Scholars Corner

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
Is there a place on this forum were biblical scholars answer questions?

If not, are there any scholars who would start one?

THANK YOU!!!
 
The scholars that participate on this forum are blended in with those who are not. Often you can get great answers to questions but also you get some folks with good intentions who give their 2 cents worth but really don’t have the background to give an educated answer, which takes you time to sift through all the replies to find what you need.
 
Thanks you Copland!!!

Are there any scholars who could create a scholars’ corner?

Am I just a dreamer?
 
I would love to see an official Biblical scholar answer questions for me or us.

Any scholars out there that have the time and energy?
 
Jim,

I feel kind of foolish replying to this thread since I don’t consider myself a scholar by any means, but I am very devoted, and I do have lots of years of study in some areas of theology, such as textual criticism, Greek grammar, ancient Biblical manuscripts, I have translated some books of the Bible, etc. I have been deeply envolved in the patristic writings of the Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church for the last 4 years, and I am even making commentaries on the Bible using their quotes, as I am presently working on Revelation.

But if there is anything that I can contribute to your idea then I would be happy to.
 
Sounds like a great start to me!!!

One of my many questions: Is the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden God’s love?
 
Here are some quotes from my commentary on Revelation chapter 2:7.
Tyconius bring out a Eucharistic interpretation: “Who conquers, I will grant to eat from the tree of life,” that is, from the fruit of the cross, “which is in the paradise of my God.” The Church is to be regarded as paradise, for “all things were done in figure,” and Adam was, “ the shadow of the one to come,” as the Apostle teaches.(Rom. 5:14) Indeed, the tree of life is the wisdom of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, who hung on the cross. In the Church and in the spiritual paradise, He gives to the faithful food of life and the Sacrament of the celestial bread, of which you read, “Wisdom is the tree of life to those who embrace her.(Prov. 3:18)” Tyconius Commentary on Revelation] 340-390AD

Apringius points out the repentance is needed for those who are still in failure from heresy, and that the fruit of the Tree of Life is eternity: He has spoken of the toil of the Church: he has described the perversity of the heretics. Now to those still in their failures, he exhorts to repentance, and he promises rewards after this toil to those who are victorious, so that, entering into paradise, they might freely eat from the tree of life, for which Adam was expelled from paradise, lest he eat anything from it. And so he says, “which is in the paradise of my God,” where, namely, the wind breathes life, where the mysteries give virtue, and he furnishes the fruit of the tree of life, that is, and eternity which does not fade away. Apringius of Beja Commentary on Revelation] 6th Century

St. John of Damascus gives us some insight about the first tree of life: “God planted the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. The tree of knowledge was for trial, and proof, and exercise of man’s obedience and disobedience. It was named thus or else it was because to those who partook of it was given power to know their own nature. Now this is a good thing for those who are mature, but an evil thing for the immature and those whose appetites are too strong… The tree of life, on the other hand, was a tree having the energy that is the cause of life, or to be eaten only by those who deserve to live and are not subject to death… The tree of life may be understood as that more divine thought that has its origin in the world of sense, and the ascent through that to the originating and constructive cause of all. And this was the name He gave to every tree, implying fullness and indivisibility, and conveying only participation in what is good. But by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we are to understand that sensible and pleasurable food which, sweet though it seems, in reality brings him who partakes of it into communion with evil.” St. John of Damascus Orthodox Faith Book 2 Chapter 11] 675-749AD
 
St. Methodius points out that Jesus is the first principle of the Tree of Life and the Gospel is the Fruit: For they (the Jews) have not understood that the tree of life which Paradise once bore, now again the Church has produced for all, even the ripe and comely fruit of faith. Such fruit it is necessary that we bring when we come to the judgment-seat of Christ, on the first day of the feast; for if we are without it we shall not be able to feast with God, nor to have part, according to John, in the first resurrection. For the tree of life is wisdom first begotten of all. “She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her,” says the prophet; “and happy is every one that retaineth her.(Prov. 3:18)” “A tree planted by the waterside, that will bring forth his fruit in due season;(Ps. 1:3)” that is, learning and charity and discretion are imparted in due time to those who come to the waters of redemption. He that hath not believed in Christ, nor hath understood that He is the first principle and the tree of life, since he cannot show to God his tabernacle adorned with the most goodly of fruits, how shall he celebrate the feast? How shall he rejoice? Desirest thou to know the goodly fruit of the tree? Consider the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how pleasant they are beyond the children of men. Good fruit came by Moses, that is the Law, but not so goodly as the Gospel. For the Law is a kind of figure and shadow of things to come, but the Gospel is truth and the grace of life. Pleasant was the fruit of the prophets, but not so pleasant as the fruit of immortality which is plucked from the Gospel. St. Methodius Banquet of the 10 Virgins 9.3] 311AD
 
Tyconius I think makes a great point. The tree and the garden are prefigurements of something better. The Garden prefigured the Church, and the tree of life was the Wisdom of God, eternal life. It (tree of life) came to Adam as implying fullness and indivisibility, and conveying only participation in what is good(St. John of Damascus). But that was a prefigurement of the Holy Eucharist, which is what the Lord Jesus spoke of in Rev. 2:7 He, that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him, that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God.
 
Jim_Baur said:
I would love to see an official Biblical scholar answer questions for me or us.

Any scholars out there that have the time and energy?
Click to expand...
If anyone knows how to reach Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN: he would be a great scholar for a site like this, but, alas, he’s probably too busy with TV and teaching (Univ. of Dallas?) duties.
 
Manfred said:
If anyone knows how to reach Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN: he would be a great scholar for a site like this, but, alas, he’s probably too busy with TV and teaching (Univ. of Dallas?) duties.
Click to expand...
I agree, Fr. Mitch is dynamic!

Getting a heavy weight scholar like Fr. Mitch on this site would have to be worked out by whoever runs this site. It would take some pull.
 
copland said:
I agree, Fr. Mitch is dynamic!

Getting a heavy weight scholar like Fr. Mitch on this site would have to be worked out by whoever runs this site. It would take some pull.
Click to expand...
As you may know, this site is run by Catholic Answers, headed by Karl Keating. Karl et al have a 2-hr daily radio program on EWTN’s Radio Network. There is already some groundwork laid, see?
 
St. Augutine and some of the Greek Fathers believed that “'echad” could be understood to mean “one” day and not the “first” day.

I cannot recall that being taught of the other days, that is, “sheniy,” “shaliyshiy,” “rabi’iy,” “chamiyshiy,” and “shishshiy” (two thorugh six).

However, it seems to be implied in St. Augustine’s Literal Meaning of Genesis. I do not know if I remember correctly or not.

My question: Is it correct in the creation accounts of Genesis to see One, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth in place of the First Day, the Second Day, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? St. Augustine seems to say that it all happened at once but in explain is parts to us.

Can a scholar help clear up my understanding?

Thank you!

Sorry, it is difficult to for me to phrase my questions.

Be forgive my transliteration, I do not know how to do such a thing. I copied it the best that I could.
 
Jim,

Since I am not a scholar, so I must admit I am not real clear on what you are looking for, but I will take a shot at it.

St. Augustine understood that matter and form are divided in the Genesis account, but they were created simultaneously.** While admitting that for God to make something incomplete and then to complete it has nothing reprehensible in it, St. Augustine sees the “six days” as a distribution only of narrative and not of time. ** Though, in his view, God “created all things together” (Ecclesiasticus 18:1), but separated them into six days in the account for those who could understand only piece by piece.**** So the six days of the creation account are presented in the order in which they are known to the blessed angels, having before and after in the connection of the creatures but simultaneity in the effectiveness of the Creator."
 
You are a scholar, at least in my judgment!!!

Copland, I want to thank you for you knowledge and energy.

If I understand you, those words could be translated, One Day.

Then within that “One Day” there were five other “alsos“.

Man, that is a clumsy way of saying what I think Moses means.

So piece by piece is for our comprehension, yes!

Next question: in your judgment, why is this possible translation omitted?

Or, Is this translation used (I have never seen it in English, but it might be used) in any languages? I do not think it was used in the XLL, was it?

And once again, Copland I want to thank you for your time and knowledge and your sharing.
 
Jim_Baur said:
You are a scholar, at least in my judgment!!!

Copland, I want to thank you for you knowledge and energy.

If I understand you, those words could be translated, One Day.

Then within that “One Day” there were five other “alsos“.

Man, that is a clumsy way of saying what I think Moses means.

So piece by piece is for our comprehension, yes!

Next question: in your judgment, why is this possible translation omitted?

Or, Is this translation used (I have never seen it in English, but it might be used) in any languages? I do not think it was used in the XLL, was it?

And once again, Copland I want to thank you for your time and knowledge and your sharing.
Click to expand...
I am totally flattered! Thank you!
If I understand you, those words could be translated, One Day.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if I understand your question, whether you mean transalated or interpreted. As for translated, the Greek Septuagint has hmera mia, which is literally translated “day one.” hmera being day, and mia being one.

As for interpretation goes, I agree with St. Augustine, as 99% of the time I do, that all the events mentioned happened simultaneously, but are broken up only as a narrative so we can understand it.
 
I know that you have done a great deal of work with the Book of Revelation.

Is St. John’s vision like Moses’ vision?

That is: Is it one vision explained piece by piece?

Again, I want to thank you for your help!!!
 
Jim_Baur said:
I know that you have done a great deal of work with the Book of Revelation.

Is St. John’s vision like Moses’ vision?

That is: Is it one vision explained piece by piece?

Again, I want to thank you for your help!!!
Click to expand...
I have put many many many hours into my Revelation project, and I have many many many more to go. I was hopeing that I would get done with volume 1 (Chapters 1-12) by Christmas, but I am thinking more like March now. I am just getting more material as time goes on that I am adding to it.

As for your question:
Is St. John’s vision like Moses’ vision?

That is: Is it one vision explained piece by piece?
Click to expand...
St. John’s vision was apocalyptic, meaning it is based upon God’s intention for the immediate future. Whereas Moses recounted the information of events in the history of salvation, from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land. Remember John said he was “in the spirit.(Rev. 1:10)” Here is an explanation of that from my commentary.

Nicolas points out that the Lord’s day was an appropriate day for the revelation:* I was in the spirit *That is, in the ecstasy of mind. on the Lord’s day This day was devoted to the contemplation of God and as a result suitable for the revelation to occur. Nicolas of Lyra Commentary on Revelation] 1270-1349AD

St. Andrew explains what it means to be ‘in the spirit’: "Having mentioned the place and time, St. John indicates likewise his own condition, in which he was vouchsafed the apocalyptic visions. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, he says. In the language of the Prophets, to be in the Spirit is to be in the spiritual condition of a man who sees, hears and feels not only with his bodily organs, but with all his inward being. This is not a dream, for such a condition occurs also when one is awake. In such an extraordinary condition of his spirit, St. John heard a loud voice as of a trumpet. St. Andrew of Caesarea,] 6th Century
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top