|
Post by alon on Jan 2, 2015 2:50:04 GMT -8
I was reading in Acts 24 tonight and something occurred to me:
Acts 24:17 (NAS) "Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings;
Rav Sha'ul did not have to go to Jerusalem to give money. But he did have to go to the Temple to make sacrifices.
G4376 προσφορά prosphora pros-for-ah' From G4374; presentation; concretely an oblation (bloodless) or sacrifice: - offering (up).
The CJB got the right translation:
Acts 24:17 (CJB) "After an absence of several years, I came to Yerushalayim to bring a charitable gift to my nation and to offer sacrifices.
As did the OJB:
Gevurot 24:17 (OJB) 17 "Now after many years, I came bringing nedavot (donations) to my people and also to make korbanot (sacrifices).
All the other translations I checked, including the one from the Peshita (Masoretic, Aramaic) said offering. This appears to me to be a deliberate mistranslation that was carried by all the major translations afterwards. Not sure how far back it goes, but certainly to the KJV. But it is obvious to anyone who is thinking and asking the Ruach for help that Rav Sha'ul was making a sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem.
Dan C
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jan 7, 2015 10:34:28 GMT -8
offering: A presentation made to a deity as an act of religious worship or sacrifice; oblation
Lev 1:2-3 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock. If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
There is no deliberate mistranslation in acts 24. But someone who has no understanding of the OT could easily be mislead as to what "offering" might mean in the NT.
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 7, 2015 13:47:47 GMT -8
I do see your point, and it has some validity. However consider this also:
"Offering, from Leviticus 1:2-3 -- H7133 קרבּן קרבּן qorbân qûrbân kor-bawn', koor-bawn' From H7126; something brought near the altar, that is, a sacrificial present: - oblation, that is offered, offering.
And "offering" from Acts 24:17 -- G4376 προσφορά prosphora pros-for-ah' From G4374; presentation; concretely an oblation (bloodless) or sacrifice: - offering (up).
It seems to me the Strong's definition is either a bit watered down, or some meaning was lost when the original text was translated from Hebrew to Greek; or both. This in turn has allowed churches to teach that Paul was just "dropping a check in the offering plate as it was passed in the Temple."
But you are correct, knowing the Levitical offerings were animals should clue us in that there is more to Rav Sha'ul's visit to Jerusalem to make offerings than we are commonly told. Just further proof ... thanks!
Dan (clueless) C
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 7, 2015 19:06:46 GMT -8
As a Christian growing up, I was clueless about what an offering was. In all honestly, I don't think the people teaching me and preaching to me had a clue either. I do think Christianity has tended to avoid the topic of sacrafices as described in . It's hard to explain, and brings up too many questions. This is just based on my own experience.
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jan 8, 2015 10:32:09 GMT -8
It is not really all that hard to understand. Consider the typical Christian sacrifice on thanksgiving. The USDA (priest) inspects the turkey or hog for its’ suitability (without blemish) for consumption. Then it is purchased, prepared (burnt), blessed and consumed. Quite simple actually. Deut 12: 17 Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill offerings, or heave offering of thine hand:18 But thou must eat them before the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates: and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God in all that thou puttest thine hands Deut 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always. For an example of people doing it right and the priest doing it wrong by custom, see I Sammuel 3:12-17.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 9, 2015 8:56:13 GMT -8
Thanks for the feedback. I had never considered Thanksgiving and the USDA in that way.
It's not that I think people couldn't understand it. It think they don't address it. Again this is just based on my personal experience. However, keep in mind I was considered a "good " Christian in my little Bible belt community, and I was on good terms with the church.
I don't recall ever reading through passages that dealt with the process and details of Temple sacrifice in my church. The focus was always on the Gospels, and the references were the Letters. The exception was Christmas and Easter. We would get a little more "old testament" references at these times simply because of the references in the Gospels. That is no excuse for my ignorance. I could have read the on my own. However, when I read it, it wasn't consistent with what I was hearing. My picture of Jesus didn't match up with the picture. It was foreign, uncomfortable, and so I didn't get too far.
This helps me remember how shallow my faith was. It also gives me an idea of the common Christian's perception. Avoiding these passages and lightly defining key words may not be intentional, but I think it is a reaction to that same shallow faith and discomfort I experienced. Also, it furthers and helps perpetuate wrong doctrine.
I don't think the disregard and flimsy understanding is intentional at this point, but that may simply show us how effective and systematic the deception was originally. Whether this verse is a an example of an intentional deception, I am not sure. That being said, I think the way most Christians would understand this verse reflects and intentionally encouraged ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 9, 2015 9:37:27 GMT -8
It's not that I think people couldn't understand it. It think they don't address it. Again this is just based on my personal experience, but I was considered a "good " Christian and was on good terms with the church. I don't recall ever reading through passages that dealt with the process and details of Temple sacrifice in my church. The focus was always on the Gospel, and the references were the Letters. The exception was Christmas and Easter, where we would get a little more references to Isaiah simply because they were referenced in the Gospels. That is no excuse for my ignorance. I could have read the on my own. However, when I read it, even in my NIV translation, it wasn't consistent with what I was hearing. My picture of Jesus didn't match up. It was uncomfortable, and so I didn't get too far. This helps me remember how shallow my faith was. It also gives me an idea of the common Christian's perception. Avoiding these passages and lightly defining key words may not be intentional, but I think it is a reaction to that same shallow faith discomfort I experienced. It furthers and helps perpetuate wrong doctrine. It is difficult to come to grips with the inconsistencies in what we were taught and what the Bible actually says. It usually takes time, and to tell the truth if it weren't for the MJ movement today most of us would either still be uncomfortably ensconced in the church or have fallen away. Overcoming the brainwashing; (unintentional at this point as our present church leadership is 5 times as brainwashed as we were), this is a nearly impossible task unless presented with the truth in some semblance of an institutionalized manner. Few of us are Bible scholars ourselves, and so piecing this all together would be a monumental task- as I'm sure it was for even the leaders and founders of MJ in the '70's. You are correct. Somewhere in my super (dis) organized pile of notes I have some course materials given to me by a seminary student. In them it stresses that proper exegesis of a text is to start with the New Testament, interpret that (as the church teaches it), and then to interpret the Old Testament (those parts they consider still relevant) based on your understanding of the NT scripture. This is completely backwards! The Older texts define the newer ones!
Worse yet, wherever it says "scripture" in the New Testament, they say it primarily refers to the New Testament. This is foolish to anyone who thinks critically, as the NT documents were not in existence at the time- they were what was being written when the reference was made! But remember seminarians and later pastors are working on "faith" and so their critical thought processes are brought under subjugation to dogma. The same dogma that was intentionally created as a lie by the early "church" in order to erase any "taint" of Judaism from their newly created religion; a religion that had little to do with the truth and only vaguely resembled the true faith of the apostles, the Notsrim, who they persecuted to extinction by the 12th cen. CE. I've tried to talk to pastors, well educated and thoughtful men, about this fact. To a man they refuse to talk to me about it. They just shut down- and these are men who would argue almost any point with me other than this one- that whenever it says "scripture" in the NT, it is referring to the TNK, the Old Testament! It can be no other way, but their minds just cannot accept this fact and their brainwashing kicks in, their eyes either glaze or blaze and they shut me out.
That you stayed with it, and that you are doing this on your own is a testament to your hunger for truth and substance over spoon-fed doctrines that cannot be substantiated; to your being called out by God and your willingness to heed that call; and to a strength of character that is willing to walk a very lonely road in order to do God's will. Stay with it, don't get discouraged, and remember that this is something we learn and practice by often slow degrees. God wants to see progress, not instant religion; just add water and ... .
Dan C
Edit: I should stress that God is bigger than the lies of men, and many pastors and Christians are Godly people who really do want the truth AS THEY'VE BEEN TAUGHT IT, and so there is enough of the truth there to change people's lives if this is all they have. Howevr thre is a danger for them as well:
Mat 5: 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
I don't know at what point their salvation is in danger. Certainly it is at risk if God calls them out and they do not heed the call. But I know many who show far more fruits of the Spirit than I do and who are firmly ensconced in the church. But I also know too many who just warm a pew, deer in the headlights wide-glassy-eyed or possums lined up, hanging from the pews by their tails and sleeping. I'm just glad it is God's job to decide who and not mine. And I just witness to whoever He puts in front of me and let Him and them deal with the results.
|
|