Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reading versus that I knew my whole life from a fundamentalist perspective, and seeing them now in a completely new light from a historical perspective.
The sociology of the historical bible is much more interesting than theology of the fundamentalist bible.
Exactly! You nor I no longer have any bias stating the bible is the "infallible word of god and is thus, perfect from cover to cover" so we can let go and appreciate the literature for what it is and AS IS. Eusebius will NOT allow himself to get to that point. The entire bible and, it appears, the entire biblical world HAS to fit within the narrow confines of his limited religious worldview or else...
I understand though, I was once right where he is right now.
Originally Posted by Eusebius I believe Christ died for my sins and am proud of Him.
I think it is germain to the topic.
Quote:
Why?
Maybe it would show something about the way you are posting.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius Do you believe Christ died for your sins?
Just a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. No testimony need be given.
It is about Christ:
Psa 45:6 Your throne, O Elohim, is for the eon and further; A scepter of equity is the scepter of Your kingdom."
Quote:
Nope. Read the first verse of the chapter: "I speak of things concerning the king." The entire psalm is praise of the Israelite king. Kings were frequently conceived of as deities in the ancient Near East, including Israel. In this verse, the king is being addressed with the vocative "O god." It was not until the Greco-Roman period that it was read messianically. Additionally, there is no reason to avoid translating elohim as "god." It is not a tricky word. It is a quite simple equivalence. "Eon" is also not a good translation of עולם, nor does מישר mean "equity." Honestly, this translation you keep quoting is quite deficient.
The king is Jesus.
Eon is a perfect translation of OLAM. The LXX translated OLAM as AIWN in that verse. Good enough for me. The Bible says all the eons end. So when the Lord returns His rule will be for the eon (millennial reign) and further (New Earth eon).
David would never consider himself ELOHIM (God). David did not say in that psalm: "My throne as Elohim is for the eon," though he would consider himself a son of God or "God's son" showing the genitive, if you will, and thus a lower case "elohim."
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius Heb 1:8 Yet to the Son . . . ."
Quote:
But Deut 32:43 does not refer to "the Son," it refers to Yhwh. The entire hymn is about Israel being Yhwh's people. The author of Hebrews misreads the text, as he does with Psalm 45.
No he doesn't misread the text and it does refer to Jesus.
You are confusing. I thought we were talking about Psalm 110 and Psa. 46:6. Here is Deut.32:43:
Be Jubilant, heavens,together with Him,
And worship Him, all the messengers of Elohim!
Be jubilant, nations, with His people!
For the blood of His servants shall He avenge,
Vengeance to His foes shall He return, And a propitiatory shelter shall He make for the ground
of His people.
Exactly! You nor I no longer have any bias stating the bible is the "infallible word of god and is thus, perfect from cover to cover" so we can let go and appreciate the literature for what it is and AS IS. Eusebius will NOT allow himself to get to that point. The entire bible and, it appears, the entire biblical world HAS to fit within the narrow confines of his limited religious worldview or else...
I understand though, I was once right where he is right now.
I said the Bible has scribal errors. PLEASE Insane, quit with the crap about what I would or would not allow!
Maybe it would show something about the way you are posting.
The king is Jesus.
Now you're just asserting things you cannot even begin to support. Every indication is that the king refers to an Israelite king. Not a word of it points to Jesus, but directly away from him. Are you just going to insist it's all figurative where it seems to point to someone else? What kind of exegesis is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Eon is a perfect translation of OLAM. The LXX translated OLAM as AIWN in that verse. Good enough for me.
So you're not translating the Hebrew, but the Greek? Why not follow the Septuagint elsewhere? Why ignore it in Psalm 82:1, where it renders "council of the gods"? Not good enough for you there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The Bible says all the eons end. So when the Lord returns His rule will be for the eon (millennial reign) and further (New Earth eon).
David would never consider himself ELOHIM (God).
Now you're speaking on behalf of David? Moses called himself elohim (if you believe he composed Exod 7:1). Why not David?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
David did not say in that psalm: "My throne as Elohim is for the eon," though he would consider himself a son of God or "God's son" showing the genitive, if you will, and thus a lower case "elohim."
So you think Ps 45:5 is not elohim, but ELOHIM? Pray tell, what in the Hebrew gives that away?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
No he doesn't misread the text and it does refer to Jesus.
Can you give me a reason?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
You are confusing. I thought we were talking about Psalm 110 and Psa. 46:6. Here is Deut.32:43:
Be Jubilant, heavens,together with Him,
And worship Him, all the messengers of Elohim!
Be jubilant, nations, with His people!
For the blood of His servants shall He avenge,
Vengeance to His foes shall He return, And a propitiatory shelter shall He make for the ground
of His people.
We're talking about how the New Testament misreads the messiah into the Old Testament. I've already addressed how misleading and incorrect that translation of Deut 32:43 is, by the way.
05-15-2012, 12:59 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
4QDeutj: "
Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and bow down to him all you gods ('lym), for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will recompense those who hate him, and will atone for the land of his people".
LXX: "O heavens, rejoice with him, bow to him, all sons of God. O nations, rejoice with his people and let all the angels of God strengthen themselves in him. For he will avenge the blood of his sons. Be vengeful and render vengeance and recompense justice on his enemies, and recompense those who hate him, and the Lord will cleanse the land of his people".
MT: "Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will atone for the land of his people".
Does anyone see some airbrushing going on here?
Yeap! Along with Deut.32:8-9 these 'scribal errors' sure show-up around the most critical theological texts. The Razor of Occam is becoming rusty.
bla bla bla. Matthew's account would not quote verses relating to Jesus if they weren't. Why would they risk losing their believability among their countrymen by misquoting scripture? They wouldn't and didn't.
Those of their countrymen who spoke Greek were the scholars and the aristocracy. The common people who were supposed to read, or listen to somebody reading, the gospels did not speak Greek.
What evidence do you have to support the assertion that Matthew or any other of the gospel writers were speaking the language of Jesus?
I said the Bible has scribal errors. PLEASE Insane, quit with the crap about what I would or would not allow!
I never saw this in this thread. I may have missed it or missed it elsewhere where you may have said it.
In any event, this is NOT so much about scribal error as much as scribal intent with bias, well, at least when the comparisons are made between the DSS, LXX and MS/KJV on Deuteronomy 32:8-9, for example. You admit and accept scribal errors but refuse to grasp theological interpretations that do not fit into your worldview, seemingly for spite.
Finally, there is no need for you to start getting snarky and condescending. Despite the differences here, I think we can debate in peace as i am sure others are watching on and learning a great deal. I sure am.
Actually Moses didn't call himself elohim. God appointed him AS Elohim.
And if you'll look closer you see that I wrote parenthetically, "if you believe he composed Exod 7:1." If he is the one wrote that verse, he absolutely did call himself elohim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
(CLV) Yahweh said to Moses: See, I appoint you as Elohim to Pharaoh; and
Aaron, your brother, shall come to be your prophet.
And it was only AS Elohim To Pharaoh.
The word "as" does not appear anywhere in the Hebrew. It literally reads, "I have made you a god" (נתתיך*אלהים). Compare the sense of נתן here to the same usage in Gen 17:5:
Quote:
I have made you a father of many nations.
Your translation misinterprets it in an effort to hide from the problematic theology of what the Hebrew actually says. This betrays its tendentiousness and also shows it's perfectly happy to violate its own translation principles when it serves its theological sensitivities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
I never said anything about Psalm 45:5.
Excuse me, 45:6. Certainly you knew that was just a typo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
