• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Gentiles in the Kingdom with Abraham, Issac, and Jacob

OttoM

OttoM

Seasoned Member
Male
Matthew 8:11
And I tell you this, that many Gentiles will come from all over the world—from east and west—and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the feast in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Righteous men like Moshe, Abraham, Jacob, and David are not permitted inside many of today's churches. Because of their multiple wives and many children. But, those same gentiles seek to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and feast with Abraham, Issac, and Jacob?

Wouldn't their multiple wives and many children be an offense, and stumbling block to them?

Mark 2:22
“And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. For the wine would burst the wineskins, and the wine and the skins would both be lost. New wine calls for new wineskins.”

Many Christians still have their old wineskins - walking in the ways of the world. This is why they can not accept the new wine - which is the truth of the Holy Scriptures.
 
Jacob/Israel proohesied that Ephraim's seed would become a multitude of "gentiles." They translated "goy" nations there, but it is the same word that is translated "gentiles."

YHWH told Israel "Your decendants will inherit the nations." I believe this has happened through intermarriage and the blessings and cursings of Deut. 28. Those that live right are blessed and prospered, those who don't?......well the world calls it natural selection, or getting a darwin award....but I see it as His law of reaping what you sow in action.

The bible translators should have uniformly translated words. Instead they used gentile which is from the Latin gentilus and means of the SAME genes, clan or tribe. So....while they intended to acknowledge the familial relationship of these descendants of the ten tribes, moden christians have the OPPOSITE understanding of the word. Ironic, no?

They also translated sheol into hell everywhere they could get away with it, and rendered it GRAVE where they couldn't.

Unless someone believes HELL and THE GRAVE are the same thing.....this should cause them to study.
 
Joleneakamama said:
Jacob/Israel proohesied that Ephraim's seed would become a multitude of "gentiles." They translated "goy" nations there, but it is the same word that is translated "gentiles."

YHWH told Israel "Your decendants will inherit the nations." I believe this has happened through intermarriage and the blessings and cursings of Deut. 28. Those that live right are blessed and prospered, those who don't?......well the world calls it natural selection, or getting a darwin award....but I see it as His law of reaping what you sow in action.

The bible translators should have uniformly translated words. Instead they used gentile which is from the Latin gentilus and means of the SAME genes, clan or tribe. So....while they intended to acknowledge the familial relationship of these descendants of the ten tribes, moden christians have the OPPOSITE understanding of the word. Ironic, no?

They also translated sheol into hell everywhere they could get away with it, and rendered it GRAVE where they couldn't.

Unless someone believes HELL and THE GRAVE are the same thing.....this should cause them to study.
Click to expand...
In the Greek it’s “ethnos” and it’s the word used when Abram’s was changed to Abraham and he was told he would be the father of many “ethnos”.
 
The Revolting Man said:
In the Greek it’s “ethnos” and it’s the word used when Abram’s was changed to Abraham and he was told he would be the father of many “ethnos”.
Click to expand...
Anyplace dealing with Abraham was not in Greek. You are right that ethnos (where we get words like ethnicity) is the greek equivalent.
Modern Jews use goy all wrong, and and like it is all bad. Wrong in that they will refer to an individual as a goy when it means a large number like a swarm of locusts. They act like it is a bad word yet it never was. It is the word YHWH used when telling Israel if they would "Hearken to My voice you will be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (goy). Now I can't speak for anyone else, but that is about as POSITIVE a context as I can imagine.
 
Joleneakamama said:
Anyplace dealing with Abraham was not in Greek. You are right that ethnos (where we get words like ethnicity) is the greek equivalent.
Modern Jews use goy all wrong, and and like it is all bad. Wrong in that they will refer to an individual as a goy when it means a large number like a swarm of locusts. They act like it is a bad word yet it never was. It is the word YHWH used when telling Israel if they would "Hearken to My voice you will be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (goy). Now I can't speak for anyone else, but that is about as POSITIVE a context as I can imagine.
Click to expand...
Any Hebrew we have was translated back into the Hebrew from the Greek. The Septuagint is the oldest we have. My understanding is that we don’t have any Hebrew translations that didn’t come from the Greek. I could have misunderstood something though.
 
You're misunderstanding it @The Revolting Man. We do have plenty of Hebrew that has remained Hebrew all along and was never back-translated from Greek, from two sources - the Masoretic Hebrew text (which includes the entire Protestant Old Testament), and fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

However, that Hebrew text comes from the Masoretes, a Jewish sect, who might have twisted parts of it to make it less Christian. This accusation is debatable and has been debated for the whole history of the church, I'm not taking a position on it, just pointing out that this accusation exists as a possible concern. That's ultimately where you'll be getting your concerns about the Hebrew text from. And they dropped the Apocryphal books.

So the full pre-Jesus scripture (Old Testament + Apocrypha) is only available as a complete set in Greek. But the entire Old Testament is available in Hebrew.
 
FollowingHim said:
You're misunderstanding it @The Revolting Man. We do have plenty of Hebrew that has remained Hebrew all along and was never back-translated from Greek, from two sources - the Masoretic Hebrew text (which includes the entire Protestant Old Testament), and fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

However, that Hebrew text comes from the Masoretes, a Jewish sect, who might have twisted parts of it to make it less Christian. This accusation is debatable and has been debated for the whole history of the church, I'm not taking a position on it, just pointing out that this accusation exists as a possible concern. That's ultimately where you'll be getting your concerns about the Hebrew text from. And they dropped the Apocryphal books.

So the full pre-Jesus scripture (Old Testament + Apocrypha) is only available as a complete set in Greek. But the entire Old Testament is available in Hebrew.
Click to expand...
The Masoretic was definitely twisted, undeniably twisted. Isaiah was butchered to try and minimize Christ. I don’t know what all else was done but that fact alone means it can’t be trusted.
 
Exactly. That's the concern. Not that it was back-translated from Greek, that was a misunderstanding.
 
RE: "twisting" of Masoretic text
FollowingHim said:
That's the concern. Not that it was back-translated from Greek, that was a misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

And in the vast majority of cases, the Hebrew 'Torah scrolls' - which are sans vowel pointers, and sans even spaces between words, and DO predate the Septuagint (after all, it came from SOMEWHERE, and faithful copies of earlier texts exist) can confirm even the vast majority of the Masoretic.

Differences almost always have to do with vowel pointers (which can include additions of additional letters -- i.e., yod -- acting as vowels.) Translations into entirely different words (i.e., Greek) are far more difficult to vet that nuances in spelling (which are often proper nouns as well.) And that is certainly true for metaphor and idioms, which may not translate at all.

Likewise, literary or poetic phrasing ("tohu v'bohu" is the first obvious example in Bereshiet) is lost, as are multiple meanings via parsing. THE obvious example is Genesis 1:1, which can (and is) parsed into at LEAST seven distinct English phrases - ALL Scripturally-correct - but can have only one meaning when the Masoretic vowel pointers and spacings are forced on it. Same goes, obviously, for the single translation into Greek. Or, later, English.

The history of the Greek Septuagint is undeniable: It was TRANSLATED (by the 'seventy rabbis') into Greek. ALL of whom had SOMETHING to look at. And ALL of which had been accurately, we know, and faithfully copied for centuries before that.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are just one confirmation that they existed, and that faithful copies exist. Do we really believe YHVH is not capable of preserving His Word?
 
Mark C said:
The Dead Sea Scrolls are just one confirmation that they existed, and that faithful copies exist. Do we really believe YHVH is not capable of preserving
Click to expand...
Of course, and He preserved it in Greek so that it wouldn’t get anchored to one language that no one speaks anymore; a la the Quran.
 
steve said:
He told you this?
Click to expand...
What other alternatives are there? You can choose the Septuagint or the Masoretic. One is attested to in the New Testamen, quoted by Christ Himself, and the other is a deliberately corrupted text that’s entire purpose was to discredit Christ.

Which one do you choose? There are no other choices. Either God preserved His Word in Greek or He didn’t preserve it.
 
Vetted, reliable copies in the form of the Torah scrolls, sans Masoretic parsing or vowel pointers, without question still exist. Arguably the most-confirmed ancient texts extant.
 
The Revolting Man said:
What other alternatives are there? You can choose the Septuagint or the Masoretic. One is attested to in the New Testamen, quoted by Christ Himself, and the other is a deliberately corrupted text that’s entire purpose was to discredit Christ.

Which one do you choose? There are no other choices. Either God preserved His Word in Greek or He didn’t preserve it.
Click to expand...
Ok, I understand.
You are making declarative statements based upon your best assumptions.
 
And those assumptions are similar to the simplistic way the KJV-only crowd assume that God has preserved His word in that translation. I disagree with the assumption in both cases, but not that strongly, because it doesn't matter that much. You could do a lot worse than just follow the LXX, or the KJV, both are pretty sound overall (debates about little verses here and there being the exceptions that prove the rule.
 
FollowingHim said:
And those assumptions are similar to the simplistic way the KJV-only crowd assume that God has preserved His word in that translation. I disagree with the assumption in both cases, but not that strongly, because it doesn't matter that much. You could do a lot worse than just follow the LXX, or the KJV, both are pretty sound overall (debates about little verses here and there being the exceptions that prove the rule.
Click to expand...
Ask the KJV-only people to read the text from a photo of a page of one of the first editions. And then ask them if the version they have is an updated translation. Good photos of early KJV Bibles are available online, so it's easy to show people the difference and make them think about their illogical conviction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top