Christian apologists twist Old Testament scriptures to point them to Jesus (pastor, devil)
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.
It is FINISHED, RESTORED, and FULFILLED through Jesus Christ because it was and is all about him.
Jesus is the law and the prophets, even the names of the prophets are about him.
He is the circumcision, the Passover, the snake in the dessert, the Rock in the desert, the bread from heaven, the crossing of the Jordan, the special diet, the special clothes, the Temple he is the Israel of God's heart, the promised land, the city in heaven, all the special days were about him.
He is the snake in the garden? He is the golden calf? He is Pharaoh? He is the Amalekites who preyed on the old and weary? He is Kozbi and Zimri? Datan and Aviram? He is the walls of Jericho or the corpulent Eglon, king of Moav? He is Jezebel? The Philistines?
I mean...the whole Bible is about Jesus, so, um...yeah.
The question remains however the reason for the Jewish refined remnant's arriving to the place of lovingly calling the " The LORD is my God" cannot be the identical reason that the gentile nations of the world lovingly, willingly & uncoerced "worship the King" ?
If you unerstand that particular verse to be about Jews then why also ask if the language applies to the other nations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJFRudsill
So what is it that causes the same love for God of these gentiles to arise in such a compressed period of time in comparison?
Actually, the commentator Rashi sees this not about Jews but about converts:
"From there they shall be tested [as to] whether [or not] they are true proselytes. Then, many of those who previously converted to Judaism shall return to their pre- conversion customs and join Gog."
So the time isn't really compressed as their conversion and testing are not immediately subsequent.
The problem is the writers of the NT used the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew texts. I believe the Greek says 'pierced', so it may have nothing to do with preference or direct mistranslations.
But then the question remains why a Greek word that means "pierced" is used for a Hebrew word that, in other cases, calls forth a different Greek word. Clearly, at issue is the creation of the Greek text and the agenda which drove those decisions.
But then the question remains why a Greek word that means "pierced" is used for a Hebrew word that, in other cases, calls forth a different Greek word. Clearly, at issue is the creation of the Greek text and the agenda which drove those decisions.
That begs the same question just about different people. But even that is subject to qualification. According to Tov, E. (2001). Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: Augsberg Fortress,
"[The Septuagint] also contains revisions (recensions) of original translations. These revisions were made from the first century BCE onwards until the beginning of the second century CE." (pp. 136–137)
so it would be tough to know if this particular word choice was part of the early translations or is the result of later editors and revisers.
That begs the same question just about different people. But even that is subject to qualification. According to Tov, E. (2001). Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: Augsberg Fortress,
"[The Septuagint] also contains revisions (recensions) of original translations. These revisions were made from the first century BCE onwards until the beginning of the second century CE." (pp. 136–137)
so it would be tough to know if this particular word choice was part of the early translations or is the result of later editors and revisers.
However, the Masoretic Text which was compiled between the 7th and 10th centuries AD is itself a revision and standardization of earlier Hebrew Texts. We do not know what the original Hebrew text actually said. Differences between the Dead Sea scrolls indicate that different versions of the Hebrew texts existed during the Second Temple Period. There are instances in which the Septuagint and Dead Sea scrolls agree with each other against the Masoretic Text.
The Talmud and Karaite manuscripts[⁸] state that a standard copy of the Hebrew Bible was kept in the court of the Temple in Jerusalem for the benefit of copyists; there were paid correctors of biblical books among the officers of the Temple (Talmud, tractate Ketubot 106a).[⁹] This copy is mentioned in the Letter of Aristeas (§ 30; comp. Blau, Studien zum Althebr. Buchwesen, p. 100), in the statements of Philo (preamble to his "Analysis of the Political Constitution of the Jews"), and in Josephus (Contra Ap. i. 8).[⁸][⁹]
A Talmudic story, perhaps referring to an earlier time, relates that three Torah scrolls were found in the Temple court but were at variance with each other. The differences between the three were then resolved by majority decision.[10]
So, when the Masoretes were faced with different Hebrew texts they resolved the issue with a vote. So what actually was the original Hebrew text? No one knows.
So, when the Masoretes were faced with different Hebrew texts they resolved the issue with a vote. So what actually was the original Hebrew text? No one knows.
And of course the vote was influenced by their anti-Christ ideology.
And many of us choose not to be a member of that ministry.
I understand that, but at least let someone with knowledge and understanding explain the Bible to you and what it means. You are not going to get that knowledge from anyone in a denomination because all I have investigated all teach falseness.
Their pastors teach them the way NOT to get understanding by going against the very way to get it, which is by obedience. They falsely teach faith alone.
He is the snake in the garden? He is the golden calf? He is Pharaoh? He is the Amalekites who preyed on the old and weary? He is Kozbi and Zimri? Datan and Aviram? He is the walls of Jericho or the corpulent Eglon, king of Moav? He is Jezebel? The Philistines?
I mean...the whole Bible is about Jesus, so, um...yeah.
He isn't evil things.
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.
