Is YOUR church doctrinal statement ONE with SATAN?

[Dino246]

Read the entire post: I said if Metzger can blatantly disregard the Church Fathers, I can blatantly ignore the tripe you try to push as your own agenda."

I did. I'm tired of your dodging. You attacked me without cause, and you refuse to own it. I don't see any value in trying to interact further with you.

 

[biker]

And on another WIKI PAGE, Thaddeus is the Disciple of the Apostle Thomas!

Liturgy of Addai and Mari - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addeus_and_Maris,_Liturgy_of
The Liturgy of Addai and Mari (or the Holy Qurbana of Mar Addai and Mar Mari) is the Divine Liturgy belonging to the East Syriac Rite and was historically used in the Church of the East of the Sasanian (Persian) Empire. This liturgy is traditionally attributed to Saint Addai (disciple of Saint Thomas the Apostle) and Saint Mari

 

[biker]

I did. I'm tired of your dodging. You attacked me without cause, and you refuse to own it. I don't see any value in trying to interact further with you.

When did you ever discredit the Church Fathers?

 

[biker]

And on another WIKI PAGE, Thaddeus is the Disciple of the Apostle Thomas!

Liturgy of Addai and Mari - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addeus_and_Maris,_Liturgy_of
The Liturgy of Addai and Mari (or the Holy Qurbana of Mar Addai and Mar Mari) is the Divine Liturgy belonging to the East Syriac Rite and was historically used in the Church of the East of the Sasanian (Persian) Empire. This liturgy is traditionally attributed to Saint Addai (disciple of Saint Thomas the Apostle) and Saint Mari

JAYBO, your WIKI is 100% pure BALONEY!!

 

[Dino246]

When did you ever discredit the Church Fathers?

Exactly.

 

[biker]

But if we put the pieces together, THADDEUS, born in the 1st Century AD, wrote the first Aramaic New Testament in 78 AD, was a Disciple of the Apostle Thomas, was 1 of the 70 Disciples of Jesus, and was the replacement when Peter cast lots for Judas!

 

[biker]

Exactly.

I know you never have and why my post is towards METZGER, and not YOU!

 

[biker]

Dino,
I apologize for how you took my post. But you legitimized Metzer. So I used your post to claim what I did. But I assure you, it had nothing to do with you at all.

 

[Dino246]

Dino,
I apologize for how you took my post. But you legitimized Metzer. So I used your post to claim what I did. But I assure you, it had nothing to do with you at all.

Thank you. Apology accepted.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

My faith, actually, is in God. I don't worship a single, imperfect translation created 400+ years ago as you do.

If your faith is in God, then you also should place faith and trust in His word. For He is one with His word. When you think that no translation is inspired or perfect, well then something is wrong with your faith, Jaybo.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Understanding of Scripture does not come about by common sense, but by reading and accepting what the text says, and by the complementary guidance and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

Your point is human reasoning, not a clear, direct statement of Scripture.

No where in Scripture do we see statements like:

"Scripture is perfect and infallible only In the originals"

or

"all Scripture is inspired and inerrant in the original manuscripts (autographs)."

Those very statements come from so called "scholars" of our day who think they are so smart that they can sit in judgment over the word of God, and correct it. When in fact, the word of God is the one which shall judge them. The word of God is perfect and inerrant. The word of God is inerrant, and not us. Therefore we do not correct the word of God, but rather, the word of God corrects us. For it is the absolute Final Authority.

And the Holy Scripture testifies of its purity, infallibility and inerrancy.

All Scripture Is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul does not mentio anything about original autographs in that passage. He was referring to the very Scriptures which he had in his day, which were copies of copies, and yet they were still the holy Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15).

 

[Dino246]

No where in Scripture do we see statements like:

"Scripture is perfect and infallible only In the originals"

or

"all Scripture is inspired and inerrant in the original manuscripts (autographs)."

Those very statements come from so called "scholars" of our day who think they are so smart that they can sit in judgment over the word of God, and correct it. When in fact, the word of God is the one which shall judge them. The word of God is perfect and inerrant. The word of God is inerrant, and not us. Therefore we do not correct the word of God, but rather, the word of God corrects us. For it is the absolute Final Authority.

And the Holy Scripture testifies of its purity, infallibility and inerrancy.

All Scripture Is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul does not mentio anything about original autographs in that passage. He was referring to the very Scriptures which he had in his day, which were copies of copies, and yet they were still the holy Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15).

Methinks you lost the script over the last ten pages. I see no logical connection between your post and mine.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

maybe you are not aware, but no one in Judea ever bought two sparrows for a farthing. farthings didn't even exist until maybe the 12th century.

the word is assarion, not farthing. it is a Roman currency of the era God chose to come and walk among His people.

if every word of God is pure and significant why change it from a Roman money to an English one? is it okay i scratch out 'Rome' in my copy of the KJV every time i see it and write 'England' ? why or why not?

what is significant about sparrows being bought for a Roman coin, instead of a drachma or shekel?

Posthuman, one of the Greek words is "assarion" but the English word Farthing is a good and fitting word. The following Bibles also used the phrase farthing: Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Coverdale Bible, Tyndale New Testament, and so what is the issue, Posthuman?

And just consider the following from the Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Farthing [N]

• Matthew 10:29 ; Luke 12:6 . Greek assarion, i.e., a small as , which was a Roman coin equal to a tenth of a denarius or drachma, nearly equal to a halfpenny of our money.
  
  
• Matthew 5:26 ; Mark 12:42 (Gr. kodrantes), the quadrant, the fourth of an as , equal to two lepta, mites. The lepton (mite) was the very smallest copper coin.

Again, what is your big issue with the usage of the word Farthing?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Posthuman, how about considering the Strong's Concordance:

assarion: an assarion, a farthing (one tenth of a drachma)
Original Word: ἀσσάριον, ίου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: assarion
Phonetic Spelling: (as-sar'-ee-on)
Definition: an assarion, a farthing (one tenth of a drachma)
Usage: a small coin equal to the tenth part of a drachma.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

​

Some peradventure would have no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgmet not to be so be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostome saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainely set downe in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concerne Faith, hope, and Charitie. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to weane the curious from loathing of them for their every-where-plainenesse, partly also to stirre up our devotion to crave the assistance of Gods spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seeke ayd of our brethren by conference, and never scorne those that be not in all respects so complete as they should bee, being to seeke in many things our selves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, heere and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne salvation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearefulnesse would better beseeme us then confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modestie with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to strive about those things that are uncertaine. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrewes speake) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Againe, there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrewes themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seeme to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, the because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can beno lesse then presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expresly forbiddeth, that any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we thinke he hath not all of his owne side his favourers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their hie Priest had all lawes shut up in his brest, as Paul the second bragged, and that he were as free from errour by speciall priviledge, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were an other matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have bene a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he prooveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace. ​

Posthuman, the KJV translators were not defending the use of different translations, but rather they were simply defending the useof marginal notes. This should be rather clear from the surrounding context, such as the following:

Againe, there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrewes themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seeme to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, the because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can beno lesse then presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expresly forbiddeth, that any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we thinke he hath not all of his owne side his favourers, for this conceit.

The marginal notes basically showed that the Translators of the Authorized Version understood the alternative readings, but had chosen what was in the text of the Authorized Version. Hence, Posthuman, what you shared was not a justification at all for reading other translations and versions which would disagree and go against the text of the King James Holy Bible. For consider the very purpose and reason that the Translators of the Authorized Version had for their translation and work, which they plainly stated in their Translators to the Reader:


"Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one PRINCIPAL good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."


Hence, Posthuman, we can see that the very reason and purpose for their Translation was to make a Good Principal Translation Not Justly to be excepted (Objected) against.

 

[posthuman]

The following Bibles also used the phrase farthing: Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Coverdale Bible, Tyndale New Testament

what does it matter that other translations have the wrong word too?

Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Farthing [N]

• Matthew 10:29 ; Luke 12:6 . Greek assarion, i.e., a small as , which was a Roman coin equal to a tenth of a denarius or drachma, nearly equal to a halfpenny of our money.

Strong's Concordance:

assarion: an assarion, a farthing (one tenth of a drachma)
Original Word: ἀσσάριον, ίου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: assarion
Phonetic Spelling: (as-sar'-ee-on)
Definition: an assarion, a farthing (one tenth of a drachma)
Usage: a small coin equal to the tenth part of a drachma.

these both are proof that "farthing" is an inappropriate word.

Strong's is not a dictionary - it is a concordance, listing how the KJV translated Hebrew & Greek words. it shows that they substituted an English unit of money for the actual Roman unit that the scripture records. Strong's does nothing more than record the error.

Easton's apologetically offers to equivocate the two by saying farthing means 'as small as' an assarion, but then contradicts itself, because it says an assarion was "nearly equal" to a halfpenny. Eastons' was compiled in the 1890's -- when two farthings were worth one halfpenny -- so Easton's points out that the removing of the word assarion from scripture and the adding of the word farthing was introducing a converted error of a factor of 2, over 120 years ago.

currency conversion is always in flux. any number you give as an equivalence relation between dollars and drachmas right now is wrong tomorrow and wasn't right yesterday.
the conversion rate was not correct for assarion to farthing 500 years ago, and it doesn't even make sense at all either now, when no one in the whole world uses a farthing, nor originally, when only a certain group of people living in the UK ever used one. certainly no one in Israel ever used one, much less at the time of Christ.

Christ says "assarion" -- that's a Roman coin. Rome is significant. taking His words away and adding foreign ones that are not at all equivalent in their place can in no way whatsoever be called "perfect" --- it's wrong.

it would be far better, and it would be honest, to let the scripture read, "assarion" where it says assarion. let the reader sort out what one is. you've got to go sort out what a farthing is now, anyway, don't you? if you're going to have to go researching disused world currencies, what is more profitable for you - that you research the correct ancient foreign coin, an assarion? or that you research a false & lying ancient foreign coin, a farthing?

 

[posthuman]

what is your big issue with the usage of the word Farthing?

apart from it being factually incorrect and an unequivocally erroneous translation?

 

[Dino246]

Posthuman, the KJV translators were not defending the use of different translations, but rather they were simply defending the useof marginal notes. This should be rather clear from the surrounding context, such as the following:

Againe, there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrewes themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seeme to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, the because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can beno lesse then presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expresly forbiddeth, that any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we thinke he hath not all of his owne side his favourers, for this conceit.

The marginal notes basically showed that the Translators of the Authorized Version understood the alternative readings, but had chosen what was in the text of the Authorized Version. Hence, Posthuman, what you shared was not a justification at all for reading other translations and versions which would disagree and go against the text of the King James Holy Bible. For consider the very purpose and reason that the Translators of the Authorized Version had for their translation and work, which they plainly stated in their Translators to the Reader:


"Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one PRINCIPAL good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."


Hence, Posthuman, we can see that the very reason and purpose for their Translation was to make a Good Principal Translation Not Justly to be excepted (Objected) against.

Carefully edited out of context, I see!

 

[posthuman]

the English word Farthing is a good and fitting word.

no, it is absolutely not.

it is neither literal nor is it dynamically equivalent.

it's clearly wrong. it's evident why they removed assarion from His word and added farthing to it, but it was not the right decision.
once you are brought to the point of honesty, the only counter-argument you can make is that some words in scripture "don't matter" -- which undercuts your own premises.
and that's why i bring it up -- because your KJV-ism is a self-defeating argument in this case.

 

[posthuman]

Carefully edited out of context, I see!

i know, right?

he asked a specific question. i gave him the specific answer highlighted in a whole bunch of context. "it is necessary, as we are persuaded" --- i.e. translation is imperfect; it is necessary that the reader be informed of that with supplementary notes explaining the imprecision, encouraging them to study it out, knowing that there are words and phrases which are not perfectly rendered in English.
he totally ignored the specific answer i gave him to his own specific question, and tried to bury it with out-of-context arguments on different subjects.

*shrug* whattayagonnado. sometimes people ask questions they seriously do not want to be answered.