When Saddam Hangs

[New-born baby]

Am I doomed if I'm Catholic???

Webs,
Any person is "doomed" (we'd say, "damned" which means, "condemned to hell") regardless of what "religion" he may be. In other words, every person starts out headed to an eternal judgment in hell because he has violated God's law, i.e., sinned. Any sin is enough to condemn a man to eternal judgment. In fact God holds us all responsible for the original sin of Adam because we participated in it (Romans 5:12). So point one is this: everyone is headed to hell from day one.

Point two is that no one may earn salvation from this judgment. No thing that you do will earn merit with God that He would give you eternal life instead of eternal judgment (Ephesians 2:8-9). The reason is simple: God is a righteous judge. He cannot approve of sin. He must judge sin. If He were to give a sinner eternal life without the sin being judged, He would be a corrupt judge, and something He cannot do since He is absolutely holy (Romans 3:21-31).

Point three is that God has provided a way to eternal life. It is the only way possible. What He did was this: He sent His Son to die for our sins as a substitute. The result is this: when a sinner turns to Christ believing that 1) he is a sinner deserving hell for his sins, and 2) that he cannot save himself from his own sins, and 3) that God the Father sent His Son to pay the penalty (the 'fine' if you will) for our sins, and 4) calls upon Christ to save him, he will be saved from eternal punishment and given eternal life instantly.
A few verses that teach this are:
John 3:16f. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish [that's hell] but have everlasting life. (v. 17) For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him would be saved. (v. 1 He that believes upon Him is not condemned; but he that does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Begotten Son of God."

There are many, many other verses that could be quoted. But let me just urge all readers to do this: ask Christ to save you from your sins. Simply call upon Him in prayer and admit the truth: I am a sinner, and I know judgment is coming; I know I cannot save myself. Dear Jesus please save me, a sinner. Jesus said, ". . . he that comes to Me I will not reject." He'll hear you. And He will save you.

Have a great 2007, Webs

[skiracer]

Concerning the Jews accepting the oral traditions as authoritive, Jesus condemned that in Matthew 15:1-9.

If a dozen people read the book you would have a dozen different interpretations. Every minister's interpretation follows the line of thought of their denomination and they all think that their interpretation is the right one down to the smallest interpretation of basic word usage and definition as pointed out by New Born. I think it would be good enough to base living your life within the parameters of the 10 commandents. If you could do that Jesus and God would be very pleased with your performance here on earth. The sad fact of the matter is that the largest percentage of us can't even do that much less trying to live your life by what is written in the Bible.
Interpretations always tend to bend according to the need and beliefs of the interpreter along with the fact that the scriptures were written by mortal men over 2000 years ago when the wording had much different meaning and definition. Personally I think it is very much outdated but the 10 commandents were written in stone an have not and will not change thru eternity as it was meant to be.

[New-born baby]

If a dozen people read the book you would have a dozen different interpretations. Every minister's interpretation follows the line of thought of their denomination and they all think that their interpretation is the right one down to the smallest interpretation of basic word usage and definition as pointed out by New Born. I think it would be good enough to base living your life within the parameters of the 10 commandents. If you could do that Jesus and God would be very pleased with your performance here on earth. The sad fact of the matter is that the largest percentage of us can't even do that much less trying to live your life by what is written in the Bible.
Interpretations always tend to bend according to the need and beliefs of the interpreter along with the fact that the scriptures were written by mortal men over 2000 years ago when the wording had much different meaning and definition. Personally I think it is very much outdated but the 10 commandents were written in stone an have not and will not change thru eternity as it was meant to be.

Ski,
There is a thing called "hermeneutics." This is the art and science of Bible interpretation. The Bible has only one message; God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). In fact Jesus said "if any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine" (John 7:17). In other words Jesus promised that if any person will come to God and honestly say "I'll do anything you want me to do; please show me the Truth," then the Lord will show him.

Believe it or not: I am currently working on a book of hermeneutics for the laymen. Whether or not it will finally get published or not . . . . In the past I have written many articles that have been published. We shall see if they will publish my book. And probably I won't know for a year.

[mrmarket]

Very interesting thread. One thing I have learned is that NBB is a very informed dude.

[New-born baby]

Very interesting thread. One thing I have learned is that NBB is a very informed dude.

I like to say to MM and all the readers with all the kindness of my heart: seek the Lord with all of your heart and you will find Him (Jeremiah 29:13). You are going to live forever; make sure it is in heaven.

[lemonjello]

Happy New Year folks.

Here's an example of something I ran across that seems to be in all versions. I'm paraphrasing from memory - It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven. (Hmmm, does that apply to anyone on this board?) Now everyone gets the general idea that it's something hard to impossible - certainly a live camel couldn't fit through. But it always bugged me - why use a camel in this phrase? Is there some deeper meaning?

A few years ago I found out the Arabic word for camel is jamel - stay with me here - which is also the Arabic word for a hawser (like you tie ships up with - which would be well known to fishermen for instance) or thick rope. I also learned (before Mel Gibson's movie, btw) that Aramaic, which was commonly spoken at the time the phrase was used, is an older semitic language related to modern Arabic.

It occurred to me that the phrase had been mistranslated and perpetuated in a lot of Bible translations, since it makes more sense to say - it's easier for a hawser (thick rope) to get through the eye of a needle (very difficult) than a rich man to get into heaven - since that would be comparing a big rope with a thread - an clear comparison. It's something you could say to a group of, oh, fishermen for instance and they would instantly relate since they are using hawsers to tie up their boats and needles to mend their sails or nets. I guess camel can convey the same idea, but why would anyone in that time and place say that? I don't know if the original in Greek says camel, but if it does then the Greek writer probably misunderstood that the word had two meanings and simply used the most common meaning.

(funny - the spell checker kept trying to change jamel to camel)

When one translates the Bible, he needs to know Hebrew and Greek, and a small amount of Aramaic and Chaldea. Concerning translation errors, no version is absolutely error free. On the other hand the most popular translations are very good (KJV, NASB, NIV, etc) and the message of God is not lost through the very few poor translations within them.
There are a handful (how many is "a hand full" or "quite a few?") translation errors in the KJV. I would not say "quite a few." By far the biggest issue with the King James Version is what MM is talking about in his post when he mentions that oftentimes the meaning of words changes meaning over times. That has happened to the King James. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 where the Rapture is under discussion. In the KJV, it reads " . . . that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep." Prevent? What does that mean? In 1611 it meant "preceed." You can find that out in the Cambridge College Dictionary. It will tell you what the word meant in 1611. The New American Standard translates the verse " . . . that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord shall not preceed those who have fallen asleep." Notice also that the proper use of "which/who" and "unto/until" has changed.

[New-born baby]

Happy New Year folks.

Here's an example of something I ran across that seems to be in all versions. I'm paraphrasing from memory - It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven. (Hmmm, does that apply to anyone on this board?) Now everyone gets the general idea that it's something hard to impossible - certainly a live camel couldn't fit through. But it always bugged me - why use a camel in this phrase? Is there some deeper meaning?

A few years ago I found out the Arabic word for camel is jamel - stay with me here - which is also the Arabic word for a hawser (like you tie ships up with - which would be well known to fishermen for instance) or thick rope. I also learned (before Mel Gibson's movie, btw) that Aramaic, which was commonly spoken at the time the phrase was used, is an older semitic language related to modern Arabic.

It occurred to me that the phrase had been mistranslated and perpetuated in a lot of Bible translations, since it makes more sense to say - it's easier for a hawser (thick rope) to get through the eye of a needle (very difficult) than a rich man to get into heaven - since that would be comparing a big rope with a thread - an clear comparison. It's something you could say to a group of, oh, fishermen for instance and they would instantly relate since they are using hawsers to tie up their boats and needles to mend their sails or nets. I guess camel can convey the same idea, but why would anyone in that time and place say that? I don't know if the original in Greek says camel, but if it does then the Greek writer probably misunderstood that the word had two meanings and simply used the most common meaning.

(funny - the spell checker kept trying to change jamel to camel)

Lemon,
Your quote is Matthew 19:24. I just checked the Greek New Testament. In case anyone doesn't know, the United Bible Societies produce it. In the footnotes every variant of the text is acknowledged and a footnote showing which ancient text(s) has the variant. In the case of Matthew 19:24, there are no variants whatsoever. In other words your suggested possible scenario cannot be. I should also point out to you that we have thousands of ancient manuscripts of the NT and the book of Matthew, and they range from AD 150, or about 100 years after Matthew was first produced. All of those manuscripts agree about the proper reading of Matthew 19:24.

Concerning the message of Matthew 19:24 (and something you acknowledged, e.g. that a camel going through an eye of a needle is impossible, and thus Jesus is saying that no rich man could enter heaven), is exactly what He is saying. Verses 25-26 record that the apostles are astonished and say, "Then who can be saved?!" Jesus' response is "With men, this is impossible. But with God, all things are possible." In other words He is saying this: "No man can go to Heaven of any work he may do; but God can save men to heaven." This is exactly what I was saying with my earlier post when I urged readers to call upon Jesus to save them.

Thanks for your good observation.

[lemonjello]

NB,

I did a quick Google on - jamel camel rope Aramaic - and there's a lot of discussion about Aramaic and Greek interpretations (they didn't have to go thru Arabic to get there).

I found some interesting things -

the translations of the New Testament that went East were in Aramaic and the ones that went West were in Greek - most of the Eastern Christians were later "converted" to Islam and those remaining are very small populations (like the ones in Iraq) now so you don't hear much about their versions of the New Testament.

the Greek words for camel and heavy rope are also very similar - kamilos (rope) and kamelos (camel).

some people say that rabbis of the time used this type of language - camel/needle - to drive home a point. (they then give similar examples from the Talmud)

some people say there was a small gate in the walls of Jerusalem called "eye of the needle".

George M. Lamsa translated the New Testament from the Syrian Aramaic text using the word "rope". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M._Lamsa

"24 Again I say to you, It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When the disciples heard it, they were exceedingly astonished, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 Jesus looked at them and said, For men this is impossible, but for God everything is possible." www.aramaicpeshitta.com

All I can conclude is that the people that received the Greek text mostly go with camel and the ones that received the Aramaic text go with rope.

BTW - there's a Greek Bible on the web http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

ΠΑΛΙΝ ΔΕ ΛΕΓΩ ΥΜΙΝ ΕΥΚΟΠΩΤΕΡΟΝ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΚΑΜΗΛΟΝ (camel) ΔΙΑ ΤΡΥΠΗΜΑΤΟΣ ΡΑΦΙΔΟΣ ΔΙΕΛΘΕΙΝ Η ΠΛΟΥΣΙΟΝ ΕΙΣΕΛΘΕΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ

Lemon,
Your quote is Matthew 19:24. I just checked the Greek New Testament. In case anyone doesn't know, the United Bible Societies produce it. In the footnotes every variant of the text is acknowledged and a footnote showing which ancient text(s) has the variant. In the case of Matthew 19:24, there are no variants whatsoever. In other words your suggested possible scenario cannot be. I should also point out to you that we have thousands of ancient manuscripts of the NT and the book of Matthew, and they range from AD 150, or about 100 years after Matthew was first produced. All of those manuscripts agree about the proper reading of Matthew 19:24.

Concerning the message of Matthew 19:24 (and something you acknowledged, e.g. that a camel going through an eye of a needle is impossible, and thus Jesus is saying that no rich man could enter heaven), is exactly what He is saying. Verses 25-26 record that the apostles are astonished and say, "Then who can be saved?!" Jesus' response is "With men, this is impossible. But with God, all things are possible." In other words He is saying this: "No man can go to Heaven of any work he may do; but God can save men to heaven." This is exactly what I was saying with my earlier post when I urged readers to call upon Jesus to save them.

Thanks for your good observation.

[New-born baby]

NB,

I did a quick Google on - jamel camel rope Aramaic - and there's a lot of discussion about Aramaic and Greek interpretations (they didn't have to go thru Arabic to get there).

I found some interesting things -

the translations of the New Testament that went East were in Aramaic and the ones that went West were in Greek - most of the Eastern Christians were later "converted" to Islam and those remaining are very small populations (like the ones in Iraq) now so you don't hear much about their versions of the New Testament.

the Greek words for camel and heavy rope are also very similar - kamilos (rope) and kamelos (camel).

some people say that rabbis of the time used this type of language - camel/needle - to drive home a point. (they then give similar examples from the Talmud)

some people say there was a small gate in the walls of Jerusalem called "eye of the needle".

George M. Lamsa translated the New Testament from the Syrian Aramaic text using the word "rope". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M._Lamsa

"24 Again I say to you, It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When the disciples heard it, they were exceedingly astonished, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 Jesus looked at them and said, For men this is impossible, but for God everything is possible." www.aramaicpeshitta.com

All I can conclude is that the people that received the Greek text mostly go with camel and the ones that received the Aramaic text go with rope.

BTW - there's a Greek Bible on the web http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

ΠΑΛΙΝ ΔΕ ΛΕΓΩ ΥΜΙΝ ΕΥΚΟΠΩΤΕΡΟΝ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΚΑΜΗΛΟΝ (camel) ΔΙΑ ΤΡΥΠΗΜΑΤΟΣ ΡΑΦΙΔΟΣ ΔΙΕΛΘΕΙΝ Η ΠΛΟΥΣΙΟΝ ΕΙΣΕΛΘΕΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ

The problem with emending the text is Matthew 5:18. "Truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest stroke or letter shall pass away from the Law until all is fulfilled." In other words, we have the Bible. Your suggestion implies that God has not preserved His word, an idea that is refuted by the Bible itself.

Thanks for the link to the Greek Bible.

[riverbabe]

The problem with emending the text is Matthew 5:18. "Truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest stroke or letter shall pass away from the Law until all is fulfilled." In other words, we have the Bible. Your suggestion implies that God has not preserved His word, an idea that is refuted by the Bible itself.

Thanks for the link to the Greek Bible.

Dear New-born baby, I really hate getting into discussions of religion and politics on stock boards, but I respectfully recommend at least one book (of many many many!) that eloquently expresses current mainstream biblical and historical scholarly thought on the subject of textual criticism as it applies to the Bible we read today. It is "Misquoting Jesus - The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", by Bart D. Ehrman. (How Mistakes and Changes Shaped the Bible We Read Today.) I know you are learned clergy. So again, it is very respectfully that I ask that you read it. You may not agree with everything or even anything said there, and that is your perogative. But, it may enlarge your understanding and even strengthen your faith. Bless you. Riverbabe

P.S. It is my understanding that in Matthew 5:17-20, Matthew is expressing that even though it is the death and resurrection of Jesus that brings salvation, his followers will naturally keep the Law, just as Jesus himself did.

[New-born baby]

Dear New-born baby, I really hate getting into discussions of religion and politics on stock boards, but I respectfully recommend at least one book (of many many many!) that eloquently expresses current mainstream biblical and historical scholarly thought on the subject of textual criticism as it applies to the Bible we read today. It is "Misquoting Jesus - The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", by Bart D. Ehrman. (How Mistakes and Changes Shaped the Bible We Read Today.) I know you are learned clergy. So again, it is very respectfully that I ask that you read it. You may not agree with everything or even anything said there, and that is your perogative. But, it may enlarge your understanding and even strengthen your faith. Bless you. Riverbabe

P.S. It is my understanding that in Matthew 5:17-20, Matthew is expressing that even though it is the death and resurrection of Jesus that brings salvation, his followers will naturally keep the Law, just as Jesus himself did.

River,
Thanks for the post, and I surely appreciate your respectful suggestion. But I must admit that I won't be reading Ehrman's book. I believe the Bible to be a perfect book, and I can't stomach formegeshicte (form criticism, also called "higher criticism."). I have studied higher criticism in seminary, and am aware of the issues. I just believe that those guys are working for the devil (a word which means "the slanderer." And he is slandering God's Word).

As for believers being required to keep the Law, these verses teach that the New Testament believer is no longer under the Old Testament Law:

Probably the easiest verse for one to understand it is 1 Cor. 9:20, where Paul says that he is not under the Law. If Paul the Apostle wasn't under the Law, then neither are we, since he tells us that we are to be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 4: 16; 11:1; Philippians 3:17). Other verses that teach we are no longer under Old Testament Law include:
Romans 7:1-6 (compare with Galatians 2:19).
Romans 10:4
The entire book of Galatians is an argument against the Christian being under the Old Testament Law. Galatians 3:23-25 is an explanation of why God gave the Old Testament Law. Galatians 5:1-4 shows that if a believer is to accept circumcision, he is under obligation to keep the entire Law and is severed from Christ, i.e. seeking to be saved by works (which cannot be done).

I'll quit here for now. God bless you, River.

[Rob]

I guess camel can convey the same idea, but why would anyone in that time and place say that?

It was not uncommon for Jesus to employ hyperbole to make a point. For example, when he said it is better to cut off your right hand or pluck out your right eye if it is causing you to stumble. Obviously he did not mean that literally.

Also, the eye of the needle comparison isn't the only time Jesus used a camel to illustrate something of impossibly large size. At Matt. 23:23, 24 Jesus said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! [. . .] Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

[New-born baby]

It was not uncommon for Jesus to employ hyperbole to make a point. For example, when he said it is better to cut off your right hand or pluck out your right eye if it is causing you to stumble. Obviously he did not mean that literally.

Also, the eye of the needle comparison isn't the only time Jesus used a camel to illustrate something of impossibly large size. At Matt. 23:23, 24 Jesus said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! [. . .] Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

The disciples in the context of Matthew 19:24 understood Jesus to be mentioning the impossible because they "were astonished and asked (v. 25), 'Then who can be saved?'" Furthermore Jesus responded by saying "With men this is impossible . . . . " For these two reasons I do not think that Jesus is speaking with hyperbole in this context (Mt. 19:24-26).

The third reason I do not think He is using hyperbole is that the interpretation would be damaged by saying that the camel/eye of an needle is hyperbole. Salvation is impossible by human effort; it takes a work of God. This interpretation agrees with the rest of the Bible. If we say that salvation is difficult for men but not impossbile, we disagree with the plain teaching of Scripture everywhere.

[Lyehopper]

I think that a large component of many theologies is that to whom much is given, much is required, and this seems to be lost on people. I mean, let's say that two men see a little child playing in the street and a car is headed towards it. One man has a bad leg after having fallen awkwardly on it, and the other man is a professional athlete. Let's say the professional athlete stands still, assuming the car will stop in time, while the other man hurries towards toward the child, but he is too slow to save the child. The child is killed. The athlete could have easily saved the child. With whom are you more impressed, the man with the bad leg or the athlete? Of course you would be more impressed with the man with the bad leg because he at least tried, even though he was unable. The athlete was more than able and yet did nothing. To quote something from Spiderman: "With great power, comes great responsibility."

I think Spiderman could easily get thru the eye of a needle....

[Karel]

Oomph. I am sorry I caught up with this thread. NBB has shown himself a pretty typical fundamentalist Christian as I was afraid he was. No problem, we all have our quirks. All Christians started as fundamentalists, until that position became untenable by more and more Bible study. Therefore the need for "Higher criticism". Something like the fact that all earth science started with the Genesis account, and now only people in deep denial still do so with regard to science. (Genesis is still fine in religion, though).

I don't want to bash the fundamentalist position too much, because I think it also may help you to lead a Christian life, but you are almost bound to pick up some warped ideas there, especially about the Bible and other Christian denominations. Other denominations have their faults too, I suppose. I know mine has; I am RC.

Regards,

Karel