Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 10-06-2012, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Romans 5:10 KJV---For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled , we shall be saved by his life.

Romans 10:9 KJV---That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

all only so much 'near beer'.

Duvduv · 10-06-2012, 06:01 PM

It didn't have to be "manipulated" by the mature Church. All it was was a text written by the EMERGING Christian religion in the earliest days, i.e. the early 4th century. Again, there is no evidence that the Apology was written to the emperor in the 2nd century, no evidence that the emperor received it or reacted to it, and no evidence of the communities in the 2nd century that are never identified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Except that you can only take the heresiologists word for it about writings attributed to Marcion, except for Justin, since nothing of those writings survived...

I may consider writings claimed to be from the 2nd century or later because manuscripts with the Jesus story have been recovered and dated to that time period or later

I cannot accept any claim about actual 1st century activities of Jesus, the disciples and Paul until there is actual recovered dated manuscripts.

Again, and again, Justin Martyr's writings CONTRADICT Tertullian's Against Marcion so it does not appear to have been manipulated by the Church.

If the writings of Justin were manipulated by the Church then I would expect them to be similar to "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian, "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen and "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius all wrote of Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Pauline writings which even Scholars have rejected because they are NOT credible.

James The Least · 10-07-2012, 07:10 AM

Thanks for this clarification, DCHindley. It seems like the translators of the version I found were getting pretty creative, and deliberately trying to avoid using "according to the flesh."

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

It was in my earlier post, Sotto, which you may have overlooked when you reacted to "convenient interpolations."

5 ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

5 to them belong the patriarchs, and out of whom, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

ὧν	of whom
οἱ	the
πατέρες	fathers
καὶ	and
ἐξ	out of
ὧν	whom
ὁ	the
Χριστὸς	Christ
τὸ	the (thing)
κατὰ	according
σάρκα,	to flesh
ὁ	the (one)
ὢν	being
ἐπὶ	upon (usually indicating contact)
πάντων	all things
θεὸς	God
(ἐστιν)	(be) verb is often omitted in Koine Greek
εὐλογητὸς	blessed
εἰς	into
τοὺς	the
αἰῶνας,	ages
ἀμήν	amen

The OP asked for an accurate rendering of this section, especially vs 5. It is based on the RSV, which itself translates it as:

RSV Romans 9:5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all (be) blessed for ever. Amen.

The KJV renders it:

KJV Romans 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

And the 1885 English Revised Version:

ERV Romans 9:5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

And the 2007 English Standard Version:

ESV Romans 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who (is) God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

The blessing that appears in Psalm 41:13 (40:14 in Lxx) is like this:

RSV Psalm 41:13 Blessed (be) LORD (i.e., YHWH), the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting! Amen and Amen. (following the Hebrew)

LXA Psalm 40:14 Blessed (be) the Lord God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. So be it, so be it. (following the Lxx)

BGT Psalm 40:14 εὐλογητὸς (ἐστιν) κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα γένοιτο γένοιτο

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The NIV which is a doctrinally-driven translation designed to make many translation problems disappear ....

I would argue that tendentious translations like this are evidence that the passage does indeed deny born-on-earth humanity of Jesus. If they said what the NIV claims they did, the NIV translators wouldn't have to alter the meaning of the text. I wonder how those people live with themselves....

Could someone provide an accurate translation?

sotto voce · 10-07-2012, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Thanks for this clarification, DCHindley.

Quote:

It seems like the translators of the version I found were getting pretty creative

Unlike Doherty!

You guys are so witty.

Quote:

Could someone provide an accurate translation?

Oh, someone did. No wonder the KJVO jokers got going after they read the NIV, to find out what the Bible really said!

But they really mean it.

TedM · 10-07-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Thanks for this clarification, DCHindley. It seems like the translators of the version I found were getting pretty creative, and deliberately trying to avoid using "according to the flesh."

The board appears to be mostly ignoring what is for me the most important observation to make with regard to this 5 verse passage: Verse 3 and Verse 5 both use the exact same phrase 'kata sarx'. Verse 3 clearly is using it to refer to biological flesh (Paul's Jewish kinsmen). To use one of Doherty's favorite kinds of phrases: it seems inconceivable that the writer would use the exact same phrase to describe Christ's relationship to Jews and not point out that it is different than the relationship he described just 2 verses prior!

Thus, one must resort to assuming the writer was highly careless, or that an interpolation has occurred--with no evidence whatsoever--in order to account for the plain reading.

The fact that proponents of the Jesus myth resort to these kinds of omissions and twisting and assumptions over and over where Paul's letters clearly support a historical Jesus (almost 100 times) given the surrounding contexts suggests to me a biased approach is being used.

Toto · 10-07-2012, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... Verse 3 clearly is using it to refer to biological flesh (Paul's Jewish kinsmen). To use one of Doherty's favorite kinds of phrases: it seems inconceivable that the writer would use the exact same phrase to describe Christ's relationship to Jews and not point out that it is different than the relationship he described just 2 verses prior! ...

How different is it? In verse 3, Paul refers to his kinsmen "kata sarka" - a metaphorical use of the term, unless you think that Paul only referred to his actual family and not all Jews.

In verse 5, Paul refers to Jesus coming from the Jews "kata sarka" - into the realm of the flesh.

I find this all as clear as mud. It is so unspecific and poetic that it could mean anything.

And there is always the distinct possibility that any passage in Paul's letters has been interpolated.

Duvduv · 10-07-2012, 12:02 PM

In all of these translations in this parallel text in my uneducated opinion of Greek the English translation makes no sense at all in verse 5 except for the Weymouth translation:
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B45C009.htm
Weymouth New Testament
9:5 To them the Patriarchs belong, and from them in respect of His human lineage came the Christ, who is exalted above all, God blessed throughout the Ages. Amen.

So how about this then the way I rework it:
The Patriarchs belong to them, and Christ, who came in the flesh from them, is exalted above all.
God is blessed throughout the ages. Amen.

I should just add that the entirety of Romans 9 has nothing to do with the Christ except for those first 5 verses. As an interpolation or a composite, it suggests the use of a pre-existing Jewish-friendly text that was adapted for the needs of the new religion, as I have suggested, so as not to have to re-invent the wheel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... Verse 3 clearly is using it to refer to biological flesh (Paul's Jewish kinsmen). To use one of Doherty's favorite kinds of phrases: it seems inconceivable that the writer would use the exact same phrase to describe Christ's relationship to Jews and not point out that it is different than the relationship he described just 2 verses prior! ...

How different is it? In verse 3, Paul refers to his kinsmen "kata sarka" - a metaphorical use of the term, unless you think that Paul only referred to his actual family and not all Jews.

In verse 5, Paul refers to Jesus coming from the Jews "kata sarka" - into the realm of the flesh.

I find this all as clear as mud. It is so unspecific and poetic that it could mean anything.

And there is always the distinct possibility that any passage in Paul's letters has been interpolated.

aa5874 · 10-07-2012, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It didn't have to be "manipulated" by the mature Church. All it was was a text written by the EMERGING Christian religion in the earliest days, i.e. the early 4th century. Again, there is no evidence that the Apology was written to the emperor in the 2nd century, no evidence that the emperor received it or reacted to it, and no evidence of the communities in the 2nd century that are never identified...

Name your souces!!! Provide Credible evidence from antiquity.

Again and again your speculation is NOT compatible with ACTUAL Recovered and Dated NT manuscripts.

How many times must you be shown that the Jesus story was KNOWN and COMPOSED since the mid 2nd century??

Again, do you NOT understand that Paleography is used to date Ancient writings??

What Emerging 4th century Christianity are you talking about??

I have sources with ACTUAL DATED RECOVERED NT manuscripts that are compatible with Justin Martyr's 2nd century writings.

1. You have ZERO dated compatible sources for your earliest 4th century Emerging Church.

2. There is NO evidence that the earliest Emerging Church was in the 4th century.

3. There is NO evidence that a 4th century Emerging Church manipulated the wtitings of Justin.

I cannot accept your no evidence--no source argument for your 4th century emerging Church.

TedM · 10-07-2012, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... Verse 3 clearly is using it to refer to biological flesh (Paul's Jewish kinsmen). To use one of Doherty's favorite kinds of phrases: it seems inconceivable that the writer would use the exact same phrase to describe Christ's relationship to Jews and not point out that it is different than the relationship he described just 2 verses prior! ...

How different is it? In verse 3, Paul refers to his kinsmen "kata sarka" - a metaphorical use of the term, unless you think that Paul only referred to his actual family and not all Jews.

All related biologically through Abraham. Not metaphorical. Israelites. In fact, in the verses just following verse 5 Paul then contrasts biological descendants with 'metaphorical' descendants. The contrast wouldn't have made any sense had he been talking initially only of metaphorical children of God.

Quote:

In verse 5, Paul refers to Jesus coming from the Jews "kata sarka" - into the realm of the flesh.

I find this all as clear as mud. It is so unspecific and poetic that it could mean anything.

Jesus, also descended from Abraham. It's not poetic or unspecific. Paul isn't talking about the Israelites as though he shares a common spirit. He IS an Israelite because he is descended (so he claims) from Abraham. Same thing for Christ. It's only made complicated when one rejects the most straightforward reading Toto.

Quote:

And there is always the distinct possibility that any passage in Paul's letters has been interpolated.

Sure. With or without evidence. Go ahead and claim interpolation here if you want. Just don't say the passage is unclear, or poetic--thus making the plain reading confusing.

DCHindley · 10-07-2012, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And there is always the distinct possibility that any passage in Paul's letters has been interpolated.

Sure. With or without evidence. Go ahead and claim interpolation here if you want. Just don't say the passage is unclear, or poetic--thus making the plain reading confusing.

The difference between the two translations is whether the word εὐλογητὸς (blessed) is related to θεὸς (God) or to Χριστὸς (Christ).

In the former case, the phrase translates something like "5 to them belong the patriarchs, and out of whom, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen."

In the latter case, the passage would be translated something like "5 to them belong the patriarchs, and out of whom, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

DCH

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.