Show me where anything I quoted from the Jewish Encyclopedia contradicts scripture?Surely you don't place the opinions of JewishEncyclopedia.com over scripture?...
[10]Ecc 3:14
(14) I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: [ עולם] nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
In this vs. “olam” is paired with “nothing can be added or taken away from it [God’s acts.]” “age(s),“ a finite period, does not equate to “nothing can be added or taken away from God acts,” “eternal” does.
[11]Isa 51:6
(6) Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, [ עולם] and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
In this vs. “olam” is paired with “shall not be abolished”, “age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “shall not be abolished,” “eternal” does.
[12]Isa 51:8
(8) For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, [ עולם] and my salvation from generation to generation.
In this vs. “olam” is paired with “generation to generation,”age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “generation to generation,” “eternal” does.
[13]Dan 4:34
(34) And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, [ עולם] whose dominion is an everlasting [ עולם] dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
In this vs. “olam,” twice, is paired with “from generation to generation,”age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “from generation to generation,” “eternal” does.
[14]Dan 4:3
(3) How great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an eternal [ עולם] kingdom; his dominion endures from generation to generation.
In this vs. “olam” is paired with “from generation to generation,”age(s),” does not equate to “from generation to generation,” “eternal” does.
[15]Dan 7:14
(14) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting [ עולם] dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
In this vs. “olam” is paired with “will not pass away” and “never be destroyed,” “age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will not pass away, never be destroyed”, “eternal” does.
[16]Jer 23:40
(40) I will bring on you everlasting disgrace [ עולם] —everlasting shame [ עולם] that will not be forgotten."
In this vs. “olam,” twice, is paired with “will not be forgotten,” “age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will not be forgotten,””eternal” does.
[16]Jer 23:40
(40) I will bring on you everlasting disgrace [ עולם] —everlasting shame [ עולם] that will not be forgotten."
In this vs. “olam,” twice, is paired with “will not be forgotten,” “age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will not be forgotten,””eternal” does.
[17]Jer 50:5
(5) They will ask the way to Zion and turn their faces toward it. They will come and bind themselves to the LORD in an everlasting [ עולם] covenant that will not be forgotten.
In this vs. “olam” is paired with “will not be forgotten,””age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will not be forgotten,” ”eternal” does.
[18]Hab 1:12
(12) LORD, are you not from everlasting? [ עולם] My God, my Holy One, you will never die. You, LORD, have appointed them to execute judgment; you, my Rock, have ordained them to punish.
In this vs. “olam” is paired with “will never die,””age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will never die,” ”eternal” does.
A brave but futile attempt. It does not say that every act of God is eternal. Can any man ever take away from or add anything to God's acts? If not I was right. Next verse is irrelevant.ClementofA said:So according to you one of "God's acts" was parting the Red Sea & that means the act lasted "for ever", eh?
The next verse states:
There is an old maxim about interpretation. "If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to seek any other sense."And you think we should take everything this author says as the "gospel truth"?
You are partly right. I did not say or imply that every act of God was eternal. No man can ever add to or subtract anything from any act of God."Ecclesiastes: The Inspired Book of Error":
"The book of Ecclesiastes, or "the Preacher," is unique in scripture...This book is filled with error. And yet it is wholly inspired. This may confuse some people,..."
Eccl.3:14 I know that all the One, Elohim, is doing, It shall be for the eon; Onto it there can be nothing to add, And from it there can be nothing to subtract; The One, Elohim, He does it that they may fear before Him. (CLV)
Nothing here states that each individual act of God lasts forever. Rather the idea seems to be that they are all perfect.
Is this supposed to make any sense? What does an airline pilot or any other ridiculous example you care to provide from this life have to do with what God has spoken in the Bible? Let's look at one of my examples.So if an airline pilot announces "We will be landing in New York City, folks, and we will be entering the USA shortly", according to you NYC = USA, eh? Just because NYC & USA are paired together they must be equal, eh?
You can take all your biased so-called "literal versions" and throw them in the trash. If you want to talk literal to me use the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation of the O.T. and the Eastern Orthodox Greek N.T. both available online. Both versions were translated by native speakers of Hebrew and Greek. Anything else is biased nonsense.A more literal translation gives a different perspective:
Clementof A" said:Isaiah 54:4 LXX refers to aionion shame that is finite:
4 You should not fear that you were disgraced, nor should you feel ashamed that you were berated. For shame everlasting(aionios) you shall forget; and the scorn of your widowhood in no way shall you remember any longer (Apostolic Bible Polygot, LXX)
The same phrase, and Greek words, for "shame everlasting"(aionios) in Isa.54:4 occur again at Dan.12:2 LXX, which i have higlighted within the brackets:
I do not know anyone who is endowed with infinite knowledge with the ability to determine which words Jesus should or should not have used in any given situation.If Jesus wished to express endless punishment, then He would have used expressions such as "endless", "no end" & "never be saved" as per:
A brave but futile attempt. It does not say that every act of God is eternal.
There is an old maxim about interpretation. "If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to seek any other sense."
Isaiah 51:8I did not refer to random words in a sentence. I referred to words which in some way described the subject. Do you understand the difference between a random word that occurs in a sentence and words like "generation to generation" which refer to God's righteousness and salvation? Let me know when all the generations of Israel cease to exist.
(8) For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, [ עולם] and my salvation from generation to generation
You can take all your biased so-called "literal versions" and throw them in the trash. If you want to talk literal to me use the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation of the O.T. and the Eastern Orthodox Greek N.T. both available online. Both versions were translated by native speakers of Hebrew and Greek. Anything else is biased nonsense.
And how many who did vote did so on a loose interpretation of the question? At least one (me).That only means that 9 people voted "to keep the law".
How many have viewed the thread?
How many didn't want to vote, or felt they couldn't vote on the limited options given?
And how many who did vote did so on a loose interpretation of the question? At least one (me).
Circumcision was a requirement for males in the OT law, so to my thinking "To keep the law"
As the OP didn't want to allow other voting options, I created my own poll with more options.
Is circumcision always a good thing, or can it be a sin?
So far, for the statement "It is acceptable for Christians to circumcise their males", the only two options out of nine without any votes are "for salvation (ours and/or theirs)" and "to give them a chance at keeping the law". Lol. It shows what Christians really think.
Yeah, I agree. I probably should have been more careful before voting, and I can only change my vote now, not take it back.I didn't vote, because the question is why MUST we be circumcised, and there are only 2 options allowed. "We don't have to be circumcised", or "I don't know" aren't options.
While I think this is right, the penalty for uncircumcision was still death. God nearly killed Moses in Exodus 4 for not circumcising his son, but Zipporah saved him. I think circumcision was still a law later on. In Exodus, circumcision is required to celebrate Passover (which is required), and Leviticus 12 or 13 commands parents that male children be circumcised. But until then, I think it was only a covenant, rather than part of the Law.I'm not sure Jewish men are even circumcised to keep the law. Wasn't circumcision given as the sign of the covenant between Abraham, and his descendants and God, Genesis 17:1-14? Yes, God told them to do it - it was a reminder to them that he had made a covenant with Abram, and them. But the law, as such, had not come into effect then.
I think the answer to this thread was determined more than 2000 years ago. But I guess old habits die hard...I'll have a look at that.
As there have been over 280 replies in this thread, nearly 3000 people have viewed it and only 9 have voted, I guess so.
I do not know anyone who is endowed with infinite knowledge with the ability to determine which words Jesus should or should not have used in any given situation.
Nonsense! Unless you have a graduate degree in Greek you are not qualified to even speculate which word would or would not have been better in any situation.
● ④οὐ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. μή, οὐ μή has the effect of strengthening the negation (Kühner-G. II 221–23; Schwyzer II 317; Mlt. 187–92 [a thorough treatment of NT usage]; B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7; Just., D. 141, 2). οὐ μή is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.[1]
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000)A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.(3rd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
● The combinations with οὐ μή also be noticed as, ουδεν οὐ μή (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή se σε άνο ουδ ου σε εγκαταιπο (Heb. 13:5); ουκετι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no never, no never forsake."
Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research
By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D. p.1165.
Yeah, I agree. I probably should have been more careful before voting, and I can only change my vote now, not take it back.
While I think this is right, the penalty for uncircumcision was still death. God nearly killed Moses in Exodus 4 for not circumcising his son, but Zipporah saved him. I think circumcision was still a law later on.
The Jerusalem Council
There are two sides to this debate. I want to say right out of the gate, that you can't come back, 2000 years later, and add a third side to this debate.
The first group are non believers. they follow the traditions of men, the Talmud. They don't even keep the Torah.
(CLV) Ac 15:1
And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren that, "If you should not be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can not be saved."
Their argument is that you cannot be saved unless you show the outward sign. This is not what Torah teaches. Was Abraham saved before or after he showed the sign?
Abraham wasn't circumcised until he was 99.
(CLV) Gn 17:24
Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised.
Are disciples of Yahshua saved before or after Baptism?
Here is the other side of the Argument. These men are believers:
(CLV) Ac 15:5
Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who have believed rise up, saying that they must be circumcised, besides charging them to keep the law of Moses.
This group argues that you must be circumcised to keep the law.
These are the only two arguments that are being made.
One is that you must be circumcised to keep the law of Moses. This is the law that Yahshua preached throughout his ministry unto death; as he called us to follow his example.
The other is that you must be circumcised to be saved. These are the only two sides to this debate.
You can't come in 2000 years later and add your own argument.
Here is the ruling:
(CLV) Ac 15:20
but to write an epistle to them to be abstaining from ceremonial pollution with idols, and prostitution, and what is strangled, and blood.
This is of the bare minimum that newcomers must respect to even share table fellowship with believers.
Why? (and this part seems to be ignored by those who have contempt for the law that Yahshua preached throughout is ministry unto death):
(CLV) Ac 15:21
For (because) Moses, from ancient generations, city by city, has those who are heralding him, being read on every sabbath in the synagogues."
Now shortly after Paul left this meeting; he circumcised Timothy himself.
(CLV) 1Co 11:1
Become imitators of me, according as I also am of Christ.
Messiah followed the Torah, not the Talmud.
Genesis 17 (CLV)
9 And saying is the Elohim to Abraham, "And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed after you for their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep between Me and you and your seed after you for their generations: Circumcise to yourselves every male. 11 And circumcised shall you be in the flesh of your foreskin. And it comes to be for a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 And a son of eight days shall be circumcised by you, every male of your generations, homeborn or acquired with money from any foreigner, he who is not of your seed. 13 With circumcision shall be circumcised the homeborn and the one acquired with your money. And My covenant comes to be in your flesh for a covenant eonian (FOREVER)
Are you saying if you are a male follower of Christ you require physical circumcision to obey Christ?Wrong.
There were no Jews nor Jewish nation in the days of Abraham.
He is, but that's clearly a heresy.Are you saying if you are a male follower of Christ you require physical circumcision to obey Christ?
I'm pressing him on this issue, and I have a number of times; he has yet to respond. His last response to me regarding circumcision is he said he didn't want to talk about it and directed me to this thread. Since the NT is abundantly clear regarding circumcision yet it is also referred to as an "everlasting covenant" that needs to be performed in the flesh from Gen 17 there is a collision of worlds that cannot be reconciled while maintaining the old covenant law. From what I can infer Hark! is ignoring it because he can't reconcile the two so it's best not talked about.He is, but that's clearly a heresy.
There might be a number of good reasons for circumcision, but to obey Christ is not one of them (and can be eternally dangerous).
Are you saying if you are a male follower of Christ you require physical circumcision to obey Christ?
He is
I'm pressing him on this issue
His last response to me regarding circumcision is he said he didn't want to talk about it and directed me to this thread.
Since the NT is abundantly clear regarding circumcision yet it is also referred to as an "everlasting covenant"
that needs to be performed in the flesh from Gen 17 there is a collision of worlds that cannot be reconciled while maintaining the old covenant law. From what I can infer Hark! is ignoring it because he can't reconcile the two so it's best not talked about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?