What methods do Amish leaders use to deal with inward sins when the youth return after Rumspringa?

4/2/2014 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

[Rodamala]

I am in your former neck of the woods, now living down in Warren. Sugar Grove, PA is not far away and is like “Yoder Central”. I sometimes wonder how I could possibly assimilate to the Amish community... I would have to give up freeping though.

[jacquej]

Buy property near them, and become friends by respecting their way of life, and by being helpful.

Asking for their advice and help, showing a serious interest in becoming more self-sufficient would also be a good idea.

Good neighbors and all that.

[vladimir998]

"So, did Moses have horns, Kansas58?" No, but his face did. The text in question, in the Vulgate, doesn't say "head". It says "face": "et ignorabat quod cornuta esset facies". To paraphrase an online article: The issue is with the Hebrew original. The Hebrew verb in question is qāran. The noun form of qāran, qeren, has as its primary meaning, 'horn,' just like you would find on an animals head. The problem is that the word can refer to horns or horn like objects or rays of light. Compare 1 Kings 1:50 and Habakkuk 3:4. It's easy to see why St. Jerome made the choice he did. His choice was no worse than that of the KJV translators in getting Luke 2:14 wrong. http://www.gracesacramento.org/sermon-resources/pastors-blog/111-bible-translation-and-art Now, the fact that Jerome said "face" and not "head" leads me to believe Jerome was actually getting it right - that he was trying to express rays of light and not horns. As the Protestant editor of Jerome wrote in a footnote: 5236 Cornuta fronte. Literally, “with horned brow.” The allusion is to the rays of light which beamed from the face of Moses, the Hebrew word bearing both meanings, ray and horn. Hence the portraiture of him with horns. and that was in regard to this passage from Jerome: "And yet, perhaps, with your customary humility, you make your boast that the Lord Himself, Who teaches all knowledge, was your master, and that, like Moses in the cloud and darkness, face to face, you hear the words of God, and so, with the 5236 halo round your head, take the lead of us." So, a "halo" was a "horned brow". Get it? http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.pdf There's also this: That Jerome did not mean anything that we would call "horns" is usually demonstrated by a passage from his Commentary on Ezechial: "denique post quadraginta dies, vultum Moysi vulgus ignobile caliganttibus oculis non videbat, quia 'glorificata erat,' sive, ut in hebraico continetur, 'cornuta', facies Moysi". See Mellinkoff, pp. 77-87, for a discussion of the horns from the perspective of translators and commentators. Süring (page 428) points out the improbability of Moses' being ignorant of horns, which, as she also remarks, are said to come not from the forehead, but from the face.] http://penelope.uchicago.edu/pseudodoxia/pseudo59.html Maybe you don't know as much as you think you know.

[RegulatorCountry]

So the Latin Vulgate wasn’t wrong, the original Hebrew was, lol?

[vladimir998]

In any case, you apparently were not right. And that doesn’t surprise me.

[RegulatorCountry]

I’m not right that there’s a statue of Moses with horns on top of his head because Michelangelo relied upon a bad translation in the Latin Vulgate? I posted a photo upthread, you know.

So, did Moses have horns, Vlad?

[vladimir998]

“I’m not right that there’s a statue of Moses with horns on top of his head because Michelangelo relied upon a bad translation in the Latin Vulgate?”

Was that your only claim? Strange, I remember you making this claim in post #35 - the post I responded to:

“Michelangelo’s sculpture Moses sports “horns of glory” due to a translation error made by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate.”

As I demonstrated, what St. Jerome did was not an error.

“Jerome mistakenly translated the Hebrew word describing Moses’ face as “radiant in glory” as “horned” (Exodus 34:29).”

I also demonstrated that is simply not what happened.

and, you wrote:

“This error in the Latin Vulgate was compounded in 1515 when Michelangelo...”

Clearly there was no compounding of any error. The statue is a masterpiece by any artistic standard.

“I posted a photo upthread, you know.”

You posted errors upthread, you know.

“So, did Moses have horns, Vlad?”

Horns of light yes - just as the Hebrew says.

[RegulatorCountry]

The Douay-Rheims translated this as “horned” in English as recently as the 1899 American edition and perhaps later than that, yet modern Bibles typically used by Catholics do not make this error, using instead language more in line with the actual Hebrew and more in line with Bibles typically used by Protestants.

All the circuitous doublespeak in the world does not disguise the fact that there were no horns on Moses’ head or face. He didn't veil his face to hide horns. His face shone with a brilliant radiance.

There's a statue of Moses with horns on his head sitting in a Catholic church today because of an obstinate refusal to admit the possibility of error, now why might that be? Were there any sweeping declarations made regarding the Latin Vulgate?

Why, yes there were.

[vladimir998]

“The Douay-Rheims translated this as “horned” in English as recently as the 1899 American edition and perhaps later than that”

So? That doesn’t mean that St. Jerome was wrong. He didn’t translate the D-R.

“yet modern Bibles typically used by Catholics do not make this error, using instead language more in line with the actual Hebrew and more in line with Bibles typically used by Protestants.”

And the same can be said for modern translations used by Protestants in regard to Luke. None of them make the mistake in Luke 2:14 that the KJV translators did. And?

“All the circuitous doublespeak in the world does not disguise the fact that there were no horns on Moses’ head or face.”

Except Jerome never claimed they were on his head - as I already proved. It is clear that Jerome meant rays of light from Moses’ face.

“He didn’t veil his face to hide horns. His face shone with a brilliant radiance.”

Again, that’s what Jerome actually wrote - as I already proved. And, by the way, Moses probably veiled his face for more than you think. Moses removed the veil whenever he went into God’s presence. His face - having seen God face-to-face - was now veiled as the Holy of Holies was veiled later in the Temple.

“There’s a statue of Moses with horns on his head sitting in a Catholic church today because of an obstinate refusal to admit the possibility of error, now why might that be?”

The statue exists, yes. Michelangelo did not translate the Vulgate nor the D-R. He was an ARTIST not a TRANSLATOR. And who exactly was “obstinate”? Name him. You’re making things up out of thin air.

“Were there any sweeping declarations made regarding the Latin Vulgate?”

None that won’t be twisted by you to say something it doesn’t I’m sure.

“Why, yes there were.”

And, again, you were still wrong.

[RegulatorCountry]

Jay Carney, is that you, lol?

[vladimir998]

And you’re still wrong.

[RegulatorCountry]

img host

"The Latin Vulgate is free of error!!!"

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

The point was:

Jesus was asked why His disciples did not wash their hands and eating utensils before eating - as if not doing so defiled them. Jesus said that it from the inward man where one becomes defiled. That the inward man is where evil thoughts, lust, etc, comes from and defiles a person.

So, no Amish people struggle with sinful thoughts before or after Rumspringa, or even if they never leave at all during Rumspringa?

I doubt it...

So why all of the attention on clothing, beards, adhering to certain languages, etc?

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Nice link, but still no proof as to why the Amish don’t flat out say that no Rumspringa of any type will be allowed.

It would be like Jesus PURPOSEFULLY telling His disciples that they could leave for awhile, do a little running around, and if they then decide to follow Him, then they could.

That would be stupidity of the highest level.

As Paul the Apostle would say, one deals with the inward pull to sin Christian or not, as we have a carnal nature at birth. There is, therefore, no need for a Rumspringa, since no matter what one wears, rules one adheres to, etc, thoughts of sin will enter the mind, and one will either say no to them or yield to some extent - even dwelling on those thoughts - which is sin.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Problem:

No Amish person could ever claim that they have never thought any wicked, sinful or evil thought after Rumspringa.

The “battle of the mind” - the war of the Spirit versus the “flesh” - is a war that the Apostle Paul says we as Christians will fight till the day we go to heaven.

It is a result of being born with a sinful nature. As Calvin, Arminius, Luther, etc all said in agreement with Paul on this topic.

Hence, no need for Rumspringa.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

It is a choice, but it is still a choice to embrace an outward-show of clothing, living, etc, mega legalism. It is mega legalism. And no, I personally wouldn’t want anyone to make this choice even though it is theirs to make...

[RegulatorCountry]

From the Amish point of view, it’s providing an opportunity for young adults to decide, do they belong to the world or do they belong to the Amish? Those who return are far more likely to be comfortable, accepting and committed to their unique way of life, and far less likely to create strife, division and dissatisfaction. For this reason it is a practical step for them to take. We are sinners always, so are the Amish, it’s just a matter of degree, and a matter of forgiveness. That’s true of every human being save Jesus Christ himself.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Perhaps it is both.

Let’s say that someone who lived (in Isreal) quite a bit back in the past struggled with following Yahweh, but felt pulled to worshipping graven images -— for example. One day while strolling through the marketplace they saw some graven images for sale...

As we can see, this idol was outside of them sitting on a shelf and yet they felt, too, the inward pull to buy it, take it home, worship it, etc.

So, this person and others perhaps like him or her were surrounded by idols and were tempted to buy them, but they also felt the inward pull to give into this sin, too.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Who among the Amish decides (or gets to decide) - with absolute accuracy and no chance of human error - what is or isn’t “fancy”?

Does what constitute “fancy” change over time?

If what constitutes “fancy” has changed over time among the Amish, then what can be said about their supposed adherence to absolute standards that they won’t deviate from?

[Boogieman]

Legalism implies to me that they are saying you have to live this way in order to attain salvation. As far as I know, that isn’t their stance. They say, you have to live this way to be a part of our community. So, to me, it’s nothing more nefarious than a set of homeowner’s association rules.