Posted on 08/25/2016 7:14:46 AM PDT by Salvation
And her husband of barely a year will also start at Genesis and slowly piece together how to be a husband.
But who will tell them to change the baby's diapers? What will happen to the child while the parents are reading the all-sufficient and perspicuous Bible to learn their duties? No other source, you propose, is needed.
The husband has skipped ahead and now prays only in his closet. Regrettably he's allergic to moth balls, but, hey, the clear and complete Bible... or the part he's read so far ... told him to do that.
And no Christian would presume to advise him. So the baby has diaper rash, the laundry isn't done, the whole family has diet and nutrition issues. But it's all good because they're reading their Bible.
She's reading the Watchtower New World translation, and he's reading the NRSV. But there's nothing in the Scriptures about translations, and the Scriptures have it all — even when praying in your closet gives you respiratory distress. The Bible says closet, so closet it is.
And her husband of barely a year will also start at Genesis and slowly piece together how to be a husband.
But who will tell them to change the baby's diapers? What will happen to the child while the parents are reading the all-sufficient and perspicuous Bible to learn their duties? No other source, you propose, is needed.
The husband has skipped ahead and now prays only in his closet. Regrettably he's allergic to moth balls, but, hey, the clear and complete Bible... or the part he's read so far ... told him to do that.
And no Christian would presume to advise him. So the baby has diaper rash, the laundry isn't done, the whole family has diet and nutrition issues. But it's all good because they're reading their Bible.
She's reading the Watchtower New World translation, and he's reading the NRSV. But there's nothing in the Scriptures about translations, and the Scriptures have it all — even when praying in your closet gives you respiratory distress. The Bible says closet, so closet it is.
I bought the book on kindle today and it is awesome. Thank you for posting this.
“anf Mark ?”
And? Do you mean Matthew?
Are you suggesting Luke wasn’t inspired because Matthew has a longer version?
Your use of Yehova prompted two lines of thought.
(We’ve been tangling so long that I hope you understand that I’m weary of tangling for its own sake.)
So, first, I suggest it’s a choice not made solely on the basis of internal evidence to present the Name as Yehova. There are impressive, though not conclusive, reasons to support a different construction of the Tetragrammaton, where the Heh implies a vowel and the Vav is something like a ‘W’.
I’m not here to argue one or the other. I just want to note that either construction depends on information outside of the TaNaKh itself.
Second, we. I just suggest that we need “Origin Stories” for the Scriptures and their authority. We have, as you know, not only the text but the process of determining which texts are authoritative and which are not.
And then there’s the problem of textual variants. It’s not enough, I think, to say that the Textus Receptus is authoritative. Such a statement leads to wondering, “Sez who?” How and why should the Christian think that these people have the authority and grace to select books and textual variants?
Im not asking for a defense of your answer. I AM asking for an account of what your answer is. How do people of your opinion decide that these books and these variants are the real deal and those are not.
I recognize that that’s a hug3 digression from the topic at issue. But someday I would be grateful for an answer.
.
The vowel pointings in the Aleppo and the St Petersburg codices show beyond a shadow of doubt that the name is Yehova.
There is no “w” sound in Hebrew names.
What other authority can there even be?
.
Just en passant, The way you teach people to make a ‘w’ sound is to have them make an ‘oo’ sound. If the vav stands for an ‘oo’ you have at lease the beginning of a ‘w’.
There’s an alternate exppanation for the vowel pointing.
If you write the Tetragrammaton and point it for adonai but with the changes the suit the Tetragrammaton, then you get Ye Ho Va pointing.
Im not a4guing either way. I’m reporting.
Also there is at least one source in Greek reporting an “iaoue” sort of thing. FWIW.
.
No part of the word of Yehova was presented originally in Greek.
Paul assured us of this in his epistle to the Romans.
The oracles of Yehova are committed to Judah.
The Greek translations stumble like a drunk on a stairway with the Hebrew traditions and culture.
They call the appointed times “feasts of the Jews” but no Hebrew would ever have made such a gross error.
.
.
Yod Hay Vav Hey doesn’t come close to spelling “adonai.”
.
This is an account of the idea I was referring to.
You do not need a book to teach you how to talk to your father. But do you know how to listen to him?
too often people listen and think they know God.
but they lack discernment.
So books are helpful in teaching us what the father teaches. So are the sermons we hear in church.
The book seems fairly good, but is one to read a bit at a time and think about and pray over.
Words MEAN something
“The End of Desire” is almost a play on words to Catholic thinkers. There is the obvious meaning with its implications. Desire ceases when it is satisfied. Only God can fully satisfy every desire.
Also, “end” can mean purpose or “that for the sake of which.” We, or some of us, find a kind of longing in us which is only strengthened by creaturely satisfactions. This desire drives us to look beyond the world. God himself is what that desire is aimed at. He is its purpose.
Yes, words mean things. Only God is “The Fulfillment of All Desire.” Most Catholic thinkers understand themselves as participants in a very long conversation. Conversations develop their own “jargon” and common phrases. Many, possibly most, Catholics will see the title and understand that it's about life with God. And of course one might note the subtitle — if one were going to look at the book before criticizing it, an unusual procedure these days.
It's distressing to note how this thread developed. One person implies that Msgr Pope is saying we need this book. What he actually says is we need prayer. Another person scoffs that we don't need priests — though it's clear that, since the Post mentions three women, there's no suggestion that only priests can help with prayer.
There's a contention that all we need is the Bible. But, again, nobody said this book was needed. Words mean things; helpful and necessary are not synonyms. I find this book helpful. (I'm currently rocking an autographed copy ... ain't I special!) And Dr. Martin — not a priest, by the way — is a good guy, and I like to talk with good guys about important things, don't you? So I like to read what Dr. Martin and the people to whom he refers have to say about the important matter of our personal relationship with God. Why wouldn't, why shouldn't I?
My experience as a counsellor leads me to believe that a great many people aren’t clear about what is on their hearts and that conversation helps clarify things.
D00d!
Anybody who thinks Catholics all think alike should watch when, say, Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, amd Jesuits get together.
(Mostly we tease each other.)
meh
Prayers to God are only of two types....thanksgiving and supplication. Truth is most prayers written in books do not do anything other than give a person something to say without thinking.
Two prayers are sufficient....Thank you.and Direct my path
We can talk
That’s why the doors to the throne of Grace are wide open to a Christian.
Precisely
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.