It's another wonderful August morning, as the mist from the early dew lazily makes it way upward into the ever sun filled sky; I hope you all are fine.
Paraousia, my partner in jref, yes, I do read Koine Greek (Attica and at least one more 'old' style forms existed, but it was Koine that was popular around the late 1st century BCE to (I'm not sure) mid first millennium or so) and classical Hebrew, and Aramaic (which is extremely close to the classical Hebrew and came out during the Babylonian exile period, and second temple period. It was the coloquial style of the Hebrew tongue--and was what Jesus and his relatives and friends spoke as well). And, as I've said somewhere on the forum before, I very much make every effort to apply the rule of thumb, 'honesty is the best policy' preceeded only by reasonableness (means logical, practical & realistic) and followed by fairness. I will not pretend to read them 'fluently'--especially the Hebrew and Aramaic--but I can read them well enough to make sense out of them and I have my grammers (a couple for each tongue) and my lexicons (also a couple for each tongue) So when I talk about the Tanakh, for example, it's because I have the Hebrew original--the very same book that the Bible translators and re-editors used to put together, say, the NRIV (New Revised International Version) or the TEV (Today's English Version) etc. And if one were to check those introductions, they'd find that that book BHS or BHK is the base for the OT along with the LXX which I also have (of course in the Greek). I also have some Jewish Psalm book, which almost perfectly agrees with the BHK.
Our fellow thinker, Mycernius, thanks for the return and the extra info. That sounds pretty much on line, although I would have my reservations about whether the group of scholars who King James had kind of captivated (in the negative sense) to put together a better book than Tyndale's, did the Apocrypha as well since, they were trying to futher distance themselves from the Roman Cathlolic Church. A few of the early church fathers did not consider those scrolls to be canon, the council of Jewish religious leaders at Jenebh (sp?) around 90CE didn't either, but Jerome did.
The translation that the JW (or Watchtower Society) uses is actually quite a good translation, very close to the Revised King James. I have a copy and have used it rather often--there are some translation points that are very questionable, but you'll find those in EVERY Bible. At present, I have in my library, KJ, AS (American Standard of 1901) NAS (N=new), NRSV, NWT (the one JW use) and I have the following Greek recensions : Griesbach (18??), Wescott and Hort (1881), and Nestle-Aland 27th edition which came out in the 90's. I also have the Tanakh (BHK), and LXX (Septuagint). I also have copies of portions of other English language bibles, and I have one very, very old (pre-war by a long shot) Japnese NT Bible printed by the American Bible Society.
Paraousia, I didn't understand just what you meant by the 'labeling' idea, unless you are under the impression that we are trying to label someone as 'fundamentalist'? I didn't catch it, so I'm just kind of shooting in the dark, but I feel that the jury is still out on this one. Now my dear uncle, when I pointed out the scientific impossibility of the creation account in some places and the pure Jewish patriarchal cultural influence on the story at other places, he said science was wrong in saying the earth was formed before the sun, and that logic was wrong for saying you cannot have male without the intention of haveing female in the first place. THAT is fundalmentalism at its purest. I know of no one on this forum at the moment, who is like that. AND please forgive my slowness, does *L* stand for 'love'?
I will stand up and vow to the truth that has been pointed out, both directly and indirectly by both Paraousia and tsuyoiko, if the Christian (basically Jewish) god can and must be known only by revelation, how are we to know to whom that exact and direct revelation has been given? Are we simply to look at, well, you know, the Bible? If so, then we will clearly find that that source does not live up to what many claim it to be--a direct revelation by the Creator him/herself. I mean, just take a quick check and see: (I use Hebrew here, but any English translation should bring it out)
At 2 Samuel 7:4, the reading claims that the word of Yahweh god came to the prophet Nathan on that night, right? Please note that this section is in dirct quotations--meaning the document is claiming to KNOW the verbatum words. (You see, that's why I use the Hebrew, there's no loss due to translation because their mother tongue was Hebrew, all that talking had to have been done in, Hebrew)
If you were to flip over to 1 Chronicles 17:3, you'll find the exact same story being told,again using direct quotations. If we compare the dirct quotes of verse 5 in the Samuel rendering to that of verse 4 in the Chronicle rendering we have no choice to agree that the two quote do not agree. It's here where we have to be realistic and logical (this is where that 'reason' or 'rational' concept comes into play) the two claims to know the exact words of 'God' cannot both be true. We'd find the same problem in verses 12-16 vs 11-14 (same book order) Also in 1Kings 3:5-9 vs 2Chron 1:7-10, 2Kings 8:16 vs " Chron 6:5,6,. . . and in at least 80% percent of all the dirct quotes throughout the entire OT and NT. The point being, especially here, can this be the directly inspired memoirs from a being said to know all things and remember all things but cannot give correct revelation because of having forgotten what that same one has said? It just doesn't make sense.
Why should we belive Paul ( Romans 1:18-23; 9:1-5) and the compilers of John (1:1-18) Those first century Christians couldn't recall everything that Jesus and others had said and done, and they had big errors in their dogma (for example the parousia--the point in time that the Messiah was to return and the world order would change in great destruction--never happened, and they were saying it would happen in their own lifetime ( see: Acts 2:17-21; 1 corinth 10:11, 15:20-26,58; 1 Thess 4:15-5:4; 2 Tim 3:1-7,8-9,10-13; James 5:7,8; 2 Peter 3:1-14; 1 Jhn 2:18,28; Rev 3:3, 10; 22:12,20; Jhn 21:20-23; and there are some other minor threads which add to this conclusion) There are a WHOLE bunch of places where the claims to know what Jesus said cannot be verified against other claims, and only as two witnesses (the biblical minimum) take what Jesus was to have said at Mt. 13:11,12 vs Mrk. 4:11,12 vs Lk 8:10, and what was supposedly said to Peter it the denial scene (which also disagrees in when and where it happened) Mt. 26:34 vs Mk. 14:30 vs. Lk. 22:34 vs Jhn. 13:38.
In otherwords, one who claims to be Christian should honestly, reasonably, and fairly look at very carefully and study all these things and what conclusions they lead to. Not to really make any attempt to de-convert anyone, but to reason on realities, discuss them in an open, honest and fair manner. That's what we're doing here, I do believe. I would really like to encourage everyone to recall that two opposing claims to fact cannot possibly both be true, to the degree that they do, if fact, contradict each other. So what revelation, by whom? and is there reasonable rationale in believing it? These questions remain.
Please bear with my wordiness, just wanted to establish my actually yet weak credentials. No intention to boast. I'm waiting to hear from you all.
