Leaderboard

I had a dream last night about a new philosophy of life. It can be boiled down to a short sentence. Life is like a fork, you just have to eat it up. I had that dream and woke up laughing, and continued to laugh about it for the next hour or so. Gotta be the funniest dream I've ever had....

**SPECIAL PROJECT ALERT** <3 Good Morning. Lonnie Melashenko's 70’th BD is on Feb 14.... So, I am trying to help Jeannie get the word out. Let’s see how many cards Lonnie will get, to celebrate his special milestone BD. Would you please share this with your friends and post it on your FB page if possible so together, we can make Lonnie’s BD, extra special. Thank You for helping us. :-) Jeannie wrote - "Dear Friends, Lonnie’s 70th birthday is on February 14! I’m inviting his friends and family to send him a birthday greeting by card in the mail, to help him celebrate this big milestone. I’m hoping Lonnie will receive many birthday wishes. He will be so surprised and pleased, and I will get to witness the expressions of joy and delight when so many have remembered him in this thoughtful way. Thanks for making his day special for him. Jeannie Melashenko Our Arizona address is: 12477 N. Augusta Drive Sun City, AZ 85351"

When we quote form the Bible, we typically give the translation (Version) that we cite. We do this because several exist--KJV, NKJV, RSV, NIV and many more. The same situation exists in regard to quoting form the Quran. Many translations into English exist. Just as exists with translations of the Bible, some English translations are considered to be better than others. It looks to me like the translation cited above came from a secondary source, rather than directly from an English translation. The following consists of seven (7) Different translation of Quran 5:17, with the source of this quote given at the top, and the name of each translation cited: NOTE: My personal preference is another translation of the Quran. It may be said that there are differences between the translations below and what was cited above are minor. I am simply saying that I consider it to be best to cite from a primary source and to give the actual translation. http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=17 Sahih International: They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent. Pickthall: They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things. Yusuf Ali: In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things." Shakir: Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah-- He is the Messiah, son of Marium. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things, Muhammad Sarwar: Those who have said that the Messiah, son of Mary, is God, have, in fact, committed themselves to disbelief. (Muhammad), ask them, "Who can prevent God from destroying the Messiah, his mother and all that is in the earth?" To God belongs all that is in the heavens, the earth, and all that is between them. God creates whatever He wants and He has power over all things. Mohsin Khan: Surely, in disbelief are they who say that Allah is the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary). Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Who then has the least power against Allah, if He were to destroy the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), his mother, and all those who are on the earth together?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them. He creates what He wills. And Allah is Able to do all things. Arberry: They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.' Say: 'Who then shall overrule God in any way if He desires to destroy the Messiah, Mary's son, and his mother, and all those who are on earth?' For to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and of the earth, and all that is between them, creating what He will. God is powerful over everything.

I like your post, B/W. I would also point out what Ellen White said about the antedeluvians: This quote is from the SDA Bible Commentary on Genesis 6:11. Notice the comment on being enamored with a tissue of falsehood. This is a very accurate description of our society today, and of too many Christians, as well as the immediate resort to violence when their inclinations are crossed.

According to Ellen they were absolutely fallible, & they DIDN'T represent God. The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is NOT God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is NOT represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, NOT His pen." ( Ellen White, Selected Messages, Vol. 1, Chapter One "The Inspiration of the Prophetic Writers") The above classifies the "inspiration" as "human" - not unlike someone who witnessed Dr. Martin Luther King speaking & was "inspired" to join the Civil Rights Movement. Ellen claimed she DIRECTLY represented God. Here is how it worked. Ellen White After the passing of the time in 1844 we searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with the brethren, and we studied and prayed earnestly... When they came to the point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon ME. I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given ME, with instruction as to how WE were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, his mission, and his priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to ME, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given ME." (Review and Herald, May 25, 1905) 1MR 28 Before I stand on my feet, I have no thought of speaking as plainly as I do. But the Spirit of God rests upon me with power, and I CANNOT but speak the words GIVEN me. I dare not withhold one word of the testimony.... I speak the words GIVEN ME by a higher power than human power, and I CANNOT, if I would, recall [retract] one sentence I could replicate the above type of quote Ad nauseam. Ellen clarifies that "THE TESTIMONIES" she produces are NOT of human origin - such as the Bible writers - The Testimonies are God's OWN WORDS that come through the medium of Ellen. Not unlike a sock puppet.

What is wrong with taking the Bible literally? When we try to spiritualize and philosophize everything in scripture, we can make it mean anything we want. The most common example is: "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5) ..."Go, and do thou likewise." Luke 10:37 Do we take the verse "And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where“‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:47-48) to mean that if we don't pluck out our eyes when we see something sinful that we will burn in hell forever and ever? NO! So why would we take some other lone verse taken out of context as absolute truth? Like Peter said concerning Paul's writings: "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16. There is a difference between "proof texting" and "contexting". Pulling verses together out of context is a very dangerous thing. It's what satan tried to do to Jesus in the wilderness. The better we know God's Word, the less likely we are to fall for this kind of ruse; and the less likely we will fall for someone else's incorrect interpretation.

If you look at how Bible writers use other texts they fall into 3 categories': 1. Exegesis: This is studying the text in it's original context. What it meant to the original author and to the audience that got that message, and/or the goal of the editors and the audience the text was edited for. 2. Analogies: Taking the principle of the text and applying it to different situations than what the original text applied to but where the principle fits. 3. Homiletical usage or literary usage. Here you are not trying to prove a Biblical point or exegesis, but you take the words because they are a good turn of phrase for what you want to say. Prophets RARELY do #1, exegesis. While we see this same thing among the Biblical prophets, Mrs. White says that her writings are not to answer questions of exegesis. Exegesis is OUR job. What you mostly find here is that prophets tend to use the Bible in the last two ways. Time after time when you read earlier verses copied by later writers. Mrs. White was not teaching us what Isaiah was teaching. She was using Isaiah's phrase because she can use it to describe how we are to compare scripture with scripture and study the text as much as we are able. We get all freaked out when we discover that the text quoted is not what the text was talking about. And I'm sorry but prophets of the order of Isaiah, Daniel etc. were just as fallible as Mrs. White. We are going to see as we get closer to the end people are going to throw out the Bible for the same reasons why so many former Adventists throw out Mrs. White.

I do not find it surprising that the concept of the Holy Spirit was a later developed belief in the Protestant and/or Seventh-day Adventist world. While it is true that the Trinity was a belief in the Roman Catholic church, it also occurs to me that much of the RC church was left behind when the Protestant Reformation occurred. Then the church had to be rebuilt in a process that took several hundred years and probably is not even done yet in terms of new knowledge for God's people. Consider this statement made by John Robinson to the Pilgrims as they were leaving for America: “Remember your church covenant, in which you have agreed to walk in all the ways of the Lord, made or to be made known unto you. Remember your promise and covenant with God and with one another, to receive whatever light and truth shall be made known to you from His written word; but withal, take heed, I beseech you, what you receive for truth, and compare it and weigh it with other scriptures of truth before you accept it; for it is not possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick antichristian darkness, and that full perfection of knowledge should break forth at once.”—Martyn, vol. 5, pp. 70, 71. (GC292) Even Christians prior to the SDA church recognized that the Protestant church had come out of great darkness and to repeat John Robinson, we could hardly ;have expected to have all doctrines perfectly understood. Consider the founders of the SDA church. they did not have a seventh day sabbath at the time of the Great Disappointment. No health reforms, no clear understanding of the Sanctuary, and other beliefs had not come about. The fact that the Holy Spirit was not well known was in itself a lesson in unselfish service. As Jesus said, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." John 16:13 The Holy Spirit does not promote Himself. Neither did Jesus, and neither will the Father in Heaven. If we could all engage in such selfless service and not seeking to broadcast about what we do, how much better would God be able to use us in His service. Even Jesus who came to this world and died, He stated, "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Matthew 20:28 It may be of help in understanding the Holy Sprit if a copy of the current Sabbath School lessons were obtained and studied as this quarters lessons are quite interesting.

Sometimes it helps to read it in the King James: "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:" Isaiah 28:10 While a text may have occurred in a particular setting, it can well be used for many other situations. Otherwise, if unable to use a little bit here and a little bit there, you could not build any argument if you wondered out of the current chapter of Scripture you are working with. Sometimes you pull verses from all over the Bible in building an opinion. I have heard many good preachers use this verse and to me it was very appropriate to what they were saying. And to bump it up a bit, it seems that even God Himself left things all over the place to find and understand. He certainly is capable of having organized the Bible very clearly by topic, but then, you would not need to seriously study Scripture! However, God is a rewarder of them that diligently search for him.

One of my professors, Dr. Jim Fleming, was also a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem Israel. He told how one of his coworkers in Hebrew University (sadly he did not name him) is a Rabbi who is the world's leading scholar on second temple Judaism. This Rabbi says that the Christian concept of the trinity was actually developed by second temple Rabbis to explain Old Testament Biblical imagery to a society that has been more influenced by Greek thought. Fleming says that there was a view of the trinity that both Jews and Gentile Christians believed until the church-synagogue split in 135 AD, where the Jews started to hold a oneness of God that rejected the Threeness, and the gentiles focused more on the 3ness. For more study may I recommend: http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=32 I would also like to recommend a wonderful book by Rabbi James L. Kugel "The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible" https://www.amazon.com/God-Old-Inside-World-Bible/dp/0743235851

And interestingly, I did check the Louis Segond! It was like the English majority. Sometimes I learn stuff from my French translations. I do have a français courant as well so now that you say this I have to go look! You know, the Rotherham Bible is the only one I know of that puts the comma where we do in the verse where Jesus tells the dying thief, "I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise." Yet SDAs use it to support our view of the state of the dead. The majority is not always correct and that is a classic example. I tell my customers, know these nuances. Enhance your own knowledge and your growth. But I cannot stress enough the influence of the Holy Spirit, as He can move in groups or individually. He can bring different meanings to a passage and make it speak to you personally. Don't you find that all subjects just get bigger the more we look into them? But the gems are there for those who dig. I am thinking that God has determined us for eternity and Bible study is just a taste of that.

CEV, NET... Lamsa and the Orthodox are different yet, hinting that there is difference between Eastern and Western thought. Rotherham's does translate the same as most of the English ones, but adds this quote: "The repetition and assonance of the short words are intended to set forth mimetically the drunken babble of the scoffers."-Davies' H.L. All the disputation says is that the passage is one of those that is not clearly and easily brought into the English.

Ron mentioned the translators' note for the NASB, but my translators' notes in my NET bible say the same thing for that verse. In the NET they actually reflected that in the translation itself: "Indeed, they will hear meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling, a syllable here, a syllable there." I thought, though, that I had read that somewhere else, too.

I agree that people often don't take things in context and compare it to everything else that the Bible says on the topic. I think I said where I got the ideas from. Which English translation is used in your Greek/Hebrew/English interlinear? Verse 13 contains the same sounds/words that are found in verse 10 of Isaiah 28, and it certainly doesn't sound like God is telling the people who haven't listened before how to properly study Scripture -- God says the results of the sounds/words will be, "That they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, And snared, and taken." If that's the result of prooftexting, I don't want any part of it. A verse before and a verse after isn't enough context to understand the flow of thoughts around a passage. Reading the whole chapter or the whole book of the Bible in which a verse is found would be better if a person is interested in understanding the author's intent. Where most prooftexters go wrong is that they want the verse to mean what they want it to say regardless of what the inspired author intended -- as if the Bible were a book of magical English phrases that can be pasted together randomly to suit ourselves. When I grew up and started studying the Bible for myself I was dismayed to find that several of the memory verses I had learned had been taught to me without any regard for the context. Isaiah 28:10 was one of those. I could tell that the verse didn't condone prooftexting, even while I was still prooftexting and before I learned that our usual English translation of Isaiah 28:10 was disputed by some translators and contradicted by the Greek Septuagint.

Yes, I have read similar about this verse. Adventists have for a long time taken it out of its context and used it alone. I don't want to discount the power of one verse, as who am I to tell another how the Spirit can impress upon a mind? But in context it is not like it has traditionally been used.

There are legitimate criticisms of the usual English translations of Isaiah 28:10. Because the verse appears in the context of babies, stammering, and foreign languages, there is some evidence that the verse is not to be interpreted as words, but as nonsense sounds. A translator's note for in the NASB for Isaiah 28:10 says "Heb Sav lasav, sav lasav, Kav lakav, kav lakav, Ze’ er sham, ze’ er sham These Hebrew monosyllables, imitating the babbling of a child, mock the prophet’s preaching." The Lexham Hebrew Interlinear translates Isaiah 28:10 as "For blah-blah upon blah-blah, blah-blah upon blah-blah, blah-blah upon blah-blah upon blah-blah, a little here a little there." The English translations of Isaiah 28:10 from the Greek Septuagint are also significantly different than our usual English translations. The Brenton (1870) translation of Isaiah 28:10 from the Septuagint says, "Expect thou affliction on affliction, hope upon hope: yet a little, and yet a little." Evidently the Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint two centuries before the time of Jesus did not understand the original Hebrew of Isaiah 28:10 as a reference on how to study the Bible.