I do not feel compelled by context to supply the word “one” along with “this.”
It’s traditional fire and brimstone and hell that urge most theologians to lean on “this one” or “this person” or “him” to fill that slot. They just HAVE to find a way to throw SOMEONE into hell. I don’t feel that compulsion at all.
That's because you do not translate and therefore are not bound by the rules of grammar, as translators are bound. Further, they are bound to stand before God Almighty for what they do to HIS WORD.
In fact, I feel the context urging something completely different. Let’s look at the verse without the “one” supplied. Remember that Bullinger has a note that indicates an emphasis in this word “touton.” For that reason I’ll use ALL-CAPS for “this.”
When you are referencing an outside work, you should give the complete book title and the page number, that way the reader if they have that particular book in their library can also reference it as well.
I Cor 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, THIS shall God destroy;
for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Let me ask the question that once again you have left begging...
"THIS" WHAT????
If you leave 'THIS' hanging in mid-air, it then leads the reader to understand
that what will be destroyed is the temple of God....and I don't think so!
Touton is an accusative masculine which means it is the direct object of the second phrase in that first line. With that in mind, let me ask you another
question, Mike. Why does it bother you that "TOUTON" (again an accusative) would be translated as "this one" which lacks any gender specificity
and therefore can also include females, while "TIS" which the KJV and the NASB both translate it as "man", but it is an "indefinite pronoun" and is normally translated as
1.anyone
2.someone
Those are the singular usages
1.some
2.certain
3.several
These are the plural usages,
but the usage of "man" in that place doesn't bother you? This shows your inconsistency, which I will allow you since you do not translate. For your further information,
the Scriptures are not a "FILL IN THE BLANK" format. To have a good (at the very least) translation, one must complete that thought. To leave 'this" hanging in mid-air would only cause the reader confusion, for they would ask the obvious, wouldn't they?
Furthermore, the noun in the first phrase is the indefinite pronoun "TIS," or "anyone" which is in the substantival position; while the verb is "destroys" and thus
the direct object is "the temple"; while the noun in the second one is "God" and the verb once again is "destroys" and then the direct object is "touton" or "this one."
To find the nearest noun that a direct object is linked to would take you back to "TIS", the indefinite pronoun which should have been translated as "anyone" and
then perhaps you wouldn't have had a problem with "touton" being translated as "this one." But since they translated it as "man", the thought follows that perhaps the variant reading isn't so variant, is it? It could also be translated as "man" in the second phrase.
The sentence construction basically places God and man in opposition to each other to highlight the seriousness and the devastation that both can cause. While
man can only do limited destruction, even to the temple of God; God can do the ultimate destruction of the man. Because this sentence is highlighting the
antithetical position of God v. man, the translator must make the choice of either using "anyone/this one" or "man/man" in both sections to complete the thought.
Let me ask the question that once again you have left begging...
"THIS" WHAT????
You don't have any clue, do you?
Wow! You really want to see that guy thrown into hellfire!
If you could loose that traditional picture, plug that word "this" in there and read the whole context it should be obvious what "this" refers to. You have traditional blinders on.
***
And please don't forget that you are working with documents that are copies of copies of copies, including errors, and with deliberate forgeries in there to boot. We know copyists started forging counterfeit trinity passages at a very early date, earlier than most surviving manuscript fragments. You are not working with God's written Word at all, but man's working of the originals.
Do you think the originals were in Greek or in Paul's native tongue? If not Greek, then add in a man-made translation process between your copies of copies of copies.
:blink:
Unfortunately, not the kind of endorsement that adds credibility. Ah, well. Take what you can get I guess.
Actually, when you factor in the extreme dislike for Dr they all had at CES, their "endorsement" was actually a reluctant admission. When you take that into consideration, it does add credibility.
Actually, when you factor in the extreme dislike for Dr they all had at CES, their "endorsement" was actually a reluctant admission. When you take that into consideration, it does add credibility.
I dunno. Considering the momentus fiasco, prophecy battles and sue me sue you blues they've gone through, I'd say whatever they got from it didn't amount to a hill of beans..
It just seems to me the endorsement from one madman conferred upon another can't really be considered "valid" or anything..
It's a passing comment, Mike so don't let me slow down the cirkle jerk. But yeah, CES lacks credibility on many fronts so their endorsement is minor at best. At the expense of introducing some actual logic to that point - changing their minds about something doesn't validate it.
"I used to reallllly dislike the founder of the Klu Klux Klan, but y'know - now that I've really looked at what he wrote and had time to consider it without the emotional constraints of the times I'd have to say the Klan literature is the best I've ever read...".
I'm sure you catch my drift. But nice try. :)
"I used to just HATE the way mud tasted. But now, I think it's better than candy!"
"I change my mind every few years, and have for years! I think the PFAL class is GREAT and getting better all the time! Just wait a few years and it'll be even better than it is now and they'll be new books and DVDs and all kinds of cool new stuff to buy we'll be selling. Sorry, I was, I mean we were just realllly p.o.'d when I - I mean, we got fired but now that er-I mean we're all cool about it now, PFAL'S GREAT! Hope you didn't take all that stuff we - I mean, I said when I - I mean I got fired seriously - because now I'm - I mean we're thinking more straighter!!!!"
I have to remember to be nice though - CES having what was it - an anniversary? I'm sure the air was thin on the Mountain that day.
circle jerk???? were you reading waysider's CF&S post too many times or something?
***
It was their 10th anniversary, which was almost ten years ago, I think.
It was before they got kooky.
Regardless of all that, they DID (and probably still do) have some powerful Biblical research resources. I'm sure they put all those resources (in their very early years) on finding as much dirt in the collaterals as they possibly could. Instead, though, they had to admit the collaterals were impressive on the front page of their 10the anniversary newsletter issue. Around that same time I was personally told twice that if I disciplined myself to the collaterals then I'd do pretty well in life.
In the collaterals they wanted to find dirt; they had the ability to find dirt; they found no dirt.
If it ain't in "The Orange Book", it ain't worth considering.
Let me ask the question that once again you have left begging...
"THIS" WHAT????
If you leave 'THIS' hanging in mid-air, it then leads the reader to understand
that what will be destroyed is the temple of God....and I don't think so!
Touton is an accusative masculine which means it is the direct object of the second phrase in that first line. With that in mind, let me ask you another
question, Mike. Why does it bother you that "TOUTON" (again an accusative) would be translated as "this one" which lacks any gender specificity
and therefore can also include females, while "TIS" which the KJV and the NASB both translate it as "man", but it is an "indefinite pronoun" and is normally translated as
1.anyone
2.someone
Those are the singular usages
1.some
2.certain
3.several
These are the plural usages,
but the usage of "man" in that place doesn't bother you? This shows your inconsistency, which I will allow you since you do not translate. For your further information,
the Scriptures are not a "FILL IN THE BLANK" format. To have a good (at the very least) translation, one must complete that thought. To leave 'this" hanging in mid-air would only cause the reader confusion, for they would ask the obvious, wouldn't they?
Furthermore, the noun in the first phrase is the indefinite pronoun "TIS," or "anyone" which is in the substantival position; while the verb is "destroys" and thus
the direct object is "the temple"; while the noun in the second one is "God" and the verb once again is "destroys" and then the direct object is "touton" or "this one."
To find the nearest noun that a direct object is linked to would take you back to "TIS", the indefinite pronoun which should have been translated as "anyone" and
then perhaps you wouldn't have had a problem with "touton" being translated as "this one." But since they translated it as "man", the thought follows that perhaps the variant reading isn't so variant, is it? It could also be translated as "man" in the second phrase.
The sentence construction basically places God and man in opposition to each other to highlight the seriousness and the devastation that both can cause. While
man can only do limited destruction, even to the temple of God; God can do the ultimate destruction of the man. Because this sentence is highlighting the
antithetical position of God v. man, the translator must make the choice of either using "anyone/this one" or "man/man" in both sections to complete the thought.
This post has been edited by brideofjc: Today, 08:17 PM
Yeah, the orange book is quite hard to read, at least without the special glasses that help you to see the wondrously amazing revelatory significance that has been cloaked in secrecy for thousands of years.
Kinda makes you wonder how the poor saps who walked the Earth before PFAL even thought they had a snowball's chance in he!! of ever getting saved or understanding The Bible.
NO doubt, Mike. CES has formidable resources, as I'm sure they're got members with enough "liberated" copies of the PFAL series to choke a giraffe. It's been a long time but I heard stories of people walking out of their positions at various locations with all manner of loot. Seen some of it. All for good though, so not to worry.
Brains - I don't know what the role call's been there. Lynn I love as the brother in Christ he is to me. Schoenheit's got a grip. Graeser's been gripped too tight for a long time. Don't know on the rest, there's a whole roster of people there I'm sure I've never met and won't.
But I digress. For those to whom it means something, the CES endorsement is powerful medicine I'm sure. When all of these SOB's stop selling their particular prescription of enlightened understandings of the Word of God as their own property to trade in I'll consider thinking about possibly giving a minute to maybe thinking about what it would be like to consider thinking about it. In the meantime I don't do business with people who sell the Word of God.
quote name='Mike' date='Mar 5 2008, 03:20 PM' post='401208']You don't have any clue, do you? Wow! You really want to see that guy thrown into hellfire!This one's for you Mike, just so you can see this when you're not busy counting your eyelashes....Nope! I do however wish to WARN THE BODY OF CHRIST that THEY WILL BE JUDGED and it is NOT A JOKE!Now, if that gets you into HELL FIRE.....well perhaps.....lez see......MAYBE I SHOULD CHANGE MY WAYSand SUBMIT TO THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL!If you could loose that traditional picture, plug that word "this" in there and read the whole context it should be obvious what "this" refers to. You have traditional blinders on.Mike, don't know how old you are....but do you remember ROMPER ROOM? Let's put our THINKING CAPS ON.....AND LOOK IN THE MAGIC MIRROR.....And please don't forget that you are working with documents that are copies of copies of copies, including errors, and with deliberate forgeries in there to boot.
Well, Waysider said that a certain someone or perhaps it should be anyone
or better yet, THIS ONE, likes the color orange.
So I'm accomodating that person.
But Orange is such a yukky color...
Have you ever noticed that the one color most often used in fast food companies is ORANGE?
It's cheap. I says "I'm easy and quick."
Well... I guess now we know why Orange is the color VP chose for his first book. He took the fast food approach to the Word, to research, to academics, most likely he took the fast food approach to most anything he did. <_<
Since others have mentioned it, no, the orange fonts suck. Plus you might want to refrain from using the “Carriage Return” (also known as “Enter” or “Paragraph Mark”) at the end of each line you type into your word processor, except when you want to mark a paragraph, where you might want to use two such keystrokes. Maybe a little less bold fonting, too. That will help make your posts look a LITTLE less like a Chick Publication.
***
I sense that you had a very short stay at TWI and in PFAL from several things you’ve said in the past. Just to clue you in, many of the varied refugees from TWI are massively turned off by negative motivation to side with the God of heaven. If you’re looking for converts here for your pretty traditional sounding church, I think you are going to find even less here than I do. And THAT’S saying something significant, right folks!
***
You wrote: “Mike, if you would like for me to diagram the sentence for you....I'll be most happy to do that for you, to bring you up to speed. Also, i edited my post from earlier after you wrote this one.”
No thanks. I find that when discussions enter this stage it seems to always degenerate to the “My expert is better than your expert” kind of logic. I’m not interested in your experts, though, not at all. I’m bored with official scholars and am most cynical of their product. The only thing I see coming from traditionalist scholars is a post-Reformation revival of Phariseeism trying to rival the Spanish Inquisition.
***
I had written: “We know copyists started forging counterfeit trinity passages at a very early date, earlier than most surviving manuscript fragments. You are not working with God's written Word at all, but man's working of the originals.”
Then you responded with: “Do ya mean....because the Doc told you that???? Those who have the charge of examining fragmental papyrii, Mike, copiously compare and recompare to all known existing fragments which are carefully documented, numbered and with modern technology scanned into computers so that human hands no longer have to touch the fragile pieces.”
No, it wasn’t Dr that got that to stick with me. It’s only been ten years now since I decided to meekly receive what God has offered us in PFAL. Before that I was often oscillating every six months between doubting Dr to verifying from outside sources what he said. It was a variant on when I complained of above, as I went to see what other group’s experts had to say.
Just to give you two examples: The trinity formula forgery that is in I John 5:7 is easy to see as added from almost any modern version or Interlinear, in addition to it’s scatterbrained logic. And the controversy in the supposedly “without controversy” verse of I Timothy 3:16 was due to a double forgery. I found Bullinger’s note that in a British Museum’s manuscript the forged ink turned to colors differing from the context after many centuries of aging.
When I originally heard Dr teach these things I put them to the side for verification, along with many other things. But the trinity (notice I don’t use a capital “T”) was especially important for me to verify. I figured that if Dr was wrong on that one there would be hell to pay and more, vestiges of my RC background no doubt.
Anyway, I went to many trinitarian people and churches as part of this process to hear their side(s). There were times when I left those places in tears, praying to God for help as to who to believe. Do you have ANY idea how long that process dragged out to? Try over 20 years. I think it was well into the 90’s that I finally felt free in saying goodbye to the trinity, goodbye to the old man with lightning to punish, goodbye to the bizarre bird, and goodbye to the godman hippie.
Some people’s mental makeup requires an institution with buildings and property for them to feel safe. Some people need a long “dignified” history to verify truth for them, as in “time tested.” Some people need a large crowd believing along with them for verification. I have seen all the above to be hopelessly flimsy.
In my VPW verification years I spent a lot of time with traditionalists, debating and hearing their side(s), as well as witnessing to them things like “heaven bound” and SIT. My previous impressions, that all the evil of the world resided in the RC Church, were dashed to pieces. I knew there were some jerks in TWI at the time but I’d take PFAL jerks any day over the rotten Protestant trinity people I ran into. I have spent enough time looking at experts on the scriptures as well as experts on experts and I’m done. God led me to PFAL twice and I’m staying.
***
You wrote: “Paul was a product of the Diaspora and therefore his family was Hellenized....so yes....Paul's primary language was most likely Greek. As I said to 2027, Greek was the LINGUA FRANCA of its day. The same way that later on FRENCH became the language of diplomacy and if you wished to be understood while travelling the continent, you automatically spoke French. In the same way, Paul spoke Greek when in public...he probably spoke Hebrew when practicing Hebraic religious customs in his family home, but it wouldn't have been his primary language. There's a good chance that his everyday common language was Aramaic. He probably spoke Latin as well since the ruling country was Rome.”
I found it interesting to note what language Jesus spoke to Paul in on the road to Damascus.
Acts 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
As for your language skills, did you learn them from the official sources or from some upstart organization? That’s a trick question.
***
You wrote: “Believe it or not Mike, the scribes were pretty accurate in their work, which is why that modern textual critics can admire that extant mss thousands of years apart are exact copies of one another. Were there probaby goofs? Yes. But when there were, they then made marginal notes to show their errors. Sounds honest to me.”
I don’t doubt that there are honest researchers, in addition to the adversary’s plants, and I don’t doubt their sincerity. There’s no amount of human brains nor modern gadgetry that will unscramble what the adversary scrambled 2000 years ago. That requires divine intervention, and we know God often does things a “little” differently than institutional expectations, don’t we. I’m willing to bet my life that divine intervention took place in 1942 and continued until 1985.
Actually, it looks like you are referring to the Old Testament scriptures from what you posted above. The whole reason for the Critical Greek texts was to iron out the thousands of variant NT manuscript points, and STILL those texts vary from each other. There WAS great agreement between an older Dead Sea Scroll copy of Isaiah and the traditional texts. But I’ve never heard of such agreement with New Testament books. Neither have I heard of a Masorah fence for the NT.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
128
169
106
102
Popular Days
Feb 19
54
Feb 26
50
Feb 22
47
Apr 2
40
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 128 posts
Mike 169 posts
Ham 106 posts
waysider 102 posts
Popular Days
Feb 19 2008
54 posts
Feb 26 2008
50 posts
Feb 22 2008
47 posts
Apr 2 2008
40 posts
Posted Images
socks
:blink:
Unfortunately, not the kind of endorsement that adds credibility. Ah, well. Take what you can get I guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hello Bride
You may be wasting your breath.
If it ain't in "The Orange Book", it ain't worth considering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You don't have any clue, do you?
Wow! You really want to see that guy thrown into hellfire!
If you could loose that traditional picture, plug that word "this" in there and read the whole context it should be obvious what "this" refers to. You have traditional blinders on.
***
And please don't forget that you are working with documents that are copies of copies of copies, including errors, and with deliberate forgeries in there to boot. We know copyists started forging counterfeit trinity passages at a very early date, earlier than most surviving manuscript fragments. You are not working with God's written Word at all, but man's working of the originals.
Do you think the originals were in Greek or in Paul's native tongue? If not Greek, then add in a man-made translation process between your copies of copies of copies.
Actually, when you factor in the extreme dislike for Dr they all had at CES, their "endorsement" was actually a reluctant admission. When you take that into consideration, it does add credibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Thankfully, though, we do have undiluted originals of the PFAL book which, of course, is the real God breathed word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. Considering the momentus fiasco, prophecy battles and sue me sue you blues they've gone through, I'd say whatever they got from it didn't amount to a hill of beans..
It just seems to me the endorsement from one madman conferred upon another can't really be considered "valid" or anything..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
It's a passing comment, Mike so don't let me slow down the cirkle jerk. But yeah, CES lacks credibility on many fronts so their endorsement is minor at best. At the expense of introducing some actual logic to that point - changing their minds about something doesn't validate it.
"I used to reallllly dislike the founder of the Klu Klux Klan, but y'know - now that I've really looked at what he wrote and had time to consider it without the emotional constraints of the times I'd have to say the Klan literature is the best I've ever read...".
I'm sure you catch my drift. But nice try. :)
"I used to just HATE the way mud tasted. But now, I think it's better than candy!"
"I change my mind every few years, and have for years! I think the PFAL class is GREAT and getting better all the time! Just wait a few years and it'll be even better than it is now and they'll be new books and DVDs and all kinds of cool new stuff to buy we'll be selling. Sorry, I was, I mean we were just realllly p.o.'d when I - I mean, we got fired but now that er-I mean we're all cool about it now, PFAL'S GREAT! Hope you didn't take all that stuff we - I mean, I said when I - I mean I got fired seriously - because now I'm - I mean we're thinking more straighter!!!!"
I have to remember to be nice though - CES having what was it - an anniversary? I'm sure the air was thin on the Mountain that day.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
circle jerk???? were you reading waysider's CF&S post too many times or something?
***
It was their 10th anniversary, which was almost ten years ago, I think.
It was before they got kooky.
Regardless of all that, they DID (and probably still do) have some powerful Biblical research resources. I'm sure they put all those resources (in their very early years) on finding as much dirt in the collaterals as they possibly could. Instead, though, they had to admit the collaterals were impressive on the front page of their 10the anniversary newsletter issue. Around that same time I was personally told twice that if I disciplined myself to the collaterals then I'd do pretty well in life.
In the collaterals they wanted to find dirt; they had the ability to find dirt; they found no dirt.
I find that interesting if not more.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I thought they were beating pillows and crying "mommy" practically from day one..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah, I know what you mean.
It's hard to find ANYTHING when your eyes are shut!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Uhhmmm.....what about the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD? I wonder where God came in....do ya think it was a tie? :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Nope! They were probably sniffing the soap from the get go...it makes the wheels on the bus go round and round...much smoother with soap!
Maybe they did and then applied the VP soap? Just thinkin'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Huh? :blink:
That's like saying, "before the world was round."
I was closely involved with two couples who fell in lockstep with CES from the starting gate. CES was kooky from day -15.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
who the heck has any ability besides god ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Let me ask the question that once again you have left begging...
"THIS" WHAT????
If you leave 'THIS' hanging in mid-air, it then leads the reader to understand
that what will be destroyed is the temple of God....and I don't think so!
Touton is an accusative masculine which means it is the direct object of the second phrase in that first line. With that in mind, let me ask you another
question, Mike. Why does it bother you that "TOUTON" (again an accusative) would be translated as "this one" which lacks any gender specificity
and therefore can also include females, while "TIS" which the KJV and the NASB both translate it as "man", but it is an "indefinite pronoun" and is normally translated as
1.anyone
2.someone
Those are the singular usages
1.some
2.certain
3.several
These are the plural usages,
but the usage of "man" in that place doesn't bother you? This shows your inconsistency, which I will allow you since you do not translate. For your further information,
the Scriptures are not a "FILL IN THE BLANK" format. To have a good (at the very least) translation, one must complete that thought. To leave 'this" hanging in mid-air would only cause the reader confusion, for they would ask the obvious, wouldn't they?
Furthermore, the noun in the first phrase is the indefinite pronoun "TIS," or "anyone" which is in the substantival position; while the verb is "destroys" and thus
the direct object is "the temple"; while the noun in the second one is "God" and the verb once again is "destroys" and then the direct object is "touton" or "this one."
To find the nearest noun that a direct object is linked to would take you back to "TIS", the indefinite pronoun which should have been translated as "anyone" and
then perhaps you wouldn't have had a problem with "touton" being translated as "this one." But since they translated it as "man", the thought follows that perhaps the variant reading isn't so variant, is it? It could also be translated as "man" in the second phrase.
The sentence construction basically places God and man in opposition to each other to highlight the seriousness and the devastation that both can cause. While
man can only do limited destruction, even to the temple of God; God can do the ultimate destruction of the man. Because this sentence is highlighting the
antithetical position of God v. man, the translator must make the choice of either using "anyone/this one" or "man/man" in both sections to complete the thought.
This post has been edited by brideofjc: Today, 08:17 PM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Bride - that orange is hard to read...do you mind changing it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
it's par for the course
for the orange book, don't you think ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
HaHaHaHaHaHa! ( I borrowed that.)
Yeah, the orange book is quite hard to read, at least without the special glasses that help you to see the wondrously amazing revelatory significance that has been cloaked in secrecy for thousands of years.
Kinda makes you wonder how the poor saps who walked the Earth before PFAL even thought they had a snowball's chance in he!! of ever getting saved or understanding The Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
NO doubt, Mike. CES has formidable resources, as I'm sure they're got members with enough "liberated" copies of the PFAL series to choke a giraffe. It's been a long time but I heard stories of people walking out of their positions at various locations with all manner of loot. Seen some of it. All for good though, so not to worry.
Brains - I don't know what the role call's been there. Lynn I love as the brother in Christ he is to me. Schoenheit's got a grip. Graeser's been gripped too tight for a long time. Don't know on the rest, there's a whole roster of people there I'm sure I've never met and won't.
But I digress. For those to whom it means something, the CES endorsement is powerful medicine I'm sure. When all of these SOB's stop selling their particular prescription of enlightened understandings of the Word of God as their own property to trade in I'll consider thinking about possibly giving a minute to maybe thinking about what it would be like to consider thinking about it. In the meantime I don't do business with people who sell the Word of God.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
looking a lot like plagiarism to me....
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ps. i'm still getting blessed by the circle jerk comment
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
quote name='Mike' date='Mar 5 2008, 03:20 PM' post='401208']You don't have any clue, do you? Wow! You really want to see that guy thrown into hellfire!This one's for you Mike, just so you can see this when you're not busy counting your eyelashes....Nope! I do however wish to WARN THE BODY OF CHRIST that THEY WILL BE JUDGED and it is NOT A JOKE!Now, if that gets you into HELL FIRE.....well perhaps.....lez see......MAYBE I SHOULD CHANGE MY WAYSand SUBMIT TO THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL!If you could loose that traditional picture, plug that word "this" in there and read the whole context it should be obvious what "this" refers to. You have traditional blinders on.Mike, don't know how old you are....but do you remember ROMPER ROOM? Let's put our THINKING CAPS ON.....AND LOOK IN THE MAGIC MIRROR.....And please don't forget that you are working with documents that are copies of copies of copies, including errors, and with deliberate forgeries in there to boot.
Edited by brideofjcLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Well, Waysider said that a certain someone or perhaps it should be anyone
or better yet, THIS ONE, likes the color orange.
So I'm accomodating that person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
But Orange is such a yukky color...
Have you ever noticed that the one color most often used in fast food companies is ORANGE?
It's cheap. I says "I'm easy and quick."
Well... I guess now we know why Orange is the color VP chose for his first book. He took the fast food approach to the Word, to research, to academics, most likely he took the fast food approach to most anything he did. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
brideofjc,
Since others have mentioned it, no, the orange fonts suck. Plus you might want to refrain from using the “Carriage Return” (also known as “Enter” or “Paragraph Mark”) at the end of each line you type into your word processor, except when you want to mark a paragraph, where you might want to use two such keystrokes. Maybe a little less bold fonting, too. That will help make your posts look a LITTLE less like a Chick Publication.
***
I sense that you had a very short stay at TWI and in PFAL from several things you’ve said in the past. Just to clue you in, many of the varied refugees from TWI are massively turned off by negative motivation to side with the God of heaven. If you’re looking for converts here for your pretty traditional sounding church, I think you are going to find even less here than I do. And THAT’S saying something significant, right folks!
***
You wrote: “Mike, if you would like for me to diagram the sentence for you....I'll be most happy to do that for you, to bring you up to speed. Also, i edited my post from earlier after you wrote this one.”
No thanks. I find that when discussions enter this stage it seems to always degenerate to the “My expert is better than your expert” kind of logic. I’m not interested in your experts, though, not at all. I’m bored with official scholars and am most cynical of their product. The only thing I see coming from traditionalist scholars is a post-Reformation revival of Phariseeism trying to rival the Spanish Inquisition.
***
I had written: “We know copyists started forging counterfeit trinity passages at a very early date, earlier than most surviving manuscript fragments. You are not working with God's written Word at all, but man's working of the originals.”
Then you responded with: “Do ya mean....because the Doc told you that???? Those who have the charge of examining fragmental papyrii, Mike, copiously compare and recompare to all known existing fragments which are carefully documented, numbered and with modern technology scanned into computers so that human hands no longer have to touch the fragile pieces.”
No, it wasn’t Dr that got that to stick with me. It’s only been ten years now since I decided to meekly receive what God has offered us in PFAL. Before that I was often oscillating every six months between doubting Dr to verifying from outside sources what he said. It was a variant on when I complained of above, as I went to see what other group’s experts had to say.
Just to give you two examples: The trinity formula forgery that is in I John 5:7 is easy to see as added from almost any modern version or Interlinear, in addition to it’s scatterbrained logic. And the controversy in the supposedly “without controversy” verse of I Timothy 3:16 was due to a double forgery. I found Bullinger’s note that in a British Museum’s manuscript the forged ink turned to colors differing from the context after many centuries of aging.
When I originally heard Dr teach these things I put them to the side for verification, along with many other things. But the trinity (notice I don’t use a capital “T”) was especially important for me to verify. I figured that if Dr was wrong on that one there would be hell to pay and more, vestiges of my RC background no doubt.
Anyway, I went to many trinitarian people and churches as part of this process to hear their side(s). There were times when I left those places in tears, praying to God for help as to who to believe. Do you have ANY idea how long that process dragged out to? Try over 20 years. I think it was well into the 90’s that I finally felt free in saying goodbye to the trinity, goodbye to the old man with lightning to punish, goodbye to the bizarre bird, and goodbye to the godman hippie.
Some people’s mental makeup requires an institution with buildings and property for them to feel safe. Some people need a long “dignified” history to verify truth for them, as in “time tested.” Some people need a large crowd believing along with them for verification. I have seen all the above to be hopelessly flimsy.
In my VPW verification years I spent a lot of time with traditionalists, debating and hearing their side(s), as well as witnessing to them things like “heaven bound” and SIT. My previous impressions, that all the evil of the world resided in the RC Church, were dashed to pieces. I knew there were some jerks in TWI at the time but I’d take PFAL jerks any day over the rotten Protestant trinity people I ran into. I have spent enough time looking at experts on the scriptures as well as experts on experts and I’m done. God led me to PFAL twice and I’m staying.
***
You wrote: “Paul was a product of the Diaspora and therefore his family was Hellenized....so yes....Paul's primary language was most likely Greek. As I said to 2027, Greek was the LINGUA FRANCA of its day. The same way that later on FRENCH became the language of diplomacy and if you wished to be understood while travelling the continent, you automatically spoke French. In the same way, Paul spoke Greek when in public...he probably spoke Hebrew when practicing Hebraic religious customs in his family home, but it wouldn't have been his primary language. There's a good chance that his everyday common language was Aramaic. He probably spoke Latin as well since the ruling country was Rome.”
I found it interesting to note what language Jesus spoke to Paul in on the road to Damascus.
Acts 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
As for your language skills, did you learn them from the official sources or from some upstart organization? That’s a trick question.
***
You wrote: “Believe it or not Mike, the scribes were pretty accurate in their work, which is why that modern textual critics can admire that extant mss thousands of years apart are exact copies of one another. Were there probaby goofs? Yes. But when there were, they then made marginal notes to show their errors. Sounds honest to me.”
I don’t doubt that there are honest researchers, in addition to the adversary’s plants, and I don’t doubt their sincerity. There’s no amount of human brains nor modern gadgetry that will unscramble what the adversary scrambled 2000 years ago. That requires divine intervention, and we know God often does things a “little” differently than institutional expectations, don’t we. I’m willing to bet my life that divine intervention took place in 1942 and continued until 1985.
Actually, it looks like you are referring to the Old Testament scriptures from what you posted above. The whole reason for the Critical Greek texts was to iron out the thousands of variant NT manuscript points, and STILL those texts vary from each other. There WAS great agreement between an older Dead Sea Scroll copy of Isaiah and the traditional texts. But I’ve never heard of such agreement with New Testament books. Neither have I heard of a Masorah fence for the NT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.