Mark 16:

[D-35]

Originally Posted by mAlice

Um...the signature doesn't change with every post.

"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock," (Psalm 137:9).
Critics often bring up this verse as an attack on the validity of the Bible. But, does the Bible teach that it is okay to kill children? The answer, of course, is no it doesn't. But we must ask what the Psalmist was saying and why he was saying it.
The context of Psalm 137 is the Babylonian captivity. The Psalmist speaks of the captors tormenting the people of God (vv. 1-3), a promise to remember Jerusalem (vv. 5-6), and a curse against the captors (vv. 7-9).
The Psalmist is in exile and had probably witnessed the atrocities committed against his people, babies included. In the revenge-style that was so common at the time, he wishes the same upon his enemy as a description of their utter destruction. Nowhere does it say that God approves of the Psalmist’s request or that he fulfilled it. Just because it is recorded that the Psalmist wrote the imprecation, doesn’t mean it was approved by God.
It is worth noting that the Old Testament records many atrocities. The fact is that God allowed people their sinful desires and he worked within their culture, even as he does now, as he permits all kinds of bad things to happen. Nevertheless, God introduced what is called the Apoditic Law (Exodus 21:24): an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The Apoditic Law was instituted to prevent the increase of blood revenge, a practice where revenge would escalate out of control between two parties. Since the hearts of the fallen are so wicked and the harsh environment and culture produced difficulties for survival, God has a few options to counter their proclivity towards evil. He can run roughshod over their free will and force everyone to obey him, or he could wipe them all out (he had already done this with Noah's flood), or he could work within the situation at hand. In the case of this psalm, and it's Babylonian captivity context, God chose to work with people and through them instead of violating the freedom he had given them and forcing them to act in a manner that he instructs. Therefore, the Psalmist is expressing his curse against Babylon, a natural response to what his people have already suffered.
Also, the critics need to provide an acceptable, objective moral standard by which they can criticize biblical morality. It is one thing to complain. It is another to offer a justification for the validity of the complaint. By what right and by what objective ethical standard do the critics offer moral condemnation against Biblical morals? This is a serious question that if not answered by the critics, renders the critics’ complaints moot. After all, you must first have a standard against which to measure good and bad and without a standard, no complaints can be legitimately offered.


;

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by D-35

"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock," (Psalm 137:9).
Just because it is recorded that the Psalmist wrote the imprecation, doesn’t mean it was approved by God.

So just because it's written doesn't mean it happened, or is the word of God?? Interesting take on the Bible..

Originally Posted by D-35

This is a serious question that if not answered by the critics, renders the critics’ complaints moot. After all, you must first have a standard against which to measure good and bad and without a standard, no complaints can be legitimately offered.

That's That's circuitous logic..

So if the Bible is bad, and the morals in the Bible are corrupt where do you suggest someone look to find out what good uncorrupt morals are? The BIBLE??

[foodcritic]

Originally Posted by itsbob

So just because it's written doesn't mean it happened, or is the word of God?? Interesting take on the Bible..



That's That's circuitous logic..

So if the Bible is bad, and the morals in the Bible are corrupt where do you suggest someone look to find out what good uncorrupt morals are? The BIBLE??

Try reading in context.

[D-35]

[QUOTE=itsbob;4129901]So just because it's written doesn't mean it happened, or is the word of God?? Interesting take on the Bible..



That's That's circuitous logic..

So if the Bible is bad, and the morals in the Bible are corrupt where do you suggest someone look to find out what good uncorrupt morals are? The BIBLE?


I never said that the Bible was "bad". So just where did you dig that one up, Ace?

[Penn]

[quote=D-35;4129925]

Originally Posted by itsbob

So just because it's written doesn't mean it happened, or is the word of God?? Interesting take on the Bible..



That's That's circuitous logic..

So if the Bible is bad, and the morals in the Bible are corrupt where do you suggest someone look to find out what good uncorrupt morals are? The BIBLE?


I never said that the Bible was "bad". So just where did you dig that one up, Ace?

Just as Jesus told His followers - elsewheres in the Gospels, to wit: "There are those amongst you that have eyes, but cannot see, there are those as well who have ears, but cannot hear."

Pretty much sums it all up, hmmmm....

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by Zguy28

from John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

They shall take up serpents,.... The Arabic version adds, "in their own hands"; and in an ancient manuscript of Beza's it is read, "in the hands"; so the Apostle Paul had a viper, which fastened and hung on his hand, which he shook off, without receiving any harm from it, Act_28:3.

And if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; not that they were hereby warranted to drink poison, to show what power they had; but should they accidentally drink it, or rather should they be forced to it by their enemies in order to destroy them, they should find no hurt by it: and Papias (x) reports of Barsabas, surnamed Justus, who was put up with Matthias for the apostleship, Act_1:23, that he drank a poisonous draught, and by the grace of the Lord, received no hurt: and the Jews themselves report (y), that

"a son of R. Joshua ben Levi, swallowed something hurtful; and one came and whispered to him in the name of Jesus, the son of Pandira (so they call our Lord), and he did well.''

It follows,

and they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover; as the Apostle Paul did on the father of Publius, who was thereby healed of a fever, and a bloody flux, and also others, Act_28:8; nay, some were healed by the shadow of Peter, Act_5:15, and others, by handkerchiefs and aprons taken from the body of Paul, Act_19:12. The Persic version adds, without any authority, "whatsoever ye ask in my name, shall be given unto you".

(x) Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 39. (y) T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 14. 4. & Avoda Zara, fol. 40. 4. & Midrash Kobelet, fol. 81. 1.

Thats cute, really it is, but you dont read the Arabic version nor the Jewish version (if you didnt you wouldnt be Christian) of the Bible. The version you read was translated numerous times, along with numerous errors in translation, before you got it. This is what you based your faith on.

But I'll remember this when i pull non-translated versions of the Old Testament to disprove Jesus.

But then i'm not a believer so my arguments are based on what is actually written and not interpretation.

[Zguy28]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Thats cute, really it is, but you dont read the Arabic version nor the Jewish version (if you didnt you wouldnt be Christian) of the Bible.

If you have no idea what you are talking about, just admit it.

I didn't write that as I clearly stated in the beginning of the post.

The version you read was translated numerous times, along with numerous errors in translation, before you got it. This is what you based your faith on.

The translations that I read is translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Home (ESV Bible Online)

The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.

English Standard Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When necessary to translate difficult passages, the translators referred to the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible (as found in the second edition of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), to the United Bible Societies' fourth edition of the Greek New Testament, and to the twenty-seventh edition of Nestle and Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece. In a few exceptionally difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Pe####ta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text.

New American Standard Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New American Standard Bible is widely regarded as the most literally translated of 20th-century English Bible translations.

The Hebrew text used for this translation was the third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia was consulted for the 1995 revision. For Greek, Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece was used; the 23rd edition in the 1971 original, and the 26th in the 1995 revision.
In the updated NASB, consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with an emphasis on determining the best Greek text. Primarily, the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece is closely followed. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is also employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Holman Christian Standard Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Translation Philosophy

Holman Bible Publishers assembled an international, interdenominational team of 100 scholars and proofreaders, all of whom were committed to biblical inerrancy.[4] The translation committee sought to strike a balance between the two prevailing philosophies of Bible translation: formal equivalence (literal, "word-for-word", etc) and dynamic or functional equivalence ("thought-for-thought"). The translators call this balance Optimal Equivalence.

According to the translators, the primary goal of optimal equivalence translations is "to convey a sense of the original text with as much clarity as possible". To that end, the ancient source texts were exhaustively scrutinized at every level (word, phrase, clause, sentence, discourse) to determine its original meaning and intention. Afterwards, using the best language tools available, the semantic and linguistic equivalents were translated into as readable a text as possible.


Textual Basis

Making use of the most recent scholarly traditions, the translators worked from the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition, and the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, 4th corrected edition (for the New Testament), and the 5th edition of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (for the Old Testament).

In the case of significant differences among Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the OT or among Greek manuscripts of the NT, the translators followed what they believed was the original reading and indicated the main alternative(s) in footnotes. There are a few places in the NT that the translation team and most biblical scholars today believe were not part of the original text. However, these texts were retained (and indicated in large square brackets) because of their undeniable antiquity and their value for tradition and the history of NT interpretation in the church.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by Zguy28

If you have no idea what you are talking about, just admit it.

I didn't write that as I clearly stated in the beginning of the post.

The translations that I read is translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Home (ESV Bible Online)

English Standard Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New American Standard Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Holman Christian Standard Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another flavor of another Bible followed by another flavor of Christian.

Thats fine what does your untranslated, translated Bible verse state for Isaiah 7:14? Maiden, Yound Woman or Virgin?

[Penn]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Another flavor of another Bible followed by another flavor of Christian.

Thats fine what does your untranslated, translated Bible verse state for Isaiah 7:14? Maiden, Yound Woman or Virgin?

What the heck is that?!?!

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by Penn

What the heck is that?!?!

stupid keyboard, was supposed to say Young