, but if their spirit is proud, divisive, and abusive, they are not pleasing God.

---

❖ Final Word

God has never been pleased with religious pride. Whether it's 1st-century Jews opposing Paul, or 21st-century Christians excluding fellow believers over textual preferences, the danger is the same: adding to the gospel and exalting self-righteousness.

The Bible’s authority is unchanging, but how we wield it matters. As Paul modeled, Scripture is a tool for liberation, not a weapon for control. Let us “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15) and guard the unity Christ died to create.

Let all believers heed Romans 14:4: “Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.”