Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Everything is a translation of something. So what???
The Greek says what the Latin says what the Peshitta Syriac says what the Spanish says what the German says what the English says what every other translation says --- "written in the HEBREW ...".
Would you like that translated too or is that statement clear enough??
History shows the RCC didn’t arise until the 4th century and tried mightily to subdue all churches to her doctrine. But she was unable to do so and, along the way, adopted doctrines started by those she considered heretics (such as the supposed sinlessness of Mary) because such helped the RCC control ignorant and superstitious people.
I say that simply to set up this: it’s not accurate to say the reformed churches split off from the RCC, for the church founded by Christ on Christ with the Apostles was not the RCC - but church on grace rather than works. The name “reformed” indeed arose in response to the RCC, but many of the people of the reform movement never submitted to the rule of the popes.
Amen and amen. Would that I would keep these precepts in mind more often. Well said and thanks be to our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
No thanks.
Not to worry, kosta and Mary.
Kosta can’t understand spiritual Truths unless the Lord calls, redeems, and justifies him. It’s not your fault, Kosta - God must do the work of bringing new life to one dead in sins before the one can understand - human intellect can’t bring it together.
See post #1240.
***History shows the RCC didn’t arise until the 4th century ***
Which history? The history with which I am familiar firmly places Peter and Paul within the Church; and Peter’s successors in an unbroken line to today. Do you possess a different history?
***along the way, adopted doctrines started by those she considered heretics ***
Would it be possible for you to list the heretics, the heresies, and the adopted doctrines?
***it’s not accurate to say the reformed churches split off from the RCC, for the church founded by Christ on Christ with the Apostles was not the RCC - but church on grace rather than works. The name “reformed” indeed arose in response to the RCC***
The Theses nailed up by Luther were submitted along with the term “Protestant”. The Reformed were actually in response to the novel theologies of Luther.
***but many of the people of the reform movement never submitted to the rule of the popes.***
Really. Do you have names?
***No, thanks.***
Well, it’s up to you. I only can evangelize and invite folks to accept God’s grace and His salvation. And, no, I don’t inform them of the Reformed frogmarching.
***Of course, you will notice that the KJV translates it incorrectly (imagine that!), and how one lie (oh the devil is so happy with KJV!) becomes the “truth.”***
If the KJV lie is exposed, then the English portion of the Reformed theology gets shaky, if not destroyed.
***You are more “Hebrew” in your zeal than the Jews, whose sources are actually rather objective. Your claims run contrary even to the Jewish Encyclopedia!***
The Jews know no more about their own language and history than the Greeks do. The millions of KJV Bibles stored in Catholic warehouses for 1500 years attest to the total completeness and the accuracy of their texts. After all, if English was good enough for Jesus, it ought to be good enough for you.
Why is that necessary when the Greek word "Hebraisti" and the translations by educated, learned, intellectual, credible scholars is quite clear.
Of course, you will notice that the KJV translates it incorrectly (imagine that!), and how one lie (oh the devil is so happy with KJV!) becomes the "truth."
Well then how about the learned translators of the Catholic Bible who agree with the KJV translators:
"And Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross, and there was written "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews". Many of the Jews therefore read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin." [The Holy Bible, The Catholic Press, Chicago, Illinous, with the approbation of His Eminence Samuel Cardinal Stritch, 1950]
Read it and weep -- and it was written in Hebrew.
***and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.” ***
And this proves what?
The people that Jesus had hacked off most were the religious hierarchy. Why would they not have written in Hebrew? The inscription that also was in evidence was in Latin. Almost none of the Jewish people knew Latin.
This is grasping at straws. Jesus spoke Aramaic and probably Greek.
That's an excellent descrioption, Mark.
My sentiments exactly!
The problem that we frequently run into is that the folks we are debating are firmly convinced that 33 AD Jewish folks were completely literate in English and had the KJV tucked into their pockets
Exactly.
Thank you so much for your encouragements!
Of course I don't want to be held to everything that Cyprian or Augustine said. In fact, as a Southern Baptist, I don't want to be held to everything that Calvin or Luther said either! :) None of these men were inspired, but they all have made good contributions to Christianity. Because of this, and out of the goodness of my Christian heart, I have allowed all of them to be wrong on certain issues. :)
The OT Jehovah did certain violence to the Earth. It is striking the comparison to Jesus. Look at the Two Commandments of Jesus to the 10 Commandments and Deuteronomy. Look at the Sermon on the Mount (and the Plain). Jesus comes to us with love.
It's all about purpose. God had His purpose for doing what He did in the OT. Jesus had a very different purpose on earth when He was here. When he gave us His Commandments, it was to show us our purpose in Him. The fact that they don't all match in result is not of concern. In addition, the Commandments (and their subparts) must be taken in the generalized way they were given. When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, He did not mean to let a mugger stab you in the heart if you had the means to stop him. Jesus was talking about a WAY of living for the Christian. He was not talking in hyper-technicalities, as the Pharisees thought.
God’s doctrines v. 1.0 versus 2.0.
That's an interesting way to put it, but I'm not sure I can agree. If I may be hyper-technical :), a 2.0 is always an improvement on the 1.0. I don't think God was improving, He was completing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the OT God that needed fixing. The OT God is exactly the same as the NT God. We just get to see more and more of Him as we page through the Scriptures. So, we get more, not better.
But you can? I suppose you can provethat you do and that I don't?
Let me guess...you have "ndwelling Spirit" and I don't. Right?
And therein lies the problem with some of these “Church communities”, they are almost gnostic in their requirement for secret knowledge of scripture.
Almost? Mark especially, and I, have been harping about this. There is a whole crop of Gnostics masqueraduing as "Christians." I suppose, each new generation succumbs to the irresistble egotistic appeal inherent in this heresy.
You are right, its a problem unique to the Bible Church Communities and to a lesser extent liturgical Protestant communities (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican . . . because they are firmly grounded in a tradition).
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.