WHO ARE THE HEBREWS?

[jeremiah1five]

So did Satan in the temptation of Christ...

If you mean "Satan" as "Lucifer" they were all locked up.

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Pete 2:3–4.

I put their incarceration between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, before God created man.

And Jesus was tempted the only way men are tempted:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14.

But He wasn't enticed. He said, "the prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me." The prince of this world being man, not angel, fallen or otherwise.

 

[e v e]

Well, I suppose God wants us to reason with our fallen minds:

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:
Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
Though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Isaiah 1:18.

It's not impossible if God calls us with fallen minds to REASON out His salvation. And that's what He's doing.
Sins be as scarlet, red like crimson, etc.
Salvation is reason-able.
And so are other things in His Word. With our fallen minds we can do what the Roman centurion did or the Samaritan woman, and that is, reason-out the Hebrew Scriptures and identify the Son of David, the Messiah, the Christ. You see, salvation occurs in the mind, the fallen mind, because repentance is to "change [your] mind." That's what the Greek word means.
You got this.

thats a translation. probably kjv.

 

[GeneZ]

it is not blather but thank you for reading carefully.

You are confusing two different Biblical phenomena by conflating what God did for man in Genesis 1, and Genesis 2.

God created man's souls male and female in Genesis 1.
Those souls were then given bodies in Genesis 2.

Out from Adam's body was built a body for the female soul to live.
It was not two different creations of man. But, done in stages.

I do not have the time to develop that at this moment for I have to be somewhere soon.

I believe that is what has been confusing you.

 

[jeremiah1five]

thats a translation. probably kjv.

The ONLY Authorized Version for the English-speaking people.

 

[GeneZ]

The ONLY Authorized Version for the English-speaking people.

You are KJVO? (King James Version Only)

 

[Wrangler]

I was asking you what do you say after knowing the facts they could not know?

You don't think people before Paine wrote common sense factually knew what nationality they were?

 

[e v e]

You are confusing two different Biblical phenomena by conflating what God did for man in Genesis 1, and Genesis 2.

God created man's souls male and female in Genesis 1.
Those souls were then given bodies in Genesis 2.

Out from Adam's body was built a body for the female soul to live.
It was not two different creations of man. But, done in stages.

I do not have the time to develop that at this moment for I have to be somewhere soon.

I believe that is what has been confusing you.

However, the word for soul in hebrew is npsh, which is one undivided being, not a fleshbody plus a soul..

npsh is the whole being, as body and soul, one nature, not two natures warring each other.

this is not a complete response as I am working atm.

 

[e v e]

The ONLY Authorized Version for the English-speaking people.

authorized by adam and his esau sorcerers

 

[GeneZ]

You don't think people before Paine wrote common sense factually knew what nationality they were?

Did the Wright Brothers know they were to set the course for a Boeing 707?
They were the first and did not know...

 

[jeremiah1five]

You are KJVO? (King James Version Only)

For over 200 years that's all there was for English-speaking people until Westcott and Hort with their corrupt Greek texts and publishing houses using their corrupt text to translate into English hundreds of different translations - maybe thousands - so, if you want to talk about God is not the author of confusion that's the place to start.
I also find a disturbing lack of historical knowledge among Gentile Christians knowing history.

 

[jeremiah1five]

authorized by adam and his esau sorcerers

Adam didn't know how to write. He was illiterate.

 

[GeneZ]

For over 200 years that's all there was for English-speaking people until Westcott and Hort with their corrupt Greek texts and publishing houses using their corrupt text to translate into English hundreds of different translations - maybe thousands - so, if you want to talk about God is not the author of confusion that's the place to start.
I also find a disturbing lack of historical knowledge among Gentile Christians knowing history.

OK, so you bought that package.....

There is no reasoning with you.

 

[Wrangler]

Did the Wright Brothers know they were to set the course for a Boeing 707?

Not really an answer to my question.

 

[GeneZ]

Not really an answer to my question.

A more "fair inded" response could have read..

"I fail to see how that answered my question."

Because, it did address your question and explains why the Jews themselves believe they began with Abraham.

This argument is inane to most Jews.
Having myself been a Jew?
If some Jews, out of curiosity, came here and read this thread?
A good many might think.."Those Goyim Christians sure argue over the dumbest things. "

For the record.

Abraham was as Jew who did not have the Law of Moses to live under.
Its not the Law that made one a Jew.
The Law was created for Jews. Jews were not created for the Law.

The Law was given (in part) so that the Jews could form into an organized nation.
The Torah Law was its Constitution.

 

[jeremiah1five]

OK, so you bought that package.....

There is no reasoning with you.

So did several generations who opposed the Catholics and sought a return to the Scripture before closet-Catholics Westcott and Hort and their band of translators brought confusion to the Gentile Church. Since, one could not destroy the Word of God by attacking it from without, these two closet-Catholics sought to bring confusion by attacking it from within. And succeeded with the ignorant.

Once truth is established, I contend for the faith. What's wrong with that?

 

[GeneZ]

So did several generations who opposed the Catholics and sought a return to the Scripture before closet-Catholics Westcott and Hort and their band of translators brought confusion to the Gentile Church. Since, one could not destroy the Word of God by attacking it from without, these two closet-Catholics sought to bring confusion by attacking it from within. And succeeded with the ignorant.

Once truth is established, I contend for the faith. What's wrong with that?

The good part... The KJV was a break away from the evil darkness of the Catholic church.
It was a model of what a translation should be for the future.

Satan does not want believers to have clarification.
The King James in anachronistic English thinking serves that purpose.

You don't know the following:

Even in the original preface of the "Authorized" version, the translators admitted it was not a perfect translation.

When the King James Version of the Bible came off the press of Robert Barker in 1611, it contained an eleven-page preface titled “The Translators to the Reader.” This preface is primarily a defense of the new translation, but it also provides important information about the translators’ views on the subject of Bible translation. It is an embarrassment (or should be) to King James-only advocates because it contains statements from the translators that are in direct opposition to the KJV-only position. It is most unfortunate that this preface is no longer included in modern copies of the KJV. " ​

​

Link: ​

https://dbts.edu/2012/04/09/the-embarrassing-preface-to-the-king-james-version/​

​

​

​

.........​

 

[GeneZ]

So did several generations who opposed the Catholics and sought a return to the Scripture

"Several generations." They spoke the King's English and thought in a similar manner.

We no longer do so today.

When I first began attending Church I thought the pastor's job was not to exegete the Hebrew and Greek.
I thought they were supposed to exegete the King James archaic English.

It was only after my niece gave me a copy of the NIV did I first begin to feel hunger for God's Word. that is, in as much as it was accurately translated. All translations need correction from time to time.

Then later, I really began to really have a spurt of growth when I discovered my pastor who taught us from the Hebrew and Greek texts.
And, not to mention. Sending his recorded lessons free of charge!

 

[jeremiah1five]

The good part... The KJV was a break away from the evil darkness of the Catholic church.
It was a model of what a translation should be for the future.

Well, it took several translations, but Tyndale did the right thing to kick it off.

Satan does not want believers to have clarification.

That's why Westcott and Hort and their 1881 revision.
But thank God for John William Burgon who defended the Authorized Version and poked holes in what W&H did.

The King James in anachronistic English thinking serves that purpose.

You don't know the following:
Even in the original preface of the "Authorized" version, the translators admitted it was not a perfect translation.

I know that. But it is Authorized by God for the English-speaking people. The Received Text is also used to translate into other languages.

When the King James Version of the Bible came off the press of Robert Barker in 1611, it contained an eleven-page preface titled “The Translators to the Reader.” This preface is primarily a defense of the new translation, but it also provides important information about the translators’ views on the subject of Bible translation. It is an embarrassment (or should be) to King James-only advocates because it contains statements from the translators that are in direct opposition to the KJV-only position. It is most unfortunate that this preface is no longer included in modern copies of the KJV. " ​

​

Link: ​

https://dbts.edu/2012/04/09/the-embarrassing-preface-to-the-king-james-version/​

​

.........​

I'm not with the KJO movement. I don't know what they do, and I don't know what they say and all the particulars about it.

 

[GeneZ]

That's why Westcott and Hort and their 1881 revision.
But thank God for John William Burgon who defended the Authorized Version and poked holes in what W&H did.

Smart translators do not depend solely upon Westcott and Hort.

Commentary....

The majority of KJV only people believe that the Wescott and Hort exts are erroneous because they read a pamphlet from the pamphlet rack at church that said that it was.

They feel comfortable with the fact that the TR is derived from from manuscripts derived from the stream of texts that comprise the Majority Text. Wescott and Hort felt that the older manuscripts would best reflect the original manuscripts and were very critical of the TR because it was derived from only a handful of manuscripts. (Erasmus used what was available to him.)

Two very old manuscripts were discovered toward the end of the 19th century. They were the oldest manuscripts discovered to date and Wescott and Hort used them as the basis for their Greek NT. They differed from one another considerably and differed from the majority even more.

Advocates of the TR question this late finding, wondering why, considering God has promised to preserve His Word, he would wait 1800 years after its writing before allowing us to discover the most accurate translations. Many translations have been derived from Erasmus' Greek NT and it is obvious that the church flourished under versions such as the KJV or the Geneva etc.

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-westcott-and-hort-manuscripts-are-bad.14539/

 

[jeremiah1five]

Smart translators do not depend solely upon Westcott and Hort.

Commentary....

The majority of KJV only people believe that the Wescott and Hort exts are erroneous because they read a pamphlet from the pamphlet rack at church that said that it was.

They feel comfortable with the fact that the TR is derived from from manuscripts derived from the stream of texts that comprise the Majority Text. Wescott and Hort felt that the older manuscripts would best reflect the original manuscripts and were very critical of the TR because it was derived from only a handful of manuscripts. (Erasmus used what was available to him.)

Two very old manuscripts were discovered toward the end of the 19th century. They were the oldest manuscripts discovered to date and Wescott and Hort used them as the basis for their Greek NT. They differed from one another considerably and differed from the majority even more.

Advocates of the TR question this late finding, wondering why, considering God has promised to preserve His Word, he would wait 1800 years after its writing before allowing us to discover the most accurate translations. Many translations have been derived from Erasmus' Greek NT and it is obvious that the church flourished under versions such as the KJV or the Geneva etc.

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-westcott-and-hort-manuscripts-are-bad.14539/

No, it was very difficult and time consuming, but I've read both positions as well as "Revision Revised" by Burgon and the result of W&H's work has brought confusion to the Gentile Church. Hundreds of translations have FLOODED the market. There's a translation for every conceivable group of people on the planet. I'm actually waiting for the HipHop/Rap version and the LGBTQT translation.
Soon.