Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 11/28/2010 4:13:46 PM PST by bibletruth
You can disagree if you wish.
I cited Rashi and his 11th century
commentary on the verse in question.
Also note that the verse in the KJV
is very different from the original text.
It would seem that the KJV is someone’s
commentary and is not to be trusted.
shalom b’SHEM Yah’shua HaMashiach
As far as the new Bible versions, i believe it is all about money.
The Error in the KJV was from the Vulgate.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Isa 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui maneThe Vulgate was a translation into Latin from the
oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
original Koine Greek and Hebrew.The latter two languages are rich with nuance.
Latin is clumsy by comparison.
When you translate from
(hebrew/greek) -> latin ->
17th century english,
many errors are introduced.By comparison Rashi in the 11th century was
commenting on the verse in it's original language
with hundreds of years of commentaries on the verse.
You’re right. We’re nothing but status and power grubbing idolaters. It’s time we admit it.
It should actually make all of us doctors of the science of religion really feel good about ourselves. did i say good?
Thanks for the story.
You’re welcome, bro.
Me, now I’m trivial. Those guys though, wow! That’s the spirit I pray for.
I don’t think Cronos was claiming not to sin. I think he was making a glancing reference so Paul’s “Shall we sin the more that grace may abound,” and questioning what sometimes seems to be too simple a construction of “perseverance of the saints.”
Seriously now, no, and i do understand that “God” can refer to one is a positional sense, but i do see that the references overall evidencing an exaltation above that which is written, as is the assuredly infallible magisterium.
If Evangmlw is presenting him/herself as one who is especially protected from error when speaking on faith and morals (to the FR universal) rather than presenting an argument whose validity is based upon efficacy of Scriptural warrant, then Evangmlw is claiming the like.
I do not think the rendering at issue is the real problem, but DE types are in general. I do not recommended the NIV or any paraphrases if one has a choice, but one would give one to someone if they has trouble with the KJV and i did not have another like the NKJV, NASB, ESV. To have an Is. 66:2 type heart is most critical, and God will lead as one obeys the light they have.
Actually, i began my Bible reading after i became manifestly born again (while still Catholic) with the Living Bible, but which i rather quickly was lacking the majesty if you will, of what the Bible ought to be if from God. Likewise the Good New Bible which i also tried, among others. I honestly liked the NAB in comparison with such paraphrases, and i used to be a lector myself. But after a KJV was given me at a Baptist church which i had later begun attending, then i became attached to it, reading it constantly, and now i use nothing else, though i do look sometimes at what others say, as well as check out what the original language is said to mean. And in so doing you realize how difficult translation can be and the knowledge, etc., it overall requires.
But as i think you known (have we discussed this before?) the problem with the NAB is not simply translation, but the approved notes, (NAB published by the Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, copyright 1970-77 and 1986 [some differences]; Nihil Obstat, and the Imprimatur from the Archbishop of Washington) which is evidence of V2’s liberal swing.
And regarding such stories as Judges 1:1-18 and of the “holy wars of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine, The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional.”
It also relegates Old Testament stories of supernatural events such as Gn. cps 2-4; 6-8; 11 (creation, the Flood, Tower of Babel) to being allegorical folk tales, and stories such as Num. 22 (Balaam’s vocal donkey) to being a fable, while Gn.12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), 12-50 (records of Abraham and Joseph) Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) are stories which are “historical at their core,” “historical novels,” while overall the author simply used “traditions” to teach a religious lesson. (Literary Forms”)
Its “Conditioned thought patterns” (p. 20) hermeneutic also paves the way for the specious argumentation of feminists who seek to negate the headship of the man as being due to condescension to culture, a very dangerous hermeneutic.
It speculates that some of the miracle stories of Jesus in the New Testament may be adapted from similar ones in the Old Testament,” (St. Joseph edition, 1970; How to read your Bible, 6f, 13e, f, g. and i) which i think infers they really did not happen.
It likewise states that “Matthew tells us that baby Jesus was taken to Egypt. This is not necessarily true,” but that Matthew placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel. And that he may have only represented Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, to show that Jesus was like Moses who received the law on Mount Sinai.
Where does it stop?
“The Bible is God’s word and man’s word. One must understand man’s word first in order to understand the word of God.”
The Church was so firmly convinced that the risen Lord who is the Jesus of history lived in her, and taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus’ sayings.” The words are not Jesus but from the Church.
“Can we discover at least some words of Jesus that have escaped such elaboration? Bible scholars point to the very short sayings of Jesus, as for example those put together by Matthew in chapter 5, 1-12”
However, comparing Scripture with Scripture, it is seen that the Holy Spirit refers to such accounts which Rome delegates as fables as being factually literal. “The serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and Balaam’s donkey did indeed speak (2Pet. 2:16), and Jonah did indeed spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale (Mt. 12:40), and Israels history is always and inclusively treated as literal. And it is a slippery slope when historical statements are made out to be literary devices.
Muslims have taken advantage of the NAB’s liberal hermeneutic to impugn the veracity of the Scriptures, but who also misunderstand inspiration, while the Qur’an is guilty of what they charge. http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/nab.htm.
Of course, i was just told on another forum by a liberal student at a Lutheran sem that since i attribute the first five books to Moses “it almost seems useless to continue this conversation.”
Peter was kind of a jerk.So am I, but you don't catch ME going around in white dresses 'n stuff.
My alleged point is that both for popes and for that free-floating entity the magisterium, while there IS indeed a kind of reverence for the d00d himself on account of his age and, usually, learning and such, the real deal is that we are relying on God to do what we think He promised through jerks -- as He seems to have been pleased to do from early on.
So, while I like (but mostly on the report of a friend who knows him) PapaBenXVI and I like the stuff I've read (though J2P2 was better) my "trust" (for want of a better word) is not in Joey Ratzinger from Bavaria but in what I think God said he would do. So the "holy" (misused, but you know what I mean) awe is for PapaBenXVI as a locus where God acts. To the extent that I put off my shoes from off my feet, it is not because the ground is intrinsically holy, but because God seems to show Himself there.
Something like that, anyway.
I TEND to the opinion that, say, Job and Jonah were never anything other than fiction, but I do not stake my life on that, and were I to preach I fer shur would not be saying, "Well, hah hah, we all know that this is just a story, hah hah, and so we must look for the deeper meaning," blah blah blah, because VatII to the contrary notwithstanding, I don't think I have that authority -- or the requisite spiritual charism to pick out the truth from the whatever the rest is.
'The way I proceed is the Church gave me this book and so I take it as given. I will hear the "critics" but I won't throw myself at their feet.
It seems to me that Schweitzer's criticism that Biblical critics look down a well and see their own reflection looking back has been demonstrated so often and so thoroughly that I certainly am neither going to throw myself at their feet nor pretend that "I'm just as good as them," and start looking for my reflection.
**All the bible is to you guys is a history book, with funny stories that you don’t believe...So it’s no wonder that you don’t understand enough of it to comment on it...**
Mind reading are we? “You guys” don’t believe Holy Scripture, huh? And Who’s clueless? The “I am a little god” syndrome runs rampant through here. Lots of mind readers/people who think they have some type of divine power where by they can look into someone’s soul and “know” where they will spend eternity, whether they believe in God or have a relationship with Christ. Hubris indeed!
Ok... thank you for the clarification.
The Error in the KJV was from the Vulgate.
Isa 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane
oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
I can not and would not get into the professor kind of stuff
professors are good at that but on common sense stuff, well? i don,t know.
My opinion, utterly unencumbered by knowledge of the facts, is that the kings of old took to themselves quite preposterously grand titles. Even as 'late' as the time our Lord walked the earth the Caesars demanded and received divine honors.
So, it would not surprise me if various emperors took to themselves titles like "Light-bringer."
I'm not saying it WASn't also a 'designator' for the adversary.
Also, I have no idea of the age and provenance of the Prometheus myth, but since he was said to have given men fire and incurred the wrath of Zeus and everlasting punishment for doing so, we could imagine that in some cultures "light-bringer" was a title fraught with tragic meaning.
Just kicking it around here...
My opinion, utterly unencumbered by knowledge of the facts, is that the kings of old took to themselves quite preposterously grand titles. Even as ‘late’ as the time our Lord walked the earth the Caesars demanded and received divine honors.
Thanks for the come back.
Isa 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
So, what do you think lucifer was or is and was it just a knickname for the king or is it another name for satan or what? I can not and would not get into the professor kind of stuff professors are good at that but on common sense stuff, well? i don,t know.
I think the "take away" should be that the KJV and
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
any other translation based on the Vulgate is highly
suspect for exegesis.
Well, maybe none of the 12 would have made it thru seminary, but one thing i think they all but Judas had was a basically honest heart, despite their carnality. They were raw recruits, but seekjing souls mouldable lumbs of clay, more so than i, to my remorse.
And impetuous Peter did have integrity, despite his pride, which had to be broken if he would strengthen his brethren.
And i want to say that i find you to be the most reasonable, humble, and candid and easy to converse with informed Catholic i have ever debated and discused things with, though i am grieved by your tagline.
As regards the exaltation of the pope, this issue was not your attitude but that of men who made him, or popes who afforded themselves, a type of demi-god status.
And while trusting God to lead imperfect men is Biblical, affording them implicit trust based upon their declaration of formulaic infallibility is not, which is the real issue. Almighty God preserved Jewish faith via a remnant without an assuredly infallible magisterium, sovereignly raising up prophets to reprove those who might have assumed they were, and Jesus Himself reproved them using the only assuredly infallible material source, the Scriptures.
It may be argued that this renders fallible human reasoning infallible, yet this is not what 2Pt. 1:20,21 censures as regards interpretation, and texts such as 1Jn. 5:13 sanction it in obtaining assurance (worth analysis) , but no one is assuredly infallible based upon the subject or the object of address, and any degree of surety claimed by an advocate of SS is contingent upon demonstrable Scriptural warrant and its attestation, using principles of doctrinal exegesis it manifests.
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.