ARCHIVE: Reason to Believe: Ps. 22

[kratus1]

Mirror reflection.....

Mirror reflection.....

'Love.....what branch of "God" do you stem from? Some may talk like poets, and some may talk jibberish. But your comment, your handle, Marilyn Manson and your christian listing does not all mix together.

If you do have Jesus in your heart and are just a little resentful or crass, then be encouraged, that God wants us to "live to be a relfection of Christ to others."
To put it simply, unless you have an intellectuall or spiritual viewpoint, then the response was unnecessary.

 

[Daniel50]

Jmaes 1:23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror;

 

[kratus1]

Intersting.....

Intersting.....

)[/FONT]

wasn't Eusebius an Arian heretic?

not to make too fine a point of it, but one of the things that i find most compelling about this point in christian history is the political intrigue... Constantine himself was a sun worshipping pagan who ordered the murder of his son and his mother in law, if memory serves, and to emphasize just how interested he was in the theology of the fledgling faith, he appointed a heretic to compile the canon from the before mentioned "lost" - :chuckle: - documents... :think:

and also, the references in Psalms that are supposed to be prophetic... how hard would it have been for the compilers of the NT to have simply added the fulfillment of the prophecies in the gospel accounts?

sorry if that's already been covered, but it's a really simple explanation for the "prophecies".

Interesting question. The most honest answer a christian could give you is that our faith in God's word rest in it's inerrancy and accuracy. For God to have allowed any man to recreate or add to what He created, would have a negative reflection of God's sovereignty--which is another point. God makes it clear in Revelations that anyone who is to add or take away from this book will be thrown into the pit. (summarized for context

 

[chair]

Psalm 22 analyzed

Psalm 22 analyzed

Psalm 22 has nothing to do with Jesus. What we see is an attempt (typical, as others have pointed out) to read Jesus into the Old Testament.

1. It would be completely natural for Jesus, who likely knew the oT quite well, to use Biblical expressions in his time of trouble.

2. The Psalms were not all written by David, and thus this particular one does not necessarily predate Jesus by 1,000 years

3. The Hebrew text (as has been noted by my Karaite friend) does not have anything at all to do with piercing or crucifixion. It seems that only Christian translations of this, and possibly versions of the Septuagint that have been preserved by Christians over the centuries have the word "pierced" in them.

4. To top it all off, when the NT was written, it is quite possible that they wrote a story that matched their OT expectations.

In short, this argument would not convince a knowledgable atheist or Jew.

All of these OT arguments will only convince the convinced.

Oh- if anybody out there wants to start up on the Hebrew word "echad" meaning "one-that-is-many", you will get an earful from me. Another bit of nonsense.

 

[Psalmist]

What would The Writer of Psalm 22 Say ? ? ?

What would The Writer of Psalm 22 Say ? ? ?

:think: TURBO Nice piece of work on on Psalm 22, nicely referenced :thumb: For me as a student of the scriptures it is A+ work

Have read "The Treasury of David" by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, it is worth reading. It comes in two styles 3 volume complete, and a single volume abridged.

What would David the writer of the 22nd Psalm, tell us about what he wrote?

I myself think it is marvelous the way the prophicies of the coming of the Messiah Jesus are woven like tapestry through out the Old Testament, so that when we see the finished work in the New Testament the tapestry from the front, we see a truly beautiful finished work, Amen and Amen!

 

[Psalmist]

More Information

More Information

:think:

This is what I found concerning Psalm 22

www.spurgeon.org/treasury/ps022.htm

Further exposition on the Psalms from the Treasury of David by Charles H. Spurgeon

www.spurgeon.org/treasury/treasury.htm

 

[Frank Ernest]

Psalm 22 has nothing to do with Jesus. What we see is an attempt (typical, as others have pointed out) to read Jesus into the Old Testament.

Yes, it does and, no, it isn't.

1. It would be completely natural for Jesus, who likely knew the oT quite well, to use Biblical expressions in his time of trouble.

Why would that be "natural" and why pick Psalm 22?

2. The Psalms were not all written by David, and thus this particular one does not necessarily predate Jesus by 1,000 years

Psalm 22 is attributed to David. Who are the other candidates for authorship?

3. The Hebrew text (as has been noted by my Karaite friend) does not have anything at all to do with piercing or crucifixion. It seems that only Christian translations of this, and possibly versions of the Septuagint that have been preserved by Christians over the centuries have the word "pierced" in them.

Your Karaite friend needs some instruction in Hebrew then.

4. To top it all off, when the NT was written, it is quite possible that they wrote a story that matched their OT expectations.

Got any documentation for this?

In short, this argument would not convince a knowledgable atheist or Jew.

Interesting you put Jew and atheist in the same category.

All of these OT arguments will only convince the convinced.

:darwinsm: They certainly won't convince the unconvinceable atheist or unconvinceable Jew.

 

[brandplucked]

How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - three examples

How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - three examples

How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - Three examples

Number 1 - Haggai 2:7 The Desire of all nations

One of my favorite hymns, O Come, O Come Emmanuel, has the line "O come Desire of nations, come." Handel’s beautiful work, The Messiah, also has this line in one of the hymns taken from the King James Bible. "And the Desire of all nations shall come. But who may abide the day of His coming? For He is like a refiner's fire."

This line comes from Haggai 2:6,7: "For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land: And I will shake all nations, and THE DESIRE OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts."

There are also references to this event in the New Testament. The book of Hebrews says in 12:26: "Whose voice then shook the earth; but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." Again, in Hebrews 10:37 we read: "For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry."

Matthew Henry comments on Haggai 2:6-7:

"He shall come as the desire of all nations — desirable to all nations, for in him shall all the families of the earth be blessed with the best of blessings — long expected and desired by the good people in all nations, that had any intelligence from the Old-Testament predictions concerning him."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on Haggai 2:7

“So Hebrews 12:26, which quotes this passage; the apostle compares the heavier punishment which awaits the disobedient under the New Testament with that which met such under the Old Testament. At the establishment of the Sinaitic covenant, only the earth was shaken to introduce it, but now heaven and earth and all things are to be shaken, all kingdoms that stand in the way of Messiah's kingdom, "which cannot be shaken," are to be upturned. Paul condenses together the two verses of Haggai 2:6-7 and 2:21-22, implying that it was one and the same shaking, of which the former verses of Haggai denote the beginning, the latter the end."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown continue: "There is scarcely a prophecy of Messiah in the Old Testament which does not, to some extent at least, refer to His second coming."

"While the Jews as a nation desired Him not, the Gentiles, who are plainly pointed out by "all nations," accepted Him; and so to them He was peculiarly desirable. The "good tidings of great joy" were "to all people" (Luke 2:10). The Jews, and those in the adjoining nations instructed by them, looked for Shiloh to come unto whom the gathering of the people was to be, from Jacob's prophecy (Genesis 49:10). The early patriarchs, Job (Job 19:25-27) and Abraham (John 8:56), desired Him."

"fill this house with glory-- As the first temple was filled with the cloud of glory, the symbol of God, so this second temple was filled with the "glory" of God (John 1:14) veiled in the flesh at Christ's first coming, when He entered it and performed miracles there ; but that "glory" is to be revealed at His second coming, AS THIS PROPHECY IN ITS ULTERIOR REFERENCE FORETELLS." (Caps are mine)

John Gill comments on Haggai 2:6-7 (Caps are mine):"and the desire of all nations shall come; NOT THE DESIRABLE THINGS OF ALL NATIONS, or them with them, as their gold and silver; and which is the sense of Jarchi, Kimchi, and Aben Ezra; but this is contrary to the syntax of the words, to the context of Haggai 2:8, and to facts; ... but one far more glorious and excellent, is intended, EVEN THE MESSIAH, in whom all nations of the earth were to be blessed;... HIS PERSONAL COMING; his spiritual coming; his coming to take vengeance on the Jews; and HIS LAST COMING, of which some understand the words particularly."

John Calvin remarks on Haggai 2:6-7 "But we may understand what he says of Christ, Come shall the desire of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory. We indeed know that Christ was the expectation of the whole world, according to what is said by Isaiah. And it may be properly said, that when the desire of all nations shall come, that is, when Christ shall be manifested, in whom the wishes of all ought to center, the glory of the second Temple shall then be illustrious."

Other Bible versions that agree with the King James Holy Bible "and the desire of all nations shall come" are the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Green's interlinear and Modern KJV 1998, Darby, Douay 1950, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation into English, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (el Deseado de todas las naciones vendrá), the Italian Diodati 1602, Webster’s 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, God's Word Translation 1995, and Third Millenium Bible 1998.

J.P. Green's 2005 KJV3 reads: " And I will shake all the nations; and the Desire of all nations shall come. And I will fill this house with glory, says Jehovah of Hosts.hands; and you did not turn to Me, a state- ment of Jehovah."

The NIV is pretty good here with "and the desired of all nations will come."

Miles Coverdale 1535 gives the same idea with: " the comforte of all Heithen shall come"

God's Word to the Nations version 1995 - "and the one whom all the nations desire will come." This gives the same sense as that found in the King James Bible.

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 also reads similar to the King James Bible - "and the delight of all the nations, shall come in."

However things begin to go awry in the NKJV with its: "and THEY shall come to the Desire of All Nations." This is incorrect because it is the Lord Jesus Christ who is coming to us; not we who are not going to Him.

But with the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation everything has changed, and this is no longer a prophecy about Christ at all. The NASB reads: "And I am going to shake all the nations and THEY WILL COME WITH THE WEALTH of all nations."

The Message - "And I'll shake down all the godless nations. They'll bring bushels of wealth and I will fill this Temple with splendor. GOD of the Angel-Armies says so."

The RSV, NRSV, ESV (2001 English Standard Version) and the 2004 Holman Standard all unite in reading: "and I will shake all nations so that THE TREASURES OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME IN, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts." Again, any prophesy about the return of Christ has been eliminated from this passage.

Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological seminary is writing his own bible version called the NET bible. He often rejects the Hebrew readings, changes many others, and frequently comes up with a translation that does not agree with any other version in print.

He renders this verse: "I will also shake up all the nations, and THEY(12) will offer their treasures;(13) then I will fill this temple with glory,’ says the sovereign Lord."

Then in his footnotes he admits to emending the Hebrew text. He tells us: (12) Heb “all the nations.” (13) Though the subject here is singular (“desire”), the preceding plural predicate mandates a collective subject, “desired (things)”. This has no direct reference to the coming of the Messiah."

In other words, Dr. Wallace first changed the text, and then said the Hebrew subject "the desire" does not agree with his changed text, and finally that the verse has no reference to the coming of the Messiah! Truly, modern scholarship is a marvel to behold.

The word used here for "desire" - #2532 khem-daw - does not mean "wealth", as the NASB says, nor "treasures" as the ESV, RSV, NET and Holman have it. The correct meaning refers not to THEY who will come, but to Christ, the Messiah, and the Desire of all nations. The NASB has only once translated this word as "wealth", and yet has the same word rendered as "desire" in Daniel 11:37 - "he will show no regard for... the desire of women".

This noun "desire" comes from the verb "to desire" # 2530 and is used in 1 Samuel 9:20 referring to the first king over Israel, when Samuel said to Saul "and on whom is all the DESIRE of Israel?." It is used again in Isaiah 53:2: "and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should DESIRE him." The Isaiah passage clearly refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, at His first coming in the flesh.

The same verb is used in Genesis 3:6 where the woman saw that the tree "was a tree to be desired to make one wise", and in Psalm 19:10 where the judgments of the LORD are described as "more to be desired than gold, yea, than much fine gold."

The King James Bible is right, as always, and the statement by scholarly experts such as James White, who now works for the NASB committee, that we need to compare all versions to get an accurate sense of the meaning, is utter nonsense and results in total confusion.

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself

Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself

How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - Three examples

Number Two - Daniel 9:26 "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself"


Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, not for Himself, but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí) but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV. Also agreeing with the King James reading of "but not for Himself" are Webster's 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation (pleen ouxi di heauton), the Third Millenium Bible, Green's 1998 Modern KJV, and the KJV 21st Century Version. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".

The NIV is not always translated in the same way into foreign languages. The NIV in Spanish simply omits this last phrase altogether. The 1984 Nueva Versión Internacional says: "After the 72 weeks, the life of the elect prince will be taken away."

Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing his own bible version on the internet. It is called the NET bible and it often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and frequently comes up with meanings not found in any other bible out there in print. His NET version with commentary says: "Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Then he footnotes: "The expression "HAVE NOTHING" is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting A VICARIOUS DEATH, CANNOT BE DEFENDED."

This "renowned scholar" admits his own rendering "is difficult", and "a presumption", but then he adamantly tells that the idea of a substitutionary death as found in the King James Bible "cannot be defended". He is uncertain about his own reading, but certain that the King James Bible got it wrong! Aren't Bible correctors a kick in the head? Well, as we shall soon see, a great many Bible teachers and translators are not at all in agreement with Dr. Wallace's opinions.

Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa. 53:8. He must be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF —not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, HE MUST DIE FOR THE PEOPLE, IN OUR STEAD and for our good, it was TO ATONE FOR OUR SINS, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - BUT FOR OUR SAKES, and for our salvation."

John Gill offers two different interpretations but he gives this one first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, BUT FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE, to make satisfaction for them, and TO OBTAIN THEIR REDEMPTION and salvation."

David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, NOT FOR HIMSELF."

C.H. Spurgeon comments: "The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." - Daniel 9:26 "Blessed be his name, there was no cause of death in him. Neither original nor actual sin had defiled him, and therefore death had no claim upon him. No man could have taken his life from him justly, for he had done no man wrong, and no man could even have lain him by force unless he had been pleased to yield himself to die. But lo, one sins and another suffers. Justice was offended by us, but found its satisfaction in him. Rivers of tears, mountains of offerings, seas of the blood of bullocks, and hills of frankincense, could not have availed for the removal of sin; BUT JESUS WAS CUT OFF FOR US, and the cause of wrath was cut off at once, for sin was put away for ever. Herein is wisdom, whereby SUBSTITUTION, the sure and speedy WAY OF ATONEMENT, was devised! Herein is condescension, which brought Messiah, the Prince, to wear a crown of thorns, and die upon the cross! Herein is love, which led the Redeemer to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS ENEMIES!

Bible Babel in Action

Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statements made by many today that "There are no conflicting bibles", or "By reading a multitude of different versions we get a better idea of what the text says".

Wycliffe 1395 - "Christ shall be slain, and IT SHALL NOT BE HIS PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM."

Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

The New English bible 1970 says: "one who is anointed is removed WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

Young's 'literal' translation has: "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

The alleged Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."

The Message of 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." (Not quite true, is it?)

1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (Again not true)

The Good News Translation - Second edition says: "And at the end of that time God's chosen leader will be killed UNJUSTLY." Then it footnotes: "One ancient translation unjustly; Hebrew unclear."

The Easy To Read Version 2001 - "After the 62 weeks, the chosen person will be killed. HE WILL BE GONE."

The Catholic versions are all in disagreement with each other too.

The Douay Version of 1950 says: - "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: AND THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

Then the Jerusalem Bible of 1968 has: "an anointed one will be cut off - AND....WILL NOT BE FOR HIM." (This is actually how it reads)

The St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 has: "an anointed shall be cut down WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSES THE CITY"

And finally the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 says: "an Anointed One put to death WITHOUT HIS...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." (Again, this is actually how it reads)

May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Number Three - Isaiah 66:5 But He shall appear to your joy

There are literally hundreds of examples of how the New KJV has changed the meaning of the Scriptures as found in the King James Bible. One of these hundreds of examples is found in Isaiah 66:5.

There we read: "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: BUT HE SHALL APPEAR TO YOUR JOY, and they shall be ashamed."

This is the reading of not only the KJB but also the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569 (42 years before the KJB), the subsequent Spanish versions of 1602, 1909 and 1960, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible of 1902, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, Green's interlinear translation 1985 and Modern KJV 1998, the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21st Century Version.

The Modern Greek translation also reads as does the King James Bible. Though the alleged LXX reads differently even from the NKJV, NASB, with "and may appear THEIR joy", yet the Modern Greek translation has: "and he will appear to your joy" - just as found in the King James Bible.

However a host of modern versions, including the NKJV, give a very different meaning to this passage of Scripture. The NKJV, along with the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard, says: "Who cast you out for my name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, THAT WE MAY SEE YOUR JOY'. But they shall be ashamed."

Again, the good Doctor Daniel Wallace and his NET version render this verse: “so that we might witness your joy.” Then Wallace significantly remarks in his footnotes: "The point of this statement is unclear."

Well, Duh. Sure it's unclear NOW. You just changed the whole meaning of the verse!

What happened to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is the true meaning "But He shall appear to your joy" or "That We may see your joy"?

The verb used here is # 7200 variously translated as "to see, to appear, to provide". It is a very common verb, but this particular instance is what is called a Niphal participle. According to George Wigram's Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, 1980, Baker Book House Company, on page 1141, Dr. Wigram informs us that this Niphal participle occurs only three times and every time it refers to the Lord who appears. The other two times this verb form is found both refer to either God or the Lord. Genesis 12:7 "the LORD who appeared unto him"; Genesis 35:1 "God that appeared unto thee". The third time is here in Isaiah 66:5 "but he shall appear to your joy."

Jamison, Faucett and Brown comment: They cast you out for my name's sake - excommunicate, as if too polluted to worship with them. So in Christ's first sojourn on earth. So it shall be again in the last times, when the believing shall be few (Luke 18:8). Let the Lord be glorified - the mocking challenge of the persecutors, as if their violence towards you was from zeal for God. "He shall appear to your joy," --giving you "joy" instead of your "rebuke"

John Gill comments: "but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed: that is, the Lord shall appear, either in a providential way, as he did for the Christians at Jerusalem... or else this may respect the second coming, the glorious appearance of Christ, which will be to the joy of those believing Jews, and of all his people; since he will appear to their salvation, and they shall appear with him in glory, and see him as he is, (Hebrews 9:28) (Colossians 3:4) (1 John 3:2) , and to the shame, confusion, and destruction of those that have pierced him, despised and rejected him, and persecuted his people."

John Calvin remarks: "But he will be seen to your joy. As if he had said, “God, by his coming, will cause believers to know that they have not hoped in vain; for he will appear for the advantage of believers, and for the destruction of those who maintain that he will appear as the defender of wickedness, of which he will be the severe avenger. The former shall enjoy gladness and consolation, while the latter shall be ashamed and shall blush, for they shall quickly feel that the judgment of God, which they now laugh at, is at hand.”

I believe this verse has a great deal of application to the Bible version issue being fought today. "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed."

We who really believe God has given us an inerrant, complete, preserved and inspired Holy Bible, and tremble at His words, are called ignorant fanatics, church dividers and members of a Cult, from which we need to repent.

Those who deny there is any Bible or Hebrew or Greek text that is the inerrant word of God actually think they are the ones who are glorifying God by promoting a multitude of conflicting, and admittedly non-inspired bible versions, while ridiculing our position on the King James Holy Bible. .

There are two camps in this battle for an inerrant Bible. There are thousands upon thousands of Christians who believe God has kept His promises to preserve His pure, inspired words and that He has done so in the King James Holy Bible for the last 400 years. And then there are those who SAY the Bible is the inspired word of God, but when closely examined, will admit the "originals" no longer exist. They then will tell you what they really believe: "No Bible is 100 percent correct; All translations have errors; The correct text is...; I think a better rendering would be..." yada, yada, yada. Every man does that which is right in his own eyes, and submits to no final, written word of God.

The battle lines are clearly drawn and you cannot sit on the fence. By the grace of God, may we be found among those who tremble at His word. We have God's promise that He will appear to our joy, and they shall be ashamed.

Stick with the old King James Bible and you will not go wrong.

Will Kinney

 

[allsmiles]

does anyone here know what midrash is?

 

[Frank Ernest]

does anyone here know what midrash is?

Start here

 

[kmoney]

hey Frank, don't bother. allsmiles wasn't asking because he wants someone to tell him what it is. He was asking because he wanted to explain to us all what it is.

 

[allsmiles]

hey Frank, don't bother. allsmiles wasn't asking because he wants someone to tell him what it is. He was asking because he wanted to explain to us all what it is.

i've explained it several times, i was actually curious if anyone besides myself had run into it before.

thanks for the link Frank.

 

[kmoney]

i've explained it several times, i was actually curious if anyone besides myself had run into it before.

thanks for the link Frank.

You'll have to forgive my cynicism because I don't buy it.....

 

[allsmiles]

You'll have to forgive my cynicism because I don't buy it.....

fair enough, you can buy whatever you want.

The "classical" Midrash starts off with a seemingly unrelated sentence from the Biblical books of Psalms, Proverbs or the Prophets. This sentence later turns out to metaphorically reflect the content of the rabbinical interpretation offered.

The homiletical midrashim embrace the interpretation of the non-legal portions of the Hebrew Bible. These midrashim are sometimes referred to as aggadah or haggadah, a loosely-defined term that may refer to all non-legal discourse in classical rabbinic literature.

Aggadic explanations of the non-legal parts of Scripture are characterized by a much greater freedom of exposition than the Halachic Midrashim (midrashim on Jewish law.) Aggadic expositors availed themselves of various techniques, including sayings of prominent rabbis. These aggadic explanations could be philosophical or mystical disquisitions concerning angels, demons, paradise, hell, the messiah, Satan, feasts and fasts, parables, legends, satirical assaults on those who practice idolatry, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

 

[kmoney]

fair enough, you can buy whatever you want.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

What I wasn't "buying" was your intentions in asking that question, not midrash.

 

[allsmiles]

What I wasn't "buying" was your intentions in asking that question, not midrash.

yeah, i know. i included a link for the heck of it, not because i misunderstood you, sorry about that

 

[kmoney]

yeah, i know. i included a link for the heck of it, not because i misunderstood you, sorry about that

Well be more careful next time! I'm easily confused. :noid:

 

[allsmiles]

Well be more careful next time! I'm easily confused. :noid:

aww...