How and why did you reject christ?

[Harel13]

12 teams--have you read any of the New Testament? Most of the epistles start with X and X or with Scribe Y . . . Luke starts with "I'm an eyewitness and interviewed fellow eyewitnesses . . . "

Apparently not enough. Too busy learning important stuff.

Can you explain your interpretation? How do people behave "like a lion" at your hands and feet? For example, I've had people growl or threaten me or my person or my bank account, not my hands or feet.

At this point, I feel you may be trolling me. It really isn't complicated. David is comparing his enemies to a ferocious lion, surrounding his four main limbs. Consider a person ambushed by a group of thugs. As long as one limb has some leg-room or elbow-room, he can still make an escape. If he's too tightly surrounded, he feels completely trapped.

By the way, do you this passage, also from Isaiah?

Do I what?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Who is the faithful remnant and how are they faithful?

Those of the people of Israel who are faithful to God, meaning that they obey his commandments.

Christians usually object by saying, "no one can keep all the commandments perfectly." This is a red herring. We are not talking about keeping them perfectly. We are talking about those who aspire to keep them, and who repent when they fall, verses those who habitually break them because they don't care.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nope.

If you are serious, than you are ignorant of basic scholarship, or reject basic scholarship, and I can't have an intelligent discussion with you about this.

Haven't you ever learned a foreign language and tried to translate a letter or something? Obviously not, or you would know what I'm talking about.

 

[firedragon]

If you are serious, than you are ignorant of basic scholarship, or reject basic scholarship, and I can't have an intelligent discussion with you about this.

Haven't you ever learned a foreign language and tried to translate a letter or something? Obviously not, or you would know what I'm talking about.

Wrong. Your odhominem is wrong and is wrong anyway, your assumptions about other people are wrong and if you think you are the only one who has translated a letter or knows two languages that's playing God which is a super arrogant position, and you have not understood the comments you are responding to for some reason.

If you want to pick a fight with someone you can do it in town, don't make a wall out of nothing wish to break it as if you are looking for one.

Cheers.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Wrong.

I am not wrong. ANy and every translation of a text is inferior to the original language text. Sacred or otherwise.

 

[firedragon]

I am not wrong. ANy and every translation of a text is inferior to the original language text. Sacred or otherwise.

Lol. You see, you should develop the ability to read someones sentence with empathy, not arrogant "I am God attitude".

I never discussed a translation, superior or inferior. I never said a translation is superior. What you are wrong is assuming others don't know languages like you. Do you understand? Thats when you were wrong. So I think you are just dying for some entertainment thus trying to organize an argument where there is none.

Practice some humility.

Cheers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

if you think you are the only one who has translated a letter or knows two languages that's playing God which is a super arrogant position, and you have not understood the comments you are responding to for some reason.

That was not stated or implied. Translating from one language to another--even at the elementary level--can get tricky, be difficult, and at times will require the "best effort" of the translator to rearrange things in a coherent manner or find a way to best express a word that doesn't exist and has no equivalent concept in the language you're translating to. And colloquialisms are especially difficult. And then there is Heidegger and Nietzsche. Going from German to English with those two is notoriously difficult because of obscure word usages, playful word usage, and unusual word usage and combinations that can be confusing. It is so difficult at times that in Heidegger's Being and Time, the first page on many editions is a short bit of text with a footnote that is longer than the regular text, stretching over the next page or two, all to describe one phrase and the possible ways Heidegger used and the ways other translators have approached it.
Or we can up to ante to ancient Greek or even Shakespeare. Regarding those, there are papers and scholarly debates and arguments regarding the definition and usage of just one word.
Anything beyond basic elementary requires the original text, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and it really helps to have someone who is a native speaker. Because translating into another language is far more difficult than merely understanding the original language (just as understanding it is way easier than speaking it - that translation issue tends to pop its head up when you do that until you're more fluent in the language).

 

[firedragon]

That was not stated or implied. Translating from one language to another--even at the elementary level--can get tricky, be difficult, a

True, but that was irrelevant. Because I never claimed a translation is better. Hope you understand.

Also, you have missed the statement he made, that said with all due respect.

"Haven't you ever learned a foreign language and tried to translate a letter or something? Obviously not, or you would know what I'm talking about."

Irrelevant, and playing God to know another persons life and times with only an Internet forum user name to see.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Apparently not enough. Too busy learning important stuff.

At this point, I feel you may be trolling me. It really isn't complicated. David is comparing his enemies to a ferocious lion, surrounding his four main limbs. Consider a person ambushed by a group of thugs. As long as one limb has some leg-room or elbow-room, he can still make an escape. If he's too tightly surrounded, he feels completely trapped.

Do I what?

Hands and feet aren't limbs, they are extremities. Rather than trolling you, I'm pointing to the difficulties inherent in forcing "pierced" to "like a lion".

There are hundreds of Tanakh prophecies about Yeshua HaMashiach. I'm hoping for better than hand-waving, unfortunately my Jewish brethren do so when they run out of room. It happens.

Keep seeking truth, Ha Shem will show you, I say.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Those of the people of Israel who are faithful to God, meaning that they obey his commandments.

Christians usually object by saying, "no one can keep all the commandments perfectly." This is a red herring. We are not talking about keeping them perfectly. We are talking about those who aspire to keep them, and who repent when they fall, verses those who habitually break them because they don't care.

Christians would say the same thing, THEY repent when they fall and do their best, and do not need the Jewish people to atone for their sin.

They would also say, however, that without blood, there is no sin atonement, as Tanakh says.

 

[Harel13]

Keep seeking truth, Ha Shem will show you, I say.

Thankfully, I already believe that I've grown up with the truth from Hashem.

Hands and feet aren't limbs, they are extremities.

Semantics. In Hebrew they're all called Eivarim איברים.

I'm pointing to the difficulties inherent in forcing "pierced" to "like a lion".

Forcing pierced to like a lion? It's the other way around. But deny what you wish. I explained the language to you. There's nothing more to say on the matter.
And with this, I leave this thread once more.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Lol. You see, you should develop the ability to read someones sentence with empathy, not arrogant "I am God attitude".

I never discussed a translation, superior or inferior. I never said a translation is superior. What you are wrong is assuming others don't know languages like you. Do you understand? Thats when you were wrong. So I think you are just dying for some entertainment thus trying to organize an argument where there is none.

Practice some humility.

Cheers.

If I've made a mistake, then I apologize. But it was my understanding that you entered into a discussion on the use of a Greek translation of the Torah.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Christians would say the same thing, THEY repent when they fall and do their best, and do not need the Jewish people to atone for their sin.

They would also say, however, that without blood, there is no sin atonement, as Tanakh says.

Where in the Tanakh does it say, "Without blood there is no remission of sin"? That is a quote from the book of Hebrews, not the Tanakh.

You actually have, i.e., Aaron making atonement with incense on one occasion at least (when God strikes the people with a plague for rebelling). Also, those Jews who don't have the money for an animal to sacrifice could always bring grain. So... grain atoned for sins. That demolishes your argument fairly easily and thoroughly.

 

[firedragon]

If I've made a mistake, then I apologize. But it was my understanding that you entered into a discussion on the use of a Greek translation of the Torah.

Please read up.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Where in the Tanakh does it say, "Without blood there is no remission of sin"? That is a quote from the book of Hebrews, not the Tanakh.

You actually have, i.e., Aaron making atonement with incense on one occasion at least (when God strikes the people with a plague for rebelling). Also, those Jews who don't have the money for an animal to sacrifice could always bring grain. So... grain atoned for sins. That demolishes your argument fairly easily and thoroughly.

The entire sins of Israel were always expiated (on a temporary basis) via blood! Of course, where we could bring something non-animal to sacrifice we always were still blood covered both by Yom Kippur offerings and the blood of King Mashiach.

Blood covered Adam and Eve when God slew an animal for their covering. Blood covers Tanakh and both testaments.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The entire sins of Israel were always expiated (on a temporary basis) via blood! Of course, where we could bring something non-animal to sacrifice we always were still blood covered both by Yom Kippur offerings and the blood of King Mashiach.

Blood covered Adam and Eve when God slew an animal for their covering. Blood covers Tanakh and both testaments.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

The examples that I gave for exceptions to this rule still stand.

What makes you think that the sacrifices of Adam and Eve were for sin? They could have been for worship and adoration.

 

[metis]

IMO, the likely teaching from Paul on Jesus being the "final sacrifice" was a theological construct formulated because the "God-Fearers" (Gentiles who had a belief in God) would not have been allowed to have sacrifices performed for them at the Temple. Plus, such an approach using parallels to previous narratives are quite common in the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The examples that I gave for exceptions to this rule still stand.

What makes you think that the sacrifices of Adam and Eve were for sin? They could have been for worship and adoration.

God killed an animal and covered Adam and Eve with it, so they could adore Him better, just before He expelled them from Eden?

Isaiah 49 - Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

God killed an animal and covered Adam and Eve with it, so they could adore Him better, just before He expelled them from Eden?

Isaiah 49 - Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.

God killed an animal to clothe them. It had nothing to do with sacrifice at all. Try to stay on topic.

 

[BilliardsBall]

God killed an animal to clothe them. It had nothing to do with sacrifice at all. Try to stay on topic.

It had nothing to do with sacrifice while it clothed them from their sin? Or are you saying that when Adam and Eve went from naked and free to a knowledge of their nakedness, that they were wrong? Didn't God clothe them while they were still not needing clothes (in Eden)?

Do you wear clothes in public? Is it sinful or not to expose our parts in public?

God can sacrifice animals, just like people - a sacrifice is one giving up (life blood) to help another get by/atone.

Or should God have said, "Who told you 'you're naked'? Take those fig leaves off. You're NOT naked at all!"

From Adam through Zechariah, there is blood poured out. The blood of Yeshua atones for all our sin IMHO.