Bible; The Warning

[minorwork]

In the beginning......Agenda

Though being bastardized by so many political rewrites, some decent stuff can still be gleaned. My favs. The Holy fire phenomena. Flaming sword at the Garden. Coupla' burning bushes. Fire in the Ark of the Covenant drunks can't handle(clue). This is all over the old testament.

Also. Two guys did not die, but were translated. I have big interest in translating. Notice. One of them was not Jesus. Nor the other.

Why not get communications from the horses mouth and throw away the Bible? (You can't handle the Truth?) Maybe.

New Testament vs Old in God communication techniques applied to life today. Do I dial 653403 or is it 639403?

Why choose one over the other?

Any other systems have techniques? Surat Shabd?

These are my questions to the believers. The knowers seem to understand language issues are at the root of communication problems. I am firm in the belief (because to this date it is not demonstrated) that language is not an insurmountable problem. Emphasis on the word "problem" as compared to "mystery."

Much love.

[minorwork]

What is the name of the unknown name of God? Why an unknown name?

Only the individual will have the true name. What is God? God is an It. This so I don't have to cover the whale and ant gods that, if anything like human conceptions, will conceivably have qualities common to whales and ants.

What about the atheist? He/she believes(?) in their own existence. They doubt the veracity of a hard definition of God. Maybe having trouble with existence also. What does it mean to exist?

So far, existence is the best God I can come up with. My existence. Quickly I learn that though I can logically(?) conclude that I am creating that which I perceive, or is it perceiving that which I create, this path is very dangerous. Pursued to its ultimate conclusion may result in casualties and it is well to remember that "one's own name may number among them."

Biblically, it is far better to realize that the individual is the small God, like a piece of broken mirror, having all the qualities of the whole mirror but longing to return to completeness. Recognizing the nature of our mind, its' powers and limitations the Old Testament speaks to the limits of mind's powers. The New Testament speaks to a conquest of the traps the computer mind springs. Lust, greed, anger, attachment,and vanity.

'Course to speak in any way of God concepts, I must cover Soul.
Or that which experiences. See how easy that is. I hope those in human form experience, not leaving me by myself.

Boy this sure sounds like proselytizing. But it is just the vision. Maybe others' have something similar. 'Nuff for now.

[Unbeliever]

Why not get communications from the horses mouth and throw away the Bible? (You can't handle the Truth?) Maybe.

Good question! If God's all-powerful, why would he not simply inscribe the truth directly on each of our minds, rather than forcing us to trust people who claim they've been spoken to by God?

[minorwork]

Good question, UB. Use of the mind^3 to approach the ultimate source of consciousness will result in visions of the Flame barring the way to Paradise referred to in Genesis. Burning Bush? Of course in this day and age the vision will generate perhaps more modern symbols uniquely constructed for the individual at task. But the old ones will support the new as they are the basis of our physical and cultural construction.

But this use of the mind is fraught with much danger and hardship. Better to drop the mind totally and experience things as they are in themselves rather than as you said, "..... forcing us to trust people who claim they've been spoken to by God?" The Flame will leave you with the experience of speaking to, well, really the Flame phenomena but usually interpreted as God. Yeah, you too will be a fanatic like Paul and think the vision for everyone. That is the nature of the mind unfettered. An Ultimate Vanity. Liberate Soul. Loose the fetters of mind. Gravity be damned.

And lest I forget. What do you make of Enoch and Elijah translating, not dying? What is your take on "translated?"

[phrog]

One of the oh so many confusing contradictions of the Bible. Using the religious definition of translation: removing someone to heaven, especially without death. So did this happen with the afore mentioned dudes? No! Jesus Himself said: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man" (John 3:13). Here are Jesus’ own words that no man, except Himself, had ascended into heaven! Or maybe the scripture wasn't translated correctly
Maybe OldChurchGuy can make things clearer.

[minorwork]

Jesus himself was not translated. Supposedly he had to die normally to fulfill something. The Apostle's Creed pounded it in. I recited it every Sunday when Mom dragged us to the Presbyterian. Imagine my amazement when I became aware of other religions and that some, I think the less deep thinking, adherents said he did not go to Hell.

Interesting though as the Eckists use the word "translate" to indicate somebody has "kicked the bucket."

I, of course, am evolving an understanding of the word. It will be based on some experience. Big surprise that.

Oh where, Oh where, has that Old Church Guy gone?
Translated I hope not be he.
And a partridge in a pear tree.

[minorwork]

First commandment: Figure out the God thing. What it is. Look within.

Second: No physical form is it.

Third: This is the biggie. Don't misuse the name. Don't take the name in vain. Funny, that to rise and separate from the universe, consciousness must isolate itself from its' source. The cell. Build up a body from the world. Separate. Draw a distinction between itself and the world. Become a world to itself. Pulling the most active materials via metabolism from the world from which it is made, that it can sustain separately for awhile. Procreate its' likeness in violation of 2nd law. And so the Logos perceives itself. Soul is. Why? Love.

So easy on the third to say I create what I see, feel, taste, hear, touch, think, remember. Best view is one of perceiving these. At times and under random influences sometimes not under my conscious influence the creation part gets out of control and generates the paradox that powers the fires of hell. The terror of death. Not a good place to be. Today the paradox rests on the philosophic concept of matter/energy. Still paradoxical that a thing is a particle and a wave. So the ultimate arbiter, the Logos, reminds us in experiments that our ideas of it are not IT of itself. Philosophical concepts all are the electron, perfect vacuum, and thus the speed of light, E=mc^2, Big Bang, dark matter, God, Spirit.

So what is real? A swift kick? The everchanging Logos, the Word, the Noumena, that which we translate with the space/time lensed glasses, Reality.

[OldChurchGuy]

Jesus himself was not translated. Supposedly he had to die normally to fulfill something. The Apostle's Creed pounded it in. I recited it every Sunday when Mom dragged us to the Presbyterian. Imagine my amazement when I became aware of other religions and that some, I think the less deep thinking, adherents said he did not go to Hell.

Interesting though as the Eckists use the word "translate" to indicate somebody has "kicked the bucket."

I, of course, am evolving an understanding of the word. It will be based on some experience. Big surprise that.

Oh where, Oh where, has that Old Church Guy gone?
Translated I hope not be he.
And a partridge in a pear tree.

I have not been translated; just not reading all the posts. Just noticed my name so thought it would be the polite thing to respond.

"Translated" is an interesting word. I have never heard it equated with what happened to Elijah and Enoch. Here is how various translations describe the passing of Enoch in Genesis 5:24
NIV - "God took him away";
NASB - "God took him";
KJV - "God took him";
Amplified - "God took him [home with Him]";
New Living Translation - "God took him";
ASV - "God took him"

How does "translated" fit into the above phrases? Is "translated" the English equivalent of the Hebrew?

It is my understanding the idea of Jesus dying was a sticky point for the Gnostics who argued that one cannot really kill a god. If Jesus was God incarnate, then how could anyone kill him? If Jesus was not God incarnate, then what are we worshipping? These questions were flying around the various Christian groups but were unresolved for a couple of centuries. Then, when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire, the question of the day was: "OK. Christianity is now officially recognized. Just what does Christianity believe?"

After another century or so of intense discussion and debate, the orthodox triumphed over the non-orthodox Christians mainly because they seem to have been better organized. One can argue it was the hand of God and one can argue it was just better political participation by the orthodox group. Not sure either position can be proven.

One result of all this discussion / debate was the Apostle's Creed. It was an attempt by the orthodox group to answer the question above (Just what does Chrsitianity believe?). The Apostle's Creed is both an affirmation of what the orthodox group believed and also a rejection of the non-orthodox schools.

Thus, the orthodox view was that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. By being both, Jesus was able to perform the miracles, be crucified, and be dead for three days prior to a resurrection.

Enough rambling. I fear I have muddied the waters rather than made a positive contribution to the discussion. But, the above is what I currently understand (subject to change without notice).

As always,

OldChurchGuy

[minorwork]

King James, Scofield Reference Bible: Hebrews 11:5 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Scofield has italicized subheading The translation of Elijah. II Kings 2
"And Obe Wan Kenobi's cloak fell to the floor and Obe Wan was not found."

Time has muddied the Bible as Jesus' parables muddied the mystic message when required to ease the disciples understanding and approach of that which dwells in an unapproachable light.

[stan2reason]

I have not been translated; just not reading all the posts. Just noticed my name so thought it would be the polite thing to respond.

Hi OCG,

We miss ya around here. Have you gone to greener pastures?

S2R

[phrog]

Hi OCG,

We miss ya around here. Have you gone to greener pastures?

S2R
I second what S2R sez. We need a believers eye view on occasion.

[OldChurchGuy]

King James, Scofield Reference Bible: Hebrews 11:5 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Scofield has italicized subheading The translation of Elijah. II Kings 2
"And Obe Wan Kenobi's cloak fell to the floor and Obe Wan was not found."

Time has muddied the Bible as Jesus' parables muddied the mystic message when required to ease the disciples understanding and approach of that which dwells in an unapproachable light.

This is a most interesting verse. The word "translated" from the verse in Hebrews (according to Strong's concordance #3346) is from the Greek word "matatithemi" (met at ITH ay mee) and is described as: "To transfer, i.e. (lit) transport, (by impl) exchange (refl) change sides, or (fig.) pervert - carry over, change, remove, translate, turn.

BUT the word "translation" from that same verse in Hebrews is Strong's #3331, is from the Greek word "metathesis" (met ATH es is), and is described as: "from 3346; trans., i.e. transferral (to heaven), disestablishment (of a law): - change, removing, tanslation."

It seems this verse can be read as:

By faith Enoch was translated [transferred] that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated [transferred] him: for before his translation [transferral] he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

The NIV reads this way:

By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.

I must admit the words "translate" and "transfer" have very different meanings for me in this time than they apparently did for the KJV translators over 3 centuries ago. Maybe that is why new translations are needed every so often? Although the KJV people may think otherwise.

Anyway, that concludes our mini-Bible word study. Thanks for bringing up the item.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

[minorwork]

There ya' go. That's what I needed. I've not heard of Strong's Concordance. Now I can look it up. Gee. What do ya' know? That's what they call the index in the back of my Scofield bible. Lost coin has me looking to catechism for info. I am thankful that you guys are willing to share and discuss.

Seems clear that translating avoids some aspect of death. The following passages brings doubt as to whether Elijah was solely in the physical and/or was the image of the Spirit held by Elisha.That is Elijah could appear to Elisha physically or "in his head." The latter is what I call, the luminous form of the Master.

II Kings 2;3 And the sons of the prophets that were at Beth-el came forth to Elisha, and said unto him. Knowest thou that the Lord will take away thy master from thy head today? And he said, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace.
II Kings 2;5 And the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho came to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Lord will take away thy master from thy head to day? And he answered, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace.

[stan2reason]

I've got a copy of Strong's and I use it quite frequently to better understand the Hebrew and Greek intent prior to translation. I think you can access it online as well--true OCG?

[OldChurchGuy]

I've got a copy of Strong's and I use it quite frequently to better understand the Hebrew and Greek intent prior to translation. I think you can access it online as well--true OCG?

Don't know, to be honest. I found a copy on sale at Barnes & Noble published by Nelson Publishers for under $10 so snapped it up. I haven't tried to see if it is online or not. If you decide to buy a Strong's Concordance, make sure it has the word "Exhaustive" in the title. While it is thicker, it will list EVERY word in the Bible including the articles "a", "an" and "the". Granted, an article is rarely a key piece in an interpretation, but there is the satisfaction of knowing you have a source that has each and every word in the Bible.

Strong's is based (or keyed) on the KJV as I understand things. There is also an exhaustive concordance for the NIV which I use as I really like my NIV Study Bible. The main reason I like the NIV (aside from it being easier to read) is that in the Study Bible edition, the footnotes will actually include ALTERNATIVE verses with a statement that "Some of the earliest manuscripts say .....". For me, any Bible that is confident enough in it's translation to also show there are alternative translations is well worth it. As you can imagine, such ideas are seen as blasphemous by various Christians on some of the Christian web sites.

The question about Strong's being on the internet intrigued me so I used the Google search engine and found the following:

Here is a website with various sources including Strong's. I notice the word "exhaustive" is not in the title, but it may be exhaustive. I didn't take time to study it.

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

This website apparently uses Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/StrongsExhaustiveConcordance/

There does not appear to be an online source for the NIV Exhaustive Concordance.

You folks will never know how much I appreciate being able to share this information without getting into flaming debates as has happened at times on some of the Christian websites. I suspect some of my Christian bretheren could learn a thing or two from you just as I have. But, that would mean thinking about things and (heaven forbid!) modifying or possibly abandoning a given belief.

Always trying to learn more I remain,

OldChurchGuy

[stan2reason]

You're absolutely right about Strong's. "Exhaustive" must be in the title to include all the words. Mine was a gift from my mom when I was in my teens. There was a time when I seminary-bound and I think she got an early start on my "required reading"--sort of like the phone book, Strong's has a heck of a cast but not much of a plot.

Have you considered the English Standard Version? It's the version I use most frequently and almost always compare it with the NIV and RSV. It's a new translation (2002) and is very readable. The translation philosophy as stated on the website:

"The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.

In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions have followed a “thought-for-thought” rather than “word-for-word” translation philosophy, emphasizing “dynamic equivalence” rather than the “essentially literal” meaning of the original. A “thought-for-thought” translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture.

Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between “formal equivalence” in expression and “functional equivalence” in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be “as literal as possible” while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence.

Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original; and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts.

As an essentially literal translation, then, the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language. As such, it is ideally suited for in-depth study of the Bible. Indeed, with its emphasis on literary excellence, the ESV is equally suited for public reading and preaching, for private reading and reflection, for both academic and devotional study, and for Scripture memorization."

It's based on the RSV with approximately 10% of that text changed for either "clarity of expression" or accuracy (in the mind of these translators anyway).

Like the NIV, it takes a fairly conservative theological stance. In Isaiah 7:14, for instance, the "young woman" (almah) of the RSV becomes a virgin again in the ESV (similar to the NIV)! Congrats to her!

You can check out the ESV and compare it to the NIV and several other translations here (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/).

Cheers!

[stan2reason]

You folks will never know how much I appreciate being able to share this information without getting into flaming debates...



Feeling's quite mutual OCG