Biblical Translation--Eden

bertot: Just a short note.I am indeed enjoying discussing these subjects with you and jawill. I will respond to your earlier post in a while.The antiquity and apparent authorship of the NT documents is not in doubt. Personally, I am particularly interested in what the NT documents convey. I am fine with that.The Heb. OT does in fact contradict the NT quite often. The NT is principally founded on the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint OT. There are a vast number of differences between them.I'll get back to you,
Ger

To Autunman Are we having fun here or what? I appreciate Jaywills honest admission of being a novice christian and sometimes frustrated apologist, I on the other hand am niether. I having been dealin with skepticism for 35 years plus. But as always we must keep this in the Spirit of love keeping in mid the words of the Apotle Paul "we will demolish every argument that sets itself up against the will of God. quote:You have a consistent habit of ignoring the obvious and that which has been presented to you over and over. The religous belief spoken
of in this definition is speaking of belief unsuppoted from fact, that is the whole purpose of the distinction in the definition. Religous history is not the same as religous belief. Come on big A your smarter than that. While the Bible does contain religous thought, that is not what establishes its reliability. The NT more than meets the requirements of not only the first definiton but the second as well and you know this. Did you notice the word USUALLY in the second definition. this means not always the case. Your misaplication and failure to distinuish the words in the first definiton as the authors terms did, constitues a failure on your part to establish your case. It is simply ludicrous to conclude that an invent in history is not historical because it is attached to religous ideas. If it were it would be true of any historical figure even being coorborated by others. Your above statment is as unacademic as any statement could be. It ignores mountains of evidence and the general scholarship of the world. Shame on you. "Once having lived in the real world" describes not only Christ but all of the characters in the NT as suppoted by the simplest of evidence. For several reasons. Myths are not suppoted by historical facts. Is that simple enough. Peter Pan is not real, historical or factual. The events in the NT are real and are are suppoted, see the difference.
Futher it is the same as the existence of God argument because you are and have claimed to KNOW that the events mentioned in the NT did not happen. Again, again, and again I have asked how you could possibly KNOW this. See the application and comparison to the God question. No I am not and thank you for agreeing that they are real historical characters as well. See the diference now between fictional characters and real ones. Your getting closer to admitting the obvious. Are you deliberatley misquoting his words again. Religous belief is not religous scripture. One is an ideology the other is a real thing. You can dig the stories in the scriptures up in the ground, that which is called evidence. Something you are lacking in your arugments. Ha, Ha. Quit being evasive. You know I am not talking about SUPERNATURAL EVENTS, at this point. Come on Autunman face up to the challenge. The rest of theis statement does not apply to the proposition but I will ask you one thing. Who did create the real world. You have a nact for absolute categorical statement sustained by no support. You tell me. Do archeological finds cooroborated by use of the books of Acts and Pauls travels in the locations they were said to been and cities and peoples not known until mentioned by the scriptures only and hitherto unknown constitute that atleast Luke, Paul and others were truthful and hitorically accurate in thier writings. In contrast provide your evidence, my friend. For you baseless unsuported claims and to know absolutley they did not occur. Burden of proof is no problem for the NT. Is misquoting and misapplying dictionary words your only evidence for you claims.I will get to the rest later.D Bertot

Thankyou Bertot for an encouraging word. With some 1500 plus posts on this Forum you can see that I'm kind of an "old warrior" around this Forum.I enjoy very much and am edified by your solid defense of the historical aspects of the NT documents. You can know that your responses are being carefully read by me when I can get the time to do so.I think I needed a little break from the discussion.As to my ideas - I derive very much support from the thousands of pages of the Life Study Messages of Witness Lee and the voluminous footnotes to the Recovery Version of the Bible - The Holy Bible Recovery Version.I have been under the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee since about 1973. Before that time probably the most influencial Christian books that helped me with theology were books written by a few Brethren teachers or Brethren influenced teachers.But I consider myself dedicated to the vision of God's economy brought to his Body by the late brother Witness Lee. Of course when you read Lee and Nee you are also getting, not only thier insights, but also what I would consider the cream of Bible exposition throughout many centries.Watchman Nee was a high speed reader as well as a deeply spiritual man. And one of the services he performed for the church was his speedy pouring over hundreds of volumnes and recommending to his co-workers what he considered the supperior classic spiritual books over less valuable ones.So when you read Nee and Lee you are also receiving the wisdom of the many past brother and sister writers upon whose shoulders they stood.The down side of this is that it always tempts me to be verbose and wordy because I really expect that questioners want thorough explanations to their challenges.I try to differentiate to my audiences things I feel very certain about and other things upon which I present my best opinion. We know in part and we prophecy in part.The Lord bless your labors.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I understand.Now don't expect everybody to gush all over in agreement with you because you can come here with something you think is "non-traditional" or original.Okay?As for preaching. Yes, I preach. But you don't have to sit passively in your pew nodding in agreement either. You can heckle me, debate me, challenge me, give your own opinion, preach your own message at me, rebut me, dissagree with me, debunk me, and even change the whole flow of the conversation.Yea, I'm preachy. But its an Internet audience. You don't have to be a "Amen corner" by any means.Now this is an interesting comment which I may respond to latter. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Autunman, You are all opened and excited about non-traditional ideas, right?Okay, let's see. Maybe God CAN act alone to destroy Satan. Maybe God prefers NOT to unilaterally deal with His enemy ALONE.You have a Creator and a creature who becomes rebellious and an enemy. Perhaps it brings more glory to God for Him to receive the coordination of ANOTHER obedient and loving creature to put down the revolting creature.Sure, by Himself God could have wiped out Satan along time ago. I agree with this. I think that He sees some benefit in eternity future if instead of acting unilaterally alone He secure the cooperation of another of His creations which is in harmony with Him.That brings more glory to God. That is a deeper lesson to the revolting creature. And that too is a deep lesson to the cooperating creature.So God CAN destroy His enemies. For His reasons He CHOOSES to do utilize His friends to work with Him to do so.Next time you get to be the Creator of the universe you can do it some different way as you choose.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

We have Jesus Himself. That is the most important.As for Christ coming quickly or slowly, you really don't understand these things too well.Okay - very briefly:1.) Those who are saved by grace, if they do not wish to, may not grow to become mature.2.) Since some will mature voluntarily and many will not, Christ uses TIME to amass His army of those who through the centries HAVE grown to mature.3.) When He physically returns those who have overcome to mature will recieve the reward to reign with Him over the planet.So this "delay" as you count it is only causing His eventual government of co-rulers and co-kings to grow ever larger as the years progress.At some moment He wll return and those who are ready (the overcomers both living and waiting in Paradise) will reign with Him for they cooperated in the Age of Grace. Their cooperation in the Age of Grace will qualify them to receive the reward to reign with Him in the Age of the Millennial kingdom.By the time of the end of the Millennial Kingdom of 1,000 years all the rest (the majority) who just got saved but did not overcome, will have been matured by that time.One thing I realize if you don't. When Jesus DOES come most of the people on the earth will think it is TOO SOON rather than too late.Now I gave you the shortest answer I possibly could. So if you find many things to object to, in this brief reply, just don't congradulate yourself too hard. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jaywill: You wrote, Thank you for the short and concise reply. Whether your reply is short or long I always find a number of things to disagree with, but, I never congradulate myself. So we disagree on many things. I am learning a great deal from you while we disagree. I appreciate your honest answers, and I also try to respectfully disagree with your faith as well as your exposition of Scripture. I am not trying to change your faith or your exposition of Scripture. I am merely in disagreement with both, and in doing so I am learning a great deal.You and bertot are very faithful Christians as well as enjoyable human beings to chat with. I hope that our discussions can continue a while longer. I thank you both for the time you are spending with me.I will post again in a while; I need to reply to bertot.Regards,
GerEdited by autumnman, : are for and

To Autumnman Sorry I did not see this earlier, thanks for these admissions. But it seems to contradict nearly all the clear cut statements about the reliability factor in all your other statements. Are you saying we certainly can have confidence in the stories in the NT asdide from the miracles. I have to go to work at present Ill await your replyD Bertot

bertot: I'll post to you in a minute.Regards,
Ger

bertot:Unfortunately, at present I do not have the time to reply to your entire post, but I hope this response will keep the discussion going for now.Yes, I am enjoying our discussions a great deal. I am glad to hear that Paul’s words -“we will demolish every argument that sets itself up against the will of God” - are recited here “in the Spirit of love.”My arguments are NOT set “against the will of God.” My arguments are set against the will of Paul the historical, mortal man. I have always agreed that Paul was a historical figure. I have never said that either he or Peter, or Mark, or Luke, or Matthew, or John were not historical figures. They are not here (in a mortal sense) with us now, only the writings they left behind. I have also never said that the NT documents themselves were not ancient documents. They are indeed. The Dead Sea Scrolls are also ancient documents that were scribed two thousand years ago. Both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the NT are documents of history, they are NOT historical documents. They are both ancient documents that can be employed in the compilation of the history of the Hasmonean Era and Early Christian Era of Palestine, but unto themselves the Dead Sea Scrolls and the NT are NOT historical documents.At this moment I do not know how to make myself any clearer. I’ll keep working on it.

quote:

---

Since we are employing the English language in our discussion it may be helpful for us to examine the dictionary definitions of a couple words that are central to the debate.historical: having once existed or lived in the real world as distinguished from religious belief; e.g. a theologian’s study of the historical Jesus (WUD=Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2003).history: a continuous systematic narrative of past events as relating to a people, country, period, person, etc. usually written as a chronological account; A systematic account of any set of natural phenomena (WUD).chronological: arranged in the order of time (WUD).No. The NT cannot be considered a collection of historical documents. The 27 Religious Books, which comprise the NT, are Religious Books, Books of Faith, NOT history-oriented manuscripts. The 27 Religious Books of the NT where not written to record historical events, they were written to promote a specific religious agenda. Manuscripts that are of a historical nature are composed from an observers’ point of view, meaning that the author of an account of history {the record of past events and times in connection with the [real world] human race} is not at the same time composing a manuscript that will establish a new religious belief, sect or church.

---

Contrary to your above statement, one’s belief in Jesus Christ is impossible without the 27 Books of the NT. If you did not have the NT, or if one had the NT but could not read it, the mental ability to believe in or have faith in what is conveyed within the NT literature would be impossible. The “religious belief” that what is written in the NT denotes the “will of God” is only possible if one is familiar with the NT.I totally agree, “religious history” is not the same as “religious belief.” There may well have been a Jesus of Nazareth. I have NEVER said that a real person whose name was Jesus and who came from Nazareth did not exist.“Religious history” goes way back, well over 100 thousand years. Gen. chapter 1 was not even composed until after the Jewish Exile in Babylon that occurred in 586 BCE.“Christian Religious history,” according to the Christian dating of the NT documents, did not even begin until Paul came along. The synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John were not even composed until after Peter {64AD} and Paul {67AD} had died. The “belief” in the divine intervention into Paul’s mortal existence can only be “believed” if one reads what Paul says about it. One must also “believe” that the NT conveys “God’s Will” because the only place where that assertion is made is in the NT. Religious documents and the beliefs they inspire go hand and hand; they are inseparable. I typed “the word USUALLY in the second definition.” So what? I do not get your point as to how that relates to our discussion. Please explain.

quote:

---

The 27 Religious Books, which comprise the NT, are Religious Books, Books of Faith, NOT history-oriented manuscripts. The 27 Religious Books of the NT where not written to record historical events, they were written to promote a specific religious agenda. Manuscripts that are of a historical nature are composed from an observers’ point of view, meaning that the author of an account of history {the record of past events and times in connection with the [real world] human race} is not at the same time composing a manuscript that will establish a new religious belief, sect or church.

---

“Shame on me?”In the OT, the term Messiah {a.k.a. Christ} is applied to anyone who is assigned a special function. Leviticus 4:3,5 is described as “the messiah priest. The king who was conceived was “anointed” {messiah} by divine command, 1st Sam 10:1, as the LORD’s anointed {messiah/Christ} 1st Sam. 24:6. After the promise made to David by the prophet Nathan, 2nd Sam. 7:12 & 13, the entire Davidic dynasty came to be regarded as the specially chosen by God, 2nd Sam. 22:51; Ps. 89:35ff. However, the term Messiah {a.k.a. Christ} could also be applied to the patriarchs, 1st Chr. 16:22, as well as the Persian king Cyrus, Is 45:1. The Heb. term mashiycha in and of itself does not denote “only begotten of God.”Regards,
Ger

Autumnman, If you mean by disagreement that you do not believe something that the Bible says, I can't do too much about that, after showing you what is there. For example, Disagreements like "Well, I just don't believe in your god." Or, "Well I just don't believe that your Jesus Christ rose from the dead." that's just your unbelief. That's just your choice not to take what is written in the Bible.However, take this last reply. If you disagree that such a concept is not in the Bible as God wanting the cooperation of man in order to defeat His enemy, that I am totally ready to defend.Do you understand this difference?I'll debate you on the real meaning of what is written because that is the nature of the Forum.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't agree with this.The high priest of that day should know something about this. And according to him they understood Jesus of Nazareth to be saying that He was a SPECIFIC ANOINTED ONE, and NOT as you teach A general ANOINTED ONE.Here's the proof: "THE Christ, THE Son of God" is specific. And the specific claim to this office is what got Jesus persecuted to death.Many anointed kings and many anointed prophets can not be used by you to nullify that Jesus the Christ the Son of God had a particular and special function.Are you now going to object that this is too rigid and too traditional? Are you going to say after 2,000 years this old tradition and rigid teaching needs to be negated for something fresh and new?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jaywill:This was a part of what I said: In Jesus case it would have referred to the "Davidic dynasty messiah King of the Jews". The Jews were in fact awaiting a Davidic and divinely anointed King in the 1st century BC & AD. The Sadduceean priest at that time understood Jesus was perceived by some as being the Davidic divinely anointed King of the Jews. See Matthew 27:29 "Hail, King of the Jews."Why do you think that the N.T. places such an importance on how Jesus was in line with the Davidic dynasty?Regards,
Ger

bertot: You wrote, I think what we have had in some cases is me being unable to properly convey what I was trying to express, and you being unable to comprehend what I was saying. Does that make sense? Yes, I am saying that we can have a measure of confidence in the stories in the NT, aside from the miracles. The New Testament Scriptures are indeed ancient manuscripts composed in the last half of the 1st century of the Common Era, and, except for the miracles, much of what is written in the New Testament Scriptures describes ancient Palestine when it was under the rule of Pontius Pilate, the fifth Roman procurator of Judea.I actually thought I was saying just that when I said that the NT had historical people and events woven through it.I hope we have crossed that chasm of misunderstanding.See my post, #190, above.Regards,
GerEdited by autumnman, : post, #190,

How then would you explain the passages in the New Testament which record that Jesus was:1.) Reluctant to do a miracle (Matt. 12:39)?2.) Not able to do many miracles (Matt. 13:58)?3.) Chose not to intrust Himself to those who sought only miracles (John 2:23-25)?Are you expecting us to believe that along with the latter editorial additions of the miraculous there were ALSO accompanying additions showing His reluctance to perform miracles?Or are you saying that these passages which speak of His reluctance were in the PRE-editorial text before the addition of miraculous passages?If miracles were not performed then how could He have shown a reluctance about them?If miracles were the fictional additions then what purpose would it serve the propogandists to add that their great miracle worker sometimes refused or would not do them? Would that not be self defeating to their false propoganda?Have you ever really read through the entire New Testament from end to end for yourself? Or is most of your knowledge derived from the commentaries of skeptical scholars refering to passages in the New Testament?Please be honest about it. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.