Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there two Christs in the Bible?
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 11 of 109 (340413)
08-15-2006 10:55 PM


No priest for ever
Salibi does a fair job of explaining the mistranslation of Gen 14 and Psalm 110:4 (Bible came from Arabia-p143). IOW, there was no such puppy as Melchizedek. Which raises the interesting question of where the writer of Hebrews drew his information. Was the mistranslation from Sopherim or Ezra times? From the foundation of the LXX? Surely, Hebrew speakers would have known the correct translation?
On the Two Christs question, the Qumran Scrolls (notably 4Q285,4Q161 and the Damascus Document vs 4Q266 talk of two Messiahs, a kingly Davidic and an Aaronic priestly, with a hint of a third Prophetic Messiah (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English--Geza Vermes p86). Was this concept just a sectarian one (if the Scrolls are really a sectarian library), or less than mainstream?

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by truthlover, posted 09-01-2006 8:47 AM Nighttrain has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 16 of 109 (345947)
09-02-2006 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by truthlover
09-01-2006 8:47 AM


Re: No priest for ever
Hi, TL.
As for Gen 14 or Ps 110:4 being a mistranslation or unrelated, maybe you can present Salibi's argument in brief. I don't see why there's any problem that needs solving there by proposing a mistranslation.
Salibi takes a chapter to develop his proposal, so it`s difficult to sum it up in a couple of paragraphs, but here goes:
From Chap 12--Melchizedek : Clues to a Pantheon
P143 'Given the unequivocal reference to a king-priest called Melchizedek in standard English versions of the Old Testament, it would seem churlish to question whether, in fact, he existed. Yet, if there was such a person, the Hebrew Bible has nothing to say about him. Now, it is true that a structure of consonants reading as mlky sdq does occur in two Biblical texts (Gen. 14:18 and Psalm 110:4), which has been translated to mean 'My King is Righteousness'. In each case, however, it seems highly unlikely that it is a personal name. In Gen 14:18, mlky sdq appears to be an idiomatic expression. In Psalm 110:4 it is almost certainly a reference to the 'kings' (mlkym, with the final m of the plural suffix dropped in the genitive structure) of a particular place.'
There follows a long paragraph explaining his idea of the correct translation.
P144 ' In the context of the story told in Genesis 14, the king of Salem honored 'Abram the Hebrew', who was on his way back home from a successful military venture, laden with booty. Having brought out his 'bread and wine', the king of Salem invited Abram to eat, idiomatically, he 'gave him a morsel of food' (w-ytn lw m'sr mkl, Gen. 14:20). This makes it even clearer that the mlky sdq of Gen. 14:18, like the mkl (Arabic m'kl, vocalised ma'kal) of Gen.14:20, refers to food, and is not a personal name, Melchizedek.'
'Turning to the consonantal text of Psalm 110:4, one finds the following: 'th khn l-'wlm 'l dbrty mlky sdq, tradionally vocalised to to read in translation as 'you are priest forever over the order of Melchizedek', the person addressed being presumably King David. However, consider the following:
1. The Hebrew '-'wlm can certainly mean for ever, but it can also mean 'to Olam'- the name of a god or shrine, or an epithet for Yahweh, the God of Israel, meaning 'everlasting' or 'eternal'. Considering no can be priest or anything else for that matter,--'for ever', the second possible interpretation of the Hebrew l-'wlm makes contextually better sense.
2. The Hebrew dbrty cannot mean 'order' because it is not a word in the singular. It can only be the dual of dbrh (dbrtym, as distinct from the feminine plural dbrwt), with the final m in the dual suffix dropped in the genitive structure dbrty(m) mlky(m) sdq. The Hebrew dbrh is the feminine verbal noun from dbr, here clearly in the sense of the vocalised Arabic dabara (also dbr), 'follow behind'. Thus the word must be translated as 'following' (i.e. 'area of jurisdiction', or more likely 'flock'), which would make dbrty(m) mean 'the two followings',or 'the two flocks'. The fact that there are places called sdq in two different parts of West Arabia should also be taken into account.
3. The Hebrew mlky(m) sdq, in context, stands as a genitive structure meaning 'the kings of Sedeq'. Of course, it can also be read as a personal name' Melchizedek'. Two Koranic references, however, suggest that sdq (vocalised sidq, and interpreted to mean 'righteousness'), could have actually been a place, one in which the people of Israel were made to settle (10:93); also the seat of a 'powerful king' (54:55). This strongly endorses the first interpretation. Significantly, there is no mention of Salem' or El' Elyon in the text of the Psalm.
In the light of these observations, the reading of Psalm 110:4 should be corrected to yield the following sense:'you are priest to Olam over the two flocks (or two dabrahs) of the kings of Sedeq'. Here, as in Gen 14:18. there is no question of anyone called 'Melchizedek'. '
And so on. Heavy going, especially with linguistics. but in spite of the furore over Salibi`s book title, I haven`t found anyone challenge him on translation issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by truthlover, posted 09-01-2006 8:47 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by truthlover, posted 09-05-2006 12:32 PM Nighttrain has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 18 of 109 (346905)
09-06-2006 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by truthlover
09-05-2006 12:32 PM


Re: No priest for ever
Hi, Tl, lots and lots more, including a chapter on metathesis, or transposition of consonants. I don`t read Hebrew, let alone Arabic, so you have to take it that a native speaker, a professor of history at the American University in Beirut (duck,incoming)would have some grounds for challenging the orthodox translation. I`ll leave it to linguists to battle it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by truthlover, posted 09-05-2006 12:32 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 22 of 109 (348961)
09-13-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
09-09-2006 7:13 PM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
The second, ”Mashiac ben David,’ is named as such for two reasons. Like David of the Tenach, he will reign gloriously as a king and subjugate the gentile nations under Israel. As well, this messiah must come from the genealogical line of David.
Well, since He didn`t come from the genealogical line of David, that rules out Jesus as the Messiah

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-09-2006 7:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2006 7:22 PM Nighttrain has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 24 of 109 (349143)
09-14-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
09-14-2006 7:22 PM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
And how have you deduced that he didn't come from the line of David?
Patriarchal descent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2006 7:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2006 8:05 PM Nighttrain has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 26 of 109 (349170)
09-14-2006 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
09-14-2006 8:05 PM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
I`ll surmise away. Regardless of the convoluted apologetics you use which can be attacked on several fronts, if the Messiac heritage of David was gained through Mary`s line, why bother to include Joseph`s? Wishful thinking? Scandal of birth? More of Matthew`s accretions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2006 8:05 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-17-2006 10:00 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 30 of 109 (350168)
09-19-2006 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ringo
09-18-2006 6:20 PM


Re: Is this the other Jesus?
The general rule at EvC is we already have a thread on that subject.
Indeed. Or several.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 09-18-2006 6:20 PM ringo has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 54 of 109 (498612)
02-12-2009 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by thehousethatGodbuilt
02-11-2009 10:14 AM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
Go preach somewhere else. Here we dissect, not waffle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by thehousethatGodbuilt, posted 02-11-2009 10:14 AM thehousethatGodbuilt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by thehousethatGodbuilt, posted 02-12-2009 9:45 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 57 of 109 (498770)
02-13-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Peg
02-13-2009 6:18 AM


Two Messiahs
Jesus is both a King of Gods Kingdom and a High Priest who has authority to take sins away from the people.
Since Jesus is NOT descended in the paternal line from either Aaron or David, how can he legitimately be high priest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Peg, posted 02-13-2009 6:18 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Peg, posted 02-15-2009 12:19 AM Nighttrain has replied
 Message 62 by jaywill, posted 03-27-2009 8:17 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 59 of 109 (498899)
02-15-2009 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Peg
02-15-2009 12:19 AM


Re: Two Messiahs
Nighttrain writes:
Since Jesus is NOT descended in the paternal line from either Aaron or David, how can he legitimately be high priest?
what makes you think he was not?
Unless I missed something, the biological 'father' of Jesus was the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Peg, posted 02-15-2009 12:19 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 02-18-2009 4:22 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024