Understanding the Bible

Dean's World ^ | July 2, 2006 | Dean Esmay

[VOA]

There is even evidence in the New Testament that Peter, Paul, and the other
apostles were illiterate.

Paul illiterate?

I'll be charitable and say that I suspect it would be RARE that even an
atheist or non-Christian that would make that sort of allegation.

Maybe these folks selectively read the portion in which Paul does
mention that a secretary was assisting him with correspondence.

[CyberAnt]

My understanding was that Martin Luther was baptized in the Holy Spirit - with the evidence of speaking in other tongues - and that's what the church heirarchy was upset about.

It was Martin Luther who actually started the Methodist Church - that the evidence of speaking in other tongues was of God - and there were great leaders in that denomination like Smith Wigglesworth - who raised a dozen or so people from the dead. His exploits are legendary.

The Methodist church is but an empty shell of it's former self .. and is one of the reasons I left that denomination and went over with the evangelicals/tongue talkers.

[CyberAnt]

You are correct .. Jesus said, "If you've seen me you've seen the Father".

I guess that would prove God is not a woman!

[CyberAnt]

"The question of illiteracy is a relative one, depending upon which language one is supposed to be reading and writing. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Old Testament was entirely in Hebrew."


You would be correct. But remember, when King James had the writings translated into the Bible, he included all major scholars - both Hebrew and Greek - and there appears to be a mixture of both in the New Testament.

It's one of the reasons I use the Amplified Bible - it's the truest Greek translation of the whole Bible, but to me it give a much clearer picture of what Jesus actually did by his life, death and resurrection.

I found it interesting that God would write the Old Testament in Hebrew - the foundation language of the Jewish nation - but the New Testament was in Greek - which is a much more amplified and flowery language.

The Amplified Bible gives much more meaning to some of the scriptures - such as Hebrews 13:4-5 - saying "I will never leave you or forsake you" - but the Amplified says, "I will not, I will not, I will not leave you or forsake you nor leave you without help or support". Looks like a little "amplification" was a good thing.

[gaspar]

Thank you for the wonderful exposition.

[CyberAnt]

But .. it was the statement Jesus made of who he was that offended the Pharisees so much and caused them to put him to death. Surely Jesus knew the statement would offend them .. but remember Jesus said, "I only say what I hear the Father saying".

Of course, I too believe it was Jesus' choice to die for us in order that we might be with him in Heaven.

[CyberAnt]

Exactly!

[CyberAnt]

Here's a confirmation for you:

I recently asked my younger sister (a liberal), why it was so difficult for her to get along with me - her LOUD reply was, "YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN AND I'M NOT".

You will notice she did not say she was a democrat - I found that interesting.

Other family members have bent over with laughter at her statement.

Liberals do not function in logic - only emotions.

My sister is mad at me because I'm pulling rank (age) on her and putting together a memorial for my mom (who is dying of Alzheimer's). My sister wants the service in her church (the Methodists who believe God could be a woman), and my church - who knows Jesus is the earthly example of who God is .. and a church that believes in celebrating a life.

[nmh]

"Pretty simple really. No printing press, no Bibles."

It was written by hand!

Duh!

[CyberAnt]

"... plenty of fact to refute every single statement he makes ..."


This is a correct statement .. but remember WHO Dean is talking to - UNBELIEVERS who don't know one end of the Bible from another. And .. Dean knows they don't know what's in there and it allows him license to distort everything to suit his agenda - which is to ridicule, and criminalize Christianity.

[nmh]

You may respect this Dean Esmay but I don't. He writes lies. Why would you respect a liar?

Look at some of the responses here - right from the Bible, no less.

Dean Esmay may very well be a "nice guy" but liars can be nice too but that doesn't mean I'm going to respect a "nice" liar. Dean Esmay is deliberately misleading people away from God.

[CyberAnt]

You are correct .. progressive revelation has been the key.

[CyberAnt]

God knew the plan .. but Jesus did not. Jesus had to trust in God also .. just as we do.

Jesus only knew he was to be crucified .. He did not know the rest of the plan. It was a secret. God could not take the risk of Jesus revealing the plan ahead of time - if it had been revealed - the devil would not have killed Jesus - and you and I would have no way of reaching heaven.

I guess that's why I never have any trouble trusting God to come through in the trenches. Just when it looks like everything is lost .. God is there to cause miracle after miracle to take place.

To get an understanding of this - read about the Jewish wedding ceremony - it gives a lot of clues. After the engagement, the bridegroom goes to build a home for the couple .. but the wedding day is a secret. No one knows when the day will be - only the Father. When the time is right, the Father tells the son - go and get your bride. I believe this is why the Bible clearly tells us that no one knows but the Father when Jesus will return for the church.

[Raycpa]

I apologize for not providing the source which is not me. Please see this link

http://www.ntcanon.org/information.shtml

[Raycpa]

Very interesting, thanks

[CyberAnt]

Mary's family came from the lineage of King David.

[Raycpa]

David is not the biological father, so what does it mean when people say "trace his lineage to David"? I don't get that part.

Before we go back and forth, I suspect you have an agenda inherent in your questions. Why not simply lay out your argument to save time?

Howeverif you are looking for some reason to disbelieve the gospels, then semantics is as good an argument as another. In fact proving that an author of a gospel whose desire was to prove Jesus was the messiah also provided evidence that Jesus was not the messiah is quite circular reasoning, but if it gets you to where you want to go then by all means use it.

If you don't find this particular path convincing enough that Jesus is not the messiah and are still looking for a reason to disbelieve, I could probably point you to a number of additional logical fallacies or misinterpretations that can help you out.

[Lucky Dog]

I think this is more plausible being that Ethiopia was quiet a ways away, and probably more reasonable that the Ethiopian knew and used Greek the common language of the area and most of the know World at that time.

I cannot argue against your point since Greek was a common language in the entire Mid-east after Alexander’s conquest. However, whether I was correct in surmising Hebrew Scriptures or you were, in surmising Greek, the point is that neither man was illiterate. As we have no special indication that Steven was a scholar, as we do with Paul, it would be a reasonable conclusion that he was merely an ordinary, “literate” Jew, whether in Hebrew or Greek.

[Lucky Dog]

You would be correct. But remember, when King James had the writings translated into the Bible, he included all major scholars - both Hebrew and Greek - and there appears to be a mixture of both in the New Testament.

There is even some Aramaic in the New Testament. However, the majority of the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek or translated into Greek so soon after their origin that no original text of a different language remains. Furthermore, there are few, if any, historically reliable mentions of any New Testament book originating any language other than Greek. Beyond this fact, there were thousands of copies of New Testament books that could, even King James’s era, be reliably dated to the second or third century or earlier. These ancient copies were in Greek, indicating that the originals from which they sprang were, also, probably in Greek.

By the time the KJV of the scriptures were being translated, there were not many, if any, Hebrew texts available more ancient than the Septuagint (Greek text of the Old Testament). Consequently, because of the Septuagint’s age and the fact it had been translated by Jews of antiquity, its being in Greek, notwithstanding, the scholars of King James’ day viewed it as more authoritative for Old Testament translation than newer texts available to them, even in Hebrew. Neither, the Dead Sea Scrolls, nor any other sizable source documents of comparable antiquity, were available to the scholars of King James.

Looks like a little "amplification" was a good thing.

One must be careful with translations, whether they are “amplified” or not. Knowledge of the original language and its common usage is critical, as is the context in which the language is used. Every language, even an ancient one, has idiomatic expressions as well as contextually dependent meanings.

For example, the story of Jonah can be viewed somewhat differently by knowing that there is a phrase in Syriac (the only modern language close to Aramaic) referring to “being in the belly of a fish.” This usage, even today, is idiomatic and might be paraphrased into English idiom as “on the horns of a dilemma.” It doesn’t necessarily change the story of Jonah, but it might be viewed as “enriching” it, somewhat.

Beyond idiomatic expression, ancient languages tended to have even more word ambiguity than modern languages. (One of my modern favorites is the word run… your nose runs, a watch runs, a track star runs, there is a first-run movie, etc. Another modern favorite of mine is day… every dog has his day, Day of the Jackal, back in the old days, in my day, etc.) This word ambiguity depends today, and depended in ancient languages, entirely upon context of usage for correct understanding. Sometimes the context had to include not only the surrounding text, but also who the writer was and who his target audience was.

Consequently, I would advise you to, not only, consult “amplified” translations, but also to consult commentaries and histories of the times and people being written about.

Regardless, the original theme of this thread was whether or not the apostles and Jewish converts to Christianity of their time were illiterate. I maintain that such is not the case for most, if not all, of the early Christian Jews.

[dmw]

"Liberals do not function in logic - only emotions."

I couldn't agree with you more. Notice my tag line. Liberals have no common sense whatsoever.

Sorry to hear about your mom. My prayers are with you.