Personally I do not think that "Song of Songs" should be a part of The Canons of Scripture what do you think

[Reba1]

I am not a enemy of GOD's Word, you ask a question I answered. I cannot help you hate my answer, and it does not suit you.
You ask this question of me.
"What @PloughBoy do you say about the Ruth? Or that Rahab the hooker helped save the Jews, or Children of Israel"

My Answer:
PloughBoy said:
Well those women and Lot's daughters are "JESUS Christ" maternal "Great...etc Grand mothers.

Who is JESUS CHRIST? "THE SALVATION of GOD"! No Matter what i say, it is still not good enough for most Christians

And a lot of people wonder why christianity is on the decline and a lot of our children do not want to have nothing to do with it.

First of all i do not hate your answer. I have long been a person who has posted about Jesus distant grandmothers not being Jewish, But tht is not the topic of this thread. The sexuality of the Song of Songs is .. I simply pointed out there are other sexual passages of Scripture .

Jos_2:1 And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there.

Gen 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Gen 19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Gen 19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
Gen 19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Gen 19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
Gen 19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Gen 19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Rth 3:3 Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: but make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking.
Rth 3:4 And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do.

2Sa 11:2 And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.
2Sa 11:3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
2Sa 11:4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.

 

[Reba1]

@PloughBoy said

Personally I do not think that "Song of Songs" should be a part of The Canons of Scripture what do you think

You asked for thoughts and did not like the reply

 

[PloughBoy]

First of all i do not hate your answer. I have long been a person who has posted about Jesus distant grandmothers not being Jewish, But tht is not the topic of this thread. The sexuality of the Song of Songs is .. I simply pointed out there are other sexual passages of Scripture .

Jos_2:1 And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there.

Gen 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Gen 19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Gen 19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
Gen 19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Gen 19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
Gen 19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Gen 19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Rth 3:3 Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: but make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking.
Rth 3:4 And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do.

2Sa 11:2 And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.
2Sa 11:3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
2Sa 11:4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.

your Quote:
, But tht is not the topic of this thread. The sexuality of the Song of Songs is .. I simply pointed out there are other sexual passages of Scripture .

The Thread topic is about "The Canonicity" of "The CANTICLES" into The "Canon of Scripture". I see it seems you did not read or maybe you did not understand my argument in which I express in the best of "laymen" terms i am able to do. I never question and doubted the scripture or its author and made that plain as i could.
May i ask this, in peace, do you know how much of scripture we have in the World, out side of "The Canon of Scripture"? I call myself making that known as plain as i could in the common english language, in my reply in "POST #9". I gave it all i got. I ain't got no more. Just label a proclaimer of falsehood and call it a day. Because i will not "Recant" and I am not attacking none of your beliefs.

 

[PloughBoy]

@PloughBoy said
You asked for thoughts and did not like the reply

you start talking about scripture and not the Canonicity of "The Canon of Scripture"! and went on a 'rampant'!

 

[Reba1]

The starting sentence is ...

I do not think it should be there because it is to sensual,

I simply pointed out some other passages have a sexuality.

Could be you were not as clear as you might think.

 

[PloughBoy]

The Difference between "scripture and The Canon of Scripture"

"Every religion has scripture, which are holy writings that a group of faith follows. However, canon is different because these are books that meet specific standards. The books in the Bible were canonized and seen as scripture inspired by God" some 66 RCC 73

 

[Rhema]

A lot of people just want to fight and hate,

PloughBoy, it's not hateful to ask serious questions about what you believe (or even to point out mistakes you may have made).

That's just an excuse because you don't want to admit that you don't have an answer (or made a mistake).

The book of Revelation was in dispute as scripture even after the year 367 AD. It still as of this day is not in the canon of the Church of the East.

TheAramaicScriptures.com

The Holy Aramaic Scriptures: With a literal English translation and transliteration of The Eastern Peshitta New Testament Text, such as given in The Khabouris Codex.

www.thearamaicscriptures.com

The best book on the development of the canon throughout the history of the church can be found here:

Amazon.com: The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance: 9780198269540: Metzger, Bruce M.: Books

Amazon.com: The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance: 9780198269540: Metzger, Bruce M.: Books

www.amazon.com

And a simple chart of the various canons down through history can be found here:

The Canon of the Bible: Various councils, synods and canons

Rhema

 

[PloughBoy]

In post #3 i did refrain my question: after contemplated trouble of understanding of the laymen.

"I will repeat this again in another way, I have never preach from the Book on The Song of SONGS or taught it in my "Pastoral " services, have any other Ordain Pastor ever read this Book in The Congregation he has Ministered to or taught from it pages.?"

I got no answer from a "experience" Pastor concerning these "Pastoral" services. I am "retired" from "lectures" "Sermons", Conferences and stepping in for others! And doing what i like, Studying! And I believe it is a "Gift" like "Jonathan Edwards" mention when He was referring to "John Calvin" known as "The THEOLOGIAN"!

 

[Rhema]

have any other Ordain Pastor ever read this Book in The Congregation he has Ministered to or taught from it pages.?"

Yes.

Not often.

There are other things to read.

Rhema

Now I've never heard any ordained pastor ever read the genealogies in the congregation. But I doubt anyone would suggest these be removed.

 

[Rhema]

contemplated trouble of understanding of the laymen.

But be not ye called Pastor: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.​

(Matthew 23:8 KJV)​

"Laymen"?? Sounds like an insult, brother.

Rhema

 

[PloughBoy]

Yes.

Not often.

There are other things to read.

Rhema

Now I've never heard any ordained pastor ever read the genealogies in the congregation. But I doubt anyone would suggest these be removed.

I have read them and know many others, There are many "Pastors and Ministers" who are not "Expository" Preachers. Or do they know how to do so. Unless they have set under a "Expository" Pastor. It takes great "Discipline". And it is a great Blessing to The "congregation" they are assign too. Not taking away from other forms of "Delivery" of "The Gospel According to JESUS CHRIST"

 

[PloughBoy]

But be not ye called Pastor: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.​

(Matthew 23:8 KJV)​

"Laymen"?? Sounds like an insult, brother.

Rhema

It should not be, it is a universal "Terminology" through out the centuries of the "Organized" Ecclesiastical. It is a place of honor. "layman" and its definition is justified.

 

[Br. Bear]

layman (n.)

"non-cleric," early 15c., from lay (adj.) + man (n.). Similar formation in Old Frisian lekman, Danish lægmand. Meaning "outsider, unprofessional person, non-expert" (especially in regards to law or medicine) is from late 15c. Related: Laymen.


lay (adj.)

"uneducated, non-professional; non-clerical," early 14c., from Old French lai "secular, not of the clergy" (12c., Modern French laïque), from Late Latin laicus, from Greek laikos "of the people," from laos "(the common) folk, the people, the crowd; the military; a tribe," in the New Testament especially "the Jewish people," also "the laity," a word of unknown origin. Beekes writes that it is "most often connected with" Hittite lahh- "campaign" and Old Irish laech "warrior," but that the form "is rather Pre-Greek, and has a Pre-Greek suffix -it(o)-. In Middle English, contrasted with learned, a sense revived 1810 in contrast to expert. Laic is a more modern borrowing directly from Late Latin.

laic (adj.)
1560s, "belonging to the people" (as distinguished from the clergy and the professionals), from French laïque (16c.), from Late Latin laicus, from Greek laikos "of or belonging to the people," from laos "people" (see lay (adj.)).


man (n.)
"a featherless plantigrade biped mammal of the genus Homo" [Century Dictionary], Old English man, mann "human being, person (male or female); brave man, hero;" also "servant, vassal, adult male considered as under the control of another person," from Proto-Germanic *mann- (source also of Old Saxon, Swedish, Dutch, Old High German man, Old Frisian mon, German Mann, Old Norse maðr, Danish mand, Gothic manna "man"), from PIE root *man- (1) "man."

*man- (1)

Proto-Indo-European root meaning "man."

It forms all or part of: alderman; Alemanni; fugleman; Herman; hetman; landsman; leman; man; manikin; mannequin; mannish; mensch; Norman; ombudsman; yeoman.

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit manuh, Avestan manu-, Old Church Slavonic mozi, Russian muzh "man, male;" Old English man, mann "human being, person; brave man, hero; servant, vassal."

from: Online Etymology Dictionary | Origin, history and meaning of English words

also from same source:

manner (n.)
c. 1200, manere, "kind, sort, variety," from Anglo-French manere, Old French maniere "fashion, method, manner, way; appearance, bearing; custom" (12c., Modern French manière), from Vulgar Latin *manaria (source of Spanish manera, Portuguese maneira, Italian maniera), from fem. of Latin manuarius "belonging to the hand," from manus "hand" (from PIE root *man- (2) "hand"). The French word also was borrowed by Dutch (manier), German (manier), Swedish (maner).

Meaning "customary practice" is from c. 1300. Senses of "way of doing something; a personal habit or way of doing; way of conducting oneself toward others" are from c. 1300. Meaning "specific nature, form, way something happens" is mid-14c.

Of literature, art, etc., "way in which a work is made or executed," from 1660s. Most figurative meanings derive from the original sense "method of handling" which was extended when the word was used to translate Latin modus "method."

Phrase manner of speaking is recorded from 1530s. To the manner born ("Hamlet" I iv.15) sometimes is used incorrectly; it means "accustomed by birth to be subject to the practice," but the noun is sometimes understood as manor (which formerly also was spelled manner).

manners (n.)
"external behavior (especially polite behavior) in social intercourse," late 14c., plural of manner in a specific sense of "proper behavior, commendable habits of conduct" (c. 1300).

Under bad manners, as under graver faults, lies very commonly an overestimate of our special individuality, as distinguished from our generic humanity. [Oliver W. Holmes, "The Professor at the Breakfast Table," 1858]

Earlier it meant "moral character" (early 13c.).

MANNERS-BIT, a portion of a dish left by the guests that the host may not feel himself reproached for insufficient preparation. [Rev. Joseph Hunter, "The Hallamshire Glossary," 1829]

a take away...
man = "a featherless plantigrade biped mammal of the genus Homo"
Does that mean a lay-man is one of them that lays eggs?

 

[complete]

I do not think it should be there because it is to sensual, And it should not be in the presence of children or kids or young adults. If you even paraphrase such words in this modern day language, most christian will condemn of such phrases. 1st time i read it over 40 years age i was appalled, because i was reading the whole BOOK of GOD, then when i got to the book of THE SONG OF SONGS! It was out of place. Then later on I found others scholars have felt the same.

I would never read that book in public. And I have read it only one time. And on another occasion I attempt to read it again, and alarm bells went off in my spirit! and I have not been back that way since, even to think about it "Pollutes" my spirit. To me it is going in opposite of the others Books and Letters, Poetry and all of the Wisdom Books of The Bible.

Is there any others, have had that experience with that book of Songs. "SONG of SONGS" [a.k.a Song of Solomon] Canticles.
Do you know if any, that sing those songs in church services?

'The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.'
(Psa 12:6)

Hello @PloughBoy,

I believe that all that is in Scripture is there for a reason, and consider it a conceit to suggest otherwise.

The application of the Song of Solomon, I am assured by marginal notes in my Bible, to be an incentive to loyalty and fidelity to the One 'Who loved us and gave Himself for us': and to stand fast in our love and loyalty to Him, in the face of the fiercest temptations and severest trials.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[complete]

I do not think it should be there because it is to sensual, And it should not be in the presence of children or kids or young adults. If you even paraphrase such words in this modern day language, most christian will condemn of such phrases. 1st time i read it over 40 years age i was appalled, because i was reading the whole BOOK of GOD, then when i got to the book of THE SONG OF SONGS! It was out of place. Then later on I found others scholars have felt the same.

I would never read that book in public. And I have read it only one time. And on another occasion I attempt to read it again, and alarm bells went off in my spirit! and I have not been back that way since, even to think about it "Pollutes" my spirit. To me it is going in opposite of the others Books and Letters, Poetry and all of the Wisdom Books of The Bible.

Is there any others, have had that experience with that book of Songs. "SONG of SONGS" [a.k.a Song of Solomon] Canticles.
Do you know if any, that sing those songs in church services?

Hello @PloughBoy,

There are seven speakers in all, in the Song of Solomon,

1) The Shulamite
2) The daughters of Jerusalem
3) Solomon
4) The shepherd lover of the Shulamite
5) The brothers of the Shulamite
6) The companions of the shepherd
7) The inhabitants of Jerusalem

* It is a poem based on the true facts of a story that unfolds.
* This book has been interpreted literally, allegorically and typically, and has influenced readers accordingly: but the number of speakers within it forbids any interpretation which reduces it to just two.
* I believe the subject headings of The Song of Solomon in most Bibles should be ignored as being the words of man, and concentration given to the words of Scripture itself: for they are influenced by the various interpretations applied to this book and therefore biased and untrustworthy.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[vhusley]

But be not ye called Pastor: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.​

(Matthew 23:8 KJV)​

"Laymen"?? Sounds like an insult, brother.

Rhema

If being a “trained theologian” equates to “knowing” God’s Word the way @PloughBoy “teaches” it…..then I will kindly remain a layperson, thank you very much.

 

[PloughBoy]

'The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.'
(Psa 12:6)

Hello @PloughBoy,

I believe that all that is in Scripture is there for a reason, and consider it a conceit to suggest otherwise.

The application of the Song of Solomon, I am assured by marginal notes in my Bible, to be an incentive to loyalty and fidelity to the One 'Who loved us and gave Himself for us': and to stand fast in our love and loyalty to Him, in the face of the fiercest temptations and severest trials.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

So I believe the Words of "The Canticle of Canticles" or "The Canticles" are not "The words or The Songs of GOD, but They are "The SONGS that SOLOMON song to one of his "Mistresses" contemplating marrying. For GOD is not mention or HIS WORD are, absolutely no where in that 'Book of Songs that Solomon song.

But I do recognize The Authoritative presence it has in "The WORD of GOD," But it is not The WORD's of GOD. For has not The WORD of GOD stated these are the Songs that Solomon song? To the "Shulamite" women. [Who skin had been darken by The SUN, from working in the fields. Implicit]

PS I will say again "it is scripture" but The its place in The "canon of Scripture" is a hard pill for me to swallow. For i am not a "Lone Ranger" through out the centuries many have also question it appearance in The "Canon of Scripture"

Like Luther said at "The Diet of Worms" his famous Quote, known throughout the Christian World:
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God.
Here I Stand, I can do no other, GOD help me"

And they are erasing that historical Quote away slowly. When you erase history, The goal is, inch by inch To Erase "The Real Life of Christ" by doing so, you Erase, "The GOD of The LORD"S "Salvation", From the minds of the people.

(ASV)Romans
"And it shall be, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, There shall they be called sons of the living God.
And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved: for the Lord will execute his word upon the earth, finishing it and cutting it short."

And "Complete" I am not questioning your belief and attacking your faith and what you find to be true, Or trying to persuade you to detour from your belief.
I respect your beliefs.

I have a belief too. So have i spoken and express my concerns concerning, How I feel about in what I trust. If in doubt, I pause.


And The Title Thread, recognize your thoughts concerning The "Canonization" of "The Song of Solomon" "Canticles of Canticles".

"Personally I do not think that "Song of Songs" should be a part of The Canons of Scripture what do you think?"

 

[PloughBoy]

If being a “trained theologian” equates to “knowing” God’s Word the way @PloughBoy “teaches” it…..then I will kindly remain a layperson, thank you very much.

I do take that as a "compliment"...and will wear it as a "badge of honor" in The Name of Jesus our Lord and Savior and will kindly cast down at HIS feet at The Bema Seat. for that reward too, I do not deserved For such a worm as i.

 

[Beetow]

Canticles can be just as amusing as it is entertaining when interpreted by
someone with a romantic outlook on life. Below is a link to my favorite.

Solomon's Love Song
_

 

[Br. Bear]

@PloughBoy

Greetings,

thank you for clearing up what the thread is about.
Please forgive me as i am a bit slow sometimes.... or better put, sometimes i am not slow.

I think part of the confusion was some of your comments regarding the 'sensual' aspect of the Book.
However, correct me if i am wrong, i see that your interest is in discussing the validity of the Song of Songs in the Bible?

As you well know, this has been considered and debated for a long time.
At a quick glance, one can certainly get the impression that it seems a bit overly sensual and wonder how it is meant to fit in.

I think the point you make, which has also come up continually for a long time, is that there appears no reference to the LORD and therefore the validity of being included in the Bible is questionable. I understand that take on the consideration.
So, if it does not make direct reference to the LORD, should it be included? ['it' being the Song of Songs]


Bless you ....><>