Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

152 Excellent

About Diego

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • Interests
    Chess, Writing, reading, time with the wife and family...


  • Occupation
    Historian and writer.


  • Gender


  • State (No Abbreviations)

City Name

  • City Name
    Sioux City

Relationship Status

  • Relationship Status


  • Den


  • Country
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

609 profile views
  1. I am not sure how they were classified at the time. I know the Jews and the Samaritans during the time of Jesus despised each other, and would have preferred that the other one not exist. However, today, the State of Israel DOES recognize them as Jews, at least for the purpose of being citizens of the State of Israel, and not being classified as something else (everyone in Israel is classified as SOMETHING, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or anything else, since they have to know who is getting married under what religious code, and who is entitled to the Right of Return. There is no secular marriage in Israel). As to how they are treated in terms of intermarrying with Jews, I am not sure what the Rabbinate would do, although the State would be fine with it. I am not sure the situation has ever come up, to be honest. The Samaritans are a very insular group, and I don't think a Jew and a Samaritan have every TRIED to marry one another in modern Israeli history.
  2. I totally agree. I also am a history nerd (I have a Master's Degree in the subject. If that is not a history nerd, then what is?), so I likewise find the ethno-religious groups of the Middle East who are not Jewish, Muslim, or Christian to be inherently fascinating just by definition of the fact that they have survived the State Religions of the centuries, be it Judaism as a State Faith, Islam as such, or Christianity under the Roman Imperial State.
  3. I don't entirely know the history of the Samaritan People. I do know that the Ten Tribes were dispersed by the Assyrians, who then permitted Assyrians to take their place. Those Assyrians intermarried with the few members of the Ten Tribes still living in the region. Their descendants are the current Samaritan People. Their religion does indeed appear to be one modelled after the Ancient Israelite Faith, as they still engage in animal sacrifice and the like on Mount Gerizim. They claim that their religion is more correct than that of the Jews, and that the Temple SHOULD be on Gerizim rather than Jerusalem. As Christians, from a theological and religious perspective it is rather irrelevant what EITHER the Jews OR the Samaritans claim, as WE are the New Israel, if you will. Nevertheless, it IS interesting from a sociological standpoint, of course.
  4. It should be noted that the State of Israel regards Samaritans as Jews for secular purposes. If one were to be found living outside Israel or the West Bank (highly unlikely), he would have the right to emigrate to Israel under the Right of Return. Although the Orthodox Rabbinate does not oppose THAT, I have no idea HOW they feel about intermarriage between Jews and Samaritans. That may be a rocky issue according to Jewish Halacha (Jewish Law).
  5. Question: What do you all think of the possibility that Mars, at one time, may have harboured intelligent life? For many years, men like Percival Lowell and Giovanni Schiaparelli believed that Mars CURRENTLY had intelligent life, and that the Martian Canals they observed on the planet were evidence of this fact. Of course, when NASA finally got to Mars, there were no canals of any sort. So my question is, what were men like Lowell seeing, if not canals? Of course, there was an argument made that one of Lowell's telescopes may have been made in such a manner that he was observing the retina of his own eye, and the blood vessels thereof. I do not accept this argument, as he ALSO saw canals in other telescopes, as did Schiaparelli and other men. Furthermore, these men all reported seeing canals that were straight, and blood vessels are not perfectly straight, by definition. I am currently reading a book titled "Mars and its Canals" by Lowell. He also wrote a book that I have read called simply "Mars". "Mars" was written first, followed by "Mars and its Canals". Alfred Russell Wallace wrote a response to the second book entitled "Is Mars Habitable?", in which he suggested that it was not. Lowell responded with a book called "Mars as the Abode of Life", in which he defended his ideas that Mars was not only habitable, but that it WAS in fact inhabited by an intelligent race of beings. I have all of these books, and am reading them in order of their publishing. Of course, science fiction writers took off with ideas of Mars and canals, and wrote all about intelligent Martians who were piping water from the polar regions to the rest of a desert planet to save a dying a civilization. The John Carter of Mars series by Edgar Rice Burroughs (who also wrote the Tarzan series) goes into some detail on the subject, as do other science fiction books. Naturally, people were curious to see what the first photographs of the Martian surface would look like. In the 1960's, proof seems to have demonstrated the simple fact: there are no canals, either of the irrigation sort (the kind envisioned by Lowell et al.) or of the shipping sort (the kind with which most of us are familiar, such as the Erie, the Suez, and the Panama). So were there EVER canals on the surface of Mars, whether in the 19th Century or at any other time? WHAT DID THESE MEN SEE? Any guesses, anyone? Any ideas? It should be noted that "Mars" was written in the 1890's, "Mars and its Canals" in the first decade of the 20th Century, "Is Mars Habitable?" also in that decade, and "Mars as the Abode of Life" in about 1912 or so.
  6. I don't know if this might help. There are currently 700 or so Samaritans living in a small community in the West Bank, plus a few more in Israel proper. The official position of the Israeli State is to classify them as Jews, and the Orthodox Rabbinate does not object to this classification. Their rights as a religious minority are protected under Israeli law.
  7. WILLIAM: I believe I owe you an apology. It has been correctly pointed out that my language as of late has been a bit sharp. no one particularly suggested what I had said to you. However, I believe my referring to your question as stupid may very well have been what was being considered. I admit freely that that was probably too sharp a phrase to use. although I do consider the question you asked to be a rather obvious one, there are far better ways of handling the problem than being rude. calling the question stupid may be interpreted as implying that you yourself are stupid which is the last thing I would ever want to do. I actually consider you to be "one sharp dude", as I believe our young people are inclined to say. it would have been better to point out the question being Not one that you would normally be inclined to ask in a manner that was less rude than I chose. I wish to apologize for any unintentional offense that I may have caused. I do respect you and I want you to be aware of that.
  8. I do agree that it is common knowledge. But to be perfectly fair, you DID ask. 🙂
  9. To answer your question more completely, King James VI of Scotland and James the first of England, who were actually the same person, ordered the translation of the authorized version. It states on the introduction page, that it is authorized to be read in churches. Although there is no specific order that can be found from the general convocation of the Bishops of the Church of England ordering its use in churches, the fact that it states that it was authorized for that purpose, and the fact that the Bishops never objected to that, indicates that indeed it is authorized in that sense. For that reason, it is commonly called the authorized version in England itself. In the United States, it is far more commonly referred to by the title of the person who ordered its translation, Namely, King James the first. You will please pardon the unusual spelling and punctuation and other orthography of this text. I am writing it from speech to text. That does sometimes render it somewhat unusual. Thank you.
  10. Actually, WILLIAM, the burden would be on both of us. You have to prove your interpretation of the verse as much as I have to prove mine. I have already done so, using the example of us being Christ's servants, however unprofitable we might be. We still have to choose to be such. I have also demonstrated my disagreements with the footnote to 1 Cor. 3:9 in the Calvinist Geneva translation. The ball is in your court, as they say, now.
  11. Of course, even I shall admit the following: Any translation, be it dynamic (which I find to be the worse option for scholarly study) or formal, is a product of the people translating it. The NIV is grotesquely Evangelical in its approach, and it is also dynamic, which renders it virtually useless for Biblical Scholarship. The Geneva is grotesquely Calvinistic, but at least it is formal, which renders it somewhat more useful in the field of Biblical Scholarship. The Authorised Version (commonly called the King James Version in America) is grotesquely Anglican. By order of the King himself, it was to maintain Churchly language, reflective of the organization of Church of England. Ergo, words like "ecclesia" were translated as "church" rather than as "congregation", and "episkopos" as "bishop" rather than as "overseer". Neither word choice is wrong in those examples. But each reflects a certain view of the Church, one being higher in Churchmanship (more ceremonial, one might say, more "Catholic") in its orientation, and the other being lower in Churchmanship (less ceremonial, one might say, more "Protestant", or more "Calvinist") in its orientation. Nevertheless, the Authorised Version IS formally equivalent in its translation technique, which renders it more useful in the field of the Biblical Scholarship. Of course, I am not one of those fools that considers the Authorised Version somehow "better" than others just by virtue of its existence. In other words, I am NOT KJV-Only. It is a decent translation. But there are others that are just as good, or even better, out there.
  12. Well, so far, I am not convinced by either you OR William's attempt to prove to me that Free Will does not apply. I was the last one to present an argument on 1 Cor. 3:9. I quoted the Geneva 1599 rendering, which is very little different than the Authorised Version (King James), and the footnote offered by the Calvinist translators of Geneva. I also included my disagreements with the footnote. You are welcome to make your argument there, if you wish. I may not respond until tomorrow. I am not sure I have much more time today to dedicate to this. I DO have some other things to which I MUST attend. Until I see you next, I shall bid you adieu. As one side-note: I would prefer that each of you present an argument, and then halt until I can actually get back to respond. Making me respond to six posts at once is rather uncharitable, as it puts a stress on my abilities just to sit at the computer when I have other things to do. It would be easier for me if you posted one, William, and you posted one, Origen, and then let me get back to you before posting others directed at what I am saying. I of course, shall extend to each of you the same courtesy.
  13. Again, ORIGEN, follow the posts between William and myself. I have no intention of repeating myself.
  14. ORIGEN, the very simple fact that the Missouri Synod is one of the last non-Evangelical Churches to have moved away from the NIV should indicate that it is no longer widely used outside of Evangelical Christianity. That is simply a temporal fact. If you want to check the truth of it, I encourage you to see what Churches at this point are still using the NIV. You will find that the only ones that are, for ANY purpose, are Evangelical. There may be a few outliers of which I am not aware, but they are again, few. As for the argument itself, you may follow William's posts, and mine, for a current update on the subject. I see no need to write double postings, saying the same things in slightly different ways.
  • Create New...