Fixing the scripture ...

[Muffled]

What is interesting is that I have heard the exact same claim.
Except it was about the OT and NT:

the New Testament parallels the Old Testament in many ways as though someone who knew the Old Testament was writing fiction based on the Old Testament.​

I believe a person can make that claim but I speaking as the Holy Spirit assert that it is not true

 

[2ndpillar]

I am not sure what you mean by this and it would help if you provide a supporting scripture.

I believe Paul is speaking by the Holy Spirit but that does not make him a prophet. Usually as is the case with me also the Holy Spirit is illuminating scriptural concepts that already exist and that is not prophecy. Now if Paul were to say that God told him to tell people something then that would be prophecy. I do that at times through the Holy Spirit but I don't think an occasional instance of it makes me a prophet.

I believe that certainly was the case but God is also able to raise them up again when He wants and did so with John the Baptist as Jesus calls him one.

I believe he did not specifically name one and one may not assume that a prophet is false just because some will exist.

Dear muf,
1 Cor 7:25, "Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy" Even this is considered the word of God (spirit of Prophecy) by the followers of Paul. Of course nothing he spoke was of God, except his quotes from Scripture, like Satan quoting Scripture to Yeshua in the wilderness, Paul's own speaking was the tare seed of the "enemy" (Mt 13;25)

As for the "speaking" of Paul, he has "no dawn" (no light) according to Isaiah 8:20, for what he speaks is not according to the "law and the testimony". An example being Per Ez 8:20, "each dies for his own sins", which is not the "twinkling" that Paul teaches.

Yeshua was pretty specific on describing the false prophet in Mt 7: 15 & 22-23, which was pretty spot on with respect to Paul. That Paul means "little" and Yeshua described those who annul the least commandment of the law as being called "least" (Mt 5:19) which is the superlative of little, kind of calls Paul out.

 

[McBell]

I believe a person can make that claim but I speaking as the Holy Spirit assert that it is not true

I am not a member of the choir you preach to.

 

[Muffled]

I am not a member of the choir you preach to.

I believe that is a good reason why you should hear it.

 

[Muffled]

Dear muf,
1 Cor 7:25, "Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy" Even this is considered the word of God (spirit of Prophecy) by the followers of Paul. Of course nothing he spoke was of God, except his quotes from Scripture, like Satan quoting Scripture to Yeshua in the wilderness, Paul's own speaking was the tare seed of the "enemy" (Mt 13;25)

As for the "speaking" of Paul, he has "no dawn" (no light) according to Isaiah 8:20, for what he speaks is not according to the "law and the testimony". An example being Per Ez 8:20, "each dies for his own sins", which is not the "twinkling" that Paul teaches.

Yeshua was pretty specific on describing the false prophet in Mt 7: 15 & 22-23, which was pretty spot on with respect to Paul. That Paul means "little" and Yeshua described those who annul the least commandment of the law as being called "least" (Mt 5:19) which is the superlative of little, kind of calls Paul out.

I believe your logic is in error. If he says he has none then that does not mean that he has some.

Do you have a source? I have never seen or heard anyone say that.

I don't believe you have any evidence to support this view.
1Th 1:5 how that our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance; even as ye know what manner of men we showed ourselves toward you for your sake.

I believe there is no evidence to support this view.

I believe he has not done so.

I believe the light in Paul is Jesus.
Ro 5:21 that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Here is the evidence that Paul believes what the law says.

 

[McBell]

I believe that is a good reason why you should hear it.

You should really try a different sermon then.
One that does not rely on the listener already believing the choir points....
So far all you have been doing is preaching to the choir.
Meaning you are not the least bit convincing to those outside the intended choir the sermon was prepared for.

 

[12jtartar]

An example.

Let's start with some examples of Psalm 34:15-17.

King James Version

• The eyes of the LORD [are] upon the righteous, and his ears [are open] unto their cry.
• The face of the LORD [is] against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.
• [The righteous] cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.

New Jerusalem Bible

• The eyes of Yahweh are on the upright, his ear turned to their cry.
• But Yahweh's face is set against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth.
• They cry in anguish and Yahweh hears, and rescues them from all their troubles

Segal

• The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous, His ears toward their outcry.
• The face of the LORD is against evildoers, to cut off their memory from the earth.
• They cry out, and the LORD hears, and from all their troubles He saves them.

The bracketed emendation found in the KJV is not uncommon, but the other two examples are more accurate. Clearly the KJV is trying to make sense of something that otherwise does not - at least not on the surface. What's going on here?

Jayhawker Soule,
One thing, translating from one language is not easy, and should only be done by someone who understands both languages very well and also understands what God's purpose is. Many words, in other languages, mean several things, just like English, so to translate a word correctly it MUST agree with all other Scripture. It is up to the translator to make sure that he translates the correct word in the new translation.
Then there are many different manuscripts that translators use, some a little different from others, because they were translated also, because we have no Original Autographs that have survived.
Another reason for slight differences is; some Bible translators try their best to be as literal as possible, while others, are Thought Translations, or Paraphrased Translations, meaning that they do not try to keep the thoughts as exact as Literal Translations. These translations read a Scripture, or a group of Scriptures, and then put the thought into their own words, so there can be a variety of different words used.
It has been proven that no human being can translate the Bible, or even copy the Bible, without making mistakes, so the only way you can make sure that you get the right message that God intended, is to compare several translations. Even though all translations may have mistakes, they will not have the same mistakes, so by comparing several translations, you can find the truth.
Another point is; many translators put in the text words that are meant to help the reader understand the thought, because different languages put the text in unusual sequences. Other Bible translators put any words for explanation in brackets, to let the reader know that these words were not in the original text, but are needed for correct understanding of the message from God.
Now, God, Himself, promised that His word will be protected from errors of every generation, Psalms 12:6,7, Isaiah 40:8, 1Peter 1:25, so we KNOW the truth is there, we just have to search for it, as hidden treasure, Proverbs 2:1-9.

 

[savagewind]

It has been proven that no human being can translate the Bible, or even copy the Bible, without making mistakes, so the only way you can make sure that you get the right message that God intended, is to compare several translations.

The only way to be humanly sure (Godly sure is somethng different) Is to translate it and copy it in the same spirit as it was written. Listen to The Holy Spirit. Revelation 2:7

Another point is; many translators put in the text words that are meant to help the reader understand the thought, because different languages put the text in unusual sequences. Other Bible translators put any words for explanation in brackets, to let the reader know that these words were not in the original text, but are needed for correct understanding of the message from God.

Who are you talking to? LOL

Now, God, Himself, promised

I think what you mean is it is what is written that God has promised*.

that His word will be protected from errors of every generation, Psalms 12:6,7, Isaiah 40:8, 1Peter 1:25,

Here's where it gets stupid. YOU say that God's word is God's words that men have accepted and written down. Please tell me why Psalms 12:6,7 Isaiah 40:8 and 1 Peter 1:25 does not mean God's promise of salvation as in "I give you my word", which means I can't take it back

so we KNOW the truth is there, we just have to search for it, as hidden treasure, Proverbs 2:1-9.

And who else does scripture say we must search for? Surely Jehovah knows what was actually written.
Do you understand? CAN you understand?

*keep this thought

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

J
Now, God, Himself, promised that His word will be protected from errors of every generation, Psalms 12:6,7, Isaiah 40:8, 1Peter 1:25, so we KNOW the truth is there, we just have to search for it, as hidden treasure, Proverbs 2:1-9.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Mestemia said: ↑What is interesting is that I have heard the exact same claim.
Except it was about the OT and NT:
the New Testament parallels the Old Testament in many ways as though someone who knew the Old Testament was writing fiction based on the Old Testament.

I believe a person can make that claim but I speaking as the Holy Spirit assert that it is not true

I am always amused and sometimes fearful when I hear such conclusions. We religious people especially Christians have another conclusion. The new testament tells of Jesus fulfilling old testament prophesy. Written before the fact.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Tell me what it is about.

Roger God bless you. Below is a cut and paste I hope it helps everyone.

Popular Myth
The "messianic prophecies" cited by Christians are in the past tense. Therefore they cannot refer to a future, coming Messiah.


Response
There is no such thing as "tense" in biblical Hebrew. (Modern Hebrew, on the other hand, does have tenses.) Biblical Hebrew is not a "tense" language. Modern grammarians recognize that it is an "aspectual" language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as either past, present, or future depending on the context and various grammatical cues. The most well known grammatical cue is the "vav-consecutive" that makes an imperfective verb to refer to the past. Therefore it is wrong to say that Isaiah 53 or other prophecies are in the "past tense." BIblical Hebrew has no tenses. There are many examples of what is wrongly called the "past tense" form (properly called "the perfective" or "perfect") being used for future time. This fact was recognized by the medieval commentators as well as by modern grammarians.

Proofs
Medieval Jewish grammarian and commentator David Kimchi on the prophets' use of the perfect for future events: "The matter is as clear as though it had already passed." -- David Kimchi, Sefer Mikhlol. Cited in Waltke, Bruce K. and O'Connor, Michael Patrick. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), p. 464 n. 45. They reference Leslie McCall, The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions From Ewald to the Present (Sheffield: Almond, 1982), p. 8.


God bless this forum~

 

[rosends]

Roger God bless you. Below is a cut and paste I hope it helps everyone.

Popular Myth
The "messianic prophecies" cited by Christians are in the past tense. Therefore they cannot refer to a future, coming Messiah.


Response
There is no such thing as "tense" in biblical Hebrew. (Modern Hebrew, on the other hand, does have tenses.) Biblical Hebrew is not a "tense" language. Modern grammarians recognize that it is an "aspectual" language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as either past, present, or future depending on the context and various grammatical cues. The most well known grammatical cue is the "vav-consecutive" that makes an imperfective verb to refer to the past. Therefore it is wrong to say that Isaiah 53 or other prophecies are in the "past tense." BIblical Hebrew has no tenses. There are many examples of what is wrongly called the "past tense" form (properly called "the perfective" or "perfect") being used for future time. This fact was recognized by the medieval commentators as well as by modern grammarians.

Proofs
Medieval Jewish grammarian and commentator David Kimchi on the prophets' use of the perfect for future events: "The matter is as clear as though it had already passed." -- David Kimchi, Sefer Mikhlol. Cited in Waltke, Bruce K. and O'Connor, Michael Patrick. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), p. 464 n. 45. They reference Leslie McCall, The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions From Ewald to the Present (Sheffield: Almond, 1982), p. 8.


God bless this forum~

Not only are there tenses in biblical Hebrew, but there are rules for knowing what tense is being used even when the grammatical for of the word seems to point in a different direction. The language has tenses, declensions, conjugations, affixes and all sorts of other neat stuff. In fact, the quote from Kimchi proves it. If there were no "tenses" then there could be no distinction made between constructions such as "perfect" and "future."

Instead of cutting and pasting, try learning and thinking for yourself.

Should I give you all sorts of verses which prove biblical tenses? You can start with Gen 1.1 -- Berei**** bara elokim... in the beginning God creatED. Past tense.
Gen 1.2 - V'ha'aretz hayta... and the land WAS. Past tense.

Any other claims about biblical Hebrew you would like to make?

 

[savagewind]

Am I to believe that there is no difference between what a person speaks and what a person promises? @12jtartar

Anything that does not lead to the fulfillment of God's promises needs to be fixed imho. I am not for elimination. I am not for disregarding the whole thing.
In fact, I am certain that to understand any particular word, all of scripture should be recognized. It is what 2 Timothy 3:16 means. But people should keep in mind who 2 Timothy 3:16 was addressed to (a natural Jew, as I understand it). I can't believe the writer ever meant any Greek scripture when he wrote that.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Not only are there tenses in biblical Hebrew, but there are rules for knowing what tense is being used even when the grammatical for of the word seems to point in a different direction. The language has tenses, declensions, conjugations, affixes and all sorts of other neat stuff. In fact, the quote from Kimchi proves it. If there were no "tenses" then there could be no distinction made between constructions such as "perfect" and "future."

First where did I say there are no tenses in biblical Hebrew?

Instead of cutting and pasting, try learning and thinking for yourself.

Lol! what a dumb remark! Well it was more of an ignorant remark than dumb. To clarify as not to violate this sites TOS, I was not saying you are dumb etc, rather your reply was. We all learn from others including the net. learned by way too much schooling and not enough reading as well as life experiences. I am still learning. BTW if you had read reply you would see I was posting that bit for EVERYONE. Remember this oldie? 'Your so vain you probably think this remark is about you don't you, don't you?' Anyway, all the personal BS aside a question, and this is a serious question. How pray tell did you learn, by osmosis?

Should I give you all sorts of verses which prove biblical tenses? You can start with Gen 1.1 -- Berei**** bara elokim... in the beginning God creatED. Past tense.Gen 1.2 - V'ha'aretz hayta... and the land WAS. Past tense.
Any other claims about biblical Hebrew you would like to make?

Again I didn't make any claims about biblical Hebrew, I provided a cut and paste as a resource. Forgive me if I do not acknowledge your self- appreciating opinion of yourself. You do seem knowable of the language but as a newbie I have a habit of checking every reference anyone makes in debate. As of now I am a more of a spectator than a participant. Oh, lastly I like Rogers style so far, and that was why I made the favorable remark.

God bless those that died at the hands of extremist Muslim terrorists, and to all that lost their lives and or were injured.

Genesis 1;
In the beginning ´Élöhîm אֱלֹהִים 430 created the heaven and the earth. Oops another C&P

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not only are there tenses in biblical Hebrew, but there are rules for knowing what tense is being used even when the grammatical for of the word seems to point in a different direction. The language has tenses, declensions, conjugations, affixes and all sorts of other neat stuff. In fact, the quote from Kimchi proves it. If there were no "tenses" then there could be no distinction made between constructions such as "perfect" and "future."

Instead of cutting and pasting, try learning and thinking for yourself.

Should I give you all sorts of verses which prove biblical tenses? You can start with Gen 1.1 -- Berei**** bara elokim... in the beginning God creatED. Past tense.
Gen 1.2 - V'ha'aretz hayta... and the land WAS. Past tense.

Any other claims about biblical Hebrew you would like to make?

FWIW: That is not how Rashi (and many, many others) would translate the opening verses of Brei****.

 

[rosends]

First where did I say there are no tenses in biblical Hebrew?

This sentence which you cut and pasted comes to mind, "There is no such thing as "tense" in biblical Hebrew."

How pray tell did you learn, by osmosis?

No, I read material and asked questions instead of parroting and reposting things I found.

Again I didn't make any claims about biblical Hebrew, I provided a cut and paste as a resource.

So you provide a resource without vetting the material therein? Got it.

I have a habit of checking every reference anyone makes in debate.

So you checked the facts in what you quoted?

Genesis 1;
In the beginning ´Élöhîm אֱלֹהִים 430 created the heaven and the earth. Oops another C&P

Yup, one using the past tense.

 

[rosends]

FWIW: That is not how Rashi (and many, many others) would translate the opening verses of Brei****.

Understood. I am sticking with the fact that a simple reading of verbs presents differences in time as represented structurally.

 

[Ingledsva]

...
Now, God, Himself, promised that His word will be protected from errors of every generation, Psalms 12:6,7, Isaiah 40:8, 1Peter 1:25, so we KNOW the truth is there, we just have to search for it, as hidden treasure, Proverbs 2:1-9.

All of those verses mean the actual word, not a written account.

*

 

[savagewind]

All of those verses mean the actual word, not a written account.

*

God bless you honey

 

[Muffled]

Dear muf,
1 Cor 7:25, "Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy" Even this is considered the word of God (spirit of Prophecy) by the followers of Paul. Of course nothing he spoke was of God, except his quotes from Scripture, like Satan quoting Scripture to Yeshua in the wilderness, Paul's own speaking was the tare seed of the "enemy" (Mt 13;25)

As for the "speaking" of Paul, he has "no dawn" (no light) according to Isaiah 8:20, for what he speaks is not according to the "law and the testimony". An example being Per Ez 8:20, "each dies for his own sins", which is not the "twinkling" that Paul teaches.

Yeshua was pretty specific on describing the false prophet in Mt 7: 15 & 22-23, which was pretty spot on with respect to Paul. That Paul means "little" and Yeshua described those who annul the least commandment of the law as being called "least" (Mt 5:19) which is the superlative of little, kind of calls Paul out.

I believe they would be in error because Paul clearly states that it is not.

I believe the same verse indicates that Paul believed other wise and the Paraclete agrees with Him. I believe people say "of course" when they can't prove their point.

I believe this is basically blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

All that comes from the mouth of God is law and testimony so he does indeed speak it.

I would be interested to see why you think so but Ezra is not quite correct, Jesus died for other people's sins.

I see no evidence that there is any validity to that at all.

I believe that is about as logical as saying I am the least in the Kingdom because I have a little finger. PS it also means humble which is considered a virtue.