-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The "original" Autographs
- Thread starter Pure Words
- Start date
The Harvest
New Member
man you really must be confused with all this. so we are supposed to believe that God thinks the originals are so important that He made sure there were thousands of copies of them all throughout the world, but God didn't think they were important enough to make sure they were without error. uh huh. yeah man, you almost have me convinced that i should learn greek.
i'm glad that the God i serve is powerful enough to preserve His own Words without error, unlike yours.
The Harvest
New Member
is that your final authority? which dictionary? what edition? what language? look, i really don't care what the definition or meaning behind alma mater is. maybe Gipp is wrong. it makes no difference to the matter of the originals. personally i couldn't care less what alma mater means. i don't know that i have ever used that term in everyday speech. who cares what anyone's stupid alma mater is anyway. not me.
The Harvest said:
is that your final authority?
For the meanings of words? Yes.
which dictionary? what edition? what language?
American Heritage. 4th ed. English.
maybe Gipp is wrong. it makes no difference to the matter of the originals.
On the contrary. Since this thread began with Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.'s claims concerning the originals, Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.'s inability to reason makes a world of difference.
If the man can't be trusted to give the true meaning of a word, why should I trust his treatment of more complex subject matter?
is that your final authority?
For the meanings of words? Yes.
which dictionary? what edition? what language?
American Heritage. 4th ed. English.
maybe Gipp is wrong. it makes no difference to the matter of the originals.
On the contrary. Since this thread began with Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.'s claims concerning the originals, Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.'s inability to reason makes a world of difference.
If the man can't be trusted to give the true meaning of a word, why should I trust his treatment of more complex subject matter?
The Harvest
New Member
not surprising that this is the only part of that post you chose to comment on.
The Harvest
New Member
so since you disagree with his interpretation of a word you believe he is a liar?
how about this line of reasoning then. since you use a Bible that has a flat out lie in it, that makes you a liar.
The Harvest
New Member
why don't you explain what's wrong about it. i think it was a solid conclusion from your own words.
The Harvest said:
so since you disagree with his interpretation of a word you believe he is a liar?
No, I believe he is a liar because I saw the dog's breakfast he made of Westcott's beliefs with my own eyes, by comparing his claims with the source document, before I ever heard of this "alma mater" thing.
The fact that he makes up funny definitions for words and expects them to be believed, is merely reinforcing evidence that the man is not to be taken seriously.
how about this line of reasoning then. since you use a Bible that has a flat out lie in it, that makes you a liar.
Since your premise is a false one, your conclusion is also suspect.
so since you disagree with his interpretation of a word you believe he is a liar?
No, I believe he is a liar because I saw the dog's breakfast he made of Westcott's beliefs with my own eyes, by comparing his claims with the source document, before I ever heard of this "alma mater" thing.
The fact that he makes up funny definitions for words and expects them to be believed, is merely reinforcing evidence that the man is not to be taken seriously.
how about this line of reasoning then. since you use a Bible that has a flat out lie in it, that makes you a liar.
Since your premise is a false one, your conclusion is also suspect.
There is agreement by everyone for this passage concerning the bare text.
I checked 4 texts including Kittels' and TBS.
I can't find a ketiv/Qere in Stong's for this passage.
If there is a problem, it has to do with vowel pointing and Hebrew contraction of words. Kittel's has an indication for SHOCHAR (darkness) vs SHACHAR.
English texts:
KJV Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
NAS Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.
Transliterated (my own) from Hebrew:
there is no light in them :
AYIN-LO SHACHAR
Not in them ?(whatever SHaCHaR) is.
The obscurity is because the Hebrew SHACHAR has at least two meanings, ironically they are opposites.
The vowel points don't help conclusively (except to show the scribe's perception) because they were added after the giving of the inspired text.
TWOT 2368 Black, blackness (or deep darkness).
TWOT 2369 Seek early, dawn (or early light).
Compounding matters is that these two words can have the same vowel points given the other grammatical elements differing.
So, we are left with the context (as TWOT advises) to determine the meaning.
These in verse 20 are they in verse 19 who advise seeking wizards:
19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Since you ask me, I would change the last part of verse 20 to a question because AYIN indicates an English question and then go with "darkness". Or
19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, are they not in darkness?
"therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!"
"Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness."
Maybe Jesus is using an Aramaic play on words here?
Make sure your SHACHAR is not SHOCHAR.
I think my translation is clumsy because double negatives even in separate run-on clauses don't go over very well in English.
Maybe someone who is better versed in Hebrew can give you a better answer.
HankD
[ March 07, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
The Harvest
New Member
so then you do believe that God is incapable of preserving His words perfectly, right?
The Harvest
New Member
Who does your NASB say killed Goliath?
Since your NASB says that Mark 1:2 is from Isaiah, would you please tell me what chapter and verse from Isaiah it is quoting?
those are lies my man. things that are not true are lies. your "Bible" has lies in it. who is the father of the lie? i'll tell you who. the one that wrote those "bibles".
The Harvest said:
so then you do believe that God is incapable of preserving His words perfectly, right?
What possesses you to make this false accusation? Don't be foolish.
God chose to providentially preserve his Word through the efforts of fallible scribes, in such a way that we can be absolutely confident of its authenticity in all but a very few places that do not affect the proper understanding of divine truth.
There is a difference between what God could have done, and what God did do. Apparently, you believe in the fallacy that if God could do something, he must therefore have done it.
so then you do believe that God is incapable of preserving His words perfectly, right?
What possesses you to make this false accusation? Don't be foolish.
God chose to providentially preserve his Word through the efforts of fallible scribes, in such a way that we can be absolutely confident of its authenticity in all but a very few places that do not affect the proper understanding of divine truth.
There is a difference between what God could have done, and what God did do. Apparently, you believe in the fallacy that if God could do something, he must therefore have done it.
The Harvest asked:
Who does your NASB say killed Goliath?
David (1 Sam. 17:50).
Since your NASB says that Mark 1:2 is from Isaiah, would you please tell me what chapter and verse from Isaiah it is quoting?
Isaiah 40:3, conflated with Malachi 3:1. Mark cites the major prophet. Just because you misunderstand the format of this citation, does not make it a "lie" in the NASB. (Why should your lack of knowledge be blamed on someone else?)
Who does your NASB say killed Goliath?
David (1 Sam. 17:50).
Since your NASB says that Mark 1:2 is from Isaiah, would you please tell me what chapter and verse from Isaiah it is quoting?
Isaiah 40:3, conflated with Malachi 3:1. Mark cites the major prophet. Just because you misunderstand the format of this citation, does not make it a "lie" in the NASB. (Why should your lack of knowledge be blamed on someone else?)
The Harvest
New Member
2 Sam 21:19 There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. NASB
The Harvest
New Member
1 Sam 17:50 Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David's hand. NASB
2 Samuel 21:19 There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. NASB
interesting. they disagree. one of them is not true. and if something is not true, that makes it a lie. who's the father of the lie?
now, here's what God's Words say about this.
1 Samuel 17:50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.
2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
no error here. God doesn't lie.
2 Samuel 21:19 There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. NASB
interesting. they disagree. one of them is not true. and if something is not true, that makes it a lie. who's the father of the lie?
now, here's what God's Words say about this.
1 Samuel 17:50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.
2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
no error here. God doesn't lie.
The Harvest
New Member
i've heard this ridiculous argument before. i don't buy it. "well he's citing the major prophet since malachi wasn't important enough to be mentioned blah blah blah". Mark 1:3 is from Isaiah, not Mark 1:2. so to say that Isaiah said "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee" is a lie. who's the father of the lie?
i've heard this ridiculous argument before. i don't buy it. "well he's citing the major prophet since malachi wasn't important enough to be mentioned blah blah blah". Mark 1:3 is from Isaiah, not Mark 1:2. so to say that Isaiah said "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee" is a lie. who's the father of the lie? </font>[/QUOTE]If you don't buy this explaination, please post the passage of Jeremiah that Mat 27:9 quotes from in the KJV.