[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Bible Study See other Bible Study Articles Title: This is why it is so important you read the word of God, in the original Hebrew and Greek, yourself and not take what others say it says. Source: ChristianPatriot.com URL Source: [None] Published: May 14, 2015 Author: Pastor Bob Celeste for ACP Post Date: 2015-05-14 09:05:01 by BobCeleste Keywords: ACP Views: 59130 Comments: 248 This is why it is so important you read the word of God, in the original Hebrew and Greek, yourself and not take what others say it says. This is how Malachi 3:9 is represented in various interpretations. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. (KJV) With a curse ye are cursed! And Me ye are deceiving--this nation--all of it. (YLT) Ye are cursed with the curse; for ye rob me, even this whole nation. (ASV) You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, Even this whole nation. (NKJV) You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me; the whole nation of you. (RSV) You are cursed with the curse; for you rob me, even this whole nation. (WEB) Notice how everyone of the above translations say "Ye or you are cursed with the curse" But that is not what the original Hebrew says. Here is what the original Hebrew says: Ye are cursed {'arar} with a curse {m@erah}: for ye have robbed {qaba`} me, even this whole nation {gowy}. Let's look at the Hebrew words 'arar and m@erah. 'arar is a primitive root; to execrate:--X bitterly curse m@erah is an execration:--curse. The original does not say You are cursed, it says cursed with a curse, meaning it could either be you are cursed with a curse or you cursed with a curse, in one it is God doing the cursing in the other it is it is God being cursed. God's word is to important to trust others with it, your salvation is to important, you need to take it into your own hands not rely upon the word or interpretation of others. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-72) not displayed.       .       .       . #73. To: SOSO, Don, BobCeleste, Vicomte13, Pericles, redleghunter, A Pole (#67) Question for you though (which you probably won't answer): had I been schooled on a different version of the Scriptures would my belief in and understanding of God and what He expects from me be different? For example, suppose I didn't believe in transubstanitation to name just one difference in the teachings of the various Christian religious sects? People rarely have any problems with Christianity over the various flavors of doctrine. What people usually do is use that as an excuse to ignore or flout entirely the moral code of scripture. Then they blame scripture for refusing to obey the fundamental and universal tenets found in all scripture. On the essentials, no credible version of scripture fails to outline fundamental Christian morals and duties. It isn't the fault of any church or bible version if people decide to use that as an excuse for ignoring or disobeying every fundamental tenet of scripture found repeatedly in every version. I flagged a few others because this is actually a rather common argument that we have repeatedly in various flavors. If you disagree, name the versions of scripture that allow theft, murder or other moral offenses. Naturally, they are all in agreement on fundamental moral issues. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-05-15   14:33:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: TooConservative, Don, BobCeleste, Vicomte13, Pericles, redleghunter, A Pole (#73) On the essentials, no credible version of scripture fails to outline fundamental Christian morals and duties. This is substantially true. It falls apart at the fringes. "It isn't the fault of any church or bible version if people decide to use that as an excuse for ignoring or disobeying every fundamental tenet of scripture found repeatedly in every version." Much less true as there are self-proclaimed Christian churches that truly bastradize the essence of Christianity. For example, those Christain churches that preach and teach anti-Catholicism (and they know who they are, don't they Don?) In just about all cases of the outliers it is their insistence that theirs is the one and only true version and interpretation of God's Words that puts them on the fringe. Unfortunately they are stronger in number than one would think is justified. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-05-15   14:48:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: redleghunter (#66) How many centuries did sola ecclesia keep the written Scriptures from the lay person because they were not in the local or common language? Long time. Printing press was not invented yet. A Pole  posted on  2015-05-15   15:16:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: SOSO, TooConservative, Don, BobCeleste, Vicomte13, Pericles, redleghunter, A Pole (#74) In the length of time it has taken to discuss this thread, without anyone actually discussing Mal 3:9 and the missing word, anyone could have done a little work online and found the Hebrew and again online found the definitions. Not many years ago I got a call from a man I went to boot camp with back in June of 62. He runs a huge porn site, he told me "No one cares about what God said, people care about @(%)". Seems he may be right. All this discussion about what I said and not one comment or any discussion on Mal 3:9. How sad. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-15   15:25:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: BobCeleste (#76) All this discussion about what I said and not one comment or any discussion on Mal 3:9. You probably thought I was being facetious when I said that the only time you hear about Malachi is when the preacher or church board is after donations, especially tithes. I was entirely serious. No one ever seems to mention Malachi otherwise, particularly preach an entire sermon on it. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-05-15   15:43:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: SOSO (#68) Which ones spoke and wrote in English? German? French? Italian? Russian? Chinese? Japanese? Oh....wait...none of those languages existed at the time of the teachers to whom you refer. But if they did for example speak English, would that have been Olde English or American English? And which particualr dialect? "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-15   15:47:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: SOSO (#68) Which ones spoke and wrote in English? German? French? Italian? Russian? Chinese? Japanese? Oh....wait...none of those languages existed at the time of the teachers to whom you refer. But if they did for example speak English, would that have been Olde English or American English? And which particualr dialect? Languages may change or develop, however the manuscripts remain the same. We say slacks or pants, but older English said britches. They are still bipedal material that covers the legs. Thus God covered Adam and Eve. Did he have pants? Does it matter? It matters that God communicated they were covered. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-15   15:51:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: TooConservative (#73) If you disagree, name the versions of scripture that allow theft, murder or other moral offenses. Naturally, they are all in agreement on fundamental moral issues. Well I agree. And will add that when it comes to the message of the Gospel the same applies. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-15   16:03:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: A Pole (#75) Yes that is true. However even scrolls and codex "books" at assemblies although available in most Christian traditions were not in the tongue of the people. Not as much in the East as was seen in the West. The West chose the language of the intelligentsia, Latin thus creating two distinct classes of church members. This was not so in the NT. Pentecost shows that the Gospel is for all nations and tongues. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-15   16:07:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: SOSO, Don, TooConservative (#74) Much less true as there are self-proclaimed Christian churches that truly bastradize the essence of Christianity. For example, those Christain churches that preach and teach anti-Catholicism (and they know who they are, don't they Don?) You speak of doctrinal differences. Doctrines of transubstantion came much later than the NT church. I believe it was not until the 2nd Lateran council in which that doctrine was confirmed. And with much controversy. The East did not embrace this doctrine until almost 200 years later and they are not dogmatic about it. It is when a certain church pronounces anathemas on those who do not agree with them where issues come up. That is what Trent did. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-15   16:16:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: BobCeleste (#76) All this discussion about what I said and not one comment or any discussion on Mal 3:9. What does Malachi 3:9 have to do with the curse of sin and death destroyed by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-15   16:21:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #84. To: redleghunter (#81) The West chose the language of the intelligentsia, Latin thus creating two distinct classes of church members. This was not so in the NT. Oh yes, it was. The services in Jesus time were in Hebrew, OT Bible was in Greek, lower class people used Aramaic, middle and upper class spoke Greek, Hebrew was studied by the priests and scribes. The reason was that higher learning was for the few - it required time, resources and talent. Making translation for the illiterate or semi-literate vulgar folk (later "Vulgate") did not make much sense, especially that making books was very expensive. In the church the Holy Books were read aloud (or repeated from memory) during the service followed by an explanation. A Pole  posted on  2015-05-15   16:44:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #85. To: BobCeleste (#60) Bob, the Hebrew word that is traditionally translated as "cursed" in English and other languages doesn't actually mean "cursed" in the sense of some pronounced incantation at all. It is much more graphic than that. The literal translation of the word whose Hebrew consonants are ARWR (aror or arar), is "spat upon". "Cursed" in English implies the speaking of imprecatory words, but the Hebrew "aror" means spat upon, as in hawking a loogie. For example, from Genesis, the LITERAL Hebrew of Genesis 3:14 (when God "curses" the serpent), is: "and he-will-exist [YHWH] of powers [Elohiym] will say to the serpent, given that you did this, spat upon are you from all the beasts and from all the life the field, upon the belly you will walk and powder you will eat all the days your life". So, Malachi (which, by the way, means "messenger", which is to say "angel") never says "You are cursed with a curse". What it says, literally, is "You are spat upon with spit...". Which carries precisely the degree of degradation and loathing that anybody in any culture has when contemplating that image. Hhhhhhhhhhh - PTOOOEY - right on ye, ye vile worms. Pretty graphic language, this "ARWR". Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-15   16:49:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: Gatlin (#48) Your comment is not conductive to civil discussion. Thank you. Then strike the comment and I will try in the future to word my comments in a way that will be more palatable to you during my composting. LOL Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-15   16:54:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: TooConservative (#77) You probably thought I was being facetious when I said that the only time you hear about Malachi is when the preacher or church board is after donations, especially tithes. I was entirely serious. No one ever seems to mention Malachi otherwise, particularly preach an entire sermon on it. Visit ChristianPatriot.com put Malachi in the search engine. Not all, but some are up and available to the general public. Most are restricted to preachers and Bible students. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-15   16:58:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #88. To: redleghunter (#83) What does Malachi 3:9 have to do with the curse of sin and death destroyed by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? that's not what the thread is all about, it is about why one should study the ancient languages. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-15   16:59:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: Vicomte13 (#85) he literal translation of the word whose Hebrew consonants are ARWR (aror or arar), is "spat upon". So, Malachi (which, by the way, means "messenger", which is to say "angel") never says "You are cursed with a curse". What it says, literally, is "You are spat upon with spit...". Mal 3:9a Ye are cursed ('arar) with a curse (m@erah) From the original post: the Hebrew words 'arar and m@erah. 'arar Strong's 779 is a primitive root; to execrate:--X bitterly curse m@erah Strongs 3994 is an execration:--curse. I'm curious as to where you are getting your definitions. The other problem I have with your explanation is that there are two words, not one, translated as curse, not one. Mal 3:9a Ye are cursed ('arar) with a curse (m@erah) BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-15   17:07:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #90. To: SOSO (#23) who other than myself shall I trust to read and understand the Bible in its original languages. I'm a pretty good source, actually, because I don't have a traditional religious agenda. I don't like any of the traditions, because of all of the evil that their men have done. I don't trust their translations, because I have had a peak at the tendentiousness of it. I don't accept the Protestant tradition that the Bible is IT, and I don't accept the Catholic tradition that the Church is IT. I think that God is IT, and I want to know what the Church has said about what God wants. I also want to see how the Church has contradicted itself in these pronouncements. It concerns me less when I find the men of the Church contradicting what God said. Judas was an Apostle, after all, and Peter ran away and denied Christ. But the allegedly infallible doctrines themselves, where they evolve and change or conflict with each other: that's important. I want to see, also, what the Bible says, and I want to see how people change the canon between different denominations, and whether it makes a difference (it does as between Catholic and Protestant, and between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, but it doesn't between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox). I want literal translations that are mechanical and concordant, so I can see the Hebrew and Greek verb tenses - they matter a great deal. I want the same word used consistently in the text to translate its homologue, because that's what time left us: THAT word. When different English is used to translate the same word, the judgment of the translator is intruding. I want my translator to make ONE judgment about the meaning of a word - to TELL me that judgment and the alternatives - and then I want my translator BOUND to use that exact word, every single time the Hebrew or Greek word appears. Such translations do exist, though they are rare. With concordant translation and proper verb tenses, I want to see if the Bible conflicts with itself. It does. And I want to see if there is any way WITHIN the text to discern how to assign greater and lesser authority to conflicting pieces. There is. Jesus actually gave the rule, and it makes perfect logical sense too, when you think about it: "Man does not live by bread alone, but but every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of deity." Well, that narrows it down, doesn't it? Scripture is inspired by God, but the parts that God actually spoke directly, which are always indicated in the text, are the words to live by, in the event of a conflict. That makes sense. It also clears a lot of freight. So, what I end up with is a corpus of words, perhaps only about 7 or 8% of the text, a third of that when duplicates are removed, that are the binding words of God. Those are the highest authority in Scripture. I can look at the "disputed books" to see if there are words of God in THOSE. There are, in some of them, so I need to see if there is any difference in message if a disputed book is included or excluded. (The answer is: not really.) Then I can compare the words that proceeded forth out of the mouth of God, according to Scripture, to each of the traditions of each denomination, to see where they vary. And then I can come to my own judgment as to what to think. Me? I come down on the side of words spoken directly by God, as interpreted by my own conscience. Because I'm interested in the truth, not in defending any tradition at all, I tend to be a very good, impartial source for understanding the Bible. You can trust me because I'm just trying to show what it actually says, for my OWN benefit - and I'm willing to share my findings with others. That makes me an exceptional source of information - precisely because I am unimpressed with ALL of the denominational claims. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-15   17:13:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #91. To: BobCeleste (#89) m'erah is a derivative of ARWR. There's one word here, and a derivate. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-15   17:14:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: Vicomte13 (#91) (Edited) m'erah is a derivative of ARWR. There's one word here, and a derivate. Yes, m'erah is a derivative of ARWR, but they are not one word. I remain curious as to what dictionary you are using? Where are you getting your definitions from? BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-15   17:29:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #93. To: TooConservative (#77) (Edited) No one ever seems to mention Malachi otherwise, particularly preach an entire sermon on it. Except me. I am particularly fond of Malachi, for two reasons. First, it wasn't proclaimed by a man. "Melek" is a messenger - an angel. This is God's angel speaking to the Jews, not some guy hiding his identity. Probably. That's important, because it makes the whole book highly authoritative - not just words "inspired by God", but words that proceed forth out of the mouth of God (via an angel). The second reason I like it is because it is HERE, from God's own mouth via his angel, that God proclaims the same doctrine against divorce that Jesus later preaches. The angel (melek) tells the Jews: "God hates divorce." Jesus later tells us all that divorce was a law that Moses wrote, but that it wasn't God's intent from the beginning. And Jesus says that remarriage after divorce is adultery. A fundamental difference between the Catholic Church and all other Christian denominations is that the other denominations all allow for divorce and remarriage, because of the hardness of hearts. But the Catholic Church forbids it absolutely. And THAT is, in fact, the law that came out of Jesus' mouth, corroborated by the words from God through the Angel. It is important that God's HATRED for divorce - HATRED - is expressed in the OLD Testament. So, Jesus is NOT changing the law to take away something that God gave through Moses. As Jesus said, Moses wrote the tradition, and divorce was a TRADITION. But God HATES it, and hated it under the law of Moses too. That's very, very important. For we are told by modern Christians of a political bent that God hates sodomy - that it is an abomination. That's true, on the text. But DIVORCE is ALSO hated by God - HATED. Jesus said that remarriage after divorce is ADULTERY. And in the short list given by Jesus twice on the last page of Scripture of what will get a man thrown into the Lake of Fire at final judgment, THEFT never appears - thieves don't necessarily go to Hell - but the sexually immoral and adulterers both do. I have noted that the Christians of our day like to harp on faggotry, which is legitimate. They harp somewhat less on fornication, perhaps because they don't want to alienate the "low church". But on divorce - something God hates - and remarriage - which Jesus calls adultery, and promises adulterers are hurled into the fire...well, there the Christians find compassion. Why? Because most people are heterosexual and married, and marriage is frequently a bitch, and having an escape hatch has been a desire of man since Moses. But God HATES divorce. HATES it. And tells men not to do it. In both testaments - an angel tells the Jews, and Jesus tells the world. I myself, personally, agree with Jesus. I think that divorce is an utter calamity for children, in particular. And I think that the temporal happiness of parents should be sacrificed for the happiness of children, and unhappy people should stay married, AND control their emotions and not commit other sins by lashing out - in short, they should fall back in love with the love of their youth, and that God gives them no out. There is no out: you must stay married. Marriage means that you will never have sex with anybody else against for the rest of one of your lives - the first to die - and it's indissoluble. And IF you dissolve it anyway: God HATES that. And if you remarry, you are an adulterer and you will be thrown into the flames of Hell and not enter the City of God. Jesus said that TWICE on the last page of the Scripture - TWICE. Adulterers are thrown into the fire. Divorce and remarriage is adultery. God hates divorce, and God throws adulterers into Hell. And all of those words came out of the mouth of God, straight and clear, and are not open to interpretation. And any Christian who says otherwise is deleting Scripture to pave the way to sin. He is lying and liars are ALSO on the short stern list of people who will be thrown into Hell at judgment. There is no escape: God hates divorce. Remarriage after divorce is adultery. Adulterers are thrown into Hell. And to say otherwise is to lie about God's word and liars are also all thrown into Hell. Therefore, Christians must take the position that divorce is prohibited, and remarriage after divorce is always barred. To do otherwise, and to preach anything else, is to lie and to lead men and women, and one's self, to hell. Thus speaks Malachi and Jesus. This is the law of God. It can never be changed. And whoever disagrees with it should shut up and change his mind, on pain of death, damnation and Hell. God has spoken finally, and repeatedly. Whoever thinks otherwise defies God. It is not an open question. The doctrine of divorce and remarriage is Satanic. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-15   18:00:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc, Don, TooConservative (#90) I don't trust their translations, because I have had a peak at the tendentiousness of it. Well, we seem to have something in common here. I take them with a grain of salt. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-05-15   18:26:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: Vicomte13 (#93) A fundamental difference between the Catholic Church and all other Christian denominations is that the other denominations all allow for divorce and remarriage, because of the hardness of hearts. Not true. Most Evangelical churches remove members for divorce. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-15   18:28:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #96. To: redleghunter, Don, TooConservative, vicomte13, GarySpFc, Bob Celeste (#82) I believe it was not until the 2nd Lateran council in which that doctrine was confirmed. By who? God? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-05-15   18:29:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #97. To: SOSO (#96) By self proclaimed infallible men. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-15   18:35:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #98. To: Vicomte13, rtedleghunter, TooConservative, Don, GarySpFc, Bob Celeste (#93) A fundamental difference between the Catholic Church and all other Christian denominations is that the other denominations all allow for divorce and remarriage, because of the hardness of hearts. But the Catholic Church forbids it absolutely. And THAT is, in fact, the law that came out of Jesus' mouth, corroborated by the words from God through the Angel. Divorce? Catholic don't need no stinkin' divorce. At least rich Catholics don't, they can get an annulment, maybe more than one. Just ask Ted Kennedy (or his Dad). Ted got one after 24 years of marriage and three kids. Hey, it's good to be King. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-05-15   18:39:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #99. To: redleghunter (#97) By self proclaimed infallible men. Keep coming to the light, Ram. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-05-15   18:40:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #100. To: SOSO (#98) Yes the annulment is the rich Catholic divorce. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-15   18:53:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #101. To: A Pole (#84) Well actually there would be Hebrew scrolls in Judea whereas in the diaspora the Greek would be more prevalent. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-15   18:58:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #102. To: SOSO (#98) Is God fooled by annulment that is really divorce? If the Catholics, through annulment, only honor the prohibition against divorce and remarriage in the breach, they nevertheless honor it. What can be said for outright, flatly stated divorce and remarriage? Nothing. If the Church is doing it by subterfuge, it feels the need to commit to the subterfuge, BECAUSE God's prohibition is so very absolute. So, if the Catholics are doing it by subterfuge, they need to stop it. And of course everybody else needs to completely abandon what THEY do, because that's in-your-face defiance of God. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-15   19:35:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #103. To: redleghunter (#95) Most evangelical churches? Name three. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-15   19:36:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #104. To: Vicomte13 (#91) Let me ask again, what are you using for a dictionary? Where are you getting y9ur definitions from? BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-15   20:45:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #105. To: Vicomte13 (#102) So, if the Catholics are doing it by subterfuge, they need to stop it. Tell it to the Pope. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-05-15   21:07:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #106. To: BobCeleste (#104) Why do you want to know? Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-15   21:13:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #107. To: BobCeleste, Vicomte13 (#89) Mal 3:9 Witha-the-curseb you(pl) (are) cursed,c because/yetd-(it is)me you(pl) (are) robbing/defrauding,e the-nation,f all(-of)g-it. LEXICON—a. -בּ bY- (BDB p. 88), (Hol p. 32), (TWOT 193): ‘with’ [Coh, Keil, Mer, Gla, NICOT, WBC; KJV, NASB, NRSV]. These translate literally the idiomatic Hebrew phase ‘with the curse you are cursed’. Most other commentators and versions employ more idiomatic expressions, given in (c) below. The proclitic bY- denotes here instrument [BDB, Hol]. b. מארה mY¾râ (BDB p. 76), (Hol p. 181), (TWOT 168a): ‘curse’ [all lexica, commentators, and versions], ‘malediction’ [Hol]. c. mas. pl. Niphal part. of ארר ¾rr (BDB p. 76), (Hol p. 28), (TWOT 168): ‘cursed’ [BDB; Coh, Keil, Mer; KJV, NASB, NRSV], ‘inflicted with a curse’ [Hol]. Many translations restructure the Hebrew phrase ‘you are cursed with the curse’: ‘to be under a curse’ [CEV, NIV, NLT], ‘to suffer under a curse’ [JPS], ‘to be greatly cursed’ [NICOT]. Some translations make ‘curse’ the subject, e.g., ‘a curse is on you’ [NJB, REB, TEV]. Most translations express an accomplished event or an enduring state, e.g., ‘you are cursed’. WBC, however, expresses a process: ‘you are being cursed’. d. -ו wY- waw connective (BDB p. 251), (Hol p. 84), (TWOT 519): ‘because’ [Mer; NIV, NJB, REB, TEV, WBC], ‘yet’ [Coh, Keil, Gla, NICOT; JPS], ‘for’ [KJV, NASB, NLT, NRSV]. The emphasis of the clause is on the pronoun ‘me’, attached to this connective [Gla]. e. mas. pl. Qal part. of קבע qb¿ (BDB p. 867), (Hol p. 311), (TWOT 1981) or of עקב ¾qḇ (BDB p. 784), (Hol p. 281), (TWOT 1676): ‘to rob’ [Coh, Mer, Gla, NICOT, WBC; NASB, NIV, NRSV], ‘to defraud’ [JPS], ‘to cheat’ [Hol; NJB, NLT, TEV], ‘to assail insidiously’ [BDB]. Some translations employ modalities: ‘to try to cheat’ [NJB], ‘to go on defrauding’ [JPS], ‘to continue to rob’ [Gla]. All translations employ the English present or present progressive tenses except NLT, which employs the present perfect: ‘has been cheating’. BDB and Hol consider the sense of qbv to be uncertain: it is perhaps ‘to rob’, if indeed qbv is an authentic word and not just the reversal of עקב ¾qḇ ‘to cheat’. f. גּוי gôy (BDB p. 156), (Hol p. 57), (TWOT 326e): ‘nation’ [all lexica, commentators, and versions]. Some translations employ the English demonstrative adjective ‘this’ instead of translating literally the Hebrew definite article: [Coh, Mer, WBC; KJV, NJB]; others employ ‘your’ or the phrase ‘nation of you’ [CEV, JPS, NIV, NLT, NRSV, REB]. Gôy normally refers to the peoples and ethnic groups around Israel, with emphasis upon their paganness. g. constr. of כּל kMl (BDB p. 481), (Hol p. 156), (TWOT 985a). This noun is translated as an adjective: ‘whole’ [BDB; Coh, Keil, NICOT; CEV, JPS, KJV, NASB, NIV, NJB, NLT, NRSV, TEV], ‘all’ [WBC], ‘entire’ [Mer, Gla; REB]. The noun KOl denotes a totality of something [BDB, Hol]. QUESTION—How should בּמּארה bammY¾râ ‘with-the-curse’ be interpreted? 1. It should be interpreted instrumentally, but the identity of the curse is not certain [Mer]. 2. It should be interpreted instrumentally, and the curse referred to is specified in Mal. 3:10–12: it called down bad harvests upon the Jews [Coh, Keil, Gla]. This is parallel to Mal. 2:2, which speaks of a ban on the crops [Gla]. 3. In the surface str ucture of the verse’s syntax, the word functions instrumentally, but there is no specific curse in mind; rather, the expression ‘the curse’ evokes, in fact, all attributes of curses in general. Thus, bammY¾râ ‘with-the-curse’ has adverbial force and denotes ‘greatly cursed’ [NICOT]. QUESTION—How should the waw connective in ואתי wY¾Mṯ1 ‘because/yet-(it is) me’ be interpreted? 1. It should be interpreted as an adversative and translated as or similar to ‘but’ or ‘yet’ [Coh, Keil, Gla, NICOT; JPS]. 2. It should be interpreted as signaling causation and translated as ‘because’ [Mer, WBC; NIV, NJB, REB, TEV]. KJV, NLT, and NRSV translate ‘for’, which appears here to be similar to ‘because’. QUESTION—What is the use of the Niphal participle נארים n¾ r1m ‘being- cursed’? The participle here expresses an action begun in the past but with continuing effect in the present [NICOT]. QUESTION—How should הגּוי כּלּו haggôy kullô ‘the-nation all(-of)-it’ be interpreted? Here כּל kMl is used substantively: ‘all of it (i.e., all of the nation)’. Although there are in the OT certain specialized applications of the appellation gôy to Israel, this term is generally reserved for the pagan nations [Gla]. Here, however, the reference to Israel as gôy (as in Deut. 32:28, Isa. 1:4, and Judg. 2:20) suggests that God in his anger is comparing Israel to a pagan people [NICOT] and is thus rejecting her behavior [Gla]. James Pohlig, An Exegetical Summary of Malachi (Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1998), 158–160. And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined* in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6 GarySpFC  posted on  2015-05-15   23:41:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #108. To: Vicomte13 (#93) There is no out: you must stay married. Marriage means that you will never have sex with anybody else against for the rest of one of your lives - the first to die - and it's indissoluble. And IF you dissolve it anyway: God HATES that. And if you remarry, you are an adulterer and you will be thrown into the flames of Hell and not enter the City of God. Jesus said that TWICE on the last page of the Scripture - TWICE. Adulterers are thrown into the fire. If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), Dt 24:1–4. So, you would have a woman in this situation go back to her first husband? And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined* in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6 GarySpFC  posted on  2015-05-15   23:49:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #109. To: Vicomte13 (#106) Why do you want to know? I'm curious of where you came up with spat or spitting? BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-16   7:10:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #110. To: Vicomte13, A Pole, TooConservative (#103) Most evangelical churches? Name three. In all five that I have been a part of in my various regional assignments. In one, an associate pastor, a Christian, decided he was no longer compatible with his Christian wife. He was dismissed as associate pastor and after the assembly assisted in the reconciliation process, he still wanted a divorce. He was put out of the assembly. The wife remained as she did not want the divorce. But that is what Christians do. What about an atheist who after being married 15 years, with kids, converts to be a Catholic. His atheist wife objects and does not like the change in him and divorces him. What about his situation? Will the Catholic church allow him to remarry? Is this grounds to issue an annulment? He married with the disobedient heart of an atheist, but by God's Grace later converted. The same light was not given the wife and she leaves him. What is the Catholic solution to this? A Pole, how would the Orthodox handle this issue? "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-16   11:38:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #111. To: SOSO (#46) Faith in what? Faith has to have an. object. And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined* in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6 GarySpFC  posted on  2015-05-16   11:56:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #112. To: BobCeleste (#58) How other than by studying it in the Hebrew can you possibly know what Mal 3:9 really reads? Perhaps if you would spend more time in God's word and less in other peoples commentary you would be of interest. Bob, you really have no idea how much time I spend in the Word. And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined* in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6 GarySpFC  posted on  2015-05-16   12:52:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #113. To: GarySpFC (#111) Faith in what? Faith has to have an. object. What? Are you serious? What is the object of your faith? Gaia? Government? The Great Wheel? Stop being silly. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-05-16   13:06:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (114 - 248) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com