My Timeline for Planet Earth

[Bobby Jo]

Seem to me you're doing all the adding. You need no help from anyone else to add the ignorance or hypocrisy, you're doing an excellent job in that department.

This from a guy who couldn't figure out that the Original Masoretic text is the SOURCE document, and a Translation is a SUBSERVIENT document. -- How many times did we go back and forth before you finally acknowledged this simple concept? -- Four, Five?


Yeah, you're better off letting your HIRELINGS think for you,
Bobby Jo

 

[Philip James]

WE ARE REQUIRED to judge the Prophets, (and thereby the Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers), -- AND EACH OTHER.

Can one judge that which is outside the scope of their competance?

"Stop judging, that you may not be judged.

For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

Peace be with you!

 

[Bobby Jo]

Can one judge that which is outside the scope of their competance? ...

We're all called and equipped by GOD. And if we lack, then we ask so that we may be complete in our faith.


But the religious have their "conventions", and it certainly ain't from SCRIPTURE ...
Bobby Jo

 

[Philip James]

But the religious have their "conventions", and it certainly ain't from SCRIPTURE ...
Bobby Jo

Hello Bobby,

Are you not religious? How do you define that term?

Peace be with you!

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

This from a guy who couldn't figure out that the Original Masoretic text is the SOURCE document, and a Translation is a SUBSERVIENT document. -- How many times did we go back and forth before you finally acknowledged this simple concept? -- Four, Five?


Yeah, you're better off letting your HIRELINGS think for you,
Bobby Jo

See how good you are at twisting what I've said and you still don't comprehend what I was asking and it was a simple question. That's really bad when you can't understand a simple statement or a question.

 

[Bobby Jo]

Are you not religious? ...

Nope, -- I'm a Christian.

And so I ask you, -- are you a Christian, and if so then why do you argue that Paul shouldn't have accused (judged) Peter, A DISCIPLE, of hypocrisy?


Bobby Jo

 

[Bobby Jo]

... you still don't comprehend what I was asking and it was a simple question ...

First of all, you didn't ask a question, -- you made a statement.

Secondly, you've asserted that only Jesus can judge, -- which is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION of when Paul accused (judged) Peter, A DISCIPLE, of hypocrisy.


So please don't think. Just do what you're told by your Superiors*.
Bobby Jo

* Women have men as their superiors. Men have GOD has their Superior. And YOU have men as your Superior, so that makes you a ...

 

[Philip James]

Nope, -- I'm a Christian.

And so I ask you, -- are you a Christian, and if so then why do you argue that Paul shouldn't have accused (judged) Peter, A DISCIPLE, of hypocrisy?


Bobby Jo

Meriam webster definition of religious:
Definition of religious
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
a religious person religious attitudes

2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
joined a religious order
3a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
b: FERVENT, ZEALOUS

It would seem to me that identifyng yourself as Christian, makes you religious by definition.
How then can you deny it unless you have a different definition of the term?
To have a meaniful diaglouge we must understand the words each other use, so please tell me your definition of 'religious'

As for you questions, yes i'm Christian, and Paul was certainly competant to call Peter on his actiions, are you?

Peace!

 

[Bobby Jo]

Meriam webster definition of religious:

All you had to do is post your picture. If you were a CHRISTIAN, you would have KNOWN that PAUL REBUKED (JUDGED) PETER (A DISCIPLE) FOR BEING A HYPOCRITE, -- and that we need to hold each other accountable when FALSE doctrines are presented, -- by providing CORRECT doctrines!

Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.​

But religious people judge without any Scriptural Foundation,
Bobby Jo

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

First of all, you didn't ask a question, -- you made a statement.

Secondly, you've asserted that only Jesus can judge, -- which is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION of when Paul accused (judged) Peter, A DISCIPLE, of hypocrisy.


So please don't think. Just do what you're told by your Superiors*.
Bobby Jo

* Women have men as their superiors. Men have GOD has their Superior. And YOU have men as your Superior, so that makes you a ...

No I was asking you to explain what the original text you were talking about were since we have no original writings of the scriptures but only copies of the scriptures. Therefore there are no original writings of the masorectic text. The Masorectic text is a copy of a copy of the original Hebrew scriptures. The originals scriptures are those that Moses and Daniel and Solomon etc. first penned when they were inspired to write them so many thousands of years ago on materials that would corrode very quickly which is why copies had to be made. The Masorectic text you speak of is a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, they are not the original writings of scripture that those Prophets first penned on those original materials. If you can't understand that simple concept, then so be it.

Also just as you are not Jesus you're not Peter or Paul or any of the others with the heavenly calling who will be Kings priests and judges in that heavenly kingdom with Jesus so yes they repremanded one another. You are not and will not be like them, no matter how much you think you will be. So stop you're judging as though you are equal to them cause you're not.

However the fact you talk like you do seems to show that you think you're better than others with more rights than other human beings, now I believe that to be disgusting. You're nothing like nor equal to Jesus or of those with the heavenly calling. You will however, I think, believe you are better than others just as the Pharisees and Sadducees did, so be it. That says all I really need to know about you.

 

[Bobby Jo]

... there are no original writings of the masorectic text. ...

Ya think? -- I would have guessed that the original parchments from each of the O.T. authors would still be around, and as such would be silly to expect that scribes were needed except for "extra copies" to pass around. And even those "extra copies" should still exist, because paper is so durable it doesn't get worn, or tear, or burn if the house catches fire. Yep, the ORIGINAL and all subsequent COPIES are INDESTRUCTIBLE.

There, does that help?
Bobby Jo



For the thinking audience:
Apparently in approximately 500AD the Masoretes started copying the O.T. texts and adding vowels to make pronunciations easier. The Dead Sea Scrolls were apparently written between 150BC to 70AD and were compared to the current copies of the Masoretic and Septuagint texts. In that analysis, the Masoretic text was much more faithful to the Dead Sea Scrolls (oldest available copy) than the Septuagint:

Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
April 1995 - 15[4]:25-30

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

THE SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT

... First, for the most part, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent in content among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare variants in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third, the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT is a well-preserved rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us that we can be reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our English translations are based is one of integrity. Practically speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel centuries ago.​

And of course, any original WORD is superior to a best available word in another language. So if you want to find the specific thought being conveyed, your English translation may fail you. So it's always wise to go back to the ORIGINAL Masoretic text to determine concisely what GOD was telling HIS creation.

Bobby Jo

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Ya think? -- I would have guessed that the original parchments from each of the O.T. authors would still be around, and as such would be silly to expect that scribes were needed except for "extra copies" to pass around. And even those "extra copies" should still exist, because paper is so durable it doesn't get worn, or tear, or burn if the house catches fire. Yep, the ORIGINAL and all subsequent COPIES are INDESTRUCTIBLE.

There, does that help?
Bobby Jo



For the thinking audience:
Apparently in approximately 500AD the Masoretes started copying the O.T. texts and adding vowels to make pronunciations easier. The Dead Sea Scrolls were apparently written between 150BC to 70AD and were compared to the current copies of the Masoretic and Septuagint texts. In that analysis, the Masoretic text was much more faithful to the Dead Sea Scrolls (oldest available copy) than the Septuagint:

Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
April 1995 - 15[4]:25-30

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

THE SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT

... First, for the most part, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent in content among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare variants in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third, the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT is a well-preserved rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us that we can be reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our English translations are based is one of integrity. Practically speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel centuries ago.​

And of course, any original WORD is superior to a best available word in another language. So if you want to find the specific thought being conveyed, your English translation may fail you. So it's always wise to go back to the ORIGINAL Masoretic text to determine concisely what GOD was telling HIS creation.

Bobby Jo

You were the one who called the Masorectic text an original text. I've been trying to tell you the Masoretic text is a copy. From what I have researched The most renowned system was perfected by the Masoretes in Tiberias, by the Sea of Galilee. The families of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali of the ninth and tenth centuries C.E., possibly Karaites, became particularly prominent.* But scholars are debating even today which codex available today is the “pure” Ben Asher text, as if this would then give us the “true” Masoretic text. Actually, there never was one unique, “pure,” and authoritative Masoretic text. Instead, there were many Masoretic texts, each one slightly different from the others. All extant codices are mixed texts, with both Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali readings.

 

[Bobby Jo]

You were the one who called the Masorectic text an original text. ...

I understand that some concepts may be difficult for you, so let me help --

The ORIGINAL text has been passed down from copy to copy, and in 500AD the Masoretes started making new copies from the old copies. Today all we have available are the Masoretic copies and the Septuagint copies. So when the archeologists discovered the most ancient copy available (the Dead Sea Scrolls), we were able to compare the more modern Masoretic and Septuagint copies, and the Masoretic was MUCH more faithful to the most ancient Dead Sea Scrolls.

And because the Dead Sea Scrolls were basically prefaced upon the Book of Daniel, -- we must trust that because the Masoretic text was faithful there, that we can be assured that the Masoretic text is faithful everywhere else, and is an accurate reflection of the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT. Thus we can call the MASORETIC TEXT the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT because they are BOTH THE SAME.


I know these are complex concepts, and don't expect that you can fully grasp the discussion. But your limitations are understood and sympathized with, and so I'm spending a little more time so that you might not be overlooked in this Forum.


Bobby Jo

 

[Philip James]

I know these are complex concepts, and don't expect that you can fully grasp the discussion. But your limitations are understood and sympathized with

Wow, just wow

 

[Bobby Jo]

Wow, just wow

Yep, with similar sympathies to those who don't understand that WE are to judge each other, exactly as Paul judged Peter, -- A DISCIPLE!


And I'm typing slow so that you can keep up!
Bobby Jo

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

I understand that some concepts may be difficult for you, so let me help --

The ORIGINAL text has been passed down from copy to copy, and in 500AD the Masoretes started making new copies from the old copies. Today all we have available are the Masoretic copies and the Septuagint copies. So when the archeologists discovered the most ancient copy available (the Dead Sea Scrolls), we were able to compare the more modern Masoretic and Septuagint copies, and the Masoretic was MUCH more faithful to the most ancient Dead Sea Scrolls.

And because the Dead Sea Scrolls were basically prefaced upon the Book of Daniel, -- we must trust that because the Masoretic text was faithful there, that we can be assured that the Masoretic text is faithful everywhere else, and is an accurate reflection of the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT. Thus we can call the MASORETIC TEXT the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT because they are BOTH THE SAME.


I know these are complex concepts, and don't expect that you can fully grasp the discussion. But your limitations are understood and sympathized with, and so I'm spending a little more time so that you might not be overlooked in this Forum.


Bobby Jo

I was the one saying the Masoretic text you were speaking about was a copy of the Masoretic text not an original so now you're just talking like I didn't say that. You really like to twist what people say, don't you? You're talking to people as though they don't know what they talking about now you're admitting what I said in the beginning.

 

[Bobby Jo]

… you were speaking about was a copy of the Masoretic text c ....

It's ok to be confused. -- Just listen to your HIRELING, they have ALL THE ANSWERS.

Bobby Jo

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

It's ok to be confused. -- Just listen to your HIRELING, they have ALL THE ANSWERS.

Bobby Jo

You can be rude and speak derogatory all you want but it seems you're the only simpleton I'm texting and listening to, time to stop I think.

 

[Bobby Jo]

... time to stop I think.

... time to listen to your HIRELING husband. You don't need to think for yourself ...

Bobby Jo