Meat Why the 'mia' mis-translation can only be settled in 'the ghetto'

[Mark C]

That’s a lot of conjecture. It’s a shame God isn’t a better communicator than that. It’s almost like He’s trying to confuse you….I sure wish He would communicate His Word clearly and succinctly.

He did. When He said that you are not to "add to" nor "subtract from" the commandments which He gave. TWICE, then again in Revelation.

Which you ignore. Then circumlocute about.

It's almost like you come but to divert, confuse, obfuscate, lie, sneer, and destroy. Then write some more "rules" to prevent discussion of His Word as actually Written altogether! Or just lock, or ban, the thread.

And the actual OP of this thread IS what Yahushua Himself said, in His very first recorded public address, when He said He would not change so much as "one yod or tiddle."

He gave us "statutes, judgments, and commandments," and told men not to change them. He called them "hypocrites!" and serpents, blind guides, and a "brood of vipers" for doing so (ALL of Matthew chapter 23) and again in Mark chapter 7, where He even said that "by YOUR TRADITIONS you make the commandments of YHVH of no effect."

And here you sit calling Him a liar. Shame. Someone ought to moderate your sneering ass right out of here.

You DARE to call the Messiah Himself a LIAR, sneer at His clear Written Word, and then pretend to write "rules" for those of us seriously trying to discuss His Word while you piss and moan like a milk-drinking sissy about words He uses that offend YOUR sensibility?

 

[Mark C]

God will not be mocked and our insistence that we can put rules and limits on Him is worse than mockery, it’s contempt. He doesn’t change but don’t you pretend for a second that He isn’t so complex and multi-faceted that you could ever put limits on His actions.

Maybe that's why He was so CLEAR about telling mere men, like you, not to "add to" or "subtract from" His commandments.

Don't you pretend for a second that He doesn't know better than you what He Wrote, and why.

I'm quoting His Word. And pointing out how people who seek to understand it can "rightly divide" His Word by recognizing when MEN have twisted it.

But what you're doing here is even worse: Giving them a smokescreen to hide behind.

 

[MemeFan]

Maybe real solution is to stop asuming everything of Law is eternal?

Maybe some parts of instruction are eternal, while others are changeable? Tabernacle instructions temporary, while polygyny eternal.

 

[The Revolting Man]

and told men not to change them.

And finally you say something true, He told men not to change them. He can do whatever He wants and you better hope He did change them otherwise you’ve been in deliberate sin every minute you haven’t built a Tabernacle. If God doesn’t change His Law periodically then we haven’t had a religion since the time of Solomon, of course that religion was a change from what went before prior to Sinai so either way you have to have God changing His Laws or you have nothing left. What was is no more. That’s a change.

And here you sit calling Him a liar.

When did I call Christ a liar? I’m calling you a TERRIBLE (at best) theologian. God’s Laws have changed multiple times so your interpretation of some verses must be wrong, incredibly wrong.

I’m doing the exact opposite of calling God a liar. I am proclaiming that He and His Word is true and trying to figure out how that fits in with what I read in scripture.

God’s not a liar, men are. We lie to ourselves so we can convincingly lie to others and bizarrely so we think we can lie to God.

The scripture records a number of alterations to Law. There must be a way to reconcile that that doesn’t involve pretending like they didn’t happen.

 

[Mark C]

Maybe real solution is to stop asuming everything of Law is eternal?

Maybe "real solution" is reading what He Wrote. Knowing the meaning of the words is helpful, too.

 

[Mark C]

The scripture records a number of alterations to Law.

No, they don't. But I recall you are they guy who can't even read a dictionary. I NEVER said in here a single thing about "alterations to Law" - and NEITHER DID HE!!!!!
It's called a "strawman" argument - it's for FOOLS - and it has worn thin.

There must be a way to reconcile that that doesn’t involve pretending like they didn’t happen.

Which was the whole point of this thread before your sneering, shameless, deliberate HIJACK.

And I challenge anybody here to read what I actually wrote:

Meat - Why the 'mia' mis-translation can only be settled in 'the ghetto'

The Greek word 'mia' - oft-discussed here, and "obvious once you see it," has multiple meanings, which can only be discerned correctly by context: It can mean, "a" - the article, "first" - as in, first in a sequence, or, "one," sometimes even thought to mean "one and only" - when there's a...

biblicalfamilies.org

 

[The Revolting Man]

No, they don't. But I recall you are they guy who can't even read a dictionary. I NEVER said in here a single thing about "alterations to Law" - and NEITHER DID HE!!!!!
It's called a "strawman" argument - it's for FOOLS - and it has worn thin.

Yes they do. The change to a Tabernacle from no Tabernacle is a very big deal. The change from Tabernacle to Temple is almost as big of a deal. The lost of the Temple is an even bigger deal.

You won’t deal with it, none of you will because you can’t. Your shallow, surface level sloganeering can’t deal with complexity. God’s Laws have absolutely changed. They changed from the Garden to Nosh, from Noah to Moses.

I respect and admire Pete but the claim that the Torah was known from the beginning is not supported in the text. Hints aren’t good enough, especially since those hints are being related from a time when the Torah was known and so the vocabulary would be in use.

There is nothing in the text that tells us that the Torah was oral and known. That’s a fantasy to try and support an unsupportable position.

If you have an answer about Abraham and the Tabernacle then I would love to hear it, but if all you have is insults aimed at me then save your manicure. You sling insults around so much that they have no impact anymore.

 

[Mark C]

You won’t deal with it, none of you will because you can’t.

No - it's because I don't give a $#Q#@! about the crap you try to inject into a place where you asinine sneering is nothing but a juvenile distraction.

Create you own thread, put it outside the ghetto, and pontificate away. I'll ignore your there, like I would LIKE to EVERYWHERE.

And - guess what - nobody will dare to censor YOU, will they?

 

[The Revolting Man]

No - it's because I don't give a $#Q#@! about the crap you try to inject into a place where you asinine sneering is nothing but a juvenile distraction.

Create you own thread, put it outside the ghetto, and pontificate away. I'll ignore your there, like I would LIKE to EVERYWHERE.

And - guess what - nobody will dare to censor YOU, will they?

Just admit that you don’t have an answer and you’re unwilling to even countenance re-examining your beliefs because that would mean that you are fallible and your infallibility is the only thing you really believe in.

 

[Mark C]

Turns out there ARE such things as "stupid questions." And I could care less about yours.

But to hear you prattle about "infallibility" is about like hearing Biden talk about his intellect.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Turns out there ARE such things as "stupid questions." And I could care less about yours.

But to hear you prattle about "infallibility" is about like hearing Biden talk about his intellect.

Do you get all of your responses off of popsicle sticks?

 

[Mark C]

And let me try this again, for those who actually care what Scripture says:

Do you see why mia wife in Timothy and Titus MUST mean a man who has at least a first wife? But without question, can NOT, by any stretch, mean, "one and ONLY one" wife?

And it still has nothing to do with badmouthing Abraham, either.

 

[The Revolting Man]

And let me try this again, for those who actually care what Scripture says:

Do you see why mia wife in Timothy and Titus MUST mean a man who has at least a first wife? But without question, can NOT, by any stretch, mean, "one and ONLY one" wife?

And it still has nothing to do with badmouthing Abraham, either.

The “mia” thing is something that has been discussed frequently across the life of the forum. Are you really trying to bring this well known fact up as some incredible insight only you have had or were you just looking for an excuse to try and test the limits of forum policies?

If you really thought that you were bringing something controversial or I known then you REALLY need to read what others post.

 

[Bartato]

This eternality of the Torah argument reminds me of the Mohammedian view of the Koran.

That doesn't mean it is incorrect, but

As PeteR has pointed out, the patriarchs clearly knew at least some things about God's character, and how He wants man to live even before Sinai. Jumping from that to "they knew all of it", is a huge stretch. Zec is right when he points out that marrying one's sister was not originally prohibited, but was at Sinai.

 

[Mark C]

If you really thought that you were bringing something controversial or I known then you REALLY need to read what others post.

You are such a stinking HYPOCRITE. You really need to read the POST before you hihack!!!

Obviously, the only reason you posted in this thread at ALL was to be an unmitigated asshole. It's what you do.

 

[Bartato]

Going back to Mark's original post, I think we all understand that Christ and His apostles define marriage the same way the Torah, Prophets, and Writings do.

Polygyny is marriage. It is not adultery, or sexual immorality. This is a universal moral law.

I still think there is a hole in Mark's argument.

I take Mark to be saying:
(Premise A)
Polygyny is legitimate marriage.
Therefore
(Premise B)
Paul cannot prohibit polygamous men from being chosen as elders or deacons.

I don't think premise A necessitates premise B. There is another possibility.

Polygyny might be totally legitimate, but polygamous men still excluded from church leadership for practical reasons (rather than moral disqualification).

This would be like the qualification "able to teach", or "not a new convert".
Some men are morally upright and faithful, but simply aren't good teachers, or are new converts. These are more practical consideration. Perhaps polygamy is as well.

Keep in mind that I don't think this is the case. I think Paul is saying that elders should have experience leading a wife (and family), and should be faithful in doing so.

Even if the modern feminist/egalitarian leaning pastors are correct, and Paul is blocking polygamists, that doesn't prove polygamy to be immoral. If anything, it actually demonstrates that polygamy is lawful.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You are such a stinking HYPOCRITE. You really need to read the POST before you hihack!!!

Obviously, the only reason you posted in this thread at ALL was to be an unmitigated asshole. It's what you do.

You’re still avoiding dealing with the pointed out changes…..

 

[Mark C]

Going back to Mark's original post, I think we all understand that Christ and His apostles define marriage the same way the Torah, Prophets, and Writings do.

Great. As He in fact said.

Polygyny is marriage. It is not adultery, or sexual immorality. This is a universal moral law.

So far, so good.

I still think there is a hole in Mark's argument.

I take Mark to be saying:
(Premise A)
Polygyny is legitimate marriage.

Of course. His Word says so, more than once. And He confirmed that.

Therefore
(Premise B)
Paul cannot prohibit polygamous men from being chosen as elders or deacons.

Close, but not exactly. He was a "bondservant," and "follower of the Most High,"
(he introduced himself that way in the letter to Titus!) so he WOULD NOT HAVE.

Why would he contradict His Master? AND - if he even tried - he would have done what he did elsewhere, say that it was his opinion, and not that he was speaking for YHVH. And, as he also did in many places, he would have provided a WHOLE LOT of rationale for even appearing to contradict Scripture that way.

I'm saying it should be clear that he did NOT do any such thing.

(And it needn't "be Greek to us.")

I don't think premise A necessitates premise B. There is another possibility.

Polygyny might be totally legitimate, but polygamous men still excluded from church leadership for practical reasons (rather than moral disqualification)....

OK, maybe...continue... (and emphasis added)

...Perhaps polygamy is as well.

Keep in mind that I don't think this is the case. I think Paul is saying that elders should have experience leading a wife (and family), and should be faithful in doing so.

Back to "agreed."

The point is simple, in spite of the attempts to obfuscate and sidetrack. In science and logic, it's called "Occams' Razor" - the simplest explanation is generally the preferred one.

This one might be called "Yahuah's Razor." (Oh, yeah, I can hear the shrieks already! )

If a passage of Scripture has been twisted in translation so as to even make it APPEAR that the Author Himself is violating His Own Word, then go with what He almost certainly ACTUALLY Wrote instead.

Since I don't care about dissing Abraham, or other angels-dancing-on-pinheads idiocy, a few practical examples, relevant to marrige:

If YHVH says "if he [a man] take another wife..." then that means HE CAN. Otherwise He wouldn't need to say anything about it at all, right? After all, He NEVER first says, "don't boink a man like you would a woman," and then "changes His mind" and says, "but if you DO, wear a condom."

This is not rocket science. All it takes is a bit of consistency. Which He is careful to provide!

And, since He says, "do not commit adultery," and then write instructions (rules) for a "war bride," then that is not adultery. Reasons abound, and - guess what - they are ALL consistent with His Word. You can use the 'razor' to "rightly divide" them.

And in the very same section of Scripture where He talks about idolatry, and how He hates it, and reiterates the "Ten Debarim," and what Yahushua Himself called the "Greatest Commandment" (Deuteronomy 6:4), He says don't "add to" or "subtract from" His Word.

Men did it with polygyny. Destroyed families, ruined societies, and killed a whole lotta people for it. Yahushua called 'em "hypocrites." And He was Right - again. And they're still doing it. In about every arena you can imagine.

Why do we put up with that?

 

[Edward]

He commanded us not to marry our sisters but Abraham did.

Abraham also refers to Lot as his brother. Terms like brother, sister, son, and daughter are used loosely throughout the Bible. Yeshua was a son of David. Sarai was a daughter of Terah but not of Abraham's mother. It's very possible she was a granddaughter of Terah and a niece of Abraham (just as Lot is a nephew and yet referred to as a brother).

Makes more sense to me. Especially due to the numerous instances of the Law being kept before Sinai (of which Pete so eloquently presented a collection).

I am of the opinion that nieces are most likely forbidden.

Here are some interesting notes from the Geneva Bible,
Genesis 20:12 KJV And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

(m) By sister, he means his full cousin, and by daughter Abraham's niece, (Gen_11:29) for so the Hebrews use these words.

Let's not forget that we have the one passage that talks about Sarah being a daughter-in-law
Genesis 11:31 KJV And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

So maybe just maybe in Gen 20:12, Abraham is doing a play on words.
Here is something from the Treasury of Scriptures Iscah: Iscah is called the daughter-in-law of Terah (Gen_11:31), as being Abram's wife; yet Abram afterwards said, "she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother" (Gen_20:12). Probably Haran was the eldest son of Terah, and Abram his youngest by another wife; and thus Sarai was the daughter, or grand-daughter of Terah, Abram's father, but not of his mother.

When you look at the prohibitions listed in Leviticus, we don't see anywhere that forbids nieces. I will throw the passage up and we can go from there.
Leviticus 18:5-17 KJV Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD. (6) None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. (7) The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. (8) The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. (9) The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. (10) The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. (11) The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. (12) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman. (13) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. (14) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. (15) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. (16) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness. (17) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

It is 8 pm here in MO, it is past my bedtime, I will catch up on page 3 tomorrow.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Here are some interesting notes from the Geneva Bible,
Genesis 20:12 KJV And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

(m) By sister, he means his full cousin, and by daughter Abraham's niece, (Gen_11:29) for so the Hebrews use these words.

Let's not forget that we have the one passage that talks about Sarah being a daughter-in-law
Genesis 11:31 KJV And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

So maybe just maybe in Gen 20:12, Abraham is doing a play on words.
Here is something from the Treasury of Scriptures Iscah: Iscah is called the daughter-in-law of Terah (Gen_11:31), as being Abram's wife; yet Abram afterwards said, "she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother" (Gen_20:12). Probably Haran was the eldest son of Terah, and Abram his youngest by another wife; and thus Sarai was the daughter, or grand-daughter of Terah, Abram's father, but not of his mother.

When you look at the prohibitions listed in Leviticus, we don't see anywhere that forbids nieces. I will throw the passage up and we can go from there.
Leviticus 18:5-17 KJV Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD. (6) None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. (7) The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. (8) The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. (9) The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. (10) The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. (11) The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. (12) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman. (13) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. (14) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. (15) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. (16) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness. (17) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

It is 8 pm here in MO, it is past my bedtime, I will catch up on page 3 tomorrow.

It doesn’t make sense, why would he add in the “not the daughter of my mother” part? If she wasn’t the actual daughter of his father why point out that the mother was different. Obviously they would have different mothers.

That only makes sense if she’s his half sister.