Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
By John-Henry Westen
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.
While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."
In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.
The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."
Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".
The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."
Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."
Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."
Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."
Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."
And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."
See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/
Needless to say, I disagree with the above statement. However, being that this is Lent - and that this conversation is not building up the Body of Christ - I will allow you the last word.
God Bless
Oy, where should I start? Erasmus used several Greeks sources, but none was a complete New Testament. He relied heavily on the Vulgate as well as his own Latin translation. His first edition, finished in one yer [!], was a complete failure, I hope we can agree on that (including the title Instrumentum instead of Testamentum). His second edition was apatch-up job.
His third edition contained even Comma Johanneum (whose originals can be traced to Latin Fathers, retro-translated into Greek). This third copy was used by Tyndale to translate into English.
His fourth and fifth editions were based on the Polyglot Bible, at which time he dropped the Vulgate. The Greek sources he used originally are who knows from where. The Greeks sources don't always agree either, depending whether they are the Byzantine or Alexandrian type.
The Codex Vaticanus and Sinatius are in agreement, but the Codex Alexandrinus (the one used by the Orthodox Church) is somehow more "Christianized."
Then there is the "Jewish Bible" in addition to our various version of the NT. The only thing they all have in common are names of the Books.
Let me illustrate:
Isaiah 9:6
For a Child is born to us, and a Son is given to us, whose government is upon His shoulder; and His name is called The Messenger of Great Counsel; for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to Him. [The Septuagint, Brenton]
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. [KJV, NA27]
Sinatius=Sinaiticus
Good. We agree on the basics!
I do not think of God as doling out "evil souls"
That's good too.
The soul, as manufactured, does not include evil, for that would make God the author of evil.
Except for 'manufactured' that is good too.
The Bible teaches that aside from Eve, all subsequent men are stained by the sin of Adam
I knew this had to end. Where is the stain? On the body? No, of course not. On the soul? But I thought that God 'manufactures' the souls. If they are good after God makes them, when do they get 'stained?' [I have an idea, but I want to see what you say].
God created the goats. There is no other creator. He just did not predestine them to be of the elect
First he makes them, even 'manufactures' thee souls, then He throws them on a trash pile to burn in hell forever?
Some seem to believe in a monster who happnes to like them. Yet the Bible tells us God is not partial.
We are God's creation. He is free to do with us as He pleases. We have no rights
YOU said that would make Him a terrible Father, FK. Sounds like you judged as much as I did. I guess that makes both of us unfit to be even clay?
Yes, God settled everything from the beginning
Okay, then no intervention is necessary because His plan is not bound to go wrong! All those events you mention are simple sequences in His plan, not interventions. An intervention means interference.
All of the goats. The meaning of the term 'goat' in the Judaic biblical sense is associated with demons,.
I said "some" because not all goats are pretenders. Some are overt satan worshipers, atheists, Democrats, etc. They do not claim faith in the first place.
In other words, some are 'goats,' devil's angels, those who, like Faustus, sold their soul to the devil the way Esau sold his birthright. .... They turned to the devil. They are not saved because they are the unrepentant.
I just equate the goats to the reprobate. They are forever slaves to sin and do turn to satan.
You are mixing apples and oranges, FK. You cannot change your corruption (aging), but your soul doesn't 'age.' The only choice in your heart is to cling to God or not.
I thought you were speaking of free will choices generally. I agree with you that the choice to accept Christ can come at any time during life. That is, at any time for the elect.
God does not impose, FK.
Amen to Dr. E's answer. Lord, when it comes to me, impose your socks off! :)
FK: "I keep getting the impression that you all use the Father-child Biblical analogy to refer to parents with adult children."
How about just adults?. Is your own flavor of Protestantism not based on adult baptism? When you can accept Christ, and you can recite the sinners prayer?
Southern Baptists follow a believer's baptism, not an "adult" baptism. It is commonplace for children under 10 to be baptized in our church.
God creates us rational and capable of being moral beings. Through our faculty of reason and a heart that forgives and loves. You have this idea that we are just a bunch of toddlers running around in God's playpen like a bunch of little morons.
Are you kidding? Compared to God we don't even rate to the level of morons. We are less than toddlers. Sometimes, toddlers do what they're told. By ourselves, we never do. The objective suicidal stupidity of the sinner knows no bounds. How many OT stories have you read and just wound up shaking your head? There was God, right in front of them telling them what to do, and they blew it. Then they blew it again and again and again. How is that possible? Are we really truly smarter than they were? NO WAY. We are the same. If it wasn't so sad it would really be funny. This is why I think the Biblical comparison between parent-child only works to the extent the child is completely helpless. Without God, WE are completely helpless.
God expects us to be able to forgive before we can ask for forgiveness. God expects us to be pure in heart, merciful and humble, to understand that loving those who love you is no feat but rather loving those who persecute you is. Are children like that? No they are not.
God does not apply adult standards to our small children. But as to being pure in heart, being merciful and forgiving, and loving when it is difficult, I absolutely see evidence of this in children. It's not all the time, but I've seen plenty of it. You have too. It's a miracle of God when I see them doing it and then remember myself at that age not resembling anything like that. God wasn't in my life then. But a child with God in her life can do amazing things.
The difference isn't the age of the person, the difference is whether the person has Christ, at whatever age. Without Christ we, comparatively, are helpless children even as "adults".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
What's wrong with "manufactured"? I just meant that God created everything. Is the human soul uncreated?
Where is the stain? On the body? No, of course not. On the soul? But I thought that God 'manufactures' the souls. If they are good after God makes them, when do they get 'stained?' [I have an idea, but I want to see what you say].
Well, I've never studied it, but my opinion would be that the stain of sin happens at conception. :
Rom 5:12 : 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: KJV
Sin is only "in the world", so conception would appear to be the earliest point of entry. Now, I don't claim to know the mechanics of how or whether God sits there with a "bag-o-souls", in perfectly good condition, and passes them out at conception only to be immediately corrupted by original sin, but it appears that "something" like that happens. That fits the Biblical model.
First he makes them, even 'manufactures' their souls, then He throws them on a trash pile to burn in hell forever?
He doesn't do that, they do it to themselves. God just doesn't prevent them from doing it. For the elect, He does prevent them.
Some seem to believe in a monster who happens to like them. Yet the Bible tells us God is not partial.
I wouldn't know who those "some" are. Never met any. But you are right that God is not partial. Since salvation is not based on anything in the person, including any merit, then He cannot be partial in choosing His elect.
FK: "We are God's creation. He is free to do with us as He pleases. We have no rights."
YOU said that would make Him a terrible Father, FK. Sounds like you judged as much as I did. I guess that makes both of us unfit to be even clay?
Nope. I said God would be a terrible Father IF all people are His beloved children. I contend that is not the case. He does as He pleases in CHOOSING His children.
FK: "Yes, God settled everything from the beginning."
Okay, then no intervention is necessary because His plan is not bound to go wrong! All those events you mention are simple sequences in His plan, not interventions. An intervention means interference.
I don't distinguish between intervention and sequence. I think it's an intervention because beforehand the person was headed for hell, and afterward he was headed for Heaven. Within time, to me, that is an interference.
That might explain why Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza used some of the old Latin texts for some of the readings of the Epistles because the old Latin had been translated from the original Byzantine Text and they needed it to get those original Byzantine text readings in the Epistles.
BTW Erasmus had atleast five Greek manuscripts dating from the 11th to the 15th century. He used these to make his own Latin version in 1505, and for his later Greek texts. His Greek text came from Greek manuscripts not the Vulgate --- except for the Johannine Comma and perhaps a few others.
Scribal error. It happens even to the best.
You are absolutely right. The Eastern Church used and still uses the Byzantine-type text found in the Gospels of the Codex Alexandrinus, with Alexandrin-type text following in the Epistles.
The older Alexandrian-type texts, Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are not as 'conflated' ('cleaned up' or 'redacted') as the Byzantine-type Codex Alexandrinus. (I must admit I can see how the naming of these texts and Codices can lead to profound confusion).
My point was that we don't know where the Greek versions came from (I suspect most of them came from Stephanus's Greek NT), but chances are they all belonged to the redacted Majority (Byznatine-type) Text.
The fact remains that Erasmus, despite having used various Greek sources, did not have a complete NT in any one of them, with no traceable identity of any of them.
How unreliable were such sources can be surmised from the fact that someone handed Erasmus a "Greek" text containing Comma Johannenum (retro-translated from Latin to Greek), obviously a forgery, which he accepted as 'genuine.'
This forgery, then, found its way into all the western Bibles, starting with the KJV (which still carries it!). This makes a mockery of the name "word of God" for the Bible.
My other point was that the KJV, then, was most likely translated from either Erasmus's Latin version into English (most likely becauase Latin, not Greek, was the lingua franca of Europe at that time and therefore better known; we know that Luther had to use a Greek dictionary and was most likely not very proficient in Greek, thereby relying on the languge he used daily, Latin, besides German).
Thus, in KJV we have (a) questionable sources to begin with, (b) at least one doucmented forgery, which was never removed (c) doubtful translations and (e) even the known sources belong to the most 'redacted' (altered, doctored) of extant NT sources (the Byzantine-type text). And yet the KJV reigns supreme as the "word" of God!
On top of that, as my example with Isaiah 9 directly quoted from Tanach in 11,062 shows, the "Hebrew Bible" does not agree with either the Septuagint or the KJV and the two Christian sources do not agree with each other!
Also, the KJV quote from Isaiah 9 comes from somewhere other than the Greek text and certainly not from the Hebrew text as claimed by the Jewish sources.
It also must be noted that although, and even though, Erasmus used Greek texts based on the Byzantine-type text, that text, when transferred into Textus Receptus became significantly altered. It is not entirely clear who or what caused that alteration, but Erasmus is the prime suspsect, whether by mistranslation or by faulty copying.
All this points to all the reasons you seem to doubt the LXX to begin with: multiple sources, copies of copies and based on a translation. By your criteria, the entire Christian canon is doubtful. I can't say that I don't share that opinion, but the same applies to Hebrew/Jewish scriptures as well.
Erasmus, having little time to prepare his edition, could only examine manuscripts which came to hand. His haste was so great, in fact, that he did not even write new copies for the printer; rather, he took existing manuscripts, corrected them, and submitted those to the printer. (Erasmus's corrections are still visible in the manuscript 2.)
Nor were the manuscripts which came to hand particularly valuable. For his basic text he chose 2e, 2ap, and 1r. In addition, he was able to consult 1eap, 4ap, and 7p.
Of these, only 1eap had a text independent of the Byzantine tradition -- and Erasmus used it relatively little due to the supposed "corruption" of its text. Erasmus also consulted the Vulgate, but only from a few late manuscripts.
Even those who favour the Byzantine text cannot be overly impressed with Erasmus's choice of manuscripts; they are all rather late (see table):
| Manuscript | Date | Von Soden Classification (in modern terms) |
| 1eap | XII | e: family 1; ap: Ia3 |
| 1r | XII | Andreas |
| 2e | XII/XIII | Kx (Wisse reports Kmix/Kx) |
| 2ap | XII | Ib1 |
| 4ap | XV | |
| 7p | XI/XII | Op18 |
Not only is 1r an Andreas manuscript rather than purely Byzantine, but it is written in such a way that Erasmus could not always tell text from commentary [!] and based his reading on the Vulgate. Also, 1r is defective for the last six verses of the Apocalypse. To fill out the text, Erasmus made his own Greek translation from the Latin [!]. He admitted to what he had done, but the result was a Greek text containing readings not found in any Greek manuscript -- but which were faithfully retained through centuries of editions of the Textus Receptus [figures!]. This included even certain readings which were not even correct Greek [!] (Scrivener offers as an example Rev. 17:4 AKAQARTHTOS).
(link: Textus Receptus)
But, please don't be persuaded. Don't let facts get in the way of 'blind faith.'
Democrats...you must be related to Pat Roberston...Murdoch...? :)
I just equate the goats to the reprobate. They are forever slaves to sin and do turn to satan.
According to Reformed theology they do turn to satan because they have no other choice. They were predestined by this selective deity before all ages to not be able to turn to him.
And if this deity (because it's not the God I know) is not partial, as you say, it must have made the choices at random! So now we have an enee, menee, minee, mo approach to salvation...
Amen to Dr. E's answer. Lord, when it comes to me, impose your socks off! :)
Cute. But what Dr E tried to prove is doubtful and unbiblical. She conveniently left out v. 5 that changes the meaning of her whole "imposition" interpretation. And v. 2 of the same Psalm makes it clear that all men come to God. Read it!
Southern Baptists follow a believer's baptism, not an "adult" baptism. It is commonplace for children under 10 to be baptized in our church
Why not at the age of 5, or 2 or infants? Who decides what is the 'right' age? Dr. E's church does infant baptism; she may be able to tell you.
Are you kidding? Compared to God we don't even rate to the level of morons. We are less than toddlers.
That kind of humility would be great were it not obvious, nonetheless He made us in His image and likeness (the latter we lost), so that would not bide very well for His central creation, namely man.
It's like someone calling his moron a moron. It says a lot a bout the husband who chose her. You are saying God either made us trash or allowed us to become trash.
The objective suicidal stupidity of the sinner knows no bounds
I guess that's okay; God let them get that way, right? Sort of like your playing-in-the-traffic example. Out of five kids you'd let four play in the traffic and keep your 'favorite' one (the elect) to yourself.
How many OT stories have you read and just wound up shaking your head?
Tons. Over and over.
There was God, right in front of them telling them what to do, and they blew it
Well, we are not perfect, by design, or neglect, whichever you prefer, not by fault (using Reformed theology logic). Can't blame a dog for bing a dog, right?
Without God we are completely helpless
We are helpless regardless, according to the Reformed theology. God already decided what's going to happen with all of us, so no amount of praying, crying or reading will change that.
For the 100th time (and I've enjoyed every one) ALL MEN WOULD TURN TO SATAN because ALL MEN ARE FALLEN CREATURES unless and until God grabs them and gives them new eyes to see Him, new ears to hear Him and a new heart to love Him.
This is Scripture, Kosta. We didn't make it up. It's the story of the Old Testament which tells us we cannot keep the Law ourselves and we cannot pay for our own sins. By our own sins we will perish BECAUSE THE NATURAL MAN HATES GOD and loathes His Law and is incapable of pleasing Him.
Gloriously, the New Testament tells us that God decided from before time to forgive some men's sins by the sacrifice of His Son. Those men can do nothing to merit this salvation; only God Himself is equal to the penalty. But like Paul, we praise Him who turned us from the darkness to the light and "revealed His Son in us"...
To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him" -- Galatians 1:15-16"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
We do not know why God chooses as He does, but Scripture is clear that He does choose, according to His good pleasure. If a man possesses Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ, he can be confident His name was written in the Book of Life by God for His glory. God wants His Christian soldiers confident and well-equipped for the battles on earth.
v. 2 of the same Psalm makes it clear that all men come to God. Read it!
Alright, let's read it.
Iniquities prevail against me: as for our transgressions, thou shalt purge them away. Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple. By terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us, O God of our salvation; who art the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off upon the sea" -- Psalm 65:2-5"O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.
Are you seriously using these verses to assert universal redemption? Are you a Unitarian? Certainly "all flesh" will end up at the foot of Christ in judgment. But not all will have acknowledged Him as Lord and thus some will perish. Or else we need to erase about 50% of the Bible.
Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." -- 2 Corinthians 5:10-11"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
If you have Christ within you, do you need fear His wrath? Or are we to...
"...come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." -- Hebrews 4:16
we are not perfect, by design, or neglect, whichever you prefer, not by fault (using Reformed theology logic). Can't blame a dog for being a dog, right?
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" -- Jeremiah 13:23
We are helpless regardless, according to the Reformed theology. God already decided what's going to happen with all of us, so no amount of praying, crying or reading will change that.
Those who pray and cry and read and want to change will do so because it is by the will of God. All who believe in Him will find safe haven.
And all who don't believe in Him will not want to believe in Him and therefore suffer the consequences.
As far as baptism goes, Reformed of all persuasions do not believe in the error of baptismal regeneration. We all believe our baptism as adopted children is a sign and seal of God's grace given to those who are His. Like the Lord's Supper, our baptism brings us closer to Him.
God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ is a gift, given to whom He wills for His own perfect reasons.
If you want to understand Reformed theology and the truth in Scripture, it is succinctly contained in the following verses...
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:4-10"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
"According to Reformed theology they (goats) do turn to satan because they have no other choice."
I don't think that all men "turn to satan because they have no other choice" can be found in the scriptures. In fact the scriptures say Isa. 53:6, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." We have turned into ourselves as gods int eh place of God. Satan is the "accuser", the "adversary" who tempts and deceives mankind away from God but there is only one scripture, in 1 Tim. 5:15, "For some are already turned aside after Satan." where there is a hint of turning to him.
Amen. It's the first commandment for a good reason.
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" -- Proverbs 14:12
But those "amazing things" aren't what save the child; what saves the child is the same thing that saves the adult -- Christ's redemption of them on the cross.
Infant baptism acknowledges the covenant of grace God made with His children that He would save them through Christ's atonement. Baptism, at whatever age, confirms this promise.
And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life." -- Luke 1:68-75"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
"God expects us to be able to forgive before we can ask for forgiveness."
God expects us to forgive because we have been forgiven. The Lord's Prayer is for the sons of God, not the world. It is "Our Father" not to "Whomever this may concern".
Amen and bump to the particular, personal, predestined love of God for each of His sheep by name.
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." -- John 17:9-10"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Those weren't Western Europeans or Protestants making all those copies of the Byzantine text and leaving the Alexandrian text type on the shelf. Those were Greek monks and scribes taking their time to make cursive copies of the Byzantine text instead of the Alexandrian.
If everyone in Eastern Europe thought that Codex Alexandrinus or the Alexandrian Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were so pure and authoritative, then why weren't they making more Greek copies of them ?? Did someone forget to notify the Greek scribes of an official change in Church policy back there, or did these monks and scribes just decide on their own to keep copying the Byzantine text and ignore church authorities???
BTW The KJV was based upon Beza's 1598 Greek Text, and though he no doubt owed much of it to Erasmus's 2nd Greek Text, dozens of Greek manuscripts had arrived in the West during those 70 years, leading to a much more accurate Greek text by that time.
It appears that as the Moslems were moving into eastern Europe, the EO monasteries were sending their valuable Greek manuscripts to the West. Thus Beza had a large collection of Greek manuscripts from which to work.
So, God [sic] revealed Christ in [sic] him (not to him)? That's just a tad bit Gnostic, you know.
Your Ps 65 is unrecognizable to me. The Psalm 65.2-5 in LXX goes like this:
2 Hear my prayer; to You all flesh shall come.
3 The words of transgressors have overpowered us; but You pardon our sins.
4 Blessed is he whom You have chosen and adopted; he shall dwell in Your courts; we shall be filled with the good things of Your house; Your temple is holy.
5 You are wonderful in righteousness. Hearken to us, O God our Savior; the hope of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are on the sea afar off; [Ps 65.2-5, LXX]
Compare v.5 to the KJV's "By terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us" fire and brimstones approach. No wonder atheism was born in the West!
The verses in Tanach, as in the LXX, speak of a loving God who forgives and not in "terrible righteousness..."
3. You, Who hearken to prayer, to You all flesh shall come.
4. Words of iniquities have overcome me; as for our transgressions, You shall atone for them.
5. Praiseworthy is he whom You choose and draw near to dwell in Your courts; let us be sated with the goodness of Your house, the sanctity of Your Temple.
6. With awesome deeds, through [Your] charity You shall answer us, God of our salvation, the trust of all the distant ends of the earth and the sea. [Tanach, Tehillim 65.3-6]
Those who pray and cry and read and want to change will do so because it is by the will of God.
You are kidding, right? And those who don't do it because ... God wants them to? More of the "terrible righteousness..." someone please call the Fire Department!
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.