Psalm 110:1

[Trenches]

Psalm 110:1 (King James Version)

1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Wasn't King David speaking of the messiah here?

[Meriweather]

Another translation words it this way:

The Lord says to you, my lord,
"Take your throne at my right hand,
while I make your enemies your footstool."

Meaning...

The Lord God says to you, my king,
"Take your throne at my right hand,
while I make your enemies your footstool."

Therefore, this Psalm may have been originally sung to/about an earthly king--David, or perhaps Saul.

In the Gospels, the psalm is taken as prophecy; the psalmist as King David. In this context 'my king' would mean someone greater than David--i.e., Jesus.

[Trenches]

Thanks for the reply.


Psalm 16:10 (King James Version)


10For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


Why here would King David be worried about his soul being left in hell, if they had a temple, and it is as some Jews say today, that they can pray and God will forgive them of their sins?


These two Psalm's then point to the need of a savior.

[gpd®]

Thanks for the reply.


Psalm 16:10 (King James Version)


10For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


Why here would King David be worried about his soul being left in hell, if they had a temple, and it is as some Jews say today, that they can pray and God will forgive them of their sins?


These two Psalm's then point to the need of a savior.


I dunno, because he ordered the hit on Bathsheeba's husband Uriah?

[Meriweather]

Psalm 16:10 (King James Version)


10For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


Why here would King David be worried about his soul being left in hell, if they had a temple, and it is as some Jews say today, that they can pray and God will forgive them of their sins?


These two Psalm's then point to the need of a savior.


Psalm 16:10 (New American Bible)

For you will not abandon me to Sheol,
nor let your faithful servant see the pit.


In Hebrew (the original langauge of this psalm), the pit is a synonym for Sheol, the underworld--a place. The Hebrew word is shahath, which translates into the noun, pit. In Greek translations, the verb form of 'shahath' is used, which translates "to be corrupt."

Our Jewish brethern read the original Hebrew as God will not abandon them to a place. We Christians use the Greek verb translation (as does Luke in Acts), "to be corrupt."

[Trenches]

I dunno, because he ordered the hit on Bathsheeba's husband Uriah?

One would think so, however, talking to the Jews on here who don't accept Jesus as Messiah. I have asked them 'Without a temple, how is it that you have a sacrifice for your sins?' And their reply is that they point to the part of the Bible where it says they can pray and God will forgive them. However, I think that this is only referring to after the Messiah comes. And to show this, I point to these two Psalm's.

If it is as the Jews say, and they can claim forgiveness without a temple, why then didn't King David do so? You see, another question then arises: Since King David did have the temple, he still was worried about his soul being left in hell.

[Meriweather]

I don't see where David is worried. He seems confident that he will not be abandoned.

[Trenches]

Psalm 16:10 (New American Bible)

For you will not abandon me to Sheol,
nor let your faithful servant see the pit.


In Hebrew (the original langauge of this psalm), the pit is a synonym for Sheol, the underworld--a place. The Hebrew word is shahath, which translates into the noun, pit. In Greek translations, the verb form of 'shahath' is used, which translates "to be corrupt."

Our Jewish brethern read the original Hebrew as God will not abandon them to a place. We Christians use the Greek verb translation (as does Luke in Acts), "to be corrupt."

Thanks again for the reply.

Where do they get the original?

With the New American Bible where do they receive their translation from. The King James is from the Textus Receptus. I don't think it can come from the textus receptus when Romans 14:10-12 in the King James says: 'the judgment seat of Christ.' and the NAB says: judgment seat of God

[CID_0687]

Thanks again for the reply.

Where do they get the original?

With the New American Bible where do they receive their translation from. The King James is from the Textus Receptus. I don't think it can come from the textus receptus when Romans 14:10-12 in the King James says: 'the judgment seat of Christ.' and the NAB says: judgment seat of God
Christ is God.

That settles that.







wait for it...

[Meriweather]

Thanks again for the reply.

Where do they get the original?

With the New American Bible where do they receive their translation from. The King James is from the Textus Receptus. I don't think it can come from the textus receptus when Romans 14:10-12 in the King James says: 'the judgment seat of Christ.' and the NAB says: judgment seat of God

The introduction states that that the translations used for the New American Bible are translated from the original biblical languages, rather than using any intervening translations. It is a collaboration of about fifty Catholic biblical scholars, using the best of modern scholarship.

[Mimiheart]

It's always a good idea to post scriptures like these on the eve of important Jewish holidays. Not like anyone who knows Hebrew will be busy for the next two days, if they even use electricity on those days. Yom Kippur is next weekend... try to post Sunday afternoon... I know for a fact that I will be completely wiped until Tuesday morning.

[CID_0687]

It's always a good idea to post scriptures like these on the eve of important Jewish holidays. Not like anyone who knows Hebrew will be busy for the next two days, if they even use electricity on those days. Yom Kippur is next weekend... try to post Sunday afternoon... I know for a fact that I will be completely wiped until Tuesday morning.
Don't worry Mimi...us ecumenical types will keep things under control until y'all get back.

Shalom. :hug:

[chris13]

In the Gospels, the psalm is taken as prophecy; the psalmist as King David. In this context 'my king' would mean someone greater than David--i.e., Jesus.


Matthew 22:41-46 (NIV)
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied.
He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?"
No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

[Meriweather]

Matthew 22:41-46 (NIV)
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied.
He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?"
No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Yes. Understand, however, that Jews do not consider Matthew scripture. I am not sure they (today) consider Psalm 110 to be prophetic. It appears from Matthew's account that the Jews of Jesus' day may have considered it to be prophetic.

Christians have a different understanding of this passage than Jews have.

[CID_0687]

Yes. Understand, however, that Jews do not consider Matthew scripture. I am not sure they (today) consider Psalm 110 to be prophetic. It appears from Matthew's account that the Jews of Jesus' day may have considered it to be prophetic.

Christians have a different understanding of this passage than Jews have.
Again..that's why I don't argue with Jews over their scriptures....unless of course there's no doubt I'm right...something about David being a murderer comes to mind, but I digress...

[Poisonshady313]

Psalm 110:1 (King James Version)

1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Wasn't King David speaking of the messiah here?


"The Lord said to my master"

A subordinate of King David wrote this psalm.

This was a psalm ABOUT David.. not "by" him.

[Poisonshady313]

It appears from Matthew's account that the Jews of Jesus' day may have considered it to be prophetic.


Unless when it says "No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions." it meant they were dumbfounded by his inept answer, and wouldn't waste their time asking any more questions.

The there's the possibility that this story was crafted specifically to make it look like the Jews of the day were impressed with Jesus.

Not trying to cause trouble... just showing a different perspective.

[Meriweather]

Unless when it says "No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions." it meant they were dumbfounded by his inept answer, and wouldn't waste their time asking any more questions.

The there's the possibility that this story was crafted specifically to make it look like the Jews of the day were impressed with Jesus.

Not trying to cause trouble... just showing a different perspective.

Different perspective noted.

[CID_0687]

"The Lord said to my master"

A subordinate of King David wrote this psalm.

This was a psalm ABOUT David.. not "by" him.
Tanach debates...

Jews 972
Christians 1

[Poisonshady313]

Tanach debates...

Jews 972
Christians 1

Dare I ask where you got your 1 point from?

[Meriweather]

Dare I ask where you got your 1 point from?

I'll go out on a limb and say I'll bet it's over whether or not David can be considered a murderer. CID sort of referenced it earlier.

[Lie Sniper]

It's always a good idea to post scriptures like these on the eve of important Jewish holidays. Not like anyone who knows Hebrew will be busy for the next two days, if they even use electricity on those days. Yom Kippur is next weekend... try to post Sunday afternoon... I know for a fact that I will be completely wiped until Tuesday morning.

Aww dang.. You caught us! :mrgreen:

[CID_0687]

Dare I ask where you got your 1 point from?
It was a debate with CMike a few months back about David. He didn't see how David send Bathsheba's husband to the front lines, where he would surely be killed, would make David a murderer. His reasoning, if I recall correctly, was that David didn't "pull the trigger" or "drop the axe" on the man. But it was obvious what David's intentions were, knock the guy off so I can have his wife all to myself...it was murder, I still believe it was...but CMike didn't see it that way...we all know that David later repented of this, he was called a "man after God's own heart." At least that's what my translation says...and we can learn a lot of good lessons from David, this just so happened to be one of the bad things David did.

CMike seemed to be offended at the thought of this, and I don't know why. Every translation that can be found in English makes the story clear...maybe he felt it was a slap in the face to Jews to say that David was a murderer, but that wasn't the intent.

I miss those debates with Mike.

[Lie Sniper]

Again..that's why I don't argue with Jews over their scriptures....unless of course there's no doubt I'm right...something about David being a murderer comes to mind, but I digress...

:D I remember that.

[Trenches]

The introduction states that that the translations used for the New American Bible are translated from the original biblical languages, rather than using any intervening translations. It is a collaboration of about fifty Catholic biblical scholars, using the best of modern scholarship.

Yours is by the Latin Vulgate and mine the Textus Receptus.

[Trenches]

"The Lord said to my master"

A subordinate of King David wrote this psalm.

This was a psalm ABOUT David.. not "by" him.

How do you know it is about David and not by him?

[Trenches]

Unless when it says "No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions." it meant they were dumbfounded by his inept answer, and wouldn't waste their time asking any more questions.

The there's the possibility that this story was crafted specifically to make it look like the Jews of the day were impressed with Jesus.

Not trying to cause trouble... just showing a different perspective.

Isaiah 9:6

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Micah 5:2

2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.


These show divinity of Messiah and not just as a man.

[Poisonshady313]

It was a debate with CMike a few months back about David. He didn't see how David send Bathsheba's husband to the front lines, where he would surely be killed, would make David a murderer. His reasoning, if I recall correctly, was that David didn't "pull the trigger" or "drop the axe" on the man. But it was obvious what David's intentions were, knock the guy off so I can have his wife all to myself...it was murder, I still believe it was...but CMike didn't see it that way...we all know that David later repented of this, he was called a "man after God's own heart." At least that's what my translation says...and we can learn a lot of good lessons from David, this just so happened to be one of the bad things David did.

CMike seemed to be offended at the thought of this, and I don't know why. Every translation that can be found in English makes the story clear...maybe he felt it was a slap in the face to Jews to say that David was a murderer, but that wasn't the intent.

I miss those debates with Mike.

There is something that comes across as disrespectful by using one instance of a man committing a sin... even a big one like murder... to eclipse the man's greatness... that as wonderful and righteous and King as David was.... to identify him as a murderer is in poor taste... especially since he repented.


The thing about Jewish scripture, we make no mistakes about the fact that our holy ancestors were human. Their flaws, mistakes, sins, etc... are indeed documented, and not hidden.

But there is nothing good about taking the honored and blessed memory of the man and dragging it through the mud by highlighting and underlining the worst thing he ever did.

Though he murdered a man, he was not a murderous person... it certainly wasn't any significant part of his character... and so to say 'David was a murderer" is a rather disrespectful thing to say. I don't blame Mike for taking offense to it.

[Meriweather]

Yours is by the Latin Vulgate and mine the Textus Receptus.

Sorry, no. I mean, at least mine. The Latin version (or Vulgate) was first prepared by Jerome in the fifth century. This version, as stated, was translated from the original biblical languages, rather than using any intervening translations. It is a collaboration of about fifty Catholic biblical scholars, using the best of modern scholarship.

[Poisonshady313]

Isaiah 9:6

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Micah 5:2

2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.


These show divinity of Messiah and not just as a man.

No, they don't. Isaiah 9:6 isn't even about the Mesisah at all. It's about a man. A wonderful man... a man whom God, the everlasting father, would call "prince of peace". This man was Hezekiah.

Miach 5:2 does not suggest the divinity of anybody.

[CID_0687]

There is something that comes across as disrespectful by using one instance of a man committing a sin... even a big one like murder... to eclipse the man's greatness... that as wonderful and righteous and King as David was.... to identify him as a murderer is in poor taste... especially since he repented.


The thing about Jewish scripture, we make no mistakes about the fact that our holy ancestors were human. Their flaws, mistakes, sins, etc... are indeed documented, and not hidden.

But there is nothing good about taking the honored and blessed memory of the man and dragging it through the mud by highlighting and underlining the worst thing he ever did.

Though he murdered a man, he was not a murderous person... it certainly wasn't any significant part of his character... and so to say 'David was a murderer" is a rather disrespectful thing to say. I don't blame Mike for taking offense to it.
I was just giving you the condensed version...I never said, or any of us that were involved in that debate that David was a murderer...That would be like labeling me a thief...I was at one time, but have since repented of such things and that just something I did in my past now...just as I believe it was for David. And, I can see that you and I agree that David did indeed commit murder...CMike wouldn't even admit that...he kept going on that it couldn't be murder because David didn't do the deed...my argument for that was, if I hired someone to kill someone for me, in the eyes of todays judicial system I would go to prison for murder, or conspiracy for murder.

I honestly don't even remember how we all got on that subject that day...but everyone was in agreement that David had committed murder, or at least conspiracy thereof...aside from CMike...and as I said, no disrespect toward David or any Jews was meant...we all, that have studied the OT know that this was just a thing that David did, and later repented of.

[Trenches]

No, they don't. Isaiah 9:6 isn't even about the Mesisah at all. It's about a man. A wonderful man... a man whom God, the everlasting father, would call "prince of peace". This man was Hezekiah.

Miach 5:2 does not suggest the divinity of anybody.

A lot of Isaiah is about Messiah,

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

How do you know the Psalm's isn't by David?

[Poisonshady313]

How do you know it is about David and not by him?


I'd like to let someone else answer that. You may have to wait until Sunday night... unless maybe Abe shows up before then.

[Poisonshady313]

A lot of Isaiah is about Messiah, That's true... you just have to be able to distinguish which is and which isn't. You apparently need some work on that.

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Not about the Messiah.


How do you know the Psalm's isn't by David?

Though I'd like to let someone else give you a more meaningful answer... the way I know is that the Tanach I use opens the translation of the Psalm by saying "Regarding David".

The very knowledgeable scholars who published this Tanach obviously recognized that this Psalm is about David, and not by him... and while I'm sure there's something about the text itself that makes it clear it's talking about David, on a basic level, I trust that the guys who wrote it that way know better than you or I.

[Trenches]

I could just say then that it is about Messiah. Who else could it be about?


That's true... you just have to be able to distinguish which is and which isn't. You apparently need some work on that.

Not about the Messiah.




Though I'd like to let someone else give you a more meaningful answer... the way I know is that the Tanach I use opens the translation of the Psalm by saying "Regarding David".

The very knowledgeable scholars who published this Tanach obviously recognized that this Psalm is about David, and not by him... and while I'm sure there's something about the text itself that makes it clear it's talking about David, on a basic level, I trust that the guys who wrote it that way know better than you or I.

[Trenches]

Sorry, no. I mean, at least mine. The Latin version (or Vulgate) was first prepared by Jerome in the fifth century. This version, as stated, was translated from the original biblical languages, rather than using any intervening translations. It is a collaboration of about fifty Catholic biblical scholars, using the best of modern scholarship.

What does your NAB say when you read Luke 11:2-4?

[CID_0687]

What does your NAB say when you read Luke 11:2-4?
Are we gonna get into a "Who's got the best Bible debate?"

[Trenches]

Are we gonna get into a "Who's got the best Bible debate?"

It will be the KJV as being better, since his lacks the Lord's prayer in its' entirety. In the NAB, anyone who doesn't believe our Father is in heaven could pray that prayer.

[Trenches]

No, they don't. Isaiah 9:6 isn't even about the Mesisah at all. It's about a man. A wonderful man... a man whom God, the everlasting father, would call "prince of peace". This man was Hezekiah.

Miach 5:2 does not suggest the divinity of anybody.

Hezekiah was an everlasting Father? It says his name shall be called these things.

[CID_0687]

It will be the KJV as being better, since his lacks the Lord's prayer in its' entirety. In the NAB, anyone who doesn't believe our Father is in heaven could pray that prayer.
The Lord's prayer is nothing more than an example given by Jesus, to his disciple in how to structure their/our prayers.

[Trenches]

The Lord's prayer is nothing more than an example given by Jesus, to his disciple in how to structure their/our prayers.

Like I said, anybody who doesn't believe our Father is in heaven can pray that prayer. In the NAB, you could be talking about anyone. The Bible says you shouldn't call anyone Father. That's exactly what Catholics do, but the Bible says the to only call God 'Father' and God is in heaven.

[Poisonshady313]

Hezekiah was an everlasting Father? It says his name shall be called these things.

Scholars of biblical Hebrew who post on this very forum explains that the grammar of the sentence as commonly translated is badly written and is misleading.

God (the everlasting father) called the child wondrous adviser, prince of peace, etc.

[Poisonshady313]

I was just giving you the condensed version...I never said, or any of us that were involved in that debate that David was a murderer...That would be like labeling me a thief...I was at one time, but have since repented of such things and that just something I did in my past now...just as I believe it was for David. And, I can see that you and I agree that David did indeed commit murder...CMike wouldn't even admit that...he kept going on that it couldn't be murder because David didn't do the deed...my argument for that was, if I hired someone to kill someone for me, in the eyes of todays judicial system I would go to prison for murder, or conspiracy for murder.

I honestly don't even remember how we all got on that subject that day...but everyone was in agreement that David had committed murder, or at least conspiracy thereof...aside from CMike...and as I said, no disrespect toward David or any Jews was meant...we all, that have studied the OT know that this was just a thing that David did, and later repented of.

After all that, I found something that maintains it was not murder after all...

Was King David guilty of murder and adultery?



David

Known as the "Melech Hamoshiach" (anointed king), David not only lead his generation in G-d's ways, but he also merited to be divinely inspired and compose the Psalms, a book which we recite in our prayers (and many other occasions), until this very day! Amongst the Jewish greats of all times he is listed in the "Big 7", a group that in many contexts is known as the pillars of Judaism. For example, the traditional "Mi Sheberach" prayer on behalf of ill people begins with the following words: "May He who blessed our fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Aaron, David and Solomon, bless the sick person..."

Is it conceivable that we would invoke the name of a murderer and adulterer in an attempt to elicit divine mercy?! Is there a shortage of Jewish greats? The authors of this prayer were well aware of the Bible and all its stories, including the story of David and Bathsheba, yet they did not hesitate to include David in this prayer, where he shares such illustrious company!

Holiness and impurity do not go hand-in-hand! Maimonides tells us that one can only become a prophet if he has the ability to completely overcome his temptations. Among the prophets listed is King David. It is, therefore difficult to assume that he simply succumbed to his temptations. Indeed, the righteous David had no worldly desires, as he testifies in the Psalms that "My heart [i.e. my passions and desires] has died within me."

Bathsheba

There is a dispute in the Talmud whether or not Bathsheba was technically a married woman at the time. The Talmud rules that she was not. The law was that before a man went out to war he was required to divorce his wife. This was a necessary precaution taken to protect the wife. In case the husband would die in battle and no one could testify to the fact, the wife would not be an "Agunah" (chained to her possibly deceased husband) and would be free to remarry. If, however, the husband did return from the battlefield safe and sound – the couple was free to remarry. Uriah, too, issued this divorce to his wife and thus, according to Jewish law, King David had relations with a divorced woman.
Please note, that before King David summoned Bathsheba he "sent and inquired about the woman." If David, the absolute monarch, desired this woman and was willing to go to any length to fulfill his "fantasy," why did he first send messengers to inquire regarding Bathsheba? He should have sent messengers to "summon" the woman. It is evident that before David summoned her he wished to determine her marital status. Only after ascertaining that she was, in fact, the (divorced) wife of Uriah, did he make his advance.

Furthermore, the verse testifies that David only had relations with Bathsheba after "she had been cleansed [i.e. immersed in the Mikvah] from her [menstrual] impurity." Would an adulterer be concerned about such details?

Uriah

The Talmud tells us Uriah was guilty of treason—a capital offense. When Uriah addressed David, he referred to his general Joab as "my lord." Referring to any person as "my lord" while in the presence of a king is extremely audacious. The lack of respect which Uriah exhibited towards David is also alluded to in another verse: Uriah told David: "By your life (chayecha) and the life of your soul I will not do such a thing." Generally, the Hebrew word "chayecha," (your life), is written with two yuds after the chet. In this verse it is written with only one; one yud is missing—as if the life of the king has less value to him.While these may seem to be fairly trivial points, an understanding of the Torah’s view of monarchy further clarifies the issue: On the verse "you shall set ("som tasim") a king over you," the Talmud notes that the words used have the same root as the word aymah—fear. First and foremost, a king’s dominion must be predicated on fear and total reverence.
This concept is so vital that according to Jewish law, "one who signals to another person while in the presence of a king is punished with death"! We must treat a king of flesh and blood in the same manner as we would treat the King of kings, the Almighty Himself, for the earthly monarch is His representative. Furthermore, the very stability of the entire nation hinges on the absolute submission of the nation to its leader. Allowing even the slightest act of disrespect to slide can lead to bigger and worse forms of rebellion.


Since Uriah showed signs of treason by ignoring Judaism's laws of reverance for the King he was deserving of death. Thus David ordering Joab to send Uriah to the frontlines where he would meet his death did not contravene any Torah laws.

Truth Be Told

Let us now examine the "inside story" behind the story of King David and Bathsheba:

A glaring question which must be asked is: why wasn't David, the valiant warrior, at the frontlines of the war, leading his subjects in battle -- much as he had done by so many of the other battles of Israel? The answer to this question is that at the moment David was dealing with a more important problem; he did not have a fitting heir to succeed him--a son who would be worthy of being the antecedent of Moshiach. That is why David was on the roof of his palace, a place where one goes to have peace of mind to ponder a serious issue (see I Samuel 9:25).

At that time G-d -- via a prophetic vision -- shows Bathsheba to David. A king's palace is not next door to other homes, but is surrounded by gardens, orchards, parks and walls. She was immersing herself in the Mikvah (an area which is always completely enclosed, without any windows to the outside), and David perceived that she was "extremely beautiful." This term, used by the Torah to describe our holy matriarchs, primarily refers to spiritual inner-beauty. David was a man of action, and he had found the woman who was worthy of being the grandmother of Moshiach. He immediately dispatched messengers to ascertain that she was divorced from Uriah, and did not hesitate to consummate the union.

Afterwards, David realizes that, despite his pure intentions, this story would make for a wonderful front page story in the "Jerusalem Enquirer". After all, he had plenty of enemies who would relish the opportunity to destroy his reputation. He, therefore, summons Uriah from the battlefield, and tells him to go to his "wife." His intention was for Uriah to respond: "Your Majesty, Bathsheba is currently not my wife. I divorced her before leaving in the King's service!" For some reason, Uriah refuses to do so, and instead insults the king, incurring the death penalty. David, perhaps taking in to consideration Uriah's courageous service in his army, chooses to allow him to die an honorable death on the battlefield rather then be executed for treason.

[Poisonshady313]

The Mistake

Why then was King David chastised by Nathan and punished for this incident if technically he followed the strict letter of the law?

The story wasn't so smooth. While David did not commit adultery or murder, a number of other things went wrong.

King David prophetically knew that Bathsheba was destined to be his wife. His Chet (shortcoming) was his lack of patience; his unwillingness to wait. It is true that technically Bathsheba wasn't a married a woman, but in appearance the whole thing looked like an extra-marital affair. David needed Bathsheba because he knew that the Moshiach was destined to descend from his union with her. Had he waited, he would have been able to have Bathsheba without having Uriah killed. His error was simply not weighing all the factors, not realizing that since she was destined to be his wife, he did not have to rush the process by taking matters into his own hands.

The "sin" (in Hebrew: Chet, lit. translated "shortcoming") of David was not exercising the proper judgment expected of a man of his stature. To quote the Talmud: "Whoever says that David sinned is simply mistaken!" For if Bathsheba had gone to another man it might have been cunning or obnoxious, but it would not be a sin. It is only because of David's great status that the Prophet and G-d consider David's lack of judgment "sinful".
The Zohar maintains that David’s principle sin was: "him [Uriah] you have killed by the sword of the children of Ammon". David ought to have brought Uriah to the Sanhedrin where they would have executed him in accordance with Jewish law. Instead, by having him killed in the battle against Ammon, David caused a "chillul Hashem" – a desecration of G-d’s name. The children of Ammon were now able to take credit for killing a Jew, and give honor and praise to their deity for this "triumph."

Only one who does not have a proper appreciation for the level of a true tzaddik can accuse G-d’s anointed servant of adultery and/or murder!

Considering the potential of David it was upsetting to G-d that he summoned Bathsheba in this discreet roundabout way, and that he had Uriah killed by the hands of enemies. Thus G-d resented, the Prophet rebuked, and David repented.

We will conclude with a statement of our sages: King David was too holy to have erred in the incident of Bathsheba. He only stumbled in order to teach us a lesson, to set a precedent of a Tzadik who does sincere repentance. As is known, David spent thirteen years repenting for his "sin." Many of the most beautiful psalms were composed by King David during this period. The Midrash testifies that for those thirteen years, King David’s pillow had to be changed seven times every night for they were drenched with his tears!

When we look back at G-d's anger and David's repentence through our paradigm, we quickly assume that it must have been a grave sin. But when we view the story through the lense of Torah's guide-for-the-future we soon learn that even circumstantial mishaps require ample repentance.

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/182,1972311/Was-King-David-guilty-of-murder-and-adultery.html#footnoteReference1

[CID_0687]

Like I said, anybody who doesn't believe our Father is in heaven can pray that prayer. In the NAB, you could be talking about anyone. The Bible says you shouldn't call anyone Father. That's exactly what Catholics do, but the Bible says the to only call God 'Father' and God is in heaven.
What about your paternal parent, should you not call him your father?

I like listening to old comedy records...I've got a couple by a gentleman named Brother Dave Gardner. One of my favorite lines from Brother Dave is this...

"The cool thing about the King James version of the Bible...it's only King James's version."

:)

[Poisonshady313]

I could just say then that it is about Messiah. Who else could it be about?


A whole thread could be spend on Isaiah 53 alone.

In fact it has, several times.

If it must again, it shall again... but it can throw this thread significantly off track.

[chris13]

The Hebrew word ne’um, is a reference to a divine oracle.
What Jesus said about this psalm would have come as no surprise to His audience. They, too, believed David was the psalm’s author, that he wrote by inspiration, and that he spoke of Messiah. What the religious leaders were unwilling to admit was that David’s Lord was both divine and human, that Messiah was both David’s Sovereign and his son.
Verse 1 is a summary statement, which is subsequently amplified in verses 2 and 3. As noted above, “says” in verse 1 is a technical term, designating an oracle. David is reporting a solemn prophetic statement of God. Yahweh (the “Lord” of v. 1) is described as speaking, not to David, but rather to David’s Lord (“my Lord,” Hebrew, ‘Adhoni, v. 1), the Messiah. Messiah is given the position of co-regent. To “sit at God’s right hand” meant to share His power and His position.

[Trenches]

Scholars of biblical Hebrew who post on this very forum explains that the grammar of the sentence as commonly translated is badly written and is misleading.

God (the everlasting father) called the child wondrous adviser, prince of peace, etc.

I see. But Isaiah's ministry covered the same period during which the norther kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians roughly 722 B.C.

[Trenches]

What about your paternal parent, should you not call him your father?

I like listening to old comedy records...I've got a couple by a gentleman named Brother Dave Gardner. One of my favorite lines from Brother Dave is this...

"The cool thing about the King James version of the Bible...it's only King James's version."

:)

No. You can't call anybody Father nor Rabbi either.
Matthew 23 (King James Version)

9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The King James is more accurate.

[Poisonshady313]

Take a look at this link... it's Isaiah chapter 9, with commentary.

Read the commentary.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15940/showrashi/true

[Trenches]

Micah 5:2 Says one of old from ancient times and out of Bethlehem as well.

No, they don't. Isaiah 9:6 isn't even about the Mesisah at all. It's about a man. A wonderful man... a man whom God, the everlasting father, would call "prince of peace". This man was Hezekiah.

Miach 5:2 does not suggest the divinity of anybody.

[CID_0687]

The Mistake

Why then was King David chastised by Nathan and punished for this incident if technically he followed the strict letter of the law?

The story wasn't so smooth. While David did not commit adultery or murder, a number of other things went wrong.

King David prophetically knew that Bathsheba was destined to be his wife. His Chet (shortcoming) was his lack of patience; his unwillingness to wait. It is true that technically Bathsheba wasn't a married a woman, but in appearance the whole thing looked like an extra-marital affair. David needed Bathsheba because he knew that the Moshiach was destined to descend from his union with her. Had he waited, he would have been able to have Bathsheba without having Uriah killed. His error was simply not weighing all the factors, not realizing that since she was destined to be his wife, he did not have to rush the process by taking matters into his own hands.

The "sin" (in Hebrew: Chet, lit. translated "shortcoming") of David was not exercising the proper judgment expected of a man of his stature. To quote the Talmud: "Whoever says that David sinned is simply mistaken!" For if Bathsheba had gone to another man it might have been cunning or obnoxious, but it would not be a sin. It is only because of David's great status that the Prophet and G-d consider David's lack of judgment "sinful".
The Zohar maintains that David’s principle sin was: "him [Uriah] you have killed by the sword of the children of Ammon". David ought to have brought Uriah to the Sanhedrin where they would have executed him in accordance with Jewish law. Instead, by having him killed in the battle against Ammon, David caused a "chillul Hashem" – a desecration of G-d’s name. The children of Ammon were now able to take credit for killing a Jew, and give honor and praise to their deity for this "triumph."

Only one who does not have a proper appreciation for the level of a true tzaddik can accuse G-d’s anointed servant of adultery and/or murder!

Considering the potential of David it was upsetting to G-d that he summoned Bathsheba in this discreet roundabout way, and that he had Uriah killed by the hands of enemies. Thus G-d resented, the Prophet rebuked, and David repented.

We will conclude with a statement of our sages: King David was too holy to have erred in the incident of Bathsheba. He only stumbled in order to teach us a lesson, to set a precedent of a Tzadik who does sincere repentance. As is known, David spent thirteen years repenting for his "sin." Many of the most beautiful psalms were composed by King David during this period. The Midrash testifies that for those thirteen years, King David’s pillow had to be changed seven times every night for they were drenched with his tears!

When we look back at G-d's anger and David's repentence through our paradigm, we quickly assume that it must have been a grave sin. But when we view the story through the lense of Torah's guide-for-the-future we soon learn that even circumstantial mishaps require ample repentance.

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/182,1972311/Was-King-David-guilty-of-murder-and-adultery.html#footnoteReference1
If that be the case then I stand corrected...but IMHO it seems like a lot of watering down to make the situation not be so bad. It doesn't really matter to me, I love the story of David, and always have. Whether he had Uriah murdered or not, whether he committed adultery or not, doesn't change the fact that I believe he was a great man of God's people. And a man after God's own heart. But, he was a man, and as a man, none of us can be perfect...we've all got our sins and our temptations that we have to deal with...whether we're a night janitor in a school or we're one of the greatest kings to ever live...we're still just human.

[chris13]

No. You can't call anybody Father nor Rabbi either.
Matthew 23 (King James Version)

9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The King James is more accurate.

I think the NIV is pretty clear here too.

9&10 "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ."

[CID_0687]

No. You can't call anybody Father nor Rabbi either.
Matthew 23 (King James Version)

9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The King James is more accurate.
Are you fluent in Hebrew or Greek or even Latin? I'm not...I know a few words here and there, but not enough to hold a conversation with a scholar of these languages. How can you be so certain that the KJV is more accurate? I can pull up several versions of "The Lord's Prayer." Two or three of them will have "who is in heaven, or who art in heaven." in there, and many more will not. The most accurate would be the original languages. There were English translations before the KJV and there have been many since...Most people that say the KJV is the most accurate say so because it's the most popular. I'm not saying it is or it isn't more accurate...but when I am doing a thorough study I use 3 or 4 different translations...a few of the words may change, but the meaning doesn't.

[Poisonshady313]

Micah 5:2 Says one of old from ancient times and out of Bethlehem as well.

"and his origins will be from early times, from days of old"

This suggests nothing about divinity.

Judah was "from early times"

Abraham was "from early times"

Noah was "from early times"

[CID_0687]

"and his origins will be from early times, from days of old"

This suggests nothing about divinity.

Judah was "from early times"

Abraham was "from early times"

Noah was "from early times"
I guess I'm from "Maker's Mark." "Early Times" is too sweet for my taste. ;)

[Trenches]

Take a look at this link... it's Isaiah chapter 9, with commentary.

Read the commentary.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15940/showrashi/true

I read that commentary. But there should be no end to the peace. And yet Israel fell to the Assyrians.

[Trenches]

That's interesting, where are you getting this from?

"and his origins will be from early times, from days of old"

This suggests nothing about divinity.

Judah was "from early times"

Abraham was "from early times"

Noah was "from early times"

[Poisonshady313]

I read that commentary. But there should be no end to the peace. And yet Israel fell to the Assyrians.

Then you didn't read that commentary. Or if you did, then you didn't read it very well.


from now and to eternity: The eternity of Hezekiah, viz. all his days. And so we find that Hannah said concerning Samuel (I Sam. 1:22): “and abide there forever.”

[Trenches]

Take a look at this link... it's Isaiah chapter 9, with commentary.

Read the commentary.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15940/showrashi/true

One other quick mention, for supposedly being a terrible translation. My King James is extremely close in English to your source for Isaiah 9. And this type of English was spoken like that of Shakespeare in those days.

[Poisonshady313]

That's interesting, where are you getting this from?



His origins are from old. You don't get much more "from old" than Judah, Abraham, and Noah.

[Poisonshady313]

My King James is extremely close in English to your source for Isaiah 9.

I doubt that.

[Trenches]

This is straight from your source concerning right under verse 6: and for peace: which is given to him, there will be no end, for he had peace on all his sides, and this “end” is not an expression of an end to eternity, but there will be no boundaries. On the throne of the kingdom of David shall this peace be justice and righteousness that Hezekiah performed. : and for peace: Heb. וּלְשָׁלוֹם. This ‘vav’ is to rectify the word, thus: He [Hezekiah] increased the authority upon his shoulder, and what reward will He [God] pay him? Behold, his peace shall have no end or any limit.

So if peace without limit, doesn't fit Hezekiah, because Israel fell to the Assyrians.



Then you didn't read that commentary. Or if you did, then you didn't read it very well.


from now and to eternity: The eternity of Hezekiah, viz. all his days. And so we find that Hannah said concerning Samuel (I Sam. 1:22): “and abide there forever.”

[Trenches]

I doubt that.

Your Source: To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this.

Holy Bible King James Isaiah 9:7 : Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

[Trenches]

His origins are from old. You don't get much more "from old" than Judah, Abraham, and Noah.

And Jesus said: John 8:58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8:58&version=KJV)
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

[chris13]

No, they don't. Isaiah 9:6 isn't even about the Mesisah at all. It's about a man. A wonderful man... a man whom God, the everlasting father, would call "prince of peace". This man was Hezekiah.

Miach 5:2 does not suggest the divinity of anybody.

I don't understand your logic about Isaiah 9:6 (NIV) "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." I'm pretty certain that Hezekiah was not God.

As for Micah 5:2, this link is a good study http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/micah5n2.html

[Poisonshady313]

This is straight from your source concerning right under verse 6: and for peace: which is given to him, there will be no end, for he had peace on all his sides, and this “end” is not an expression of an end to eternity, but there will be no boundaries. On the throne of the kingdom of David shall this peace be justice and righteousness that Hezekiah performed. : and for peace: Heb. וּלְשָׁלוֹם. This ‘vav’ is to rectify the word, thus: He [Hezekiah] increased the authority upon his shoulder, and what reward will He [God] pay him? Behold, his peace shall have no end or any limit.

So if peace without limit, doesn't fit Hezekiah, because Israel fell to the Assyrians.

I'm not the right one to try to explain it.

Perhaps this will be settled when we hear from Abe, Harmonious, Mimi, or nofear.

[Poisonshady313]

I don't understand your logic about Isaiah 9:6 (NIV) "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." I'm pretty certain that Hezekiah was not God.


For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."


the son isn't God. God will call the son "prince of peace"


I explained it already. The translation you use has bad grammar, causing you to misunderstand what the verse is saying.

[Trenches]

I'm not the right one to try to explain it.

Perhaps this will be settled when we hear from Abe, Harmonious, Mimi, or nofear.

Alright, thank you for your time.

My KJV is extremely close to your source translation though, that's is incredibly accurate and in Shakespearean English too, for being supposedly poorly written and mistranslated.

[CID_0687]

Are you fluent in Hebrew or Greek or even Latin? I'm not...I know a few words here and there, but not enough to hold a conversation with a scholar of these languages. How can you be so certain that the KJV is more accurate? I can pull up several versions of "The Lord's Prayer." Two or three of them will have "who is in heaven, or who art in heaven." in there, and many more will not. The most accurate would be the original languages. There were English translations before the KJV and there have been many since...Most people that say the KJV is the most accurate say so because it's the most popular. I'm not saying it is or it isn't more accurate...but when I am doing a thorough study I use 3 or 4 different translations...a few of the words may change, but the meaning doesn't.
Trenches, did you miss this?

[Poisonshady313]

As for Micah 5:2, this link is a good study http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/micah5n2.html

David was from Bethlehem.

The Messiah will be from David.


It doesn't get more complicated than that

[Trenches]

But your source says Hezekiah...

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."


the son isn't God. God will call the son "prince of peace"


I explained it already. The translation you use has bad grammar, causing you to misunderstand what the verse is saying.

[CID_0687]

Alright, thank you for your time.

My KJV is extremely close to your source translation though, that's is incredibly accurate and in Shakespearean English too, for being supposedly poorly written and mistranslated.
What does Shakespearean English have to do with anything? Were people more intelligent 500 years ago?

[Poisonshady313]

Alright, thank you for your time.

My KJV is extremely close to your source translation though, that's is incredibly accurate and in Shakespearean English too, for being supposedly poorly written and mistranslated.

I bet you that on Sunday night, you'll have hebrew scholars and english majors both telling you that you're wrong.

[Poisonshady313]

But your source says Hezekiah...

What do you mean "But"?

What was in my post that suggests otherwise?

[Trenches]

Trenches, did you miss this?

I missed it somehow. The KJV is certainly more consistent, and maintains God, our Father as being in Heaven. Just like the rest of the Bible.

[CID_0687]

I missed it somehow. The KJV is certainly more consistent, and maintains God, our Father as being in Heaven. Just like the rest of the Bible.
What do you base your opinion on?

[Trenches]

I bet you that on Sunday night, you'll have hebrew scholars and english majors both telling you that you're wrong.

How? I just quoted your source and mine.

To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this.

KJV: Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

[Trenches]

What do you base your opinion on?

The comparison of the KJV with the NAB and all other translations.

[Trenches]

What does Shakespearean English have to do with anything? Were people more intelligent 500 years ago?

It has to do with translation. The meaning between his source being Jewish and mine being Christian, there is not mistranslations and it is extremely similar and very accurate. You can read the two side by side and see for yourself.

[Trenches]

What do you mean "But"?

What was in my post that suggests otherwise?

Because Israel fell to Assyria, therefore Hezekiahs peace is not limitless or everlasting.

[Poisonshady313]

How? I just quoted your source and mine.

To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this.

KJV: Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

the difference in the grammar is significant. Abe will be able to explain why.

[CID_0687]

The comparison of the KJV with the NAB and all other translations.
But without comparing it to the original Greek and Hebrew how can you know that the KJV is the correct one. For all you know the NAB could be more accurate, or the NIV, or the Amplified, or any other version.

Now, I won't disagree that there are some versions floating around out there that are coming in completely from left field...but without knowing the original languages, I can't say for certainty which translation is the best English version.

Are you a scholar of Greek and Hebrew?

[Trenches]

the difference in the grammar is significant. Abe will be able to explain why.

Grammar is negligible it is but commas. It has the same meaning.

[CID_0687]

the difference in the grammar is significant. Abe will be able to explain why.
Trenches ^^ this is why I let the Jewish folks here post about the Tanach...and I'm perfectly fine just posting about the New Testament.

They know what they're talking about when it comes to the Tanach, and I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the NT.

But I'm just a silly Pentecostal, so what do I know?

[Trenches]

But without comparing it to the original Greek and Hebrew how can you know that the KJV is the correct one. For all you know the NAB could be more accurate, or the NIV, or the Amplified, or any other version.

Now, I won't disagree that there are some versions floating around out there that are coming in completely from left field...but without knowing the original languages, I can't say for certainty which translation is the best English version.

Are you a scholar of Greek and Hebrew?

When you read the Bible, God our Father is in heaven. Yet, the Lord's prayer, how can it be the Lord's when it doesn't acknowledge that God is in heaven? That's the thing, the rest of the Bible asserts God is in heaven, yet it is missing from of all thing's the Lord's prayer? That lacks consistency.

You said Jesus is Lord earlier.

Look at I Timothy 3:16

KJV: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

NAB: He was manifested in the flesh.

It lacks consistency again.

[Trenches]

Colossians 1:14

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

NAB...... redemption, the forgiveness of our sins

As that hymn goes: What can take away our sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

You understand Isaiah, how he was bruised for our iniquity, and by his stripes we are healed. What came from the stripes? Blood. Not in the NAB though.

But without comparing it to the original Greek and Hebrew how can you know that the KJV is the correct one. For all you know the NAB could be more accurate, or the NIV, or the Amplified, or any other version.

Now, I won't disagree that there are some versions floating around out there that are coming in completely from left field...but without knowing the original languages, I can't say for certainty which translation is the best English version.

Are you a scholar of Greek and Hebrew?

[CID_0687]

When you read the Bible, God our Father is in heaven. Yet, the Lord's prayer, how can it be the Lord's when it doesn't acknowledge that God is in heaven? That's the thing, the rest of the Bible asserts God is in heaven, yet it is missing from of all thing's the Lord's prayer? That lacks consistency.

You said Jesus is Lord earlier.

Look at I Timothy 3:16

KJV: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

NAB: He was manifested in the flesh.

It lacks consistency again.

It doesn't lack consistency.

Read verse 15, God is mentioned twice there...seems fairly redundant one sentence later to say God, when one can use the pronoun, HE, and there's no confusion as to who, HE, is.

15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
16
Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who 7 was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

[Trenches]

But God is not mentioned in the Lord's prayer. That's the point.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke11.htm Where is your source, 15 isn't even the same on here.

It doesn't lack consistency.

Read verse 15, God is mentioned twice there...seems fairly redundant one sentence later to say God, when one can use the pronoun, HE, and there's no confusion as to who, HE, is.

15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
16
Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who 7 was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

[CID_0687]

Colossians 1:14

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

NAB...... redemption, the forgiveness of our sins

As that hymn goes: What can take away our sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

You understand Isaiah, how he was bruised for our iniquity, and by his stripes we are healed. What came from the stripes? Blood. Not in the NAB though.
It still says the same thing.

And it's very close to the NIV...I'm not Catholic, but I believe that Meri mentioned earlier that the NAB was translated by 50 Catholic scholars who are learned in the Hebrew and Greek languages...As was the NIV.

The KJV was translated, if I remember correctly, from Latin...therefore it was a translation of a translation.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like the KJV...but I'm not going to throw other translations out the window either. Where you find one thing that is written more "powerful" in the KJV, I can find something in the NIV that's got some power too. Sometimes things in the KJV aren't clear, so I'll go to the NIV, or the NKJV or another modern translation...and then it makes more sense.

[Trenches]

Check out KJV Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Where is it in the NAB? It's not there. They renumbered it so you won't miss it too.

It still says the same thing.

And it's very close to the NIV...I'm not Catholic, but I believe that Meri mentioned earlier that the NAB was translated by 50 Catholic scholars who are learned in the Hebrew and Greek languages...As was the NIV.

The KJV was translated, if I remember correctly, from Latin...therefore it was a translation of a translation.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like the KJV...but I'm not going to throw other translations out the window either. Where you find one thing that is written more "powerful" in the KJV, I can find something in the NIV that's got some power too. Sometimes things in the KJV aren't clear, so I'll go to the NIV, or the NKJV or another modern translation...and then it makes more sense.

[Trenches]

You mean that?

Acts 20:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+20:28&version=KJV)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Romans 5:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+5:9&version=KJV)
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

It still says the same thing.

And it's very close to the NIV...I'm not Catholic, but I believe that Meri mentioned earlier that the NAB was translated by 50 Catholic scholars who are learned in the Hebrew and Greek languages...As was the NIV.

The KJV was translated, if I remember correctly, from Latin...therefore it was a translation of a translation.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like the KJV...but I'm not going to throw other translations out the window either. Where you find one thing that is written more "powerful" in the KJV, I can find something in the NIV that's got some power too. Sometimes things in the KJV aren't clear, so I'll go to the NIV, or the NKJV or another modern translation...and then it makes more sense.

[CID_0687]

But God is not mentioned in the Lord's prayer. That's the point.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke11.htm Where is your source, 15 isn't even the same on here.
Here is what is said about this in the NAB and the NIV

[37] The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' "

This isn't the only place in the KJV where scripture was added...Another that comes to mind is John 5:4

4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

It's not in most of the modern translations because it wasn't in the original text...here's the explanation from the NAB as to why.

4] Toward the end of the second century in the West and among the fourth-century Greek Fathers, an additional verse was known: "For [from time to time] an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool; and the water was stirred up, so the first one to get in [after the stirring of the water] was healed of whatever disease afflicted him." The angel was a popular explanation of the turbulence and the healing powers attributed to it. This verse is missing from all early Greek manuscripts and the earliest versions, including the original Vulgate. Its vocabulary is markedly non-Johannine.

[CID_0687]

You mean that?

Acts 20:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+20:28&version=KJV)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
From the NAB. Where's the discrepancy? I don't see it.

28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, 6 in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.

Romans 5:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+5:9&version=KJV)
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.

Not seeing it here either. :think:

[Trenches]

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the
15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Texts?

Here is what is said about this in the NAB and the NIV

[37] The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' "

This isn't the only place in the KJV where scripture was added...Another that comes to mind is John 5:4

4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

It's not in most of the modern translations because it wasn't in the original text...here's the explanation from the NAB as to why.

4] Toward the end of the second century in the West and among the fourth-century Greek Fathers, an additional verse was known: "For [from time to time] an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool; and the water was stirred up, so the first one to get in [after the stirring of the water] was healed of whatever disease afflicted him." The angel was a popular explanation of the turbulence and the healing powers attributed to it. This verse is missing from all early Greek manuscripts and the earliest versions, including the original Vulgate. Its vocabulary is markedly non-Johannine.

[Trenches]

From the NAB. Where's the discrepancy? I don't see it.

28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, 6 in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.


How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.

Not seeing it here either. :think:

Is there a source online? That link I showed you doesn't even have it correctly.

[Trenches]

That's a minor discrepancy on that one.

From the NAB. Where's the discrepancy? I don't see it.

28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, 6 in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.


How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.

Not seeing it here either. :think:

[CID_0687]

Is there a source online? That link I showed you doesn't even have it correctly.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml

[CID_0687]

That's a minor discrepancy on that one.
Show me? Some of the words are different, it's in modern language...but the meaning is the same.

[CID_0687]

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the
15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Texts?

No reason to shout now.

And how should I know the reason behind this, I wasn't alive then. If memory serves me correctly, the Greek that the NT was translated from was the third generation translation...also known as the Byzantine Texts...but I may be wrong on that, and don't really feel like looking it up...but it wasn't the original Greek.

Oh, and here's an interesting bit of useless trivia for you...While much of the KJV was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek, it is admitted that some of it came from various other translations.

The following is from the original 1611 edition of the King James Holy Bible.

"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."

[Mimiheart]

Grammar is negligible it is but commas. It has the same meaning.*twitch*

Commas can completely change the meaning of a sentence:

Let's eat Grandpa.

Let's eat, Grandpa.

Remember, kids, commas save lives.

[CID_0687]

:))

:clap:

[beaker]

After all that, I found something that maintains it was not murder after all...

Was King David guilty of murder and adultery?



David

Known as the "Melech Hamoshiach" (anointed king), David not only lead his generation in G-d's ways, but he also merited to be divinely inspired and compose the Psalms, a book which we recite in our prayers (and many other occasions), until this very day! Amongst the Jewish greats of all times he is listed in the "Big 7", a group that in many contexts is known as the pillars of Judaism. For example, the traditional "Mi Sheberach" prayer on behalf of ill people begins with the following words: "May He who blessed our fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Aaron, David and Solomon, bless the sick person..."

Is it conceivable that we would invoke the name of a murderer and adulterer in an attempt to elicit divine mercy?! Is there a shortage of Jewish greats? The authors of this prayer were well aware of the Bible and all its stories, including the story of David and Bathsheba, yet they did not hesitate to include David in this prayer, where he shares such illustrious company!

Holiness and impurity do not go hand-in-hand! Maimonides tells us that one can only become a prophet if he has the ability to completely overcome his temptations. Among the prophets listed is King David. It is, therefore difficult to assume that he simply succumbed to his temptations. Indeed, the righteous David had no worldly desires, as he testifies in the Psalms that "My heart [i.e. my passions and desires] has died within me."

Bathsheba

There is a dispute in the Talmud whether or not Bathsheba was technically a married woman at the time. The Talmud rules that she was not. The law was that before a man went out to war he was required to divorce his wife. This was a necessary precaution taken to protect the wife. In case the husband would die in battle and no one could testify to the fact, the wife would not be an "Agunah" (chained to her possibly deceased husband) and would be free to remarry. If, however, the husband did return from the battlefield safe and sound – the couple was free to remarry. Uriah, too, issued this divorce to his wife and thus, according to Jewish law, King David had relations with a divorced woman.
Please note, that before King David summoned Bathsheba he "sent and inquired about the woman." If David, the absolute monarch, desired this woman and was willing to go to any length to fulfill his "fantasy," why did he first send messengers to inquire regarding Bathsheba? He should have sent messengers to "summon" the woman. It is evident that before David summoned her he wished to determine her marital status. Only after ascertaining that she was, in fact, the (divorced) wife of Uriah, did he make his advance.

Furthermore, the verse testifies that David only had relations with Bathsheba after "she had been cleansed [i.e. immersed in the Mikvah] from her [menstrual] impurity." Would an adulterer be concerned about such details?

Uriah

The Talmud tells us Uriah was guilty of treason—a capital offense. When Uriah addressed David, he referred to his general Joab as "my lord." Referring to any person as "my lord" while in the presence of a king is extremely audacious. The lack of respect which Uriah exhibited towards David is also alluded to in another verse: Uriah told David: "By your life (chayecha) and the life of your soul I will not do such a thing." Generally, the Hebrew word "chayecha," (your life), is written with two yuds after the chet. In this verse it is written with only one; one yud is missing—as if the life of the king has less value to him.While these may seem to be fairly trivial points, an understanding of the Torah’s view of monarchy further clarifies the issue: On the verse "you shall set ("som tasim") a king over you," the Talmud notes that the words used have the same root as the word aymah—fear. First and foremost, a king’s dominion must be predicated on fear and total reverence.
This concept is so vital that according to Jewish law, "one who signals to another person while in the presence of a king is punished with death"! We must treat a king of flesh and blood in the same manner as we would treat the King of kings, the Almighty Himself, for the earthly monarch is His representative. Furthermore, the very stability of the entire nation hinges on the absolute submission of the nation to its leader. Allowing even the slightest act of disrespect to slide can lead to bigger and worse forms of rebellion.


Since Uriah showed signs of treason by ignoring Judaism's laws of reverance for the King he was deserving of death. Thus David ordering Joab to send Uriah to the frontlines where he would meet his death did not contravene any Torah laws.

Truth Be Told

Let us now examine the "inside story" behind the story of King David and Bathsheba:

A glaring question which must be asked is: why wasn't David, the valiant warrior, at the frontlines of the war, leading his subjects in battle -- much as he had done by so many of the other battles of Israel? The answer to this question is that at the moment David was dealing with a more important problem; he did not have a fitting heir to succeed him--a son who would be worthy of being the antecedent of Moshiach. That is why David was on the roof of his palace, a place where one goes to have peace of mind to ponder a serious issue (see I Samuel 9:25).

At that time G-d -- via a prophetic vision -- shows Bathsheba to David. A king's palace is not next door to other homes, but is surrounded by gardens, orchards, parks and walls. She was immersing herself in the Mikvah (an area which is always completely enclosed, without any windows to the outside), and David perceived that she was "extremely beautiful." This term, used by the Torah to describe our holy matriarchs, primarily refers to spiritual inner-beauty. David was a man of action, and he had found the woman who was worthy of being the grandmother of Moshiach. He immediately dispatched messengers to ascertain that she was divorced from Uriah, and did not hesitate to consummate the union.

Afterwards, David realizes that, despite his pure intentions, this story would make for a wonderful front page story in the "Jerusalem Enquirer". After all, he had plenty of enemies who would relish the opportunity to destroy his reputation. He, therefore, summons Uriah from the battlefield, and tells him to go to his "wife." His intention was for Uriah to respond: "Your Majesty, Bathsheba is currently not my wife. I divorced her before leaving in the King's service!" For some reason, Uriah refuses to do so, and instead insults the king, incurring the death penalty. David, perhaps taking in to consideration Uriah's courageous service in his army, chooses to allow him to die an honorable death on the battlefield rather then be executed for treason.

That's very interesting. Never heard it told that way.

Thanks.

Very thought provoking.

[Meriweather]

It will be the KJV as being better, since his lacks the Lord's prayer in its' entirety. In the NAB, anyone who doesn't believe our Father is in heaven could pray that prayer.

Perhaps it is the version for those who like to envision God as being everywhere, not just confined to "heaven"? ;)

Seriously, it appears that an editor added "which art in heaven" so that it is a more exact match for the prayer in Matthew.

[Meriweather]

Like I said, anybody who doesn't believe our Father is in heaven can pray that prayer. In the NAB, you could be talking about anyone. The Bible says you shouldn't call anyone Father. That's exactly what Catholics do, but the Bible says the to only call God 'Father' and God is in heaven.

You are aware, of course, that in the Bible Jesus refers to both Abraham and David as "Father"? He refers to Jewish ancestors as "fathers."

I know you wouldn't throw in Jesus' face that he called Abraham and David "Father" and then said, "We have one Father, God." Jesus called his disciples, children, establishing a spiritual fatherhood over them. Peter, Paul, and John did likewise. In 1 Corinthians 4:15, Paul claimed fatherhood through Christ Jesus.

If Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, time and again uses "father" when signifying the spiritual relationship between apostles and those they taught; if Jesus himself commissioned the apostles to become teachers (Go teach all nations...) then to whom was he referring in Matthew 23:9? This is the passage where Jesus addresses hypocrites, and hypcrites do not deserve the respect one should bestow upon a true spiritual father or teacher. In context, Jesus is saying "Don't call anyone of these who are more interested in earthly matters, father or teacher--your true father and teacher is God (heavenly).

"Call no man father... Call no man teacher..." is a wonderful example of how some people can pluck a passage out of context, ignore everything else scripture is saying about the matter, and create a tempest in a teapot. No priest is my Heavenly Father, and I would call no priest my Heavenly Father. However, many have acted as a spiritual father to me, just as Paul, Peter, John, and Jesus acted as spiritual fathers and teachers who came to them to learn and to understand.

Words have different meanings in different contexts. We should remember that.

[DRS]

Psalm 110:1 (King James Version)

1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Wasn't King David speaking of the messiah here?


Yes

(Psalm 110:1) The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”


Jesus at Matthew 22:43,44 shows this was concerning himself, also Luke 20:42

And Paul refers to part of the scripture also in connection with Jesus

[lwdc]

Again..that's why I don't argue with Jews over their scriptures....Is the scripture theirs, or is it His? If you are of Him, then the scripture would be yours as well.

[lwdc]

the difference in the grammar is significant. Abe will be able to explain why.Abe has already explained it, as you well know. The difference in interpretation is because of punctuation that does not exist in the earliest manuscripts of Isaiah known, let alone the original manuscript itself, which nobody alive today has ever seen.

[lwdc]

Okay, maybe Abe has seen it... I hear he's been around for a while. But if so, then according to what he has told us, the punctuation wasn't there.

[Abe]

Matthew 22:41-46 (NIV)
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied.
He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?"
No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

1) The Psalm doesn't say Lord. It says; נְאֻם יְהוָה, לַאדֹנִי
"The words of YHWH to my master."

Master means whoever is above your station. It could mean, king, prince, aristocrat, superior etc.

[Abe]

It was a debate with CMike a few months back about David. He didn't see how David send Bathsheba's husband to the front lines, where he would surely be killed, would make David a murderer. His reasoning, if I recall correctly, was that David didn't "pull the trigger" or "drop the axe" on the man. But it was obvious what David's intentions were, knock the guy off so I can have his wife all to myself...it was murder, I still believe it was...but CMike didn't see it that way...we all know that David later repented of this, he was called a "man after God's own heart." At least that's what my translation says...and we can learn a lot of good lessons from David, this just so happened to be one of the bad things David did.

CMike seemed to be offended at the thought of this, and I don't know why. Every translation that can be found in English makes the story clear...maybe he felt it was a slap in the face to Jews to say that David was a murderer, but that wasn't the intent.

I miss those debates with Mike. I agree. David murdered Uriah.

[Abe]

A lot of Isaiah is about Messiah,

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
This chapter is not about any Messiah. It talks about Israel itself, and relates to other chapters surrounding it.
How do you know the Psalm's isn't by David? From the context.

[CID_0687]

Is the scripture theirs, or is it His? If you are of Him, then the scripture would be yours as well.
The Tanach was given to the Jews, I'm not Jewish. Doesn't mean I don't study it or love it. But I've learned when discussing it with a learned Jew that they usually know it better than me.

[Abe]

It will be the KJV as being better, since his lacks the Lord's prayer in its' entirety. In the NAB, anyone who doesn't believe our Father is in heaven could pray that prayer.The KJV, at least as far as the Hebrew goes, is a bad translation.

[Abe]

Hezekiah was an everlasting Father? It says his name shall be called these things.No, it doesn't.

[Abe]

scholars of biblical hebrew who post on this very forum explains that the grammar of the sentence as commonly translated is badly written and is misleading.

God (the everlasting father) called the child wondrous adviser, prince of peace, etc.+1

[Abe]

The Hebrew word ne’um, is a reference to a divine oracle. .

"Ne'um" means "The words of...".

(“my Lord,” Hebrew, ‘Adhoni, v. 1), the Messiah. Messiah is given the position of co-regent. To “sit at God’s right hand” meant to share His power and His position. It's not "My Lord", it's "my master".

It's not "The Lord said to my Lord". It's "The words of YHWH to my master".

"Sit at my right hand" means working with me. "Be on my side, not against me."

[Abe]

...we're still just human. Speak for yourself, judge... :angel:

[Abe]

Micah 5:2 Says one of old from ancient times and out of Bethlehem as well.וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם, מִימֵי עוֹלָם.

"And his origins shall be from ancient times, from days immemorial." (translation=Abe)

[Abe]

One other quick mention, for supposedly being a terrible translation. My King James is extremely close in English to your source for Isaiah 9. And this type of English was spoken like that of Shakespeare in those days.Nobody said that every word in the KJV was wrong.

[lwdc]

The Tanach was given to the Jews, I'm not Jewish. Doesn't mean I don't study it or love it. But I've learned when discussing it with a learned Jew that they usually know it better than me.The Tanakh was given to Israel. According to Christianity, Israel is an olive tree to which some branches were grafted and some branches were cut off. If you are part of this olive tree, then the Tanakh was given to you.

There are those who say that "my Lord" in Psalm 110:1 refers to Jesus, and there are those say that "my Lord" in Psalm 110:1 does not refer to Jesus. They cannot both be right.

Someone here referred to the Apostle Paul as a two-faced liar. In light of what is said above, I can see where this person is coming from, although I do not agree with him.

[Abe]

I don't understand your logic about Isaiah 9:6 (NIV) "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." I'm pretty certain that Hezekiah was not God.

As for Micah 5:2, this link is a good study http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/micah5n2.html Are you giving us a class on Hebrew sentence structure? Just askin'...

[Abe]

I bet you that on Sunday night, you'll have hebrew scholars and english majors both telling you that you're wrong.He's wrong!

[Abe]

I missed it somehow. The KJV is certainly more consistent, and maintains God, our Father as being in Heaven. Just like the rest of the Bible.It also has unicorns and says, "Thou shalt not kill".

[Abe]

It has to do with translation. The meaning between his source being Jewish and mine being Christian, there is not mistranslations and it is extremely similar and very accurate. You can read the two side by side and see for yourself.Compare it to the Hebrew. I'm dying to hear all about the unicorns.

[Abe]

Grammar is negligible it is but commas. It has the same meaning."King Charles walked and talked half an hour after his head was cut off." Make sense of that.

If you think that grammar is negligible, you have serious language problems.

[RayMan]

Dare I ask where you got your 1 point from?


Wishful thinking?

You know what an optimist CID is.

And what a smart aleck you are. :cool:

[RayMan]

I agree. David murdered Uriah.


Welcome to Abe's "No Spin Zone."

:cool:

[RayMan]

Nobody said that every word in the KJV was wrong.

I don't know Abe.

You might want to run that past Poisonshady...:mrgreen:

[RayMan]

Good thing I was busy last night.


I think I would have got everybody but Abe mad at me had I joined in.


Shalom y'all.

[Meriweather]

Good thing I was busy last night.


I think I would have got everybody but Abe mad at me had I joined in.


Shalom y'all.

I'm never mad at you. Shalom is my middle name. :angel:

[Mimiheart]

Compare it to the Hebrew. I'm dying to hear all about the unicorns.There were green alligators, and long-necked geese,
Some humpty-backed camels, and some chimpanzees.
There were cats and rats and elephants and, sure as you're born,
The loveliest of all was the un-i-corn...


*is playing hooky from services after staying in the hospital half the night*

[DRS]

1) The Psalm doesn't say Lord. It says; נְאֻם יְהוָה, לַאדֹנִי
"The words of YHWH to my master."

Master means whoever is above your station. It could mean, king, prince, aristocrat, superior etc.

The term lord conveys the same sort of idea also, as husbands are called lords by their wives (Sarah referring to Abraham.)

[Abe]

Welcome to Abe's "No Spin Zone."

:cool:My last name is not Irish. :snooty:

[Abe]

There were green alligators, and long-necked geese,
Some humpty-backed camels, and some chimpanzees.
There were cats and rats and elephants and, sure as you're born,
The loveliest of all was the un-i-corn...


*is playing hooky from services after staying in the hospital half the night*I love that song...

[Abe]

The term lord conveys the same sort of idea also, as husbands are called lords by their wives (Sarah referring to Abraham.)You're right. The problem is, however, that those who want to be "The Lord", will read that there. It simply isn't. In Hebrew these are two different words, (though emanating from the same root).

[CID_0687]

It also has unicorns and says, "Thou shalt not kill".
:))

[CID_0687]

Good thing I was busy last night.


I think I would have got everybody but Abe mad at me had I joined in.


Shalom y'all.
Nah, you wouldn't have ticked me off...not in this thread anyway.

Plenty of popcorn, you'd've had a good time.

[RayMan]

Nah, you wouldn't have ticked me off...not in this thread anyway.

Plenty of popcorn, you'd've had a good time.


I am so tempted to be naughty, but thanks be to God who always causes me to triumph in Christ Jesus. I will show restraint. :mrgreen:

[RayMan]

My last name is not Irish. :snooty:

And yet you are a big fan of the song "The Unicorn" by a group called "The Irish Rovers." :think:

[Abe]

I am so tempted to be naughty, but thanks be to God who always causes me to triumph in Christ Jesus. I will show restraint. :mrgreen:No comment.

[CID_0687]

I am so tempted to be naughty, but thanks be to God who always causes me to triumph in Christ Jesus. I will show restraint. :mrgreen:
Well, I, for one, would like to read your words of wisdom on the subject at hand.

[RayMan]

No comment.

No really. :redface:




I'm just been a little snarky so far. Nothing really naughty.


Sure'n it's a lovely day, me fine bucko.

May the road rise up to meet you.



Wherever you go and whatever you do,
May the luck of the Irish be there with you.

[RayMan]

Well, I, for one, would like to read your words of wisdom on the subject at hand.

Normally I am extremely pro life but somebody shoulda pulled the plug on this thread about four pages ago. :mrgreen:

[CID_0687]

Normally I am extremely pro life but somebody shoulda pulled the plug on this thread about four pages ago. :mrgreen:
Don't you mean the opening post should have been aborted?

[RayMan]

Don't you mean the opening post should have been aborted?


Pretty much. I was going by guess and by golly when I said four pages. I didn't remember how long the thread was.

Precious minutes of my life gone reading this thread. Minutes I can never get back. :cry::cry:

[CID_0687]

Pretty much. I was going by guess and by golly when I said four pages. I didn't remember how long the thread was.

Precious minutes of my life gone reading this thread. Minutes I can never get back. :cry::cry:
Hey now...turn that frown upside down. :hug:

A lot of folks here may be unfamiliar with something our friend Ditches kept mentioning last night. Something known as Textus Receptus...which sounds to many as if it may be the name of the newly discovered T-Rex mini me, but it's not. Would you like to help educate us on this phenomenon Pentecostal Pope?

[RayMan]

Hey now...turn that frown upside down. :hug:

A lot of folks here may be unfamiliar with something our friend Ditches kept mentioning last night. Something known as Textus Receptus...which sounds to many as if it may be the name of the newly discovered T-Rex mini me, but it's not. Would you like to help educate us on this phenomenon Pentecostal Pope?

Texas Receptus - Latin for receiving Texans.

If I were to have Abe over to my house for a big crawfish feed that would be a Textus Receptus.

[Abe]

Texas Receptus - Latin for receiving Texans.

If I were to have Abe over to my house for a big crawfish feed that would be a Textus Receptus.A Kosher Texus Receptus.

[CID_0687]

Texas Receptus - Latin for receiving Texans.

If I were to have Abe over to my house for a big crawfish feed that would be a Textus Receptus.
Thank you for that simple, yet profound explanation.

[Poisonshady313]

וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם, מִימֵי עוֹלָם.

"And his origins shall be from ancient times, from days immemorial." (translation=Abe)

Can you shed some light on whether this line denotes or connotes a divine person?

[Poisonshady313]

He's wrong!

:doh:


You just made me lose the bet.


I said sunday night, not saturday morning.












unless you come back and do it again

[DRS]

You're right. The problem is, however, that those who want to be "The Lord", will read that there. It simply isn't. In Hebrew these are two different words, (though emanating from the same root).

It is like anything else like the word god you can explain it and if the listener refuses to listen that is not your problem.

[Jacob_Rising]

Psalm 110:1 (King James Version)

1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Wasn't King David speaking of the messiah here?


Revelation 2:27'' And he who overcomes, and keeps my works until the End, To him I will give Power Over the Nations--He shall Rule them with a Rod Of Iron; As The Potters vessels shall be broken to pieces- As I also have recieved from My Father.; '' And I will GIVE HIM the morning Star. He who has an ear, Let him hear what the spirit says to the churches.

[Jacob_Rising]

I don't understand your logic about Isaiah 9:6 (NIV) "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." I'm pretty certain that Hezekiah was not God.

As for Micah 5:2, this link is a good study http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/micah5n2.htmlIf You want the Key to this scripture, It is talking about Hezekiah and his son But the Key is the Medicine.

Look for the Medicine of Hezekiah and then find the Medicine in the Sukkot because it is there.

[Abe]

And yet you are a big fan of the song "The Unicorn" by a group called "The Irish Rovers." :think:I'm a big fan of Irish music in general, and the Rovers are among my favourites.

I guess you might call me a...(ahem)...Closet Irishman. :shhh:

[Abe]

Can you shed some light on whether this line denotes or connotes a divine person?No divinity; just that his forebears go waaaayy back when.

[Abe]

:doh:


You just made me lose the bet.


I said sunday night, not saturday morning.












unless you come back and do it again

OK, it's Sunday morning.

He's wrong.

[Abe]

It is like anything else like the word god you can explain it and if the listener refuses to listen that is not your problem.True.

[RayMan]

OK, it's Sunday morning.

He's wrong.

This thread is rigged...

[Abe]

This thread is rigged...We're not Navy...

[RayMan]

We're not Navy...

I'm talkin' Vegas roulette wheel rigged, baby.

I'm talkin' Chicago politics rigged.

[beaker]

It also has unicorns and says, "Thou shalt not kill".

Hey Abe,

I know about the whole unicorn thing, but not familiar with what you mean about "Thou shalt not kill" from the KJV.

This has probably already been covered so I apologize for my ignorance, but would you expound a little more on what you meant by this?

Thanks

[CID_0687]

Hey Abe,

I know about the whole unicorn thing, but not familiar with what you mean about "Thou shalt not kill" from the KJV.

This has probably already been covered so I apologize for my ignorance, but would you expound a little more on what you meant by this?

Thanks
It should be murder, not kill. There's a difference.

[Mimiheart]

Well, it's Sunday night in Israel, and Rosh Hashanah has been over for a day there... ;)

[Abe]

I'm talkin' Vegas roulette wheel rigged, baby.

I'm talkin' Chicago politics rigged.I guess you would know all about 'dem things, "baby".

[Abe]

Hey Abe,

I know about the whole unicorn thing, but not familiar with what you mean about "Thou shalt not kill" from the KJV.

This has probably already been covered so I apologize for my ignorance, but would you expound a little more on what you meant by this?

ThanksThe Hebrew says, "Do not murder". Kill and Murder come from two completely different roots in Hebrew and have nothing to do with each other.

[Abe]

Well, it's Sunday night in Israel, and Rosh Hashanah has been over for a day there... ;)So I'm "Kosher"?

[RayMan]

It should be murder, not kill. There's a difference.

Must resist temptation to be smart aleck.

Must resist...:mrgreen:

[RayMan]

So I'm "Kosher"?

Kosher as "All You Can Eat Shrimp" month at Red Lobster.

[Mimiheart]

So I'm "Kosher"?I wouldn't dare say such a thing. But as far as Poison asking for someone to say "You're wrong" on Sunday night... that worked.

[RayMan]

I wouldn't dare say such a thing. But as far as Poison asking for someone to say "You're wrong" on Sunday night... that worked.

Wow. It's already Sunday night in Phoenix?

It's not even noon yet in the Bay Area. :mrgreen:

[Mimiheart]

Wow. It's already Sunday night in Phoenix?

It's not even noon yet in the Bay Area. :mrgreen:
It'll be noon in one minute--we're in the same time zone. I said it was Sunday night in Israel.

[Trenches]

Psalm 110:1 is what David spoke of when he foresaw the Lord and knew he needed a Savior.

22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

[RayMan]

It'll be noon in one minute--we're in the same time zone. I said it was Sunday night in Israel.

Originally Posted by Mimiheart
I wouldn't dare say such a thing. But as far as Poison asking for someone to say "You're wrong" on Sunday night... that worked.

You did so earlier. Not in the post I was quoting. :mrgreen::mrgreen:

BTW - You feelin' better?

[CID_0687]

Psalm 110:1 is what David spoke of when he foresaw the Lord and knew he needed a Savior.

22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
That horse done died.

[Trenches]

Your example was:

Lets eat grand pa

and

Lets eat, grand pa

Because you're not saying definitively what it is you're going to eat. Therefore, both could be seen as trying to eat grand pa if taken literally in English.

The first could be definitive, almost a statement: Lets eat grandpa

The second is not as definitive more of a suggestion: Lets eat, grand pa.

Is it a question to grand pa of lets eat? As in food? Or is it a statement of hunger and then a reference to actually eating gran pa? Such as would be the case with cannibals? Is it a joking statement? Then followed by "just kidding lets get a hamburger instead"? Because it is improper the way it is typed in both phrases, there could be many different meanings.

In English, you infer that when you say: Lets eat grand pa
That they are not literally suggesting that you actually eat grand pa, unless otherwise stated. So no, kids, commas don't actually save lives. Having a proper understanding of what someone says actually does save lives.

In short your examples are not a proper explanation.

Ever read "stunna" writing or typing?

AyE gUnNa doO wAt AyE waNtz tuh doo.

Knowing English, you can see that if it were proper English it would say:
I'm going to do what I want to do.

You're not going to proclaim:
"It's bad grammar and if it had a misplaced comma somewhere it would completely change the meaning."

*twitch*

Commas can completely change the meaning of a sentence:



Remember, kids, commas save lives.

[Trenches]

That horse done died.

Who are you?

[CID_0687]

Your example was:

Lets eat grand pa

and

Lets eat, grand pa

Because you're not saying definitively what it is you're going to eat. Therefore, both could be seen as trying to eat grand pa if taken literally in English.

The first could be definitive, almost a statement: Lets eat grandpa

The second is not as definitive more of a suggestion: Lets eat, grand pa.

Is it a question to grand pa of lets eat? As in food? Or is it a statement of hunger and then a reference to actually eating gran pa? Such as would be the case with cannibals? Is it a joking statement? Then followed by "just kidding lets get a hamburger instead"? Because it is improper the way it is typed in both phrases, there could be many different meanings.

In English, you infer that when you say: Lets eat grand pa
That they are not literally suggesting that you actually eat grand pa, unless otherwise stated. So no, kids, commas don't actually save lives. Having a proper understanding of what someone says actually does save lives.

In short your examples are not a proper explanation.

Ever read "stunna" writing or typing?

AyE gUnNa doO wAt AyE waNtz tuh doo.

Knowing English, you can see that if it were proper English it would say:
I'm going to do what I want to do.

You're not going to proclaim:
"It's bad grammar and if it had a misplaced comma somewhere it would completely change the meaning."
You need remedial English.

Let's eat grandpa. <<<cannibalism

Let's eat, grandpa. <<< Same as saying, "Hey Grandpa, supper is ready."

[CID_0687]

Who are you?
Well, Mr. Caterpillar, I'm not Alice.

Folks around here call me CID...though some call me Drew...I answer to both...I like Italian food, and walks on the beach, and sappy romantic comedies.

Who are you?

[Abe]

Kosher as "All You Can Eat Shrimp" month at Red Lobster.

(nts: must remember to put yon smart aleck on ignore.)

[Trenches]

You need remedial English.

Let's eat grandpa. <<<cannibalism

Let's eat, grandpa. <<< Same as saying, "Hey Grandpa, supper is ready."

It's: Grand pa, lets eat.

So you need remedial English.

It's "that horse has died". Not that "horse done died." So you just proved my point with that "bad grammar" statement.

[Abe]

I wouldn't dare say such a thing. But as far as Poison asking for someone to say "You're wrong" on Sunday night... that worked. חצי נחמה

Half a comfort...

[Trenches]

Apostle Peter I know. But who, are you?

Well, Mr. Caterpillar, I'm not Alice.

Folks around here call me CID...though some call me Drew...I answer to both...I like Italian food, and walks on the beach, and sappy romantic comedies.

Who are you?

[Meriweather]

Psalm 110:1 is what David spoke of when he foresaw the Lord and knew he needed a Savior.

22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

(For those who may not recognize the above, it is Acts 2:22-36)

At present, I'm not going to comment on whether or not David foresaw his need of a Savior. I do not think that is what Luke was trying to convey when he wrote this chapter. Instead, what Acts 2 teaches is that Jesus life, death, and resurrection was no random event, no emergency measure--rather it revealed the eternal plan of God and His great love for us.

[CID_0687]

It's: Grand pa, lets eat.

So you need remedial English.

It's "that horse has died". Not that "horse done died." So you just proved my point with that "bad grammar" statement.
I know proper English, I choose to play with it, because it's fun...and it makes me look less intelligent than I actually am.

I'm from Alabama, so I do my part for the educational system.

[Trenches]

King David knew what Psalm 110:1 was and had Israel followed it and accepted Jesus as Messiah then what is described in Leviticus 26 would be happening.
6And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land. 7And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
8And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

[CID_0687]

Apostle Peter I know. But who, are you?
Are you rebuking me? :))

[Trenches]

If so, then you would have know it is: Grand pa, lets eat.

I know proper English, I choose to play with it, because it's fun...and it makes me look less intelligent than I actually am.

I'm from Alabama, so I do my part for the educational system.

[Trenches]

Yep.

Are you rebuking me? :))

[Trenches]

...and it makes me look less intelligent than I actually am.

Actually, saying you're from Alabama does that...

Is that how they speak down in Alabama?

[Abe]

King David knew what Psalm 110:1 was and had Israel followed it and accepted Jesus as Messiah then what is described in Leviticus 26 would be happening.
6And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land. 7And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
8And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

I'm glad there's someone here who can tell us what King David knew and didn't know. For a minute there, I was worried...

[CID_0687]

If so, then you would have know it is: Grand pa, lets eat.
Either one is acceptable. Except that Grandpa is one word.

[CID_0687]

Yep.
Then I must ask, who are you?

[CID_0687]

Actually, saying you're from Alabama does that...

Is that how they speak down in Alabama?
Are you wanting to make this personal?

Lighten up Francis.

[Trenches]

I'm glad there's someone here who can tell us what King David knew and didn't know. For a minute there, I was worried...

You should be worried that in Israel, what is described in Leviticus is not happening.

6And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land. 7And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
8And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

If God forgives you through prayers and there is no need of a temple then why isn't what is listed above happening?

[Trenches]

Lighten up Francis.

Oh, should I then say: Are you wanting to make this personal? Common.

If you want to go back to reading your Catholic translations, after reading the NAB, it is no wonder why the Pope is accepting evolution.

[CID_0687]

Oh, should I then say: Are you wanting to make this personal? Common.

If you want to go back to reading your Catholic translations, after reading the NAB, it is no wonder why the Pope is accepting evolution.
Hold it...I never said I was Catholic, I'm not. I'm Pentecostal. But I'm sure several of our Catholic friends here will weigh in after this comment.

You need to look at the very first thread at the top of the Religion Forum index, it's called The Rules of Respect for the Religion Forum. That's just a friendly reminder we like to do for all newcomers, not singling you out.

And, as far as the KJV being more accurate than the NAB, NIV, or any other...none is as accurate as the original texts, which is what I was saying the other night.

[Meriweather]

Oh, should I then say: Are you wanting to make this personal? Common.

If you want to go back to reading your Catholic translations, after reading the NAB, it is no wonder why the Pope is accepting evolution.

CID is the Pentecostal. I'm the Catholic with the NAB who has taught classes on the theory of evolution.

Instead of making it personal, why don't we all stick with the discussion. I'm waiting for your response to my take on Acts 2:22-36.

[Trenches]

You asked me what I thought about your description of acts.

If this is the right one, I don't see how you can say Luke was trying to convey. When Luke was documenting a speech Peter gave to Jews about Jesus of Nazareth a man approved of God: Acts 2: 22, what followed was all about Jesus.

(For those who may not recognize the above, it is Acts 2:22-36)

At present, I'm not going to comment on whether or not David foresaw his need of a Savior. I do not think that is what Luke was trying to convey when he wrote this chapter. Instead, what Acts 2 teaches is that Jesus life, death, and resurrection was no random event, no emergency measure--rather it revealed the eternal plan of God and His great love for us.

[Meriweather]

You asked me what I thought about your description of acts.

If this is the right one, I don't see how you can say Luke was trying to convey. When Luke was documenting a speech Peter gave to Jews about Jesus of Nazareth a man approved of God: Acts 2: 22, what followed was all about Jesus.

But Jesus as part of an eternal plan, correct?

[Lie Sniper]

Actually, saying you're from Alabama does that...

Is that how they speak down in Alabama?

Maybe you can help me out. What translation of the bible supports insulting the intelligence of someone based solely on where they live?

Oh and please provide the scripture, because I want to be able to use it the next time I want to act like a jerk.

Thanks.

[Meriweather]

All right, everyone. Deep breath, take your corners, and come back as sincere debaters. We all know better than this.

[THE LIGHT]

Psalm 110:1 (King James Version)

1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Wasn't King David speaking of the messiah here?


Jesus addressed this one in the Mark 12 and yes I do believe he is speaking of the messiah.

And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? -Mark 12:35

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, the LORD said to my LORD, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. -Mark 12:36

David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. -Mark 12:37

[Trenches]

But Jesus as part of an eternal plan, correct?

As both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), and then when the Jews heard what Peter had said (which I quoted earlier in the thread: Acts 2:22-until the end of the chapter) they were pricked in the ear, and asked what they should do, and Peter said in verse 38: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. In verse 39: For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

[THE LIGHT]

All right, everyone. Deep breath, take your corners, and come back as sincere debaters. We all know better than this.

Good advice. Thanks Meri

[Trenches]

But you said you use it though. That's what I was referring to. The textus receptus is based on the majority text, something like 5,000 documents. The KJV lines up with the Dead Sea Scrolls even.

Hold it...I never said I was Catholic, I'm not. I'm Pentecostal. But I'm sure several of our Catholic friends here will weigh in after this comment.

You need to look at the very first thread at the top of the Religion Forum index, it's called The Rules of Respect for the Religion Forum. That's just a friendly reminder we like to do for all newcomers, not singling you out.

And, as far as the KJV being more accurate than the NAB, NIV, or any other...none is as accurate as the original texts, which is what I was saying the other night.

[Meriweather]

As both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), and then when the Jews heard what Peter had said (which I quoted earlier in the thread: Acts 2:22-until the end of the chapter) they were pricked in the ear, and asked what they should do, and Peter said in verse 38: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. In verse 39: For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Three thousand answered the call that day.

[Trenches]

I'll help you out, it started when he said I need remedial English.

You need remedial English.

Let's eat grandpa. <<<cannibalism

Let's eat, grandpa. <<< Same as saying, "Hey Grandpa, supper is ready."

Jesus said do unto others as you would want others to do to you. Right? So if he wants to say things like that, this type of behavior is what will come in a response.

Maybe you can help me out. What translation of the bible supports insulting the intelligence of someone based solely on where they live?

Oh and please provide the scripture, because I want to be able to use it the next time I want to act like a jerk.

Thanks.

[Meriweather]

Stop. It. Drop. It. Everyone.

This is a debate forum.

[Trenches]

Three thousand answered the call that day.

Could you explain that further? What are you saying?

[Lie Sniper]

I'll help you out, it started when he said I need remedial English.



Jesus said do unto others as you would want others to do to you. Right? So if he wants to say things like that, this type of behavior is what will come in a response.


Try again. Read what you wrote. See if it makes sense.

The only way it makes sense is if you want to be insulted. You then would insult others in the hope that they would then insult you.

[Lie Sniper]

Stop. It. Drop. It. Everyone.

This is a debate forum.

Yes Meri.

[Jacob_Rising]

30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh,
Ye Men of the Gentiles nations, Hear My words; God has sworn that the Promised seed of Adam has been blessed, and the Promised seed of Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob and Judah.

They represent the Man

In Order to prove your inheritance in Israel, You must be the first Born to recieve an inheritance of the First Born.

But Only Israel can point and Say, '' There is the firstborn''

Trenches, Out of all Israel, Who is the Firstborn son of Inheritance?

I betcha 50 bucks you get it wrong.

You don't seem to be able to follow the promised seed and so how will you know who the firstborn is?

[Trenches]

Three thousand answered the call that day.

If this means that only three thousand answered that day.

It says here: Acts 2: 46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.


People were added to the Church daily. Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, no other.

Acts ch. 4 verse 8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

[Meriweather]

Could you explain that further? What are you saying?

Three thousand people accepted Peter's message that day. As The Light (and others pointed out) in the Gospels, Jesus did see David as prophecying regarding the Messiah. This is what I was saying earlier, about Jesus being the culmination of a divine or eternal plan. David would call the Messiah Lord, even though it is said the Messiah would be called the Son of David. Moses said a prophet like himself would be raised. We Christians see in the Old Testament a foreshadowing or an unfolding of this plan.

However, we should keep in mind our Jewish brethern have their own interpretation of their historical events--and I believe those interpretations are equally as valid. He who has ears ought to listen.

[Trenches]

Acts chapter 2 verse 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

All of Acts Ch. 2 Apostle Peter spoke of Jesus Christ as Messiah.

Ye Men of the Gentiles nations, Hear My words; God has sworn that the Promised seed of Adam has been blessed, and the Promised seed of Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob and Judah.

They represent the Man

In Order to prove your inheritance in Israel, You must be the first Born to recieve an inheritance of the First Born.

But Only Israel can point and Say, '' There is the firstborn''

Trenches, Out of all Israel, Who is the Firstborn son of Inheritance?

I betcha 50 bucks you get it wrong.

You don't seem to be able to follow the promised seed and so how will you know who the firstborn is?

[beaker]

But you said you use it though. That's what I was referring to. The textus receptus is based on the majority text, something like 5,000 documents. The KJV lines up with the Dead Sea Scrolls even.

I use to think as you do about the accuracy of the KJV.

After looking into it my self, I have to disagree with you about the KJV lining up with the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, it was the Dead Seas Scrolls that confirmed that verses had been added to the KJV that were not in the original text.

I still think it is a useful version, but when looking at verses, I like to look at many different (good) translations to determine what a specific verse says.

[Trenches]

So are you saying Jesus is not for the Jews? If he is Messiah, Jesus is for all to accept. Without Jesus as Messiah, how then do the Jews find forgiveness of their sin?

Three thousand people accepted Peter's message that day. As The Light (and others pointed out) in the Gospels, Jesus did see David as prophecying regarding the Messiah. This is what I was saying earlier, about Jesus being the culmination of a divine or eternal plan. David would call the Messiah Lord, even though it is said the Messiah would be called the Son of David. Moses said a prophet like himself would be raised. We Christians see in the Old Testament a foreshadowing or an unfolding of this plan.

However, we should keep in mind our Jewish brethern have their own interpretation of their historical events--and I believe those interpretations are equally as valid. He who has ears ought to listen.

[Meriweather]

Yes Meri.

:razz:

You're giving me a demonstration in submission, aren't you? Everyone's going to expect me to pay attention and in the future, act accordingly. :shifty:

[Trenches]

Could you cite your source for where you read that it was the Dead Seas Scrolls that confirmed that verses had been added to the KJV that were not in the original text?

I use to think as you do about the accuracy of the KJV.

After looking into it my self, I have to disagree with you about the KJV lining up with the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, it was the Dead Seas Scrolls that confirmed that verses had been added to the KJV that were not in the original text.

I still think it is a useful version, but when looking at verses, I like to look at many different (good) translations to determine what a specific verse says.

[Meriweather]

So are you saying Jesus is not for the Jews? If he is Messiah, Jesus is for all to accept. Without Jesus as Messiah, how then do the Jews find forgiveness of their sin?

Jesus is for everyone. He himself said he would gather everyone as a mother hen gathers her chicks.... but not everyone would accept him.

Jesus came with the message that sins are forgiven; his message was repentance for the forgiveness of sins. He said people would be forgiven not believing in him. Jews have a pretty good record of repenting of their sins. Besides, God did arrange an everlasting covenant for the Jews.

[Jacob_Rising]

Acts chapter 2 verse 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

All of Acts Ch. 2 Apostle Peter spoke of Jesus Christ as Messiah.That doesn't answer My question Trenches because I can show you Many first Borns from Reuben to Ishmael.

If you say Judah is the Inheritance of the FirstBorn , Then I would tell you Judah is the 4th born of Leah and Judah is not the Firstborn son.

The inheritance goes to the Firstborn son.

[Trenches]

So are you saying the Jews don't need to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior? Because Apostle Peter told them they did.

That doesn't answer My question Trenches because I can show you Many first Borns from Reuben to Ishmael.

If you say Judah is the Inheritance of the FirstBorn , Then I would tell you Judah is the 4th born of Leah and Judah is not the Firstborn son.

The inheritance goes to the Firstborn son.

[Mimiheart]

Your example was:

Lets eat grand pa

and

Lets eat, grand pa

Because you're not saying definitively what it is you're going to eat. Therefore, both could be seen as trying to eat grand pa if taken literally in English.

The first could be definitive, almost a statement: Lets eat grandpa

The second is not as definitive more of a suggestion: Lets eat, grand pa.

Is it a question to grand pa of lets eat? As in food? Or is it a statement of hunger and then a reference to actually eating gran pa? Such as would be the case with cannibals? Is it a joking statement? Then followed by "just kidding lets get a hamburger instead"? Because it is improper the way it is typed in both phrases, there could be many different meanings.

In English, you infer that when you say: Lets eat grand pa
That they are not literally suggesting that you actually eat grand pa, unless otherwise stated. So no, kids, commas don't actually save lives. Having a proper understanding of what someone says actually does save lives.

In short your examples are not a proper explanation.

Ever read "stunna" writing or typing?

AyE gUnNa doO wAt AyE waNtz tuh doo.

Knowing English, you can see that if it were proper English it would say:
I'm going to do what I want to do.

You're not going to proclaim:
"It's bad grammar and if it had a misplaced comma somewhere it would completely change the meaning."
"Let's eat Grandpa."

Means we're going to eat grandpa.

"Let's eat, Grandpa."

Has something called a "direct address comma" in it. The comma means that the first part, "Let's eat," is directed at Grandpa.


Look at another sentence.

"Woman, without her, man is nothing."

Or "Woman, without her man, is nothing."

The first means that man is nothing without woman. The second means woman is nothing without man. All from moving a comma over one word. Commas are incredibly important.

I can't even decipher the rest of your post.

[Mimiheart]

You did so earlier. Not in the post I was quoting. :mrgreen::mrgreen:

BTW - You feelin' better?I'm feeling drugged. And I took the last benedryl (Well, prescription version) when I woke up, which was hours ago. And I have to go to a birthday party later.

[Trenches]

Jesus is for everyone. He himself said he would gather everyone as a mother hen gathers her chicks.... but not everyone would accept him.

Jesus came with the message that sins are forgiven; his message was repentance for the forgiveness of sins. He said people would be forgiven not believing in him. Jews have a pretty good record of repenting of their sins. Besides, God did arrange an everlasting covenant for the Jews.

"He said people would be forgiven not believing in him." Where is that in the New Testament?

John ch. 14 verse 6:
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 10 (King James Version)

John 10

1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
6This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
7Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
10The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

[Trenches]

When people speak English, they don't expect you to use proper grammar. They infer. That is English and how it is spoken. Everybody knows that. That's why people can type "stunna" they infer. Unless it is said that it is not literal. Which both phrases could be taken what is called literally.

"Let's eat Grandpa."

Means we're going to eat grandpa.

"Let's eat, Grandpa."

Has something called a "direct address comma" in it. The comma means that the first part, "Let's eat," is directed at Grandpa.


Look at another sentence.

"Woman, without her, man is nothing."

Or "Woman, without her man, is nothing."

The first means that man is nothing without woman. The second means woman is nothing without man. All from moving a comma over one word. Commas are incredibly important.

I can't even decipher the rest of your post.

[Jacob_Rising]

So are you saying the Jews don't need to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior? Because Apostle Peter told them they did.I'm Told different in Romans where it's Quoted, '' And The Messiah will Come out of ZION{ISRAEL} and He will turn UnGodliness from Jacob{All Tribes}.

Paul also tells you that it's impossible for them to believe in Jesus.

The reason he says it's impossible is for the redemption of the Entire World and that what they believe has led the whole world to be saved and what is their reward besides Life from Death?

You Only suppose that you know the Messiah and they don't.

I would tell you the Opposite.

I would tell you that they are the ones who know the Messiah and we Christians dont.

But I Believe God has closed the eyes of all people and made all people blind from what the real truth is, But there is one big difference in Christians and Jews.

If God suddenly opens the eyes of all people, we will find that it's the Jews who really and truly know the Messiah because they are the only ones practicing things that teach of the Messiah.

[Trenches]

When people speak English, they don't expect you to use proper grammar. They infer. That is English and how it is spoken. Everybody knows that. That's why people can type "stunna" they infer the meaning. Unless it is said that it is not literal. Which both phrases could be taken what is called literally, if the phrases are not explained further.

"Let's eat Grandpa."

Means we're going to eat grandpa.

"Let's eat, Grandpa."

Has something called a "direct address comma" in it. The comma means that the first part, "Let's eat," is directed at Grandpa.


Look at another sentence.

"Woman, without her, man is nothing."

Or "Woman, without her man, is nothing."

The first means that man is nothing without woman. The second means woman is nothing without man. All from moving a comma over one word. Commas are incredibly important.

I can't even decipher the rest of your post.

[Meriweather]

"He said people would be forgiven not believing in him." Where is that in the New Testament?

John ch. 14 verse 6:
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 10 (King James Version)

John 10

1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
6This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
7Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
10The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

I was thinking of Luke 12:10

Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven...

[RayMan]

When people speak English, they don't expect you to use proper grammar. They infer. That is English and how it is spoken. Everybody knows that. That's why people can type "stunna" they infer. Unless it is said that it is not literal. Which both phrases could be taken what is called literally.

If you desire to produce lucid written communication proper grammar and punctuation are your friends.

Ite? :mrgreen:

[Mimiheart]

When people speak English, they don't expect you to use proper grammar. They infer. That is English and how it is spoken. Everybody knows that. That's why people can type "stunna" they infer the meaning. Unless it is said that it is not literal. Which both phrases could be taken what is called literally, if the phrases are not explained further.
When translating the Bible, I expect proper English grammar to be used. It's hard enough to get the correct meaning across -- sometimes it's not possible. Now you expect people to get it across using incorrect grammar?

Commas DO matter. Commas make a huge difference when it comes to meaning. Just because you may not know all the rules doesn't mean they don't exist. We're not talking about street language; we're talking about translating ancient text into a language you understand. When doing this, proper punctuation will help convey the correct meaning.

[Jacob_Rising]

Acts chapter 2 verse 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

All of Acts Ch. 2 Apostle Peter spoke of Jesus Christ as Messiah.How is Judah a Firstborn Son?

It's there, I was just wondering how you yourself would prove it, But Judah is not the Only firstborn son.

[Poisonshady313]

Having a proper understanding of what someone says actually does save lives. When written, the only way to properly understand what someone says if for someone to say it properly... by using proper grammar.

One combination of words in a particular order can have many different meanings... and there is no way to expect another to understand which one you are using. That's what grammar is for.


Ever read "stunna" writing or typing?

AyE gUnNa doO wAt AyE waNtz tuh doo.

Knowing English, you can see that if it were proper English it would say:
I'm going to do what I want to do.

You're not going to proclaim:
"It's bad grammar and if it had a misplaced comma somewhere it would completely change the meaning."

This is painfully stupid.

Do you really not know the difference between spelling and the proper use of punctuation?

You should have your computer revoked and you should be sent back to the fourth grade.

[Poisonshady313]

When translating the Bible, I expect proper English grammar to be used. It's hard enough to get the correct meaning across -- sometimes it's not possible. Now you expect people to get it across using incorrect grammar?

Commas DO matter. Commas make a huge difference when it comes to meaning. Just because you may not know all the rules doesn't mean they don't exist. We're not talking about street language; we're talking about translating ancient text into a language you understand. When doing this, proper punctuation will help convey the correct meaning.

Don't be frustrated if this post doesn't help Trenches to understand.

I'm not convinced he knows what punctuation is.

[Abe]

Actually, saying you're from Alabama does that...

Is that how they speak down in Alabama?Easy there, guy. Let's be nice.

[Abe]

You should be worried that in Israel, what is described in Leviticus is not happening.

6And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land. 7And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
8And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

If God forgives you through prayers and there is no need of a temple then why isn't what is listed above happening? I refer you to my spokesman, Alfred E. Neuman.

[Abe]

Oh, should I then say: Are you wanting to make this personal? Common.

If you want to go back to reading your Catholic translations, after reading the NAB, it is no wonder why the Pope is accepting evolution.Hey, hey, have some respect...

[shaf1of4]

yes he is

[RayMan]

I refer you to my spokesman, Alfred E. Neuman.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SBfu3R-A9OU/RuBP-yCUxaI/AAAAAAAAAEE/mYu_ibxTkG4/s320/alfred_e_neuman.jpg

What, me Abe?

[Abe]

But you said you use it though. That's what I was referring to. The textus receptus is based on the majority text, something like 5,000 documents. The KJV lines up with the Dead Sea Scrolls even.

The Dead Sea Scrolls had unicorns?

[Lie Sniper]

Don't be frustrated if this post doesn't help Trenches to understand.

I'm not convinced he knows what punctuation is.

Careful Poison or you'll have Meri breathing down your neck. :razz:

[CID_0687]

But you said you use it though. That's what I was referring to. The textus receptus is based on the majority text, something like 5,000 documents. The KJV lines up with the Dead Sea Scrolls even.
No, I never said I use the NAB...in fact, I've never even looked at the NAB until a couple of nights ago when you started this thread. Normally I use the NKJV and NIV for everyday reading...And, the NAB and NIV happen to be very similar translations.

[Lie Sniper]

Alright. Lets give the new guy/girl a chance to start over.

[Abe]

So are you saying Jesus is not for the Jews? If he is Messiah, Jesus is for all to accept. Without Jesus as Messiah, how then do the Jews find forgiveness of their sin?You wouldn't listen anyway...

[Poisonshady313]

Careful Poison or you'll have Meri breathing down your neck. :razz:

Her husband might have something to say about her breathing on the neck of a young man.

[CID_0687]

I use to think as you do about the accuracy of the KJV.

After looking into it my self, I have to disagree with you about the KJV lining up with the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, it was the Dead Seas Scrolls that confirmed that verses had been added to the KJV that were not in the original text.

I still think it is a useful version, but when looking at verses, I like to look at many different (good) translations to determine what a specific verse says.
Ditto.

[RayMan]

Her husband might have something to say about her breathing on the neck of a young man.

True dat.

[Meriweather]

Her husband might have something to say about her breathing on the neck of a young man.

No kidding. Your young neck is safe. However, we should remember Trencher is the new poster here. Let's give him a chance to learn the players and the ropes, shall we?