Jump to content

Origen

Male Church of Christ

Profile

Interests

Hebrew, Aramaic (and other cognate languages), Greek, Latin, textual criticism, exegesis, philosophy

My Details

Last visited
DenominationChurch of Christ
GenderMale
  • Content Count

    3,697
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Origen

  1. This is an example of poor reasoning and misrepresentation. First, no one suggests that the word "infants" is interchangeable with "children." No thinking person would even suggest the two words are interchangeable. Second, while not all children are infants, all infants are children. Infants would be a subset of children.
  2. Origen

    Murder

    Yeah, so? @Becky question was "How much time does it take for a man to stomp a child and how much time for the cops to get there? You will protect yourself but not a child?" Your comments do not address the context of her question or my response (i.e. to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm).
  3. Origen

    Murder

    The right to use deadly force in self defense or in the defense of another when one reasonably believes himself\herself or another person to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm is a well established precedent of law. It is not a case of taking the law into your own hands. Beside who says you have to kill anyone? You could try and detain\restrain the person by force or you could wound the person.
  4. The semantic range of a word can and does shift over time. How one person uses a word does not necessarily dictate how another might use the same word. This is just the reality of language.
  5. Subjective opinions are unhelpful and prove nothing.
  6. That really does not address what I said. You said: "I believe with each translation of the bible is making God's Word weaker through the years." To which I replied: "The vast majority of New Testament Greek scholars would disagree with you." In other words, those scholars would not agree with your claim. You have offered no objective reasons for your claim.
  7. The vast majority of New Testament Greek scholars would disagree with you. The increase in resources and knowledge concerning the N.T. manuscripts and the Greek language is beneficial to the Church.
  8. The English language is divided into 2 periods: (a) Early Modern Period (ca. 1450-1800) (b) Late Modern English (1800 to the present). This means all English translations of the Bible up to ca. 1800 are Early Modern English translations. This would included the translations listed by @Ben Asher (post 16) and others such the Coverdale Bible (1535) and Douay–Rheims Bible (1582). Furthermore, the KJV translator also consulted other English translations. Two of the most notable are the Bishops' Bible and William Tyndale translation. In fact the KJV relies so heavily on Tyndale translation something like 83% of the KJV (in the N.T.) can be traced to Tyndale's translation. The KJV was not the first English translation.
  9. Another dishonest claim. Wikipedia has no rule which forbids primary sources.
  10. Actually it is and you know it is. Calvin stated: "As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." Calvin clearly makes a distinction between the two. The coordinating conjunction "but" is used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned. Your quote is deceitful.
  11. According to SLS Calvin wrote: "... [369] Michael ... I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ ..." (post 16) Calvin really said: "As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 25: Daniel, Part II: Chapter 12 WWW.SACRED-TEXTS.COM Calvin's Commentaries, Vol 25: Daniel, Part II, full text etext at sacred-texts.com Note the deceptive nature of the quote.
  12. Hello and welcome SGS
  13. While all of that is interesting, only one claim really troubles me. This claim isn't accurate. While many in the early church believed the content was Pauline in nature, different authors or translators have been suggested. For example Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215) thought Paul wrote Hebrews in the Hebrew language and later Luke translated the book into Greek. Of course there is zero evidence for the original language of the book being Hebrew. In this way Clement was able to explain aways the similarities between the Greek of Hebrews and Acts ("Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.") Origen (ca. A.D. 184-253) notes the same issues. He states: "In the epistle entitled To The Hebrews the diction does not exhibit the characteristic roughness of speech or phraseology admitted by the Apostle [Paul] himself, the construction of the sentences is closer to the Greek usage, as anyone capable of recognizing differences of style would agree." Origen goes on to state "If I were asked my personal opinion, I would say that the matter is the Apostle's but the phraseology and construction are those of someone who remembered the Apostle's teaching and wrote his own interpretation of what his master had said." He also tells us that other before him have suggested Luke or Clement of Rome. Tertullian (A.D. 155-240) point to Barnabas. If we note the dates of these authors we can see that the authorship of the book was challenged\doubted early on. And the idea that Paul was the author had been accepted up until the 1800s is demonstrably false. John Calvin wrote: It is very interesting that Luther suggests Apollos. Calvin goes on to state:
×
×
  • Create New...