Romans 13, in full content.

[Picaro]

Picaro is stymied again

lol yeah right. Keep the crazy absurdities coming. they can only make you more entertaining.

 

[Picaro]

The Scriptures are calling for Progressives to follow the rule of Donald Trump, who was placed in authority over them by the Creator

Christianity has been very very good to them. The pagans would have just burned them at the stake or drowned them in bogs. they resent that, being mentally ill and suicidal deviants.

 

[irosie91]

Ah, so Constantine just wrote the rest of the New Testament, and left Romans alone, then??? One would think a book named 'Romans' would be the first one he would want to rewrite.

Why wouldn't he have also have rewritten the Old Testament while he was doing all that rewriting? Nobody ever brings that up; it would have been easy, since most Jews had never read it, either. I guess it was just da Xians that were 'evul n stuff'.

you are babbling-----Constantine did not know Hebrew. In fact---he may have been illiterate like most of your people

You think the OT for the Orthodox and Roman churches was written in Hebrew? That's beyond funny. lol lol lol

there were no ORTHODOX churches at that time-----the schism that led to
the EASTERN ORTHODOX sect of Christianity hadn't happened yet. The
OT that jews read was written mostly in Hebrew----and some of it in Aramaic.
None of it was in greek or latin. HOWEVER romans did like greek and used it
lots even before the schism. The Septuagint which is a greek translation of
the OT ----came about something like third century BCE

 

[Picaro]

Ah, my search for 19th century maps of Pittsburgh is bearing fruit. Please continue to post flurries of bizarre lunatic fantasies while I'm busy elsewhere. Hey, maybe post all those books Constantine rewrote and stuff. that would be fun, laughing at the 'scholarship' that will generate.

 

[irosie91]

Funny <<< picaro is stymied again

 

[ding]

Ah, so Constantine just wrote the rest of the New Testament, and left Romans alone, then??? One would think a book named 'Romans' would be the first one he would want to rewrite.

Why wouldn't he have also have rewritten the Old Testament while he was doing all that rewriting? Nobody ever brings that up; it would have been easy, since most Jews had never read it, either. I guess it was just da Xians that were 'evul n stuff'.

you are babbling-----Constantine did not know Hebrew. In fact---he may have been illiterate like most of your people

You think the OT for the Orthodox and Roman churches was written in Hebrew? That's beyond funny. lol lol lol

there were no ORTHODOX churches at that time-----the schism that led to
the EASTERN ORTHODOX sect of Christianity hadn't happened yet. The
OT that jews read was written mostly in Hebrew----and some of it in Aramaic.
None of it was in greek or latin. HOWEVER romans did like greek and used it
lots even before the schism. The Septuagint which is a greek translation of
the OT ----came about something like third century BCE

Writing in the language that one knows only proves that they wrote in the language that they knew.

Christianity broke off from Judaism and spread to people of other nations. It isn't surprising that their account was written in their language. The tradition was passed down orally just as it was to Moses until he recorded it in Hebrew. You think the Hebrew language existed 3000 years before Moses? No. He recorded it in Hebrew because Hebrew was the language he knew.

 

[Crixus]

Romans 13 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
Chapter 13
Obedience to Authority. 1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. 6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Love Fulfills the Law.8 Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, [namely] “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

Awareness of the End of Time. 11 And do this because you know the time; it is the hour now for you to awake from sleep. For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed;I 12 the night is advanced, the day is at hand. Let us then throw off the works of darkness [and] put on the armor of light; 13 let us conduct ourselves properly as in the daynot in orgies and drunkenness, not in promiscuity and licentiousness, not in rivalry and jealousy 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the desires of the flesh.

------------------------------------------
How dare Sessions to take a verse out of context, and perhaps Trump is not a mistake, we never know evil till it rears its ulgy head and vices.

How dare you dumb ass. You just remade his point.

 

[Penelope]

Romans 13 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
Chapter 13
Obedience to Authority. 1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. 6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Love Fulfills the Law.8 Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, [namely] “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

Awareness of the End of Time. 11 And do this because you know the time; it is the hour now for you to awake from sleep. For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed;I 12 the night is advanced, the day is at hand. Let us then throw off the works of darkness [and] put on the armor of light; 13 let us conduct ourselves properly as in the daynot in orgies and drunkenness, not in promiscuity and licentiousness, not in rivalry and jealousy 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the desires of the flesh.

------------------------------------------
How dare Sessions to take a verse out of context, and perhaps Trump is not a mistake, we never know evil till it rears its ulgy head and vices.

How dare you dumb ass. You just remade his point.

No he just pointed out what Evans do, pick and choose their verses. The bible can say whatever you want with the right verse, but in whole its a different story.

 

[Penelope]

It's a Catholic 'translation', and given the make up of the Vatican and the politics of the Current Pope, I would avoid using it, and stay with some of the older ones, pre-1980 ones preferably, same for Koran translations.

Another past translation controversy here:

Wycliffe Bible Translators Moves Past 'Divine Familial' Controversy; Waits for Review (Pt. 1)

.... in three parts.


"Hersman added that there are very few cases in the Bible where the common words used in the case of Muslim-related language groups has a connotation of a biological relationship between God and Mary to produce a baby Jesus, in one of the more controversial instances.

"Well, we know of course that's not what God is trying to communicate in that. In those situations our translators are trying to find what another word for son that still carries that meaning of father-son relationship, but doesn't carry the biological connotation," he said.

Wycliffe came under heavy criticism when Biblical Missiology created an online petition alleging that the translation group had eliminated familial terms describing God and Jesus in certain Arabic and Bengali translations of the Bible so as not to offend Muslim readers. Biblical Missiology, a network of missionaries, linguists, theologians and global pastors, demanded that Wycliffe stop replacing phrases such as "Son of God" with "Messiah of God" or "God the Father" with "guardian."

Included in the controversy is the removal of any references to God as "Father," to Jesus as the "Son" or "the Son of God." One example of such a change can be seen in an Arabic version of the Gospel of Matthew produced and promoted by Frontiers and SIL. It changes Matthew 28:19 from this: "baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," to this: "cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit."

Hersman told CP that because of the controversy and Wycliffe's commitment to accuracy, they have allowed their translation practices to come under review by World Evangelical Alliance. The alliance has a panel of 13 members from different denominations and continents who met in November and will meet again in April for a final time."

IT's easy, just quit trying to make the book 'politically correct', stop sniveling about 'what will Amed think???", stop caring if the language isn't 'gender neutral n stuff', just translate the thing already.

And he copied the Latin bible .


You are aware the NABRE 2011 edition only changed some things in the OT, such as ISA 7:14 footnotes.
See this:

13Then he said: Listen, house of David! Is it not enough that you weary human beings? Must you also weary my God? 14. the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel. * he will eat so that he may learn to reject evil and choose good;

Now the KJV;
Isaiah 7:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

 

[irosie91]

Ah, so Constantine just wrote the rest of the New Testament, and left Romans alone, then??? One would think a book named 'Romans' would be the first one he would want to rewrite.

Why wouldn't he have also have rewritten the Old Testament while he was doing all that rewriting? Nobody ever brings that up; it would have been easy, since most Jews had never read it, either. I guess it was just da Xians that were 'evul n stuff'.

you are babbling-----Constantine did not know Hebrew. In fact---he may have been illiterate like most of your people

You think the OT for the Orthodox and Roman churches was written in Hebrew? That's beyond funny. lol lol lol

there were no ORTHODOX churches at that time-----the schism that led to
the EASTERN ORTHODOX sect of Christianity hadn't happened yet. The
OT that jews read was written mostly in Hebrew----and some of it in Aramaic.
None of it was in greek or latin. HOWEVER romans did like greek and used it
lots even before the schism. The Septuagint which is a greek translation of
the OT ----came about something like third century BCE

Writing in the language that one knows only proves that they wrote in the language that they knew.

Christianity broke off from Judaism and spread to people of other nations. It isn't surprising that their account was written in their language. The tradition was passed down orally just as it was to Moses until he recorded it in Hebrew. You think the Hebrew language existed 3000 years before Moses? No. He recorded it in Hebrew because Hebrew was the language he knew.

your posts continue to be silly, dingbat. Why would I "think" that Hebrew
existed 3000 years before Moses? Hebrew is rooted in Mesopotamia
-----a branch off.------it is attributed to Abraham and his merry gang who DID
NOT precede moses by 3000 years-----less than 1000. As to the NT----
what happened to the theory that Matthew and Luke etc etc----who WROTE
their books--------were contemporaries and even supper mates of Jesus?
(Hebrew and Aramaic) You claimed something about NT "ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPTS"

 

[ding]

Ah, so Constantine just wrote the rest of the New Testament, and left Romans alone, then??? One would think a book named 'Romans' would be the first one he would want to rewrite.

Why wouldn't he have also have rewritten the Old Testament while he was doing all that rewriting? Nobody ever brings that up; it would have been easy, since most Jews had never read it, either. I guess it was just da Xians that were 'evul n stuff'.

you are babbling-----Constantine did not know Hebrew. In fact---he may have been illiterate like most of your people

You think the OT for the Orthodox and Roman churches was written in Hebrew? That's beyond funny. lol lol lol

there were no ORTHODOX churches at that time-----the schism that led to
the EASTERN ORTHODOX sect of Christianity hadn't happened yet. The
OT that jews read was written mostly in Hebrew----and some of it in Aramaic.
None of it was in greek or latin. HOWEVER romans did like greek and used it
lots even before the schism. The Septuagint which is a greek translation of
the OT ----came about something like third century BCE

Writing in the language that one knows only proves that they wrote in the language that they knew.

Christianity broke off from Judaism and spread to people of other nations. It isn't surprising that their account was written in their language. The tradition was passed down orally just as it was to Moses until he recorded it in Hebrew. You think the Hebrew language existed 3000 years before Moses? No. He recorded it in Hebrew because Hebrew was the language he knew.

your posts continue to be silly, dingbat. Why would I "think" that Hebrew
existed 3000 years before Moses? Hebrew is rooted in Mesopotamia
-----a branch off.------it is attributed to Abraham and his merry gang who DID
NOT precede moses by 3000 years-----less than 1000. As to the NT----
what happened to the theory that Matthew and Luke etc etc----who WROTE
their books--------were contemporaries and even supper mates of Jesus?
(Hebrew and Aramaic) You claimed something about NT "ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPTS"

Apparently you are unaware that the beginning of the Bible is the history of all men and that it was not told in Hebrew but was later recorded in Hebrew. Same same.

 

[ding]

Ah, so Constantine just wrote the rest of the New Testament, and left Romans alone, then??? One would think a book named 'Romans' would be the first one he would want to rewrite.

Why wouldn't he have also have rewritten the Old Testament while he was doing all that rewriting? Nobody ever brings that up; it would have been easy, since most Jews had never read it, either. I guess it was just da Xians that were 'evul n stuff'.

you are babbling-----Constantine did not know Hebrew. In fact---he may have been illiterate like most of your people

You think the OT for the Orthodox and Roman churches was written in Hebrew? That's beyond funny. lol lol lol

there were no ORTHODOX churches at that time-----the schism that led to
the EASTERN ORTHODOX sect of Christianity hadn't happened yet. The
OT that jews read was written mostly in Hebrew----and some of it in Aramaic.
None of it was in greek or latin. HOWEVER romans did like greek and used it
lots even before the schism. The Septuagint which is a greek translation of
the OT ----came about something like third century BCE

Writing in the language that one knows only proves that they wrote in the language that they knew.

Christianity broke off from Judaism and spread to people of other nations. It isn't surprising that their account was written in their language. The tradition was passed down orally just as it was to Moses until he recorded it in Hebrew. You think the Hebrew language existed 3000 years before Moses? No. He recorded it in Hebrew because Hebrew was the language he knew.

your posts continue to be silly, dingbat. Why would I "think" that Hebrew
existed 3000 years before Moses? Hebrew is rooted in Mesopotamia
-----a branch off.------it is attributed to Abraham and his merry gang who DID
NOT precede moses by 3000 years-----less than 1000. As to the NT----
what happened to the theory that Matthew and Luke etc etc----who WROTE
their books--------were contemporaries and even supper mates of Jesus?
(Hebrew and Aramaic) You claimed something about NT "ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPTS"

You will catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar.

 

[irosie91]

you are babbling-----Constantine did not know Hebrew. In fact---he may have been illiterate like most of your people

You think the OT for the Orthodox and Roman churches was written in Hebrew? That's beyond funny. lol lol lol

there were no ORTHODOX churches at that time-----the schism that led to
the EASTERN ORTHODOX sect of Christianity hadn't happened yet. The
OT that jews read was written mostly in Hebrew----and some of it in Aramaic.
None of it was in greek or latin. HOWEVER romans did like greek and used it
lots even before the schism. The Septuagint which is a greek translation of
the OT ----came about something like third century BCE

Writing in the language that one knows only proves that they wrote in the language that they knew.

Christianity broke off from Judaism and spread to people of other nations. It isn't surprising that their account was written in their language. The tradition was passed down orally just as it was to Moses until he recorded it in Hebrew. You think the Hebrew language existed 3000 years before Moses? No. He recorded it in Hebrew because Hebrew was the language he knew.

your posts continue to be silly, dingbat. Why would I "think" that Hebrew
existed 3000 years before Moses? Hebrew is rooted in Mesopotamia
-----a branch off.------it is attributed to Abraham and his merry gang who DID
NOT precede moses by 3000 years-----less than 1000. As to the NT----
what happened to the theory that Matthew and Luke etc etc----who WROTE
their books--------were contemporaries and even supper mates of Jesus?
(Hebrew and Aramaic) You claimed something about NT "ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPTS"

Apparently you are unaware that the beginning of the Bible is the history of all men and that it was not told in Hebrew but was later recorded in Hebrew. Same same.

you seem to be referring to the book called "GENESIS" which was,
indeed, WRITTEN in Hebrew. The Odyssey was written in Greek and
the Bhagavad Gita ------in Sanskrit. So unlike the NT which is a
compilation of writings dating back to the lifetime of Jesus and shortly
thereafter. ------the book called ROMANS apparently available to you
in the HANDWRITING of Paul of tarsus and REVELATIONS in the
handwriting of some guy named "john" and the book called LUKE and
ACTS who most likely wrote his originals in Greek------all available to you
------unrevised

 

[BULLDOG]

Jesus Christ, invoking the middle east Bible for rational thought is infuckingsane. Yahweh regularly killed children and actually forced their parents to kill the first born. Jesus, Yahweh's son and Yahweh simultaneously said to hate your parents and become a eunuch to join his neo-essene cult. So crazy that answers are sought in really bad mythology.

You should tell that keebler elf. He's the one that tried to use the bible to justify his heartless child kidnapping scam.

 

[ding]

You think the OT for the Orthodox and Roman churches was written in Hebrew? That's beyond funny. lol lol lol

there were no ORTHODOX churches at that time-----the schism that led to
the EASTERN ORTHODOX sect of Christianity hadn't happened yet. The
OT that jews read was written mostly in Hebrew----and some of it in Aramaic.
None of it was in greek or latin. HOWEVER romans did like greek and used it
lots even before the schism. The Septuagint which is a greek translation of
the OT ----came about something like third century BCE

Writing in the language that one knows only proves that they wrote in the language that they knew.

Christianity broke off from Judaism and spread to people of other nations. It isn't surprising that their account was written in their language. The tradition was passed down orally just as it was to Moses until he recorded it in Hebrew. You think the Hebrew language existed 3000 years before Moses? No. He recorded it in Hebrew because Hebrew was the language he knew.

your posts continue to be silly, dingbat. Why would I "think" that Hebrew
existed 3000 years before Moses? Hebrew is rooted in Mesopotamia
-----a branch off.------it is attributed to Abraham and his merry gang who DID
NOT precede moses by 3000 years-----less than 1000. As to the NT----
what happened to the theory that Matthew and Luke etc etc----who WROTE
their books--------were contemporaries and even supper mates of Jesus?
(Hebrew and Aramaic) You claimed something about NT "ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPTS"

Apparently you are unaware that the beginning of the Bible is the history of all men and that it was not told in Hebrew but was later recorded in Hebrew. Same same.

you seem to be referring to the book called "GENESIS" which was,
indeed, WRITTEN in Hebrew. The Odyssey was written in Greek and
the Bhagavad Gita ------in Sanskrit. So unlike the NT which is a
compilation of writings dating back to the lifetime of Jesus and shortly
thereafter. ------the book called ROMANS apparently available to you
in the HANDWRITING of Paul of tarsus and REVELATIONS in the
handwriting of some guy named "john" and the book called LUKE and
ACTS who most likely wrote his originals in Greek------all available to you
------unrevised

The account of Genesis predates Moses and was passed down orally for thousands of years and was captured as symbols in the written language of the Chinese 1500 years before Moses recorded it. So your argument that the NT was recorded in Greek and other languages is no different than what Moses did.

 

[irosie91]

there were no ORTHODOX churches at that time-----the schism that led to
the EASTERN ORTHODOX sect of Christianity hadn't happened yet. The
OT that jews read was written mostly in Hebrew----and some of it in Aramaic.
None of it was in greek or latin. HOWEVER romans did like greek and used it
lots even before the schism. The Septuagint which is a greek translation of
the OT ----came about something like third century BCE

Writing in the language that one knows only proves that they wrote in the language that they knew.

Christianity broke off from Judaism and spread to people of other nations. It isn't surprising that their account was written in their language. The tradition was passed down orally just as it was to Moses until he recorded it in Hebrew. You think the Hebrew language existed 3000 years before Moses? No. He recorded it in Hebrew because Hebrew was the language he knew.

your posts continue to be silly, dingbat. Why would I "think" that Hebrew
existed 3000 years before Moses? Hebrew is rooted in Mesopotamia
-----a branch off.------it is attributed to Abraham and his merry gang who DID
NOT precede moses by 3000 years-----less than 1000. As to the NT----
what happened to the theory that Matthew and Luke etc etc----who WROTE
their books--------were contemporaries and even supper mates of Jesus?
(Hebrew and Aramaic) You claimed something about NT "ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPTS"

Apparently you are unaware that the beginning of the Bible is the history of all men and that it was not told in Hebrew but was later recorded in Hebrew. Same same.

you seem to be referring to the book called "GENESIS" which was,
indeed, WRITTEN in Hebrew. The Odyssey was written in Greek and
the Bhagavad Gita ------in Sanskrit. So unlike the NT which is a
compilation of writings dating back to the lifetime of Jesus and shortly
thereafter. ------the book called ROMANS apparently available to you
in the HANDWRITING of Paul of tarsus and REVELATIONS in the
handwriting of some guy named "john" and the book called LUKE and
ACTS who most likely wrote his originals in Greek------all available to you
------unrevised

The account of Genesis predates Moses and was passed down orally for thousands of years and was captured as symbols in the written language of the Chinese 1500 years before Moses recorded it. So your argument that the NT was recorded in Greek and other languages is no different than what Moses did.

you have no way of knowing just WHEN the first account of genesis was
was written-------it is not at all clear that MOSES was the first writer. Lots
and lots of cultures have "creation stories"-----and lots share features----a
fact which does not "prove" that they were acquired from each other

 

[irosie91]

you are babbling-----Constantine did not know Hebrew. In fact---he may have been illiterate like most of your people

You think the OT for the Orthodox and Roman churches was written in Hebrew? That's beyond funny. lol lol lol

there were no ORTHODOX churches at that time-----the schism that led to
the EASTERN ORTHODOX sect of Christianity hadn't happened yet. The
OT that jews read was written mostly in Hebrew----and some of it in Aramaic.
None of it was in greek or latin. HOWEVER romans did like greek and used it
lots even before the schism. The Septuagint which is a greek translation of
the OT ----came about something like third century BCE

Writing in the language that one knows only proves that they wrote in the language that they knew.

Christianity broke off from Judaism and spread to people of other nations. It isn't surprising that their account was written in their language. The tradition was passed down orally just as it was to Moses until he recorded it in Hebrew. You think the Hebrew language existed 3000 years before Moses? No. He recorded it in Hebrew because Hebrew was the language he knew.

your posts continue to be silly, dingbat. Why would I "think" that Hebrew
existed 3000 years before Moses? Hebrew is rooted in Mesopotamia
-----a branch off.------it is attributed to Abraham and his merry gang who DID
NOT precede moses by 3000 years-----less than 1000. As to the NT----
what happened to the theory that Matthew and Luke etc etc----who WROTE
their books--------were contemporaries and even supper mates of Jesus?
(Hebrew and Aramaic) You claimed something about NT "ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPTS"

You will catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar.

flies damage freshly written manuscripts--------by walking thru the wet ink.
Sometimes they are responsible for TRANSMITTED ERRORS

 

[ding]

Writing in the language that one knows only proves that they wrote in the language that they knew.

Christianity broke off from Judaism and spread to people of other nations. It isn't surprising that their account was written in their language. The tradition was passed down orally just as it was to Moses until he recorded it in Hebrew. You think the Hebrew language existed 3000 years before Moses? No. He recorded it in Hebrew because Hebrew was the language he knew.

your posts continue to be silly, dingbat. Why would I "think" that Hebrew
existed 3000 years before Moses? Hebrew is rooted in Mesopotamia
-----a branch off.------it is attributed to Abraham and his merry gang who DID
NOT precede moses by 3000 years-----less than 1000. As to the NT----
what happened to the theory that Matthew and Luke etc etc----who WROTE
their books--------were contemporaries and even supper mates of Jesus?
(Hebrew and Aramaic) You claimed something about NT "ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPTS"

Apparently you are unaware that the beginning of the Bible is the history of all men and that it was not told in Hebrew but was later recorded in Hebrew. Same same.

you seem to be referring to the book called "GENESIS" which was,
indeed, WRITTEN in Hebrew. The Odyssey was written in Greek and
the Bhagavad Gita ------in Sanskrit. So unlike the NT which is a
compilation of writings dating back to the lifetime of Jesus and shortly
thereafter. ------the book called ROMANS apparently available to you
in the HANDWRITING of Paul of tarsus and REVELATIONS in the
handwriting of some guy named "john" and the book called LUKE and
ACTS who most likely wrote his originals in Greek------all available to you
------unrevised

The account of Genesis predates Moses and was passed down orally for thousands of years and was captured as symbols in the written language of the Chinese 1500 years before Moses recorded it. So your argument that the NT was recorded in Greek and other languages is no different than what Moses did.

you have no way of knowing just WHEN the first account of genesis was
was written-------it is not at all clear that MOSES was the first writer. Lots
and lots of cultures have "creation stories"-----and lots share features----a
fact which does not "prove" that they were acquired from each other

It was passed down orally, like the NT. We do know it was first recorded 4500 years ago by the Chinese as symbols in their written language. They shared a common belief before the migration from Mesopotamia which is recorded in the OT as the Tower of Babel.

 

[ding]

You think the OT for the Orthodox and Roman churches was written in Hebrew? That's beyond funny. lol lol lol

there were no ORTHODOX churches at that time-----the schism that led to
the EASTERN ORTHODOX sect of Christianity hadn't happened yet. The
OT that jews read was written mostly in Hebrew----and some of it in Aramaic.
None of it was in greek or latin. HOWEVER romans did like greek and used it
lots even before the schism. The Septuagint which is a greek translation of
the OT ----came about something like third century BCE

Writing in the language that one knows only proves that they wrote in the language that they knew.

Christianity broke off from Judaism and spread to people of other nations. It isn't surprising that their account was written in their language. The tradition was passed down orally just as it was to Moses until he recorded it in Hebrew. You think the Hebrew language existed 3000 years before Moses? No. He recorded it in Hebrew because Hebrew was the language he knew.

your posts continue to be silly, dingbat. Why would I "think" that Hebrew
existed 3000 years before Moses? Hebrew is rooted in Mesopotamia
-----a branch off.------it is attributed to Abraham and his merry gang who DID
NOT precede moses by 3000 years-----less than 1000. As to the NT----
what happened to the theory that Matthew and Luke etc etc----who WROTE
their books--------were contemporaries and even supper mates of Jesus?
(Hebrew and Aramaic) You claimed something about NT "ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPTS"

You will catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar.

flies damage freshly written manuscripts--------by walking thru the wet ink.
Sometimes they are responsible for TRANSMITTED ERRORS

The accuracy of the manuscripts is unparalleled in antiquity.

 

[irosie91]

your posts continue to be silly, dingbat. Why would I "think" that Hebrew
existed 3000 years before Moses? Hebrew is rooted in Mesopotamia
-----a branch off.------it is attributed to Abraham and his merry gang who DID
NOT precede moses by 3000 years-----less than 1000. As to the NT----
what happened to the theory that Matthew and Luke etc etc----who WROTE
their books--------were contemporaries and even supper mates of Jesus?
(Hebrew and Aramaic) You claimed something about NT "ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPTS"

Apparently you are unaware that the beginning of the Bible is the history of all men and that it was not told in Hebrew but was later recorded in Hebrew. Same same.

you seem to be referring to the book called "GENESIS" which was,
indeed, WRITTEN in Hebrew. The Odyssey was written in Greek and
the Bhagavad Gita ------in Sanskrit. So unlike the NT which is a
compilation of writings dating back to the lifetime of Jesus and shortly
thereafter. ------the book called ROMANS apparently available to you
in the HANDWRITING of Paul of tarsus and REVELATIONS in the
handwriting of some guy named "john" and the book called LUKE and
ACTS who most likely wrote his originals in Greek------all available to you
------unrevised

The account of Genesis predates Moses and was passed down orally for thousands of years and was captured as symbols in the written language of the Chinese 1500 years before Moses recorded it. So your argument that the NT was recorded in Greek and other languages is no different than what Moses did.

you have no way of knowing just WHEN the first account of genesis was
was written-------it is not at all clear that MOSES was the first writer. Lots
and lots of cultures have "creation stories"-----and lots share features----a
fact which does not "prove" that they were acquired from each other

It was passed down orally, like the NT. We do know it was first recorded 4500 years ago by the Chinese as symbols in their written language. They shared a common belief before the migration from Mesopotamia which is recorded in the OT as the Tower of Babel.

who shared a "common belief"? the Chinese and the people of
Mesopotamia? ------commonalities in legend do not prove CONTACT.
Both the Chinese AND the people of Mesopotamia liked to BUILD UP.
The issue of building a tower to reach "heaven"-----was a kind of realistic
detail of the Genesis story. Impressive buildings was how alpha males
excited women ------all over the world