|
|
Post by alon on Mar 1, 2014 3:16:40 GMT -8
I only hold the KJV above the original texts in one regard: It can be read and understood by people who can’t read or understand the original text. I Cor 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Then why hold so doggedly to a translation that is difficult for the vast majority of English speakers to read? There are more accurate (far from perfect, but much improved versions) such as the NASB and the ESV. Both are easy to read and understand by almost anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the English language. So why hold up the KJV as the only English Bible ever inspired by God? I generally tell people that, other than it's being a good idea to stay away from the NIV, just select the major modern translation that suits you best; that is easier for you to read. Then if at all possible bounce anything really important off of several translations, preferably to include one literal version. This will give a better feel for what is being said many times. Still have to use discernment, as they are all using somewhat corrupted source documents for the NT (that's all we have, thanks to the RCC). Just sayin' ...  Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 3, 2014 13:09:05 GMT -8
Questor, this is for you- straight from the teachings of Rabbi S. ... what, you thought I was smart enough to figure this all out on my own?  The teaching that Paul was the apostle to the gentiles goes “When the Jews rejected Jesus, God turned to the gentiles and forsook the Jews.” This presupposes that God forsook the gentiles for 4000 yrs, then gave the Jews 3.5 yrs to decide whether to follow Jesus and now rejects them. This makes God out to be a monster, as well as ignores that many, poss even over half the Jews DID follow Yeshua. Also this ignores that the gentiles were always part of the plan. The role of the Jews was to make God available to all. Read the book of Jonah- he was sent to Nineva, the worst of the gentile nations to lead them to repentence and acceptance by God. Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Yir'meyahu also was a prophet to the nations, to the goyim- to the gentiles! So how does this theology follow? Rav Sha’ul was likening himself to Yir’meyahu, as Jer 1:5 and Gal 1:15 have very similar verbiage. Galatians 1:15 “But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace,” |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 4, 2014 8:46:37 GMT -8
I think I'm going to back away from this topic for a while, as it may be causing some to question scripture. That was not the intent. God is sovereign; He is smarter than men who might want to tamper with His word; and He knows the beginning from the end. So His truth is there in all. I'm merely suggesting we change how we read scripture- take everything in context with the whole of scripture. Don't take the word of theologians whose discernment has been trained away in seminaries over your own common sense. Certainly their ideas may have merit, but they are not the last word on the truth of what a passage says.
We can still discuss particular passages. But I think the point is made that errors may have creeped in in either translation or understanding. And I wouldn't want to do damage here.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Apr 4, 2014 12:51:59 GMT -8
But I think the point is made that errors may have creeped in in either translation or understanding. Dan C Ah yes the two camps: "error of translation" (alon) and "error of understanding" (me). The other day in a study group we came across this scripture: Lev 5: 2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. Oh, how the people hated that the KJV translators used cattle here. Cattle are clean not unclean! Stupid translators! They obviously mistranslated the Hebrew word. So we looked it up. Behemah H929: Now that sounds like behemoth in Job. Yep! Those KJV translators missed that one. It should be “unclean behemoth” was the consensus. But I descented. Behemoth of Job is Behemowth H930: the plural of H929. Here the translators could not make a positive identification from the description, so they left H930 untranslated. Note this is the only location that H930 is used. Now back to cattle. How is it that cattle can be unclean? Well the same way that Behemah H929 can be either clean or unclean. Gen 7: 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Both the clean and unclean beasts are Behemah H929. None of the “error of translation” folks were convinced by the “error of understanding” guy(poor little me). They were blinded by their bias. Now I suppose the question for me is: can I be blinded by mine? |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 4, 2014 14:39:33 GMT -8
Ah yes the two camps: "error of translation" (alon) and "error of understanding" (me). ... They were blinded by their bias. Now I suppose the question for me is: can I be blinded by mine? I am in both camps. There are a lot of translational errors, as have been adequately proven here. There is also a lot of misunderstanding, both by us when we read and by translators when they try to adequately get across the point they think the source document is making. Cattle- even today this means livestock. We tend to think beef, but obviously it wasn't meant that way in your passage. Even hogs could be considered cattle, strictly speaking. We can all be blinded by our biases. We're all human. If we went further into Galatians, chapter 2 starts out with a great example of biases spanning the ORIGINAL documents, the source documents, the translators, and almost every reader! So yes, I suspect that you and I have our biases and they effect our understanding. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 5, 2014 1:23:48 GMT -8
Gal 2:6 “Moreover, those who were the acknowledged leaders-what they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by outward appearances - these leaders added nothing to me.” Translators use unnecessarily harsh language here, because they don’t understand what Paul meant. However, the following vss explain.
Gal 2:7-9 “On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the Uncircumcised, just as Kefa had been for the Circumcised; since the One working in Kefa to make him an emissary to the Circumcised had worked in me to make me an emissary to the Gentiles. So, having perceived what grace had been given to me, Ya'akov, Kefa and Yochanan, the acknowledged pillars of the community, extended to me and Bar-Nabba the right hand of fellowship; so that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the Circumcised.”
Note: Acts 15:7 says “After lengthy debate, Kefa got up and said to them, "Brothers, you yourselves know that a good while back, God chose me from among you to be the one by whose mouth the Goyim should hear the message of the Good News and come to trust.” So this passage cannot be saying that any one of the apostles was appointed to the gentiles except possibly at particular times.
But the passage in vss 7-9 are Rav Sha’ul working through the problems of who the others were before. John was a Sadducee, a sect which had recently murdered Pharisees by the thousands- men, women and children. Peter and John were well known and well connected. Rav Sha'ul was a Pharasee, who had until just recently been killing believers himself. This was an eclectic group of very powerful men from sects that hated each other, and who had been given a new position, new commissions, and a new heart by God. I can see how it might all take some adjusting on Sha'ul's part here especially- the new guy who, everywhere he went was going to see families and friends of those he had executed.
vs. 7 is often used as the clincher that Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. ‘akrobustia’ is Greek word used for uncircumcised Helps Word Studies also defines this term as meaning “a person outside God’s covenant.” If literal, the word means uncircumcised, but if figurative, it means outside the covenant/ in rebellion.
In context with the rest of scripture, this term must be translated figuratively, because Paul said “to the Jew first, then to the gentle.” To translate this literally is therefore a lie. You can’t take a passage out of context with the rest of scripture and translate it as you want. If Paul was being metaphorical in the first part, he must have been in the second as well. ‘eritomē’is the Greek word here used for circumcision. Metaphorically it means those separated from the unclean; set apart.
So here we have a part of the letter where the author works through some confusion on his part. A tough one to translate, the Greek scribe uses harsher terms than he probably should have, leading subsequent readers and translators alike to make false assumptions about Rav Sh'ul's character, or at least his mood when he speaks here. We take these ideas at face value and it sets the tone for all our readings in Galatians, if not of all the Pauline letters. And this was probably just a series of innocent mistakes not actually meant to change the original meaning.
As to the terms akrobustia’ and eritomē’, their mistranslations were at best incompetence, at worst an outright lie. The point here is not to lay blame or decide which of the two it is; rather to adjust our own understanding to the truth.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Questor on Apr 10, 2014 19:17:56 GMT -8
[/font][/font][/font] Questor, this is for you- straight from the teachings of Rabbi S. ... what, you thought I was smart enough to figure this all out on my own? The teaching that Paul was the apostle to the gentiles goes “When the Jews rejected Jesus, God turned to the gentiles and forsook the Jews.” This presupposes that God forsook the gentiles for 4000 yrs, then gave the Jews 3.5 yrs to decide whether to follow Jesus and now rejects them. This makes God out to be a monster, as well as ignores that many, poss even over half the Jews DID follow Yeshua. Also this ignores that the gentiles were always part of the plan. The role of the Jews was to make God available to all. Read the book of Jonah- he was sent to Nineva, the worst of the gentile nations to lead them to repentence and acceptance by God. Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Yir'meyahu also was a prophet to the nations, to the goyim- to the gentiles! So how does this theology follow? Rav Sha’ul was likening himself to Yir’meyahu, as Jer 1:5 and Gal 1:15 have very similar verbiage. Galatians 1:15 “But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace,”
I have an admiration for Paul's brilliance as the Catholic Church translates him, but prefer the Sh'aul that he was...teaching in the language, thought patterns, and idioms of the people he was leading to Yehoshua, whether Jew or Greek. I can make out the sincerity and truth of most of what Sh'aul says, because when the Catholic Church enters into the text, I find myself to be angry, and irritated at what is being said, particularly since it is usually in complete opposition to what Yehoshua and the 11 Apostles said.
Even so, I will not be taking on the yoke of the Mosaic Covenant, because I have access to the Renewed Covenant, and am taught by the Ruach haKosesh. And so, I will keep  , and teach to anyone I can, exactly as the Scriptures state, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have no doubt that I will be walking imperfectly in Yehoshua, but since all of us are, I don't get too worried about it.
I am always astonished at Christians who seem to think that YHVH didn't want the Jews to have the gospel...Yehoshua, and the Apostles always went to the Jews first, and in Yehoshua's case, if He taught or healed Gentiles, it was merely because they were there. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Apr 11, 2014 5:10:37 GMT -8
[/font][/font][/font] Even so, I will not be taking on the yoke of the Mosaic Covenant, because I have access to the Renewed Covenant, and am taught by the Ruach haKosesh. And so, I will keep , and teach to anyone I can, exactly as the Scriptures state, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have no doubt that I will be walking imperfectly in Yehoshua, but since all of us are, I don't get too worried about it. [/quote] How is the Mosaic Covenant different from ? |
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Apr 11, 2014 6:14:36 GMT -8
Shalom Jimmie, There is nothing about the Mosaic Covenant that is different than . One cannot be observant and be against the Mosaic Law so I wondering where Questor stands on this also. Hashem said it was not a burden and to not let anyone say it was yet we have Questor calling it a "YOKE" This is nothing different than what the -less church says so I think it needs farther discussed. Yedidyah |
|
|
|
Post by Questor on Apr 13, 2014 17:23:28 GMT -8
Shalom Jimmie, There is nothing about the Mosaic Covenant that is different than . One cannot be observant and be against the Mosaic Law so I wondering where Questor stands on this also. Hashem said it was not a burden and to not let anyone say it was yet we have Questor calling it a "YOKE" This is nothing different than what the -less church says so I think it needs farther discussed. Yedidyah
I fully understand that a Messianic Jew is presented with a package deal, so to speak, whether raised in Rabbinical Judaism, or Messianic Belief, because the Mishna and Talmud are so intertwined for those raised in the Jewish Culture.
Obeying everything in Scripture, in all of Scripture, is necessary if you want to please the G-d you love. It thus is my duty to G-d to do so, and though learning all of , and applying to my life is not easy, neither was learning all of the Brit Chadashah, and learning to apply it to my life.
Being the lone Messianic Believer in a small town of some 8,000 people makes adding it all on to my life difficult, because there are not Messianic Believers anywhere near me, and being obedient is difficult with no one to support your efforts by trying to do the same thing. For instance, I am nearly prepared for Passover, and will be glad of the extra day of rest, if only the others around me will just leave me alone. They, however, are not thinking of Passover, but of Easter, and a nice fat ham for dinner. Sigh. |
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Apr 13, 2014 17:43:35 GMT -8
Shalom Questor! So you do then indeed believe in following the Mosaic Law ( ) I was wondering how your previous post didn't match most of what I have seen you write here on the forum Thanks for explaining that always helps. Yedidyah |
|
|
|
Post by Questor on Apr 13, 2014 17:48:10 GMT -8
Also in the above, please understand that I speak of the Renewed Covenant in Yehoshua, rather than the Original Mosaic Covenant between YHVH and the Israelites, because the covenants are different.
The Mosaic Covenant, to me, consists of the entire Tanakh, the Mishna, and the Talmud, up until Yehoshua's death. At that point, the Renewed Covenant came into effect, fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant through Yehoshua for both Jews and Gentiles.
Not being Jewish, I was never a part of the Mosaic Covenant. I am not one of the Chosen People that hold the oracles of G-d, nor do I want to be, although I value greatly the Cultures and Traditions of Yehoshua. I was born and raised in the culture of the Anglo-Saxons, and prefer to stay within my culture unless I am called to change it by the Ruach haKodesh. That has not happened.
The Renewed Covenant holds all of the Tanakh, with the additional commandment to love other Believers in Yehoshua as Yehoshua loved us, but more critically, the enablement through the Ruach haKodesh to walk out the commandments. All of the commandments, of the mind and flesh, are being engraved in me by the Ruach, while the Ruach enables me to do the commandments more and more completely.
Thus, as a Messianic Gentile, I naturally fall into the Renewed Covenant. If it were not for the Renewed Covenant, the likelihood of my walking in the Mosaic Covenant is probably nil, so I value the Renewed Covenant very highly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Questor on Apr 13, 2014 17:54:46 GMT -8
Shalom Questor! So you do then indeed believe in following the Mosaic Law ( ) I was wondering how your previous post didn't match most of what I have seen you write here on the forum Thanks for explaining that always helps. Yedidyah
Learning to be Observant is what makes me Messianic as a Gentile.
The dividing point between being a Messianic Gentile, and a Christian is the obedience factor.
I delight in grace, but I am not trying to get more of it by breaking every commandment.  |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jun 9, 2014 6:58:58 GMT -8
I should have known ... My posts in this and other threads is being used elsewhere to validate the position that we should remove some scripture from the Bible. I NEVER advocated doing this! Please note:
My intent here is to say THINK when reading scripture, not to change any source documents.I will NOT become what I so vehemently oppose here, the latest redactor of scripture!!!Scripture is what it is, and God's truth is still there. But He gave us minds and promised His Ruach to help us understand His message and His intent. If you want to change scripture, please don't use me to validate your position. And know that if you do so here, I will vehemently oppose you.
'Nuff said.
Dan  C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jun 18, 2014 8:35:29 GMT -8
From My "I found out I was wrong" Thread:Don't laugh, you should have one too!  Instead of trying to find where I posted the error (if it bugs ya' just feel free to tell me where and I'll correct it), think I'll just post it here and be done. But we're all learning, and mistakes are inevitable. So here's mine to start off what promises to be a VERY long thread: Somewhere I said that scripture was not meant for everyone in Biblical Hebraic thought. Scrolls and letters were fragile and difficult to reproduce, and so the religious leaders in the synagogues were responsible for readings and interpreting scripture or giving answers. The priests would use the Urim and Thurim, or the stones on the Ephod to give answers to questions. Priests explained scripture or prophets explained God's will. This is true up to the Maccabean Revolt and the establishment of the Pharisees.
What I just learned from reading Joseph Shulam, a Messianic Jewish Rabbi, is that it was the Pharisees who introduced the concept that anyone could interpret scripture for themselves. They still wouldn't have had access to it outside the synagogue, but they could hear it read and make up their own minds what it meant, and how they were to aply it to their lives. Of course, both the descendants of the Pharisees (rabbis of the Common Era) and the catholic church were to turn this on its head again and exercise absolute control on people thoughts and actions. It wasn't until the Protestant Revolution that this idea resurfaced as a major concept.
My own opinion, the dogmatic approach of mainC and their failure to separate themselves completely from Catholicism again turned this idea around to a more control oriented venue, with just the façade of being free to interpret as we see fit. It wasn't until the reintroduction of the Natsarim/Messianics that we again became free to find the truth in scripture.Main point- it was the Pharisees who introduced the idea that everyone could interpret scripture for themselves. Therefore all scripture was for everyone. Moreover, this idea would have been one of the foundational concepts that made it possible for Messiah to come when He did! God's timing is awesome ... Dan (ever so humble  you betcha'!) C edit: found one place I said this, and have referenced back here- theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3329/galations-wrongSure, we can discuss it here. The 1st cen. congregants would still have only had access to the letters in Synagogue. However the attitude of many of them as they heard the letters read would have been one of discerning for themselves. They may have asked questions and had the scrolls opened so they as individuals or as a body could check and verify what was said. Basically the congregation would have had an active role in vetting the letters. The fact that the Jews at Berea were singled out for praise for doing something like this tells me two things; one, it did happen, and two it didn't happen that much, otherwise why single one group out for praise? Remember too there were other factions and sects in many synagogues who wouldn't quite have received this latest Phariscitic anomaly with gusto; they may have even tried to stonewall these efforts. The main benefit I see to this new idea was that the timing was perfect for the coming of HaMoshiach! People were more disposed to listen to what this young Rabbi, Yeshua, had to say and discern the truth of it for themselves. If we factor this idea into the rest of the Gospel stories, the cultural and political situation in the region as well as the known world at the time, we see more and more of how God's timing was perfect to send Yeshua at that very instant in time. At any other time in history, the rabbinical leadership was trying hard to keep a lid on this Messiah feller, and any other time they might have succeeded. But the population then kind of took to this man from the Galil. They made up their own minds He was the real deal, based more I think on His teachings than His miracles. All speculation, of course. But this is how I think the new idea that yu could discern and understand spiritual documents and sermons for yourself might have impacted the 1st cen. Jews. Dan C Dan C
|
|
- there are 70 faces to 
C
you betcha'!) C
