Wiploc

When responding to posts, my technique is to hit the bold button, a space, and enter; then I hit the quote button, a space and enter; which gives me this:

--- begin example block ---
[-QUOTE] [-/QUOTE] [-B] [-/B]
--- end example block ---

except without those hypens, which I put in to keep the code from working so that it would show up as illustration.

Then I use the mouse to rearrange it like this:

--- begin example block ---
[-/QUOTE] [-/B]





[-QUOTE] [-B]
--- end example block ---

Then I highlight the whole thing and push <control>C to copy it to the clipboard. Then, when I find a place in the message I am responding to where I want to interject a comment, I put the cursor there and press <control>V to paste this block of text into that place. Then I insert my comment thus:

--- begin example block ---
[-/QUOTE] [-/B]

My comment goes here.



[-QUOTE] [-B]
--- end example block ---

The only reason I leave three blank lines after my comment is as a visual guide. When I go back to proof my message, this helps me distinguish my text from the text I'm responding to.

This works for me. Though cumbersome, it is far less cumbersome than anything else I have figured out. If anybody has a better method, I'd love to hear about it.

What I'd really like to see is an "Interject Response" button that does all that with one mouse click.

crc

Amlodhi

That explains it. I noticed "Heathen Dawn" posting Hebrew characters in another post; I need to ask him (gender assumption?) or the moderators about how this is done to avoid further confusion.

Another source of confusion is/was your previously undisclosed religious predilection. Your original objections to the use of "blasphemous" names led me to believe that you were (more or less) orthodox Jewish (and hence, your reference to a "new" covenant as opposed to the "holy" covenant was not intuitive in transliteration).

Now, however, I am fairly confident that I recognize your platform. Apparently, you are a Messianic Jew and your objections to the use of "Jesus" as opposed to "Yah(u)shua" stems from the contention that hellenized "Iesous" > latinized "Iesus" > Germanic (Yah/Jah) "Jesus" is not merely linguistic morphology; but rather a replacement of the original name with a name derived from pagan gods (Ieso, Ea/Zeus, etc.).

This is irrelevant as it is the adjective that is altered grammatically depending on the nature of the noun it is modifying (or describing).

All this, however, has merely become a digression from the point, which was; I cited the Hebrew in response to your objection to translations and the extant text is there , in the Hebrew, for all who care to look.

We can only cite those texts we have. You object to reconstructed scholarly translations. You imply that the Masoretic text is inaccurate and untrustworthy. What text do you suggest we use?

An argument that rested on more than alleged transcendent revelation would be a good start; as it has been my observation that transcendent revelation has a miserable track record.


Namaste'

Amlodhi

Sheshbazzar

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amlodhi
[B]


Another source of confusion is/was your previously undisclosed religious predilection.
[Q]
Now, however, I am fairly confident that I recognize your platform. Apparently, you are a Messianic Jew
[Q]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Amlodhi, I am not Jewish, Orthodox or otherwise,and the so called Messianic Jews do not accept nor account me, (or us) as any part of them (no, not even those of my brethern whom are Jews by birth, now shunned for the sake of a Name.)

Nor are we Xians, tho' the term has been repeatedly forced upon us, beginning at Antioch, we abhor the term, the images, the sacred poles, the lying traditions, the bloodthirsty heritage, they in selling out to paganisim, they went out from among us.
And Lo, indeed they have made for themselves a name.

We were YAHwists, we are YAHwists, and we will remain YAHwists, And every soul out of every nation, that loves the Name Yahweh is accounted as one of us.
"And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call upon the Name, YAHWEH, shall be delivered" Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, Rom. 10:13
[/Q]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can only cite those texts we have. You object to reconstructed scholarly translations. You imply that the Masoretic text is inaccurate and untrustworthy. What text do you suggest we use?
[Q]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collectively, we have hundreds of versions in various languages each with their own peculiar strengths and weaknesses,
however we do not profess that any man is saved by a book, and no matter how perfect or accurate the book, it is man that is weak, inclined error, and to fall into rebellion and sin.
There is no salvation that is greater for the literate than for the illiterate, and whomsoever is able to read the books, is only the guiltier.
What text would I suggest you use? (I note you made no effort to defend the accuracy of the M.T.) Any one, or all, or none, as it is irrelavent apart from the observing of that first and greatest commandment.
Zerubabble, servant of YAH

Celsus

You may refer to Peter Kirby's post (for Greek) in the Recommended Reading and Reference sticky here in BC&H, or Heathen Dawn's post in the IIDB FAQ here (with some tips on Hebrew). Follow whichever post you find easier to understand.

Joel

Amlodhi

Thanks Celsus!

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Amlodhi

Thank you. Guessing another's religious predeliction remains perilous. Actually, it seems the only safe guess (whatever the denomination) is that "they" alone are the shining bastion of God's truth in a world of the blind and deceived.

Nor will I.

There's that obfuscation again. The question was "what text do you suggest we use" (for discussion); since you seem to have little confidence in any of them. In my personal studies, I usually reference virtually all available English translations along with the extant Hebrew w/ Masorah.

I support your right to believe as you wish and to attend the church of your choice.

This, however, is not the church of your choice. It is a "biblical criticism and history" discussion forum.

As to relevance: Of course it's relevant. Without an examination of the text purporting to record the words and actions of your God, you're simply making up your religion as you go. If your texts are all inaccurate and undependable, you have no foundation for your religion.

As to actual discussion of these texts; your continued avoidance is revealing.


Amlodhi

Sheshbazzar

Amen, I have little confidence in any of them. ( this I speak only of my own persuasion, many of whom I esteem brethern, hold otherwise.)
I also am a sceptic, as I have said before.
My faith is not in old paper, nor in words engraved in stone.
I did not enter this forum to wrangle over the meanings of some obscure words that you are sure you have the better understanding of, but to point out one simple truth, that not all men interpret those words the same, As is also true of many other verses.

As to the charge of making up my own religion as I go, I claim to follow in the faith of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, of whom there is no record of having had faith in any written documents.
My texts are all inaccurate and undependable, YAH knows.
I believe what I am moved to believe, I do what I am moved to do, and say what I am moved to say, and experience what I am experiencing, of these things I am guilty indeed.

I claim no other foundation for my faith than the name of YAHshua The Messiah, the son of YAHweh, and even this I give not credit to a book, but to that man of flesh and blood, who by faith did declare it unto me with his mouth, and who took me by the hand down into the water and immersed me into the name of YAHshua.

In conclusion, the books say many things, and yes I agree, do oft contain outright contradictions, and what sure appear to be fantastic fables, if not outright lies. BUT, I was not present, and make no claim to have witnessed those events.
My own life and my own experiences are all that I can in truth attest to, and in this present instance and discussion;
One, the Bible I have here in my hand renders the verse differently than your version, and is extant as much as any other.
Two, Hebrew speaking men who love the name, Yahweh, and accept Yahshua as His Messiah, interpet the meaning the same.

You charge me with "continued avoidance" over and over, What? to me this charge makes little sense, when there is even a fundamental dissagreement amongst Hebrew speaking men about the meaning of said verse, I defer to the opinion of my Hebrew speaking brethern, But then again,and quite obviously, not every Hebrew speaker loves The Name, thus I side with them that do.

Love, Zerubabble benJacob

Amlodhi

Then why, pray tell, are you posting on the Biblical Criticism & History forum? :banghead:

Sheshbazzar

"...to point out one simple truth, that all men do not interpret those words the same, As is also true of many other verses."

I am sure that not all the readers of this forum, will be so persistently obtuse.

Indeed there stands a mighty wall between us.

Zerubabble

Amlodhi

Yes, Sheshbazzar, that glaringly obvious point was already understood at the outset. Think about it, if all men did interpret these words the same, there would be little point in having a Biblical Criticism discussion forum in the first place, now would there? What was that word you used . . . .obtuse?

The only question is; why join a biblical criticism discussion forum and then adamantly refuse to discuss the text?

Your behavior is analogous to me joining a bowling league and then not only refusing to bowl, but also feigning indignance when others point out the absurdity of such an action.

"Oh, but you see, I only joined the bowling league to point out to all you obtuse people that you will not all agree on the best way to grip the ball."


Amlodhi