Hermeneutics vs. "Herd-meneutics"

[CoreIssue]

I think you might have misunderstood me. Hosea 5:15 seems to make the point. Yeshua affirmed Hosea in Matthew 23:37-39.

Hosea 5:15

15 Then I will return to my lair until they have borne their guilt and seek my face— in their misery they will earnestly seek me.”

Matthew 23:37-39
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.
39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

Okay, not sure for talking past each other.

If you mean the separation from Israel by God and that relationship will be restored one day, I agree.

If you mean the Mosaic covenant is still in operation, I totally disagree. It was annulled at the cross.

The Bible makes it quite clear that the second coming the nation of Israel will turn back to God and Israel and Judah will be joined back together. The tribes of Israel will be restored and functioning again.

Church will be gone in the rapture.

So not quite sure if this will help.

 

[Phoneman777]

The textual manuscripts are one thing, the scholarship is another. Both are on my side of the issue. The KJV may be good, but it is not the final inspired translation or is its set of manuscripts. Or are you one that holds to the KJV only?

Not the KJV per se, but the Textus Receptus, which was the NT basis for all non-catholic Bibles all over from the 17th century to almost the 20th century. The Critical Text has been condemned by many scholars in the past for various technical and suspect reasons, but the further non-catholics have gotten away from the heart of true Protestantism, the more the Critical Text gained the ascendancy until today it is considered "the better MSS" by many due to a failure to appreciate the criticism of the past.

 

[Phoneman777]

Lifted up was an idiom.

Look at the other uses of the word. All are about making something known, not concealing it.

Much love!
mark

I'm not sure why you doubt that "signified it" (book of Rev) points to "symbols which require interpretation" when the book contains not only what are clearly symbols like the composite beast of Revelation 13, but also symbols which are directly interpreted for us, like "the waters which thou sawest are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues."

 

[prism]

Not the KJV per se, but the Textus Receptus, which was the NT basis for all non-catholic Bibles all over from the 17th century to almost the 20th century. The Critical Text has been condemned by many scholars in the past for various technical and suspect reasons, but the further non-catholics have gotten away from the heart of true Protestantism, the more the Critical Text gained the ascendancy until today it is considered "the better MSS" by many due to a failure to appreciate the criticism of the past.

The true heart of Protestanism is...

Sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone)
Soli fide (through faith alone)
Soli gratia (by grace alone)
Solus Christus (Christ alone)
Sol Deo gloria (glory to God alone).

Also, I am quite aware of manuscript evidence and schools of thought in that area. But when translators leave out a whole clause because it is missing in the majority of existing manuscripts and fragments, they have good grounds for doing so.

 

[Copperhead]

Hosea 5:15

15 Then I will return to my lair until they have borne their guilt and seek my face— in their misery they will earnestly seek me.”

Matthew 23:37-39
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.
39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

Okay, not sure for talking past each other.

If you mean the separation from Israel by God and that relationship will be restored one day, I agree.

If you mean the Mosaic covenant is still in operation, I totally disagree. It was annulled at the cross.

The Bible makes it quite clear that the second coming the nation of Israel will turn back to God and Israel and Judah will be joined back together. The tribes of Israel will be restored and functioning again.

Church will be gone in the rapture.

So not quite sure if this will help.

I think we are pretty close. The reason I centered in on those two passages was the they imply that Yeshua will not return physically to the earth and set up the kingdom until corporate Jacob (Israel) acknowledges their offense and turns to Yeshua. It was the leadership of Israel that rejected Him, not the people. The church didn't get its first Gentile until Acts 10.

 

[Phoneman777]

The true heart of Protestanism is...

Sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone)
Soli fide (through faith alone)
Soli gratia (by grace alone)
Solus Christus (Christ alone)
Sol Deo gloria (glory to God alone).

Also, I am quite aware of manuscript evidence and schools of thought in that area. But when translators leave out a whole clause because it is missing in the majority of existing manuscripts and fragments, they have good grounds for doing so.

Yes, but the issue is not things missing out of the majority, but the extreme minority (which happens to be the "oldest" MSS and therefore somehow regarded as "best") is missing much of what the "later" MSS have. For instance, 1 John 5:7: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one" - isn't in Codex Sinaticus.

What the evidence proves, however, is that there are many references found in the writings of the ECFs in which they are quoting or eluding to texts which are missing from the minority MSS but are found in the majority MSS, which points to the idea that it is the minority MSS which was tampered with...and given the agenda to bring Christ down to a level with Shiva, Brahma, Buddha, Baal, Apollo, Zeus, etc., it is no wonder why they were altered.

 

[CoreIssue]

I think we are pretty close. The reason I centered in on those two passages was the they imply that Yeshua will not return physically to the earth and set up the kingdom until corporate Jacob (Israel) acknowledges their offense and turns to Yeshua. It was the leadership of Israel that rejected Him, not the people. The church didn't get its first Gentile until Acts 10.

The first Christians were Jews.

On the other point returned to Earth means when his feet touch touch the ground from where he left. And the Bible says Israel will repent when they see him descending.

So in fact Israel officially repents before he officially returns.

 

[prism]

Yes, but the issue is not things missing out of the majority, but the extreme minority (which happens to be the "oldest" MSS and therefore somehow regarded as "best") is missing much of what the "later" MSS have. For instance, 1 John 5:7: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one" - isn't in Codex Sinaticus.

Even if that verse happens to be not part of the original autographs, I believe it is Scriptural.
OTOH That 2nd clause of Rom 8:1 obviously does not belong in vs 8:1, otherwise it would contradict Jn 5:24.

 

[Enoch111]

But when translators leave out a whole clause because it is missing in the majority of existing manuscripts and fragments, they have good grounds for doing so.

Not really. The omissions in modern translators are all based on a handful of seriously corrupted manuscripts -- which specialized in omissions -- Aleph,A,B,C, D.

 

[CoreIssue]

Yes, but the issue is not things missing out of the majority, but the extreme minority (which happens to be the "oldest" MSS and therefore somehow regarded as "best") is missing much of what the "later" MSS have. For instance, 1 John 5:7: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one" - isn't in Codex Sinaticus.

What the evidence proves, however, is that there are many references found in the writings of the ECFs in which they are quoting or eluding to texts which are missing from the minority MSS but are found in the majority MSS, which points to the idea that it is the minority MSS which was tampered with...and given the agenda to bring Christ down to a level with Shiva, Brahma, Buddha, Baal, Apollo, Zeus, etc., it is no wonder why they were altered.

So the earliest copies of the original writings are inferior to those written in 1500s under Catholicism.

No way.

 

[prism]

Not really. The omissions in modern translators are all based on a handful of seriously corrupted manuscripts -- which specialized in omissions -- Aleph,A,B,C, D.

I realize the one camp embraces them, the other calls them corrupt.

 

[CoreIssue]

Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts
The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts
https://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-0801.htm
8 Ancient Manuscripts That Validate the Bible's New Testament - Josh.org
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org
The Institute for Creation Research

 

[CoreIssue]

Not really. The omissions in modern translators are all based on a handful of seriously corrupted manuscripts -- which specialized in omissions -- Aleph,A,B,C, D.

What you call omissions the oldest manuscripts prove were additions by the Catholics.

Amazing claim that what is written centuries later are superior.

 

[Enoch111]

I realize the one camp embraces them, the other calls them corrupt.

With good reason. If the majority of extant Greek manuscripts agree with the traditional Byzantine text (which even the enemies of that text called the dominant text throughout Church history), and a small minority of dissenters is seriously at variance, then those are generally Gnostic corruptions. Burgon and Scrivener established this by personally collating the manuscripts available at the time.

 

[Enoch111]

What you call omissions the oldest manuscripts prove were additions by the Catholics.

That is TOTAL NONSENSE. Fake news. Get your facts straight.

 

[CoreIssue]

With good reason. If the majority of extant Greek manuscripts agree with the traditional Byzantine text (which even the enemies of that text called the dominant text throughout Church history), and a small minority of dissenters is seriously at variance, then those are generally Gnostic corruptions. Burgon and Scrivener established this by personally collating the manuscripts available at the time.

You neglect to point out that the older manuscripts were handwritten copies while what you are pushing came off of printing presses.

So of course the printing press can produce more copies than handwritten.

 

[CoreIssue]

That is TOTAL NONSENSE. Fake news. Get your facts straight.

So it's fake news that when something written over 1000 years after the oldest contain more words than the oldest those ads are additions.

 

[CoreIssue]

A reminder to Enoch. Easter is in the KJV when the actual word is Passover.

As well Easter is a Catholic convention and did not even exist in New Testament times.

 

[prism]

With good reason. If the majority of extant Greek manuscripts agree with the traditional Byzantine text (which even the enemies of that text called the dominant text throughout Church history), and a small minority of dissenters is seriously at variance, then those are generally Gnostic corruptions. Burgon and Scrivener established this by personally collating the manuscripts available at the time.

I'm well aware of Burgon and his biases against manuscripts other than those that support the KJV. Just not my cup of tea to specialize in.

 

[Dave L]

What about the physical sense? It would seem there has to be some sort of physical Hebrews left to acknowledge their rejection of Yeshua and petition for His return.

They are all gentiles some of which are being grafted back into Israel (Christendom) during the times of the gentiles. The times of the gentiles last until the end of the world in which case we preach the gospel to all nations (gentiles) until then.