Posted on 10/03/2014 2:33:43 PM PDT by NYer
Yet you cannot even identify which books would have been in the Septuagint version in Paul's day. All you do is guess, presume, conjecture and wish - though why anyone would wish for writings from uninspired writers to be comingled with the books Jews AND Christians both consider Divinely-inspired is the REAL question. Can you admit that the MAIN reason is because the Council of Trent said so and you have to stand by them?
Not quite, although your point of using the lingua franca translations for the Bible and names seems proper for now. However, there is one pure language and it may very well be Hebrew, which is the language in which God wrote the commandments.
No it is not conjecture at all but a matter of well known history.
The Maccabee revolt said it all, Judah would rather die than speak anything but Hebrew. They went through the captivity speaking Hebrew, and even changed their captors wisemen’s language to Hebrew through the wisdom of Daniel and their priests, and then beat the Greeks at their own game.
After all that what else would stop them from keeping the language of the creator?
Why believe the foolish fables of unbelievers?
No book of the NT was written originally in any language but Hebrew. The abundant clumsy cultural errors in all of the Greek language epistles shows beyond a shadow of doubt that whoever did the Greek writings had no understanding of the apostles nor their Hebrew culture.
The desire to defeat God’s word makes people wish to believe almost any foolish fable. The clumsy errors of the Greek translations on every Hebrew feast or other cultural matter are there for all to see, to be understood by believers, and deliberately ignored by unbelievers.
.
I'm not the one who is confused here. You were the one who claimed Paul's words to Timothy about "all" Scripture being "inspired by God" meant all the books in the Greek Septuagint, not me. For Roman Catholics, there is a difference, it appears, between Divine inspiration and canonicity, but for the Jews and not-Roman Catholic Christians, is it abundantly clear that the canon, the Rule of Faith, is based upon the writings that were Divinely inspired, Holy Spirit led revelation from the mind of God to mankind that was NOT of the individual's own interpretation or their own thoughts.
Can God "inspire" believers to write great works, hymns, works of art? Sure, but that is a different kind of inspiration. When people start imagining God is telling them special revelation never before known, all kinds of trouble can follow. God was quite strict in whom He allowed to BE His prophets and He gave His people a sure way of knowing who was or was not speaking by Him. Read Deuteronomy 13 to see how He commanded those who would speak presumptuously for Him to be treated. God takes "inspiration" seriously. So should we. We have the "more sure word of prophecy" so that we can know truth from error. It is not ongoing - especially not for an organization that claims whatever they say is truth.
What “many teams?”
Is there any difference in this statement between "mind reading" (attempting to read dsc's mind and attribute motive, or expressing an honest opinion ? It seems to me they overlap. If so, and if there is a perception on the part of Catholics that they are collectively treated unfairly because they are Catholic, it doesn't make it not true because it is your honest opinion otherwise.
The real challenge is to have an authority that has both the scent of integrity and a catholic respect and trust. After that, it is just a petra toss to the Supreme Court where there are real problems.
.
No more false statement has ever been made!
Rom.3
[1] What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
[2] Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
At the time that Paul made this clear statement, obviously no writings of the word had been made in any other language. .
Tinseltown talk. Watch a lot of celeb TV do ya?
Rome does not believe that the words of popes or oral tradition are inspired by God and authored by Him like as Scripture is, but some RCs are more Catholic than Rome.
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your descendants and her Descendant.Must have been from an "official" version.HeShe will crush your head...
Mary seems to be the central figure in the Catholic religion.
Ah so true, the bunny trail of language and translations rears it's ugly head.
It doesn't really matter much except for obvious slanted versions of the Bible.
Study tools including all major translations, parallel Bible is nice, Strong's concordance for clarification of Hebrew and Greek text coupled with the one main ingredient:
Praying for the Holy Spirit to "speak" the Truth to the heart when reading scripture.
All this talk and accusations of Christians self "interpreting" the Bible is just a way of distracting from the message and pointing to the knowledge of men...and one woman...instead of Jesus, The Word.
And how some RCs get 46 out of 22 is beyond me.
From the account of Eusebius [on Origen] in his Ecclesiastical History, vi. 25.
When expounding the first Psalm he gives a catalog of the Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows: “It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two, corresponding with the number of their letters.” Farther on he says: “The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Breshith, which means ‘in the beginning’; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, ‘these are the names’; Leviticus, Wikra, ‘and he called’; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim ‘these are the words’; Joshua the son of Nun, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the first and second of Kings, among them one, Samoel, that is, ‘the called of God’; the third and fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, ‘the kingdom of David’; of the Chronicles, the first and second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, ‘records of days’; Esdras, first and second 1 in one, Ezra, that is, ‘an assistant’; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the Epistle 2 in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther; And outside of these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.” 3 He gives these in the above-mentioned work. From the account of Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, vi. 25.
If you are alluding there is some "scent" problem or lack of integrity on the part of management here, if that is what you meant...that's just so much continuance of this particular evil meme that has been circulating around this forum as some kind of virus.
I realize you may have been trying to help, and my reply here is a little hard-edged, and you yourself deserve a modicum of decency, in the least.
But I watched the Mormons pull similar whiny stunts trying to take over and force the admin here into disallowing criticisms of their their own history, doctrines, and beliefs. The trouble there was..they were not near subtle and slick enough about it --AND they lacked the raw numbers. They lost, and lost badly...
If people here don't respect the forum moderator all I can say is stop complaining and LEAVE. Just GET OUT.
People here are asking too much of that person. And it's chiefly because they cannot see THEMSELVES.
Present company (yourself) excepted from that last judgement, as far as I can tell...
Yes, I saw that. I had heard and believed the version where “Nicolaitan” related to “lording it over people.” I now recognize the possibility that this is what is called a genetic fallacy, defined in Wikipedia as “a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.”
Very often this fallacy will surface in language debates, such that someone will pull out the etymology of some contested term and argue from the raw etymology directly to the meaning without asking whether the contemporaneous usage of the term (lexicography) squares with the etymology. That’s an error, because words can shift in meaning quite dramatically from their primitive etymological origins.
For example, if an atheist says “goodbye,” do they mean “I am leaving now,” or do they mean “God be with ye?” Because if we went with strict etymology in a vacuum, you’d have to say he meant “God be with ye,” which of course is an absurd conclusion. So while the etymology isn’t totally irrelevant, it is only one of a number of factors we use to get at the meaning.
For example, there is some evidence that this group may have been a faction led by a real person really named Nicolas. In this case the etymology behind the name could be completely irrelevant.
But even if we say the etymology is relevant, with Nicolaitan, there are multiple possible etymologies. The most common understanding is essentially what ES has stated, that it is a composite that means something like conqueror of people. But that is also just what the given name Nicholas means, and identifying a real individual with that name would not necessarily import the meaning of their name to this narrative.
But there is another very similar Greek word, nicolah, which means “Let us eat,” which has a strong resonance with the context, which describes the Nicolaitans as promoting the eating of things offered to idols, as well as fornication. So the “eating [things offered to idols] cult,” which gives also a very strong reason for it coming under such harsh condemnation by Jesus.
Going back to the “conqueror of people” line of reasoning, I can see that relating to the same context, but not in terms of the typical “clergy versus laity” objection, which presents the Nicolaitans as introducing a heretical priest/laity class stratification into the churches. Another, and I think better connection could be that factions in the ecclesia typically develop from someone’s need to exert power or control over others. This is one of the key defining attributes of cults.
Don’t misunderstand. I am a Protestant, and I believe the sacerdotal system of priesthood is anachronistic, and has no place in the New Covenant. I would , however, not see this passage as addressing that problem. There are plenty of other passages that hit the issue square on, and make for much better authority in the conclusions.
Peace,
SR
Thanks for your response. I think you will find Beckwith does deal with what the extent of the First Century OT canon was, and that it did not embrace the deuterocanonicals.
As for the creditability of any given scholar, being an attorney who likes to win, I am fine with impeaching a witness. But the impeachment must have better form than “Well, he’s a Protestant.” That would never sell in court. “Well, he’s Republican, Democrat, Black, White, Hispanic, Catholic, Mormon, etc etc etc.” Impeach him if you can, but on substance, not via “genetic fallacy.”
Peace,
SR
There are plenty of other passages that hit the issue square on, and make for much better authority in the conclusions.
Makes sense.
I see no common mistake unless I failed to quote Jesus in Luke 24 in a more suitable language for you.
What? I say a simple formula to get saved? Presto! Halleluyah!
Then I guess I can go around proudy ridiculing everyone since I am saved, not like the rest of you sinners.
of course one sardonic carpenter said not all those who say lord lord will enter the kingdom, but only those who does the work of the father.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.