Book Review: The Bible is a Catholic Book

[OurLadyofSorrows]

What I was getting at, the Hebrew word עֶבֶד which is transliterated “ `ebed ” when translated into Greek is “δοῦλος” which is transliterated “slave” in English, rather than “servant,” & in the NT the context of “doulos” refers to a slave who is owned, not a servant who does a job & can quit. Again, there are other Greek words for “servant” in both the Septuagint & the NT.

Yes that is the same word we are discussing. The word is transliterated ( sounded out) as eveth, not ebed. This is because of the soft b and d. There is no daghesh lene in either letter.
This word has been translated as slave in some English texts and servant in others. It makes an interesting comparison to look at the various translations and see which uses which word. The fact remains that in Hebrew its meaning is slave, servant. The correct translation depends on the context. The catch here is how the slave and servant were regarded in The Biblical world within Judaism.

The Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים is transliterated “'elohiym” into English, according to Strong’s Exhaustive Hebrew & Greek Concordance. Regardless, elohim / elohiym, despite all this, it PLURAL masculine noun, while can refer to pagan gods, also refers to the One True God of Israel. And I didn’t say “meant” Trinity. I said because it is used in Genesis to describe God as “Us” rather than “Me,” this plurality SUPPORTS the NT doctrine of the Trinity, because even back then, God in Hebrew was understood in a plurality, even if the concept of the Trinity wasn’t revealed back then, as it was in the NT.

It is incorrect to use the y. The use of iy is a vowel like dipthong. This again is singular and plural. It means God, god, gods. Note there the singular God. This word can be used to refer to pagan gods or one pagan god, or for the monotheistic God of Abraham and Moses , the same Abrahamic God we christians have.
Any text claiming this to be a plural word only is wrong, grammatically speaking. Also referring to the Tribes of Israel claiming this to be a plurality when using Elohim in reference to their one true God is not correct.

Let us not attempt to write off the Commandments given to Moses , there are many more then just 10, in a modern English Western cutural way.

I would suggest you research the slave, servant view of Ancient Israel, rather than the modern view of servant.

I dont make this stuff up, it is basic established grammar. As Jesus said, written in Matthew, being asked about the law, and you must read this within the context of Biblical Hebrew

'not one stroke of a pen, or dot or dash will pass from the law until it is fulfilled.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Let us not attempt to write off the Commandments given to Moses , there are many more then just 10, in a modern English Western cutural way.

I would suggest you research the slave, servant view of Ancient Israel, rather than the modern view of servant.

Agreed there are more than 10 - more like 613 or 618. However, the context of the discussion is addressing which “lists” of “10” Commandments in Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5 are closer to the context of Biblical lists, and why some Protestants believe “you shall not covet” is a single commandment based on slaves being considered property in antiquity which could be bought & sold, and Paul simply saying “you shall not covet”…period, rather than list “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” as a separate commandment from “you shall not covet your neighbor’s goods / possessions.”

There is an excellent book titled, “Slave,” by John MacArthur that goes into great detail what a slave was in antiquity compared to a servant, and how it relates to our understanding of the master-slave relationship in the OT, and how Jesus drew on it to describe His relationship with His followers as a “Master-slave” relationship that involves ownership, being bought with a price - His shed blood.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

If twisting my meaning makes you feel better, you go right ahead. My post was clear, so it’s not my problem. There’s obviously no point in any further discussion with someone who needs to do that, so goodbye.

Be comforted that is not what I am doing. I am sorry you are misunderstanding my intention. Have a blessed day.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

There is an excellent book titled, “Slave,” by John MacArthur that goes into great detail what a slave was in antiquity compared to a servant, and how it relates to our understanding of the master-slave relationship in the OT, and how Jesus drew on it to describe His relationship with His followers as a “Master-slave” relationship that involves ownership, being bought with a price - His shed blood.

If this book says nothing of the servant -master relationship, it has missed the point

 

[De_Maria]

… John MacArthur that goes into great detail what a slave was in antiquity compared to a servant, …

Who is John MacArthur and why should anyone listen to him? Sounds extra-biblical to me.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Who is John MacArthur and why should anyone listen to him? Sounds extra-biblical to me.

Explaining the relationship of a master-slave relationship in antiquity & how Jesus drew from it to describe His “Master-slave” relationship with His true followers does not violate sola scriptura. For you to make the comment “Sound extra-biblical to me” once again demonstrates you still don’t quite understand what sola scriptura actually is, even after I gave you an example.

If this book says nothing of the servant -master relationship, it has missed the point

I have read it cover to cover. It explains the difference between a slave & a servant, how both terms were used in the OT & in antiquity, and how Jesus drew on the master-slave relationship. So, it completely makes the point.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

I have read it cover to cover. It explains the difference between a slave & a servant, how both terms were used in the OT & in antiquity, and how Jesus drew on the master-slave relationship. So, it completely make s the point.

What qualifications does the author have in Biblical Hebrew and Ancient cultures?

I found his bibliography, however not his qualifications in the goings on of the Ancient Judaic peoples.

https://www.biblio.com/john-macarthur/author/13

It is better to turn to those who are expert in these matters for critical assessment of the use of words

 

[De_Maria]

Explaining the relationship of a master-slave relationship in antiquity…

So, you believe him? Based on what? Who is John MacArthur and why should anyone listen to him? It sounds to me as though you use his explanations to define Scripture. Is he someone whom you consider an authority over Scripture? Do you consider him, infallible?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

What qualifications does the author have in Biblical Hebrew and Ancient cultures?

I found his bibliography, however not his qualifications in the goings on of the Ancient Judaic peoples.

He has his Master in Theology, earned a minor in Greek & minor in church history where he earned honors (summa cum laude I believe) for his Bachelor in Theology, & received an honorary doctorate. He is President of the Masters Seminary & Masters University. He has written over 150 books & commentaries, including receiving awards for the MacArthur Study Bible. Plus, he has taught the Bible for over 50 years, teaching through the NT one verse at a time. This is a just a small sample of his qualifications. Hebrew was also something he is qualified to teach, since he studied this in seminary & the Masters level as well.

The book speaks for itself…but that would involve you actually reading it before passing judgment on it.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So, you believe him? Based on what? Who is John MacArthur and why should anyone listen to him? It sounds to me as though you use his explanations to define Scripture. Is he someone whom you consider an authority over Scripture? Do you consider him, infallible?

Like the more noble-minded Bereans, I compare what he teaches to Scripture, which is what he teaches. Neither he, nor I, believe he has “authority above Scripture” nor infallible, no-more than the apostle Paul did, which is why the Bereans compared what he said TO Scripture. Once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of what the Reformation was about & what Protestantism teaches. Sounds like all you like to do is attack & pass judgments on people you disagree with. Here is an idea, before doing that, how about actually READING the book before passing judgment?

 

[De_Maria]

Like the more noble-minded Bereans, …

Let’s go over that episode. Because you OBVIOUSLY don’t understand what happened.

Let’s look at it.

Acts 17 :1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

First, the Apostles came to Thessalonica and stopped in to visit with the Jews.

2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Three sabbath days is equivalent of 3 weeks. 21 days. Those were spent reasoning with them out of the Scriptures.

Remember that. They reasoned with the Thessalonicans out of the Scriptures.

But, the Thessalonicans threw them out. Now, the Apostles went to Berea.

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Now, the Bereans are described as more noble than the Thessalonicans.

Is it because they received the word of the Apostles? Or because they searched the Scriptures?

We believe it is because, like good Catholics, they received the Word, the Testimony of the Apostles. The Tradition of Jesus Christ.

But you believe it is because they searched the Scriptures. Do you think the Thessalonicans didn’t search the Scriptures after debating with the Apostles, out of the Scriptures, for 21 days?

Really?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Who is John MacArthur and why should anyone listen to him?

What qualifications does the author have in Biblical Hebrew and Ancient cultures?

I found his bibliography, however not his qualifications in the goings on of the Ancient Judaic peoples.

Who is John MacArthur and why should anyone listen to him?

As an ex-protestant seeing this man’s name come up is very troubling and set off warning signals. I listened to him in the past when not in the Catholic church and he is not anyone a Catholic should follow. Google his name and you will find he is extremely, extremely anti-Catholic. He has given many talks and sermons stating that Catholicism is a false Christianity and many things worse.

 

[De_Maria]

Google his name and you will find he is extremely, extremely anti-Catholic.

Yeah. I know. That’s probably the only qualification RaisedCatholic cares about, though.

The point I’m trying to get across, though, is that he sets aside the Pope and sets up for himself, other people whose extra-biblical traditions he follows.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Yeah. I know. That’s probably the only qualification RaisedCatholic cares about, though.

The point I’m trying to get across, though, is that he sets aside the Pope and sets up for himself, other people whose extra-biblical traditions he follows.

Good point. Just didn’t want anyone who might not know who John MacArthur is to seek him out and listen to what he has to say.

But, yes agree, protestants do follow the traditions of whoever they are listening to or whose books they are reading.

 

[Prodigal1984]

I already finished reading it. It is okay. Bible 101 basically.
Once again the author spends so much time discussing why Protestant Bibles are smaller but only a brief mention is given that Orthodox Bibles are bigger and there is absolutely no explanation of why.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Neither he, nor I, believe he has “authority above Scripture” nor infallible

I think you are comparing this to the Catholic Pope in this comment but the Pope is not above Scripture.

As Dei verbum says:. The Pope is not above Scripture but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit,

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

And the Pope is infallible only when proclaiming a doctrine to be held on faith and morals. The Pope himself is not infallible and not everything he says is infallible, only when he speaks ex cathedra, which means from the throne, and in a definite and formal way as the Vicar of Christ.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Can you put in a biography that lists his qualifications, especially in Biblical Hebrew and other ancient languages. Which education institute awarded him an honorary doctorate?

Church history and Greek cover New Testament periods mostly, in Theology degrees. We are discussing the Old Testament here. There is Modern and Biblical Hebrew, and the same in Greek.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

The book speaks for itself…but that would involve you actually reading it before passing judgment on it.

Here I will say that is not a nice thing to say to a fellow Christian. I speak from the point of someone who has studied Theology and ancient languages in a Catholic University Government recognised and most Christian religions recognised university. I am well qualified to pass judgement on the grammatical use of Biblical Hebrew, the way the term slave/servant is meant in the Old Testament, and then comment on its many translations into English.

I also hold Post graduate degrees in the sciences. My issue was the transliteration and translation of both Elohim and eveth. I cannot simply ignore the mistranslations that are abounding on this forum of late and will continue correcting them. It is important to get this right if we are to discuss the theology of the Old Testament.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

I would like to address the topic of this thread.
The USCCB has said

’ It is important for every Catholic to realise that the church produced the New Testament, not vice versa… The bible, then, is the Church’s book. The new Testament did not come before the Church, but from the Church’

 

[RaisedCatholic]

But you believe it is because they searched the Scriptures. Do you think the Thessalonicans didn’t search the Scriptures after debating with the Apostles, out of the Scriptures, for 21 days?

You seem to have a habit of isolating verses, while leaving others out:

“Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures…But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people.” (Acts 17:1-2,5)

When Paul & Silas arrived at Berea:

“The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:10-11)

The difference is Paul attempted to reason with the Jews at the synagogue at Thessalonica with the Scriptures, which they rejected, while the Jews at the synagogue at Berea received the word eagerly BECAUSE they examined the Scriptures to see whether the things Paul was saying was true or not. IOW, they didn’t just take Paul’s word for it. They were “more noble-minded” & received the word because what they said matched with what Scriptures - the OT Scriptures - said about who the Christ was going to be. That is the context of the passage, and the same thing I do.

[cont]