> The ancient world did not organize sexuality around identity categories the way modern Western culture does. Folding both terms into the single English word “homosexual” imports a modern concept into an ancient text and treats the result as divine prohibition.
True in the sense that the modern conception of homosexual identity would have struck the ancients as nonsense, because it is. They however were banning the act of sodomy.
I have been reading the New International Version recently and would like to know if anybody has any issues with that version. It seems quite reliable. Adds lots of notes re:translation throughout.
Good work. I spoke with someone earlier who claimed a Luciferian cult exists scattered around the globe, drawing their faith from Cain as a founder.
So I explained the *Telephone Game* and the astronomical chances such a belief would continue for such a long period without interruption.
I explained the Latin origin of the word Lucifer, and that no one had possibly spoken it before 100-200 BCE at the earliest.
He stopped replying. 😁
In truth, the KJV is likely among the least accurate considering King James commissioned the translation with an agenda. The Pope had denied his request for divorce. Multiple times. So, he became a widower repeatedly until The English Church started with the KJV.
If the crucifixion had happened on Friday, Sunday would be the second day. However, if the religious leaders sealed the tomb and set the Roman guard on Thursday (Matthew 27:62-66), counting the third day from that event perfectly aligns with Sunday as the third day
Christ's betrayal and sufferings leading up to His crucifixion is included in the count:
Matthew 16:21 ESV
[21] From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
Matthew 17:22-23 ESV
[22] As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, [23] and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.” And they were greatly distressed.
Mark 10:33-34 ESV
[33] saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. [34] And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”
Luke 9:22 ESV
[22] saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”
Luke 18:31-33 ESV
[31] And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. [32] For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. [33] And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.”
Luke 24:6-7 ESV
[6] He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, [7] that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.”
Luke 24:46 ESV
[46] and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
You are free to believe in something other than what the Bible says. I've already demonstrated that Christ rose on Sunday; the disciples on the road to Emmaus clearly stated that that Sunday was the third day "since all these things [that Christ prophesied would happen to him] have taken place." It's right there but you'd rather be right than embrace truth.
Jesus rested in the tomb for the entirety of the Sabbath. He arose the first day as the beginning of the new creation of God.
You only kept making the repeated assertion that Christ rose before sundown on the Sabbath without citing a shred of scriptural evidence as support. I presented solid scriptural evidence which you refused to acknowledge or engage with, much less disprove.
I'm in my 70s, and have been around Evangelicals my entire life. I was a kid when I last heard anyone express 'KJV-onlyism'. I recall an older man asserting, "If the St. James version was good enough for the apostles, it's good enough for us!" For a long time, Evangelicals favored the New American Standard. Now it's the NIV.
Americans have gotten dumber and far less literate since evangelicals adopted non-KJV translations.
Robert Alter makes the point that the KJV often better reflects the Hebrew, especially in using “and” to start sentences rather than a less neutral conjunction.
The Isaiah passage has another problem obvious to even a beginner reader of Hebrew. Immanuel means “God is with us,” and is an affirmative of faith and name given to a normal human, not a proclamation of incarnation.
The entire Biblical Canon was selected by a committee with an agenda. Most ‘Christians’ have no concept of even the text that they have regardless of ‘version’. Faith is platitudes and being ‘nice’; not good. Many have trouble pulling that off too.
Honestly, the point is that Jesus had a relationship with God. It wasn’t about a canon at all. The concept is really simple. Love and compassion. Practice that to the best of your ability every day with everyone. Nothing more is needed. Absolutely nothing. Christianity went off the rails hundreds of years ago and all of the canon nonsense and how that came to be is just a piece of that problem.
At this point, I'm in too deep with the Council of Nicaea to be naming new enemies now. That's why I'm still turning down invitations to hunt Paul down for the same reason. My battle has already been picked and chosen.
I'm currently part of a team translating the Bible into an African language. Everything you described about the processes and choices of translation and their limitations is accurate.
Yikes! A discussion of the difficulties of Biblical translation that not only does not even mention the controversy of Codex Sinaiticus but implicitly holds it as authoritative!
> The ancient world did not organize sexuality around identity categories the way modern Western culture does. Folding both terms into the single English word “homosexual” imports a modern concept into an ancient text and treats the result as divine prohibition.
True in the sense that the modern conception of homosexual identity would have struck the ancients as nonsense, because it is. They however were banning the act of sodomy.
I have been reading the New International Version recently and would like to know if anybody has any issues with that version. It seems quite reliable. Adds lots of notes re:translation throughout.
Good work. I spoke with someone earlier who claimed a Luciferian cult exists scattered around the globe, drawing their faith from Cain as a founder.
So I explained the *Telephone Game* and the astronomical chances such a belief would continue for such a long period without interruption.
I explained the Latin origin of the word Lucifer, and that no one had possibly spoken it before 100-200 BCE at the earliest.
He stopped replying. 😁
In truth, the KJV is likely among the least accurate considering King James commissioned the translation with an agenda. The Pope had denied his request for divorce. Multiple times. So, he became a widower repeatedly until The English Church started with the KJV.
I never said it was. However, it’s widely recognized as a translation for style rather than accuracy.
Your link isn’t a reliable source, seeing as it’s specific purpose is biased in favor of the KJV.
That doesn't sound like a total fabrication of the history behind the commissioning of the KJV at all: https://www.thekjvstore.com/articles/the-story-behind-the-king-james-bible/?srsltid=AfmBOooE5jonTfYrR_iicu5YLubV_bjgFjB36rlmmDU9mLHiburhwZM2
If the crucifixion had happened on Friday, Sunday would be the second day. However, if the religious leaders sealed the tomb and set the Roman guard on Thursday (Matthew 27:62-66), counting the third day from that event perfectly aligns with Sunday as the third day
Christ's betrayal and sufferings leading up to His crucifixion is included in the count:
Matthew 16:21 ESV
[21] From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
Matthew 17:22-23 ESV
[22] As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, [23] and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.” And they were greatly distressed.
Mark 10:33-34 ESV
[33] saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. [34] And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”
Luke 9:22 ESV
[22] saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”
Luke 18:31-33 ESV
[31] And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. [32] For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. [33] And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.”
Luke 24:6-7 ESV
[6] He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, [7] that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.”
Luke 24:46 ESV
[46] and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
Indeed He did rise on the third day.
It is obvious we shall never agree on what day that was so I am happy for you to continue believing Sunday and I will always believe in Saturday
As I have previously said the important factor is that He did rise.
You are free to believe in something other than what the Bible says. I've already demonstrated that Christ rose on Sunday; the disciples on the road to Emmaus clearly stated that that Sunday was the third day "since all these things [that Christ prophesied would happen to him] have taken place." It's right there but you'd rather be right than embrace truth.
Jesus rested in the tomb for the entirety of the Sabbath. He arose the first day as the beginning of the new creation of God.
I have also provided my demonstration so let us leave it there.
You only kept making the repeated assertion that Christ rose before sundown on the Sabbath without citing a shred of scriptural evidence as support. I presented solid scriptural evidence which you refused to acknowledge or engage with, much less disprove.
You cannot have 72 hours between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning
You are quite entitled to believe a Sunday resurrection if you so desire but the main aspect is that He did rise for us
Very eye-opening and substantive. Thank you!!
I'm in my 70s, and have been around Evangelicals my entire life. I was a kid when I last heard anyone express 'KJV-onlyism'. I recall an older man asserting, "If the St. James version was good enough for the apostles, it's good enough for us!" For a long time, Evangelicals favored the New American Standard. Now it's the NIV.
Americans have gotten dumber and far less literate since evangelicals adopted non-KJV translations.
Robert Alter makes the point that the KJV often better reflects the Hebrew, especially in using “and” to start sentences rather than a less neutral conjunction.
The Isaiah passage has another problem obvious to even a beginner reader of Hebrew. Immanuel means “God is with us,” and is an affirmative of faith and name given to a normal human, not a proclamation of incarnation.
The entire Biblical Canon was selected by a committee with an agenda. Most ‘Christians’ have no concept of even the text that they have regardless of ‘version’. Faith is platitudes and being ‘nice’; not good. Many have trouble pulling that off too.
Honestly, the point is that Jesus had a relationship with God. It wasn’t about a canon at all. The concept is really simple. Love and compassion. Practice that to the best of your ability every day with everyone. Nothing more is needed. Absolutely nothing. Christianity went off the rails hundreds of years ago and all of the canon nonsense and how that came to be is just a piece of that problem.
The development of the biblical canon (of which there is more than one by the way) wasn't some one-time backroom occurrence. It occurred over the course of many years and wasn't at all the result of ecclesiastical fiat as you presume: https://ntcanon.com/case-for-the-core-new-testament/the-development-of-the-new-testament-canon/
What seminary did Jesus attend?
I'm pretty sure seminaries didn't exist in Jesus' day, but what's your point?
So rich, only got through half so far. Want to keep working through this- thank you for sharing.
At this point, I'm in too deep with the Council of Nicaea to be naming new enemies now. That's why I'm still turning down invitations to hunt Paul down for the same reason. My battle has already been picked and chosen.
I'm currently part of a team translating the Bible into an African language. Everything you described about the processes and choices of translation and their limitations is accurate.
Yikes! A discussion of the difficulties of Biblical translation that not only does not even mention the controversy of Codex Sinaiticus but implicitly holds it as authoritative!
Thanks. Translation is a slippery slope . It isn’t only translating words but a particular culture or moment in history.
This is extremely well written!
Thank you!