User Tag List

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: Word-for-word versus sense-for-sense

  1. #21
    Alumni Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class1 year registered
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Morning Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    18,935
    Thanks
    6,030
    Thanked: 21,803
    Rep Power
    21474857
    Quote Originally Posted by notofimport36 View Post
    That's part of what I found interesting about the apocryphal books; the book of adam and eve, the book of enoch and others.

    With such strong insistence to not take those works seriously, and then reading the content gives a different of understanding as the potential 'why' these things should be disregarded.

    It really gives a different sense of the story these holy books are telling.
    The Book of Enoch in particular since it lead to the occult. IMO. The Book of Enoch is central to the works of the Golden Dawn.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Overall activity: 9.0%

    notofimport36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    353
    Thanks
    185
    Thanked: 402
    Rep Power
    1943481
    Quote Originally Posted by Morning Star View Post
    The Book of Enoch in particular since it lead to the occult. IMO. The Book of Enoch is central to the works of the Golden Dawn.
    Golden dawn?

    I do find an intriguing prospect that there really were non-human, physical 'Angels' on earth at some period in time. Especially now that cities have been found that push the age of human civilizations at least 15-20000 years ago (or about 9000 years or more longer than typical historical timeline).

  3. #23
    Alumni Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class1 year registered
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Morning Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    18,935
    Thanks
    6,030
    Thanked: 21,803
    Rep Power
    21474857
    The Golden Dawn is an organization and a system of occult magik.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Morning Star For This Useful Post:

    notofimport36 (10-09-2019)

  5. #24
    Senior Member Achievements:
    Tagger First Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Overall activity: 10.0%

    pjohns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,288
    Thanks
    4,653
    Thanked: 1,301
    Rep Power
    2869442
    Quote Originally Posted by S-N-A-F-U View Post
    Don't you believe it!


    The question is, IS THE Apocrypha of God or of men? Is it part of “all Scripture [that] is inspired of God” and beneficial for our being “fully competent, completely equipped for every good work”? Or does it belong to “the tradition of men,” to “the elementary things of the world,” which the apostle Paul warned Christians? What are the facts? >2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Col. 2:8.

    The original meaning of the term “apocrypha” is made clear from Jesus’ use of it: “For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest, neither anything carefully concealed that will never become known.” In time, however, the term took on the unfavorable connotation of “writings or statements of doubtful authorship or authority.” As most commonly used today, “The Apocrypha” refers to the eleven additional writings declared canonical by the Roman Catholic Church in her Council of Trent (1546), but which are challenged by others.—Luke 8:17.


    These eleven additional writings are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, a supplement to Esther and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical.

    Thus we have two opposite opinions today regarding the Apocrypha, with the same result: The liberals and modernists, believing that there is no such thing as divine inspiration or revelation, hold that the Apocrypha is every bit as good as the Bible. The Roman Catholic theologians, believing the Apocrypha to be inspired, hold that the Apocrypha is every bit as good as the Bible and, in fact, a part of it. However, the facts will show both are ERRONEOUS.


    Remember the CONCLUDING versus of the Bible...

    "I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things. God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll." ~ Rev. 22: 18-19
    Actually, the Church Fathers sometimes quoted those books that we now know as "the Apocrypha."

    And there was never a church council that declared these books to be non-canonical.

    (It is my understanding that many of these were actually included in the Bible--albeit at the very end--until a shortage of paper caused them to be omitted altogether.)

  6. #25
    Senior Member Achievements:
    Tagger First Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Overall activity: 10.0%

    pjohns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,288
    Thanks
    4,653
    Thanked: 1,301
    Rep Power
    2869442
    Quote Originally Posted by S-N-A-F-U View Post
    The question is, IS THE Apocrypha of God or of men? Is it part of “all Scripture [that] is inspired of God” and beneficial for our being “fully competent, completely equipped for every good work”? Or does it belong to “the tradition of men,” to “the elementary things of the world,” which the apostle Paul warned Christians?
    It is always important to consider the context.

    At the time, many heretics--the Gnostics, particularly, leap to mind--were spreading falsehoods.

    This is probably an allusion to them.

  7. #26
    VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Created Blog entry50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 28.0%

    S-N-A-F-U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    4,518
    Thanks
    2,153
    Thanked: 7,100
    Rep Power
    21474844
    Quote Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
    Actually, the Church Fathers sometimes quoted those books that we now know as "the Apocrypha."

    And there was never a church council that declared these books to be non-canonical.

    (It is my understanding that many of these were actually included in the Bible--albeit at the very end--until a shortage of paper caused them to be omitted altogether.)
    I would suggest you stay with-in the confines of God's written word, the Bible. That's the FINAL authority, not the masinations of flawed man. I would further recommend, you become familiar with the history of the early pagan church of Rome.



    Last edited by S-N-A-F-U; 10-10-2019 at 07:23 AM.

  8. #27
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 72.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    24,964
    Thanks
    8,984
    Thanked: 24,406
    Rep Power
    21474866
    Quote Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
    For openers, I am truly sorry that you consider me to be a mere "moron."

    And I do view the Bible as God's revelation to man--however you may prefer to characterize it.

    Moreover, it is surely helpful to "study" it; but the question at hand is whether it would be preferable to do so with a word-for-word translation or a sense-for-sense translation.
    You are posing a false question. It is not an either-or situation, there is no dichotomy.

    What I said is, you have to study.

    If you are studying, you're doing both.

    And if you're not doing both, you're not studying.

  9. #28
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 72.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    24,964
    Thanks
    8,984
    Thanked: 24,406
    Rep Power
    21474866
    Quote Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
    Actually, the Church Fathers sometimes quoted those books that we now know as "the Apocrypha."

    And there was never a church council that declared these books to be non-canonical.

    (It is my understanding that many of these were actually included in the Bible--albeit at the very end--until a shortage of paper caused them to be omitted altogether.)
    The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) by Various

  10. #29
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 72.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    24,964
    Thanks
    8,984
    Thanked: 24,406
    Rep Power
    21474866
    Quote Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
    It is always important to consider the context.

    At the time, many heretics--the Gnostics, particularly, leap to mind--were spreading falsehoods.

    This is probably an allusion to them.
    The Catholic church called everyone and their brother Heretics. It's probably because they were very damn scared of the truth. They even put a lot of the so-called Heretics to death, to get them out of the way.

    All things considered, the Catholic church was a pretty miserable piece of humanity for a few hundred years.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    Morning Star (10-10-2019)

  12. #30
    Senior Member Achievements:
    Tagger First Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Overall activity: 10.0%

    pjohns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,288
    Thanks
    4,653
    Thanked: 1,301
    Rep Power
    2869442
    Quote Originally Posted by S-N-A-F-U View Post
    I would suggest you stay with-in the confines of God's written word, the Bible.
    That is a logical fallacy known as question begging.

    To declare that "God's written word" contains only those things that some seventeenth-century redactors included--and that it is, therefore, heretical to consider anything else--is downright jaw-dropping, it seems to me.

    (And contrary to what some people seem to believe, the New Testament was not written, originally, in Elizabethan English.)

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:

    Morning Star (10-10-2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •