Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25070 | ||
Shepard's reasoning was supposition; not pure Scripture. Bacchiocchi was awarded with a gold medal because he was summa cum laude--even they could recognize the effort that was put out forth even if they disagreed with what he find out. Since we have people from the past telling us that most Christians in their day (i.e., they wrote a contemporary account; not like the people of today who are attempting to study the past without being able to go back in time: "From all indications (admittedly not many) Sunday became the day of choice for early (Apostolic era Christian) to worship God.") were keeping the Sabbath and that Rome and Alexandria were not then why should we say otherwise? "I was always taught words in black and white are binding ..." This assumes that you know the Greek and Hebrew words that were written. Most people can only read English translations which leaves them wide open to the biases of the translators (whether they were conscious of them or not). For example, Paul, in Col. 2:16, under the guidance of the HS, wrote "en brosei kai en posei". In English that means "in eating and in drinking". In Col. 2:16 Paul uses an OT "formula" for describing the ceremonial days of worship (the various feasts, new moons, and ceremonial sabbaths that are days of fasting). But, too many anti-sabbatarians let their bias get in the way and assume instead that Paul was talking about the seventh-day Sabbath in the latter item. By studying the original languages you can know that he isn't. |
||||||
2 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | EdB | 25074 | ||
Now your saying all the translators that worked on the KJV, NJKV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and NLT and thousands of others are either idiots or in cahoots to bring forth a mistranslation of this passage. Your also saying the majority of commentators many of which also held degrees in Greek are either also mistaken or also in cahoots to insure this lie was perpetuated. Further more your saying only Sabbatarians have discovered the true meaning of this passage and any that contradict it are wrong. (sounds a little cultic) Friend I think you fight a losing battle, as far as I know God’s word is swift and divides marrow from bone, therefore more than capable of saying what it means and meaning what it says. Let’s stop this junk of saying the Bible was translated wrong and stick with the issue. Paul and the other Apostles recognized Sunday as the Lord’s day and therefore the day upon which to worship Him. EdB |
||||||
3 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25086 | ||
"Now your saying all the translators that worked on the KJV, NJKV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and NLT and thousands of others are either idiots or in cahoots to bring forth a mistranslation of this passage." I said no such thing about anyone. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." ---- "Your also saying the majority of commentators many of which also held degrees in Greek are either also mistaken or also in cahoots to insure this lie was perpetuated." Actually I show that there are a number of scholars in the field who do have it correctly. Most of the sources I refer to quite obviously didn't do enough research into the issue (they, like all of us, assumed that they knew what the verse was talking about)--in a different field one said "Do you really think think that for what they are paying me that I'm going to read more than one book on the subject?" ---- "Further more your saying only Sabbatarians have discovered the true meaning of this passage and any that contradict it are wrong. (sounds a little cultic)." Whether those who studied this and found out what it says are sabbatarians or not I don't know; I didn't ask, I just went by the facts. Anyone who doesn't go by the facts will most likely be wrong--after all, what are the odds of finding the right answer when one doesn't look at the facts in the first place? ---- "Paul and the other Apostles recognized Sunday as the Lord’s day and therefore the day upon which to worship Him." The problem is that there is no evidence to support that claim. --- "I know God’s word is swift and divides marrow from bone, therefore more than capable of saying what it means and meaning what it says." You have got that right. So let's look at a couple of words that Paul wrote here in Col. 2:16: "brosei" means "eating" not what you eat but the act. "posei" means "drinking" not what you eat but the act of drinking. "kai" usually means "and" not "or" a fact that the RSV, the NRSV, the NAB, the Amplified Bible, Authentic New Testament, Cassirer New Testament, Holy Bible in Modern English, Jewish New Testament, New Evangelical Translation, Noli New Testament, Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible, Williams New Testament translations have correctly. |
||||||
4 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | EdB | 25098 | ||
Your absolutely right you did not say this and for that I apologize, but since you implied the translations were incorrect the implication was the translators were unaware of their mistake (idiots) or they intentionally translated it wrong (in cahoots). If there is another assumption to be made, please enlighten me The implication that many commentaries are written purely for monetary gain and since such gain is so small many commentators just agree with what was said before could be construed as insulting to the integrity of many faithful men and women. That point aside I have always found an argument that depends on the denigration of others to be distasteful, often lacking in substance and therefore lacking in credence. So lets not go there. My use of the word Sabbatarian was in reference to your use of “Anti-sabbatarians”. The implication was from what your said ‘anti-sabbatarians have it wrong’ therefore the logical progression would be ‘and sabbatarians have it right’. Again I apologize for putting words into your mouth. However the implication was logical and I think in this case your true position. If from casual reading you can not see that Sunday is mentioned as a Christian Day of worship then rehearsing them over again would serve not purpose. Lastly you seem to in enjoy falling all over the words “brosei” and “posei”. So your saying Paul was saying don’t let anyone bother you about your eating and drinking. Okay what would bother someone about someone’s eating or drinking. Two things I can think of. 1 “table manners” left a lot to be desired and Paul said don’t sweat it or 2 “what” they were eating was to some a problem and Paul said don’t sweat it. I think we both agree it is the latter and not the former. Paul was not teaching table manners he was teaching we were no longer under the dietary and ritual laws. Therefore the translators standing on intent, correctly translated eat and drink. EdB |
||||||
5 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25106 | ||
"... implication was the translators were unaware of their mistake (idiots) ..." The Bible says that if we call someone a fool that we are in danger of hell fire. So, I don't do that. What I did say in my study is (this is the long version) that I don't know of too many people who had (or would) spend two years looking at all of the available literature on two verses. --- "The implication that many commentaries are written purely for monetary gain ..." I wouldn't have made that assumption. --- "... I have always found an argument that depends on the denigration of others to be distasteful, often lacking in substance and therefore lacking in credence." And yet you did. ---- "Lastly you seem to in enjoy falling all over the words “brosei” and “posei”." Nope, just paying attention to two of the words in the text; I then use them as indicators of what the text is talking about vs. what is commonly said about the text. --- "... 2 “what” they were eating was to some a problem and Paul said don’t sweat it. I think we both agree it is the latter and not the former." Try again; I take it you haven't actually read my study. 3rd option (paying attention to ther historical and cultural context as to why Paulwrote in the first place): ascetics were complaining and judging the believers for their feasting _on_ (paying attention to the Greek behind "in regards to") the feast days that are then mentioned. --- "... he was teaching we were no longer under the dietary and ritual laws." The major problem here (recognized by some scholars): there are no drink laws! Here's some of the the relevant sources (note the date on number 9): 8. Bowman, Jr., Robert M. " Samuele Bacchiocchi on Paul and the Sabbath: A Critique of Samuele Bacchiocchi's Treatment of Colossians 2:16 in His Book From Sabbath to Sunday (Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977) ," (CRI Statement DB020): page 3. 9. Olshausen, Hermann Biblical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. (T. and T. Clark, 1851): page 360. 10. See the practices of the Nazarites and Essenes to which several commentators appeal; for instance, Gill, John (1697-1771) Exposition of the Bible and Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. (Eerdmans, 1984): page 114, and Scott, [ibid., page 51]: he notes that the Nazirites and Rechabites were forbidden to drink wine but that this was also "a special vow and entailed a discipline over and above the Law." 11. O'Brien, Peter "Colossians," Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 44 (Word Books, 1982): page 138. This fact is also noted by Bruce [ibid., page 114]. 12. Ash [ibid., page 186]; also noted by Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in New Testament. Vol. 3 (Charles Scribner's, 1924): page 493. Available online at godrules.net/library/vincent/vincentcol2.htm. |
||||||
6 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | EdB | 25159 | ||
Now are you going to try to shame me by saying you were merely implying that thousands of translators had made the same mistake over a period of 500 years, and that I mistakenly took what you said all wrong. That you really weren’t saying this to imply they did it out ignorance or had intentionally mis-interrupted this for some devious reason. Well brother let me tell you it worked I just threw myself on the floor as an act of contrition. I sit here shamed, how could I ever have misjudged such a clear and concise discourse on such a meaningful topic. EdB |
||||||
7 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25181 | ||
"Now are you going to try to shame me ..." I never do such a thing; why are you so guick and eager to impute motives? Do you have a license? --- "... by saying you were merely implying that thousands of translators had made the same mistake over a period of 500 years," 1) Tremendous advancements have been made in our knowledge about Biblical times in the last 40-50 years. So, to consider translations older than that as somehow above and beyond reproach is very misguided. 2) "Thousands"? 3) Look at the lexicons and compare them with the various translations. You will find that all translations are flawed in one way or another. Partly this is because translating isn't as straightforward as some (usually those who have never done it) might believe. Secondly, it is very hard to put aside one's preconceptions ab't what a text says. Thirdly, there is the "herd instinct" factor--not too many people are willing to break away from the pack. Fourthly, as my study shows some translators apparently didn't do their homework/research. --- "had intentionally mis-interrupted this for some devious reason." There you go with the imputing motives kick again. |
||||||
8 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | EdB | 25239 | ||
I tire of this linguistic tit for tat. We both know what you said what you meant. If in fact I interpreted wrong the problem is not mind but rather your communication skills since I repeatedly have given you ample opportunity to correct my misunderstanding. Unless you have more to offer in defense of your position I see no point in continuing this discussion. Thank you for the interesting thoughts on why you believe we should worship on the seventh day Sabbath. EdB |
||||||
9 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25246 | ||
I did correct your obvious misunderstanding and imputing false motives when it wasn't necessary, neither of which is linguistic. --- "Thank you for the interesting thoughts on why you believe we should worship on the seventh day Sabbath." I didn't say any such thing; I was just correcting a common misunderstanding about translating in general and Col. 2:16 in particular. |
||||||
10 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | EdB | 25258 | ||
“I did correct your obvious misunderstanding and imputing false motives when it wasn't necessary, neither of which is linguistic.” Sir you did nothing of the sort. You just used many words in an attempt to hide your implications. You evidently live by the motto if you can't amaze them with brilliance dazzle them with many words. “I didn't say any such thing; I was just correcting a common misunderstanding about translating in general and Col. 2:16 in particular.” See all this time I thought you were defending the position that we should worship on the seventh day. I never had a misunderstanding with Col. 2:16 :-) EdB |
||||||