The Reasons Jews Do Not Believe Jesus Was G-d....

S/L says:

What's the NJV?

I've looked in the kjv, nkjv, 21st century kjv, niv, nasb, niv-uk, without luck.

Here is my internet resource:

Bible Gateway

I find nothing about "beating the breasts" as an end time fulfilment of bible prophesy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not exactly, but I will admit I do come here for discussion. It is after all, (the way I see it), a place to uhh discuss things. I suppose techincally we could call it 'arguing for the sake of arguing', or indeed 'discussing for the sake of discussing' - and that's perfectly fine with me because, well, that's what I like to do and why I come to this forum.

Still, it would be nice if people would concentrate less on me as a person and more on the arguments that have been presented. I see you have not managed to do that, and I must confess it irritates me slightly. Still, I guess that might be why you come here.

Why? You have provided no reason for anyone to "just trust" you. Besides which, "general consensus" doesn't mean all that much. Still, I will certainly give you the opportunity to tell me why I should "just trust" you.. I'm intrigued.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Woody: New Jerusalem Bible, (version).

Of course I think there are more prevalent issues than your concern over the possiblity that the bible was written by a monkey, (although it most certainly is a possibility).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

because im jewish, snakelord. this has been my study for over a decade. im fairly certain that you are not. thats why you should trust me about how jews interpret the creation story.
should there be any other reason? to ignore that seem dumb to me.

as for your comment about focusing on you as a person.....you immediately make judgements of my character after saying that.
im less forgiving than woody. welcome to my ignore list for that asinine rudeness.

 

I have been an atheist since the day of my birth. Does that mean I can speak for every other atheist? Even thinking that to be the case would be a little naive.

And mine for some two decades. If you are under the impression that time counts for anything, then I outrank you.. in fact I double outrank you.

Now kindly give me a valid reason as to why I should "just trust" you.

Kindly point out where.

 

ok I found the bible version you are talking about. It is the New Jerusalem Bible

Maybe it was written by a monkey trying to translate the original texts. lol

 

actually, the new jerusalem bible is a standard catholic bible, upon which yours is based, woody.

 

Ok, Devil, Woody, SnakeLord.

• The New Jerusalem Bible is a 1985 English translation of the Bible.
• The correct abbreviation is NJB.
• It is not an "official" or "standard" Catholic Bible.
• The translation was done by Jesuit and other Catholic scholars.
• Not "monkeys", Woody.
• It uses the commonly recognised hebrew-translated names for the books (a la the KJV), as opposed to the Greek/Latin names used by standard Catholic Bibles. (eg Paralipomenon for Chronicles and Esdras for Ezra).
• But it does include the Apocryphal additions as in Catholic bibles, and incorporates them in the text in the Catholic manner.
• The KJV is not "based on" the NJB, Devil, nor any standard Catholic translation.
• I happen to think the NJB is a very good translation, but it's not intrinsically superior to the KJV for being 400 years younger, SnakeLord.

 

Silas said:

What's the "Devil" translation?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Besides the NJB, what other translation says beating on the breasts is a fulfillment of end time prophesy spoken by Jesus?

 

how come i have a njb that was printed in 1973, silas?

 

Silas said:

Yes, I agree about the KJV -- it came from the textus receptus .

The catholic bible came from the codex vaticanus.

It is my understanding they aren't the same, especially regarding Jesus as God's only son. Perhaps you can clarify this.

The RSV for example says Jesus is only "a" son and not "the" son of God "according to some ancient authorities" explained in footnotes-- in other words a created being. In fundamental circles we refer to this as the arian heresy.

It's hard to find a bible scholar on this forum.

 

Devil, I think you have a Jerusalem Bible, not a New Jerusalem Bible. On the other hand, both myself and SnakeLord may simply be looking on the inside cover of the copy we have handy (I actually had a copy with me at work, would you believe, and had to sneak it out quietly to look at it and check stuff), and the actual real original New Jerusalem may be earlier, but I don't know. Also, the NJB I have is the reduced one with only a modicum of notation,the fuller version has notes, illustrations, articles etc.

Woody, the word "Devil" in the middle of that sentence was me addressing The Devil Inside. He hasn't said that was inappropriate, but if he does I'll use his full handle.

I'm not sure that's what SnakeLord was saying. But I may have misinterpreted you as being less facetious than you were, I didn't connect the "beating on breasts" with monkeys, I just thought you were calling learned Christian Biblical scholars "monkeys", something I personally won't tolerate. All translators of the Bible work within their own individual belief system, and do the very best they can to represent the Word of God, and I don't care if they're liberal Anglicans (NEB and RSV), fundamentalist Protestants (NIV) or Roman Catholics (Douai-Rhiems, NJB and the 1955 Knox version). They all deserve respect on their own terms.

 

Well, the Bible is quite specific about Jesus not being the only son of God - it states that Adam is as well (Luke 2).

Secondly, the RSV is not a Catholic bible, so I don't know why you've brought that up, particularly.

"according to some ancient authorities" seems to be a strange way of putting it if it actually means some of the more ancient manuscripts.

The Catholic Bible didn't "come from" the codex Vaticanus, that's simply the oldest complete copy of the whole NT possessed by the Vatican (thus its name). The language of Roman Catholicism used to be Latin, and the Latin Bible used throughout is the Vulgate of St. Jerome. (The equivalent of the KJV for Catholics, the Douai-Rhiems bible of the 16th Century, is an English translation of the Vulgate.) The Vulgate itself was translated in 400 CE by St. Jerome. Translating the Old Testament, he made some reference to Hebrew texts (he was helped in his task by Rabbis, believe it or not), but a great deal of his translation came from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures.

One important justification for translating from the Greek OT instead of the original Hebrew is quite simply that it was the Septuagint scriptures that Jesus knew, and the Disciples, and the Evangelists. On this thread, The Devil Inside mentioned the "almah <> virgin" debate. But the reason that Matthew quoted Scripture as having said "Behold, a virgin shall conceive" was because the Greek version uses the word "parthenos", which quite definitely means "virgin". (By the way, this is why the NJB is not an official Catholic bible, because it translates the almah word in Is. 7:14 as "young woman". It also transliterates YHWH as Yahweh, throughout).

Again, if you are trying to make an issue between "Fundamentalist Protestant" and "Catholic" positions, Arianism is a heresy in Catholicism - in fact it was the very 325 CE Niceaen Synod we are talking about upthread was called to deal with this heresy. Conversely, I seriously do not believe that the RSV, or any other translation of the Bible was created by closet Arianists determined to destroy the prinicple tenet of Christianity. (I remember once, ghost7584 actually cited the NIV as being inspired by the Devil, despite it actually being the most conservative Protestant version there is).

For bible discussions, I went over to theologywebsite.com (as a declared atheist I hasten to add) but they closed it down a couple of months ago!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They suggested christianity.com, there is a ginormous forum, and it was too much for me, 800 people online at a time! Also, I didn't particularly like this as the blurb for the very first subforum section you see:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But it seems to me it isn't so hard to find biblical scholars here, even amongst the atheist members!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Good a place as any to memorialise this brilliant post I found, when looking for stuff about NT scholar Carsten Thiede, author of Eyewitness of Jesus aka The Jesus Papyrus (who, I hadn't realised, died a year ago aged just 52). I read the whole thing shaking my head and saying, "sad, sad" and then I read the final sentence:

 

quite possibly, you have an abridged version from '85 or something....at any rate, mine was a gift from a catholic aunt, and she told me it was hers during her catechism, and that she was taught from it during that period. *shrug*
well, ill check into it, as i have alot of catholic relatives...ill find it out

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and i INSIST that you use my FULL handle, jerk!! jk

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hmmm... the NJB is a critical study bible, not a devotional one. I seriously doubt your aunt got it as for catechism or as a confirmation present. Something for that purpose would much more likely be a Knox version.

But I could be completely wrong! I haven't practised as a Catholic for nearly thirty years, and I only bought the NJB because it was the only Bible in the shop that I could find which included any Apocrypha at all (and even then, it omits 2 Esdras, the Apocalyptic book).

EDIT: Thanks to Google, I can quite happily confirm that the New Jerusalem Bible is a 1985 updating of The Jerusalem Bible of 1966 (TJB), and there was a revision of the TJB in 1973, though possibly only in French.

 

*************
M*W: No, it's not, numnuts! It's just that YOU can't find a bible scholar who agrees with YOU!

 

LoL... nice one M*W

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

and true!

lol, how am i not a bible scholar? i learned to read hebrew specifically to read the Torah in it's original language!

wow...idiocy is funny sometimes.

 

Silas:

Adam is a created being, Jesus is not. The universe was created by Jesus before Adam existed (reference Colossians).

Gen 1:26

Jesus was there.

again Daniel 3:23-24

Jesus was there.

Any bible scholar that's worth his salt knows these verses are about Jesus, likewise for Isaiah 53.