The Pope wants to change the Lord’s Prayer
ForumChristianity
Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.
1jwfarq
The Pope now wants to change the Lord’s Prayer. He says “lead us not into temptation” is not a good translation, because God does not lead humans to sin. The Pope does not know EVEning the mother of all living humans at the foot of the cross who leads us to darkness and temptation (Gen 3:20). The Pope wants to change the Bible (even the words from the mouth of Jesus) to agree with his dogma.
2Guanhumara
I wasn't aware that Jesus spoke English!
Where do you get the idea that ANY English words come "from the mouth of Jesus"? Jesus spoke Aramaic; the earliest written record we have is a translation of His words into Greek. "Lead us not into temptation" is an English translation of a Greek translation of the actual words of Jesus.
Recognising that a translation is flawed does not invalidate Scripture, it illuminates it.
Where do you get the idea that ANY English words come "from the mouth of Jesus"? Jesus spoke Aramaic; the earliest written record we have is a translation of His words into Greek. "Lead us not into temptation" is an English translation of a Greek translation of the actual words of Jesus.
Recognising that a translation is flawed does not invalidate Scripture, it illuminates it.
3John5918
I had never assumed that it implies leading people to temptation. I just assumed it was archaic English, effectively "lead us into not-temptation". As >2 Guanhumara: says, it is only a translation, and there are many different translations of the Bible in English and other languages. Indeed one article I read said this already doesn't have the same unclarity in certain languages (can't find it now).
4margd
One more way to trip up Protestants at RC weddings and funerals? I never liked the pause at the end of the Lord's Prayer--when finally there's a prayer they can join in--that the poor souls always fall into the trap with full-throated "For thine is the Kingdom...". :-)
5jwfarq
Ok. Guanhumara is correct--triple translation Aramaic to Latin to English for the Catholic Bible. But from the NPR report:
"The word in question is peirasmos from New Testament Greek which means both to tempt and to be tested," the Rev. Ian Paul told the newspaper. "So on one level the pope has a point. But he's also stepping into a theological debate about the nature of evil."
So what is the nature of evil? According to Isaiah 45:7 evil comes from God:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV, ASV, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible)
The problem is the Catholic Bible has translated evil out of the Bible by substituting the word "Woe." Modern Bibles have edited the word “evil” out of Isaiah 45:7. Instead “calamity” is substituted in the ESV, NASB, NKJV and WEB. The word “disaster” is substituted in the NIV. The word “woe” is substituted in the NRSV and Hebrew-English TANAKH JPS 1999.
So, I repeat. The Pope wants to change the Bible to agree with his man-made dogma.
"The word in question is peirasmos from New Testament Greek which means both to tempt and to be tested," the Rev. Ian Paul told the newspaper. "So on one level the pope has a point. But he's also stepping into a theological debate about the nature of evil."
So what is the nature of evil? According to Isaiah 45:7 evil comes from God:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV, ASV, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible)
The problem is the Catholic Bible has translated evil out of the Bible by substituting the word "Woe." Modern Bibles have edited the word “evil” out of Isaiah 45:7. Instead “calamity” is substituted in the ESV, NASB, NKJV and WEB. The word “disaster” is substituted in the NIV. The word “woe” is substituted in the NRSV and Hebrew-English TANAKH JPS 1999.
So, I repeat. The Pope wants to change the Bible to agree with his man-made dogma.
6jwfarq
I am one of those poor souls. All of sudden everybody in the pews turns around thinking "who dat?"
7margd
I am sure most of the RCs are rooting for you--that you not be led into temptation (of filling in that pause)! ;-) Maybe Francis could work with other religious leaders to make any more changes shared ones?
I get tripped up myself on small differences in Mass between Canada and the US--and more recent US changes, though they provided us with cue cards. After a year of "training wheels", I would still revert to old language when I thought I could finally go by memory alone :-)
I get tripped up myself on small differences in Mass between Canada and the US--and more recent US changes, though they provided us with cue cards. After a year of "training wheels", I would still revert to old language when I thought I could finally go by memory alone :-)
8Guanhumara
>5 jwfarq: triple translation Aramaic to Latin to English for the Catholic Bible
Quadruple actually. The Latin text of the Vulgate was not made from an Aramaic text - of which none were known to exist at that time - but from the Koine Greek text. But most modern Catholic editions of the Bible do not now work from the Vulgate alone, but also refer to the Septuagint. Current scholarship also takes into account the only known Aramaic texts - the Nag Hammadi scrolls.
So, by your logic, we should turn to the Nag Hammadi texts? Well, you can if you want, but you would end up with a very different 'Bible'. They include many writings not found elsewhere, some of which contradict Christianity as it is generally understood.
Christians are not Muslims. As such, we are taught that the contains God's message for mankind - not that it was divinely dictated verbatim by angel.
So all Christian teaching in that sense is "man-made" - including the text of the Bible - since it reaches us by a process of translation and transmission that is mediated by human beings. Whether they get this correct depends on both scholarship and openness to God's will.
What Isaiah 45:7 actually says is:
ἐγὼ ὁ κατασκευάσας φῶς καὶ ποιήσας σκότος, ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά· ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα πάντα.
(to quote the earliest available text) As you can see, it is not in Hebrew. It is a translation. Therefore it cannot literally be the words that Isaiah heard - it is a translation of them.
And to translate κακά as evil? Well, the word can mean that, certainly. But it has a much wider range of meanings than that. It is simply the opposite of "good things". And I don't just mean "good" in a moral sense. A farmer can have a "good crop" or a "bad crop", for example. And poor harvests are "bad things" i.e. κακά, but not "evil".
So the translator has to choose whether to interpret κακά as having a moral sense here, or not.
When, as a translator, you don't know which sense of a word was meant by the writer, you have to look at the sense of the sentence, and make a choice.
In older times, English use of the word "evil" was similarly wider. Someone might say "evil has befallen me", meaning "I have had a bad day". But nowadays, we only speak of evil in a moral sense, so a modern translator has to decide whether the modern, narrower sense of the word is applicable here.
That is why translations may have to change, as our language evolves. But it is us that is changing, the message remains the same.
Quadruple actually. The Latin text of the Vulgate was not made from an Aramaic text - of which none were known to exist at that time - but from the Koine Greek text. But most modern Catholic editions of the Bible do not now work from the Vulgate alone, but also refer to the Septuagint. Current scholarship also takes into account the only known Aramaic texts - the Nag Hammadi scrolls.
So, by your logic, we should turn to the Nag Hammadi texts? Well, you can if you want, but you would end up with a very different 'Bible'. They include many writings not found elsewhere, some of which contradict Christianity as it is generally understood.
Christians are not Muslims. As such, we are taught that the contains God's message for mankind - not that it was divinely dictated verbatim by angel.
So all Christian teaching in that sense is "man-made" - including the text of the Bible - since it reaches us by a process of translation and transmission that is mediated by human beings. Whether they get this correct depends on both scholarship and openness to God's will.
What Isaiah 45:7 actually says is:
ἐγὼ ὁ κατασκευάσας φῶς καὶ ποιήσας σκότος, ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά· ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα πάντα.
(to quote the earliest available text) As you can see, it is not in Hebrew. It is a translation. Therefore it cannot literally be the words that Isaiah heard - it is a translation of them.
And to translate κακά as evil? Well, the word can mean that, certainly. But it has a much wider range of meanings than that. It is simply the opposite of "good things". And I don't just mean "good" in a moral sense. A farmer can have a "good crop" or a "bad crop", for example. And poor harvests are "bad things" i.e. κακά, but not "evil".
So the translator has to choose whether to interpret κακά as having a moral sense here, or not.
When, as a translator, you don't know which sense of a word was meant by the writer, you have to look at the sense of the sentence, and make a choice.
In older times, English use of the word "evil" was similarly wider. Someone might say "evil has befallen me", meaning "I have had a bad day". But nowadays, we only speak of evil in a moral sense, so a modern translator has to decide whether the modern, narrower sense of the word is applicable here.
That is why translations may have to change, as our language evolves. But it is us that is changing, the message remains the same.
9John5918
>8 Guanhumara:
And to add to your excellent post, the bible did not create Christianity but Christianity created the bible. Although obviously the Old Testament texts pre-date Christianity and had already been collected and filtered by Judaism, nevertheless it was Christians who ultimately decided which OT texts should be in their canon of scripture. New Testament texts were written only after a nascent Christian community existed and, again, which Christian texts should be included and which not was decided by the Christian community. Inspired by God definitely, but not dictated verbatim by God and handed down complete. The strand of Christianity which is bible literalist often tends to forget this history.
And to add to your excellent post, the bible did not create Christianity but Christianity created the bible. Although obviously the Old Testament texts pre-date Christianity and had already been collected and filtered by Judaism, nevertheless it was Christians who ultimately decided which OT texts should be in their canon of scripture. New Testament texts were written only after a nascent Christian community existed and, again, which Christian texts should be included and which not was decided by the Christian community. Inspired by God definitely, but not dictated verbatim by God and handed down complete. The strand of Christianity which is bible literalist often tends to forget this history.
10jwfarq
>8 Guanhumara: Guanhumara: Quadruple the problem
I believe every additional language translation brings another level of subjective biased interpretation. For Isaiah 45:7 I purposely left out the (Hebrew-English Bible According to Masoretic Text JPS 1917 Edition) because it was too long to type. My bad. For any research on the Old Testament I always refer to the original source and language of the complete TANAKH.
From the Merriam Webster Dictionary
Definition of woe. 1 : a condition of deep suffering from misfortune, affliction, or grief. 2 : ruinous trouble : calamity, affliction. economic woes.
Definition of evil. a : morally reprehensible :sinful, wicked
Clearly there are two completely different meanings.
The Isaiah 45:7 word "evil" in Hebrew is רָע Its definition is (Adj = bad, evil, wicked. Noun = wrong, evil, wicked)
The word evil in the ASV Bible occurs hundreds of times. When evil is substituted with woe by the translators in Isaiah 45:7, do they also change the other hundreds of occurrences of evil too? NO! The changed Bible is then immediately inconsistent and subject to the wrath of God. The changed Bible is now corrupted and anyone who uses and believes the corruption is subject to the wrath of God. For example:
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'
The Gen 2:17 word "and evil" in Hebrew is וָרָע Its definition is (Adj = bad, evil, wicked. Noun = wrong, evil, wicked)
It does not say the tree of the knowledge of good and woe
I believe every additional language translation brings another level of subjective biased interpretation. For Isaiah 45:7 I purposely left out the (Hebrew-English Bible According to Masoretic Text JPS 1917 Edition) because it was too long to type. My bad. For any research on the Old Testament I always refer to the original source and language of the complete TANAKH.
From the Merriam Webster Dictionary
Definition of woe. 1 : a condition of deep suffering from misfortune, affliction, or grief. 2 : ruinous trouble : calamity, affliction. economic woes.
Definition of evil. a : morally reprehensible :sinful, wicked
Clearly there are two completely different meanings.
The Isaiah 45:7 word "evil" in Hebrew is רָע Its definition is (Adj = bad, evil, wicked. Noun = wrong, evil, wicked)
The word evil in the ASV Bible occurs hundreds of times. When evil is substituted with woe by the translators in Isaiah 45:7, do they also change the other hundreds of occurrences of evil too? NO! The changed Bible is then immediately inconsistent and subject to the wrath of God. The changed Bible is now corrupted and anyone who uses and believes the corruption is subject to the wrath of God. For example:
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'
The Gen 2:17 word "and evil" in Hebrew is וָרָע Its definition is (Adj = bad, evil, wicked. Noun = wrong, evil, wicked)
It does not say the tree of the knowledge of good and woe
11John5918
>10 jwfarq:
If there are hundreds of different instances of a word being used in the bible, why do you assume that in every one of those usages the word should be translated the same? Each of those usages has to be interpreted in the light of its own context, which may well be different.
If there are hundreds of different instances of a word being used in the bible, why do you assume that in every one of those usages the word should be translated the same? Each of those usages has to be interpreted in the light of its own context, which may well be different.
12Guanhumara
>10 jwfarq:, >11 John5918: Moreover, to use a modern dictionary, such as the Merriam Webster, to determine the usage of a word written in a text created in the 16th century, is invidious. If you look at a historical dictionary such as the Oxford English Dictionary (not any of its abbreviated forms), you will see that the range of possible meanings that a given word has, once you include senses now obsolete, is much greater.
It is because modern English, as defined my modern dictionaries, may not have the same understanding of the meaning of a word as it did in the 17th century, that a translation may no longer be accurate, and need revision. Otherwise it is modern understanding of word usage, as applied to a text written in the 17th century, that distorts the meaning of the text.
Your problem, jwfarq is the words which in English have two different meanings translate into the same Greek word, κακά. As your dictionary demonstrates, the Hebrew רָע has the same ambivalence, emcompassing both evil (moral wrong) and bad (something that is the opposite of good - not necessarily a moral assessment)
A "woe" in 17th century parlance was a bad event. What it means to a modern audience may be different - but that is why translations need to be revised regularly.
If you prefer to read your Scripture in the English of the 17th century, then you will need to refer to dictionaries contemporary with that.
Why do you prefer to consult the Masoretic text? As a version of the Old Testament assembled in the 7th-10th centuries C.E., it is rather a late version. I prefer to use a text assembled a thousand years earlier - the Septuagint - even if it is a Greek translation (made by Hebrew scholars before the time of Christ). Of course, it is unwise to blindly follow any one textual tradition. Where texts vary, it is essential to consult all variants before making a decision on interpretation.
It is because modern English, as defined my modern dictionaries, may not have the same understanding of the meaning of a word as it did in the 17th century, that a translation may no longer be accurate, and need revision. Otherwise it is modern understanding of word usage, as applied to a text written in the 17th century, that distorts the meaning of the text.
Your problem, jwfarq is the words which in English have two different meanings translate into the same Greek word, κακά. As your dictionary demonstrates, the Hebrew רָע has the same ambivalence, emcompassing both evil (moral wrong) and bad (something that is the opposite of good - not necessarily a moral assessment)
A "woe" in 17th century parlance was a bad event. What it means to a modern audience may be different - but that is why translations need to be revised regularly.
If you prefer to read your Scripture in the English of the 17th century, then you will need to refer to dictionaries contemporary with that.
Why do you prefer to consult the Masoretic text? As a version of the Old Testament assembled in the 7th-10th centuries C.E., it is rather a late version. I prefer to use a text assembled a thousand years earlier - the Septuagint - even if it is a Greek translation (made by Hebrew scholars before the time of Christ). Of course, it is unwise to blindly follow any one textual tradition. Where texts vary, it is essential to consult all variants before making a decision on interpretation.
13jwfarq
>11 John5918:
I do not assume anything. I believe that the Bible is the literal WORD of God as originally written in the original language. I do not have the divine authority to assume another meaning, or speculatively change the meaning of the word evil from one verse to another, to one chapter to another, to one book to another or from one testament to another for this reason:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you. (Deut 4:2, ASV)
Duet 4:2 is clear about this. Do these evil Bible publishers want to change that verse too?
I thought I made it pretty clear Evil is not woe, nor is it calamity. Its not even close.
The problem is consumerism. Jesus made it pretty clear what he felt about that when he ransacked the Jewish temple. After all who would buy a Bible that says God is evil? Comfort is the goal---not truth.
I do not assume anything. I believe that the Bible is the literal WORD of God as originally written in the original language. I do not have the divine authority to assume another meaning, or speculatively change the meaning of the word evil from one verse to another, to one chapter to another, to one book to another or from one testament to another for this reason:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you. (Deut 4:2, ASV)
Duet 4:2 is clear about this. Do these evil Bible publishers want to change that verse too?
I thought I made it pretty clear Evil is not woe, nor is it calamity. Its not even close.
The problem is consumerism. Jesus made it pretty clear what he felt about that when he ransacked the Jewish temple. After all who would buy a Bible that says God is evil? Comfort is the goal---not truth.
14Guanhumara
>13 jwfarq: I believe that the Bible is the literal WORD of God as originally written in the original language
What "original language"? No part of the Bible was written down at the time of the events that it records. The best we have is a record transmitted orally, then written down much later. And language evolves over time - so the words recorded by the Jewish scribes in the Babylonian court are not the actual words that were spoken by a Hebrew tribe in Sinai desert - Hebrew had changed in the interim, and has changed still further by the time of the writing of the Masoretic text that you prefer.
And by using a 20th century dictionary and trying to apply its definitions to a 17th century text, it is you who are adding to the words of the Bible meanings not present in the original text.
The English language changes. The content of the Bible does not. Its translation therefore has to change also, if its real meaning is not to be lost.
What "original language"? No part of the Bible was written down at the time of the events that it records. The best we have is a record transmitted orally, then written down much later. And language evolves over time - so the words recorded by the Jewish scribes in the Babylonian court are not the actual words that were spoken by a Hebrew tribe in Sinai desert - Hebrew had changed in the interim, and has changed still further by the time of the writing of the Masoretic text that you prefer.
And by using a 20th century dictionary and trying to apply its definitions to a 17th century text, it is you who are adding to the words of the Bible meanings not present in the original text.
The English language changes. The content of the Bible does not. Its translation therefore has to change also, if its real meaning is not to be lost.
15John5918
>13 jwfarq: I do not have the divine authority to assume another meaning, or speculatively change the meaning of the word evil
But you're missing the point. The word is not "evil"; the word is a Greek word which has more than one English meaning, only one of which is "evil". Why do you insist on choosing only that one? Note that the English translation of the bible, and particularly one single English translation made four hundred years ago, is not the definitive bible. Indeed there is no one single definitive bible as there are different versions even of some of the earliest existing texts.
But you're missing the point. The word is not "evil"; the word is a Greek word which has more than one English meaning, only one of which is "evil". Why do you insist on choosing only that one? Note that the English translation of the bible, and particularly one single English translation made four hundred years ago, is not the definitive bible. Indeed there is no one single definitive bible as there are different versions even of some of the earliest existing texts.
16jwfarq
>15 John5918:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you. (Deut 4:2, ASV)
The word diminish means to make or become less, reduce, lesson
In my mind it is clear that changing evil to woe makes the evil become less important. Also evil is a characteristic of an entity in this case God. Woe can not be be applied as a characteristic of a person or God.
This is an example of the corruptions I have observed. It is only the tip of the iceberg. I have made an extensive study on this. There are many reasons that the Bible ends with the cross of God's wrath. This is one of them.
I will leave you with this. Do you or Guanhumara believe that God does not have an evil characteristic?
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you. (Deut 4:2, ASV)
The word diminish means to make or become less, reduce, lesson
In my mind it is clear that changing evil to woe makes the evil become less important. Also evil is a characteristic of an entity in this case God. Woe can not be be applied as a characteristic of a person or God.
This is an example of the corruptions I have observed. It is only the tip of the iceberg. I have made an extensive study on this. There are many reasons that the Bible ends with the cross of God's wrath. This is one of them.
I will leave you with this. Do you or Guanhumara believe that God does not have an evil characteristic?
17John5918
>16 jwfarq:
Nobody is changing, reducing, lessening or diminishing the Greek word which has more than one meaning. The question is what does it mean in each modern language and in the context of each particular case where it is used.
Nobody is changing, reducing, lessening or diminishing the Greek word which has more than one meaning. The question is what does it mean in each modern language and in the context of each particular case where it is used.
18jwfarq
>16 jwfarq:
You didn't answer the question (yes or no)
Do you believe that God does not have an evil characteristic?
You didn't answer the question (yes or no)
Do you believe that God does not have an evil characteristic?
19John5918
>18 jwfarq:
After deciphering the double negative, I would say that in the Christian narrative God does not have an evil characteristic. God is good, God is unconditional love, etc.
After deciphering the double negative, I would say that in the Christian narrative God does not have an evil characteristic. God is good, God is unconditional love, etc.
20Guanhumara
>18 jwfarq: And I concur with @johnthefireman completely.
21jwfarq
>17 John5918:
Uh oh. My bad. I wasn't clear enough.
I did not ask you what the Christian mindset was. I already know what that is. I did not explain to the massive population what I explained to you. Ok? Here we go again without the double negative.
Do YOU believe that God has an evil characteristic?. Without the rhetoric please (yes or no)
Uh oh. My bad. I wasn't clear enough.
I did not ask you what the Christian mindset was. I already know what that is. I did not explain to the massive population what I explained to you. Ok? Here we go again without the double negative.
Do YOU believe that God has an evil characteristic?. Without the rhetoric please (yes or no)
23Lim_See_Min
Well, I'm bilingual and in my school, we have prayers every single week, alternating between the languages each week. Other than in English, we have it in Mandarin. The Mandarin version is "不要让我们陷入诱惑", which translates literally into "Do not let us fall into temptation".
Edit: 'we have prayers everyday'.
Not important whatsoever but I had edited the sentence structure once before posting, therefore making this error and I'd like to correct it.
Edit: 'we have prayers everyday'.
Not important whatsoever but I had edited the sentence structure once before posting, therefore making this error and I'd like to correct it.
24margd
Interesting review. Sounds like "The New Testament: A Translation" by David Bentley Hart (Yale U Press) would be a slow, hard read for us non-scholars!
A Mind-Bending Translation of the New Testament
James Parker Jan/Feb 2018 Issue
David Bentley Hart’s text recaptures the awkward, multivoiced power of the original.
...No committee prose here, no compromises or waterings-down: This is one man in grim submission to the kinks and quirks of the New Testament’s authors—to the neurology, as it were, of each book’s style—and making his own decisions...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/the-new-testament-a-transla...
A Mind-Bending Translation of the New Testament
James Parker Jan/Feb 2018 Issue
David Bentley Hart’s text recaptures the awkward, multivoiced power of the original.
...No committee prose here, no compromises or waterings-down: This is one man in grim submission to the kinks and quirks of the New Testament’s authors—to the neurology, as it were, of each book’s style—and making his own decisions...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/the-new-testament-a-transla...
25jwfarq
>22 John5918:
Thank you johnthefireman for your honest and direct answer. Congratulations. You and the Pope think alike. Who would have thunk?
When you remove the ability to create evil from God you remove his power. Who can fear a powerless God? When you remove His power, He is no longer a mighty God.
Can you SEE the "Lord God the Almighty Cross" that springs from four living creatures?
8. and the four living creatures, having each one of them six wings, are full of eyes round about and within: and they have no rest day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come. (Rev 4:8, ASV)
The foot is: Holy who was
Clockwise next is: Holy who is
At the top: Holy who is to come
The result on the right: Lord God the Almighty
I see the power of God as the wrath of God every day in the news when the worldwide disconnected cells of Jihad like ISIS, al qaede, the Teliban or Boko Haram rear there evil faces.
The Old and New Testament each create a cross numbered 114. Quanhumara mentioned the Nag Hammadi scrolls above. Do you know that the Gospel of Thomas has 114 sayings recited by Jesus that begins with a cross? Do you know that the Qu'ran recited by Muhammad has 114 chapters (Surahs) that ends with the same cross that begins the Bible?
Without knowledge humans are not qualified to change the Bible to suit themselves. Humans just piss off my God when they do this.
Thank you johnthefireman for your honest and direct answer. Congratulations. You and the Pope think alike. Who would have thunk?
When you remove the ability to create evil from God you remove his power. Who can fear a powerless God? When you remove His power, He is no longer a mighty God.
Can you SEE the "Lord God the Almighty Cross" that springs from four living creatures?
8. and the four living creatures, having each one of them six wings, are full of eyes round about and within: and they have no rest day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come. (Rev 4:8, ASV)
The foot is: Holy who was
Clockwise next is: Holy who is
At the top: Holy who is to come
The result on the right: Lord God the Almighty
I see the power of God as the wrath of God every day in the news when the worldwide disconnected cells of Jihad like ISIS, al qaede, the Teliban or Boko Haram rear there evil faces.
The Old and New Testament each create a cross numbered 114. Quanhumara mentioned the Nag Hammadi scrolls above. Do you know that the Gospel of Thomas has 114 sayings recited by Jesus that begins with a cross? Do you know that the Qu'ran recited by Muhammad has 114 chapters (Surahs) that ends with the same cross that begins the Bible?
Without knowledge humans are not qualified to change the Bible to suit themselves. Humans just piss off my God when they do this.
26John5918
>25 jwfarq: Who can fear a powerless God?
I don't believe God wants us to fear God. God is love.
I've always found The Window of Vulnerability by Dorothee Soelle to be a good introduction to the powerless God, but there are many others. I believe she is a Lutheran theologian rather than a Papist.
I don't believe God wants us to fear God. God is love.
I've always found The Window of Vulnerability by Dorothee Soelle to be a good introduction to the powerless God, but there are many others. I believe she is a Lutheran theologian rather than a Papist.
27MarthaJeanne
>25 jwfarq: You believe that only evil is powerful?
28jwfarq
>25 jwfarq:
No I do not believe that only evil is powerful. God gives us powerful knowledge about His love for us through the cross.
John 3:16 personifies the Bible in one singe-most important statement—the purpose of God portrayed by "God’s Purpose Cross."
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16, ASV)
1) The foot of the cross-----------For God so loved the world
2) Clockwise next-----------------that he gave his only begotten Son
3) On the top of the cross--------that whosoever believeth on him
4) The RESULT of the cross------ should not perish, but have ETERNAL LIFE.
Can you SEE the power of the cross?
But why does God love this world? The answer to this question is EVEning, the mother of all living humanity, is God’s first attribute and daughter on the foot of the cross. For this reason, God so loved the world. The world is part of God through EVEning, and God is part of the world through EVEning the mother of all living humans including the Son of Man. (Gen 3:20)
But don't forget the Most High Mother of the Son of God Holy Spirit of Light at the top.
Knowledge is power only if it leads you to your goal. Awaken Christians the time is near!
No I do not believe that only evil is powerful. God gives us powerful knowledge about His love for us through the cross.
John 3:16 personifies the Bible in one singe-most important statement—the purpose of God portrayed by "God’s Purpose Cross."
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16, ASV)
1) The foot of the cross-----------For God so loved the world
2) Clockwise next-----------------that he gave his only begotten Son
3) On the top of the cross--------that whosoever believeth on him
4) The RESULT of the cross------ should not perish, but have ETERNAL LIFE.
Can you SEE the power of the cross?
But why does God love this world? The answer to this question is EVEning, the mother of all living humanity, is God’s first attribute and daughter on the foot of the cross. For this reason, God so loved the world. The world is part of God through EVEning, and God is part of the world through EVEning the mother of all living humans including the Son of Man. (Gen 3:20)
But don't forget the Most High Mother of the Son of God Holy Spirit of Light at the top.
Knowledge is power only if it leads you to your goal. Awaken Christians the time is near!
29Guanhumara
>24 margd: That sounds excellent. It is taken for granted in normal translations that one must seek to capture not only the meaning but the register of the original text. When the text being translated was written by someone who was not fully literate in their native language, translators in earlier eras would "improve" on the original, and produce the most stylish version in their own language that they were capable of. But we recognise nowadays that to do so is an arrogant misrepresentation of the author's intent. But if you read the New Testament in Greek, the impression you get is very different from the mellifluous phrases of the RSV.
Two thousand years ago, Greek had the status that Latin had until about a hundred years ago i.e. it was the language in which the educated classes communicated learned treatises, wrote poetry etc. But the Gospels (except maybe that of John), are not written in that sort of Greek.
They are written in Koine, a form of Greek spoken only by non-native speakers as a lingua franca. It's the difference between literary English and the sort of English you find on the Internet, written by someone who is using their second or third language. (As someone who came to Koine after learning to read Classical Greek, I found it stylistically rather ugly!) It is simple, without rhetorical flourishes. Matthew's gospel has odd phrases sometimes, because he has translated an Aramaic idiom literally, when Greek doesn't use that concept.
I'd very much disagree that this is a book for scholars only; if David Bentley Hart has pulled it off, what you will get is the natural voices of the authors of the Books of the New Testament, rather than the rather uniform style of current translations.
For me, one of the compelling arguments for the truth of the gospel narratives is the style in which they are written. Someone constructing a Scripture would be likely to attempt a stylistically beautiful, polished composition. These were written by men for whom the message was evidently far more important than the medium.
Thank you for letting me know about this translation - I'll be looking out for it.
Two thousand years ago, Greek had the status that Latin had until about a hundred years ago i.e. it was the language in which the educated classes communicated learned treatises, wrote poetry etc. But the Gospels (except maybe that of John), are not written in that sort of Greek.
They are written in Koine, a form of Greek spoken only by non-native speakers as a lingua franca. It's the difference between literary English and the sort of English you find on the Internet, written by someone who is using their second or third language. (As someone who came to Koine after learning to read Classical Greek, I found it stylistically rather ugly!) It is simple, without rhetorical flourishes. Matthew's gospel has odd phrases sometimes, because he has translated an Aramaic idiom literally, when Greek doesn't use that concept.
I'd very much disagree that this is a book for scholars only; if David Bentley Hart has pulled it off, what you will get is the natural voices of the authors of the Books of the New Testament, rather than the rather uniform style of current translations.
For me, one of the compelling arguments for the truth of the gospel narratives is the style in which they are written. Someone constructing a Scripture would be likely to attempt a stylistically beautiful, polished composition. These were written by men for whom the message was evidently far more important than the medium.
Thank you for letting me know about this translation - I'll be looking out for it.
30Guanhumara
>23 Lim_See_Min: Thank you for that information. You confirm my impression that this problem of interpretation is an artifact of the English language, which does not necessarily arise in others.
The new translation into French is discussed here:
https://www.paris.catholique.fr/la-priere-du-seigneur-notre-pere.html
It is described as more accurate, truer, to better nourish the prayers of all.
Note that neither French version ever spoke of "leading into temptation".
The current version: do not let us enter into temptation
The older - again more ambiguous - do not submit us to temptation
That formulation encompasses possibilities both of deliberately exposing to temptation or simply not providing the shield which the prayer requests; to understand what is meant one needs to interpret the words in the light of Jesus' whole teaching.
The new translation into French is discussed here:
https://www.paris.catholique.fr/la-priere-du-seigneur-notre-pere.html
It is described as more accurate, truer, to better nourish the prayers of all.
Note that neither French version ever spoke of "leading into temptation".
The current version: do not let us enter into temptation
The older - again more ambiguous - do not submit us to temptation
That formulation encompasses possibilities both of deliberately exposing to temptation or simply not providing the shield which the prayer requests; to understand what is meant one needs to interpret the words in the light of Jesus' whole teaching.
31jwfarq
>26 John5918:
I looked up The Window of Vulnerability by Dorothee Soelle as you suggested. I checked for possible reviews. Their was only one--yours. You said "I believe she is a Lutheran theologian." What I understand about the Lutheran theology is that the theology of the cross comes from Martin Luther. I guess that is why you suggested it. thank you.
I looked up The Window of Vulnerability by Dorothee Soelle as you suggested. I checked for possible reviews. Their was only one--yours. You said "I believe she is a Lutheran theologian." What I understand about the Lutheran theology is that the theology of the cross comes from Martin Luther. I guess that is why you suggested it. thank you.
32jwfarq
>24 margd:
I notice that Hart does not refer to the Text from the Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. At least he doesn't list it in the Introduction under Remarks on the Greek Text.
I extensively use the Tischendorf text, since it is the only text that has lain undisturbed for thousands of years. Hidden in an Egyptian Monastery it was protected from human change until found by Tischendorf.
I also noticed in Hart's Lord's Prayer that it is like the standard version, where bring us is like lead us. Actually bring us is stronger that lead us.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. (Mat 6:13, ASV)
And do not bring us to trial, but rescue us from him who is wicked, (Mat 6:13, Hart)
This is the phrase that the Pope wants to change.
I also like Hart's inclusion of the Doxology Cross, since everything important to God must make passage through the cross.
I notice that Hart does not refer to the Text from the Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. At least he doesn't list it in the Introduction under Remarks on the Greek Text.
I extensively use the Tischendorf text, since it is the only text that has lain undisturbed for thousands of years. Hidden in an Egyptian Monastery it was protected from human change until found by Tischendorf.
I also noticed in Hart's Lord's Prayer that it is like the standard version, where bring us is like lead us. Actually bring us is stronger that lead us.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. (Mat 6:13, ASV)
And do not bring us to trial, but rescue us from him who is wicked, (Mat 6:13, Hart)
This is the phrase that the Pope wants to change.
I also like Hart's inclusion of the Doxology Cross, since everything important to God must make passage through the cross.
33MMcM
>32 jwfarq:
Well, that section of Hart's Introduction does explain how he worked primarily from the Critical Text. As a modern translator without an axe to grind well might. And moreover checked editions from early Hort and Wescott's through to the latest Nestle-Aland and UBS. Those will note differences in the Codex Sinaiticus with a big T. He further says that he noted major variants and those from the Majority Text in his own notes.
Well, that section of Hart's Introduction does explain how he worked primarily from the Critical Text. As a modern translator without an axe to grind well might. And moreover checked editions from early Hort and Wescott's through to the latest Nestle-Aland and UBS. Those will note differences in the Codex Sinaiticus with a big T. He further says that he noted major variants and those from the Majority Text in his own notes.
34jwfarq
>33 MMcM:
That is the problem. There are variations between the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text and the others that you mentioned. For Hart to pick and choose which one to use requires divine knowledge; not speculation. I can see that Hart does not understand the Creation, nor does he know the likeness and/or image of God, or what the numbers in the Bible mean, or most of all, the authority of the cross.
Although he does use amen, amen for John 1:51 and probably the other 24 double witnesses from the Son of Man and the Son of God, he explodes the beginning of John by eliminating "Word" and substituting "logos." Most important he completely eliminates the 4-word cross that begins John. An abomination.
I use the Tischendorf because it is a snapshot in time that eluded the subjective dirty hands of interpreters and copy makers that distort Bibles. These are the ones who want to change the Lord's Prayer, or change Isaiah 45:7 to read "woe" instead of evil, but do not change any of the other hundreds of occurrences.
(Tischendorf, who spent his career at the University of Leipzig, travelled extensively in search of lost and forgotten manuscripts of the Bible. His deep religious commitments drove him to search for the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Bible. It was on such an expedition that Tischendorf succeeded in finding the oldest complete copy of the New Testament: Codex Sinaiticus, which dates to the mid-fourth century C.E. -www.biblicalarchaeology.org )
That is the problem. There are variations between the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text and the others that you mentioned. For Hart to pick and choose which one to use requires divine knowledge; not speculation. I can see that Hart does not understand the Creation, nor does he know the likeness and/or image of God, or what the numbers in the Bible mean, or most of all, the authority of the cross.
Although he does use amen, amen for John 1:51 and probably the other 24 double witnesses from the Son of Man and the Son of God, he explodes the beginning of John by eliminating "Word" and substituting "logos." Most important he completely eliminates the 4-word cross that begins John. An abomination.
I use the Tischendorf because it is a snapshot in time that eluded the subjective dirty hands of interpreters and copy makers that distort Bibles. These are the ones who want to change the Lord's Prayer, or change Isaiah 45:7 to read "woe" instead of evil, but do not change any of the other hundreds of occurrences.
(Tischendorf, who spent his career at the University of Leipzig, travelled extensively in search of lost and forgotten manuscripts of the Bible. His deep religious commitments drove him to search for the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Bible. It was on such an expedition that Tischendorf succeeded in finding the oldest complete copy of the New Testament: Codex Sinaiticus, which dates to the mid-fourth century C.E. -www.biblicalarchaeology.org )
35MMcM
Assuming one takes a humanist position like John outlines above, and not hard-core Manichaeism where itacism betrays malevolent forces, then why ignore a hundred and fifty years of textual criticism? As regards the PN in particular, which is problematic in a number of ways beyond just the doxology, why not look even to the Diatessaron, which is (ultimately) older than א, or to variants in the Peshitta? Don't they suggest what was going on even before your snapshot was taken?
And elsewhere, doesn't the LXX tell us something when compared to the Masoretic?
And elsewhere, doesn't the LXX tell us something when compared to the Masoretic?
36jwfarq
>35 MMcM:
"Why ignore a hundred and fifty years of textual criticism" is because the many who criticize do not understand the authority of the cross. All things important to God must make passage through the cross like unto the Tree of Life Cross. The critics do not understand the Creation, nor do they know the likeness and/or image of God, or what the numbers in the Bible mean, or most of all, the authority of the cross.
Can you SEE the Bible's first sentence cross that includes the Manichaeism dualistic view between light and darkness, where the spiritual heavens is light and the physical earth is darkness?
(1) In the beginning (2) God created the (3) heavens and the (4) earth. (Gen 1:1, ASV)
Foot………………Earth (darkness) (Physical realm)
Next clockwise……God created
Top………………. Heavens (Light) (Spiritual realm)
Next………………In the beginning (Time realm)
Just as the cross begins the Beginning of the Bible the New Testament must also begin with the Four Gospel's Cross of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Although the Diatessaron is also called "Harmony of Four" it competed with Irenaeus' four Gospels, which won out because the Bible is inspired by God, not by the agenda of unauthorized critics. Would the Pope replace the four Gospels with the Diatessaron because it is shorter and more efficient?
"Why ignore a hundred and fifty years of textual criticism" is because the many who criticize do not understand the authority of the cross. All things important to God must make passage through the cross like unto the Tree of Life Cross. The critics do not understand the Creation, nor do they know the likeness and/or image of God, or what the numbers in the Bible mean, or most of all, the authority of the cross.
Can you SEE the Bible's first sentence cross that includes the Manichaeism dualistic view between light and darkness, where the spiritual heavens is light and the physical earth is darkness?
(1) In the beginning (2) God created the (3) heavens and the (4) earth. (Gen 1:1, ASV)
Foot………………Earth (darkness) (Physical realm)
Next clockwise……God created
Top………………. Heavens (Light) (Spiritual realm)
Next………………In the beginning (Time realm)
Just as the cross begins the Beginning of the Bible the New Testament must also begin with the Four Gospel's Cross of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Although the Diatessaron is also called "Harmony of Four" it competed with Irenaeus' four Gospels, which won out because the Bible is inspired by God, not by the agenda of unauthorized critics. Would the Pope replace the four Gospels with the Diatessaron because it is shorter and more efficient?
37Perrero
>13 jwfarq:
I think your problem here is that you are focusing on words instead of focusing on God and context.
God is loving and good and in Him there is no evil. that is because evil is the absence of good. Just like darkness is the absence of light or cold is the absence of heat.
God cannot be both be good and evil, nor can he create evil. This is contrary to James 3:11; "Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?"
God does not create evil, much less, can He even tempt.
And so the word translation to mean evil is mistaken and should have been translated within the context of the verse itself which contrasts light & darkness as opposites thus allowing the words calamity, woe or even chaos as correct opposite translations to the word peace.
And since we don't know specifically if it is "peace of mind", "peace on earth", peace as a truce etc., we translate it as peace in general, which would have no moral connotation to it, and would be better translate by calamity, chaos or woe.
I think your problem here is that you are focusing on words instead of focusing on God and context.
God is loving and good and in Him there is no evil. that is because evil is the absence of good. Just like darkness is the absence of light or cold is the absence of heat.
God cannot be both be good and evil, nor can he create evil. This is contrary to James 3:11; "Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?"
God does not create evil, much less, can He even tempt.
And so the word translation to mean evil is mistaken and should have been translated within the context of the verse itself which contrasts light & darkness as opposites thus allowing the words calamity, woe or even chaos as correct opposite translations to the word peace.
And since we don't know specifically if it is "peace of mind", "peace on earth", peace as a truce etc., we translate it as peace in general, which would have no moral connotation to it, and would be better translate by calamity, chaos or woe.
38Igor-Evgen
jwfarg:
Saying - “lead us not into temptation” is not a good translation, because God does not lead humans to sin - he is right.
Please explain our words - The Pope does not know EVEning the mother of all living humans at the foot of the cross who leads us to darkness and temptation.
The same can be said about the last phrase of your post.
Igor Evgen
Saying - “lead us not into temptation” is not a good translation, because God does not lead humans to sin - he is right.
Please explain our words - The Pope does not know EVEning the mother of all living humans at the foot of the cross who leads us to darkness and temptation.
The same can be said about the last phrase of your post.
Igor Evgen
