gNads: theologian/Biblical scholar

[ColonelCarrots]

Bible college student here!

The Old Testament was kept by Masoretic Scribes. They were very very very conservative on how they kept their texts. They would copy the Old Testament scriptures for a living. The King James Bible uses the masoretic text because no one has the originals. Only place you can get original text is the Ark of the Covenant (At least only the Law of Moses and Joshua I believe are in there.)

As for the less hate and fire and brimstone. Just buy any new translation if you want blasphemy. Most take out the damning parts to make it more friendly. They also take out the blood of Christ and his Sacrifice.

So if you want BLASPHEMY buy a NIV Bible, why not buy three. Though if you want the good stuff buy KJV. Also, us fundamentalists will not die out, while world religions have been around, and people have been persecuted for not going with the flow we were there. We may not have been called Baptists, but fundamentalists have always been around even during the time of the Apostles. Also DUmmies, hope your common core reading skills are up to par. NIV requires an 8th grade reading level. KJV only requires a 5th grade reading level.

Remember all the Churches (Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonian) that Paul wrote to? It was because some Liberal was spewing lies about the Gospel, and was injecting poison into the churches, and teaching them false doctrine.


Reason why the Apocrypha is not in the Jewish Canon, or some translations, it was because it was not accepted as Canon. It is also innaccurate. One book called Nebuchadnezzar the king of Assyria. He was the king of Babylon, history proves this, and so does the Old Testament. Apocrypha was introduced into the Catholic church, and suddenly appeared when they were teaching things like Purgatory for the first time. The Original KJV had the Apocrypha because most people believed in it at the time. The only thing you can rely on is the Maccabee books 1&2, but take it with a grain of salt. Eat the meat, spit out the bones. We know Hanukkah is real because it was kept as a Jewish tradition, a story, like Purim. Hanukkah didn't start because of some Catholic book.

[Big Dog]

Bible college student here!

The Old Testament was kept by Masoretic Scribes. They were very very very conservative on how they kept their texts. They would copy the Old Testament scriptures for a living. The King James Bible uses the masoretic text because no one has the originals. Only place you can get original text is the Ark of the Covenant (At least only the Law of Moses and Joshua I believe are in there.)

Oh, kid. If this is what you are learning in Bible college, you need to ask for a refund.

Hebrews 9:4 says that the Ark of the Covenant contains "the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant", not the Pentatuech (the 5 books of The Law of Moses).

There is no such thing as an "original text" of the Tanakh (the "Jewish Bible").  Ezra was written around 400 BC. Masoretes were several scribal schools from about 400 AD through the tenth century in Judea and the Arabian peninsula. The different schools had different ideas about the meaning and use of words (even letters within words). One well-respected school, the House of Asher, ended up as your "Masoretic scribes" through an 800 year process of argument (meant in a good way) between different traditions.

James I chose the ben Asher texts as the basis for the KJV translation. James was not a holy man. He was a king- a politician, with the desire to be an all-powerful monarch leading an empire and a state Church "by the grace of God". His goal was to give the Church he ruled the status of God's "true church" with the "true Bible", which was the same claim made by the Roman Catholic Church.  James needed a Bible which came from different source texts than the Roman Bible- hence the use of the Masoretic Text vs. the Septuagint for the Old Testament.

The Catholic/Anglican schism of the 16th-17th century was a war; the King James Version of the Bible was one weapon in that war.

Ask yourself the question: If your denomination's ancestors separated from the High Church in the 1600s, why would you trust the High Church's Bible translation?

[98ZJUSMC]

Because the Jewish bible is pretty much the old Testament which happened before Christ.

And I would respond with more but I have no idea what she is going on about.

Nobody does.

[GOBUCKS]

nadin wishes she didn't know all that shit, but she does.

She's the world's foremost theologian.

In her stupid post about the "Jewish bible" she was just trying to dumb it down enough for her audience to understand.

One of her gifts is the ability to write for the lowest common denominator.

[Maxiest]

Nobody does.

I have actually almost put her on my Iggy list in my brain.  I will sometimes read the posts that are brought over here, but rarely.  IMO she has become worse and worse especially with her whole local news story crap.  I used to find her entertaining but she is just a nuisance now.

[Purple Sage]

I have actually almost put her on my Iggy list in my brain.  I will sometimes read the posts that are brought over here, but rarely.  IMO she has become worse and worse especially with her whole local news story crap.  I used to find her entertaining but she is just a nuisance now.

Agreed.  I no longer find her funny.  Just tedious.  She has become old like a rent, soiled, smelly dishrag that no longer has any serviceable use.  Better to throw it out with the trash than to bother running it through the washer.

[Maxiest]

Agreed.  I no longer find her funny.  Just tedious.  She has become old like a rent, soiled, smelly dishrag that no longer has any serviceable use.  Better to throw it out with the trash than to bother running it through the washer.

Ah yes, the smelly dishrag... the one you can't do anything with but throw away.  Great analogy.

[GOBUCKS]

nadin is the DUmp's shining beacon.

She is the epitome of DUmpitude.

The crazy bald dwarf is the benchmark against which all DUmp arrogance, blindness, ignorance, and hatred is measured.

It's as if major league baseball still had Babe Ruth, or Ty Cobb, or Jimmy Foxx, in their prime, playing 162 games a year.

Nutcase nadin is the essence of the DUmp, a towering lunatic amidst a swarm of ho-hum nuts.

Failure to appreciate nadin is like saying Lincoln was just another politician, or Gandhi was just another Indian.

[ColonelCarrots]

Oh, kid. If this is what you are learning in Bible college, you need to ask for a refund.

Hebrews 9:4 says that the Ark of the Covenant contains "the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant", not the Pentatuech (the 5 books of The Law of Moses).

There is no such thing as an "original text" of the Tanakh (the "Jewish Bible").  Ezra was written around 400 BC. Masoretes were several scribal schools from about 400 AD through the tenth century in Judea and the Arabian peninsula. The different schools had different ideas about the meaning and use of words (even letters within words). One well-respected school, the House of Asher, ended up as your "Masoretic scribes" through an 800 year process of argument (meant in a good way) between different traditions.

James I chose the ben Asher texts as the basis for the KJV translation. James was not a holy man. He was a king- a politician, with the desire to be an all-powerful monarch leading an empire and a state Church "by the grace of God". His goal was to give the Church he ruled the status of God's "true church" with the "true Bible", which was the same claim made by the Roman Catholic Church.  James needed a Bible which came from different source texts than the Roman Bible- hence the use of the Masoretic Text vs. the Septuagint for the Old Testament.

The Catholic/Anglican schism of the 16th-17th century was a war; the King James Version of the Bible was one weapon in that war.

Ask yourself the question: If your denomination's ancestors separated from the High Church in the 1600s, why would you trust the High Church's Bible translation?

Deuteronomy 31:24-26 24  And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 25  That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 26  Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

I never said anyone had the original texts, but what was inside the Ark of Covenant.

The reason we accept the KJV Bible as good translation is the method of translation. It is complete and honest (honest as in all words added are in italics), it was a complete translation as in it was scrutinized. All the words are word for word from copies. If there was a mistake they redid it. They would check the notes and translations at an estimated 14 times. They would meet to discuss the translations. The KJV is word for word from the sources of their material. (Byzantine text, Syrian text, and masoretic texts, and others.)

Compared to the Bishop and Geneva Bibles it is different as in it doesn't have any notes in it. The KJV was a compromise so no one could say their Bible was better since they would use a simple translation they agreed upon.

[Bad Dog]

nadin is the DUmp's shining beacon.

She is the epitome of DUmpitude.

The crazy bald dwarf is the benchmark against which all DUmp arrogance, blindness, ignorance, and hatred is measured.

It's as if major league baseball still had Babe Ruth, or Ty Cobb, or Jimmy Foxx, in their prime, playing 162 games a year.

Nutcase nadin is the essence of the DUmp, a towering lunatic amidst a swarm of ho-hum nuts.

Failure to appreciate nadin is like saying Lincoln was just another politician, or Gandhi was just another Indian.

Hear,,,Hear!!!  Harrumph,,,Harrumph

[vesta111]

Hear,,,Hear!!!  Harrumph,,,Harrumph

All ways wondered why the ancient texts from the new testament were mostly about the times of Jesus.

All the texts found in caves and not one text found about the foes of Jesus.   One would think that the times of Jesus would also be hidden somewhere.

Would like to hear from the Roman side and the enemy's of Jesus  ,   fill in some history of the time HE walked the Earth.

Why this lone man, poor man ,became such a threat to Cesar.

[Big Dog]

Deuteronomy 31:24-26 24  And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 25  That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 26  Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

And yet, in Paul's Letter to the Hebrews, Chapter 9, the Apostle wrote "the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant" (verse 4), with no mention of the "book" from Deut. 31.

Which is correct?

The reason we accept the KJV Bible as good translation is the method of translation.

I didn't ask you why you accept it as a "good translation". I asked why you trust it. The history of the KJV is one of writing a Bible translation to support the English king and the Anglican Church against the Roman Catholic Church, the Puritans, and the Parliament. Your religious ancestors separated from the Anglican Church, so why would you trust the Anglicans' Bible?

The KJV was a compromise so no one could say their Bible was better since they would use a simple translation they agreed upon.

"The KJV was a compromise between men with different opinions." Not "the inspired and inerrant Word of God".

Are you sure you wanted to say that?

[Big Dog]

vesta, you are hereby promoted to First Engineer on the Crazy Train.

[franksolich]

Oh, vesta, dear.

It's likely there wasn't much written at the time because in the 1st century A.D.--and for lots and lots of centuries thereafter--there wasn't much written of any individual from the lower classes.

I recalled the earliest non-Christian reference to Christ was either in Suetonius or Tacitus, and I found this in Tacitus:

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.
 
The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.
 
Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.
 
In terms of an overall context, historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing". The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

from wikipedia, but that's what I recall reading in Tacitus.

[ColonelCarrots]

And yet, in Paul's Letter to the Hebrews, Chapter 9, the Apostle wrote "the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant" (verse 4), with no mention of the "book" from Deut. 31.

Which is correct?

I didn't ask you why you accept it as a "good translation". I asked why you trust it. The history of the KJV is one of writing a Bible translation to support the English king and the Anglican Church against the Roman Catholic Church, the Puritans, and the Parliament. Your religious ancestors separated from the Anglican Church, so why would you trust the Anglicans' Bible?

"The KJV was a compromise between men with different opinions." Not "the inspired and inerrant Word of God".

Are you sure you wanted to say that?

Well there are two outcomes, 1. Paul didn't mention it, or 2. I have egg on my face.

(I was warned about this. "Don't act like you know everything  cause someone will shoot you down. Especially don't do it in the pulpit.")

Yes I do trust the KJV for being a complete word for word translation.

By compromise, it was the notes. The problem with the Anglican Bibles at the time were the notes, but not the texts. So to decide on what to use they simply translated the hebrew and greeks texts.

[GOBUCKS]

I cannot believe quotations from Scripture in response to the crazy bald dwarf.

It's kind of unseemly.

[Rebel]

Now start a topic like this about the Qu'ran, DUmmies.


I won't hold my breath.

[blitzkrieg_17]

I cannot believe quotations from Scripture in response to the crazy bald dwarf.

It's kind of unseemly.

Scripture rings hollow when quoted by non-believers.

[obumazombie]

Scripture rings hollow when quoted by non-believers.

They know how to twist it.
They learned from the father of all lies.

[Ptarmigan]

The Jewish Bible is just the Old Testament. Christian Bible is Old and New Testament.

[vesta111]

from wikipedia, but that's what I recall reading in Tacitus.

Fascinating Frank, how ever in Nero's time there were many who studied the scrolls in the library's written years before and included their own observations, very prolific writers back then

When the library in Alexander was burned later on it was said the whole past history of the world was destroyed.

Then there is India where their library', held thousands of works written on clay, to this day we have only translated less the 10% and the ones we have, and are right out of science fiction.

As is one or two books from Central America that survived the Spanish book burning.

Only thing in common of all these books is each civilizations believed their Gods came from the stars to Earth.

My interest is in the people of the time that had either heard about or personally witnessed these events.  To me it is astounding that our Bible is still with us.    More astounding is the finding of the Rosetta Stone that allowed us to interpret these old writings, makes me wonder what the purposes of time and trouble someone went to carve it in the first place.
   

[Big Dog]

Well there are two outcomes, 1. Paul didn't mention it, or 2. I have egg on my face.

(I was warned about this. "Don't act like you know everything  cause someone will shoot you down. Especially don't do it in the pulpit.")

There is a third answer: Paul was a man, not God. He was not infallible.