Question ...

[oxmixmudd]

None (as far as I am aware of). But you do know what I am talking about, right?

It amounts to the same thing. If I hand you a Bible and then tell you that:
"Genesis 1-11 will not be used/trusted because it is filled with mythology and primitive writings",
haven't I in essence 'deleted' Genesis 1-11?

Jorge

I've never handed anyone a Bible and said that. Nor have I ever even hinted at the idea the Genesis 1-11 can't be used, nor have I even said it's 'filled with mythology', nor would I EVER do any of those things.

I will say it again. I regard all of scripture as inspired and God's word to us. We disagree on the type of text it is and the usefulness of the text in evaluating SCIENTIFIC discoveries and claims. Not its inspiration. Not its holiness. Not its Authority in Spiritual matters.

You just want to make it an all or nothing thing. And it just isn't. Your way of looking at the text is not the ONLY way of looking at the text and being faithful to the text and to God. There are primary, critical areas of doctrine and teaching, and there are secondary areas. Baptism is far more important than this. Yet we have major differences in Christendom over how to Baptize. The balance of Grace to works is far more important than this, Yet we have major legitimate differences on that as well. And most Christians would not disqualify or belittle the faith of the other over those differences.

This is a secondary area of teaching and doctrine.

It's a simple as that.

Jim

[rwatts]

I did not say or imply such a thing.

I've never handed anyone a Bible and said that. Nor have I ever even hinted at the idea the Genesis 1-11 can't be used, nor have I even said it's 'filled with mythology', nor would I EVER do any of those things.

You don't read very carefully either, do you? I made no dogmatic assertion on the contents of your entire posting history, but only on what I'd read.

Jorge, if you are so prone to misunderstanding your fellow man, what are the chances that you are prone to misunderstanding a book you claim comes from the supernatural?

[Jorge]

I did not say or imply such a thing. The NT is very clear that Mary was a virgin. But the OT is not so clear.

But ... but ... the NT directly cites/refers to the OT. Think about what you say!

Perhaps you are not aware that Is 7:14 was a prophecy with a double fulfillment? The first fulfillment was in Isaiah's day. Ahaz was told to ask for a sign from God, Ahaz refused, so Isaiah gave him one anyway. Isaiah said that the young woman would conceive and bear a son (perhaps he even pointed to the young woman in question). At the time of the prophecy, she was presumably also a virgin. Isaiah then married her and she bore him a son (Is. 8:3).

I was focusing on THE 'Virgin Birth'. Also, you are comparing apples with watermelons.
The son that the young woman bore Ahaz was not 'delivered' by the Holy Spirit.

Rather, the Byzantine Greek texts that underlie the KJV added these things to the original.

You wish to see it that way ... there is nothing that I can do to stop you.

You need to re-read your KJV! The KJV does not use "LORD" in Is 7:14, it uses "Lord". The Hebrew is not "YHWH", but "Adonai". Hence "sovereign master" is a perfectly good translation.

Really? Read Isaiah 7:10-14 and employ a concept called CONTEXT. It would be clear even to a grade-school reader that the "Lord" used in Is 7:14 is the same "LORD" as had been used in the previous four verses. Or do you actually think that Ahaz was the original source of this prophesy and not the LORD God?

Perhaps that is one of those 'cosmetic' "errors" that I've been speaking of (?) or perhaps it is due to some subtle linguistic rule (?) - without looking into it I wouldn't know.

But, of course, I know that you use a 'special formula' for interpreting Scripture.
I call it the OEC/TE Magic Formula.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge, if you are so prone to misunderstanding your fellow man, what are the chances that you are prone to misunderstanding a book you claim comes from the supernatural?

That's simple! My "fellow man" is extremely easy to misunderstand when they communicate speaking with forked tongues, hidden agendas, deliberate obfuscations and ad hoc semantics. My LORD God, on the other hand, does no such thing. Yes, there are things in Scripture that I do not understand, and maybe never will here on earth, but when God wants it understood, it will be understood - period!

Jorge

[Jorge]

I've never handed anyone a Bible and said that. Nor have I ever even hinted at the idea the Genesis 1-11 can't be used, nor have I even said it's 'filled with mythology', nor would I EVER do any of those things.

I will say it again. I regard all of scripture as inspired and God's word to us. We disagree on the type of text it is and the usefulness of the text in evaluating SCIENTIFIC discoveries and claims. Not its inspiration. Not its holiness. Not its Authority in Spiritual matters.

You just want to make it an all or nothing thing. And it just isn't. Your way of looking at the text is not the ONLY way of looking at the text and being faithful to the text and to God. There are primary, critical areas of doctrine and teaching, and there are secondary areas. Baptism is far more important than this. Yet we have major differences in Christendom over how to Baptize. The balance of Grace to works is far more important than this, Yet we have major legitimate differences on that as well. And most Christians would not disqualify or belittle the faith of the other over those differences.

This is a secondary area of teaching and doctrine.

It's a simple as that.

Jim

REALLY? Then, to pick just one thing, tell us about Genesis 6 through 9 ... tell us about the "local flood" that destroyed ALL life on Earth except for those that were in the Ark. Go on, tell us how the Bible is God's Holy Word ... See below ...

Ya ain't fooling me, O-Mudd, though I have to grant it to you, you DO keep trying.

In plain language: you hold the Bible as Inspired, Holy and Authoritative UNTIL there is disagreement between the Bible and your beliefs in Evolution and Giga-Years. At that exact moment the Bible takes a back seat / goes under the bus. For you, the 'sanctity' of Evolution and Giga-Years will trump that of the Bible every single time bar none. The proof is in the pudding.

I keep telling you to accept that and you will have a sounder, more restful sleep but you keep fighting me on it.

Jorge

[Kbertsche]

But ... but ... the NT directly cites/refers to the OT. Think about what you say!

I know what I'm saying. The NT clarifies that Mary was a virgin who "had not known a man". Is 7:14 makes no such qualification or clarification for the "young woman".

I was focusing on THE 'Virgin Birth'. Also, you are comparing apples with watermelons.
The son that the young woman bore Ahaz was not 'delivered' by the Holy Spirit.

You were focusing on the virgin birth of Jesus. I was focusing on Is. 7:14. It is a prophecy with a dual fulfillment.

Really? Read Isaiah 7:10-14 and employ a concept called CONTEXT. It would be clear even to a grade-school reader that the "Lord" used in Is 7:14 is the same "LORD" as had been used in the previous four verses. Or do you actually think that Ahaz was the original source of this prophesy and not the LORD God?

Yes, of course it's referring to the same LORD. But the Hebrew text uses the word "Adonai" in v. 14, whereas it uses the word "YHWH" in vv. 10,11,17,18,... If you don't like the word that Isaiah chose at the inspiration of God, take it up with Isaiah and God, not the translators.

You may think it would be fine to change the wording and translate these all as LORD, but most translations (including your KJV) are more careful and try to stick more closely to the original text. (Have you even noticed that your KJV uses "Lord" in v. 14 and LORD in the other verses? Do you think this is an error in your KJV?)

Perhaps that is one of those 'cosmetic' "errors" that I've been speaking of (?) or perhaps it is due to some subtle linguistic rule (?) - without looking into it I wouldn't know.

But, of course, I know that you use a 'special formula' for interpreting Scripture.
I call it the OEC/TE Magic Formula.

Jorge

If you mean that we OEC/TEs try to be careful about the actual wording of the original text, I wholeheartedly accept your criticism.

[oxmixmudd]

But ... but ... the NT directly cites/refers to the OT. Think about what you say!



I was focusing on THE 'Virgin Birth'. Also, you are comparing apples with watermelons.
The son that the young woman bore Ahaz was not 'delivered' by the Holy Spirit.




You wish to see it that way ... there is nothing that I can do to stop you.



Really? Read Isaiah 7:10-14 and employ a concept called CONTEXT. It would be clear even to a grade-school reader that the "Lord" used in Is 7:14 is the same "LORD" as had been used in the previous four verses. Or do you actually think that Ahaz was the original source of this prophesy and not the LORD God?

Perhaps that is one of those 'cosmetic' "errors" that I've been speaking of (?) or perhaps it is due to some subtle linguistic rule (?) - without looking into it I wouldn't know.

But, of course, I know that you use a 'special formula' for interpreting Scripture.
I call it the OEC/TE Magic Formula.

Jorge

The Hebrew is what the Hebrew is Jorge. It does not use YHWH but adonoi. Typically some sort of distinction is made in the English to indicate the difference. Most would just go from LORD to lord or maybe Lord (because the context does imply this is as you say, just another term for God), but there is nothing sinister or hidden about using 'the sovereign master', in that adonoi refers to a title and position as opposed to necessarily God himself. And when read in English contextually here 'the sovereign master' implies God just like it does in the Hebrew. But they are different words with different connotations and so it is correct to make a similar distinction in the English translation so that the reader understand the same shift as exists in the Hebrew. But it is different than what the KJV does. Becauses the KJV writers chose not to express the difference that exists in the Hebrew through the use of a different English word does not make it 'better'. In fact it makes the KJV slightly inferior in the sense that it reduces the clarity of the distinction present in the Hebrew.

You are behaving as if the translators were trying to say this reference to adonoi did not refer to God, and that is silly. What they were most likely trying to do was just simply be accurate and make it a bit more obvious the Hebrew wasn't using the Holy Name of God at that point.


Jim

[JonathanL]

The Hebrew is what the Hebrew is Jorge. It does not use YHWH but adonoi. Typically some sort of distinction is made in the English to indicate the difference. Most would just go from LORD to lord or maybe Lord (because the context does imply this is as you say, just another term for God), but there is nothing sinister or hidden about using 'the sovereign master', in that adonoi refers to a title and position as opposed to necessarily God himself. And when read in English contextually here 'the sovereign master' implies God just like it does in the Hebrew. But they are different words with different connotations and so it is correct to make a similar distinction in the English translation so that the reader understand the same shift as exists in the Hebrew. But it is different than what the KJV does. Becauses the KJV writers chose not to express the difference that exists in the Hebrew. That makes the KJV slightly inferior in the sense that it reduces the clarity of the distinction present in the Hebrew.

You are behaving as if the translators were trying to say this reference to adonoi did not refer to God, and that is silly. What they were most likely trying to do was just simply be accurate and make it a bit more obvious the Hebrew wasn't using the Holy Name of God at that point.


Jim

While I do agree with you on all the points you bring up I can't help but feel like "the sovereign master" is kind of a clunky way to translate 'adonoi'. I think translating it as "the Lord (capital L optional) above all", or something similar would probably be better. This is just my opinion though, since I haven't taken a single lesson in Hebrew.

[oxmixmudd]

While I do agree with you on all the points you bring up I can't help but feel like "the sovereign master" is kind of a clunky way to translate 'adonoi'. I think translating it as "the Lord (capital L optional) above all", or something similar would probably be better. This is just my opinion though, since I haven't taken a single lesson in Hebrew.

I agree. We are used to that, it feels like it's taking away from what the text is saying to us because we have read it that way for so long. But Jorge is wrong to think it necessarily means some sort of conspiracy to undermine the prophecy. And that is my point. Personally I prefer the NASB, which uses the LORD/Lord differentiation there, but I'm noticing it's getting harder and harder to get a copy of that particular version these days.

Jim

[One Bad Pig]

That's simple! My "fellow man" is extremely easy to misunderstand when they communicate speaking with forked tongues, hidden agendas, deliberate obfuscations and ad hoc semantics.

None of those pertain to me.

My LORD God, on the other hand, does no such thing.

Are you a Calvinist, by chance? You have a very ...stark view of the world.

Yes, there are things in Scripture that I do not understand, and maybe never will here on earth, but when God wants it understood, it will be understood - period!

Then why are there so many different Protestant groups? It's crystal clear that God wants unity in His church - yet the minute it became "every man's interpretation for himself," everything began to splinter. It's not quite so clear that a highly symbolic poetical narrative must be interpreted strictly literally for salvation. IMO, YEC is the easiest reading, but I can't put my finger on the passage that says anything like, "believe in a 4,000-year-old earth at the time of My Incarnation, and thou shalt be saved."

[One Bad Pig]

While I do agree with you on all the points you bring up I can't help but feel like "the sovereign master" is kind of a clunky way to translate 'adonoi'. I think translating it as "the Lord (capital L optional) above all", or something similar would probably be better. This is just my opinion though, since I haven't taken a single lesson in Hebrew.

Yeah, I think it's kind of clunky too. I often prefer the NET's more literal footnotes to their dynamic equivalences.

[rwatts]

That's simple! My "fellow man" is extremely easy to misunderstand when they communicate speaking with forked tongues, hidden agendas, deliberate obfuscations and ad hoc semantics. My LORD God, on the other hand, does no such thing. Yes, there are things in Scripture that I do not understand, and maybe never will here on earth, but when God wants it understood, it will be understood - period!

Jorge

My point Jorge, is about when you claim to understand both - your fellow man, and Scripture.

If in thinking you understood Ox, OBP and KB, you can be so wrong, then what about places in the Bible where you think you are correct?

[Carrikature]

Then why are there so many different Protestant groups? It's crystal clear that God wants unity in His church - yet the minute it became "every man's interpretation for himself," everything began to splinter.

This is one of many reasons for my disbelief. I don't consider it limited to Protestantism, though. Less splintering in other sects, perhaps, but the differences in the canon still exist.

[Jorge]

I know what I'm saying. The NT clarifies that Mary was a virgin who "had not known a man". Is 7:14 makes no such qualification or clarification for the "young woman".

Wasn't my point but ... doesn't matter.

You were focusing on the virgin birth of Jesus. I was focusing on Is. 7:14. It is a prophecy with a dual fulfillment.

Nice of you to switch horses on me and to then criticize me for not knowing that. Wow!

Yes, of course it's referring to the same LORD. But the Hebrew text uses the word "Adonai" in v. 14, whereas it uses the word "YHWH" in vv. 10,11,17,18,... If you don't like the word that Isaiah chose at the inspiration of God, take it up with Isaiah and God, not the translators.

Not the point but ... doesn't matter.

You may think it would be fine to change the wording and translate these all as LORD, but most translations (including your KJV) are more careful and try to stick more closely to the original text. (Have you even noticed that your KJV uses "Lord" in v. 14 and LORD in the other verses? Do you think this is an error in your KJV?)

I had previously put out TWO possible explanations. Reading problems?
Also, I try to focus on matters of substance, not cosmetic trivia.
Of course, those with an ulterior agenda do the exact opposite.

If you mean that we OEC/TEs try to be careful about the actual wording of the original text, I wholeheartedly accept your criticism.

You know very well that that's NOT what I mean.

Funny thing though - you claim to be "very careful about the actual wording of the original text" but when that "actual wording" threatens/challenges your OEC beliefs then you either trash it, distort it or ignore it.

It would be absolutely fantastic to get some bona fide consistency from you people.

Jorge

[Jorge]

None of those pertain to me.

Are you a Calvinist, by chance? You have a very ...stark view of the world.

Then why are there so many different Protestant groups? It's crystal clear that God wants unity in His church - yet the minute it became "every man's interpretation for himself," everything began to splinter. It's not quite so clear that a highly symbolic poetical narrative must be interpreted strictly literally for salvation. IMO, YEC is the easiest reading, but I can't put my finger on the passage that says anything like, "believe in a 4,000-year-old earth at the time of My Incarnation, and thou shalt be saved."

"Calvinist"? Good heavens, NO!

I belong to no sect. I am Bible-based, non-denominational. I believe that "churches" are essentially man-created institutions far-too-often for purposes that are anything but Christ-centered. That answers your question as to why there are so many different Protestant groups. It's not just "Protestant" - all kinds of "churches" pop up everywhere like weeds. In my birth-country (Puerto Rico) one was created by a guy claiming to be Christ. As Durante would say, "Everybody wants to get into the act!"

"... stark view of the world"? I am based on what God has told me. There is no reason for optimism in THIS world. Instead we should expect exactly what we see. I mean, open your eyes and take an honest look. Or have you forgotten how to do that? All that said, I try to focus on the rare sprinklings of "good" and beauty that keep the world from being a living hell. But again, I never lose sight of what God has clearly told me (in His Special Revelation) about what I should expect here. We all live the facts of His Revelation and those facts make me long for Heaven - just as Paul did.

Jorge