Upon this Rock.... Enter the lists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SetInMotion said:
definition of the transliterated word
Click to expand...
Your use and definition of the term 'transliterated is incorrect.

Transliteration does not = translation. Transliteration is a tool for non speakers of the language to enable them to pronounce the word.
 
Last edited:
GiftofMercy said:
Transliteration does not = translation. Transliteration is a tool for non speakers of the language to enable them to pronounce the word.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. Re-read what I wrote concerning the koine Greek “petros” in the verse under discussion.
 
SetInMotion said:
Yes, I know. Re-read what I wrote concerning the koine Greek “petros” in the verse under discussion.
Click to expand...
No thank you. I am pointing out you have incorrectly used a tool and referred to it as a translation tool, of which it is not. As I stated, transliteration is a tool that simply allows a non speaker to say that word. It has no translation value. And similarly, a translation of a word has no transliteration value.
 
GiftofMercy said:
I am pointing out you have incorrectly used a tool and referred to it as a translation tool,
Click to expand...
I never said transliteration was used for translation. I stated that the word “petros” was transliterated in the DRB, and not translated as in the others. I then gave the pattern of example for it, from the text.
 
Last edited:
SetInMotion said:
Simon Bar-jona:
Click to expand...
We have to start at the beginning.
First of all its Simon son of Jonah which in Hebrew is Shimon Ben Yonah
שמעון בן יונה (note the final nun, not a resh) Son בן

Unfortunately because whatever you have used as a cut and paste for that passage , has some pretty basic translation errors.

Here is another example of how a Biblical Hebrew clause states a son.
Jonah 1:1 אֶל־יֹונָה בֵן־אְַמִתַּי
reading right to left ‘to Jonah son of Amittai’. Note the word Son is בֵן , a final Nun, not a Resh.

Secondly, do you know any Aramaic?

Thirdly what are you using to cut and paste a lot of your posts.
 
Last edited:
Mishakel said:
Paul isn’t mincing words here. Through scripture, a person of God has everything needed for salvation.
Click to expand...
Which scriptures was Paul referring to? Are you saying that he and those he was addressing had foreknowledge of the New Testament? Or is he referencing the Old Testament scriptures which point to Jesus Christ as the means of salvation. Read that scripture again:
Mishakel said:
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...
As a child, the people he was speaking to had knowledge of what scriptures?
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
As a child, the people he was speaking to had knowledge of what scriptures?
Click to expand...
The “oracles of God” (Acts 7:38; Rom. 3:2, Heb. 5:12; 1 Pet. 4:11), the OT canon already recognized, by the “church” (Acts 7:38).

Luk_24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Mat_23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Luk_11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
 
Last edited:
Precisely. He was not referencing the New Testament scriptures. Yet, many Protestants will turn this verse into a Sola Scriptura proof text (just as the person I was responding to did).
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Precisely. He was not referencing the New Testament scriptures. Yet, many Protestants will turn this verse into a Sola Scriptura proof text (just as the person I was responding to did).
Click to expand...
The NT must rely upon the OT. Even as Daniel had to rely upon Jeremiah, and Jeremiah upon Isaiah, and Isaiah upon Samuel, and Samuel upon Joshua, and Joshua upon Moses, and Moses upon the Ten Commandments, the unchanging and eternal word of God.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
this verse into a Sola Scriptura proof text (just as the person I was responding to did).
Click to expand...
Most persons misunderstand “Sola Scriptura”, or ignorantly (without knowledge) mis-define it.

“Sola Scriptura” does not exclude, “prophets”, “apostles”, “church”, “Creation”, “angels”, “voice of God”, “Holy Spirit”, “visions”, “dreams”, “messengers”, and even animal mediums such as Balaam’s donkey, but includes all of those things, since the Holy Scriptures include them, but each to be tested by the Law of God, and to the testimony (Isa. 8:20).
 
Last edited:
SetInMotion said:
Sola Scriptura” does not exclude, “prophets”, “apostles”, “church”, “Creation”, “angels”, “voice of God”, “Holy Spirit”, “visions”, “dreams”, “messengers”, and even animal mediums such as Balaam’s donkey, but includes all of those things, since the Holy Scriptures include them, but each to be tested by the Law of God, and to the testimony (Isa. 8:20).
Click to expand...
If only that were true. There was certainly be a lot less disagreement in our faith if those who adhere to the Sola Scriptura position actually took into account all of the history and Traditions, which bear witness to the words and works of the “apostles” and the “church”, out of which the Bible itself emerged.

But, nope. A group of men in the 1500s decided that apostolic tradition wasn’t worth a hill of beans.
 
Last edited:
This is true but the authors of the NT knew their writings were divinely inspired and authoritative. Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

The 2nd quote here doesn’t appear in the OT. Paul is directly quoting Luke 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house.

Paul then has equated Luke’s writings with the OT in they are both scripture.

Peter considered Paul’s writings to be scripture as well. 2 Peter 3:15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Paul directly calls his own writings a command from the Lord in 1 Corinthians 14.

Paul expounds this in 1 Thessalonians 2: 13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe

There is further evidence in the NT the authors knew full well they were writing scripture and divinely so. The idea that when Paul said they knew scripture from a child somehow invalidates the fact he knew his own writings were to be on equal footing with the OT doesn’t hold water.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
If only that were true. There was certainly be a lot less disagreement in our faith if those who adhere to the Sola Scriptura position actually took into account all of the history and Traditions, which bear witness to the words and works of the “apostles” and the “church”, out of which the Bible itself emerged.
Click to expand...
Life has a way of trying to make things complicated. I try hard actually to be a simple person. I will ask you a simple question, 3 actually. If a human truly follows scripture are they saved? Will they go to Heaven? If the NT is studied and followed is it sufficient?
 
To be clear. My objection is not whether Paul’s writings are authoritative. Rather, I object to taking that verse to mean something other than he intended ie that the OT points to Christ and the truth of the salvation He brought to the world.
 
Mishakel said:
40.png
mrsdizzyd:
Sufficient for what?
Click to expand...
Sufficient for salvation. I should have asked Can instead of If. I’m asking you if a person follows sola scriptura is salvation possible?
Click to expand...
Since God is in control of whether or not any of us attain salvation, all I can say is it’s possible. However, that salvation, should it occur, would be attained through extraordinary means.

The ordinary means for salvation necessitate the visible church founded by Christ ie the catholic (universal) church which includes the Roman Catholic Church as well as other apostolic churches such as the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.
 
Perfect examples are the LDS and JWs - both of which were founded on the identical KJV. Both later morphed into all sorts of things, but the foundations are identical.

‘Perspicacious scripture’?

A concept formulated to validate the ego.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top