Fixing the scripture ...

[Muffled]

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.

I believe you would be better off being convinced but I admit you probably don't have enough evidence yet to be in the choir.

I will buy this and provide evidence. The Book of Mormon was purported to have been written by scrying some undecipherable gold tablets but there was a Congregationalist who claimed that Smith stole the text of his fictional work. This leaves the origin as sketchy at best.

The NT was written by various authors claiming to either have witnessed events or to have interviewed witnesses. None of the authors claims to be writing fiction or to be basing their witness on past events. Sometimes an author will refer to OT events as being relevant to current events but not as a rehash with different names and places.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe there is a great big difference. The OT was prophecy of things people had not seen yet but the NT was the actual event that fulfilled the prophecy. If it were a rehash it would be exact but the fulfillment of prophecy rarely reflects the speculation about the prophecy.

 

[Katzpur]

The Book of Mormon was purported to have been written by scrying some undecipherable gold tablets but there was a Congregationalist who claimed that Smith stole the text of his fictional work. This leaves the origin as sketchy at best.

Wow, that's a new one. Tell me more. I'm all ears.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Unfounded claim. In fact, the preachers to the non-Jews, were in disagreement to some Jewish practices, they specified against them./ the practices,, They claimed to be 'correct'. You cannot claim to be correct, without divine Scripture/teaching.

 

[savagewind]

Unfounded claim. In fact, the preachers to the non-Jews, were in disagreement to some Jewish practices, they specified against them./ the practices,, They claimed to be 'correct'. You cannot claim to be correct, without divine Scripture/teaching.

Are you saying they can and I can't?

 

[Desert Snake]

Are you saying they can and I can't?

No, I'm inferring that one would not claim to be correct, without assuming ones teaching/Scripture to be divine. If it were not divine, then the teachings are not assumed to carry authority.

 

[savagewind]

No, I'm inferring that one would not claim to be correct, without assuming ones teaching/Scripture to be divine. If it were not divine, then the teachings are not assumed to carry authority.

Of course. LOL But, claiming that words are divine does not make them so.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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?

I was brought up on the KJV and the language make perfect sense to me.
The KJV was written to be read out loud in church, and was in the language of the day.
It was perfectly accurate in the sense of the poetry and meaning. It was never meant to be a word for word translation.
Nor indeed is its replacement, in today's language, the New revised Standard version.
Which is available in English and American editions.

The NRSV is under constant review as to linguistics and modern scholarship and discoveries.

The editors could simply have presented the earliest versions in their respective original languages.... but that would have been pretty useless to most people. who even if they could read the words, would not have been able to pick out the intended meanings from the ancient usages.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was brought up on the KJV and the language make perfect sense to me.

It makes sense to you because the KJV modifies 34:17 (34:18 in the Tanakh) to make it sensible. Note here how "The righteous" is written in italics.

It was perfectly accurate in the sense of the poetry and meaning. ...

Except when it wasn't.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It makes sense to you because the KJV modifies 34:17 (34:18 in the Tanakh) to make it sensible. Note here how "The righteous" is written in italics.


Except when it wasn't.

It makes sense to you because the KJV modifies 34:17 (34:18 in the Tanakh) to make it sensible. Note here how "The righteous" is written in italics.


Except when it wasn't.

I have an annotated version of the KJV and it gives no comment on this....

Psa 34:17

The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.


The NRSV shows in the English edition... ( note that there are no italics in this passage)

when the righteous cry for help, the
Lord hears,
and rescues them from all their
troubles.

The NRSV version was written with the help of Jewish scholars and linguists to reflect modern language. Nothing was altered simply to comply with Christian theology.

 

[savagewind]

Why do people defend other people instead of defending the truth?

GOD'S WORD® Translation
[Righteous people] cry out. The LORD hears and rescues them from all their troubles.

JPS Tanakh 1917
They cried, and the LORD heard, And delivered them out of all their troubles.

Darby Bible Translation
[The righteous] cry, and Jehovah heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.

http://biblehub.com/psalms/34-17.htm

Assuming is something I try not to do.

They have changed the truth to the lie. The lie is that the Lord will hear a righteous man's cry even though it is written that there is no one righteous.
The truth is imo that Psalms 34:17 means to cry out to The Lord is a righteous thing to do. How do I know this? Because God helps those crying out.

Well, here I go again. It looks like the literal translation isn't that the Lord makes escape for the righteous, though he does, but should read that if you should cry out to the Lord, the Lord will snatch away the adversary who is making you trouble.

Cry, Jehovah hears, whole adversary snatches away

God has done that for me, so I know.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have an annotated version of the KJV and it gives no comment on this....

Psa 34:17

The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.


The NRSV shows in the English edition... ( note that there are no italics in this passage)

when the righteous cry for help, the
Lord hears,
and rescues them from all their
troubles.

The NRSV version was written with the help of Jewish scholars and linguists to reflect modern language. Nothing was altered simply to comply with Christian theology.

See here and here, and then this followed by this. "The righteous" is a convenient fabrication.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

[QUOTE="Jayhawker Soule, post: 4825994, member: 264"scholarly ye and here, and then this followed by this. "The righteous" is a convenient fabrication.[/QUOTE]


I am quite happy to believe that there are competing scholarly interpretations of the text.
It seems to be a matter of linguistics rather than translation that is getting your knickers in a twist.
I am happy to go with either the Kjv and NRSV (english edition) as the both have the same meaning, given the changes in english during the interval between them.

 

[savagewind]

[QUOTE="Jayhawker Soule, post: 4825994, member: 264"scholarly ye and here, and then this followed by this. "The righteous" is a convenient fabrication.

I am quite happy to believe that there are competing scholarly interpretations of the text.
It seems to be a matter of linguistics rather than translation that is getting your knickers in a twist.
I am happy to go with either the Kjv and NRSV (english edition) as the both have the same meaning, given the changes in english during the interval between them.

He is saying that the adjective "righteous" has been added to the original. If the same Word says there is no one righteous, it means that Yahweh saves nobody.

Only the cry of the righteous ones God hears, but there are none who are righteous. Mark 10:18

 

[savagewind]

When Israel cried out to G-d did God move them away from their adversary or did God move their adversaries?

The word whole is important because the mind will play tricks on the imagination. I imagine my enemy is still here somewhat. No! God has moved them far, far away.

Where are they? They are not here. Not even one.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

[QUOTE="savagewind, post: 4826012, memold testament psalm with what was written He is saying the adjective "righteous" has been added to the original. If the same Word says there is no one righteous, it means that Yahweh saves nobody.

Only the cry of the righteous ones God hears, but there are none who are righteous. Mark 10:18[/QUOTE]

Do not confuse what is written in an old testament Psalm, with what is written by a gospel writer for a different audience.

Righteousnes is not an absolute.
As in, we are all sinners, but never the less are saved.
Salvation is not conditional. Nor is the measure of righteousness.

Righteousness has many subtleties of meaning.

 

[savagewind]

[QUOTE="savagewind, post: 4826012, memold testament psalm with what was written He is saying the adjective "righteous" has been added to the original. If the same Word says there is no one righteous, it means that Yahweh saves nobody.

Only the cry of the righteous ones God hears, but there are none who are righteous. Mark 10:18

Do not confuse what is written in an old testament Psalm, with what is written by a gospel writer for a different audience.

Righteousnes is not an absolute.
As in, we are all sinners, but never the less are saved.
Salvation is not conditional. Nor is the measure of righteousness.

Righteousness has many subtleties of meaning.

That is a different subject imo.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That is a different subject imo.

The word righteousness, its meaning and appropriateness in translating the poem, are central to the Op.... Matthew is not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[QUOTE="Jayhawker Soule, post: 4825994, member: 264"scholarly ye and here, and then this followed by this. "The righteous" is a convenient fabrication.

I am quite happy to believe that there are competing scholarly interpretations of the text.[/QUOTE]
At issue is what motivated the interpretation. I צעקו means "they cry out" ... period. Substituting "the righteous" for "they" was a case of 'fixing' the Torah.

 

[savagewind]

The word righteousness, its meaning and appropriateness in translating the poem, are central to the Op.... Matthew is not.

OK. Psalms 53:1