How we got our Bible

[EclipseEventSigns]

Read the entire page. It covers the issue of esau not being part of the Israelites, how later due to political events and such, the edomites (esau) were absorbed into the hebrews. The two groups were not the same, yet ended up under the same title later, in time. The second article amplifies the subject. The point is that jews, as a term, going up to the hellenistic period, included many who were not part of the Israelites. The page talks also about how even until 4 generations (of observation?) they were not considered such. The word jew includes those who were not israelites, clearly, and for me is not a good term to describe the israelites as it was a later styling including many other people absorbed for various reasons under a regional or political domain. The information is there. The quote must be from a later page, and I will need to find a full pdf for that volume to provide it. Though from the same book, I said above that the page was different from the page I remembered (even though it covers the same issue, which must have continued to the next page.) I see that later translators, to simplify or for their own reasons (and not all translators agree it was a good idea), just labeled any hebrew or any edomite jewish. In translation the word was used as if the same. I do not agree with that simplification, because it confuses what is meant by a hebrew soul.

In the same way, I do not agree with the use of the Greek term for soul to explain the hebrew word npsh, which also means soul. Since for each group, the Greeks and Hebrews, the soul is entirely different and the words are not synonymous. People disagree and if you do not like what I said, I get that. You do not have to.

This is your original statement:
"The editor of the jewish encyclopedia (multi vol. *encyclopedia judaica), himself jewish, was quite clear that jewish and hebrew are not synonyms and that the israelites were not jewish.
*1925 encyclopedia judaica, Vol. 5 page 41"

There is no text on that page 41 that claims "jewish and hebrew are not synonyms" or "israelites were not jewish". It simply is not there. Neither is anything of the fact even implied. The page is outlining the history of the Edomites. The only leap of logic that might be possible is to point to the Herodean dynasty as being king over Judea. Herod being an Idumean and an Edomite. But as Scripture shows all Jews knew their family lineage. When Caesar commanded that the population return to their town of family origin, everyone was able to do that - to their original tribal cities.

This stated faulty interpretation of historical facts would then need to go so far as to claim that there has never been such a thing as pure Israelite nation. Rahab, of Jericho, wasn't of the 12 tribes and yet Joshua allowed her and her entire family to live and settle in the Promised Land. Ruth, also, was not of the 12 tribes. She was of Moab and yet she was married into the Israel nation. Both of those are included in the very family lineage of the Messiah. He Himself who has the title King of the Jews.

[Mat 2:2 LSB] 2 "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him."

[Mat 27:11 LSB] 11 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And Jesus said to him, "You yourself say [it]."

 

[e v e]

This is your original statement:

you can think whatever you like. I do not debate. I merely shared what I understand. Many things you bring up I never discussed such as Rahab. So...

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

you can think whatever you like. I do not debate. I merely shared what I understand. Many things you bring up I never discussed such as Rahab. So...

Perfectly fine to share what you understand. But if it can't be supported and actually goes against the Word of God, it must be corrected.

 

[e v e]

also, there may be souls, among those converted,
who are hebrew souls. I am simply saying that those who are esau are not part of jacob.
Of Esau God says Esau I hated.

 

[e v e]

Perfectly fine to share what you understand. But if it can't be supported and actually goes against the Word of God, it must be corrected.

I don't accept your correction.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I don't accept your correction.

That's perfectly fine. The correction remains for all others to see and verify for themselves.

 

[e v e]

That's perfectly fine. The correction remains for all others to see and verify for themselves.

as do my posts, which others can see and discuss with Him.
Only He decides after all, not you.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

as do my posts, which others can see and discuss with Him.
Only He decides after all, not you.

Actually, no. There is such a thing as Truth. Actual Facts. There is right and wrong. There is that which can be shown to be correct and that which is in error. All Truth is God's Truth.

[Act 17:10-11 LSB] 10 And the brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily [to see] whether these things were so.

 

[civic]

Actually, no. There is such a thing as Truth. Actual Facts. There is right and wrong. There is that which can be shown to be correct and that which is in error. All Truth is God's Truth.

[Act 17:10-11 LSB] 10 And the brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily [to see] whether these things were so.

And for example depending what side of the fence one falls on there is pre/post trib, pre / post millenialism, calvinism/arminianism etc.....

So sometimes finding the absolute truth in those areas is not an easy task and on this side of the grave me might never know for sure. I want to believe I know the truth with those above doctrines but I'm not 100 % sure I do.

Now on the essentials I believe I know the truth with the Trinity, Deity/humanity of Christ, the gospel, the Resurrection, salvation by faith apart from works , inerrancy, infallibility etc.....

 

[e v e]

And for example depending what side of the fence one falls on there is pre/post trib, pre / post millenialism, calvinism/arminianism etc.....

So sometimes finding the absolute truth in those areas is not an easy task and on this side of the grave me might never know for sure. I want to believe I know the truth with those above doctrines but I'm not 100 % sure I do.

Now on the essentials I believe I know the truth with the Trinity, Deity/humanity of Christ, the gospel, the Resurrection, salvation by faith apart from works , inerrancy, infallibility etc.....

I am most definitely pre tribulation, but not in the darby version..
and hoping it is any day now our Change...
the darby version of rapture is so off (in which those who follow it think
that a group meet Him on the clouds and the rest are not saved....)
He is not like that... Christ and his 144k will return and minister to Jacob during his many
trials in tribulation... His ones will be saved,
His Hebrew souls from the OT, many saints of the early church, the 144k, most of jacob I hope..
and then only esau and those who choose esau (those belonging to the evil realm)
will not be able to enter eden paradise..

I do so hope that very very few souls choose the evil realm..

 

[Dizerner]

But exactly what quote says this on page 41? Where exactly? I can't ask this any clearer.
You are making statements which can not be supported with anything that you are using to supposedly bolster your claim. It's all made up. It's factually incorrect.

I mean no offense—seriously, I really don't—but you will find this a recurring pattern.

Just a warning.

 

[Dizerner]

on this side of the grave me might never know for sure.

No, that is accusing God of not being faithful.

Stop making it random like God is to blame for our errors.

Each of us seek God to differing degrees, and that determines how accurate we are.

Else you call Jesus a liar when he says "Seek and ye will find."

 

[civic]

No, that is accusing God of not being faithful.

Stop making it random like God is to blame for our errors.

Each of us seek God to differing degrees, and that determines how accurate we are.

Else you call Jesus a liar when he says "Seek and ye will find."

I’m sorry the promise to know all truth was to the 12 not us. If you believe otherwise then maybe you are being deceived.

 

[Dizerner]

I’m sorry the promise to know all truth was to the 12 not us. If you believe otherwise then maybe you are being deceived.

I'm not the one deceived with ridiculous eisegesis.

You think that is the only verse in the Bible that says seek and you will find?

LOL.

You need to get off the forum and read the Bible more, seriously.

You think that is the only verse that says the Spirit will guide and instruct?

REALLY BRO?
YOU HAND ME THAT RIDICULOUS LOGIC ON A PLATTER AND EXPECT ME TO BOW TO YOUR EISEGESIS?

Wake up and smell the spiritual espresso, my esteemed interlocuter.

For the promise is to you and to your children,
and to all who are afar off,
as many as the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:39 NKJ)

Stick that in your hermeneutical pipe and exegete it!

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT!

 

[civic]

I'm not the one deceived with ridiculous eisegesis.

You think that is the only verse in the Bible that says seek and you will find?

LOL.

You need to get off the forum and read the Bible more, seriously.

You think that is the only verse that says the Spirit will guide and instruct?

REALLY BRO?
YOU HAND ME THAT RIDICULOUS LOGIC ON A PLATTER AND EXPECT ME TO BOW TO YOUR EISEGESIS?

Wake up and smell the spiritual espresso, my esteemed interlocuter.

For the promise is to you and to your children,
and to all who are afar off,
as many as the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:39 NKJ)

Stick that in your hermeneutical pipe and exegete it!

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT!

I see you avoided Jesus promise to His disciples and diverted with your eisegesis and preconceived ideas. Until you after you address Jesus words I’ll take that as an admission you cannot refute me just the same as with PSA and Jesus teaching on atonement that you cannot refute either . I’m the one actually exegetically correct

 

[civic]

in reading i use my Bible ..in study i google article that are related to the subject read them.. i have had people say i dont use the net.. i do and have found some very sound info.. found some that is best left alone

yes both are useful.

 

[civic]

Great little discussion by James White. Apparently it's a series.

@PapaLandShark any more white videos.

 

[mikesw]

I was looking some at the scriptures available and commonly in-use through Christian history. Of course the predominant NT and OT has been the Greek text in the earlier centuries. The Masoretic text (the Hebrew text used in translation now) seems to have taken prominence in Christian theologians in the 15th century. It was without accents and other marks until first in the 6th century and then the modern ones in the 10th century. These marks may then take a general word like Adam (134) and differentiate it from red(137) and earth (135). So the markings are later interpretations but generally would be helpful to make it easier to read the Hebrew.

Here is another sample abridged entry for earth which can be imagined without the accents when having less specific meaning
135 IV. אָדָם (ʾā·ḏām): n.[masc.]; ≡ Str 120
TWOT 25a—LN 1.60–1.68 earth, i.e., the surface of the ground
James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
Note that I have shared this concept mostly out of visual observations. I did check with AI that noted the vowels (via marks) were added based on Jewish traditions. The marks are quite helpful but I suppose they can be challenged when not matching with the Septuagint

The Greek also added accent and other marks in common usage in the 600s.

The Peshitta gives another view or snapshot of scripture. This is from wikipedia
The consensus within biblical scholarship, although not universal, is that the Old Testament of the Peshitta was translated into Syriac from Biblical Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century CE, and that the New Testament of the Peshitta was translated from Koine Greek, probably in the early 5th century.

The Peshitta has been referenced by some scholars in the 1800s but not seemingly so (on, for example, Galatians) in the 1900s and later. But that could be good for arbitration of the preferred OT readings and maybe a bit for the Greek text corrections.

 

[mikesw]

I found there are English translations from the Peshitta OT. I may check some ideas in this one:
The Holy Bible from the ancient Eastern text : George M. Lamsa's translations from the Aramaic of the Peshitta.

 

[Darby]

MEANING OF “BIBLE”

The word Bible can rightfully claim to be the great-grandson of the Greek word biblos, which was the name given to the outer coat of a papyrus reed in Egypt during the eleventh century B.C. The plural form of biblos is biblia, and by the second century A.D. Christians were using this latter word to describe their writings. Biblia gave birth to the Latin word of the same spelling, biblia, which was in turn transliterated into the Old French biblia by the same process. The modern English word Bible is derived from the Old French, with the Anglicized ending. The word is thus the product of four stages of transliteration and transmission. The term Bible is often used synonymously with “Scripture” or “Word of God” (see chap. 3).

“MEANING OF TESTAMENT”

Next to the fact that the Bible is a biblos, or one book, the most obvious fact is that it is divided into two parts called testaments. The Hebrew word for testament is berith, meaning a “covenant, or compact, or arrangement between two parties.” The Greek word diathēkē is often translated “testament” in the King James Version. This is a poor translation, and is one of the corrections made in newer versions of the Bible that regularly translate it as “covenant.” The Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), translates the Hebrew word berith as diathēkē, thus showing the derivation of the Greek term.

The Old Testament was first called the covenant in Moses’ day (Ex. 24:8). Later, Jeremiah announced that God would make a new “covenant” with His people (Jer. 31:31–34), which Jesus claimed to do at the Last Supper (Matt. 26:28, cf. 1 Cor. 11:23–25; Heb. 8:6–8). Hence, it is for Christians that the former part of the Bible is called the “Old” Covenant (Testament), and the latter is called the New Covenant.

The relationship between the two covenants is well summarized by the famous statement of St. Augustine: “… the Old Testament revealed in the New, the New veiled in the Old.…” Or, as another has put it, “The New is in the Old contained, and the Old is in the New explained.” For the Christian, Christ is the theme of both covenants


Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible