Any thoughts on this? No exploding heads please.

[Wrangler]

Here is a better translation

What’s better about it? Just curious.

 

[Illuminator]

I have asked you about this very topic SEVERAL times - and you ALWAYS fail to answer correctly. No WONDER why you're so confused.
Time for a History Lesson - and ALL of you Anti-Catholics need to pay attention here . . .

After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Rabbis established a rabbinical school in the Jewish city of at Jabneh (or Jamnia). It became center for Jewish political and religious political thought. Because the Temple had been destroyed in 70 AD – this school led by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137) redefined certain aspects of Judaism until the Temple could be restored.

One of the things discussed was use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) by early Christians.

They decided to eject 7 Books (and portions of Esther and Daniel) that they felt were “uninspired”. They provided a new Greek translation because the early Christians were converting the Jews using the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 years before the birth of Christ. According to historical sources, the rabbinical gathering at Jabneh was not even an "official" council with binding authority to make such a decision. It can be clearly shown that Jesus and the Apostles studied and quoted from these 7 Books. In the New Testament, we see almost 200 references to them.

The main advocate for removing the 7 Deuterocanonical Books was Rabbi Akiba, who was also known for proclaiming that a man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the “real” Messiah during the 2nd Jewish Revolt (circa 132 AD). It was during THIS time that the Jewish Canon had still been an OPEN Canon during the life of Christ was closed.

So, your Protestant Fathers chose to go with a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba).

This is who Protestants have chosen to follow instead of Christ’s Church, on whom He bestowed supreme earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Luther also had problems with many New Testament Books, which he sought to remove. The Book of Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude and the Book of Revelation were ALL on the chopping block. He referred to the Epistle of James as the “Epistle of Straw” because it stressed the importance of works, which he rejected. If it had NOT been for the urging of his contemporaries – men like Philip Melanchton – Protestant Bibles would have been MUCH thinner.

My advice to YOU is - pay attention to Church History or you will remain ignorant about God and His Word . . .

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 – 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic

Scripture Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents. Matt. 6:19-20 – Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 – lay up your treasure. Matt.. 7:12 – Jesus’ golden rule “do unto...

www.scripturecatholic.com

Furthermore, there is no evidence of a 66 book canon used as scripture in any church before the 14th century.​

 

[BreadOfLife]

;)

Actually – He’s against the endless splintering of Protestantism (1 Cor. 1:10-17) . . .

 

[Taken]

Actually – He’s against the endless splintering of Protestantism (1 Cor. 1:10-17) . . .

I would suppose He could care less on what day people eat fish, but that He does care who is making statues and bowing down before them.

 

[Wrangler]

God does not require oxygen or the nourishment of man or blood of man or will of man to reveal Himself.

Just an aside. This reminds me of how many non-believers reason for not believing is that they cannot accept WHY things unfolded the way they did.

Why not some other way, they lament?

God is sovereign and why (or us understanding why) he chose to reveal himself in the manner he did does not reduce our burden to subject ourselves to his rule.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I would suppose He could care less on what day people eat fish, but that He does care who is making statues and bowing down before them.

Time for another Bible Lesson . . .

Jesus, on t he Supreme earthly Athority of His Church:

Matt 16:16-19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

 

[David in NJ]

And would that change...

God purposed in himself?
Born of God?
Not born of blood?
Not born of the will of the flesh?
Not born of the will of man?

If so, How?


TY.

What did He sweat in the Garden?
What poured out from His stripes and wounds?
What poured out from His side on the Cross?

Genesis, Isaiah, Matthew, John, Acts, Hebrews, Phillippians, Revelation ch1

These all agree that a body was prepared by the Father for the Son in Mary's womb, with the complete functioning of the biological order that He Himself created = for His Divine Plan and Purpose.

Therefore the Scripture says (thus saith the Holy Spirit):
"The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[David in NJ]

Actually – He’s against the endless splintering of Protestantism (1 Cor. 1:10-17) . . .

that also is true

so now you can flee both and end up in His Loving Grace by which is the only WAY unto Eternal Life

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I wonder if a Greek scholar could make a good case for it actually better translating to, and reading differently in, English, more like…instead of “indulged in sexual perversions“ reading as “indulged sexual perversions.”

I know in my own language we sometimes use indulge to mean participate in something you like and sometimes use it to mean allowing, or permitting or encouraging another person to participate in something they like, even if it isn’t good for them (like with telling someone, don’t indulge them!)

There was a person on here who intimately knew Greek, with all the little intricacies of it, but I don’t remember who that person was.

 

[David in NJ]

I wonder if a Greek scholar could make a good case for it actually translating to, and reading differently in, English, more like…instead of “indulged in sexual perversions“ reading as “indulged sexual perversions.”

I know in my own language we sometimes use indulge to mean participate in something you like and sometimes use it to mean allowing another person to participate in something they like, even if it isn’t good for them (like with telling someone, don’t indulge them!)

That would not change the meaning of the text and the true meaning conveyed by the Holy Spirit beginning in/with Genesis.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

That would not change the meaning of the text and the true meaning conveyed by the Holy Spirit beginning in/with Genesis.

Of course it would…it would show two slightly different meanings being possible.

If in English I say, I’m not so hot, when translating the meaning to another language for someone, I would not do a word for word translation. Otherwise, they would think when someone said it, they intended to mean I’m comfortable Temperature wise. I would have to translate it NOT word for word for them to understand what is meant to be conveyed, which is, I’m not feeling so well, health wise. And I guess there could be even a third meaning someone from a different language could be confused by - thinking it was trying to convey something about feelings as in emotions and emotionally not feeling well or comfortable. But then, that is a different translating issue than the one we are discussing.

There are ALWAYS problems in translating from one language TO another. I don’t know if “in” should be there or not, honestly. I’m not a Hebrew expert. And even among experts in a language, there can be disagreements.

 

[David in NJ]

Of course it would…it would show two slightly different meanings being possible.

If in English I say, I’m not so hot, when translating the meaning to another language for someone, I would not do a word for word translation. Otherwise, they would think when someone said it, they intended to mean I’m comfortable Temperature wise. I would have to translate it NOT word for word for them to understand what is meant to be conveyed, which is, I’m not feeling so well, health wise.

OK, let's SEE
Angels that indulged sexual perversions with strange flesh

the true meaning remains intact = nothing changes

 

[BreadOfLife]

that also is true

so now you can flee both and end up in His Loving Grace by which is the only WAY unto Eternal Life

Ummmm, I'm not a Protestant - I'm Catholic.
I belong to Christ's Church.

By definition - a non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian is a Protestant.
Hope that helps . . .

 

[MatthewG]

What’s better about it? Just curious.

The reason why it is better is because it is much closer to what the original text is conveying. There are many different translations, and that is okay in my opinion. There translations that are more word-for-word, then you have thought-for-thought, then you have the paraphrased type. From my understanding in doing study under someone who finds that if you go and do word studies in the Hebrew and the greek, it expounds more into the overarching picture that is being conveyed.

complete guide to the 3 types of bible translations

Considering the strengths and weaknesses of each of the Bible translations, answering the question about which is the right one requires thoughtfulness.

bibledude.life

Therefore because of this reason, I believe the closer one can get to studying in the words that are used in the Bible, and even cross-referencing them from Old Testament, to New Testament, it helps in understanding what is being said with the words being expounded upon for the knowledge and comprehension of ones own studies which Paul encouraged Timothy to do, study to show thyself approved of God.

Thank you for your question, Wrangler,

May the God of peace be with you.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

OK, let's SEE
Angels that indulged sexual perversions with strange flesh

the true meaning remains intact = nothing changes

Not to me it doesn’t. It would have more the meaning of…indulged/permitted/encouraged unspeakable things to strange, or different, flesh.

 

[Taken]

Time for another Bible Lesson . . .

Jesus, on t he Supreme earthly Athority of His Church:

tell the church.

Time for Facts....

Christ’s Church are the Converted IN Christ, regardless of the Name plastered on a man made building, where men gather to PRAISE the Lord God...not humans.

Christ is the Head and Chief Corner Stone And ROCK of His Church.

Every man Converting IN Christ becomes stone upon stone of Christ’s Church....but not all are called “Peter”. Peter was simply the First stone added upon Christ who IS the ROCK of His Church.

The Meeting Buildings where the Church (People primarily Jews) first gathered together was IN established Synagogues.

Jews had had 4,000 years of LAWS, whereby, According to THE Law, men sinned again men. They themselves were Practicing in their Synagogues their same LAWS, while LEARNING ABOUT Christ Jesus.

Jews were relieved of the burden of “THEIR LAW”...not Gentiles.

Any man converted IN Christ who Binds the True Word of God ON Earth, so also shall it BE Bound IN Heaven and likewise the Same True Word of God Loosed ON Earth shall Be Loosed IN Heaven.

Seems you have ignored Gods KEEPING TRACK of mens works that Glorify God and His Promise of REWARDS unto every man WHOSE WORKS Glorify God.

 

[Taken]

What did He sweat in the Garden?
What poured out from His stripes and wounds?
What poured out from His side on the Cross?

His Prepared BLOOD.
What does that have to do with Mary’s Blood?

Genesis, Isaiah, Matthew, John, Acts, Hebrews, Phillippians, Revelation ch1

These all agree that a body was prepared by the Father for the Son in Mary's womb, with the complete functioning of the biological order that He Himself created = for His Divine Plan and Purpose.

Therefore the Scripture says (thus saith the Holy Spirit):
"The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

What does that have to do with Mary’s Blood?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Also, in English, having relations with another person can mean things Other than sex. Consider a question heard often in an English court - and can you describe for the court the nature of your relationship with this person?

It could be of a business relation, a friendship relation, an illicit/illegal relation, an intimate (but licit) sexual relation, among others.

 

[David in NJ]

Ummmm, I'm not a Protestant - I'm Catholic.
I belong to Christ's Church.

By definition - a non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian is a Protestant.
Hope that helps . . .

There is only One True Church of God and SHE is the Body of Christ made up of Living Stones that were brought to Life by the Call of the Father to the shed Blood of Christ and Born-Again by His Holy Spirit.

You should submit yourself unto Christ and depart from idolatry = as a former catholic myself, i now rejoice in His Forgiveness and Freedom.

 

[Nancy]

Also, in English, having relations with another person can mean things Other than sex. Consider a question heard often in an English court - and can you describe for the court the nature of your relationship with this person?

It could be of a business relation, a friendship relation, an illicit/illegal relation, an intimate (but licit) sexual relation, among others.

Soup to nuts!