Chritianity's view on premarital foreplay?
The DataRat
"My argument is based on the uncertainty of the meaning
of the Hebrew word..."
You've yet to establish any "uncertainty" regarding the
meaning of the word except on the authority of one
individual, a Mr. Pope quoted from an Anchor Bible
commentary. The NASB, the NIV, the KJV, the NKJ,
the RSV, the ASV, et. al. found no "uncertainty".
The Reformed Rodent would like to hear more about
this Anchor Bible. He did a web search on it. It kept
popping up in context of Christian Science, Mormonism,
and the Watch Tower cult.
It would appear that at least one of the Anchor commentaries
was edited by a Romanist priest. Perhaps Mr. Weatherwax
would like to tell us more about this Anchor Bible ?
The DataRat
Richard A. Weatherwax
"My argument is based on the uncertainty of the meaning
of the Hebrew word..."
"My argument is based on the uncertainty of the meaning of the
Hebrew word, and on the context in which the word is used."
You've yet to establish any "uncertainty" regarding the
meaning of the word except on the authority of one
individual, a Mr. Pope quoted from an Anchor Bible
commentary. The NASB, the NIV, the KJV, the NKJ,
the RSV, the ASV, et. al. found no "uncertainty".
Now the second part of my statement (that is the part which you have consistently ignored.): The context in which the word is used.
Song of Songs 7:
1 How graceful are your feet in sandals,
O queenly maiden!
Your rounded thighs are like jewels,
the work of a master
hand.
2 Your vulva is a rounded bowl
that never lacks mixed
wine.
Your belly is a heap of wheat,
encircled with lilies.
3 Your two breasts are like two fawns.
twins of a gazelle.
4 Your neck is like an ivory tower.
Your eyes are pools in Heshbon,
by the gate of Bath-rabbim.
Your nose is like a tower of Lebanon,
overlooking Damascus.
5 Your head crowns you like Carmel,
and your flowing locks
are like purple;
a king is held captive
in the tresses.
If you observe, the sequence begins with her feet and continues upwards to the her tresses. If you cannot see that "navel" instead of "vulvas" would be out of sequence, then you are blind. And if you are at ease with the concept of a navel being filled with "spiced wine", then I feel sorry for you.
The Reformed Rodent would like to hear more about
this Anchor Bible. He did a web search on it. It kept
popping up in context of Christian Science, Mormonism,
and the Watch Tower cult.It would appear that at least one of the Anchor commentaries
was edited by a Romanist priest. Perhaps Mr. Weatherwax
would like to tell us more about this Anchor Bible ?The DataRat
The Anchor Bible is a muli-volume commentary which can be found in many libraries. I believe that there are over sixty volumes to it. I have seen it in public libraries, college libraries and bible book stores. Before you make any more criticisms of it, try going to a good library and looking through some volumes.
Introduction to the general work of The Anchor Bible:
THE ANCHOR BIBLE is a fresh approach to the world's greatest classic. Its object is to make the Bible accessible to the modern reader; its method is to arrive at the meaning of biblical literature through exact translation and extended exposition, and to reconstruct the ancient setting of the biblical story, as well as the circumstances of its transcription and the characteristics of its transcribers.It intrigues me to think that because of the issue you have made of this one word, that from now on, whenever you read that passage you with think "vulva". Maybe you should cut chapter 7 out of your bible so as to avoid any unclean thoughts.THE ANCHOR BIBLE is a project of international and interfaith scope: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish scholars from many countries contribute individual volumes. The project is not sponsored by any ecclesiastical organization and is not intended to reflect any particular theological doctrine. Prepared under our joint supervision, THE ANCHOR BIBLE is an effort to make available all the significant historical and linguistic knowledge which bears on the interpretation of the biblical record.
THE ANCHOR BIBLE is aimed at the general reader with no special formal training in biblical studies; yet, it is written with the most exacting standards of scholarship, reflecting the highest tecnical accomplishment.
This project marks the beginning of a new era of co-operation among scholars in biblical research, thus forming a common body of knowledge to be shared by all.
William Foxwell Albright
David Noel Freedman
General Editors
--
Wax
Your vulva is a rounded bowl
that never lacks mixed wine.
Song of Songs 7:2
The DataRat
"It was not a long sentence. Why did you cut it short?"
Because what he did quote accurately and conciselycaptured the substance of your point.
"You are merely assuming that because they do notcomment on the word, that they must all agree."
No Bible translation is going to comment on everyword in it's entire text ! That so many translationstranslate it the same way speaks volumes.
"Merely the wish to avoid controversy would be significantin their decision."
THAT is an inference you've yet to establish. Untilyou do, we can only view it as speculation. Thinspeculation.
"THE ANCHOR BIBLE is a project of international and
interfaith scope: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish scholars..."Just what the Genevan Rodent wanted to know !It's NOT a Christian Bible, it's a non-Christian "bible".Thanx, Mr. Weatherwax. That explains everything !The DataRat
Richard A. Weatherwax
>
>
> Because what he did quote accurately and concisely
> captured the substance of your point.
I wrote:
"My argument is based on the uncertainty of the meaning of the
Hebrew word, and on the context in which the word is used."
You quoted:
> "My argument is based on the uncertainty of the meaning
> of the Hebrew word..."
The effect is that you distorted what I said. It is not just the uncertainty of the word,
it is also the context which must be considered.
> No Bible translation is going to comment on every
> word in it's entire text ! That so many translations
> translate it the same way speaks volumes.
Song of Solomon 7 (American Standard Version)
7:2 Thy body is [like] a round goblet, [Wherein] no mingled wine
is wanting: Thy waist is [like] a heap of wheat Set about with lilies.
Song of Solomon 7 (Good News Bible in Today's English Version)
7:2 A bowl is there, that never runs out of spiced wine. A sheaf
of wheat is there, surrounded by lilies.
Song of Solomon 7 (Young's Literal Translation)
7:2 Thy waist [is] a basin of roundness, It lacketh not the mixture,
Thy body a heap of wheat, fenced with lilies,
There is significant disagreement on the meaning of the word. That speaks volumes. That
is why context must also be taken into consideration.
Wax
Song of Songs 8
11 Solomon had a vineyard at Baalhamon;
he let out the vineyard to keepers;
each one was to bring for its fruit a thousand pieces of silver.
12 My vineyard, my very own, is for myself;
you, O Solomon, may have the thousand,
and the keepers of the fruit two hundred.
GoldRush
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in article
<CrVL1.44339$435.20...@news.rdc1.az.home.com>...
DataRat:
Key word: "INTERFAITH"
Watch for it and beware of it!
Many bad works being performed under this
banner and excuse.
--
GoldRush
For Scriptures & Christian Studies
visit . .http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
Gematria
>
> The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in article
> <CrVL1.44339$435.20...@news.rdc1.az.home.com>...
>
>
> Key word: "INTERFAITH"
>
> Watch for it and beware of it!
>
> Many bad works being performed under this
> banner and excuse.
I disagree. Please elaborate . . .
The DataRat
"The effect is that you distorted what I said. It is not just
the uncertainty of the word, it is also the context which must
be considered."
Give the Genevan Rodent a break ! He was commenting
on the "uncertainty" part, so he quoted only ~that~ part of
what you said. Had he commented on the context issue,
you can be certain he would have included your "context"
quote. Sheesh !
"There is significant disagreement on the meaning of the
word."
No, there is one "authority" you've quoted who stands
against the scholarly TEAMS of translators for over
a half dozen New Testaments. It would appear more
a case of Mr. Pope as the Lone Ranger than of any
"significant" disagreement among scholars !
The DataRat
The DataRat
"DataRat:
Key word: 'INTERFAITH'
Watch for it and beware of it!"
Yes, Jim and Ronda, when the Genevan Rodent
was doing a web search on the Anchor Bible, and
he noticed one of the commentaries was by a
Romanist priest, alarm bells started going off in his
furry little head.
For the moment we'll ignore the issue of why a
rodent has alarm bells inside his cranium. These
ecumenical interfaith statements are Lowest Common
Denominator Theology. Truth is traded for consensus
and harmony. Mere precepts of men substituted for
the gospel.
The Anchor Bible Commentary appears to be two
non-Christians ( a Jew and a Roman Catholic ) with
one Spronged Protestant. No wonder it wants to
change "navel" into "vulva" !
The DataRat
The DataRat
Have heard that the Interpreter's Bible is another
weird one. Anyone have any info on it ? Is ~it~
another of these Interfaith "bibles" ?
The DataRat
GoldRush
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in article
<RD8M1.44379$435.20...@news.rdc1.az.home.com>...
DR,
We do not know of the above . . .but when you
find out anything . . .let *us* hear.
Ronda
>
>
>
>
>
GoldRush
Gematria <gema...@home.com> wrote in article
<36009110...@home.com>...
> GoldRush wrote:
> >
> > The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in article
> > <CrVL1.44339$435.20...@news.rdc1.az.home.com>...
<snipped>
> >
> > "THE ANCHOR BIBLE is a project of international and
> > interfaith scope: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish scholars..."
> >
> >
> > Just what the Genevan Rodent wanted to know !
> > It's NOT a Christian Bible, it's a non-Christian "bible".
> >
> > Thanx, Mr. Weatherwax. That explains everything !
> >
> >
> >
> > The DataRat
> >
> >
> >
> > DataRat:
> >
> > Key word: "INTERFAITH"
> >
> > Watch for it and beware of it!
> >
> > Many bad works being performed under this
> > banner and excuse.
>
> I disagree. Please elaborate . . .
>
Interfaith is a new name for an old movement that
was manifested in the World Council of Churches
back in 1948.
It is an ecumenical movement, designed to bring
all religions into one. Sounds good, but doesn't
work, because it forces the compromise of sound
doctrine.
We believe it is more political than spiritual, and
is a tool of Satan. The New Age movement is all
part and parcel of the same agenda.
To learn of the history of this phenonema, you can
try to find a book entitled,
"The Inter-Faith Movement (The New Age Enters The
Church) authored by Herbert J. Pollitt and published
by Banner of Truth.
Ronda
The DataRat
"Interfaith is a new name for an old movement that
was manifested in the World Council of Churches
back in 1948.
It is an ecumenical movement, designed to bring
all religions into one."
Phrased another way, it is post-modernism. That
is, the only bad thing is to say something is bad.
No religion is false because it's politically incorrect
to call a religion "false".
Hence, you might as well combine all the world's
religions into one ( since they're all "true", anyway ).
A Mormon who thinks that he is going to die, become
a god, rule over his own solar system and have sex
with celestial wives is correct. As is someone who
holds to the Biblical belief that there are no gods but
the Lord. So you just kind of combine the two religions.
Satan sees to it that the true religion is absorbed
doctrinally by the false religion.
The overriding concern for the post-modernist is
that there not be contention between belief systems.
Thus, each religion is reduced to it's lowest common
denominator. Truth being a secondary issue, if it's
an issue at all.
"Christians" who have been Sponged have no
problem with this. The United Methodists and
the Episcopalians haven't believed very strongly
in much for many years, anyway. Mormons and
Scientologists and Christian Scientists and the
leadership of the Watch Tower cult aren't particularly
bothered by it, either. Afterall, they invented their
religions relatively recently, they can re-invent them
almost as easily ! ( Consider the official Mormon
reversals on polygamy as well as Blacks in the
priesthood. Or, the JW reversals on End Time
dates. )
Those of us who believe in the God of Jacob and
Abraham and Peter have a bigger problem. We
have an eternal, unchanging Lord not invented a
couple decades ago by L. Ron Hubbard.
Although merciful, He is also a wrathful God, and
His patience is not to be presumed upon. Moreover,
the Most High is a Holy God. "Holy" means set apart.
That is, there is none like Him. We can't just add
Vishnu to our pantheon like the Hindu's. Jehovah is
a jealous God.
While all the other religions have some form of
"salvation" by works, Christianity alone has
salvation through grace.
That, and Christians have been given an inerrant
Scripture not open to revisions, deletions, or
new revelation. Makes it kind of tough when you
want to accommodate the latest trend. And,
double-tough when you want to compromise all
your historic doctrines away ( not to mention the
one true God ).
The DataRat
The DataRat
". . .let *us* hear."
Ok.
DR
Dick M
If you want more info on the Interfaith movement, check
the following URL:
Dick M
The DataRat
Thanx, Dick ! The Apologetics Rodent always
tries to keep up on what the enemy is doing.
The DataRat
David K. Miller
wrote:
>Have heard that the Interpreter's Bible is another
>weird one. Anyone have any info on it ? Is ~it~
>another of these Interfaith "bibles" ?
Other than the fact that it's a commentary, not a Bible, yes, it is.
You should stay far away from it, and only read those commentaries
which reinforce that which you already believe.
David K. Miller
dkmi...@one.net
http://w3.one.net/~dkmiller
Internet Pager 205...@pager.mirabilis.com
Tom Hogan
>On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:02:25 GMT, "The DataRat" <dat...@home.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Have heard that the Interpreter's Bible is another
>>weird one. Anyone have any info on it ? Is ~it~
>>another of these Interfaith "bibles" ?
>
>Other than the fact that it's a commentary, not a Bible, yes, it is.
>You should stay far away from it, and only read those commentaries
>which reinforce that which you already believe.
Although there is an Interpreter's Commentary, there is also a bible
project. See:
http://www.umr.org/HTnib.htm
Tom Hogan
tho...@NOSPAM.net
replace NOSPAM with kc
"Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter shall be
confirmed."
- paraphrase from the Law of Moses
The DataRat
"You should stay far away from it, and only read
those commentaries which reinforce that which
you already believe."
Wrong !
Christians should read Christian commentaries.
We are to avoid "deceivers" ( 2 John 1:7 NASB ),
"antichrists" ( 1 John 2:18 NASB ), "self-made
religion" ( Colossians 2:23 NASB ), spiritual thieves
and robbers ( John 10:1 ), "deceitful spirits and
doctrines of demons" ( 1 Timothy 4:1-2 NASB ),
and "a different gospel" ( 2 Corinthians 11:4 NASB ).
It would be rather self-contradictory to study a Bible
commentary that does / is any of those things which
are condemned in that very same Bible !
Of course, those who hate God would just love to
see The Elect get involved with ~every~ unBiblical
doctrine and teaching. They'll call us "closed-minded'
if we fail to corrupt our faith. Nice try David K. Miller !
The DataRat
The DataRat
Thanx, Tom Hogan !
The Reformed Rodent visited that web site
for the New Interpreter's "bible" project. It
is sponsored by the United Methodists. This
speaks volumes about the direct it takes.
So, we got the Anchor Bible Commentary
edited by two non-Christians ( a Jew and a
Catholic ) with one Sponged Protestant.
And the New Interpreter's Bible Commentary
by the least Christian protestant-denomination
this side of the Unitarian Universalists !
"If anybody does not bring this teaching, do not
receive him into your house." ( 1 John 1:10 NASB )
The above applies to bringing "bible" commentaries
into your house, too.
DataRat
Glenn Webb
wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_01ED_01BDE178.3B42CA80
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>
>
> "It was not a long sentence. Why did you cut it short?"
> =20
> =20
> Because what he did quote accurately and concisely
> captured the substance of your point.
> =20
> =20
> =20
> =20
> "You are merely assuming that because they do not
> comment on the word, that they must all agree."
> =20
> =20
> No Bible translation is going to comment on every
> word in it's entire text ! That so many translations
> translate it the same way speaks volumes.
It speaks to me that as the KJV was widely accepted, Its Anglanton
Church bend was allowed to influence other translations. Why does the
word "baptism" remain baptism in the post KJV translations ? Baptism
was an invented word to cover up the fact that fully translated the
word reject the idea of sprinkling instead of bathing ! What ??? The
post KJV failed to be better interpreters ? Or were they just pleasing
the readers ?
Your example; makes me want this anchor Bible, appears to have guts !
By the way the Hebrew is the vulva.
> =20
> =20
> =20
> =20
> "Merely the wish to avoid controversy would be significant
> in their decision."
> =20
> =20
> THAT is an inference you've yet to establish. Until
> you do, we can only view it as speculation. Thin
> speculation.
> =20
> =20
> =20
> =20
> "THE ANCHOR BIBLE is a project of international and
> interfaith scope: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish scholars..."
> =20
> =20
> Just what the Genevan Rodent wanted to know !
> It's NOT a Christian Bible, it's a non-Christian "bible".
> =20
> Thanx, Mr. Weatherwax. That explains everything !
I guess Delta RAT can't accept us Jews as worthy interpretors of the
Bible ? Strange !!! We wrote it after all, surely we christian jews
are unworthy....
Mr. Weatherwax, are you going to let him get by with this ?
Glenn Webb
> =20
> =20
> =
> The DataRat
> =20
> =20
> =20
>
>
>
>------=_NextPart_000_01ED_01BDE178.3B42CA80
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
><HTML>
><HEAD>
>
><META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
>http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
><META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><BLOCKQUOTE>
> <DIV><FONT face=3D"" size=3D4><FONT color=3D#000080>"It was not =
>a long=20
> sentence. Why did you cut it short?"</FONT></FONT><FONT=20
> color=3D#000080></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D4><STRONG>Because what =
>he did quote=20
> accurately and <EM>concisely</EM></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D4><STRONG>captured the =
>substance of=20
> your point.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
>size=3D4><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
>size=3D4><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
>size=3D4><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
>size=3D4><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"" size=3D4>"You are merely =
>assuming that=20
> because they do not</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"" size=3D4> comment =
></FONT><FONT=20
> color=3D#000080 face=3D"" size=3D4>on the word, that they must all=20
> agree."</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"" size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"" size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG>No Bible translation is going to comment on=20
> <EM>every</EM></STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG><STRONG>word in it's <EM>entire</EM> =
>text=20
> ! That so many translations</STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG><STRONG>translate it the <U>same</U> way =
>speaks=20
> volumes.</STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080>"Merely the wish to avoid =
>controversy would be=20
> significant</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080> in their =
>decision."</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#000000>THAT is an inference you've yet =
>to=20
> establish. Until</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#000000></FONT></STRONG><STRONG>you =
><EM>do</EM>, we=20
> can only view it as speculation. Thin</STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG><STRONG>speculation.</STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080>"THE ANCHOR BIBLE is a project of=20
> international and</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080> interfaith scope: Protestant, =
>Catholic,=20
> and Jewish scholars..."</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#000000>Just what the Genevan Rodent =
>wanted to know=20
> !</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#000000></FONT></STRONG><STRONG>It's NOT =
>a=20
> Christian Bible, it's a non-Christian =
>"bible".</STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG>Thanx, Mr. Weatherwax. <EM>That</EM> =
>explains=20
> everything !</STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000=20
> =
>size=3D2> &nbs=
>p;  =
>; =
> &=
>nbsp; &n=
>bsp; =20
> <FONT face=3DCrescent size=3D5>The DataRat</FONT></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"" size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"" =
>size=3D4></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
><DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"" size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"" =
>size=3D4></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
>------=_NextPart_000_01ED_01BDE178.3B42CA80--
>
James Shewmaker
: > No Bible translation is going to comment on every
: > word in it's entire text ! That so many translations
: > translate it the same way speaks volumes.
: Song of Solomon 7 (American Standard Version)
: 7:2 Thy body is [like] a round goblet, [Wherein] no mingled wine
: is wanting: Thy waist is [like] a heap of wheat Set about with lilies.
: Song of Solomon 7 (Good News Bible in Today's English Version)
: 7:2 A bowl is there, that never runs out of spiced wine. A sheaf
: of wheat is there, surrounded by lilies.
The so-called T.E.V. or Good News Bible doesn't even, begin to commence
to start to attempt to try to translate in a formal sense of the word
the original language.
For example in Rom. 1:17, compare the TEV to any interlinear. In the
interlinear you will find the word pistis three times. It has been a
long time since I have seen a TEV but if memory serves me correctly
the word faith only occurs twice in the TEV. Now if it were a real
translation the word would occur three times. The TEV is called by
scholars a dynamic translation but I prefer an opinion translation.
Instead of translating the original into english, they translated
their opinions concerning the meaning of the phrases into
english. This is also the core of the problem of the NIV.
Some real translations include the NKJV, the KJV (1769), the
ASV (1901), the NASB(1960), and the RSV. I have not spent
a lot of time with the NRSV or the NASB(1995) so I have no
comments on them.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Shewmaker 2000 is not the first year of the next century,
sh...@primenet.com It is the last year of this century.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard A. Weatherwax
James Shewmaker wrote:
> Richard A. Weatherwax <Weath...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> : > No Bible translation is going to comment on every
> : > word in it's entire text ! That so many translations
> : > translate it the same way speaks volumes.
>
> : Song of Solomon 7 (American Standard Version)
> : 7:2 Thy body is [like] a round goblet, [Wherein] no mingled wine
> : is wanting: Thy waist is [like] a heap of wheat Set about with lilies.
>
> : Song of Solomon 7 (Good News Bible in Today's English Version)
> : 7:2 A bowl is there, that never runs out of spiced wine. A sheaf
> : of wheat is there, surrounded by lilies.
>
> The so-called T.E.V. or Good News Bible doesn't even, begin to commence
> to start to attempt to try to translate in a formal sense of the word
> the original language.
>
> For example in Rom. 1:17, compare the TEV to any interlinear. In the
> interlinear you will find the word pistis three times. It has been a
> long time since I have seen a TEV but if memory serves me correctly
> the word faith only occurs twice in the TEV. Now if it were a real
> translation the word would occur three times. The TEV is called by
> scholars a dynamic translation but I prefer an opinion translation.
> Instead of translating the original into english, they translated
> their opinions concerning the meaning of the phrases into
> english. This is also the core of the problem of the NIV.
>
> Some real translations include the NKJV, the KJV (1769), the
> ASV (1901), the NASB(1960), and the RSV. I have not spent
> a lot of time with the NRSV or the NASB(1995) so I have no
> comments on them.
I agree with your comments and selection. Currently I use the NRSV. I grew up
using the ASV and couldn't understand why my bible was differen't from what my
Sunday School lessons showed.
I am surprised that you did not comment on The Living Bible (also know as The Way,
and The Path).. It is not a translation at all. It was written by Kenneth Taylor
who had no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew. He used the ASV as his source and merely
paraphrased it into modern English. In so doing he added a great deal of his own
interpretations and opinions.
Wax
The DataRat
Just like to point out that -while the Living Bible
was a paraphrase- the New Living Bible is an
actual translation ( albeit of the most dynamic
kind ).
The DataRat
Gematria
What's the difference if all you do it thump it.
Richard A. Weatherwax
> It speaks to me that as the KJV was widely accepted, Its Anglanton
> Church bend was allowed to influence other translations. Why does the
> word "baptism" remain baptism in the post KJV translations ? Baptism
> was an invented word to cover up the fact that fully translated the
> word reject the idea of sprinkling instead of bathing ! What ??? The
> post KJV failed to be better interpreters ? Or were they just pleasing
> the readers ?
> Your example; makes me want this anchor Bible, appears to have guts !
> By the way the Hebrew is the vulva.
Most modern translations are merely updates of the King James. They mostly
just replace outdated words and grammar with modern language. There are
several places where modern research gives a better understanding of the
meaning than we had before, and those meanings are used. I find it interesting
that ASV was freer in its translation than the RSV which is a revision of it,
or the NRSV which is a revision of the RSV. The problem was that people
preferred the old wording.
The Anchor Bible is a complete new translation of the bible, but its strong
point is the commentary It is written for the serious student. Each bible
book has a separate volume (except for some of the shorter books) which
contains mostly comentary and notes on translation. There were hundreds of
scholars who worked on it. I have only five of the volumes and I cannot find
my volume on Genesis.
> I guess Delta RAT can't accept us Jews as worthy interpretors of the
> Bible ? Strange !!! We wrote it after all, surely we christian jews
> are unworthy....
> Mr. Weatherwax, are you going to let him get by with this ?
>
I decided long ago that I will not become involved in unprofitable flame wars
(a decision I have not always followed.) This thread was going in that
direction. The DataRat has his ideas and nothing can change them, so why try.
Let him get the last word or it will never end.
Wax
James Shewmaker
(SNIP)
: Most modern translations are merely updates of the King James. They mostly
: just replace outdated words and grammar with modern language. There are
: several places where modern research gives a better understanding of the
: meaning than we had before, and those meanings are used. I find it interesting
: that ASV was freer in its translation than the RSV which is a revision of it,
: or the NRSV which is a revision of the RSV. The problem was that people
: preferred the old wording.
I have to disagree.
The KJV is based on the compilation of Erasmus of what in english is
called the received text. It is a "formal" translation. A "formal"
translation is a translation in which the translators were literal
in their translation except for those places where the target
language (english) was not equipped to handle a literal wording
(usually do to grammar). The KJV's biggest flaw, however, is in
its reliance upon transliteration in places where the traditions
of the Anglican church were better served by a transliteration.
Many modern texts are based on the work of Westcott and Hort and
those who have followed in their school of thought. This would
include the "Nestle" family of texts based on the work of
Eberhard Nestle and those who have followed in his footsteps.
This school of translation relies on an eclectic text.
Another set of translations is based on what is called the
majority text. This is a following of the wording according to
the agreement of a majority of the greek texts.
Some translations are "dynamic" or opinion texts. These are
also sometimes called free texts.
Although many translators have consulted the KJV as a
reference, no translation should be refered to as merely
an update of the KJV, if it is not a formal translation of
the "received text" as it is so-called.
The DataRat
"Most modern translations are merely updates
of the King James."
Wrong ! That may be somewhat true for the ERV
and ASV. Beyond that, Weatherwax is speaking out
of his butt. The most popular English versions of the
Bible are fresh translations: The NIV, the NASB, the
NLT.
Among important differences from the KJV: Modern
translations have gotten ridden of the unfortunate use
of "Holy Ghost". The NASB translates geenna as
"hades" instead of the KJV's incorrect "hell". Ditto
for sheol. It cleans up the misleading KJV "with" in
Luke 17:21 and accurately renders it as "in your midst".
The KJV misleading "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 is correctly
translated "calamity" ( "disaster" in the NIV ). Etc. Etc.
Even the NKJ fixes a lot of the flaws in the old KJV.
But, of course, there are mostly similarities. The
manuscript evidence for Scripture is essentially the
same for all versions.
"The Anchor Bible... It is written for the serious student."
You mean the serious heretic.
"There were hundreds of scholars who worked on it."
Too bad none were Christian.
"I guess Delta RAT can't accept us Jews as worthy
interpretors of the Bible ?"
You got the Messiah wrong, what would make us think
you'd get Scripture right ?
"We wrote it after all, surely we christian jews
are unworthy...."
That wasn't a Christian Jew who did the commentary,
it was a Jew.
The DataRat
Richard A. Weatherwax
James Shewmaker wrote:
>
> I have to disagree.
>
> The KJV is based on the compilation of Erasmus of what in english is
> called the received text.
The "received text" (or "Textus receptus") is a myth. The term was first used by
Theodore Beza in his 1565 edition of the Greek and Latin Vulgate New Testament. For
his Greek text, Beza used Robert Stephanus 1550 edition of the Greed text (this was
the first text to use modern verse division.) Stephanus text was based mainly upon
Erasmus text, but he used the Complutensian Polyglot as a reference.
Erasmus text was hurriedly put together in order to come out before the Complutensian
Polyglot. Eramus used various text dating no earlier than the twelfth century.
Having only a mutilated ending to revelations, Erasmus completed it by translating
from the Latin into Greek.
BTW: Erasmus did not include 1 John 5:7-8 in his first edition. When criticized for
the omission, Erasmus said that if he was shown a greet manuscript with those verses
that he would include them. After Erasmus was shown the Codex Montfortianus, he
included the verses in his third edition. Curiously, the Codex Montfortianus was
written after, not before, Erasmus own first edition. There is no other MS which
contain those verses.
Wax
Truth
Do you mean literal thumping or symbolic thumping?
Do both equate to the other?
Is either necessarily bad?
And if so, can you prove it?
Is it not true, that anyone that goes about stating their point of view is
thumping something, whether it be an actual text or simply their own ideas?
David K. Miller
wrote:
>The Reformed Rodent visited that web site
>for the New Interpreter's "bible" project. It
>is sponsored by the United Methodists. This
>speaks volumes about the direct it takes.
And what do those volumes say?
David K. Miller
>David K. Miller wrote in message <36030411...@news.one.net>...
>>On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:02:25 GMT, "The DataRat" <dat...@home.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Have heard that the Interpreter's Bible is another
>>>weird one. Anyone have any info on it ? Is ~it~
>>>another of these Interfaith "bibles" ?
>>
>>Other than the fact that it's a commentary, not a Bible, yes, it is.
>>You should stay far away from it, and only read those commentaries
>>which reinforce that which you already believe.
>
>
>Although there is an Interpreter's Commentary, there is also a bible
>project. See:
>http://www.umr.org/HTnib.htm
You misunderstand the title of the commentary series. Take this one
sentence from the web page you reference:
"Each volume contains general articles, the New International Version
of the Scripture, the New Revised Standard Version, 'Commentary' on
the Scripture and 'Reflections' on the Scripture."
It's a commentary, containing the text from the NIV and the NRSV. It
is not a new Bible, despite its title. I know what I'm talking about.
I have all the existing volumes.
David K. Miller
wrote:
>Of course, those who hate God would just love to
>see The Elect get involved with ~every~ unBiblical
>doctrine and teaching. They'll call us "closed-minded'
>if we fail to corrupt our faith. Nice try David K. Miller !
Are you implying that I hate God?
David K. Miller
wrote:
>"Interfaith is a new name for an old movement that
>was manifested in the World Council of Churches
>back in 1948.
>
>It is an ecumenical movement, designed to bring
>all religions into one."
It is certainly not true that the World Council of Churches is
"designed to bring all religions into one." It is a decidedly
Christian organization that accepts only those denominations that
confess the historic faith of Christ our God. Not all groups that
call themselves Christian are welcome, and there are no Jewish,
Buddhist, Muslim, Shinto groups.
It probably has groups in it that you don't recognize as Christian,
but you're a narrow judgmental jerk.
>Phrased another way, it is post-modernism. That
>is, the only bad thing is to say something is bad.
>No religion is false because it's politically incorrect
>to call a religion "false".
You really know nothing of the World Council of Churches. Admit it.
>A Mormon who thinks that he is going to die, become
>a god, rule over his own solar system and have sex
>with celestial wives is correct. As is someone who
>holds to the Biblical belief that there are no gods but
>the Lord. So you just kind of combine the two religions.
>Satan sees to it that the true religion is absorbed
>doctrinally by the false religion.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not a member group
of the World Council of Churches.
>"Christians" who have been Sponged have no
>problem with this. The United Methodists and
>the Episcopalians haven't believed very strongly
>in much for many years, anyway. Mormons and
>Scientologists and Christian Scientists and the
>leadership of the Watch Tower cult aren't particularly
>bothered by it, either. Afterall, they invented their
>religions relatively recently, they can re-invent them
>almost as easily ! ( Consider the official Mormon
>reversals on polygamy as well as Blacks in the
>priesthood. Or, the JW reversals on End Time
>dates. )
There are no Scientologists, Christian Scientists, or Jehovah's
Witnesses in the World Council of Churches. Admit your ignorance
about the Council.
>Although merciful, He is also a wrathful God, and
>His patience is not to be presumed upon. Moreover,
>the Most High is a Holy God. "Holy" means set apart.
>That is, there is none like Him. We can't just add
>Vishnu to our pantheon like the Hindu's. Jehovah is
>a jealous God.
Give one small piece of evidence that the WCC is attempting to add
Vishnu to any pantheon, or cease your lies.
>That, and Christians have been given an inerrant
>Scripture not open to revisions, deletions, or
>new revelation.
And, of course, anyone who disagrees with your assessment of the
Scritures aren't really Christians, are they? What exactly is the
whole list of fundamentals to which one must subscribe?
Gematria
Reformed Rodent is a hateful religious bigot who needs help, prayer, and
most of all repentance.
Therion Ware
multitude, saying in <3609b1e3...@news.one.net>
>On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:39:58 GMT, "The DataRat" <dat...@home.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The Reformed Rodent visited that web site
>>for the New Interpreter's "bible" project. It
>>is sponsored by the United Methodists. This
>>speaks volumes about the direct it takes.
>
>And what do those volumes say?
Isn't it odd that most things that speak for themselves, usually
require a translator?
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- attrib: Pauline Reage
website:
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/index.html>
remove ".eac" if you want to use e-mail
The DataRat
"And what do those volumes say?"
Not much, David K. Miller. The
United Methodists believe in everything,
so they believe in nothing.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Are you implying that I hate God?"
The natural state of man is to hate God
and his neighbor. All the unregenerate
fall into ~that~ category. Only by the
divine intervention of the Holy Spirit do
we BEGIN to love God and our neighbor.
Yes, David K. Miller, the Reformed Rodent
is saying that the sin nature within you and
he DOES hate God.
DataRat
Gematria
>
> "Are you implying that I hate God?"
>
> The natural state of man is to hate God
> and his neighbor. All the unregenerate
> fall into ~that~ category. Only by the
> divine intervention of the Holy Spirit do
> we BEGIN to love God and our neighbor.
What a bunch of nonsense.
Gematria
More slander from someone who purports to be a Christian.
The DataRat
David K. Miller
wrote:
>"And what do those volumes say?"
>
>
>
>Not much, David K. Miller. The
>United Methodists believe in everything,
>so they believe in nothing.
Back that up with some evidence, or cease your lies.
David K. Miller
wrote:
>"Are you implying that I hate God?"
>
>
>The natural state of man is to hate God
>and his neighbor. All the unregenerate
>fall into ~that~ category. Only by the
>divine intervention of the Holy Spirit do
>we BEGIN to love God and our neighbor.
>
>Yes, David K. Miller, the Reformed Rodent
>is saying that the sin nature within you and
>he DOES hate God.
So now I'm unregenerate? On what evidence do you base this judgment?
Do you hate God? Do you have a sin nature within you? Or are you
simply an ass, albeit a "regenerate" one?
David K. Miller
>Thank you, David. Your observations are reasonable and accurate. The
>Reformed Rodent is a hateful religious bigot who needs help, prayer, and
>most of all repentance.
I don't begrudge him his doctrines, but his lies are infuriating. To
date, I have noticed him lying about liberal Christians, Episcoplians
in general and Bishop John Spong in particular, United Methodists, and
the World Council of Churches. It's not simply that he disagrees with
them; it's that he lies about them in order to make his own points,
which rarely have anything to do with the groups about whom he's
lying.
David K. Miller
wrote:
>"It is a decidedly Christian organization that accepts only
> those denominations that confess the historic faith of
> Christ our God."
>
>
>
>
>The World Council of Churches (WCC) is more
>involved in:
>
>the Climate Change Petition Campaign (1),
>
>the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2),
>
>Attacking International Oil Companies (4),
>
>Anti-Military Campaigns (3),
>
>Social, Health and Educational Programs, and Legal Aid (3),
>
>and every other trendy leftist cause, than in the
>Great Commission ! ( SEE: Endnotes for citation
>references. )
Considering that disciples of Jesus Christ do acts of justice
(historic works of mercy include both the avoiding of all evil and the
doing of all good one can), how are the above (which are a tiny
portion of the work of the WCC) antithetical to the Great Commission?
>As for their accepting "only those denominations that
>confess the historic faith of Christ our God", check-out
>their North American church membership list at:
>
>http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/member.html
>
>Only used-to-be Christian denominations are listed
>there ! Like the PC-USA and the RCA. Then there
>are the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist
>Church. Not a single real church faithful to the historic
>Christian faith in the entire North American WCC's
>membership list !
Liar. Add the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Reformed Church in
America, and the United Church of Christ to your list of slandered.
Give evidence to your assertion that these denominations don't hold to
the faith of the church through the ages, or cease your lying.
I don't have the satatements of faith for the other denominations, but
I have such information about The United Methodist Church.
--------
_The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church-1996_ states:
"With Christians of other communions we confess belief in the triune
God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. . . .
"We hold in common with all Christians a faith in the mystery of
salvation in and through Jesus Christ. . . .
"We share the Christian belief that God's redemptive love is realized
in human life by the activity of the Holy Spirit, both in personal
experience and in the community of believers. This community is the
Church, which the Spirit has brought into existence for the healing of
the nations. . . .
"We understand ourselves to be part of Christ's universal Church when
by adoration, proclamation, and service we become conformed to Christ.
. . .
"With other Christians we recognize that the reign of God is both a
present and future reality. . . .
"We share with many Christian communions a recognition of the
authority of Scripture in matters of faith, the confession that our
justification as sinners is by grace through faith, and the sober
realization that the Church is in need of continual reformation and
renewal. . . .
"With other Christians, we declare the essential oneness of the Church
in Christ Jesus.
"In addition to these beliefs which are our common heritage of faith
as Christians, we have certain distinctive United Methodist emphases:
our understanding of prevenient grace, justification and assurance,
sanctification and perfection, faith and good works, mission and
service, and nurture and the mission of the church."
--------
How does this differ from the historic faith of the church?
>"It is certainly not true that the World Council of Churches is
>'designed to bring all religions into one.'..."
>
>
>Better read:
>
>http://incolor.inetnebr.com/mdavis/wwwonec.shtml
>
>where it states:
>
>"The World Council of Churches (WCC) warmly welcomes the
> Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint (That They May Be One) of
> Pope John Paul II..."
So? Your point? The only point I can imagine you're making is that
the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian organization. If that is
what you are saying, I'll add that group to the list of those whom
you've slandered.
>For further info see the Christian Research Institutes position
>paper on the WCC at:
>
>http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/world_council_of_churches.htm
>
>Where it states:
>
>"The WCC, while admitting that the ecumenical movement is
> broader than its own institution, claims with ample justification
> that it is 'the most nearly comprehensive instrument of the
> ecumenical movement in the world today'. It should be further
> noted that, while the original goal of the ecumenical movement
> and the WCC was 'the unity of the churches', the new vision
> of the WCC is for the unity of all religions - and, in fact, all
> mankind. It should be clear to all who have been watching the
> WCC that it has become a modern Tower of Babel."
It makes this claim without backing it up with one shred of evidence.
It claims that it uses information that "is strictly up-to-date and
fully documentable," yet it uses a 1978 publication and offers
absolutely no documentation for its claims that the WCC is seeking a
unity of all religions. It seems that the Christian Research
Institute is like you in that it lies about those with whom it
disagrees.
Ah, here's the Institute's warrent for lying against the WCC: "AT THE
VERY HEART OF THE WHOLE MATTER IS THE FAILURE OF THE WORLD COUNCIL OF
CHURCHES TO ACCEPT THE BIBLE as the authoritative, infallible,
inerrant, eternal, unchangeable Word of God." All who are not
inerrantists seem to be fair game. After all, "Only by accepting
God's Word as our only, absolute and final authority can we enter into
true unity with those who truly belong to Christ - and at the same
time be fully separated from those who appear as angels of light but
are in reality the servants of Satan." The Institute plainly says
that all who are not inerrantists are "the servants of Satan." More
lies.
Gematria
Why bother even trying to reason with a person filled with
self-righteous pride? Data Rat is a slanderer and a hater.
David K. Miller
>Why bother even trying to reason with a person filled with
>self-righteous pride?
I don't for a minute think that the Data Rat is capable of reasoning
when the conversation relates to religious matters. I have opposed
the lies for the benefit of others who may be reading the thread.
>Data Rat is a slanderer and a hater.
Most certainly and demostrably so, the former, and probably (based on
the evidence), the latter.
di...@n1.net
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Hence, you might as well combine all the world's
> religions into one ( since they're all "true", anyway ).
>
> A Mormon who thinks that he is going to die, become
> a god, rule over his own solar system and have sex
> with celestial wives is correct. As is someone who
> holds to the Biblical belief that there are no gods but
> the Lord. So you just kind of combine the two religions.
> Satan sees to it that the true religion is absorbed
> doctrinally by the false religion.
Aside from the fact that the World Council of churches doesn't include
Mormonism in it's list of Christian churches, (and we don't really need to go
into what I think of THAT..) and aside from the fact that your presentation
of Mormon doctrine is absolute bunkum, your post is pretty much typical
bigotry and stupidity.
However, as I'm really trying not to be insulting, I shall stop with that.
Diana
--
If thou art able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect; if
not, do what thou can.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum