Yet that same Book of Matthew relates how Christ took notice of the great faith held by a woman of Canaan, therefore showing her mercy (“O woman, great is thy faith: be it onto thee even as thou wilt”). So it appears that Christ choses not to spurn even the lowest of Gentiles when they have sincerity and faith (“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”).
Now, when I observe that most Christians seem to have a somewhat different understanding of the Biblical meaning of “neighbor,” you reply, “Not Greek or Slavic Christians, since their New Testaments actually use the word that means someone related, and these terms are a true equivalent of the Hebrew term used in the Old Testament.”
”Thou shalt love thy relative as thyself”; others can go fish. Is that it? That being the case, then KJV Matthew 5 must really throw Eastern Christians into a state of confusion. Read Luke 10:25-37 and you will know who your neighbor is. Another confusing bit of scripture for our eastern brethren, or so you would have it. Or are these passages the work of wicked, ignorant bishops who have, to fit their perverted visions of Holy Scripture, rewritten it to the point of insensibility?
Not so, according to Alister McGrath (see In the Beginning). McGrath relates that the KJV translators were charged with the dual task of producing a scriptural volume both elegant in translation and faithful to the original text. It seems that the general verdict of biblical scholars and historians (including McGrath) is that they (the translators) were eminently successful in fulfilling their mission. So successful in fact, that it is been suggested by these same scholars and historians that the KJV changed a nation, a language, and a culture. McGrath relates that, “elegance results from a faithful translation,” not requiring an outside imposition on the text. God knows, the translators had the highest quality material with which to work: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, as well as earlier English translations (and later confirmation came from the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other archeological finds of the Twentieth Century).
According to McGrath, the KJV translators worked under the discipline of fifteen rules. Among others, those rules required the work of the translators to be subjected to what we would call “peer review” by “three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities (Oxford or Cambridge) not employed in Translating . . .” (rule #15). Rule #1, on the other hand, required that “The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called The Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.” (emphasis mine). So it would seem that these were scholars who could not change scripture “with impunity” in any manner they pleased.
The forty-seven translators were separated into six groups (called “Companies”), with each assigned a particular segment of The Bible (including The Apocryphal texts, which became the task of one of the Companies). As a Company completed work on any one Book, they were commanded to dispatch it to the others, in what would seem to be a second “peer review” submission, “to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point” (#9).
You, on the other hand, would have us believe that biblical translation is the work of corrupt, ignorant priests, who routinely change at will (“with impunity”) the import of scripture, to fit the current political and doctrinal objectives of their religious institutions or their own personal agenda, or that it is, at best, translation error piled upon translation error, over and over and over. None of this appears to fit the KJV model of research.
But, there are many translations aside from the KJV and its derivatives. There is, of course, the RC Bible, which has several books not found in the KJV, and the Greek and Slavic testaments you mentioned above, and, I’m sure, any number of other translations (including LDS scripture?). Perhaps it is these translations to which you refer when you suggest scripture is the product of corruption, ignorance, and spiritual conniving.
“It (“millennial updates”) wasn't quite "millennial" considering that the Torah was reduced to writing circa 6th century BC, and the rest of the OT was added slowly as late as the 2nd century BC”
So. . . You were mistaken when you asserted that our friend James C. was “quite right” with his “millennial updates” theory. According to the First Gospel of kosta, it’s more an ongoing enterprise of Christian (and Hebrew) wickedness? The normal scholarly practice of reviewing translations for corrections you would characterize as a meddlesome interference driven by nefarious motives.
When I ask why the Hindu version and all the many other golden/silver rules take on an added significance when the Hebrew Golden rule is not universally applicable, you reply, “I am not sure. You will have to ask JCB.”
JCB has been copied to our exchanges and is perfectly at liberty to enlighten us should he choose, but I find it more than passing strange that while the Hebrew Tanakh or the OT, as it is otherwise called, relates to the Hebrew religion to the exclusion of all else, no matter how thoroughly it is immersed in Western Civilization, the Hindu and all the other golden/silver rules purportedly are of overriding significance even in cultures where they have had little or no effect.
LOL, he called her a dog (the most insulting thing one can call someone in the Middle East).
And in that same Book of Matthew (10:6), he defines what the mission to the house of Israel is: not the Gentile nor the Samaritans. So, it's pretty clear he didn't concern himself with Samaritans and "dogs", because that's not what the Jewish meshiyah is all about.
”Thou shalt love thy relative as thyself”; others can go fish. Is that it?
From the point of view of the OT, yes. The universal appeal of Christianity was never taught by Jesus, at least not based on the synoptic Gospel accounts. That is a Pauline innovation trying to sell a Jewish sect to gullible and superstitious Greeks seeking mystery religions.
Read Luke 10:25-37 and you will know who your neighbor is
Luke is introducing the Golden/Silver Rule and redefining the Jewish concept. You will notice that the cross reference to Luke 10:29 is none other than Luke himself! So, in other words, a person who never knew or heard Jesus speak, who by his own account collected hearsay legendary tales about Jesus is the only one who is "witnessing" this alleged conversation. never mind that Luke Gospel exists in two version, a short and a long one...so take your pick.
Also this whole thing about loving your neighbor as yourself is taken out of context of the OT verse (Lev 19:18) which in full reads:
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.
Notice that it is says "thy people" ('am in Hebrew, meaning kindred, compatriots, etc.). Obviously, Christians dropped that part by design and turned it into a "universal" concept to suit their agenda. How could Paul, and Luke following him, include "thy people" when they were sleling the Christians etc to non-Jews?!? Of course, the meaning of the term had to be changed, as is the case with numerous other OT concepts, to bring it in line with the doctrinal goals they were peddling abroad.
Also notice that this obligatory "love" in Lev 19:18 is not a Golden Rule of Luke's narrative, but a prohibition, or mitzvah, a commandment of omission.
In other words, it doesn't command you to help but not to take revenge on your kindred. This is night and day what Luke is saying. And, speaking of Luke, verse 10:28 is also taken out of context out of Lev 18:5, which doesn't say 'do this and you shall live, but
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I [am] the LORD.
Live in them, not live. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the degree of corruption that took place in order to create this new religion. The falsifying work that went into it can only be compared to something the Mormons pulled 1800 years later.
Not so, according to Alister McGrath (see In the Beginning).
Why should I give Alister McGrath more weight than, say, Richard Dawkins?
It seems that the general verdict of biblical scholars and historians (including McGrath) is that they (the translators) were eminently successful in fulfilling their mission
Either you don't know the history of the KJV or don't want to know it. The very same eminent scholars who completed this somewhat forced translation admitted that it was full of errors.
All this gibberish you cite doesn't change the fact that the terms for "neighbor" in Hebrew, Greek and Slavonic mean kindred
And in all three of these languages "neighbor" means kindred. Only in English it doesn't. And his historical perspective is flawed. KJV translators worked off of Textus Receptus, which was itself translated from a flawed 12th century copy of the Greek Codex Alexandrinus. TR, of course, had numerous errors, was a rather hasty compilation, and in one instances used the Latin Vulgate as the "original" source, retrotranslating it (badly at that) into Greek! A new version of the TR was issues almost every few years in successions because of all the errata found in previous copies.
Rule #1, on the other hand, required that “The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called The Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.” (emphasis mine). So it would seem that these were scholars who could not change scripture “with impunity” in any manner they pleased.
Obviously you are not aware of the numerous Protestant scholars who shortly after the KJV was published began working on the numerous errors and changes of the scriptures. I will be happy to provide you with their names if you so please.
Numerous changes in the Greek manuscripts have been documented, some obviously accidental (such as duplicate verses), but others blatant insertions, or alterations, such as the famous Comma Johanneum, or Pericope Adulterae, or Mat 24:36 (KJV) where the Son is omitted, or Mark 1:2 (KJV), where written by "Isaiah the prophet" is omitted and substituted with "written in the prophets", or a more serious and sinister alteration in 1 Timothy 3:16 where "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..." the word God was 'created" by a scribe form the Greek word hos (?S), meaning he, was changed to the ligature for God (TS) in contrasting ink! Etc,. etc. etc.
None of this stopped your KJV scholars from propagating this fraud, mainly because they didn't have reliable sources in Greek, but cneturies old copies of copies of copies with lots of errors and alterations.
Of course not. That's why all new editions of the Bible don't match with the KJV.
But, there are many translations aside from the KJV and its derivatives...Perhaps it is these translations to which you refer when you suggest scripture is the product of corruption, ignorance, and spiritual conniving.
They are all corrupted because the early copies were made by hand and were full of variants. After centuries, the soup got really thick. The KJV itself used a flawed translation (Textus Receptus), and its editors admitted ot "hundreds of errors."
So. . . You were mistaken when you asserted that our friend James C. was “quite right” with his “millennial updates” theory.
Not really. Between the first writing of the OT (c. 500 BC) and the canonization of Christian scriptures (~ 400 AD), it's just about a millennium. I was only putting it into its proper context, namely the BC portion of the millennium, since you were thinking only in AD terms.
When I ask why the Hindu version and all the many other golden/silver rules take on an added significance when the Hebrew Golden rule is not universally applicable, you reply, “I am not sure. You will have to ask JCB.”
Sure, because I am not familiar with the Hindu teachings and I defer to someone else who may know.
JCB has been copied to our exchanges and is perfectly at liberty to enlighten us should he choose, but I find it more than passing strange that while the Hebrew Tanakh or the OT, as it is otherwise called, relates to the Hebrew religion to the exclusion of all else, no matter how thoroughly it is immersed in Western Civilization, the Hindu and all the other golden/silver rules purportedly are of overriding significance even in cultures where they have had little or no effect.
The OT had to be included although it is incompatible with the NT, or else Christians would have had no authority to claim. That's why it took the Church so many centuries to codify the scriptures. It's not easy to create a seamless two-volume book with so much disagreement in them. Term had to be redefined and changed, and stories recounted...if you know what I mean.