[Godsgrace]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

I'm learning so much already; I'm so grateful that God has sent me here.

Brothers, does the LBC have a formal Bible lesson? I've been told so many things that are lies, and I endeavor to know the truth.

Also... Where can I find out how the Award system here works?

Praise the Lord...

[Didymus Much]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

God likes poetry that is why He used so much of it in Hebrew. Plus it was much easier for those joos to remember. The Hebrew word here is שם (shem) which basically means appellation or honorific...

Don't care about Hebrew. KJV is in English, and that's what's under discussion here.

The problem arises because that is also the Hebrew word for proper names such as David. But nowhere did God actually give his name.

So where it says His name is Jealous it doesn't actually mean His name is Jealous...right. Care to point out where it says that Jealous is speaking metaphorically?

It is sort of like Jesus Christ. Jesus is his name but Christ is not. It is an appellation or characterization. Do you think the translators of the 1611 King James Bible would disobey God and write his actual name when God Himself forbids it?

Hmmm, can't find that one either. Help me out?

[Godsgrace]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

Don't care about Hebrew. KJV is in English...

Amen. Jews are of the devil...

[James Dewitt]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

Amen. Jews are of the devil...

They are the people who killed Jesus.

Tell me son, what is your take on stoning?

Do you have a mensta hut for your woman?

[Godsgrace]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

I've read some on stoning, and believe that God wants us to stone sinners, but not all. It seems to be a select punishment; I have to admit that I do not fully understand the reasons why some sins call for stoning and some don't. I mean, personally, I would've thought that Eve should've been pelted for the whole apple thing, but I am not well versed in scripture.

However, other times it makes perfect sense, as in Deuteronomy 22:23-24.

I mean, if a woman is raped and doesn't scream surely she's a harlot and a whore who was begging for it.

Or Leviticus 20:27. Obviously, witches should get stoned.

I don't as yet have a menstraul hut, but I do have an old shed that could be converted to such a purpose.

[Bible Student]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

Originally Posted by Bible Student
God likes poetry that is why He used so much of it in Hebrew. Plus it was much easier for those joos to remember. The Hebrew word here is שם (shem) which basically means appellation or honorific...

Don't care about Hebrew. KJV is in English, and that's what's under discussion here.

So do you think the translators of the 1611 King James Bible invented this stuff out of thin air, or do you think perhaps they translated the Hebrew into English? Out of the 15 times the word jealous appears juxtapostioned with God, this is the sole verse that even hints at a name. That is because it is an appellation, honorific or characterization.
Look at:
Ezekiel 39:25 -- Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name;
Why doesn't he repeat his name is jealous?

Originally Posted by Bible Student The problem arises because that is also the Hebrew word for proper names such as David. But nowhere did God actually give his name.

So where it says His name is Jealous it doesn't actually mean His name is Jealous...right. Care to point out where it says that Jealous is speaking metaphorically?

Where did I use the word metaphor? If I had meant it was a metaphor I would have written that. So do you mean you think Jesus' last name was Christ? Does Unsaved Trash like you even understand what a honorific or appellation even means?

Originally Posted by Bible Student It is sort of like Jesus Christ. Jesus is his name but Christ is not. It is an appellation or characterization. Do you think the translators of the 1611 King James Bible would disobey God and write his actual name when God Himself forbids it?

Hmmm, can't find that one either. Help me out?

It is an indirect effect of:

Deuteronomy 12:3-4 -- And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God.

In order to prevent their enemies from doing the same to them, the Hebrews avoided writing the name of God. Where do you think his name actually appears?

Again read:

Exodus 20:7 -- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Take in this instance means "to carry" and that is the exact Hebrew word. When you take something with you, you carry it. Remember the translators did not work in a vacuum. They took the Hebrew and Greek and gave the best approximation for their day and age.

As the 1611 King James Bible says in the Preface to the Readers:

REASONS INDUCING US NOT TO STAND
CURIOUSLY UPON AN IDENTITY OF PHRASING Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way.
Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified that same in both places (for there be some words that be not the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty.
But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by PURPOSE, never to call it INTENT; if one where JOURNEYING, never TRAVELING; if one where THINK, never SUPPOSE; if one where PAIN, never ACHE; if one where JOY, never GLADNESS, etc.

Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader.
For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?

A godly Father in the Primitive time showed himself greatly moved, that one of newfangleness called [NOTE: Greek omitted but was a dispute over the word for "a bed"] [Niceph. Calist. lib.8. cap.42.] though the difference be little or none; and another reporteth that he was much abused for turning "Cucurbita" (to which reading the people had been used) into "Hedera". [S. Jerome in 4. Ionae. See S. Aug: epist. 10.] Now if this happens in better times, and upon so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings.
We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words. For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher, that he should say ,

that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire:
so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always, and to others of like quality, Get ye hence, be banished forever, we might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, "To be partial in ourselves and judges of evil thoughts."
Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: [see Euseb. li. 12. ex Platon.]

we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us.
Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other,

as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM,
and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH:

as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.
But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

So do you think the translators of the 1611 King James Bible invented this stuff out of thin air, or do you think perhaps they translated the Hebrew into English? Out of the 15 times the word jealous appears juxtapostioned with God, this is the sole verse that even hints at a name. That is because it is an appellation, honorific or characterization.

Then why does the word name appear there at all? The editors of the KJV could even more easily have left it as "who is Jealous", making the meaning clearer (and would have saved space to fit more per page, which was one of their criteria, I've heard).

Look at: Ezekiel 39:25 -- Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name;
Why doesn't he repeat his name is jealous?

So only things that are repeated in the Bible are valid now?

Where did I use the word metaphor? If I had meant it was a metaphor I would have written that. So do you mean you think Jesus' last name was Christ? Does Unsaved Trash like you even understand what a honorific or appellation even means?

Yes, I do. I just don't see where the English Scripture says anything but His "name is Jealous".

It is an indirect effect of: Deuteronomy 12:3-4

Indirect effects? You're not adding to Scripture are you?

In order to prevent their enemies from doing the same to them, the Hebrews avoided writing the name of God.

You're not Hebrews, and that proscription does not appear in the Bible.

Where do you think his name actually appears?

In Exodus 34:14.

Again read:

Exodus 20:7 -- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Take in this instance means "to carry" and that is the exact Hebrew word. When you take something with you, you carry it. Remember the translators did not work in a vacuum. They took the Hebrew and Greek and gave the best approximation for their day and age.

As opposed to being divinely inspired to transcribe the perfect Word of God, which I thought was the party line here?

[BaronOB]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

@Godsgrace Welcome! Why do you write G-d instead of God?

Maybe he is Jewish?

[Godsgrace]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

Maybe he is Jewish?

Kind sir;

I assure you that a Joo I am not.

I am simply a servant of God, trying to study the scriptures and do that which the Lord commands.

In Matthew 24:11, the Lord says that "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many"

Sadly, I was deceived by false teachers that it was good and proper to use such an appellation when talking about God. I have been rebuked and corrected here by good True Christians™ on the proper terminology. And for that I am grateful.

Yours in Christ

[Bible Student]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

Then why does the word name appear there at all? The editors of the KJV could even more easily have left it as "who is Jealous", making the meaning clearer (and would have saved space to fit more per page, which was one of their criteria, I've heard).

So only things that are repeated in the Bible are valid now?

Yes, I do. I just don't see where the English Scripture says anything but His "name is Jealous".

Indirect effects? You're not adding to Scripture are you?

You're not Hebrews, and that proscription does not appear in the Bible.

In Exodus 34:14.

As opposed to being divinely inspired to transcribe the perfect Word of God, which I thought was the party line here?

Not transcribe. Translate. Big, big difference.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

Not transcribe. Translate. Big, big difference.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showp...5&postcount=15

[Jedediah]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

Blessed be!

Are you being completely forthright with us, son?

I wonder...

[Bible Student]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showp...5&postcount=15

And? Did God use a transcribing machine or write it out in long hand? I don't think you understand what transcribe means. It doesn't mean inspire which is what Pastor Ezekiel wrote. Perhaps you are too tired and aren't thinking correctly.

[Godsgrace]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

Are you being completely forthright with us, son?
I wonder...[/URL]

Sir:

I assure you that I am...

Allow me to explain... that expression came into my vocabulary only recently, after my cleaning lady, an elderly Negress, said it to me one afternoon. I had never heard it before, and thought it sounded quaint. You know how they have their sayings... Anyways, I said it in an of the cuff way, not knowing it's true satanic gist. Perhaps she has evil intentions towards me, I don't know. But, I shan't be using that term again, I assure you...

Yours in Christ

[Lycia The Repentant]

Re: Greetings from a former Athiest

And? Did God use a transcribing machine or write it out in long hand? I don't think you understand what transcribe means. It doesn't mean inspire which is what Pastor Ezekiel wrote. Perhaps you are too tired and aren't thinking correctly.

Personally Brother, I think Diddleus may have become infested with a particularly evil demon recently. He seems to be slipping into an awful rut of Godmockery lately.

Hopefully he will consider sending LBC a nice, extra-large tithe. For his own sake, of course.