Helel ben Shachar

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Then he preserved it into English at the time of English Empire.

So ALL other copies are error because when they came to those difficult parts you stumble over they relied on God to inspire and correct so that we have a preserved word today with all the words of God and all the verses.

You are aware of who is responsible for Textus Receptus
Roman Catholic Humanist Desiderius Erasmus.

Desiderius Erasmus - Publication_of_the_Greek_New_Testament
"My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."
...
"But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep."

So he included the Greek text to permit qualified readers to verify the quality of his Latin version. But by first calling the final product Novum Instrumentum omne ("All of the New Teaching") and later Novum Testamentum omne ("All of the New Testament") he also indicated clearly that he considered a text in which the Greek and the Latin versions were consistently comparable to be the essential core of the church's New Testament tradition.

In a way it is legitimate to say that Erasmus "synchronized" or "unified" the Greek and the Latin traditions of the New Testament by producing an updated version of either simultaneously. Both being part of canonical tradition, he clearly found it necessary to ensure that both were actually presenting the same content. In modern terminology, he made the two traditions "compatible". This is clearly evidenced by the fact that his Greek text is not just the basis for his Latin translation, but also the other way round: there are numerous instances where he edits the Greek text to reflect his Latin version.

I bolded something that seems important.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

• There are 70 post-deluge Nations according to Genesis 10.

• In the Canaanite Religion (Indigenous peoples of the Promised Land), the father God El has 70 sons.

• In Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Elyon divided up the 70 Nations amongst the 70 Sons of El, with YHWH inheriting Jacob (Israel).


There is no accidental coincidence here, only common heritage of mythos.

Table of Nations

"Divine Council", Michael Heiser

a reply to: Sahabi

So, in your opinion, should people of the nations accept the notion that a tribal tutelary deity is in fact somehow elevated to the position of one and only Most High, or should the people of the nations reject that notion as absurd?

ETA

And thank you for those links.

a reply to: pthena

Neither option. I believe there is much to be gained from all belief systems of the world. I believe that there is a grand and glorious existential and transcendental unity and oneness of all. It is the dividing of the nations and the subjugation to outside deities that causes much woe and sorrow. Jesus taught that, "The Kingdom of God is within", and it is my personal conviction that this cross-cultural, inter-religious concept serves as the basis of communing with the Divine.

a reply to: Sahabi

A blogger's take on Transtheism:

theemptythrone transtheism
Of course, Tillich’s transtheism has its limitations. I think he wants “Being-Itself” to serve some godly functions, but it can’t, given its lack of agency and personality. And despite his book, I have trouble understanding how “Being-Itself” can provide an individual with courage (or morality, for that matter).
...
Silver expresses skepticism at the usefulness of such a God-concept, until he discusses it alongside the limits of (certain conceptions of) humanism:

The theism is justified not by its humanism, but rather by its suggestion that humanism may not be all there is to value and meaning. Although God is immanent and most found in humans, God's separate name allows us to avoid a too quick identification between the divine and the human. We need God to avoid humanism. (94)

This is what I’ve meant by the empty throne. Humanistic values are utterly important, but humanism itself can run the risk of forgetting the relative smallness of humanity and its abilities. Perhaps something like a transtheism is necessary, just to remind us of our relativity.

I'm sort of leaning toward Transpolytheism.

a reply to: Sahabi

You missed some very important words which confines the context to after the flood, the words are "after the flood" in the first and last verses of Genesis 10, so no nations are mentioned before the flood.

Gen 10:1 ¶ Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
Gen 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

No where in this whole chapter is there reference to any nations before the flood.

No, your other mistake again is introducing to the text of Duet 32:8 is that there were 70 sons. No where int he text is that number mentions. So you pretext the Bible with an outside source or an opinion and then forced your opinion or pretext into the text where is does not fix. When trying to see what any text says you must not come to it with a pretextual context but search the immediate context with out any other source. When we look closely the bounds he set on the divisions of the Nations after the flood is according to the number of the Tribes (sons) of Israel which is twelve. This is because when Jesus Reigns over the earth Israel will reign with him and one division per tribe. In context the sons of Adam are those left after the flood for no others survived, there for it is the son of Adam through Noah, and that is three sons only.

Deut 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Basically what you are saying is you don't believe God or his words, so you are making yourself god in his place to try and say what His words say to fit your opinion or outside source.

a reply to: pthena

You forget that God preserved his words as promise and overrode the Textus Receptus where needed to do so. Again you just don't believe God was powerful enough to do as he promised to keep his word to every Generation today.

If you don't believe God could keep his words to every generation how could you believe him for your salvation.

All other outside sources mean nothing to me. Because the the Holy Bible I have in my hand is true and those outside sources are in error.

a reply to: pthena

the world English bible has both missing words and verses and changes to the text, the Bible you quote is in error.

a reply to: ZoeEleutheria

If the Bible could not be perverted then God would not have needed to make it clear he would preserve his words to every generation.

God has all his words in himself and no man can pervert it, so when he preserved it into English we got the exact words he originally gave in all other autographs. That is the wisdom you lack in understanding. that is the reason it does not matter what sources were used in translation because God was the one inspiring them to place the correct words where any other source would be in error.

Not sorry to see you go Gnosisisfaith.

a reply to: pthena

Pthena,
I know you know this already however it is worth repeating.When engaged in a "debate" argument it is crucial that terms and definitions be agreed upon.However a argument with someone who believes a book was written that contains no errors and is "the word of God" is a futile argument and NOTHING can be agreed upon.They can never know that a "book"or any methodology of religion or philosophy is NOT the living word of the creator God.They will move the goal post ever nano second to justify their confirmation bias even though it is completely unreasonable.

To be more specific to engage in an intellectual honest conversation with a person that believes the "bible" is the inerrant ordained word of God is a travesty.You may as well pour honey on yourself and stand in a pack of bears and think the bears will be reasonable and not tear you to shreds then eat you and spit out the bones and go on their merry way as if you were in the wrong....and of course you would be because beasr do not care for you at all only their hunger matters.

I guarantee you it is the most futile of all endeavors known to man to argue with a person that believes their religion.They are completely blind to any truth.You will never teach them anything because they are unteachable.You may as well try to teach rocks to walk to the moon.The only reasonable thing to do is to deny their ignorance with the truth you know even if it is just to deny their ignorance of their false belief.I am positive you can do this because of all the peoples post I have read at ATS you are the most reasonable because you are open to hearing.I've never once(but perhaps you have) read you preach your rhetoric.I think that is very wise.I think what is even wiser is to not engage in an argument with the religious, only proclaim the truth you know to deny their ignorance......sorry for the long wind(this was short for me)...all the best

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Before we continue our discussion, please re-read my post. I clearly said:

"There are 70 post-deluge Nations according to Genesis 10."

"Post" means "after".
"Deluge" means "flood".

There are 70 "after the flood" nations.

a reply to: Rex282

actually I have been where all you are now. But I will never go back.

God said he would keep his words and preserve then to every generation so he either did it or he didn't. It is up to each one to believe or not believe.

I believe.

a reply to: Sahabi
I apologize then I thought I read pre-flood. My bad but never the less my points stand.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Even if you do not want to accept the older Biblical texts that mention Elyon, El, and YHWH as three distinct deities,...


According to your "preserved English" translation, it says that Elyon (Most High) separated the Sons of Adam, and YHWH inherited the people of Jacob (Israel). As Genesis 10 mentions 70 nations emerged from the Sons of Adam after the flood, can you please explain to me how the 70 nations were re-numbered into 11 nations, as Jacob (Israel) is YHWH's nation (12).

We can not ignore the Canaanite religion's influence on the Torah and Tanakh, because at the very least, Canaanite deities are directly mentioned by name in the Old Testament, and greater, many events of the Bible mirror older mythos of Canaanite beliefs.

a reply to: Sahabi

Even if you do not want to accept the older Biblical texts that mention Elyon, El, and YHWH as three distinct deities,...

They aren't, one of those is a proper name and the other two are generic titles. "El" is just a generic title "God", it's used for the true and false gods. YHWH is a proper Name. In the Bible God has one Name, and scores of titles.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

This is true if we ignore the fact that these same "titles" are used as separate deities in the older Canaanite religion of the Promised Land. Also, in the Bible, these "separate" titles interact with one another illustrating a plurality of deities.

[Bold brackets are my emphasis]

1 The gods (elohim) stand in the congregation of El. In the midst of the gods (elohim) He [El] judges.

2 “How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?

3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.

4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

5. They [mankind] know nothing, neither will they understand. They walk in darkness. All the foundations of the Earth are shaken." [The elohim asked El]

6 "I have told you gods (elohim) that you are all sons of Elyon.

7 But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.” [Replied El to the elohim]

8 Rise up, O God (Elohim), judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance.

- Psalm 82:1-8

a reply to: Sahabi

They are not biblical text other wise they would be in the Bible. I do not accept copies of copies to say they are more accurate than the preserved word of God, when that cannot be proven true by comparing it to THE Original Autograph.

JHWH is correct over YHWH. JHWH is Jehovah while YHWH is a name of a Greek god of the intellectuals known as Yahweh the Two are not the same. Yahweh is a false God you promote as the one true God.

Jacob is Jehovah's Nation is the correct rendition and this is not about semantics this is about a Greek tribal god being imposed as Jehovah.

The Canaanite religion is why JEHOVAH punished them and gave the land to Israel and commanded they drive them out. Any Canaanite religion will not be considered to be truth over the preserved word of God.

The fault of Israel is that they let the Canaanites stay in the land by making a confederacy with some and not driving out and killing the rest. To this day they suffer for their disobedience and the influence those people had over them.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

YHWH is more correct, as he is derived from Yahu.

a reply to: Sahabi

Yahu would be Aramaic. As in "Eliyahu". That is Elijah in Aramaic, meaning "My God YHWH"

a reply to: ChesterJohn

What are you talking about? There is no such thing as a "J" in Hebrew. His name is YHWH, and the sacred name is coded over 3000 times in the Tenakh.

In Hebrew, the city of Jerusalem is "yerushalayim" for example. "J" doesn't exist.