Nathan_Jr
-
Posts
3,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
76
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by Nathan_Jr
-
As you know, this claim is pure, steamy bull$hit. The greatest secrets in the world today are that most people will believe most anything they hear and one can get away with the most egregious crimes against man and God, if one can only get himself called reverend.
-
The NT was originally written in Greek, not Aramaic. It was fashionable in the early '70s to assert the opinionated claim that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. This fashion went out of style because truth won out.
-
The Pesh I t t a is the Syriac version of the Bible used in Syriac and Eastern churches. The NT of the Pesh I t t a may have been written as early as the 5th century. It is a translation from the GREEK. The Syriac-Aramaic Bible that Llamsa translated into English used the GREEK NT as its source text. The words "which means" are NOT anomalous. But I don't mind conceding your claim. So what if "which means" is an anomalous rendering? It would be like the thousands of other variants, of no real consequence.
-
"Which means" is NOT an anomaly. Many different Bible versions render it this way.
-
What is the Pes h I. Tt a?
-
The statement in bold is spurious. Perhaps you were in a hurry and didn't say what you meant. Surely, you know that Llamsa's Bible is a translation of the Peshi--a . You do know what the Peshi--a is, don't you? I'm happy to discuss the science and art of translation and interpretation and the nuance and complexity of language. But this is a thread about the canon, not about translation. Would you like to start a new topic? Want me to start one for you?
-
60% of the time it works every time.
-
That's exactly what it's called. Now, put your gloves back on! Nobody walks around here with naked hands.
-
mmmmmmm....yummm! ...kimchi... Wait! You distracted me! I don't even have time to write this post. Try making up systems of logic yourself. It's hard enough without eight people throwing jokes at you.
-
No, no, no, no, NO!!!!!! You obviously missed it the first time. You should go back and read the duck equation I posted. Read it again and again until it infects your brain. Read it until it ferments in your shoes.
-
Prepositions. Nothing but prepositions. Until conjunctions. Try writing THAT in cursive. Put it in a bag, Jasper! Evidence. Pure, cold-pressed evidence. Even envelope rainbows! See? Isn't that just wonderful. Bless your little hearts!
-
Everything is based on this axiom: Waterhead babies carve cloudy blenders. Rip currents. Even gloves. Did I mention gloves? HOWEVER, bacon breath.
-
I'm assuming quince is unprovable if cardboard Africa. It's a totally different system of logic.
-
A bowl of fruit + dogs + lmlmlmlmnopqrstutututuvwvwvw + gloves + spacecraft + 398 + Elizabeth Gardner = duck
-
Marcion proposed a cannon in the 2nd century. He was a hardcore follower of Paul and Paul only. His canon included ten letters of Paul and a shorter version of Luke. None of the pastoral epistles were in Marcion's canon, probably because they weren't written yet, or else he didn't think Paul wrote them. He didn't think any OT books should be included because he thought they were about a different god. **cdcdcdcdcdcdcdcd ccddccddccddccdd ef
-
I rest my case.
-
Do you accept the definitions of 'canon' I provided? Do you understand that any written work cannot prescribe itself to be canonical?
-
I do. How (H-O-W) does ababababa explain how (H-O-W) the Biblical canon was formed?
-
A more accurate question according to the scientific precision of usage is: WITAF does abababababa have to do with the how the Biblical canon was formed???
-
A literary or scriptural work is not written with canonical member status in mind. A literary or scriptural work may not refer nor validate itself for inclusion in the canon.
-
The following definitions of Canon are to be carefully considered and understood before posting on this topic. Canon has other definitions, but these are applicable in this context. These are relevant definitions for here and now. Canon New Oxford American Dictionary noun A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine the works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine. the list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality Canon Cambridge Dictionary noun The writings or other works that are generally agreed to be good, important, and worth studying. Canon Merriam-Webster Dictionary noun a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b: the authentic works of a writer c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works
-
-
-
But it's not knowledge at all. It's belief. Or as you've seen me render it more accurately according to scientifically precise usage as seen through spiritual binoculars: BELEEF. It's a pseudo knowledge. BELEEF takes the place of absent knowledge. One cannot believe one's way to knowing. victor wants you to BLEEVE that you know that you know that you know. BELEEVING is not knowing. A higher knowledge is available. It can be seen, but it can't be described. It is nothing to be possessed. Anyone who claims to have it is the one who most certainly does not. ALL scripture (not just ancient Near Eastern) POINTS to that which cannot be named. But the pointer itself is not the knowledge, the Truth. Christ said KNOW the Truth. BELEEF has no place where Truth is concerned. The paradox is spiritual knowledge is available once one has wiped away all knowledge and belief. It cannot be found in a class. Only a completely free mind can perceive the Truth pointed to in scripture. Another cannot perceive it for you. This is the childlike mind. Not childish. Childlike. A child's mind is not yet filled with belief and knowledge; rather, a child's mind is empty and free to be in awe of God.
-
Uh-oh