Pesach 5778 coming up!

[The Revolting Man]

Ok regarding "Mormon translations" being based on the later Greek texts? No, check again. Mormons use the King James bible...so that's textus receptus again.

Filipinos have 7 different languages so English wins often in church contexts.
So we can agree KJV is right out. Especially since the Tagalog bible is a Catholic translation and heavily biased in that direction and full of errors in translation.
So let's select NASB which you like.
The forward in NASB says "These publications shall betrue to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek."
so the translators themselves endeavour to be true to the original languages, i.e. the bible in perfect, untranslated form.
In Addition, the NASB which you trust, is based on the CRITICAL TEXT of Nestle Aland!!!
In other words, the adulteress story is marked with you guessed it, BRACKETS [] in Good 'ol NASB with a footnote warning the reader (assuming they like to read those pesky footnotes):
"Later manuscripts add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as John 7:53–8:11"
So we get to keep it because of tradition (insert Tevya the Milkman singing)

Maybe start checking your footnotes, then I don't have to get labelled a liberal and you'll see it's just modern scholarship based on Archeology. Let's get more curious about things.


Textus Receptus is pretty much King Jimmy; there's another translation Sam mentioned which I never heard of.
This is because Greek scholars (men of G-d who love the word so much they dedicated their lives to learn the original Greek of the New Testament), don't trust the textus receptus (with the exception of Robinson).
As is natural, older is often perceived as better when it comes to original language bible stuff.
That's one reason the Dead Sea Scrolls were such a big deal. Everyone was so excited because they are the oldest extent manuscripts we have for the Hebrew bible (as well as other cool stuff like Aramaic for I Enoch , War Scroll [spookily similar to book of Revelation] etc.)
This is why we are excited about discoveries with OLD Greek New Testaments; the older it gets the closer to the time of the Apostles which means fewer copies made to get to that final copy, so it's very exciting and good for Christian apologetics to have these old Greek copies!

So if you'll allow me to adjust things a bit. A translator is NOT on the level of a prophet and by extension a translation is NOT on level of original language (as written by a prophet) text, and that my friend, is about as conservative as you can get when considering reverence for the text and not the works of men (i.e. translations by committee).

You can hold on to your adulterous woman story if you really like it; it's a nice story. But that doesn't mean you get to label the rest of us liberal, or having some evil motive to tear down G-d's word. The tradition of the story is a nice tradition and sometimes it's hard to part from traditions...

Lol, again you're trying to elevate the works of man to the Words of God. The footnotes aren't scripture. The don't trump the Words of God. Think about it, those scholars said they don't think that story should be there, yet there it is. Do you not see the hand of God at work there?

You keep trying to convince me that the learning of regular old men prove categorically that the Bible must be corrupted by the learning of men and that it's only through the learning of men that it can be fixed.

I reject categorically the learning of men if it rises itself above scripture. I have faith, a deep, deliberate, determined and unshakeable faith that God presented His Word to us as He intended us to have it and He will continue to preserve and protect it.

You can not convince me that anything man says will ever trump what God says. God said His Word is perfect and true. Ish says some parts are the works of over zealous monks and strongly implies that the Revelation isn't even canonical. Who should I believe?

Now I know you're going to say that God's Words are perfect and true but that not all of the Bible is God's Words. But that means I have to trust scholars to tell me what God's Words are and scholars are men and as you point out not inspired and working with dead languages and partial manuscripts and limited human understanding.

If we have to rely on these guys to tell us what God said then we're in a lot of trouble. I've decided not to play their silly game especially because the more they do learn the more they realize what we have is accurate.

So don't bring me wildly speculative human conjectures when I'm looking for ultimate spiritual truth. Human conjectures don't contain ultimate spiritual truth.

 

[IshChayil]

Lol, again you're trying to elevate the works of man to the Words of God. The footnotes aren't scripture. The don't trump the Words of God. Think about it, those scholars said they don't think that story should be there, yet there it is. Do you not see the hand of God at work there?

You keep trying to convince me that the learning of regular old men prove categorically that the Bible must be corrupted by the learning of men and that it's only through the learning of men that it can be fixed.

I reject categorically the learning of men if it rises itself above scripture. I have faith, a deep, deliberate, determined and unshakeable faith that God presented His Word to us as He intended us to have it and He will continue to preserve and protect it.

You can not convince me that anything man says will ever trump what God says. God said His Word is perfect and true. Ish says some parts are the works of over zealous monks and strongly implies that the Revelation isn't even canonical. Who should I believe?

Now I know you're going to say that God's Words are perfect and true but that not all of the Bible is God's Words. But that means I have to trust scholars to tell me what God's Words are and scholars are men and as you point out not inspired and working with dead languages and partial manuscripts and limited human understanding.

If we have to rely on these guys to tell us what God said then we're in a lot of trouble. I've decided not to play their silly game especially because the more they do learn the more they realize what we have is accurate.

So don't bring me wildly speculative human conjectures when I'm looking for ultimate spiritual truth. Human conjectures don't contain ultimate spiritual truth.

Tradition!!!! (imagine Tevya the Milkman music) tradition!
I like the story so I'm gonna keep it no matter what because it's TRADITION!

 

[IshChayil]

Hey guys another thought about the problem with the later added story known as the "adulterous woman".
don't we have a sin problem if Yeshua does not allow them to execute her?
The command regarding adultery is death penalty.
So if Yeshua allowed her to go free without the death penalty isn't He now in rebellion against G-d's Law?
We don't get to pick and choose the Laws and He's the only one who ever lived by the Law of G-d perfectly so ...
If this later addition to the bible is actually true, we have a huge theological problem for Yeshua being sinless.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Hey guys another thought about the problem with the later added story known as the "adulterous woman".
don't we have a sin problem if Yeshua does not allow them to execute her?
The command regarding adultery is death penalty.
So if Yeshua allowed her to go free without the death penalty isn't He now in rebellion against G-d's Law?
We don't get to pick and choose the Laws and He's the only one who ever lived by the Law of G-d perfectly so ...
If this later addition to the bible is actually true, we have a huge theological problem for Yeshua being sinless.

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus didn't stop them from executing her! I don't know how else to say this. Her accusers left. There were not two witnesses to condemn her or throw the first stones. Jesus was keeping Torah here not violating it. You should see the size of the dents in my wall.

 

[IshChayil]

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus didn't stop them from executing her! I don't know how else to say this. Her accusers left. There were not two witnesses to condemn her or throw the first stones. Jesus was keeping Torah here not violating it. You should see the size of the dents in my wall.

AAAAAAH it was HIS job to execute her then.
he heard their testimony and he knew it was true.
So again, if this LATER EDITION to the Greek text is true... it looks like we have a sinful lamb problem...disobeying daddy's torah. A judge doesn't have the RIGHT to dismiss witnesses in a capitol case.

 

[The Revolting Man]

AAAAAAH it was HIS job to execute her then.
he heard their testimony and he knew it was true.
So again, if this LATER EDITION to the Greek text is true... it looks like we have a sinful lamb problem...disobeying daddy's torah. A judge doesn't have the RIGHT to dismiss witnesses in a capitol case.

What makes you think their testimony was true? That's not in the story. And the two accusers still would of had to of thrown the first stones so how was He going to execute her?

 

[IshChayil]

What makes you think their testimony was true? That's not in the story. And the two accusers still would of had to of thrown the first stones so how was He going to execute her?

Well obviously if you assume the story is true then you assume he's forgiving her for the act.
Of course, I don't think the story is true since it is a later edition and not present in ANY of the oldest Greek texts.
Malcum's razer as folks are fond of quoting around here.

I understand how strong tradition can be for people. It's really hard to let go of the traditions we like, this story for example. It's easier to castigate others' traditions because we often don't even see our own, cultural traditions deeply embedded in us.
(like hunting for southern boys) tradition.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Well obviously if you assume the story is true then you assume he's forgiving her for the act.
Of course, I don't think the story is true since it is a later edition and not present in ANY of the oldest Greek texts.
Malcum's razer as folks are fond of quoting around here.

I understand how strong tradition can be for people. It's really hard to let go of the traditions we like, this story for example. It's easier to castigate others' traditions because we often don't even see our own, cultural traditions deeply embedded in us.
(like hunting for southern boys) tradition.

You misunderstood me. I was questioning why you assume that the Pharisees were telling the truth? The main point being that you claim Christ would have been sinning if this story were true and my point being I think He behaved completely correctly. I'm not sure how traditions snuck back in here and I should point out that my parents were born and raised outside of Chicago so hunting is not part of this Midwestern boy's tradition.

 

[PeteR]

@ZecAustin sacrifice has not been done away with. It is merely suspended. Ezekiel 43 and 44, as well as Zechariah 14, speaking of future events clearly show sacrifice in the future.

Proper sacrifice, per Torah is by Levitical priests, at the Temple, "in the place I will show you." When the Messiah comes, He will have to keep and teach Torah. Sacrifice is a necessary part with many valid reasons...

Blessings

 

[rockfox]

AAAAAAH it was HIS job to execute her then.

Why? Was He judge over Israel? Did He come to sit in judgement over the people at that time or to bring the Good News?

It was entrapment. They wanted Him to either contradict the law, or run afoul of the Roman authorities. He very skillfully evaded the trap.

 

[PeteR]

@IshChayil Re: adulterous woman, doesn't Torah require BOTH the man and the woman to be brought? The Pharisees brought only the woman CAUGHT in adultery. Where was the man. They sinned by setting her up then not bringing the man. That was the trap for Yeshua.

Yeshua, even knowing all things, could not judge her without her partner. It would be sin!

 

[IshChayil]

@IshChayil Re: adulterous woman, doesn't Torah require BOTH the man and the woman to be brought? The Pharisees brought only the woman CAUGHT in adultery. Where was the man. They sinned by setting her up then not bringing the man. That was the trap for Yeshua.

Yeshua, even knowing all things, could not judge her without her partner. It would be sin!

story isn't real any way so who knows, it's in the hands of the story teller.
If I were making that one up I'd say he slipped out the window and ran away. What story would you make up when retelling this midrash?
There is absolutely no commandment that says if you catch one criminal but not the other you can't punish the one.
Where did you get that from? Bunch of thieves run, ,1 gets away so not allowed to prosecute the ones you got? come now

 

[rockfox]

Its all fine and good to have a textual criticism discussion about a passage as an intellectual exercise.

But where the rubber hits the road it is a Pandora's box. Discussions about such passages virtually always have their start in a controversy where said passage contradicts their pet theology. Once you go down this road no teaching is safe, no matter how well founded in scripture, tradition, or ancient texts.

It is much akin in affect to the argument, "Well it was written to them in their day but doesn't apply to us today." No matter how sweet the logic, the use is always arbitrary and without limit.

 

[IshChayil]

Its all fine and good to have a textual criticism discussion about a passage as an intellectual exercise.

But where the rubber hits the road it is a Pandora's box. Discussions about such passages virtually always have their start in a controversy where said passage contradicts their pet theology. Once you go down this road no teaching is safe, no matter how well founded in scripture, tradition, or ancient texts.

It is much akin in affect to the argument, "Well it was written to them in their day but doesn't apply to us today." No matter how sweet the logic, the use is always arbitrary and without limit.

Or more road and more rubber is when the passage never existed until later in time.
Do we hold to our theology just because we like a neat story or do we man up and admit it's a later invention?
I actually liked the story in question; heck I preached on it before. Had a whole neat idea about the finger in the dirt, what he could have been writing (I speculated it was the names of their illegal lovers). It's a great great story.
I didn't bring up "where was the man?" because that's the generic pulpit teaching and I like to try to be original unless it's new believers.
But as I've been studying Greek on and off more and more the past 8 years or so I got myself a NA critical text and a UBS and I was shocked when I learned that in all likelihood this story is just that... a story. If we can''t face these facts when brothers tell us, how will our children face them when lefties hit them hard with this stuff?
Best to diligently search and to understand and when something doesn't belong, yank it the heck out because it's not holy and has no place among His sacred words.

I've heard so often since I've been here folks criticizing Jewish customs, and traditions, and assuming we Jewish believers don't realize we need to examine these things but in my experience it's the Gentile believers who often can't handle having their traditions yanked away. In this case, it's several verses which someone crept in there centuries after the fact.

"Love the L-rd your G-d with all your mind.." the command says in Hebrew Dt. 6:4
Trying to do that, hopefully our love for His word will outweigh our need to hold on to old English traditions...
Realizing there's something extra in the bible and leaving it there is not an intellectual excercise; it's wisdom. I kind of thought there'd be more support from folks who love to holler about how bad the talmud is...

 

[rockfox]

I've heard so often since I've been here folks criticizing Jewish customs, and traditions, and assuming we Jewish believers don't realize we need to examine these things but in my experience it's the Gentile believers who often can't handle having their traditions yanked away. In this case, it's several verses which someone crept in there centuries after the fact.

Thats a human thing, not a Jewish or Gentile thing. Tradition for most people is a part of their identity and not formed out of a logical process. You often can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Humans most often use reason simply to justify current belief, not to decide what to believe.

 

[IshChayil]

Thats a human thing, not a Jewish or Gentile thing. Tradition for most people is a part of their identity and not formed out of a logical process. You often can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Humans most often use reason simply to justify current belief, not to decide what to believe.

This is true, unless they condition themselves on the path of the scholar. To seek, question, and be able to release positions; to have passion and curousity about His word.
For those who study constantly His word, it is a constant awareness of how little we know.
In my experience it is the scholars who are more malleable in their positions than the laymen.

When I used to study a martial arts, I always hated sparring with mid level types (Green belt or whatever) because they usually would hurt me.
The 3rd degree black belts were awesome to spar with because they could control their force. Sure I'd loose but I didn't get hurt.

 

[IshChayil]

Lol, again you're trying to elevate the works of man to the Words of God. The footnotes aren't scripture. The don't trump the Words of God. Think about it, those scholars said they don't think that story should be there, yet there it is. Do you not see the hand of God at work there?

You keep trying to convince me that the learning of regular old men prove categorically that the Bible must be corrupted by the learning of men and that it's only through the learning of men that it can be fixed.

I reject categorically the learning of men if it rises itself above scripture. I have faith, a deep, deliberate, determined and unshakeable faith that God presented His Word to us as He intended us to have it and He will continue to preserve and protect it.

You can not convince me that anything man says will ever trump what God says. God said His Word is perfect and true. Ish says some parts are the works of over zealous monks and strongly implies that the Revelation isn't even canonical. Who should I believe?

Now I know you're going to say that God's Words are perfect and true but that not all of the Bible is God's Words. But that means I have to trust scholars to tell me what God's Words are and scholars are men and as you point out not inspired and working with dead languages and partial manuscripts and limited human understanding.

If we have to rely on these guys to tell us what God said then we're in a lot of trouble. I've decided not to play their silly game especially because the more they do learn the more they realize what we have is accurate.

So don't bring me wildly speculative human conjectures when I'm looking for ultimate spiritual truth. Human conjectures don't contain ultimate spiritual truth.

Zec if I knew you were a King James only guy, I never would have entered into the discussion with you; that's an unfalsifiable position when people dig in and start saying that "translators are prophets" or entire translations are infallible i.e. inspired translations.
There's no way to make a dent in those line-in-the-sand positions; maybe lead with that next time and the next scholar-in-training will leave you be.

Serious bible study is not "silly game" and men who spend their lives in deep bible study have something worth listening to. It's not at all as you wrote earlier "the bible is super easy to understand". Such a position can only be obtained by lack of learning IMHO.

I recommend you reread the book of Proverbs brother and re-examine your contempt for biblical scholars.

 

[IshChayil]

@ZecAustin sacrifice has not been done away with. It is merely suspended. Ezekiel 43 and 44, as well as Zechariah 14, speaking of future events clearly show sacrifice in the future.

Proper sacrifice, per Torah is by Levitical priests, at the Temple, "in the place I will show you." When the Messiah comes, He will have to keep and teach Torah. Sacrifice is a necessary part with many valid reasons...

Blessings

Hey I'm curious what's your take on kashrut (biblical eating). Are we to follow the dietary laws because Hashem told us to, or is it just a health issue?

 

[IshChayil]

Why? Was He judge over Israel? Did He come to sit in judgement over the people at that time or to bring the Good News?

It was entrapment. They wanted Him to either contradict the law, or run afoul of the Roman authorities. He very skillfully evaded the trap.

If He was not put in the position of judge in this alleged situation then how did He have the right to dismiss the case?
Again, I love the story, it just never happened in full weight of the ancient Greek texts.

 

[IshChayil]

Since Mormonism came up earlier ... Inspirational translating,
Here's a pic of Joseph smith doing some "Inspired translation" with the Ummim and Thummim so he could "translate" the reformed Egyptian.

Now that's what "Inspired translation" looks like! Go Joe!