Through the Bible: Censored

[jasd]

...with pusillanimity.

Kidding, sorta – I mean, what kind of highmindedness solicits responses to a thread and then censors that which does not suit his biases and/or prejudices? Sheesh!—it seems

highmindedness begins and ends with the title of the thread...

Except for those benefiting from the need for privacy, the limitations of the censored threads are self-evident. I think that I shall never find – a thing as pitiable as the clique-claque of the censorious – no matter its form.

I invested time and research to respond to dialectical points forwarded, and which I considered nothing, if not, wishy-whimsical - those same points that were advanced, seemingly, sans the desire for veritas.

Following, that which was censored:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Say what!? Please read carefully – my above quote and the following:

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

>>If you do not read beyond verses 6 and 7, you could conclude, as you did, that the firmament did not go beyond the earthly atmosphere and did not include the sun and the stars.<<

It is likely that it would not matter if I should read until Revelation 22:21 – the words of Genesis 1:6, 7 remain clear. The texts require a certain agility to construct a hypothesis that might forward that – the “waters above” extended to beyond the sun, moon, and stars.

>>Nevertheless if you continue reading, then you get a different picture.<<

Absolutely not!—as one may note by the proffered texts following:

Quote:

Quote:

King James Bible

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [1:14]

Quote:

Quote:

King James Bible

And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [1:15]

Quote:

Quote:

King James Bible

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, [1:17]

>>This means that the firmament went far beyond the earthly atmosphere and did include the sun, the moon and the stars.<<

Where, exactly, might one find mention of the sun or the moon in the above three texts proffered? The answering fact is – nowhere!

Genesis 1:6-8 mentions only two lights; one greater and one lesser – with neither the sun nor the moon in view. From that, all manner of expositors have deduced – sun – moon. That does not reflect careful and

tightly knit exegesis.

Which leads back to my original quote re this issue of how texts actually read vs how they are interpreted, following:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Does Holy Writ actually state that Gd created the sun on the fourth day?

I cannot find that Writ states that ‘fact’ – either implicitly or explicitly.

>>I would like to note that one biblical translator rendered the term “firmament” as “solid arch.”<<

Perhaps, that “translator” is closer to the truth of the text – than those who’ve extrapolated in contradiction to the verity of text.

raqiya derives from raqa – carrying the idea of hammering or beating out to form a thing – in the case of the Genesis utilization, a solid ‘canopy’ above the firmament wherein Gd placed two lights; neither of which were the sun or the moon.

Where expositors have erred is in thinking that raqiya/firmament never contained a meaning of ‘hammering/beating out’, because those terms imply solidity – through which – it would have been impossible for fowl to fly, etc. Let’s look at this ‘problematic’ passage...

Should it be stated that the pond is frozen – would one naturally infer a completely frozen pond?—that is, surface to sediment? Of course not – fish would still have swum through the part of the pond that remained unfrozen – as fowl would still have flown through the part of the atmosphere not ‘hammered/beaten’ solid.

The waters above – would have been in the upper atmosphere where the cold would have frozen them, or as Writ states it, ‘hammered/beaten’ the commingled gases and waters of that upper atmosphere. Ipso facto,

a crystal ‘canopy’, as it were.

Now, would the canopy have been clear or opaque? I proffer that, at least at the first, an opaque canopy existed, as the existence of the stars of the fourth day of Creation were couched within a paraphrastic – indicating that they were not actually manifest, but noted only.

We don’t know the source(s) for the two lights; however, we might posit a refraction or a reflection from a convex or spherical canopy.

>>I don’t like this rendering of the text because this would place the clouds above the sun, the moon and the stars.<<

But you don’t have a problem with the waters above extending to beyond the sun, moon, and stars?

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Didn't St Peter qualify 2 Peter 1:21 with the words, "in old time"?—that is, aforetime...

I believe it is the purview in this NT age that Jesus Christ is the Spirit of Prophecy, is it not?

Quote:

It all depends on the biblical version you have a preference for. Notice that not all translators followed the lead of the King James author:

Quote:

King James Bible

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Quote:

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

No prophecy ever originated from humans. Instead, it was given by the Holy Spirit as humans spoke under God's direction.

Quote:

New International Version (©1984)

For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Quote:

English Standard Version (©2001)

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

>>When you examine the above versions of 2 Peter 1:21, you will probably agree with me that we cannot limit the assignment of the task of revealing the future to “old time.” I believe that Peter probably meant all time, including his own.<<

Indeed, I accept the intent you advance with the above translations; however, that takes me back to my original post to this thread, following:

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?

Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

...to which one might add,

1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

and,

2 Pet 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Let me note: the above three texts are neither 'constructed' nor implicit, but are explicit.

Considering, that all the NT books were probably written within decades of each other – it seems that there is an explicit Gd in Holy Writ who is called the Spirit; meaning Gd the Holy Spirit, together with Gd the Father and Gd the Son – all Gd Elohim, a plurality. That said, Elohim may comprise more than the number revealed. We don’t know; therefore, we deal with only three mentioned in Writ...

>>Nevertheless, it is clear from reading the Bible that Jesus was God’s instrument in the task of prophetic revelation.<<

Indeed, as would be true in that Gd adverts, “Who else declareth the end from the beginning?” [/paraphrased]

Is 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [i am] God, and [there is] none like me,

Is 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done,

Prophecy is Gd’s.

[wayfinder]

How about verifying whether Peter(the disciple) is in fact the author of 2Peter.

[jasd]

>>Forget the versions and go directly to the Greek original. The Greek word, pote, is an enclitic particle meaning "at any time."<<

pote; “at any time” – as well – in times past, in time past, sometimes, sometime, when, aforetime, once, in the old time, etc...

>>You'll find that almost all translations read this way or give a similar meaning.<<

Indeed, as most of them are copyright Bibles – making merchandise of the believer...

YLT 2 Pet 1:21 for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17 Forget the versions and go directly to the Greek original. The Greek word, pote, is an enclitic particle meaning "at any time."

You'll find that almost all translations read this way or give a similar meaning.

Quote:

jasd: Indeed, as most of them are copyright Bibles &#150; making merchandise of the believer...

What does a Bible or any other book being "copyrighted" have to do with whether a translation of a word is correct or not?

Quote:

jasd (quoting): YLT 2 Pet 1:21 for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

Do you see any significant difference in that sentence between "at any time" and "ever"?

[Lutz13]

Hey Jasd,

I don't think you were censored. I think because Stan is moving stuff to the new server or something it put the forums back to whenever it was last saved. A lot of post seem to be missing.

[John317]

Yes, this is what happened. Stan posted ahead of time that this would happen, but he was unable to do anything about it.

[Guest]

[What does a Bible or any other book being "copyrighted" have to do with whether a translation of a word is correct or not?

That's what I'm asking too, as I scratch my head.

[jasd]

>>How about verifying whether Peter(the disciple) is in fact the author of 2Peter.<<

Indeed, it is doubtful that it was St Peter who wrote First and Second Peter. As I’ve previously noted elsewhere, St Peter was likely illiterate (but then, didn’t Jeremiah employ a scribe?); however, it is as the Bard of Avon said,

“A rose by any other name...”

I know that you tend only to the books supposedly containing only the very words of Jesus Christ. That also is problematic. There is the legitimate concern of what, exactly, the Quelle was and to what extent the Gospels borrowed, if they, indeed, did. Moreover, re the passages concerning the crucifixion,

as I recall, of those closest to Jesus Christ, Writ mentions only the women and the Apostle St John who attended...

yet, we find the words of Jesus Christ, as relating to the event, written about in the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke. That does not argue well for eyewitness testimony to the veracity of the entirety of Jesus Christ’s words.

It is with Holy Writ, as it was with the disciples in answering Jesus Christ when asked if they, also, would depart from Him. They answered,

“To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

[Guest]

Will we end up being a .org, or a .com?

[jasd]

>>What does a Bible or any other book being "copyrighted" have to do with whether a translation of a word is correct or not?<<

Is there not remuneration usually attaching to “copyrighted” material? Indeed. What can one or more authors expect from a Xerox of the Authorized Version of Holy Writ (which is not copyrighted)? Nothing. Exactly. Implied by that is

the incentive for gain – perhaps, fulfilled by the new and/or innovative – a cachet, by any man’s definition. (without getting into a litany of specifics, take the willy-nilly factor of the NIV, for example)

Quote:

Quote:

jasd (quoting): YLT 2 Pet 1:21 for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

>>Do you see any essential difference in that sentence between "at any time" and "ever"?<<

Allowing the YLT license, should it be needed, how about if the auxiliary did was attached?—past tense would then apply, would it not?

[jasd]

>>Will we end up being a .org, or a .com?<<

“We”, excluding myself, are a .Org, by law. The .Org is an entity/creature of the State – belonging to Caesar, as it were.

[John317]

Quote:

jasd: (quoting): YLT 2 Pet 1:21 for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Do you see any essential difference in that sentence between "at any time" and "ever"?

Quote:

jasd: Allowing the YLT license, should it be needed, how about if the auxiliary did was attached? past tense would then apply, would it not?

Notice that all four translations signify the same thing:

"For not by will of man did ever prophecy come..."

"For prophecy did not come at any time by the will of man..."

"For at no time did prophecy come by the will of man..."

"For prophecy never came by the will of man..."

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: You'll find that almost all translations read this way or give a similar meaning.

Quote:

jasd: Indeed, as most of them are copyright Bibles &#150; making merchandise of the believer...

My statement there has to do with the translation of the word pote as used in 2 Peter 1: 21.

Depending on the accent, the word pote may be an adverb or enclitic particle. In verse 21, it is an enclitic particle.

[jasd]

>>"For not by will of man did ever prophecy come..."

"For prophecy did not come at any time by the will of man..."

"For at no time did prophecy come by the will of man..."

"For prophecy never came by the will of man..."<<

It may be me, but I read all of the above quotes as inherently past in tense; that is, OT.

That said, I concede that the HS speaks in the NT age, as well; per

1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

[jasd]

>>Depending on the accent, the word pote may be an adverb or enclitic particle. In verse 21, it is an enclitic particle.<<

That may be; however, I see nothing particularly enclitic or particulate in what I consider a more adverbial - "in old time".

2 Pet 1:21 For the prophecy came not "in old time" by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

[jasd]

The following is not a post that has been 'censored', but rather addresses a post I thought interesting...

Quote:

Quote:

Extra-biblical locations sometimes mentioned as the birthplace of the 7-day week include: Babylon, Persia, and several others. The week was known in Rome before the advent of Christianity.

Actually, for some time, both the Roman market cycle of eight days and the seven-day week of the Julian calendar coexisted – until Constantine, AD 320, or thereabouts...

Quote:

Quote:

There is no record of the 7-day week cycle ever having been broken.

That may be, however, records exist – that upon at least several occasions, the sun refused to rise for – lengths of days in this or that country. Kinda difficult

to keep track of specific time under those circumstances...

>>Actually there have been attempts at breaking the weekly cycle, but such efforts did not succeed in making such alterations permanent. Both the French and the Russians did try to modify it without success. The Russian attempt lasted from 1930 to 1940.<<

Ancient Egypt employed a 10-day calendrical cycle – whilst the ancients of Akkadia-Sumer developed a seven-day ‘week’; however, the Akkadian/Sumerians were pagan...

>>It is significant to note that while many cultures associated the names of the days of the week with astrology and the names of the planets they worshipped the Jews used a non-planetary system for this: First, second, third and so on. This unique system persists even today in certain languages like the Portuguese and Russian.<<

That said, Jews have attached pagan gods to the months, which, in turn, denominate the weeks as re the Feasts of the Lord, Leviticus 23.

>>For me this moving away from astrology represents an effort to divorce it from idolatry.<<

One then inquires, “Why does Gd insert the zodiac into Holy Writ?—and why does He give a vision to Daniel, which subscribed to astrological signs?”

>>One question I have is: Do you think that the Lord does rest on the seventh day in heaven?<<

Gd is in His rest – since Creation. However, that said,

He created, once more, by creating manna upon the eight day (should one subscribe to Creation as ‘Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear'). [/extemporizing]

>>Is there a weekly cycle where God and his angels reside? Does this cycle resembles our own?<<

No one knows; however, there will be a Sabbath cycle in millennium earth.

[jasd]

Not so much an erratum, as...:

>>I don't think you were censored. I think because Stan is moving stuff to the new server or something it put the forums back to whenever it was last saved. A lot of post seem to be missing.<< --Lutz 13

>>Yes, this is what happened. Stan posted ahead of time that this would happen, but he was unable to do anything about it.<< --John317

Should the above be true –

then, of course – apologies are due Nic, and herewith extended without reserve – many apologies!

...mentis, meum.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:Nic Samojluk

If we believe in this Catholic dogma, perhaps we should also adopt from Catholicism many of the other beliefs they borrowed from paganism like Sunday worship; the survival of the soul after death as a living, incorporeal and sentient entity; the purgatory; the priestly confession, and so on.

Certain beliefs of the RCCs are depicted pejoratively; I thought I would address several of them – though in a greatly abbreviated manner – following...

/ Sunday worship:

Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

Pretty much covers all the calendrical days, yes? Hosea prophesied to the Northern Kingdom.

Lam 2:6 ...the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion,

Umm, likewise with Judah, yes? The texts that reintroduce the calendrical reckoning whereby the Jew may know the dates of his or her feasts and Sabbaths – do not exist. Even today,

the Jew will acknowledge that their Hebrew calendar is not Biblical. Yet, Jews and the Seventh-day Sabbath keepers go to Synagogue and church, respectively, on the same Sabbaths.

jasd 12:12 Brethren, let this be as a good report of thee, that in the name of Jesus Christ, whether in your comings or in your goings forth, in your lying down or in your rising up, what soever ye do, do it as unto the LORD.

Many Xtians worship upon the day they believe their Lord and Saviour arose from the tomb – their redemption assured. They have set it aside and consecrated it – that is, they made it holy – as unto the LORD.

“Truth exists: falsehood has to be invented.”

/ The soul after death as a living, incorporeal and sentient entity:

John 11:26 Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never ever (emphatic double negative) die. Believest thou this?

One must distinguish between ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’. A constructed argument might be made that the soul dies in the sense advanced by the soul-sleeping advocate; however, considering the following...

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,

reminds one – that we speak not of the soul per se, but of the spirit... And, Jesus Christ was most explicit concerning the disposition of the post crucifixion spirit.

/ purgatory:

Luke 12:58 When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, [as thou art] in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison.

I hear the skeptic say, “So...?” (what I proffer here is a slight deviation from the RCC belief) The next text proves interesting...

Luke 12:59 I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.

It may be that Jesus Christ uses the parable to say that the offender will be ‘subpoenaed’ by his or her adversary (Satan?) to appear before the Judge (Jesus Christ?). Should the adversary be Satan, the offender might want to agree with him quickly re his claim upon him or her – discharging that claim with the blood of Jesus Christ as sufficient to satisfy payment. Otherwise, it appears that he will

be brought before ‘the bench’ and following, be delivered to a ‘prison’ of sorts...

Where is the ‘prison’ that holds the offender until the last pence/mite is paid? And who, under these circumstances, pays that last pence/mite for the offending one?—that he or she might be released...

This is a parable of Jesus Christ’s. Many say that a parable holds only the one direct. That is an arbitrary opinion.

Matt 12:32 ...but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.

“...neither in the [world] to come!? ”Say what!—what is implied? We know that sins are forgiven in this age – seems that there is another ‘coming age’ during which sins may be forgiven; that is, some sins can be forgiven in this age and other sins are forgiven in the age to come.

(might the ‘Paradise’ that Jesus Christ accompanied the ‘good’ thief to – be likened in some manner to a Purgatory, as both seem to be neither Heaven per se nor Hell)

/ Forgiveness of sins, in the first instance, by other than Gd:

Jn 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.

/ Infant baptism:

1 Cor 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

It beggars the imgination to suggest that no infants or children accompanied the COI when they crossed the Red Sea. Text informs us

that infants were baptized in the OT.

(The following verses inform us that, in so being baptized, the COI did eat and drink of the spiritual Christ)

Anyway, the act of baptizing the infant is thought by many – to bring the child into the congregation of the Lord – and is the NT equivalent of the OT practice of circumcision – that the child may be counted an Israelite.

/ Baptism by sprinkling:

Ex 14:29 But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

No indication of immersion in view in the text, is there?—maybe, a bit of sprinkling, yes?

According to the whole body of texts – there is baptism and there is baptism.

Sometimes, it may be that we all need to reexamine our language as pertains... and the existing software on board our Biblical GPS system.

[jasd]

Re the above post: having forwarded certain apologetics concerning certain RCC beliefs – let me state for benefit of the sectually hidebound ‘believers’ that – yes, I am aware that, historically, the RCC has engaged in what can only be described among both heathens and Xtians alike – as totally unacceptable behaviour – in both beliefs and practices. Wretched. Execrable.

That having been noted – we are commanded to provide ready answers for those who ask. Sentence structure informs that emphasis ought more properly lie with ‘answers’ than with ‘ready’.

[Kevin H]

>>How about verifying whether Peter(the disciple) is in fact the author of 2Peter.<<

Indeed, it is doubtful that it was St Peter who wrote First and Second Peter. As I’ve previously noted elsewhere, St Peter was likely illiterate (but then, didn’t Jeremiah employ a scribe?);

I have not really read this thread so don't know all the context, however I have to comment on the idea of St. Peter beng likely illiterate...

Most people in the ancient world were illiterate, however, because of the Bible the Hebrews were not illiterate. They were some of the most educated people in the ancient world. Most "uneducated" Hebrews had the equvalence to an associates or batchlor's degree, a 2 to 4 years of college. Now there were some out of the way communties, such as Nazareth, where they only had the equvalent of a 6th grade education, but these were few, far between and an embarresment to the rest of the Jews. But a 6th grader is able to read and write.

As for Andrew, Peter, James and John, they owned the expensive large boats that went into deep water. They were being groomed to take over an industry that their fathers was hoping would become international. They had people working for them and giving people their pay checks.

They did not get a doctorate in all the studies of the traditions of the religious. Their education went another direction after the 6th grade (up to the 6th grade they would exclusively be focused on the Bible and developing the ability to read the Bible) but once the 6th grade was done instead of continuing to study with the different Rabbies and studying the writings of the Rabbis, Peter, Andrew, James and John focused on business. That is why Paul became the great evangelist and Peter the great administrator.

Peter with his BS in Business and hoping to get his MBA was in a field seen as uneducated by the great Rabbies and Temple leaders, the PhDs, but was very educated in business and compaired to the rest of the ancient world and certanly NOT illiterate.

[phkrause]

I have not really read this thread so don't know all the context, however I have to comment on the idea of St. Peter beng likely illiterate...

Most people in the ancient world were illiterate, however, because of the Bible the Hebrews were not illiterate. They were some of the most educated people in the ancient world. Most "uneducated" Hebrews had the equvalence to an associates or batchlor's degree, a 2 to 4 years of college. Now there were some out of the way communties, such as Nazareth, where they only had the equvalent of a 6th grade education, but these were few, far between and an embarresment to the rest of the Jews. But a 6th grader is able to read and write.

As for Andrew, Peter, James and John, they owned the expensive large boats that went into deep water. They were being groomed to take over an industry that their fathers was hoping would become international. They had people working for them and giving people their pay checks.

They did not get a doctorate in all the studies of the traditions of the religious. Their education went another direction after the 6th grade (up to the 6th grade they would exclusively be focused on the Bible and developing the ability to read the Bible) but once the 6th grade was done instead of continuing to study with the different Rabbies and studying the writings of the Rabbis, Peter, Andrew, James and John focused on business. That is why Paul became the great evangelist and Peter the great administrator.

Peter with his BS in Business and hoping to get his MBA was in a field seen as uneducated by the great Rabbies and Temple leaders, the PhDs, but was very educated in business and compaired to the rest of the ancient world and certanly NOT illiterate.

Good points Kevin. I'd add to that, that if Peter was illiterate than Jesus would have to be also illiterate, he came from the same place. I know it the Bible doesn't say much about Jesus' education, but neither does it say much about Peter's.

pk

[wayfinder]

This is the conclusion of a paper which can be found at the following address http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html

Conclusion

Literacy data from all over the world show the relationship and dependence between farmers (or the state of agriculture), and literacy. This tie has been found in various peoples and in the course of time. The data 'create' a world-wide rule.

The other facet of this dependence is population growth, urbanization and infant mortality that apparently go hand in hand with literacy. This connection enables the student of societies in the past to deal with the problem of literacy whenever the direct evidence is not available. This study offers a method to analyze processes that took place in a specific society so that the literacy rate may be derived.

Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past.

END------------

If one wants to assume that fishermen in Israel were literate that would be what it is, an assumption. Many times Jesus addresses "scribes", so the question is, if the literacy rate was so high in Israel why have scribes. The scribes responsibility was to copy the religious texts. These were highly educated and in demand individuals, because all transactions, whether religeous or civil or legal, required written documentation. The book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman, HarperSanFrancisco Press 2005, covers this topic extensively. The only ones who were educated and could write were the Levites and some of the old ruling class. Matthew was a Levite and a tax collector, tax collector had to be able to read and write. John was obviously able to write, because of the evidence we have today. Mark was able to write, but was not an eyewitness, therefore he is credited with writting the eyewitness account of Peter. I have posted before on other threads the fact that the second letter of Peter was completely unknown to anyone until around the year 120 A.D. This fact made it very difficult for the cannonical councils to ratify or accepty the authority of this letter. To all who have researched this letter, the majority opinion is that it is pseudonymous

[Kevin H]

The issue of who wrote second Peter is a bit of a different issue outside of my scope. My point is only that the disciples tend to have been better educated than we think

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:wayfinder

How about verifying whether Peter(the disciple) is in fact the author of 2Peter.

Quote:jasd

Indeed, it is doubtful that it was St Peter who wrote First and Second Peter. As I’ve previously noted elsewhere, St Peter was likely illiterate (but then, didn’t Jeremiah employ a scribe?);

>>I have not really read this thread so don't know all the context, however I have to comment on the idea of St. Peter beng likely illiterate...

Most people in the ancient world were illiterate, however, because of the Bible the Hebrews were not illiterate. [...]<<

Interesting; contrastingly, it may be worth noting that – St Luke was a very careful author who wrote with precision – minding his jots and tittles, as it were: following...

KJV Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

YLT Acts 4:13 And beholding the openness of Peter and John, and having perceived that they are men unlettered and plebeian, they were wondering -- they were taking knowledge also of them that with Jesus they had been –

It may be telling – that St Luke made no effort to refute those who were probably best able to make the determination of “unlettered and plebeian”. And, it may be telling – that St Peter overreacted (with reason?)

when accosted by the maiden remarking upon his speech – at the trials of Jesus Christ.

Anyway, I qualified the textual judgement – with the example of Jeremiah’s use of a scribe...