The Conservative Cave

Interests => Religious Discussions => Christian Fellowship => Topic started by: Doc on March 23, 2010, 03:41:49 PM

Title: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Doc on March 23, 2010, 03:41:49 PM
Have you ever studied a portion of Scripture and come away completely confounded as to what the meaning of the passage was, or its intended lesson?  I know that I have, and on more than one occasion, resorted to some Biblical research, as well as historical inquiry, and also on more than one occasion, have discovered that the best explanation for my confusion was that those that transcribed the text......simply got it wrong.......

I submit to you....Matthew 19:24 (KJV)

Quote
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Now, at first glance this passage appears to advise us that the accumulation of wealth would make it difficult for us to find ourselves redeemed........however.......if we study Christian history, we will find that a number of Saints (for Catholics), as well as several of early Christian martyrs were "wealthy" in the earthly sense, so questions arise.....Lets look even deeper......

Let's parse this passage a bit and look at "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.....". This passage has been shouted from pulpits in Christian Churches for centuries, and on its face simply makes no sense whatsoever from a variety of perspectives.........

First historical perspective: In the first century AD, "needles", as common sewing implements were considerably different from those we use today.  Archaeologists have found samples of them in many locations in excavations in the Holy Land, and they are made from a variety of materials such as wood, bone, or for wealthier people, copper and even silver.......however they have one common characteristic.......they do not have "eyes".......needles of that era were fashioned in a manner that the thread, sinew, or yarn wrapped around a groove in the "needle" as it was passed through the fabric in order to sew.  Needles with "eyes", as defined as a hole in the device through which thread is passed were not invented until the eleventh century.

Now let's deal with the Camel.......

Most of the Old Testament was written in (ancient) Hebrew, with the exception of a few chapters in Ezra, and Daniel, which were written in Aramaic.  The New Testament was written (initially) in Aramaic, with the exception of a portion of Hebrews, which was expressed in Coptic.  Between the second and third centuries AD, the New Testament was translated into Koine Greek, by persons unknown, and the Aramaic Scriptures were forever lost, therefore, we must deal with the Greek texts.

The first (modern) translation was started by a man named John Wycliffe, and later finished by John Purvey, in 1388, under commission by King James, thus we have the KJV.  For the King James Bible, a group of over fifty scholars worked not only on the original Hebrew and Greek version of these books, but also utilized all of the then extant translations that had been made.  It was, in essence, translation "by committee", and therefore inevitable that mistakes would be made.

There are two very similar words in Koine Greek, camilos, meaning "rope", and camelos, meaning "Camel"........therefore, whoever was doing this portion of the translation misread the "i" in Greek for an "e"......and Churches have been stuck with this translation ever since.......

Now what is learned from this experience?  By substituting "rope" for "Camel" in the quoted verse, it certainly makes more sense generically, but we are still stuck with the anomalies of the "needle", and the meaning of the rest of the passage........considering the fact that some very devout, albeit wealthy, early Christians are known to exist.

We are left with another interpretive mystery that Biblical scholars will likely puzzle over for the rest of our days, but the moral of the story (if there is one) is for we Christians to be ever cautious of verbatim expressions of God's word, and seek the overall context from whence they came.

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: MrsSmith on March 23, 2010, 07:46:08 PM
Of course, everyone has heard that the "needle" was the name of a gate which was nearly too small for a camel...though some evidently now doubt that.  However:
Quote
Makes sense in Aramaic (http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm)
An alternative linguistic explanation is taken from George M Lamsa's Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta translation2 which has the word 'rope' in the main text but a footnote on Matthew 19:24 which states that the Aramaic word gamla means rope and camel, possibly because the ropes were made from camel hair. Evidence for this also comes from the 10th century Aramaic lexicographer Mar Bahlul who gives the meaning as a "a large rope used to bind ships". (cf. http://www.aramaicnt.org/HTML/LUKE/evidences/Camel.html)

Some have even suggested a pun in Aramaic between camel and gnat or louse from the Aramaic kalma 'vermin, louse'.

Just as the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Andrew3 refers the saying to a literal camel and needle, so we are not meant to reason away the apparent difficulty of getting a camel through a needle's eye. For the difficulty is not apparent it is real, and not be solved by textual trickery but by taking the ludicrous language at face value.

What we have instead then, I believe, is a beautiful Hebrew hyperbole, as in the tree sticking out of one's eye whilst one is removing a speck in another's eye! Indeed, Jewish Talmudic literature uses a similar aphorism about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as a figure of speech implying the unlikely or impossible:

    "They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle."4
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 23, 2010, 08:13:14 PM
I'm not seeing the difficulty.  It says "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."  It doesn't say it's impossible for it to take place.

This is simple an illustration by Jesus to make a point.  Rich people, in general, tend to put their trust in riches rather than God.  But that isn't always the case.  Two excellent examples of men who were wealthy in the Bible yet were obedient to God were Abraham and Job.

.

Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Carl on March 23, 2010, 08:16:17 PM
I have a copy of Bible Questions Answered by William Pettingill and he asserts that Jesus was saying that a mans riches can not buy his way into heaven but that still it must come from acceptance if Christ as his Saviour and admitting his sinful and depraved state before God.

"Jesus meant to teach that it is impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.But,thank God what is impossible for man is possible with God;and the way He saves a rich man is to make the rich man see that his riches are not his at all but Gods.
The rich man,like any other man,must come as a helpless,hopeless,naked and undone sinner and receive the unspeakable gift of God,which is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."


Was how he answered the question.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 23, 2010, 08:50:22 PM
I have a copy of Bible Questions Answered by William Pettingill and he asserts that Jesus was saying that a mans riches can not buy his way into heaven but that still it must come from acceptance if Christ as his Saviour and admitting his sinful and depraved state before God.

"Jesus meant to teach that it is impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.But,thank God what is impossible for man is possible with God;and the way He saves a rich man is to make the rich man see that his riches are not his at all but Gods.
The rich man,like any other man,must come as a helpless,hopeless,naked and undone sinner and receive the unspeakable gift of God,which is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."


Was how he answered the question.

Interesting answer......however, Christ's message was mostly direct and left little to interpretation.....why resort to hyperbole with this particular message? Particularly when most of his followers were (at that time) largely poor and uneducated. seems odd to me......

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 23, 2010, 08:53:16 PM
I'm not seeing the difficulty.  It says "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."  It doesn't say it's impossible for it to take place.

This is simple an illustration by Jesus to make a point.  Rich people, in general, tend to put their trust in riches rather than God.  But that isn't always the case.  Two excellent examples of men who were wealthy in the Bible yet were obedient to God were Abraham and Job.

Perhaps to you, but it still doesn't explain the eye of a "needle" that did not exist in those times......

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Doc on March 23, 2010, 09:07:06 PM
Of course, everyone has heard that the "needle" was the name of a gate which was nearly too small for a camel...though some evidently now doubt that.  However:

I have never heard this explanation.....where was this alledged gate?  This sounds like a pastor attempting to  explain that for which he had no explanation......and I've heard a number of those, referring to this passage, and questioned them about it, to wit, they acknoledged that the true meaning is open to interpretation.....

Needless to say, a goodly number of pastors have found me a troubling influence on their Bible study class......not because I'm a non-believer,, I'm certainly not.....it appears that some succomb to the sin  of vanity regarding their knowledge of Scripture.......but I digress.....

Quote
An alternative linguistic explanation is taken from George M Lamsa's Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta translation2 which has the word 'rope' in the main text but a footnote on Matthew 19:24 which states that the Aramaic word gamla means rope and camel, possibly because the ropes were made from camel hair. Evidence for this also comes from the 10th century Aramaic lexicographer Mar Bahlul who gives the meaning as a "a large rope used to bind ships". (cf. http://www.aramaicnt.org/...LUKE/evidences/Camel.html)

The problem with this is that in my OP.....and you are free to verify......the KJV texts were translated from Greek, not Aramaic.......so a translation error exists, as I stated.....and was verified by translation back into Aramaic, and then to English.....this quotation essentially verifies my initial argument....and even this scholar admits, tacitly, that his opinion is speculation....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Carl on March 23, 2010, 09:17:06 PM
Perhaps to you, but it still doesn't explain the eye of a "needle" that did not exist in those times......

doc

I am not sure that is correct.

http://www.edburrell.com/eye_of_the_needle33.html
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: MrsSmith on March 23, 2010, 09:33:53 PM
I have never heard this explanation.....where was this alledged gate?  This sounds like a pastor attempting to  explain that for which he had no explanation......and I've heard a number of those, referring to this passage, and questioned them about it, to wit, they acknoledged that the true meaning is open to interpretation.....

Needless to say, a goodly number of pastors have found me a troubling influence on their Bible study class......not because I'm a non-believer,, I'm certainly not.....it appears that some succomb to the sin  of vanity regarding their knowledge of Scripture.......but I digress.....

The problem with this is that in my OP.....and you are free to verify......the KJV texts were translated from Greek, not Aramaic.......so a translation error exists, as I stated.....and was verified by translation back into Aramaic, and then to English.....this quotation essentially verifies my initial argument....and even this scholar admits, tacitly, that his opinion is speculation....

doc
Did Jesus speak Greek?  Or Aramaic? 
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 23, 2010, 09:42:26 PM
Two excellent examples of men who were wealthy in the Bible yet were obedient to God were Abraham and Job.


True, but I'm gonna pick nits here......Job and Abraham were Jews......not Christians......the New Testament is where this is happening....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Doc on March 23, 2010, 09:46:05 PM
Did Jesus speak Greek?  Or Aramaic?  

He (supposedly) spoke Ancient Hebrew, from which Aramaic is derived......Aramaic was the only written language of the time, (and place), other than the Latin spoken by their Roman masters, and there is no direct evidence that Christ was able to write......hence it is doubtful that he was aware of the distinction

Aramaic, and the ability of the Jews to communicate in writing, evolved from the first diaspora, and the abiility was learned by the Jews in captivity.......the written form of the language (Aramaic) is actually a mixture of written expressions borrowed from earlier cultures, and transposed upon the language of Ancient Hebrew.....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: ChuckJ on March 24, 2010, 03:52:06 AM
Quote
First historical perspective: In the first century AD, "needles", as common sewing implements were considerably different from those we use today.  Archaeologists have found samples of them in many locations in excavations in the Holy Land, and they are made from a variety of materials such as wood, bone, or for wealthier people, copper and even silver.......however they have one common characteristic.......they do not have "eyes".......needles of that era were fashioned in a manner that the thread, sinew, or yarn wrapped around a groove in the "needle" as it was passed through the fabric in order to sew.  Needles with "eyes", as defined as a hole in the device through which thread is passed were not invented until the eleventh century.

I'm interested where you found the info about the ancient needles and the needle eye. All I've been able to find is as follows:

Needles from later than 17,500 BC already had the two features characteristic of the hand sewing needle today . . . the eye at one end and the tapering point at the other end. They were made from the materials available to human society at the time, for example, bones and antlers.

As people acquired skills in working metal materials, needles were also made from metal (Bronze Age approximately 7000 BC), first from copper, later from iron or bronze. Although there is no positive evidence as to the precise design of these needles, excellent pieces of embroidery from the pre-Christian era suggest that they were probably fashioned almost to perfection. Unfortunately, the articles made with these needles were only partially preserved and there are barely any traces of the needles themselves. This is largely explained by the effect of oxidation, which destroys metallic needles after a short time. Even needles made during the 19th century are now rarely found intact.
Needles (http://www.schmetzneedles.com/needlehistory.html)

Of course the above is from a needle seller's website and NOT from a historical website so I don't know how accurate it is.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: JohnnyReb on March 24, 2010, 05:43:35 AM
I have always had my own inturpretation of that verse.

I've always thought of it as meaning that if a man dealt fairly, honestly and truthfully with those that he aquired wealth from he had no problem entering heaven. But if he had aquired his wealth by dishonest means, he had a problem.

....and I'm no bible scholar so my thoughts lend little to this discussion.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: MrsSmith on March 24, 2010, 06:06:49 AM
He (supposedly) spoke Ancient Hebrew, from which Aramaic is derived......Aramaic was the only written language of the time, (and place), other than the Latin spoken by their Roman masters, and there is no direct evidence that Christ was able to write......hence it is doubtful that he was aware of the distinction

Aramaic, and the ability of the Jews to communicate in writing, evolved from the first diaspora, and the abiility was learned by the Jews in captivity.......the written form of the language (Aramaic) is actually a mixture of written expressions borrowed from earlier cultures, and transposed upon the language of Ancient Hegrew.....

doc
He could read, so there is no reason to think He couldn't write.  And, in point of fact, being God, it's quite likely He knew ALL languages...and was very able to make a point that would work in all languages while still being something that would cause His audience to remember, word for word.  This verse is not a translation error, nor obscure.  Riches are quite clearly not the path to Heaven, nor given as blessings to only those that obey God.  And both hyperbole and language tricks like puns are excellent ways to make something memorable.  I really don't see why you have a problem with it. 
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 24, 2010, 07:22:01 AM
Perhaps to you, but it still doesn't explain the eye of a "needle" that did not exist in those times......

doc

Ah, but they knew what it was, and that for a camel to get through wasn't easy.  While we might knock around what it was, the meaning is clear; that is, whatever the "eye of the needle" was, a camel had trouble making it through.  Once I understand that, the rest falls into place.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 24, 2010, 07:25:02 AM
True, but I'm gonna pick nits here......Job and Abraham were Jews......not Christians......the New Testament is where this is happening....

doc

No evidence Job was a Jew.  But regardless, it matters not.  The point being no matter when one lived upon the earth, those who have had riches tended to put their trust in riches and not God.

Besides, when Jesus said what we're discussing, they were still living under the Law of Moses (OT Law).

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 24, 2010, 11:51:28 AM
No evidence Job was a Jew.  But regardless, it matters not.  The point being no matter when one lived upon the earth, those who have had riches tended to put their trust in riches and not God.

Besides, when Jesus said what we're discussing, they were still living under the Law of Moses (OT Law).

.

My Rabbi friend would likely debate that point with you, but you are correct.....it matters not.....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 24, 2010, 12:23:31 PM
I am not sure that is correct.

http://www.edburrell.com/eye_of_the_needle33.html

Unfortunately these sources are dealing entirely with the scriptural aspect of the statement.....not the actuality that has been proven, factually and scientifically, for those times.   Because this individual says it in "spiritual:" context simply flys in the face of the scientific evidence that needles with "eyes" did not exist at that time.......Therefore, for me at least, I have to look for another explanation for the "needle" analogy.....

Quote
In Mark 10:25 the word for "eye" is TRUMALIA, which is related to the word TRUPAYMA in Matthew above and means hole, eye of a needle. The word for "needle" is the same as in Matthew above - RhAPHIS, a sewing needle. Again, this text brings out that Jesus was talking about a literal hole in a literal sewing needle.

I fully realize that you, as well as many Christians take these things at "face value".....that is perfectly fine.....however, as you and I have discussed before, I seek knowledge about what actually happened, and can be proven to have happened during those times......just a avocation of mine.....it in no way means that I don't believe that these events occurred, and that Christ's teachings are not real....it just means that in my study of Scripture I seek provable facts.....sometimes I find them, sometimes I don't.  When I don't, it doesn't diminish my faith that the events did happen.....it just means that I have not, as yet, found the evidence......

When my wife and I lived in the Middle East, we spent some time in Israel, touring the Holy Sites, and literally "walking in the footsteps of Christ".....and it was a wonderful experience......I also spent some time with Rabbinical scholars (Yashiva University), and Kabbalistic scholars, in an attempt to learn about the Jews, and their history.....I keep in contact via email with several of these scholars yet today, and continue to find that by better understanding the history of the Jewish people, the land, culture, and language, as well as  Judism in general,  my understanding of my Christian faith is greatly enhanced......

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 24, 2010, 12:54:40 PM
In the Babylonian Talmud there is a story of two rabbis arguing (like THAT could ever happen!). One dismissed the other's thesis as impossible by claiming it would be like trying to fit an elephant through the eye of a needle.

Jesus was a rabbi (In the original Greek he is called "rabboni" in a few NT passages). Even if he wasn't it is well within the realm of possibility hat he would be exposed to Talmudic teachings and would have heard this story. Other sayings of his, i.e. looking after a woman lustfully is still lust, ergo sin, can also be found in the Talmud.

Israel had no elephants (Babylon did). They had camels. Hence the reference modified for relevance to the audience.

Culturally, wealth was seen as a sign of divine blessing. If you were materially well-off, it was assumed, then God must smile on you. If God smiles on you enough to make you wealthy than anyone acting against you would act against God's intent.

Conversely, poverty would be seen as evidence of not being right with God. To afflict the poor would be of no consequence because God already afflicted them.

This declaration would do much to dispel those superstitions.

Too bad Pat Robertson never considered these facts when he attributed--however loosely--Haiti's poverty and travails from the earthquake to their history of pagan practices (last I heard the pagans nailed Jesus to a tree and they were quite rich and powerful for their day). Oh well, I simply assume he has come into his dotage.

Divine man or not Jesus seemed to go out of his way to dispel superstition, i.e. he never used the same method of healing twice. Sometimes he merely spoke, other times he laid hands, once he mixed spittle with dirt. I can only assume if he repeated a technique then the technique would have been the focus, not the healing or the person behind it. (Are you paying attention Mr. Hinn?) He seems to have taken great pains to dismiss the notion of God as a mere machine. Its almost as if he wanted God to be seen as...a person.

===========

Doc, are you sure about this declaration on needles not being around at the time of the NT's authoring?
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 24, 2010, 01:07:03 PM

He could read, so there is no reason to think He couldn't write.

You are possibly correct that he could read, as the New Testament advises us that he studied in the Temple as a youth, under the scholars of the day.....however, the skill of "writing" was closely held by the Temple scribes, and was a mark of high status in Jewish society at that time.....there is no proof that he could write.....this is at least tacitly supported by the fact that none of his teachings were committed to text until at least half a century after his death.......regarding your statement that as God, he was all-knowing, perhaps you are correct, but he, alas did not demonstrate that characteristic to us.....so far as literacy is concerned.

Quote
being God, it's quite likely He knew ALL languages...and was very able to make a point that would work in all languages while still being something that would cause His audience to remember, word for word.

And you are certainly welcome to accept that as a matter of "faith" however, we are dealing with what can be reinforced by empirical evidence.

Quote
This verse is not a translation error, nor obscure.

Sorry, but your own rebuttal post stated that it is likely an error, and the scholar that you referenced indicated that his opinion was supposition.....in other words, his "best guess".

Quote
And both hyperbole and language tricks like puns are excellent ways to make something memorable.  I really don't see why you have a problem with it. 

True, my observation was that it was "unusual" considering His audience.....and I have a problem with it because it is an obvious translation/interpretation error.

As you and I have debated before.....You are perfectly free to accept the present Bible Scriptures as "word for word" absolute......I don't, and your continuing to assert that they are, without evidence to back that assertion up,  is not going to change my mind.  Nor is it going to make it empirically correct.......if it enhances your faith, I'm happy for you, but one of the problems that I have with some groups and aspects of modern Christian teaching is the "It's my way or the highway" attitude........

I post these subjects for members to read that are interested in the history and roots of Christianity, its facts, and inconsistancies.....it is a tool that I offer to those that are interested in challenging their preconceptions, and becoming more comfortable with Christ's teachings.......if these humble offerings don't do that for you, you don't have to participate.

I'm not trying to challenge anyone's faith, merely stimulate thought and offer knowledge.....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Doc on March 24, 2010, 01:14:56 PM
Quote
Jesus was a rabbi (In the original Greek he is called "rabboni" in a few NT passages). Even if he wasn't it is well within the realm of possibility hat he would be exposed to Talmudic teachings and would have heard this story. Other sayings of his, i.e. looking after a woman lustfully is still lust, ergo sin, can also be found in the Talmud.

Israel had no elephants (Babylon did). They had camels. Hence the reference modified for relevance to the audience.

Culturally, wealth was seen as a sign of divine blessing. If you were materially well-off, it was assumed, then God must smile on you. If God smiles on you enough to make you wealthy than anyone acting against you would act against God's intent.

Conversely, poverty would be seen as evidence of not being right with God. To afflict the poor would be of no consequence because God already afflicted them.

This declaration would do much to dispel those superstitions.


Excellent!  A very plausable explanation.....as I've grown to expect from you Sir....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 24, 2010, 01:31:30 PM
Quote
Doc, are you sure about this declaration on needles not being around at the time of the NT's authoring?

Another member asked the same question on the first page, and I hadn't gotten around to it as yet......

My source for the statement is the Smithsonian Institution, and a display in the Museum of Science and Industry, which traces the development of modern sewing tools.......according to this exhibit, the needle existed as far back as 5000 BC, however needles made with actual holes for thread were not around prior to the eleventh century.......a variety of other methods for guiding the thread were employed.....grooves, hooks, forks, but no "holes"...

Mrs Doc was a terrific seamstress, and had particular interest in that display when we visited, so I picked up a brochure on it in the gift shop......I don't know if it is on the net, but I'll look for a link........

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 24, 2010, 02:44:27 PM
My Rabbi friend would likely debate that point with you, but you are correct.....it matters not.....

doc

My study has led me to believe that Job lived prior to Abraham.

.....there is no proof that he could write..... but he, alas did not demonstrate that characteristic to us.....so far as literacy is concerned.

John 8:6 - "This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not."

Don't know what he wrote, but he wrote something.

Jesus was a rabbi

In those cases, it would be better intrepreted to be the word "teacher."  Priests (rabbis) could only be from the tribe of Levi.  Jesus was from the tribe of Judah.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Wineslob on March 24, 2010, 03:33:48 PM
Quote
In those cases, it would be better intrepreted to be the word "teacher."  Priests (rabbis) could only be from the tribe of Levi.  Jesus was from the tribe of Judah.

I'm not sure that he was not. He was referred to as Rabbi several times I think? If true it would explain the supposition that he was married. The "proof" is the ceremony where his feet are anointed with oil, which is reserved for a man and wife (the wife uses her hair). This could be evidence of his own wealth (the oil was expensive) and position in society, which could lead to an explanation about his education.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 24, 2010, 03:43:23 PM
I'm not sure that he was not. He was referred to as Rabbi several times I think? If true it would explain the supposition that he was married. The "proof" is the ceremony where his feet are anointed with oil, which is reserved for a man and wife (the wife uses her hair). This could be evidence of his own wealth (the oil was expensive) and position in society, which could lead to an explanation about his education.

I'm sure.  His geneology is through David, who was the tribe of Judah.  And Jewish priests in the OT were allowed to marry, however Jesus was not married.  His purpose here was of the spiritual, not the physical.  Jesus, in the passage, explains why he permitted Mary to anoint his feet with perfume.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Doc on March 24, 2010, 04:03:02 PM
I'm sure.  His geneology is through David, who was the tribe of Judah.  And Jewish priests in the OT were allowed to marry.  Jesus, in the passage, explains why he permitted Mary to anoint his feet with perfume.

.

USAforMe is correct about the absolute use of the title "Rabbi", as the qualifications for the distinction are well established in Jewish Law, however I suspect that he might have also tripped over another "interpretation" error in our current Bible, inasmich as Christ was, in fact a "teacher", and at least in orthodox terms, the translation of the  modern Hebrew word "Rabbi" is most commonly "teacher"....

Often the case with ancient writings, especially in dead languages, is that they often do not translate well to English, or any other modern language for that matter......hence the discussion....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 24, 2010, 04:10:51 PM
USAforMe is correct about the absolute use of the title "Rabbi", as the qualifications for the distinction are well established in Jewish Law, however I suspect that he might have also tripped over another "interpretation" error in our current Bible, inasmich as Christ was, in fact a "teacher", and at least in orthodox terms, the translation of the word modern Hebrew word "Rabbi" is most commonly "teacher"....

Actually, I got it from John 1:38

"Then Jesus turned, and seeing them following, said to them, “What do you seek?”
They said to Him, “Rabbi” (which is to say, when translated, Teacher), “where are You staying?”"

I believe the same word can also be translated "master."

But there's no way priests (rabbis) can be from the tribe of Judah, which would mean if they were in fact calling Him a rabbi, they called Him something he couldn't be, and He didn't correct them.  I have no reason to believe Jesus would allow that, so they were saying "teacher."

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 24, 2010, 04:12:47 PM
In those cases, it would be better intrepreted to be the word "teacher."  Priests (rabbis) could only be from the tribe of Levi.  Jesus was from the tribe of Judah.

You're thinking of the kohenim and they had specific priestly duties vis-a-vis sacrifices and such.

Rabbi is the term for teacher and can apply to any person of due scholarship.

The Greek term rabboni is a transliteration of rabbi and would have no other reasonable application. Greeks had priests, but no rabbis.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 24, 2010, 04:18:25 PM
Rabbi is the term for teacher and can apply to any person of due scholarship.

I agree, they were calling Him rabbi as in "teacher."

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: MrsSmith on March 24, 2010, 05:47:41 PM
You are possibly correct that he could read, as the New Testament advises us that he studied in the Temple as a youth, under the scholars of the day.....however, the skill of "writing" was closely held by the Temple scribes, and was a mark of high status in Jewish society at that time.....there is no proof that he could write.....this is at least tacitly supported by the fact that none of his teachings were committed to text until at least half a century after his death.......regarding your statement that as God, he was all-knowing, perhaps you are correct, but he, alas did not demonstrate that characteristic to us.....so far as literacy is concerned.

And you are certainly welcome to accept that as a matter of "faith" however, we are dealing with what can be reinforced by empirical evidence.

Sorry, but your own rebuttal post stated that it is likely an error, and the scholar that you referenced indicated that his opinion was supposition.....in other words, his "best guess".

True, my observation was that it was "unusual" considering His audience.....and I have a problem with it because it is an obvious translation/interpretation error.

As you and I have debated before.....You are perfectly free to accept the present Bible Scriptures as "word for word" absolute......I don't, and your continuing to assert that they are, without evidence to back that assertion up,  is not going to change my mind.  Nor is it going to make it empirically correct.......if it enhances your faith, I'm happy for you, but one of the problems that I have with some groups and aspects of modern Christian teaching is the "It's my way or the highway" attitude........

I post these subjects for members to read that are interested in the history and roots of Christianity, its facts, and inconsistancies.....it is a tool that I offer to those that are interested in challenging their preconceptions, and becoming more comfortable with Christ's teachings.......if these humble offerings don't do that for you, you don't have to participate.

I'm not trying to challenge anyone's faith, merely stimulate thought and offer knowledge.....

doc
It would seem that He demonstrated His literacy quite well, given that His words have been memory-catching enough to be translated and quoted in every human language. 

That He is God is somewhat more than something a Christian "takes on faith."  It is, rather, a foundational fact.

The verse is in no way mistranslated, despite your efforts to make something quite obvious into something obscure.  The meaning of the verse is even clear to small children...so long as they have ever seen a camel.  That the verse may have been a pun in the original language can ADD some knowledge, but it doesn't change it or make it incorrectly translated in any way.  English simply doesn't have the same depth to the same words.  That's why those that really want the depth study the original language.

There is nothing inconsistent about Christianity.    Given that it is God's invention, it can't be inconsistent.  At most, we could say that many people do not have the knowledge to understand it, but that doesn't make it inconsistent.  It merely means that those who "discover" inconsistancies need to look into them until they are cleared up in that person's mind.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 24, 2010, 05:53:23 PM
The verse is in no way mistranslated, despite your efforts to make something quite obvious into something obscure. 

You are entitled to your opinion regardless of how presumptuous it may be.....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: MrsSmith on March 24, 2010, 06:13:58 PM
You are entitled to your opinion regardless of how presumptuous it may be.....

doc
:-)
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: ChuckJ on March 25, 2010, 03:57:28 PM
Another member asked the same question on the first page, and I hadn't gotten around to it as yet......

My source for the statement is the Smithsonian Institution, and a display in the Museum of Science and Industry, which traces the development of modern sewing tools.......according to this exhibit, the needle existed as far back as 5000 BC, however needles made with actual holes for thread were not around prior to the eleventh century.......a variety of other methods for guiding the thread were employed.....grooves, hooks, forks, but no "holes"...

Mrs Doc was a terrific seamstress, and had particular interest in that display when we visited, so I picked up a brochure on it in the gift shop......I don't know if it is on the net, but I'll look for a link........

doc

The Smithsonian Institute MAY be incorrect. If found several incidents of eyes much earlier then the 11th century.

Here's one link: ancient bone needle (http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/piclib/www/image.php?img=52510&frm=ser&search=bone)
Here's another: OId Needle (http://opencontext.org/media/1736_DT_Res)

And one more at: More needle info (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/stoneage/tool-nf.html)

The info at the above site says:
    
Needle
This artifact was used for stitching hides.

Stone Age technology included delicate sewing needles made of bone with punched eyeholes. They were probably used in tandem with thread fashioned from plant fibers or animal sinew. Archeologists have found bone needles dating to within the past 20,000 years in Europe and North America, where they might have facilitated clothing and boat production.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 25, 2010, 04:47:23 PM
The Smithsonian Institute MAY be incorrect. If found several incidents of eyes much earlier then the 11th century.

Here's one link: ancient bone needle (http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/piclib/www/image.php?img=52510&frm=ser&search=bone)
Here's another: OId Needle (http://opencontext.org/media/1736_DT_Res)

And one more at: More needle info (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/stoneage/tool-nf.html)

The info at the above site says:
    
Needle
This artifact was used for stitching hides.

Stone Age technology included delicate sewing needles made of bone with punched eyeholes. They were probably used in tandem with thread fashioned from plant fibers or animal sinew. Archeologists have found bone needles dating to within the past 20,000 years in Europe and North America, where they might have facilitated clothing and boat production.


Probably correct......I had only the one source, the needle was a minor mystery, but the real  point, at least for me was the "Camel-rope" thing......

My overriding objective in these discussions is to illuminate the fact that it is frequently dangerous to rely on verbatim quotations when studing Scripture......as was pointed out in the "Armageddon" thread, more modern translations of the Scriptures are addressing these obvious errors (even though the "fundamentalists" among us refuse to acknowledge this), and clarifying the texts in order to make them more understandable to English (and other) Christians......

As I also mentioned in that thread, I was raised in an era where the KJV was all there was, and many still use it......when looking at the Armageddon exerpt from the other thread, it becomes clear that there have been great advances in translation and understanding of the origional languages.....between 1388, when the KJV was finalized, until today......over 700 years of study and knowledge.........as a result, the texts have subtly changed.

Although studying the KJV in context, considering the story as an overall entity (and not relying on verbatim passages) will give you the message certainly.....it is not without confusion, considering its age.......

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 26, 2010, 10:05:51 AM
The verse is in no way mistranslated, despite your efforts to make something quite obvious into something obscure...

Even if it weren't mistranslated it seems to ahve been horribly misexplained over the centuries.

Christians are not exempt for accumulating folklore.

It seems to me the modern church is fevered with the notion of divorcing itself from all vestiges of the OT except when they need the OT to prove a point for their personal benefit. Every teaching, every prophecy, every injunction and every observance spoken of by Jesus in the NT has an OT precedent and many more--such as the aforementioned needle illustration--have extra-scriptural origins, i.e. rabbinic lore.

I'm told that all matters OT were done away with upon the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet, the death, resurrection and ascension of the NT correspond exactly with OT rituals. Mistranslation?

I'm told christians are not "under the law" but when I ask if they are free to commit murder and adultery the answer is no and I'm directed to Pauline instructions forbidding such things. Yet, Paul was never designated as being a lawgiver and any law he set forth he gained from the OT.

I'm told the Jewish rituals are for Jews. Yet, I've never read an injunction FORBIDDING the goyim from participating in Jewish ritual...so long as their participation was joyous and sincere, even in the NT. Moreover, scripture is pretty thick with warnings against allowing pagan rituals to infect the ecclesia. Certainly anyone claiming OT observances were corrupted by the cynical gamesmanship of false piety cannot possibly defend X-mas from the same charges.

I'm told the NT sets out a covenant from God himself that can never be repealed. Oddly, God said the same thing about the OT. Unless God is two-faced or a liar methinks the answer would have to be seen as an amalgamation of covenants.

It seems to me that if proper exegesis is the issue than cultural, historical and scriptural context makes all the difference. I know plenty of denominations warn heavily against Jewish "corruptions" of NT theology but from what I have heard over the years is scripture should trump loyalties to human inventions.

If I were a church-going bunny and I had a preacher that insisted a passage should be interpreted as X but there were no historical, cultural or scriptural basis for his interpretation but then I found sources elsewhere that very soundly established a basis for a different interpretation I would be strongly motivated to ask him if perhaps further study was warranted. If he persisted with his interpretation without basis and evidence to the contrary continued to grow against him I would then begin to question my on-going presence within his congregation. He may be the sweetest indiviual in town but if he is selling me a bill of goods and cannot be swayed by evidence of plain truth then perhaps he is too entrenched in tradition and tradition is no trump to truth...or maybe I am just a disruptor who should remove himself for the betterment of all.

Still, being mislead whether innocently or not is something I cannot endure. One of us must go. That's why I walked away from the liberalism of my upbringing.

DISCLAIMER: I am neither Jewish nor Christian. I am an observer who takes words at their face value and wonders what all the fuss is about.

flame on
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 26, 2010, 12:23:05 PM
Even if it weren't mistranslated it seems to ahve been horribly misexplained over the centuries.

Christians are not exempt for accumulating folklore.

It seems to me the modern church is fevered with the notion of divorcing itself from all vestiges of the OT except when they need the OT to prove a point for their personal benefit. Every teaching, every prophecy, every injunction and every observance spoken of by Jesus in the NT has an OT precedent and many more--such as the aforementioned needle illustration--have extra-scriptural origins, i.e. rabbinic lore.

I'm told that all matters OT were done away with upon the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet, the death, resurrection and ascension of the NT correspond exactly with OT rituals. Mistranslation?

I'm told christians are not "under the law" but when I ask if they are free to commit murder and adultery the answer is no and I'm directed to Pauline instructions forbidding such things. Yet, Paul was never designated as being a lawgiver and any law he set forth he gained from the OT.

I'm told the Jewish rituals are for Jews. Yet, I've never read an injunction FORBIDDING the goyim from participating in Jewish ritual...so long as their participation was joyous and sincere, even in the NT. Moreover, scripture is pretty thick with warnings against allowing pagan rituals to infect the ecclesia. Certainly anyone claiming OT observances were corrupted by the cynical gamesmanship of false piety cannot possibly defend X-mas from the same charges.

I'm told the NT sets out a covenant from God himself that can never be repealed. Oddly, God said the same thing about the OT. Unless God is two-faced or a liar methinks the answer would have to be seen as an amalgamation of covenants.

It seems to me that if proper exegesis is the issue than cultural, historical and scriptural context makes all the difference. I know plenty of denominations warn heavily against Jewish "corruptions" of NT theology but from what I have heard over the years is scripture should trump loyalties to human inventions.

If I were a church-going bunny and I had a preacher that insisted a passage should be interpreted as X but there were no historical, cultural or scriptural basis for his interpretation but then I found sources elsewhere that very soundly established a basis for a different interpretation I would be strongly motivated to ask him if perhaps further study was warranted. If he persisted with his interpretation without basis and evidence to the contrary continued to grow against him I would then begin to question my on-going presence within his congregation. He may be the sweetest indiviual in town but if he is selling me a bill of goods and cannot be swayed by evidence of plain truth then perhaps he is too entrenched in tradition and tradition is no trump to truth...or maybe I am just a disruptor who should remove himself for the betterment of all.

Still, being mislead whether innocently or not is something I cannot endure. One of us must go. That's why I walked away from the liberalism of my upbringing.

DISCLAIMER: I am neither Jewish nor Christian. I am an observer who takes words at their face value and wonders what all the fuss is about.

flame on

Very good!   

Which plays right into my next thread......"The Crisis in American Christendom"

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 26, 2010, 12:54:53 PM
It seems to me the modern church is fevered with the notion of divorcing itself from all vestiges of the OT except when they need the OT to prove a point for their personal benefit. Every teaching, every prophecy, every injunction and every observance spoken of by Jesus in the NT has an OT precedent and many more--such as the aforementioned needle illustration--have extra-scriptural origins, i.e. rabbinic lore.

The OT was the schoolmaster to lead us to Christ.

Gal 3:24 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Quote from:
I'm told that all matters OT were done away with upon the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet, the death, resurrection and ascension of the NT correspond exactly with OT rituals. Mistranslation?

I'm not even sure what the means.  Christ fulfilled all prophesy.  Maybe that was what you are making reference.

Quote from:
I'm told christians are not "under the law" but when I ask if they are free to commit murder and adultery the answer is no and I'm directed to Pauline instructions forbidding such things. Yet, Paul was never designated as being a lawgiver and any law he set forth he gained from the OT.

Christians are not uder the Old Law, but the New.  And Paul was an Apostle.  The Apostles were called ambassadors.  The were also called earthen vessels.  It was through the Apostles that the Spirit of God continued to instruct the saints after Christ had assended back to the Father.  That was their purpose.  Paul even notes that the very things he said when presenting the gospel were of God.

I Cor. 2:4 "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."

Quote from:
I'm told the NT sets out a covenant from God himself that can never be repealed. Oddly, God said the same thing about the OT. Unless God is two-faced or a liar methinks the answer would have to be seen as an amalgamation of covenants.

Please quote that book, chapter and verse.  I think you're confusing the term "end of the age"  to mean the end of all time, but until you point out where you formed the idea, that's just a guess.

Quote from:
It seems to me that if proper exegesis is the issue than cultural, historical and scriptural context makes all the difference. I know plenty of denominations warn heavily against Jewish "corruptions" of NT theology but from what I have heard over the years is scripture should trump loyalties to human inventions.

Personally, it seems to have been more of a problem with the early church as there were "judiazing teachers" that wanted to mix Jewish law with the law of Christ.  Specifically, they were teaching that circumcision was still required under the New Law, which it wasn't.

Quote from:
If I were a church-going bunny and I had a preacher that insisted a passage should be interpreted as X but there were no historical, cultural or scriptural basis for his interpretation but then I found sources elsewhere that very soundly established a basis for a different interpretation I would be strongly motivated to ask him if perhaps further study was warranted. If he persisted with his interpretation without basis and evidence to the contrary continued to grow against him I would then begin to question my on-going presence within his congregation. He may be the sweetest indiviual in town but if he is selling me a bill of goods and cannot be swayed by evidence of plain truth then perhaps he is too entrenched in tradition and tradition is no trump to truth...or maybe I am just a disruptor who should remove himself for the betterment of all.

I would agree, emphasis on the "scriptural basis" far and above the "historical and cultural."

Quote from:
flame on

Nah.  I must say I don't see this as a translation error in that it can be understood what was being said.  A translation error to me is like Acts 12:4.

"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Now that's a mistranslation.  The word should have never been translated "Easter," but rather "Passover."  Other translations caught it and correctly translated, but the KJV didn't.

But a passage though which with a little study I can understand what message is being presented, like this eye of needle and camel thing, not so much.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 26, 2010, 02:21:20 PM
The OT was the schoolmaster to lead us to Christ.

Gal 3:24 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."
Yes, but once a lesson is learned the teachings are not abandoned, are they?

If you studied classical Hebrew and passed your final exam would you do away with every lesson you ahd learned or would you take what you had learned and use it to deepen your studies with something more meaningful?

Quote
I'm not even sure what the means.  Christ fulfilled all prophesy.  Maybe that was what you are making reference.
He was crucified on Passover, resurrected on First Fruits and ascended on Shavuots.

Shavuot was the 50th day after the weekly Sabbath following Passover; seven weeks, plus one day. Pentecost, translated, is "50th day." The Book of Acts even notes people were in Jerusalem to mark that festival.

Each major event of the Passion resides within the Jewish liturgical calendar. Is this mere coincidence or is it part and parcel of the narrative?

Is it merely a crass irony that the pillar of flame that issued the 10 Commandments 50 days after the 1st Passover appeared as a tongue of flame over the congregants in Jerusalem (who were markedly devoid of goyim at the time)?

Can ignorance of the Jewish liturgical calendar be condoned when the church has spent centuries tying itself into interpretive knots trying to justify a Sunday resurrection when the reality is Passover is one of 7 annual "high Sabbaths" in addition to the weekly Sabbath. Thus the need to twist the 2 sabbaths mentioned in the NT while still maintaining the Sabbath resurrection 3 days later becomes obviated.

Quote
Christians are not uder the Old Law, but the New.  And Paul was an Apostle.  The Apostles were called ambassadors.  The were also called earthen vessels.  It was through the Apostles that the Spirit of God continued to instruct the saints after Christ had assended back to the Father.  That was their purpose.  Paul even notes that the very things he said when presenting the gospel were of God.
Apostle, by definition means: eye witness, not ambassador. Evangelicals would be a more exacting term and that requires no eyewitness observations.

Even still there are no new commandments, save, "love one another as I have loved you." No NT writer ever invented a new commandment. The prohibitions against drunkeness, adultery, unwarranted violence, lying etc were already well established...in the OT.

Quote
I Cor. 2:4 "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."
I repeat, no human since Moses has communicated a wholly new commandment.

Quote
Please quote that book, chapter and verse.  I think you're confusing the term "end of the age"  to mean the end of all time, but until you point out where you formed the idea, that's just a guess.

Ex 31:16 calls the sabbath observance the reminder of a perpetual covenant.

Now, some "replacement" theologians have argued that Israel has been--well--replaced and thus any reference to Israel means "christians." I find fault with this argument on several grounds:

* In Romans Paul says one day all Israel will be saved. If Israel = christian this becomes a mindless tautalogy that says, "One day the saved will be saved."

* the Sabbath is still the Sabbath and that ain't Sunday.

* such doctrines seem to accuse God of having chosen poorly

* if Israel can be replaced...so can you

* such difficulties are compounded in light of the doctrine of the trinity. If Jesus is God and God is Jesus then Jesus was the author of the Mosaic laws. Correct if I am wrong but no member of the trinity sits above the others.

Quote
Personally, it seems to have been more of a problem with the early church as there were "judiazing teachers" that wanted to mix Jewish law with the law of Christ.  Specifically, they were teaching that circumcision was still required under the New Law, which it wasn't.
Understood, but who should I fear more: judaizing teachers or paganizing teachers?

Or both?

I would reason that if the OT was the "letter" of the law and the NT would be the "spirit" of the law. In such a discussion we are told that looking on a woman lustfully is as much a sin as adultery. "But I never touched her!" seems a poor defence when the charge is, "You sexually objectified one of my beloved creations." It still betrays a corrosion of the soul that dehumanizes a woman into a mere sexual outlet to be used and discarded with no concern for her as a unique person with an eternal destiny.

Now, this spiritual aspect of the commandment "Thou shall not commit adultery" does nothing to abrogate the original letter of the law. It raises the bar, not lower or abolish the bar. Indeed, if all woman were viewed as unique beings with eternal destinies, beloved by their creator and not to be objectified to one's selfish gain then commandments against adultery would be unwarranted.

It seems Jesus is telling people 1) do the right thing FOR THE RIGHT REASON, not just because you're trying to demand a place in heaven as if God were a subway ticket machine and 2) oh, by the way, get off your high horse cuz I know y'all are guilty as sin

If a man held murderous hate towards his brother but never struck him down would that make him a pious man or simply a man that feared the consequences of civil (or spiritual) authorities? If only the latter it would serve him poorly to stand before his maker and claim rights to Heaven based on having never struck a fellow man in anger.

(NOTE: I feel very peculiar making this line of argument as I am pretty much an avowed nihilistic hedonist. Still, I can understand why certain commandments would be given if one were to take a spiritual tack. Sort of a "devil's advocate" if I may be permitted the ill-fitting pun.)

Thank-you for your conversation.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 26, 2010, 03:15:47 PM
Yes, but once a lesson is learned the teachings are not abandoned, are they?

If you studied classical Hebrew and passed your final exam would you do away with every lesson you ahd learned or would you take what you had learned and use it to deepen your studies with something more meaningful?

The lesson learned was that Christ was the fullfilment of prophecy.

Quote from:
He was crucified on Passover, resurrected on First Fruits and ascended on Shavuots.  Shavuot was the 50th day after the weekly Sabbath following Passover; seven weeks, plus one day. Pentecost, translated, is "50th day." The Book of Acts even notes people were in Jerusalem to mark that festival.

Each major event of the Passion resides within the Jewish liturgical calendar. Is this mere coincidence or is it part and parcel of the narrative?

Is it merely a crass irony that the pillar of flame that issued the 10 Commandments 50 days after the 1st Passover appeared as a tongue of flame over the congregants in Jerusalem (who were markedly devoid of goyim at the time)?

Can ignorance of the Jewish liturgical calendar be condoned when the church has spent centuries tying itself into interpretive knots trying to justify a Sunday resurrection when the reality is Passover is one of 7 annual "high Sabbaths" in addition to the weekly Sabbath. Thus the need to twist the 2 sabbaths mentioned in the NT while still maintaining the Sabbath resurrection 3 days later becomes obviated.

I agree, there are parallels to be made between what God had the Israelites do, events that happened in the OT, and the life and death of Christ.  Hence why it is called a schoolmaster that pointed to Christ.

Quote from:
Apostle, by definition means: eye witness, not ambassador.

Not what I said.  The scriptures calls the Apostles "ambassadors," an ambassador being an authorized messenger or representative.

2 Cor. 5:20 - "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

Quote from:
Even still there are no new commandments, save, "love one another as I have loved you." No NT writer ever invented a new commandment. The prohibitions against drunkeness, adultery, unwarranted violence, lying etc were already well established...in the OT.

I repeat, no human since Moses has communicated a wholly new commandment.

I completely disagree.  The Sabbath was changed to the first day of the week.  The establishment of taking the Lord's Supper to remember the death of Christ was made.  The guidelines for the appointment of elders and deacons in the church was given.

Now, if your point is that the day of worship was simply moved, but worshipping isn't a new commandment; or that the Lord's Supper was a carry-over of the unleaven bread and fruit of the vine from the Passover feast that was simply reissued for another purpose; or that elders and deacons are still part of the organization of worship just like the priests of old; then on that we can agree.  However, when you say to me "no new commandments," to me that means if one were to do the old commandments, they would still be OK, with which I disagree.  The new commandments (or as you might view it, "updated" commandments) are the one's to be followed now.

Quote from:
Ex 31:16 calls the sabbath observance the reminder of a perpetual covenant.

... through their generations (of Israel).  "Perpetual" doesn't always mean forever in Jewish writings and there are several cases of this type of wordage being used in the OT to describe the end of a period or the end of an age, but I'm not in the place where I keep those references as I type this out so I can't forward the books and articles to read on the topic.  The end of the age of the law of Moses was when the New Law was established.  Which brings us to...

Quote from:
Now, some "replacement" theologians have argued that Israel has been--well--replaced and thus any reference to Israel means "christians." I find fault with this argument on several grounds:

Easy to explain.  The Old Law was a physical law.  The New Law is a spiritual law.  The Old Law was written for "physical Israel," and the New Law is for "spiritual Israel," that is, Christians.

Quote from:
Understood, but who should I fear more: judaizing teachers or paganizing teachers?

False teachers of any kind is who to fear, whether they be judaizing, pagan, or other.

Quote from:
It seems Jesus is telling people 1) do the right thing FOR THE RIGHT REASON, not just because you're trying to demand a place in heaven as if God were a subway ticket machine and 2) oh, by the way, get off your high horse cuz I know y'all are guilty as sin

I would say it this way: "Do the right thing because, as one who claims they wish to live their life as a child of God and in His service, you have dedicated your life to being obedient to His Word, and this is what He would have you to do."

Quote from:
If a man held murderous hate towards his brother but never struck him down would that make him a pious man or simply a man that feared the consequences of civil (or spiritual) authorities? If only the latter it would serve him poorly to stand before his maker and claim rights to Heaven based on having never struck a fellow man in anger.

In spiritual terms, it would make him a sinner, and if he didn't repent then I agree, he will have difficulty standing before God in the end.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 26, 2010, 04:07:46 PM
The lesson learned was that Christ was the fullfilment of prophecy.
This seems a half-answer.

Why does the church seem so eager to see a prophecy fulfilled and then chucked out the window in favor of observances that were the antithesis of everything their God wanted?

Quote
I agree, there are parallels to be made between what God had the Israelites do, events that happened in the OT, and the life and death of Christ.  Hence why it is called a schoolmaster that pointed to Christ.
Parallels? You sound as if they are merely happy coincidences.

If--strictly for the sake of conversation--the Passover was a prophecy/prefiguration of the Passion then by what leap of logic can explain the current fascination with the fertility rites of Ishtar? Why not continue to observe the Passover and demonstrate it fulfillments?

Quote
The Sabbath was changed to the first day of the week.


I recall no, "thou shall..." Citation please.

It also seems to fly in the face of the fact that the apostles continued to observe the OT festivals as well.

Quote
... through their generations (of Israel).  "Perpetual" doesn't mean forever in Jewish writings and there are several cases of this type of wordage being used in the OT to describe the end of a period or the end of an age...

Then I must pose the same question Socrates posed to Euthyphro: does God command what is right or is it right because God commands it?

Quote
Easy to explain.  The Old Law was a physical law.  The New Law is a spiritual law.  The Old Law was written for "physical Israel," and the New Law is for "spiritual Israel," that is, Christians.

The Sabbath predates Moses and even Abraham.

Now personally, I am of the opinion the NT (or even the OT for that matter) does not see salvation as a theology exam. Mary was not chosen for her doctrinal purity but for the purity of her "heart" which, in turn, seems to indicate spiritual law trumped soulless religious mechanisms before Jesus was born, let alone the authorship of the NT. Read the major and minor prophets. They rail incessantly against OT observances being practiced with empty hearts.

I for one cannot imagine a god that could be jerked around by impious scoundrels for 1500 years suddenly wising up and deciding getting nailed to a cross would be the best remedy for his oversight. Either his standard has always been the same (genuine spirituality) or he is laughable rube at best or a capricious tyrant at worst. Most modern christian theology leaves me with one of these latter two impressions. Maybe that really is what God is like or maybe modern theology just sucks.

Or maybe I'm just an asshole.

The last time the Jehovah's Witnesses were at my door. You know it is one of their doctrines that humans do not reside in hell forever. they are merely consumed and then annihilated.

They started with the ol', "Do you read your Bible?"

"Sometimes."

"That's wonderful. What do you think?"

"I wonder if I want to be a better bunny...but then I wonder if I would be doing ot for the right reason."

(Sympathetic...with an emphasis on pathetic) "How could you possibly do the right thing for the worng reasons?"

"I'm not sure if I want to be good cuz God is awesome or if its just because I'm scared of going to Hell forever."

"Oh...but God doesn't send people to hell for eternity."

"He doesn't?"

"No, friend."

(pause)

"Huh...

"...well, see you down at the titty bar."

*closes door*


yeah, I'm an asshole...but at least they never came back.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 26, 2010, 04:44:08 PM
The last time the Jehovah's Witnesses were at my door. You know it is one of their doctrines that humans do not reside in hell forever. they are merely consumed and then annihilated.

They started with the ol', "Do you read your Bible?"

"Sometimes."

"That's wonderful. What do you think?"

"I wonder if I want to be a better bunny...but then I wonder if I would be doing ot for the right reason."

(Sympathetic...with an emphasis on pathetic) "How could you possibly do the right thing for the worng reasons?"

"I'm not sure if I want to be good cuz God is awesome or if its just because I'm scared of going to Hell forever."

"Oh...but God doesn't send people to hell for eternity."

"He doesn't?"

"No, friend."

(pause)

"Huh...

"...well, see you down at the titty bar."

*closes door*


yeah, I'm an *******...but at least they never came back.

 :rotf: :rotf:

For a rabbit, you have one wicked sense of humor.........

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 26, 2010, 04:52:50 PM
Why does the church seem so eager to see a prophecy fulfilled and then chucked out the window in favor of observances that were the antithesis of everything their God wanted?

The OT law served its purpose.  The NT law is a better law.

Quote from:
Parallels? You sound as if they are merely happy coincidences.

Oh, no.  There's definately lessons to be gleened from the likenesses of what was done in the OT and what is commanded in the NT.

Quote from:
If--strictly for the sake of conversation--the Passover was a prophecy/prefiguration of the Passion then by what leap of logic can explain the current fascination with the fertility rites of Ishtar? Why not continue to observe the Passover and demonstrate it fulfillments?

This "Ishtar" thing means nothing to me.  I even googled it and couldn't figure out what it's all about.  Whatever it is, I have no fascination with it.

The Law of Moses has been done away.  It was an imperfect law in that it couldn't ultimately forgive sins. So to observe the Passover is of no benefit.  It was a specific command for a specific time.

Quote from:
I recall no, "thou shall..." Citation please.

Necessary inference.

Act 20:7 - "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

When did the disciples come together to break bread (partake of the Lord's Supper)?  Upon the first day of the week.

Also, I Cor 16:2 - "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

When are Christian to lay by in store (give)?  Upon the first day of the week.

Pentecost was also on the first day of the week, the day the Spirit of God descended upon the Apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 2).

Quote from:
Then I must pose the same question Socrates posed to Euthyphro: does God command what is right or is it right because God commands it?

God is truth and His commandments are right.

Quote from:
The Sabbath predates Moses and even Abraham.

True, there's always been a seventh day of the week.  However, the Law of Moses established that certain worship of the Israelites be carried out on the Sabbath.  It was their "holy day."

Quote from:
Read the major and minor prophets. They rail incessantly against OT observances being practiced with empty hearts.

Agreed.

Quote from:
I for one cannot imagine a god that could be jerked around by impious scoundrels for 1500 years suddenly wising up and deciding getting nailed to a cross would be the best remedy for his oversight.

What oversight?  The Law of Moses was never meant to be a law that would ultimately save one's soul.

Heb 10:4 - "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

It was God's plan that Jesus would die.  It is through His bood that remission of sins is possible.

Quote from:
Either his standard has always been the same (genuine spirituality)

It was always spiritual.  The Law of Moses was a physical law for the people of Israel.  It was the people who took the law and turned it into something mechanical.

Isaiah 29:13 - "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men."

Now, that's not to say there aren't physical commands to be carried out in the NT Law, but it's to be done from the heart in love, not done as some sort of checklist.

Quote from:
They started with the ol', "Do you read your Bible?"

The one's I know regard the Watchtower Society to be more important than the Bible.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 26, 2010, 05:06:37 PM
The OT law served its purpose.  ... God is truth and His commandments are right.

^ These need reconciling.

BTW - the first "day" of the week in Acts 20:7 is "sabboton." It is the same Greek word used for other sabbaths. So what you have is the first sabbath of the "week."

Which week?

This would be the first sabbath of the seven sabbaths--a week of sabbaths--between Passover and Shavuots.

This is what I mean by christianity being cheated of scholarship out of some fabricated fear of judaism.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 26, 2010, 07:20:26 PM
^ These need reconciling.

You'll need to tell me what it is that you see as irreconcilable in those two statements for me to answer.  Obviously I don't see any.

Quote from:
BTW - the first "day" of the week in Acts 20:7 is "sabboton." It is the same Greek word used for other sabbaths. So what you have is the first sabbath of the "week."

According to Strong's, the words there are "mia sabboton," mia meaning "first" and Sobboth meaning "day of week."  Ergo, "Upon first day of (the) week."

If I say to you "Upon the first day of the week, you and I will get together and go fishing," do you have any doubt what day that is?

---------

Frankly, I'm more interested in this "fertility rites of Ishtar" thing.  Maybe I know what it is by some other term, but as it stands, I don't know to what you're making reference.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 04:12:11 AM
You'll need to tell me what it is that you see as irreconcilable in those two statements for me to answer.  Obviously I don't see any.
You're accusing God of duping the Hebrews. You claim his commandments are right

You cited it yourself: the blood of animals cannot take away sin. So either God was:

A) playing a 1500 year practical joke and no Hebrew was ever saved

B) the animal sacrifices were an archetype...a prophecy of sorts

The fact that people corrupt something does not invalidate the thing, i.e. murder does not invalidate gun ownership. Religiously speaking, the fact Pat Robertson is a dottering old fool when claiming voodoo leads to earthquakes does not invalidate your beliefs, does it? How about the ol' "name it and claim it" hucksters of a decade or so ago?

Quote
....Sobboth meaning "day of week."  Ergo, "Upon first day of (the) week."
Absolutely not.
This is exactly one of the mis-renderings Doc is referring to.

The according to Strong's:
Quote
Transliteration

sabbaton
   

Pronunciation

sä'b-bä-ton (Key)

Part of Speech

neuter noun
   

Root Word (Etymology)

Of Hebrew origin שַׁבָּת (H7676)

TDNT Reference

7:1,989
   

Vines

View Entry
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work

a) the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy every seventh day of the week

b) a single sabbath, sabbath day

2) seven days, a week

 Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 68; sabbath day 37, sabbath 22, week 9
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4521&t=KJV


You cannot substitute sabbaton for day of the week, i.e. you could not substitute it for Tuesday. In fact the word "day" is inserted in brackets in the English renderings so obviously it is an editorial addition.

Quote
Frankly, I'm more interested in this "fertility rites of Ishtar" thing.  Maybe I know what it is by some other term, but as it stands, I don't know to what you're making reference.
Ishtar = Astarte = Asteroth = Easter = pagan fertility goddess

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Canaanite_Religion

She was quite the naughty little wench. Her son was her consort and her priestesses would hold orgies in sacred groves at the height of their menstrual cycles.

Solomon got in big trouble building a temple to her...but that's OT stuff so I'm sure its no big deal anymore.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: MrsSmith on March 27, 2010, 06:26:03 AM
Even if it weren't mistranslated it seems to ahve been horribly misexplained over the centuries.

Christians are not exempt for accumulating folklore.

It seems to me the modern church is fevered with the notion of divorcing itself from all vestiges of the OT except when they need the OT to prove a point for their personal benefit. Every teaching, every prophecy, every injunction and every observance spoken of by Jesus in the NT has an OT precedent and many more--such as the aforementioned needle illustration--have extra-scriptural origins, i.e. rabbinic lore.

I'm told that all matters OT were done away with upon the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet, the death, resurrection and ascension of the NT correspond exactly with OT rituals. Mistranslation?
No, misunderstanding.  All matters OT are most certainly not "done away with."  Our commandments have changed.  We are not under some portions of the Law because animal sacrifice is no longer needed to cover sins (and cover is what it did, not take away as you state later.)  We are now commanded firstly by Christ's words...Love you neighbor, pray for your enemy, etc.  These take precedence over OT Law...Christ fulfilled the Law, He didn't abolish it.

I'm told christians are not "under the law" but when I ask if they are free to commit murder and adultery the answer is no and I'm directed to Pauline instructions forbidding such things. Yet, Paul was never designated as being a lawgiver and any law he set forth he gained from the OT.

I'm told the Jewish rituals are for Jews. Yet, I've never read an injunction FORBIDDING the goyim from participating in Jewish ritual...so long as their participation was joyous and sincere, even in the NT. Moreover, scripture is pretty thick with warnings against allowing pagan rituals to infect the ecclesia. Certainly anyone claiming OT observances were corrupted by the cynical gamesmanship of false piety cannot possibly defend X-mas from the same charges.

I'm told the NT sets out a covenant from God himself that can never be repealed. Oddly, God said the same thing about the OT. Unless God is two-faced or a liar methinks the answer would have to be seen as an amalgamation of covenants.
  The New Testament covenant is an extension of the covenant with Abraham.  It does not do away with any other covenants.  God still has a covenant with those Children of Israel that never come into the New Covenant with Christ...among other OT covenants that still stand. 

It seems to me that if proper exegesis is the issue than cultural, historical and scriptural context makes all the difference. I know plenty of denominations warn heavily against Jewish "corruptions" of NT theology but from what I have heard over the years is scripture should trump loyalties to human inventions.

If I were a church-going bunny and I had a preacher that insisted a passage should be interpreted as X but there were no historical, cultural or scriptural basis for his interpretation but then I found sources elsewhere that very soundly established a basis for a different interpretation I would be strongly motivated to ask him if perhaps further study was warranted. If he persisted with his interpretation without basis and evidence to the contrary continued to grow against him I would then begin to question my on-going presence within his congregation. He may be the sweetest indiviual in town but if he is selling me a bill of goods and cannot be swayed by evidence of plain truth then perhaps he is too entrenched in tradition and tradition is no trump to truth...or maybe I am just a disruptor who should remove himself for the betterment of all.

Still, being mislead whether innocently or not is something I cannot endure. One of us must go. That's why I walked away from the liberalism of my upbringing.

DISCLAIMER: I am neither Jewish nor Christian. I am an observer who takes words at their face value and wonders what all the fuss is about.

flame on
A pastor that does not already know the cultural basis and evidence shouldn't be preaching.  He wouldn't make it in any conservative church...though he might manage fine in the new liberal churches that have largely done away with scripture and study.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: MrsSmith on March 27, 2010, 06:37:40 AM

He was crucified on Passover, resurrected on First Fruits and ascended on Shavuots.

Shavuot was the 50th day after the weekly Sabbath following Passover; seven weeks, plus one day. Pentecost, translated, is "50th day." The Book of Acts even notes people were in Jerusalem to mark that festival.

Each major event of the Passion resides within the Jewish liturgical calendar. Is this mere coincidence or is it part and parcel of the narrative?

Is it merely a crass irony that the pillar of flame that issued the 10 Commandments 50 days after the 1st Passover appeared as a tongue of flame over the congregants in Jerusalem (who were markedly devoid of goyim at the time)?

Can ignorance of the Jewish liturgical calendar be condoned when the church has spent centuries tying itself into interpretive knots trying to justify a Sunday resurrection when the reality is Passover is one of 7 annual "high Sabbaths" in addition to the weekly Sabbath. Thus the need to twist the 2 sabbaths mentioned in the NT while still maintaining the Sabbath resurrection 3 days later becomes obviated.
You are evidently unaware that there are many studies on just this subject.  Jews for Jesus, in particular, has some extremely interesting ones.  I've attended one short presentation on it myself, and seen them advertised at other churches since.

Now, some "replacement" theologians have argued that Israel has been--well--replaced and thus any reference to Israel means "christians." I find fault with this argument on several grounds:

* In Romans Paul says one day all Israel will be saved. If Israel = christian this becomes a mindless tautalogy that says, "One day the saved will be saved."
  As mentioned above, Israel is still under a covenant.

* the Sabbath is still the Sabbath and that ain't Sunday.
  The Sabbath is a Jewish day, not a Christian day...though we do call our day by the same word.  We are aware that it's different.

* such doctrines seem to accuse God of having chosen poorly
  Misunderstanding can cause many troubles

* if Israel can be replaced...so can you
And they have not been replaced

* such difficulties are compounded in light of the doctrine of the trinity. If Jesus is God and God is Jesus then Jesus was the author of the Mosaic laws. Correct if I am wrong but no member of the trinity sits above the others.
Jesus was obviously the author of the Mosaic laws...for the covenant with the Children of Israel.  John makes Jesus role in all the acts of God quite clear.
Understood, but who should I fear more: judaizing teachers or paganizing teachers?

Or both?
  I would fear ignorance the most.

I would reason that if the OT was the "letter" of the law and the NT would be the "spirit" of the law. In such a discussion we are told that looking on a woman lustfully is as much a sin as adultery. "But I never touched her!" seems a poor defence when the charge is, "You sexually objectified one of my beloved creations." It still betrays a corrosion of the soul that dehumanizes a woman into a mere sexual outlet to be used and discarded with no concern for her as a unique person with an eternal destiny.

Now, this spiritual aspect of the commandment "Thou shall not commit adultery" does nothing to abrogate the original letter of the law. It raises the bar, not lower or abolish the bar. Indeed, if all woman were viewed as unique beings with eternal destinies, beloved by their creator and not to be objectified to one's selfish gain then commandments against adultery would be unwarranted.

It seems Jesus is telling people 1) do the right thing FOR THE RIGHT REASON, not just because you're trying to demand a place in heaven as if God were a subway ticket machine and 2) oh, by the way, get off your high horse cuz I know y'all are guilty as sin

If a man held murderous hate towards his brother but never struck him down would that make him a pious man or simply a man that feared the consequences of civil (or spiritual) authorities? If only the latter it would serve him poorly to stand before his maker and claim rights to Heaven based on having never struck a fellow man in anger.

(NOTE: I feel very peculiar making this line of argument as I am pretty much an avowed nihilistic hedonist. Still, I can understand why certain commandments would be given if one were to take a spiritual tack. Sort of a "devil's advocate" if I may be permitted the ill-fitting pun.)

Thank-you for your conversation.
Obviously, it does raise the bar.  As does the commandment to pray for your enemies instead of killing them.  As does the entire Sermon on the Mount.  This is somehow new??
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 27, 2010, 08:23:23 AM
You're accusing God of duping the Hebrews. You claim his commandments are right

You cited it yourself: the blood of animals cannot take away sin. So either God was:

A) playing a 1500 year practical joke and no Hebrew was ever saved

B) the animal sacrifices were an archetype...a prophecy of sorts

The blood of Jesus to take away sins was also retroactive, so no dupe.  Every year the High Priest went into the Most Holy Place in the Temple and made a single attonement for the sins of Israel (this is all outlined in the OT and what was involved) which rolled the sins forward until the next year, and that happened every year, Jesus being the final sacrificial lamb which attoned for those sins.

Quote from:
You cannot substitute sabbaton for day of the week, i.e. you could not substitute it for Tuesday. In fact the word "day" is inserted in brackets in the English renderings so obviously it is an editorial addition.

I'm cross reverencing Strong's with an Interlinear and it reads the same as I posted.   I'm looking at how it is written in Greek, it was accurately translated, and I'm satistifed that what I wrote is exactly what it says because I'm sitting here looking at it.
 
Quote from:
Ishtar = Astarte = Asteroth = Easter = pagan fertility goddess

Solomon got in big trouble building a temple to her...but that's OT stuff so I'm sure its no big deal anymore.

Solomon did quite a few things he shouldn't have done and they serve as examples of what can happen when one turns their heart from God.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 09:51:25 AM
The blood of Jesus to take away sins was also retroactive, so no dupe.  Every year the High Priest went into the Most Holy Place in the Temple and made a single attonement for the sins of Israel (this is all outlined in the OT and what was involved) which rolled the sins forward until the next year, and that happened every year, Jesus being the final sacrificial lamb which attoned for those sins.

Really?

Gosh.

Quote
I'm cross reverencing Strong's with an Interlinear and it reads the same as I posted.   I'm looking at how it is written in Greek, it was accurately translated, and I'm satistifed that what I wrote is exactly what it says because I'm sitting here looking at it.

No you didn't not. You looked at the mistranslated "[day] of the week" saw the word "sabbaton" and said, "it must mean day of the week."

I copy and pasted the translation. At this point I do not trust your personal reportage on the matter. You're not the only one who knows how to use a concordance.

Day
Acts 1:2    the  day                 g2250     á¼¡Î¼á½³ÏÎ± hÄ“mera
Acts 1:12  day's  journey         g2192     á¼”χω echō
* BTW - this rendering of "day" is preceded by "sabbaton" so you would have to say a day's day's journey if your translation is to be believed.
Acts 1:22 that  same  day         g2250     á¼¡Î¼á½³ÏÎ± hÄ“mera

I can go on.

Here's every occurrence of the English rendering of day: http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=day&t=KJV&cscs=Act

Sabbaton means "sabbath". It occurs 68 times. You would have to re-translate 59 occurrences of sabbath to fit your contortion.

[/quote]Solomon did quite a few things he shouldn't have done and they serve as examples of what can happen when one turns their heart from God.[/quote]
Happy Ishtar Easter


You are evidently unaware that there are many studies on just this subject.
You're evidently unaware of what I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 27, 2010, 10:30:43 AM
No you didn't not.

I'm reporting what I'm seeing.  I also consulted two commentaries on that passage and a reference book on the Book of Acts and none of them claim that "Upon the first day of the week" is anything but an accurate translation.  I'm satisfied.

Quote from:
Happy Ishtar Easter.

I don't celebrate Easter as a religious holiday.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 10:46:43 AM
I know what you're telling me, but I also know what is copy and pasted reference vs. "trust me."

Perhaps you'll be so kind as to tell us what the original Greek word for Sabbath is when we read it in the English translations.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: MrsSmith on March 27, 2010, 10:49:26 AM
You're evidently unaware of what I'm aware of.
Only going by the evidence available.  You certainly talk as though you have no clue that this topic is known, studied, and taught in churches.  
Quote
He was crucified on Passover, resurrected on First Fruits and ascended on Shavuots.

Shavuot was the 50th day after the weekly Sabbath following Passover; seven weeks, plus one day. Pentecost, translated, is "50th day." The Book of Acts even notes people were in Jerusalem to mark that festival.

Each major event of the Passion resides within the Jewish liturgical calendar. Is this mere coincidence or is it part and parcel of the narrative?

Is it merely a crass irony that the pillar of flame that issued the 10 Commandments 50 days after the 1st Passover appeared as a tongue of flame over the congregants in Jerusalem (who were markedly devoid of goyim at the time)?


Why would you go on like this if you knew the subject was known & studied??
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 11:01:29 AM
Only going by the evidence available.  You certainly talk as though you have no clue that this topic is known, studied, and taught in churches.  

Why would you go on like this if you knew the subject was known & studied??
Ma'am, they're called rhetorical questions.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 27, 2010, 11:31:47 AM
I know what you're telling me, but I also know what is copy and pasted reference vs. "trust me."

I also looked at commentaries on the passage.  Specifically as I write this, I'm reading The PulPit Commentary, and the preface goes into detail of how there were numerous Greek scholars used to examine what was written to ensure it was an accurate refection.  If "upon the first day of the week" was not an accurate reflection of the Greek, I believe the writers would have discussed it in the commentary.  As it stands, it's never even called into question.  Now unless this commentary and the other commentaries are conspiring to deceive (of which, I am confident, Greek scholars everywhere would be pointing at the deceit, which they aren't), I'm going to have to believe that there is no translation error which would render "upon the first day of the week" as anything other than an accurate translation.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 11:50:25 AM
I also looked at commentaries on the passage...

I repeat:

Perhaps you'll be so kind as to tell us what the original Greek word for Sabbath is when we read it in the English translations.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 27, 2010, 12:15:11 PM
I repeat:

Perhaps you'll be so kind as to tell us what the original Greek word for Sabbath is when we read it in the English translations.

Already done that.

According to Strong's, the words there are "mia sabboton,"

I've never question the words used.  However, I am not a Greek scholar and I'm in no position to argue with Greek scholars who have determined that "upon the first day of the week" is an accurate translation.  If you wish to do so, be my guest.  I'm satisfied the process correctly vetted the Greek to determine the translation is accurate, otherwise the commentaries would have documented the error.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 12:31:45 PM
So what you're saying is: the Greek word for Sabbath--the last day of the Hebrew week--is the exact same word for "the first day of the week."

No wonder modern theology is in such shambles: tradition trumps plain reading.

I am not a Greek scholar and I'm in no position to argue with Greek scholars who have determined that "upon the first day of the week" is an accurate translation.  If you wish to do so, be my guest.  I'm satisfied the process correctly vetted the Greek to determine the translation is accurate, otherwise the commentaries would have documented the error.

And consensus says humans cause global warming.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 27, 2010, 12:47:57 PM
If there is a translation error from the Greek to the words “upon the first day of the week,” until someone can explain why Greek scholars didn’t insist that the writers of the commentaries address this error in their commentary, and some evidence is provided from those Greek scholars who reviewed these commentaries that they did insist but were ignored, there’s no reason to go any further.  At this point, all indications are that Greek scholars agree the translation is accurate.

I highly doubt Greek scholars would stay silent on something so easily proven, and no doubt the accuracy of the commentaries themselves would be widely called into question.  That has not happened.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 27, 2010, 12:53:20 PM
Only going by the evidence available.  You certainly talk as though you have no clue that this topic is known, studied, and taught in churches.  

Why would you go on like this if you knew the subject was known & studied??

The problem that we have here, Mrs Smith, is the same one that pops up whenever you involve yourself in an academic discussion of Scripture, and scriptural events......the sources that you cite are purely parochial, and are limited to YOUR  church, pastor, and YOUR denominations interpretation of events and texts.  You say above that you are going on the "evidence available", when your statement should read......."the evidence available that I agree with, or that my pastor and congregation agrees with".

MSB approaches the discussion from an academic perspective, and presents well researched materials that are matters of common belief and understanding to religious scholars, and have stood the test of time over centuries of study and challenge.......because YOUR church, and its associated documents, tracts, and patriarchs don't agree with that is irrelevant.

Based on what I've seen here in this thread alone suggests to me that MSB's understanding of Hebrew history and the correct interpretation of Jewish law dwarfs any protestant preacher that I have ever discussed the topic with.....you would be better served to listen and learn, rather than challenging his every position with some half-baked source that your particular branch of Christianity clings to to make themselves feel good.......

As I have mentioned to you in another similar discussion, when I need to educate myself on a point of OT history, or Jewish Law, I sit down and talk to a Rabbi......they wrote it, live by it, and they are the experts.......most protestant ministers that I have had the misfortune to discuss the subject with simply don't know what they are talking about, regarding the OT.......and exhibit an alarming tendency to twist the OT Scriptures into pretzels to support some of their pet beliefs in the New Testament.......that isn't scholarship......that is parochialism.....

If you wish to start your own thread to discuss your beliefs, and the specific understandings of your congregation, please feel free to do so, and I will treat any poster that jumps in to distort your presentation in the same manner that I'm doing here.......have your discussion, and we will read it and make our own choices if it has merit or not, without resorting to disputing your every word.......that is fair......

I started this thread to discuss the broad issue of translation inconsistancies in the KJV specifically, and English translations of our Canon in general........because you don't like the fact that they exist, or don't agree with the conclusions, does not matter.......its your opinion......and your opinion bears no more weight than anyone else's in the discussion.......just because you imply that "Righteousness and Divine Intervention" are on your side does not make it so......it just makes you appear to be a fundamentalist bully......

Please keep the discussion on topic for the thread.

doc

Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 27, 2010, 01:10:26 PM
I've never question the words used.  However, I am not a Greek scholar and I'm in no position to argue with Greek scholars who have determined that "upon the first day of the week" is an accurate translation.  If you wish to do so, be my guest.  I'm satisfied the process correctly vetted the Greek to determine the translation is accurate, otherwise the commentaries would have documented the error.

.

That is fine, if you are satisfied.......however, MSB makes the point with an actual translation source that the "Sabbath" has changed from the Mosaic Covenant to the New one, without apparent reason....

If Christians choose to go along with that, no one cares......it is simply a point of error in Christian understanding of Jewish law.....and there are many such misunderstandings in Christianity today......do they matter to our basic faith?   No, they do not.......so long as the Sabbath is observed, I suspect that God will let us slide if we didn't figure out the correct day to celebrate it on.......

As I discussed in another thread.....the "process" by which we received the Canon was a political one......even the Vatican, who supervised it admits that.......so misunderstandings and errors will be contained therein....so long as they do not intentionally distort the overall message, it is of little consequence.

One would only need to study the KJV (translated 700 years ago) compared to a modern translation to see literally hundreds of errors and misinterpretations that have evolved over that period.

My overriding objective here is to establish that our Scriptural study should be a cautious one.....armed with the understanding that although inspired by God, the texts are interpreted by "man" and as we are fallible, errors are inevitable.......

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 27, 2010, 01:20:02 PM
That is fine, if you are satisfied.......

I appreciate your words.

I have concluded, though my own study and examination of various forms, the scriptures as we have them are an accurate reflection and are all inspired by God.  I enjoy discussing various scriptures and topics, but I'm only willing to do so based upon the scriptures being accurate.  I know you've expressed you don't view them that way, but just understand when I'm discussing things with you or anyone else, it will be from the position of the scriptures as being the inspired Word of God without error.  In fact, I would not be interested in discussing them from any other viewpoint, nor am I interested in being attacked or questioned for holding that view.  I don't believe that's too much to ask.  I hope you and others can respect that, as I will certainly, and have been to this point I believe, doing to you.  Thanks.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Doc on March 27, 2010, 01:35:14 PM
I appreciate your words.

I have concluded, though my own study and examination of various forms, the scriptures as we have them are an accurate reflection and are all inspired by God.  I enjoy discussing various scriptures and topics, but I'm only willing to do so based upon the scriptures being accurate.  I know you've expressed you don't view them that way, but just understand when I'm discussing things with you or anyone else, it will be from the position of the scriptures as being the inspired Word of God without error.  In fact, I would not be interested in discussing them from any other viewpoint, nor am I interested in being attacked or questioned for holding that view.  I don't believe that's too much to ask.  I hope you and others can respect that, as I will certainly, and have been to this point I believe, doing to you.  Thanks.

.

I think that you misunderstood my position......It is not that I consider the Scriptures "inaccurate", I don't.....just that inconsistancies exist and we should be cautious of them.

Someone yesterday (perhaps it was you) used the analogy that Jewish scholars at Yashiva will spend an entire day screaming at each other over the interpretation of a text that has been read and reinterpreted for two thousand years LONGER than the NT, and they are still doing it.....I've seen it myself........

Perhaps my best analogy would refer to MSB's comment about "Global Warming" and the consensus claim that it is "settled science"......yourself and other Christians may firmly believe that the current interpretation of the Canon is "settled", but time and time again, scholarly study has brought new light to the study of scripture, and will likely continue to do so........

It would be sad for we as Christians to just "slam on the brakes" here at this point in time, and say that "the job of learning and interpreting Scripture is now complete" and rest on our laurels.......sad indeed, for the potential exists for us to continue to enrich our understanding.....

We can never tell when another "Dead Sea Scroll" event might occur, and set our understanding on its preverbrial ear......

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 01:55:53 PM
If there is a translation error from the Greek to the words “upon the first day of the week,” until someone can explain why Greek scholars didn’t insist that the writers of the commentaries address this error in their commentary, and some evidence is provided from those Greek scholars who reviewed these commentaries that they did insist but were ignored, there’s no reason to go any further.  At this point, all indications are that Greek scholars agree the translation is accurate.

I highly doubt Greek scholars would stay silent on something so easily proven, and no doubt the accuracy of the commentaries themselves would be widely called into question.  That has not happened.

.
You're evading and hiding behind a tautology.

You claim Greek scholars agree and then define a Greek scholar only as those that agree.

The fact remains, and you have yet to address this, that the word for the religiously observed LAST day of the week cannot possibly be the same word as the non-religious FIRST day of the week. It is a linguistic impossibility.

The word is what it is. Either the original Greek is in error or the translators are in error. However, seeing as Sunday worship has been the tradition since Constantine and the church has sad history of antisemitism the fact that the translators would be ignorant of the Festival of Weeks is simple enough: They didn't know because they were never taught. They had to add the word "day" in brackets to the translations because the word does not exist in the original text. Coupled with their ignorance of Shavuot they could not conceive of another formulation. They had to fabricate an entire word.

To remediate:

Pesach was 1 of 7 "high Sabbaths" or Shabat ha Gadol. Regardless of which day of the standard week it fell on it would be considered a Sabbath.

First Fruits, or bikkurim, was the first regular weekly Sabbath following Pesach. It is known as, "The First Day of the Week."

From there the Hebrews would reckon 7 weeks and 1 day in what was known as Hag ha Shavuot, or the Festival of Weeks. The 50th day commemorates the giving of the 10 Generally Good Suggestions to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

Pentecost isn't even a Christian term. It is the Hellenized name for Shavuot.

Your own citation of 1 Cor 16:2 of laying up of stores coincides with the "Counting of the Omer" a Jewish observance where grains and fruits were brought to the temple (yes, Paul instructed his non-Jewish congregants in Hebraic custom...since pagan customs have no place with a Jewish God). Omer, being a Jewish measure...and it occurs on the first SABBATH of the 7 Sabbaths between Pesach and Shavuots.

Yet, you would have me believe all this Judaic correlation--both prophetic and observed and instructed by Paul himself...to a bunch of goyim, no less--is to be cast aside for the pagan day of Sun worshiping.

Show me Greek scholars that take the above facts into account in their renderings and I'll consider whether or not the religious last day of the week can simultaneously mean the non-religious first day of the week.

It would be easier to pass an elephant through the eye of a needle.

I appreciate your words.

I have concluded, though my own study and examination of various forms, the scriptures as we have them are an accurate reflection and are all inspired by God.

And I'm not challenging that.

However, translation clouded by centuries of politics, superstition, neglect and even outright bigotry is very much a possibility. You acknowledged as much when you admitted Pesach had been rendered Easter.

The problem that we have here, Mrs Smith, is ...

doc

Apart from her totally overlooking obviously rhetorical questions she hasn't really offered any offense to me.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 27, 2010, 02:01:32 PM
It would be sad for we as Christians to just "slam on the brakes" here at this point in time, and say that "the job of learning and interpreting Scripture is now complete" and rest on our laurels.......sad indeed, for the potential exists for us to continue to enrich our understanding.....

I would agree that studing the scriptures generally leads me to further learning, more notably from studying related scriptures, which does enrich my understanding.  That's one reason why I have benefited from the posts from the member who posts her Bible Study.  I also have some excellent books and reference material I personally use.  However, I do believe that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works," (2 Tim 3:16-17) and based upon that, no new revelation will be forthcoming.  That's why I wanted to let you know, as mod, that any imput I have in this forum will be from that prespective only.  I do not care to be labeled inappropriately and accused of being dogmatic when I'm simply presenting my views.  If I see someone adressing me in that manner, I will avoid them as to make your life easier.  I have no intention to do it to others, either.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 27, 2010, 02:28:50 PM
Show me Greek scholars that take the above facts into account in their renderings and I'll consider whether or not the religious last day of the week can simultaneously mean the non-religious first day of the week.

I have no reason to believe they haven't taken that and much more into consideration.  The proof is on you to show they didn't by documenting Greek scholars who are openly disputing them on this matter.  Until then, the Greek scholars are in agreement that "upon the first day of the week" is accurately translated.

If you feel this strongly, I suggest you present your findings to the scholars who were involved and question them.  They would be in a position to explain why they reached the conclusions they did since they were there when they decided.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 27, 2010, 02:43:56 PM
I would agree that studing the scriptures generally leads me to further learning, more notably from studying related scriptures, which does enrich my understanding.  That's one reason why I have benefited from the posts from the member who posts her Bible Study.  I also have some excellent books and reference material I personally use.  However, I do believe that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works," (2 Tim 3:16-17) and based upon that, no new revelation will be forthcoming.  That's why I wanted to let you know, as mod, that any imput I have in this forum will be from that prespective only.  I do not care to be labeled inappropriately and accused of being dogmatic when I'm simply presenting my views.  If I see someone adressing me in that manner, I will avoid them as to make your life easier.  I have no intention to do it to others, either.
.

You need not worry about that.....this is the "Fellowship" forum, and all views are respected, so long as they don't become disruptive to the discussion.  You are certainly more entrenched in your position on Scripture than I, but, from my perspective as a scientist, I just naturally view everything with a bit of healthy skepticizm.....as I've mentioned before, its not that I don't believe, I just always am on the lookout for the "next shoe to drop" that will toss my established position into the dustbin of history......In my life, its happened many times.

No one is labeling YOU as anything other than a firm believer.....and that is most certainly welcome.......just don't expect to not have to defend your position on occasion.....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: rich_t on March 27, 2010, 02:48:40 PM
I have found this thread to be very interesting.

But it also reminds me why I seldom participate in threads like this.

I simply don't have the depth of theological knowledge to hold my own, so to speak.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 27, 2010, 02:53:27 PM
I have found this thread to be very interesting.

But it also reminds me why I seldom participate in threads like this.

I simply don't have the depth of theological knowledge to hold my own, so to speak.

Well....we have several learned members here, you can certainly jump in with a question if you want.....it should be a learning experience for all, and none of us has all of the answers.....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: rich_t on March 27, 2010, 02:57:00 PM
I learn a lot just by reading.  Fortunately this thread didn't gnerate a lot of heated exchanges as I have seen so many religion threads do.

If people get wound up about their politics, it is doubly so about their religion.

Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 03:07:39 PM
...The proof is on you to show they didn't by documenting Greek scholars who are openly disputing them on this matter...

The entire section of my post you chose to ignore does that.

By accepted rules of debate you have to impeach my counter-argument.

 
Quote
Until then, the Greek scholars are in agreement that "upon the first day of the week" is accurately translated.
You mean the scholars YOU choose to cite. Two fools agreeing amongst themselves is not an argument in favor of their authority. If you want to assert their authority prove they are correct with sources beyond what they claim.

I used Strong's concordance. If someone disputed that source I could easily find Greek texts and examine whether or not Mr Strong was in agreement about which words appear in the originals and how they were translated into English in the KJV.

That is how scholarship works, sir.

Quote
If you feel this strongly, I suggest you present your findings to the scholars who were involved and question them.  They would be in a position to explain why they reached the conclusions they did since they were there when they decided.
You sound like TNO arguing that until Dr Mann's website admits their fraud they are still a legit source of AGW info.

* I have already demonstrated that your sources contradict themselves turing the last day of the week into the first day of the week

* your sources insert non-existent words, i.e. [day]

* You admitted they corrupted the translation when they substituted Pesach for the blood-slathered orgies to pagan goddesses.

* I have demonstrated that my translation is consistent with the historical and cultural context of the day.

* You can either show me why shabboton does NOT mean sabbath in 59 out of 68 occurrences or

* you can disprove the history and culture

* or you can show me the Greek word that more accurately translates as "sabbath"

Either have the courtesy to address my points directly or refrain from addressing me, period. The bulleted points above are the extent of the remainder of my conversation with you; agree, impeach or ignore if you would like me to say anything beyond them.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Carl on March 27, 2010, 03:10:33 PM
You need not worry about that.....this is the "Fellowship" forum, and all views are respected, so long as they don't become disruptive to the discussion.  You are certainly more entrenched in your position on Scripture than I, but, from my perspective as a scientist, I just naturally view everything with a bit of healthy skepticizm.....as I've mentioned before, its not that I don't believe, I just always am on the lookout for the "next shoe to drop" that will toss my established position into the dustbin of history......In my life, its happened many times.

No one is labeling YOU as anything other than a firm believer.....and that is most certainly welcome.......just don't expect to not have to defend your position on occasion.....

doc

I haven`t read any of this since the first page so won`t comment but even though I suspect my positions are more aligned in disagreement on some things I respect your ability to lucidly state your positions and be even handed in all matters.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 27, 2010, 03:24:17 PM
I haven`t read any of this since the first page so won`t comment but even though I suspect my positions are more aligned in disagreement on some things I respect your ability to lucidly state your positions and be even handed in all matters.

Thank you.....the latter being the unfortunate lot of a moderator......today's problem seems to be remembering which thread I'm in..... :-)

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: rich_t on March 27, 2010, 03:28:14 PM
Ok....

Here's a question.  Do some alleged transcription errors change the basic meaning of the message as a whole as it pertains to this topic?
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 27, 2010, 03:30:19 PM
Your argument is not with me.  I'm not a Greek scholar, and I'm certainly not the Greek scholars who translated the Greek words into "upon the first day of the week."  I'm just pointing out that there seemingly aren't any Greek scholars disputing them, which tells me they got it right.  You are not a Greek scholar, so your intrepretation is not backed by credentials.  You need to take this up with the Greek scholars with which you disagree.  I can't answer for them.

I don't know how else to explain it.  But until I see evidence from other Greek scholars that dispute the Greek schlolars which determined "upon the first day of the week" was an accurate translation, I have no choice but to believe it's an accurate translation.  I've made some searches and so far haven't discovered any Greek scholar making the claim that the words were inaccurately translated.  If you do, please provide them.  But so far there isn't a single Greek scholar I've found who is disagreeing with the translation "upon the first day of the week."  To me, that's strong evidence that it's correct.

On a separate issue, I don't debate, but I will discuss.  Debating bores me to tears and I have no interest it in.  If someone wishes to discuss matters, I will gladly do so.  But debate?  Others can do that if they wish, it's just holds no interest for me.

SB, if you run across any Greek scholars disputing the translation of Acts 20:7, please bring it to my attention.  Until then, as noted this conversation has run its course.  Take care.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 27, 2010, 03:33:56 PM
Ok....

Here's a question.  Do some alleged transcription errors change the basic meaning of the message as a whole as it pertains to this topic?

For the most part no, which reverts our thoughts to the Christian belief that the Canon is the inspired Word of God...........however, MSB and USA4ME are discussing what might be a misconception on which actual day of the week the "Sabbath" is supposed to fall, as there is a difference between the interpretation of Jewish Law, and how New Testament Christians view it........

It is an interesting discussion.......

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: rich_t on March 27, 2010, 03:38:57 PM
It is indeed an interesting discussion.

But at the end of the day, I doubt that God really cares which day of the week one goes to church to worship.

Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Carl on March 27, 2010, 04:13:51 PM
For the most part no, which reverts our thoughts to the Christian belief that the Canon is the inspired Word of God...........however, MSB and USA4ME are discussing what might be a misconception on which actual day of the week the "Sabbath" is supposed to fall, as there is a difference between the interpretation of Jewish Law, and how New Testament Christians view it........

It is an interesting discussion.......

doc

Again I have not read back so am perhaps stupidly (no comments please) going to weigh in on that.
In the Old Testament what we now recognize as Saturday would have been the Sabbath.
After Christ in the New Covenant that was done away and Sunday has become traditionally  the day to recognize His Lordship and His resurrection which was the day after.

Once more from Bible Questions Answered by William Pettingill.

In considering the problem here presented,let us begin with a word touching the principle of the "norm,"as mentioned by the questioner.
In selecting a passage as the norm for any certain doctrine rather than an isolated verse which might be construed in more than one way if considered apart from its text and with out regard to the teaching of the Scripture elsewhere.
Now the time of the arrival of the women at the tomb,and other facts relating to our Lord`s resurrection,are clearly set forth in then other Gospels.
Therefore we should use the other Gospels as the norm passages rather then Matthew 28:1 whose exact meaning does not appear on the surface.

The solution of the problem we are discussing lies in a correct understanding of the Greek adverb opse,which is translated "in the end of".
Opse has two meanings,both of which are found in the Greek classics.
One meaning is "late" and the other is "after a long time" or "long after".
Godet cites classic passages in which opse means "after," as.for example,"after the Trojan war,""the mysteries being over,"etc.

Whenever we come upon a word having two meanings,the context must determine which meaning is the correct one.
In this instance the verb translated "began to dawn"decides the question for us.
The verb comes from the root meaning of "light".
It is in the form of a present participle in the locative case,and the locative case speaks of "time within which."
Thus the women arrived at the sepulchre during the time when it was growing light.
This decides which of the two meanings  to opse should be chosen.
In this passage it means "after." Thayers Lexicon translates "the sabbath having just past,after the sabbath,"that is,"at the dawn of the first day of the week,"and adds,"an interpretation absolutely demanded by the added specification of"the participle mentioned above.



Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Carl on March 27, 2010, 04:15:01 PM
It is indeed an interesting discussion.

But at the end of the day, I doubt that God really cares which day of the week one goes to church to worship.



Indeed and one of the reasons I no longer do that is because of folks that were Christian on Sunday and not the rest of the week.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: rich_t on March 27, 2010, 04:16:18 PM
Quote
Again I have not read back so am perhaps stupidly (no comments please) going to weigh in on that.
In the Old Testament what we now recognize as Saturday would have been the Sabbath.
After Christ in the new covenant that was done away and Sunday has become traditionally  the day to recognize His Lordship and His resurrection which was the day after.

Once again...


But at the end of the day, I doubt that God really cares which day of the week one goes to church to worship.

Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Carl on March 27, 2010, 05:26:20 PM
Once again...


But at the end of the day, I doubt that God really cares which day of the week one goes to church to worship.



No argument from me on that issue,just was attempting an explanation for the Saturday/Sunday schism.

A bit of background,not that anyone cares...

The church I belonged to had a Sunday morning Bible school,the morning service,a Sunday evening one and then a mid week.
There were several folks there that if you missed any one of the above would look down on you and openly suggest that you were not a good Christian for it.
Their own lives had plenty of flaws and after a friend was crapped on by them I had enough and left...not quietly either.
A lot of hurt on all sides and no regrets for the stand I took against things.
Perhaps today I would have done it differently with so much more life lived but that is a guess.
A digression but maybe why to this day I take such offense to a suggestion I am not a true conservative because I recognize that it isn`t always going to be what I wish as far as politics but will take what I can get.
Anyways...

It is now 22 years later and the Sunday night service is gone due to lack of attendance from the rift (now that is okay I guess) and no idea about the mid week one.
I still know what I believe regarding Jesus sacrificing Himself on the cross to pay the price for our sins and while my life is in many ways not a picture perfect Christian one I will never go back on that.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: rich_t on March 27, 2010, 05:28:24 PM
We all fall short of the perfection of Christ.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 06:34:08 PM
Again I have not read back so am perhaps stupidly (no comments please) going to weigh in on that.
In the Old Testament what we now recognize as Saturday would have been the Sabbath.
After Christ in the New Covenant that was done away and Sunday has become traditionally  the day to recognize His Lordship and His resurrection which was the day after.

Once more from Bible Questions Answered by William Pettingill...

In considering the problem here presented,let us begin with a word touching the principle of the "norm,"as mentioned by the questioner.
In selecting a passage as the norm for any certain doctrine rather than an isolated verse which might be construed in more than one way if considered apart from its text and with out regard to the teaching of the Scripture elsewhere.
Now the time of the arrival of the women at the tomb,and other facts relating to our Lord`s resurrection,are clearly set forth in then other Gospels.
Therefore we should use the other Gospels as the norm passages rather then Matthew 28:1 whose exact meaning does not appear on the surface.

The solution of the problem we are discussing lies in a correct understanding of the Greek adverb opse,which is translated "in the end of".
Opse has two meanings,both of which are found in the Greek classics.
One meaning is "late" and the other is "after a long time" or "long after".
Godet cites classic passages in which opse means "after," as.for example,"after the Trojan war,""the mysteries being over,"etc.

Whenever we come upon a word having two meanings,the context must determine which meaning is the correct one.
In this instance the verb translated "began to dawn"decides the question for us.
The verb comes from the root meaning of "light".
It is in the form of a present participle in the locative case,and the locative case speaks of "time within which."
Thus the women arrived at the sepulchre during the time when it was growing light.
This decides which of the two meanings  to opse should be chosen.
In this passage it means "after." Thayers Lexicon translates "the sabbath having just past,after the sabbath,"that is,"at the dawn of the first day of the week,"and adds,"an interpretation absolutely demanded by the added specification of"the participle mentioned above.



EnglishStrong's No.GreekTransliteration
In  the  endg1161δέde
g3796ὀψέopse
of the sabbath,g4521σάββατονsabbaton
as it began to dawng2020ἐπιφώσκωepiphōskō
towardg1519εἰςeis
the firstg3391μίαmia
of the sabbathg4521σάββατονsabbaton
cameg2064ἔρχομαιerchomai
Maryg3137ΜαρίαMaria
Magdaleneg3094ΜαγδαληνήMagdalēnē
andg2532καίkai
the otherg243ἄλλος allos
Maryg3137ΜαρίαMaria
to seeg2334θεωρέωtheōreō
the sepulchre.g5028τάφοςtaphos
   

As you can see the word Sabbath appears TWICE in this passage. While the adverb "opse" may modify the end of the first Sabbath mentioned in the text a second Sabbath is beginning.

It is impossible to reasonably explain 2 Sabbaths occurring in such a short span of time without understanding the liturgical calendar.


Your argument is not with me.  I'm not a Greek scholar, and I'm certainly not the Greek scholars who translated the Greek words into "upon the first day of the week."  I'm just pointing out that there seemingly aren't any Greek scholars disputing them, which tells me they got it right.  You are not a Greek scholar, so your intrepretation is not backed by credentials.  You need to take this up with the Greek scholars with which you disagree.  I can't answer for them.

Would these be the same scholars who turned Pesach into Easter?

Those accredited scholars?

Methinks if I were to present any source it would only be dismissed as "not accredited [by those who already agree with me]."

Quote
I don't know how else to explain it.


Would that you had the courtesy to even try.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: rich_t on March 27, 2010, 07:13:17 PM
I see that the picking of nits is alive and well.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 27, 2010, 07:17:16 PM
Would that you had the courtesy to even try.

I would if I could, but I'm not a Greek scholar.  I don't read Greek, I don't speak Greek, and I can't translate Greek into English.  How hard is this to understand?  You're not a Greek scholar either.  Neither of us know the rules of the language, how sentences are constructed and composed, how to intrepret based upon these things, etc...  But those who can, those scholars who examined the translation for the writers of the commentaries, from all accounts I have read thus far, did not dispute the translation as being inaccurate.  I can't find a single instance where any Greek scholar has said the translation is inaccurate.  Now, if you want to call all these scholars "fools agreeing," that's up to you.

The Greek words in Act 20:7 have been translated "upon the first day of the week."  If you don't believe that is an accurate translation, you need to talk to Greek scholars that can explain how the Greek words in Acts 20:7 were translated to "upon the first day of the week."  Certainly there's a university in your area, or a scholar you can find to write and inquire as to why it was translated that way.  I have no doubt Greek scholars can give you the answers you seek.  But asking me to explain how they translated these Greek words into the phrase that is  consistently used won't get you anywhere because I'm not a Greek scholar.  Quit asking me.  You've got to ask a scholar who can translate Greek.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 27, 2010, 07:19:03 PM
I see that the picking of nits is alive and well.

Well it is a highly technical area, particularly when dealing with dead languages, whose subtle transliterations do not easily relate to English.....

Greek is relatively simple compared to Aramaic, and even (ancient) Hebrew, due to the fact that there so few intact original texts to actually study....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: rich_t on March 27, 2010, 07:25:22 PM
Well it is a highly technical area, particularly when dealing with dead languages, whose subtle transliterations do not easily relate to English.....

Greek is relatively simple compared to Aramaic, and even (ancient) Hebrew, due to the fact that there so few intact original texts to actually study....

doc

Damn it Doc, I know that.

But it can get a bit tiresome to see the same thing done over and over and over.

Carl has admitted that he isn't a Greek scholar, yet Snuggles keeps posting as if he were.

Spinning of wheels period.

Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 27, 2010, 07:26:36 PM
I would if I could, but I'm not a Greek scholar.  I don't read Greek, I don't speak Greek, and I can't translate Greek into English.  How hard is this to understand?  You're not a Greek scholar either.  Neither of us know the rules of the language, how sentences are constructed and composed, how to intrepret based upon these things, etc...  But those who can, those scholars who examined the translation for the writers of the commentaries, from all accounts I have read thus far, did not dispute the translation as being inaccurate.  I can't find a single instance where any Greek scholar has said the translation is inaccurate.  Now, if you want to call all these scholars "fools agreeing," that's up to you.

The Greek words in Act 20:7 have been translated "upon the first day of the week."  If you don't believe that is an accurate translation, you need to talk to Greek scholars that can explain how the Greek words in Acts 20:7 were translated to "upon the first day of the week."  Certainly there's a university in your area, or a scholar you can find to write and inquire as to why it was translated that way.  I have no doubt Greek scholars can give you the answers you seek.  But asking me to explain how they translated these Greek words into the phrase that is  consistently used won't get you anywhere because I'm not a Greek scholar.  Quit asking me.  You've got to ask a scholar who can translate Greek.

.

Excuse the intrusion, but I see a "forest and trees" situation......perhaps it would be helpful to simply examine the paradox in the passage, setting aside the linguistic minutia for a moment......

The question becomes......under what circumstances would two "Sabbaths" occur back to back, as the verse implies?

Carry on....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: rich_t on March 27, 2010, 07:32:28 PM
Excuse the intrusion, but I see a "forest and trees" situation......perhaps it would be helpful to simply examine the paradox in the passage, setting aside the linguistic minutia for a moment......

The question becomes......under what circumstances would two "Sabbaths" occur back to back, as the verse implies?

Carry on....

doc

A better question might be.. "what real difference" does it make to God?

Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 07:37:18 PM
I see that the picking of nits is alive and well.
Imagine a liberal trying to argue with you that the RKBA did not apply to private citizens but only state-founded militias.

Something tells me you would be picking every nit-worthy word, clause and punctuation mark.

 :-)


Well it is a highly technical area, particularly when dealing with dead languages, whose subtle transliterations do not easily relate to English.....

Greek is relatively simple compared to Aramaic, and even (ancient) Hebrew, due to the fact that there so few intact original texts to actually study....

doc
There have been authors such as Alfred Edersheim, E W Bullinger and a small herd of modern authors such as David Stern who have contributed. I don't know if they are on the approved list but they are there.

Whether or not anyone gives ear to them makes no difference to me but something about looking at the same word and ascribing contradictory definitions to it strikes me as illogical at best and disingenuous at worst.

A better question might be.. "what real difference" does it make to God?

If God instituted something would it be pointless or would it be meant to teach and/or edify and/or protect?
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: rich_t on March 27, 2010, 07:41:08 PM
Imagine a liberal trying to argue with you that the RKBA did not apply to private citizens but only state-founded militias.

Something tells me you would be picking every nit-worthy word, clause and punctuation mark.

 :-)


Oy Vey!
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 07:42:26 PM
Oy Vey!

L'chiam!

 :cheersmate:
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: rich_t on March 27, 2010, 07:44:13 PM
Imagine a liberal trying to argue with you that the RKBA did not apply to private citizens but only state-founded militias.

Something tells me you would be picking every nit-worthy word, clause and punctuation mark.

 :-)

There have been authors such as Alfred Edersheim, E W Bullinger and a small herd of modern authors such as David Stern who have contributed. I don't know if they are on the approved list but they are there.

Whether or not anyone gives ear to them makes no difference to me but something about looking at the same word and ascribing contradictory definitions to it strikes me as illogical at best and disingenuous at worst.

If God instituted something would it be pointless or would it be meant to teach and/or edify and/or protect?

I do believe you are now arguing for the mere sake of arguing.

But to each their own.

I've done it too.  I certainly don't condemn you for it.  But I know it for what it is.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: rich_t on March 27, 2010, 07:45:34 PM
Doc,

I apologize for side tracking your board.

Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Doc on March 27, 2010, 07:55:05 PM
A better question might be.. "what real difference" does it make to God?



Back at the dim beginnings of this discussion, the question arose.....Does the Mosaic Covenant (Old Testament Law) survive the Resurrection of Christ, and the :"New Covenant"......based on at least some interpretation of passages in the New Testament, there is evidence that it did, if perhaps only in part.......that debate has funneled down to examples of where the believers of the Mosaic Covenant (the Jews, including the Apostles), and the New Covenant believers differ.....one of these is examples is the establishment of the "day" on which the Sabbath falls in the week......ergo:

Under Hebrew Law the Sabbath (Shabot) begins at sunset on Friday, and extends to sunset on Saturday.....the Christian Sabbath is celebrated on Sunday......

Where the passage MSB cites in his translation matrix becomes interesting is.....that it describes what (and when) the two Marys went to the tomb of Christ after the Crucifixion......the paradox "suggests" that the death and Resurrection (if this translation is to be believed) somehow "changed" the celebration of the Sabbath to coincide with the Resurrection, abandoning the Old Covenant......or at least the portion of it that establishes the Sabbath in the liturgical calendar....

And there IS the possibility that I don't have a clue.....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: USA4ME on March 27, 2010, 07:58:28 PM
Excuse the intrusion, but I see a "forest and trees" situation......perhaps it would be helpful to simply examine the paradox in the passage, setting aside the linguistic minutia for a moment......

The question becomes......under what circumstances would two "Sabbaths" occur back to back, as the verse implies?

Carry on....

doc

I believe that can be answered when one comes to understand why the Greek in Act 20:7 is tranlated "upon the first day of the week."  It might very well be that some are seeing an implication there that doesn't really exist, or that there is one there and others are missing it.  But every commentary and reference book I've looked at today never views the translation as anything other than accurate.  Given and stated in the preface that these commentaries are reviewed by panels of Greek scholars to catch any inaccuracies (which makes sense, otherwise the commentaries would come into question as to their accuracy), I haven't any reason to believe the phrase is anything but accurately translated "upon the first day of the week."  I trust that a panel of Greek scholars peer reviewed each other to insure accuracy, and I trust that had they made a mistake, some other Greek scholar(s) along the line would have pointed out their error(s).  So far, can't find where that ever happened.

SB is seeing a conflict.  That's cool, more power to him.  But I can't answer the questions he's asking because I don't read, write, or translate Greek.  He's got to get with an expert who can explain the where's and why's, and I hope he does.

.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 08:13:43 PM
I do believe you are now arguing for the mere sake of arguing.

But to each their own.

I've done it too.  I certainly don't condemn you for it.  But I know it for what it is.
Not for the sake of arguing but because it has been my experience many people claim to want to know for the sake of knowledge.

OK fine. USA4ME has implied such things as well. Yet, when it comes down to it anything that upsets the apple cart of received tradition will be dismissed without comment.

When this conversation first started I said tradition could be stultifying...but it also served as a bulwark of bad doctrine. The Reformation gained strength under the cry of sola scritptura, "by scripture alone," because they believed the papacy had infected the gospel with unfounded tradition. [No offense to Catholics, I'm just reciting history, not a personal opinion.]

Sounds good...but in time the decentralization of the protestant sects lead to some fairly heinous doctrines and in turn it was the older churches that best guarded against "heresy". I noted the "name it and claim it" movement c. 1995 as the most recent and egregious manifestation of making-it-up-as-you-go-along. Those idiots cited plenty of scripture and I'm sure a few had degrees...but they were still idiots at best, hucksters most likely.

As Doc noted, there is a *seeming* paradox. Traditional scholarship doesn't satisfy because--perchance--the "traditional" interpretation neglects the real tradition behind the passage. If I claim to be a constitutionalist I must accept the COTUS, all of it, history included, otherwise my claim has no merit.

Admittedly, I'm not a christian but I tore mercilessly into TNO and wilbur about their atheistic myths because those myths were inconsistent with what they claimed to be. I do not like being fed bullshit even if the bullshitter cannot smell his own crap.

BTW - I like Christians better than the TNO types because Christians do have scriptures. Christians have an objective standard that can be tested. People like TNO can make shit up as they go along and change it at whim...and he did. In this regard religion is far more substantive than most atheist philosophies.


Back at the dim beginnings of this discussion, the question arose.....Does the Mosaic Covenant (Old Testament Law) survive the Resurrection of Christ, and the :"New Covenant"......based on at least some interpretation of passages in the New Testament, there is evidence that it did, if perhaps only in part.......that debate has funneled down to examples of where the believers of the Mosaic Covenant (the Jews, including the Apostles), and the New Covenant believers differ.....one of these is examples is the establishment of the "day" on which the Sabbath falls in the week......ergo:

Under Hebrew Law the Sabbath (Shabot) begins at sunset on Friday, and extends to sunset on Saturday.....the Christian Sabbath is celebrated on Sunday......

Where the passage MSB cites in his translation matrix becomes interesting is.....that it describes what (and when) the two Marys went to the tomb of Christ after the Crucifixion......the paradox "suggests" that the death and Resurrection (if this translation is to be believed) somehow "changed" the celebration of the Sabbath to coincide with the Resurrection, abandoning the Old Covenant......or at least the portion of it that establishes the Sabbath in the liturgical calendar....

And there IS the possibility that I don't have a clue.....

doc
The Greek word for the Mosaic law is "nomos." A survey of its every occurrence would be...intriguing.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 27, 2010, 08:29:29 PM
The Greek word for the Mosaic law is "nomos." A survey of its every occurrence would be...intriguing.

Would you perhaps care to embark on that mission?

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 27, 2010, 08:47:24 PM
Would you perhaps care to embark on that mission?

doc
With this crew?!?!?

  :bolt:

Besides, there are plenty of better qualified and more "spiritually attuned" individuals than I. It's been more than a decade since I pursued any of this. The names I listed a few posts ago were those I could remember off the top of my fuzzy skull. Those are a good start. Otherwise I have to dig deep into untold numbers of boxes of books long ago entombed beneath the stairs.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 27, 2010, 09:06:32 PM
With this crew?!?!?

  :bolt:

Besides, there are plenty of better qualified and more "spiritually attuned" individuals than I. It's been more than a decade since I pursued any of this. The names I listed a few posts ago were those I could remember off the top of my fuzzy skull. Those are a good start. Otherwise I have to dig deep into untold numbers of boxes of books long ago entombed beneath the stairs.

Yeah....I see what you mean....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Doc on March 27, 2010, 10:14:19 PM
I'm not seeing the difficulty.  It says "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."  It doesn't say it's impossible for it to take place.

This is simple an illustration by Jesus to make a point.  Rich people, in general, tend to put their trust in riches rather than God.  But that isn't always the case.  Two excellent examples of men who were wealthy in the Bible yet were obedient to God were Abraham and Job.


Very good USA, and may I add that it could very well be, and I think that it is the case, that here Jesus was using hyperbole as he did when he said, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father,and mother, and wife, and children, and brethern, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple".  Luke 14:26

The point Jesus was making is not that we hate family members, but that our love for him should be supreme and that that love of hiim would make our love for family, in comparison, seem like hate.  And as you probably know, hyperbole is extreme exaggeration to make a point.  We do that all the time when we say things like, "it's so cold out there I almost froze to death", and "that almost scared me to death".  And that is what Jesus is doing with the "camel through the eye of a needle".  



.
Moderators note:  Edited to fix quote tags for clarity  (I think)

Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 28, 2010, 04:27:50 PM
I don't know if I would ever go to church...

...but I know which churches I wouldn't go to.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 28, 2010, 04:31:38 PM
I don't know if I would ever go to church...

...but I know which churches I wouldn't go to.

OK....you've piqued my curiosity........

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Thor on March 28, 2010, 04:46:58 PM
OK, I need to speak up for historical accuracy and clarity's sake. The "eye of the needle" was a place in the middle east where camels had to get down on their knees in order to enter. (I forget which city it was in) Imagine, a camel, walking on it's knees to get through the gate. I could be proven wrong, but that's what I was taught.

The bible is RIFE with translation errors. Imagine, Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English........ I don't think I need to say much more.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Thor on March 28, 2010, 04:52:05 PM
For reference: http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Doc on March 28, 2010, 05:23:03 PM
OK, I need to speak up for historical accuracy and clarity's sake. The "eye of the needle" was a place in the middle east where camels had to get down on their knees in order to enter. (I forget which city it was in) Imagine, a camel, walking on it's knees to get through the gate. I could be proven wrong, but that's what I was taught.

The bible is RIFE with translation errors. Imagine, Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English........ I don't think I need to say much more.

Mrs Smith used that example as well.....I have never heard it, and in my visits to Jerusalem, never saw such a gate (however, there are many, and I can't attest to seeing them all, further much of the walls are either gone, or have buildings abutting them that it is impossible to know for sure)......however, buried in your link (next post below) is this:

Quote
A brief survey of sermons or search on the Internet reveals how many perpetuate the myth of the small gate in Jerusalem. Victorian travellers to the Holy Land even claim to have been shown it. The inaccuracy may appear harmless but it is neither good scholarship nor good exposition. The exaggerated and contrasted size is deliberate and is not an overt judgement on riches or poverty. Jesus reflects on how hard it often is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. The riches are a distraction and hard to share if one is too attached to them. The disciples' incredulity is that if even the rich cannot be saved, who can? But the verdict is that even the rich, not only the rich, will find it impossible to save themselves – but with God all things are possible.

Which seems to imply that the verse....in its entirety, is allegorical, which is fine......it's just not taught that way in modern Christian Churches,,,,,,

So it then becomes:  A "misinterpretation", rather than a "mistranslation"......however, if the gate doesn't exist, then the allegorical "rope" is all we are left with....

doc
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: debk on March 28, 2010, 05:41:20 PM
It is indeed an interesting discussion.

But at the end of the day, I doubt that God really cares which day of the week one goes to church to worship.



I agree, it has been an interesting discussion.

I remember way back in college....attending a Mass at the Newman Center....and the priest, in his Homily said....."God doesn't care what day you come to Church, or even what you wear....He only cares that you show up".

It's something I've never forgotten.

Personally, I prefer going on Wednesday's at noon. I'm there because I want to be....not because I'm expected to be there by some other parishioner. And I usually have jeans on, as it's the middle of my work day.


Excuse the intrusion, but I see a "forest and trees" situation......perhaps it would be helpful to simply examine the paradox in the passage, setting aside the linguistic minutia for a moment......

The question becomes......under what circumstances would two "Sabbaths" occur back to back, as the verse implies?

Carry on....

doc

Perhaps the difference in the Sabbath day between Jews and Christians was something so simple as to separate the two Sabbaths and the two religions.

The Jews kept their Saturday Sabbath as it was long established, and the Christians took Sunday, based on the day the Resurrection occurred.

That's probably too simple an explanation.... :-)

Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Thor on March 28, 2010, 06:18:29 PM
Well, I'd be willing to argue which day is the Sabbath. The calender has been changed over the centuries and really, do we actually know that Jesus was crucified on a Friday?? I recall reading about where people were loathe to crucify someone on the Sabbath Eve. Remember, the Sabbath actually starts Friday evening for many.
Title: Re: Translation Errors in Scripture
Post by: Chris_ on March 28, 2010, 06:57:51 PM
Well, I'd be willing to argue which day is the Sabbath. The calender has been changed over the centuries and really, do we actually know that Jesus was crucified on a Friday?? I recall reading about where people were loathe to crucify someone on the Sabbath Eve. Remember, the Sabbath actually starts Friday evening for many.

Excellent point.....we should probably look at the continuity of the calendar over the period.....

Just like we don't know for absolute certainty when Christ was actually born.....we celebrate it on December 25th, but the Greek Church uses another date, and I've read scientific theories that place his birth anywhere from February to June (based on astronomical data) .....and interestingly enough there is a growing group of Biblical scholars that believe that Christ was actually born three to six years before "1 AD".......we just don't know.

Returning to MSB's verse translation relating to "Easter"....again, the date that we celebrate Easter is calculated on the "lunar calendar", and therefore varies in actual date from year to year.......

I'm not Biblical scholar enough to understand why it is so calculated, however, I suspect that it related to the Jewish liturgical calendar, and scriptural references to its proximity to Passover.......

doc