Bible question. Where to research?

I like very much your point about the language obscurities- the chance that we know the actual literal meaning of every word written is very slim. Thanksfully, I believe that the meaning and lessons meant to be gained from the Bible are not dependant on a word-for-word analysis.

It is for Catholics and has many other links. I won't be one to attempt to persuade or dissuade. One major difference between Catholic and Protestant beliefs centers around the "teaching authority" of the Bible. For Catholics, it's the central church. For most Protestants it "sola scriptura" or "Bible alone". You get to decide who to go to when you find something not understood. Here's a link providing basic scriptural guidance but please consult other sources. You'll find many Bibles and not all contain the same books. The Catholic translations include some that were not included in the "official" listing when the Bible was to be compiled. These are called the "apocrypha" or "hidden away" verses. They are accepted in Catholic tradition as also being "inspired" in the apostolic teachings but only used in a limited way as authorship has not always been verifiable. So, in this link, you will find some strange chapters. These scriptures are footnoted as needed. Please read other translations as well. Proceed slowly and be open minded and avoid getting caught up in details that are just distractions to real understanding. Pilots need to learn to take off and land before they are ready for acrobatics.

You're right about the second part: Ps 22:18. In fact, read all of Ps 22, thinking of "Jesus" instead of "David."
As to its textual authority, it's a tossup on the best Mss: 3-3 with one evident abstention.
I don't know of any direct prophecy about the 'forgiveness,' just Ps 86:5- ?For you, O Jehovah, are good and ready to forgive; And the loving-kindness to all those calling upon you is abundant." This reflects the personality of Jesus, which he got from his father. And note that He could ask forgiveness for the Roman soldiers, but not for the Jewish leaders who had committed the "unforgiveable sin." Mr 3:29; Joh 11:45-53)
There are over 200 prophecies that can be applied to Jesus' life and death, including many that a 'fraudulent' Mt, Mr, Lu, Jo couldn't have controlled or faked.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

anything? Doesn't all of that just raise more questions?

the old Mss differ? Not at all. All the important questions I had were answered by my bible study, going back about 20 years.
I enjoy continuing bible study since I like history and philology. A better reason is my effort to do what Jesus said was necessary: ?This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.? (Joh 17:3) I have access to reliable versions of others' research, not all Witness-sourced, and I've never found a contradiction that affected the big issues.
As to questions, consider the lot of believers in the trinity: Their bible, and the Mss, read like the above at John 17. Yet they waste their time on "proofs" that Jesus was lying; that Jesus himself is God. They've found about two dozen texts that "prove" their point, not one of which stands up to any serious scrutiny. Often any old document shows plainly that the early Christians had no idea of Jesus-Jehovah equality.
Paul taught well, ?Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights.? (2Ti 2:23)
I spend my time teaching the good news of Jehovah's kingdom under his appointed king, Jesus, which command is at Mt 28:19,20, Mt 24:14 and many other places. They spend their time teaching the trinity, a word not found in any Ms. Doesn't that raise questions in your mind?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

But close... I also am puzzled as to why so many people hunt for passages which can be used to verify the "trinity" ideas, when it seems to me that Jesus as God means that Jesus would not have suffered as a man, which is what makes him our saviour.
I guess what I mean is the reading of so many outside texts which are all simply personal ideas regarding the Bible. Does this really help us to understand the effect Jesus had on our lives? Or would we be better of to allow God to touch our lives and reveal to us exactly what we need to know?
I believe, as you can see, that personal revelation is the source of wisdom. I am certainly not against commentary on any subject, but I feel that there is a danger in adding to the word of God.

My "outside texts" were on the scholarly side, offered in response to Cindi's question, which had to do with a point of translation. I agree that the single point at Lu 23:43 isn't worth decades of study, but anything that gives me insight into the bible is worthwhile, in moderation. Like Cindi I hadn't encountered that point before, and I think it's well-taken. I still focus more on the "usual" understanding- mercy- because it means even I might come under it!
We know her speaker was correct as far as he went, because of Heb 5:8-9: ?Although [Jesus] was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered; and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him.? And I think that also addresses your original comment to me, about the value of Lu 23 to our salvation.

"personal revelation is the source of wisdom"
If that means making bible teachings and thoughts our own, so that we have made ourselves over according to them, then I agree. I also recognize that unfettered "personal revelation" has led many astray, as Paul noted at Ro 1:18-23.
And he paraphrased Moses and Asaph as further warning: ?For this reason I became disgusted with this generation and said, ?They always go astray in their hearts, and they themselves have not come to know my ways.?

"They spend their time teaching the trinity, a word not found in any Ms."
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6142-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=94626&messageID=1072636
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

What I always wonder, though, is why would you even want to believe that Jesus was God? Doesn't that seem to limit both Gods power and tthe sacrifice of Jesus?
I like to think if Jesus praying for strength in the garden, but if he was God, what was he doing? If he was God, he wasn't tempted, he wasn't affected by the scorn and shame, he was never afraid... If Jesus was God, he endured nothing as a man, which is what makes his sacrifice meaningful. He is on the right hand of God interceding for our sins because he understands what it means to be tempted as a man. If he was God, none of that would be true.

gets thrown out the window:
?Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.? (Mt 20:2
Ransom means one for one: The kidnappers ask for a million, you don't give them two million. God's standard is "life for life," so the original sin of one perfect man must be compensated for by the death of another perfect man.
?For, indeed, Christ, while we were yet weak, died for ungodly men at the appointed time.For hardly will anyone die for a righteous [man]; indeed, for the good [man], perhaps, someone even dares to die. But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us ... That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned?? (Ro 5:6-12)

My understanding is that the thing started about the time Constantine was creating a "Christian" church as an arm of the state. Also, the Catholics have the reasoning that Jehovah is too scary to approach, so warm and fuzzy Jesus is our intercessor; his influence grew from there. (But they also introduced Mary as "intercessor" with her now-scary son, Jesus. )
Regards, Doug go-figuring in New Mexico

with the deity of Jesus as the church has believed for the last 2,000 years. There are far more than two dozen texts that show Jesus claims to be God, but they can't all be addressed with those who refuse to see the obvious. You have failed to address even a small portion of such texts.

that Jesus and Jehovah are separate people:
"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
My third-graders are even now learning this point of grammar, that the emphasized words specify two people in the sentence. They're having difficulty with it because they're also Special Ed kids; some may never grasp the concept. (One girl still isn't clear on "all" vs. "many.") Normal people know it well- until they go to church. The extra material in the bible was furnished for the disobedient Corinthian Christians, and then for you. "Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.?? (Re 3:13) You deny the holy spirit.

You once quoted Thomas' ?. . .My Lord and my God. . .? (Joh 20:2 as if that would overturn the bible's centuries-old teaching of Jehovah as "the only true God." (John 17:3) Yet when the glorified Jesus himself calls someone else "My God" several times, you deny the self-evident truth of the statement. You deny the Christ.

After acknowledging that "God the Son" appears nowhere in any bible, you continue to use it as if it were. The phrase, from man-made creeds, is key to the ongoing attempt to make people forget the name of "the only true God." (John 17:3) "They are thinking of making my people forget my name by means of their dreams that they keep relating each one to the other, just as their fathers forgot my name by means of Baal [Heb. "Lord"].? (Jer 23:27) You deny Jehovah.

Your material on kyrios. and "lord" in the Septuagint is simply incorrect, where it isn't self-contradictory. You admire Tyndale, so perhaps he can convince you. On his use of Jehovah at Ex 6:3, he wrote: "Iehovah is God's name ... Moreover, as oft as thou seist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing) it is in Hebrew Iehovah." Isaac Newton and Edward Gibbon were of the same mind. At any rate, the Masoretic text, a millenium later than the LXX, uses the Tetragram the same way as do the Dead Seal Scrolls. So when Jesus quoted the prophets we can be sure he knew and used the name of "the only true God," Jehovah. Some who acknowledged that kyrios. is a substitution and not a translation, are Liddell and Scott (A Greek-English Lexicon,), E.A. Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon, F. Vigourous' French Bible Dictionary, and J. Payne Smith's Compendious Syriac Dictionary, where marya. = kyrios. as a substitute for the name of "the only true God," Jehovah.

Again and again you post "... Jesus is Yahweh ..." as if that's scripture. I don't believe it, but if you know of such a statement in the bible (not kiddpeat), please copy/paste for us.

Speaking of translations, at John 17:6,26 the NIV says 'made you known.' Some NIV publishers are more honest than others, so a footnote recognizes that the Greek word is"name." And the following appeared in the Watchtower of 7/15/79, p. 27:
[quote] Why did the recently published ?New International Version? (NIV) of the Bible fail to use the name of God where it appears about 7,000 times in ancient Bible manuscripts? In response to a person who inquired about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV?s committee wrote:
?Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, ?Yahweh is my shepherd.? Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it?that is how many have bought it to date?and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.?
Palmer cites ?King James tradition? as well as mercenary considerations to rationalize removing God?s name from His own book. However, it is of interest that even the ?King James Version? itself puts such reasoning to rout when saying of God?s opposers: ?Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.??Ps. 83:16-18. [end quote]

Here's question I've asked you before without response. It doesn't require reasoning or research, just your heart feeling: What do you think of Ps 37:10, 11,29? Does any of that appeal to you?

fact, there are three. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three are ONE God. That is what the theological concept of trinity means. Just as your kids are human of very human because they proceeded from you and your wife, even so the Son is God of very God. That is what Paul is emphasizing here. All will be required to worship Jesus and admit that He is Lord. 'Lord' in Paul's Bible meant Yahweh. That is why the phrase God the Father is used so much. Jesus is His Son, and is God as is the Father.

The New Testament makes these points over and over again. The deity of Jesus is explicitly spelled out in John 1:1. It is directly claimed by Jesus such as in John 8:58 when He says He is 'I AM' which is the name of God originally given to Moses. It is said by others such as Thomas who called Him (John 20:2 'My Lord and my God!', and was commended by Jesus for his insight. Even the Father testifies of Him:

Heb 1:8-10

8 But of the Son He says,

"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,
And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.
9 "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee
With the oil of gladness above Thy companions." NASB

You mention Thomas, but you don't explain it. You simply blow it off. When Jesus accepts Thomas's confession that He is Yahweh ('ho Theos', meaning 'The God' in Greek, which even the Watchtower admits means Yahweh), it won't do to simply blow it off. You've got to answer it. To do less could be construed as deception.

The Septuagent was Jesus's Bible. He quoted it, and used it. It translated Yahweh as 'Kurios'. Thus, to Jesus, His disciples, Paul, and others, the name 'Kurios' meant 'Yahweh'. Jesus even referred to God the Father as 'Kurios'. Thus, when Jesus is called 'Kurios', it means Yahweh. It is smoke and mirrors to try to obscure this point with quotes from people who believed that Jesus is Yahweh such as Tyndale. Why refer to Tyndale on one point, but completely ignore him on a far more important point?

Pardon me, but the idea that the Executive Secretary for the NIV?s committee (presumably translation) would write to the Watchtower and admit a mistranslation for the sake of sales is laughable. It says a lot more about the credibility of the Watchtower than the credibility of the NIV. After all, the Watchtower is known for claiming expertise that it does not have. Perhaps, you can supply a link to an independent source?

BTW, the verses in Psalms. These are typical verses in the Psalms. I attach no special significance to them. Apparently you do. Why don't you explain what you think they mean?

Oftentimes, both parties agree there was such a thing.

I dont believe there was ever a first cause. That may call into question the currently accepted definition of the universe, but so be it.

Good, that I can understand.
What you can do, then, is what I've told others to try: Keep the bible in one hand and your newspaper in the other, and see if they start to come together. If they do- and I believe they have already- then you'll want to know more about the 'First Causers' who wrote about their First Cause.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

1 Some things are caused.
2 Nothing can cause itself.
Therefore, everything that is caused is caused by something other than itself.
3 A causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time.
4 If the causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time, there must be a first cause.
5 The word God means uncaused first cause.
Therefore, God exists

re ''1 Some things are caused.''

Why not all things?

False/unsupported premise: A causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time. He said this because of the assumption that there must be a first cause, an idea which goes back to pre-historian times. Then he proceeds to the idea from that, that God must be the first uncaused cause.

House of cards.

Ill be back in a week. Goin out of town. If Im lucky, therell be computers in the hotel.

infinitely in time. It is not obvious that this statement is true (i.e. that it can do this).

Though I think it may be that a there is still a in infinite causal string, the quantum world is another animal we have to consider. I gradually was convinced that the quantum world was real, where things "just happen", without reason.

The 'infinite' causual universe can exist infinitely, but I think we have to go beyond our current ideas of matter interaction to 'times' before time and space, as we know it, exist. And the quantum world could be responsible not only for matter creation on a small level, but also in huge ones.

Also, there may be an infinite number of universes. Residents (supposing there are any) of each would never be able to see any other universe because of the space/time barrier. Further, there could have been an infinate number of universes existing before our own. There is no way to prove that on the one hand, but on the other, there is every reason to believe it possible, because theres no reason for it not to occurr.

explain anything. God could still stand at the beginning of either scheme.

From nothing, nothing comes.

Even quantum physics can't produce what exists out of nothing. If there were nothing, there would be no quantum physics either.

it must come from something. But its not a matter of faith that the quantum world exists and that things we dont understand are going on.

Even Einstein had his doubts about quantum physics, so I can wholeheartedly agree that there's a LOT going on that we don't understand.

"Now that ain't necessarily so!" -Sportin' Life
But seriously, how does that view of universes help you in your day-to-day interactions with those of us who are cursed or blessed to be in this one?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

no at all. People like myself find it interesting, though.

An example of something else I thought was interesting was an article yesterday -- actually something that came out about eight years ago, which I had forgoten -- telling about a discovery that light 'corkscrews' through spacetime, making one rotation every billion lightyears. Theyre now trying to figure out why.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1997-04/UoR-ASIN-170497.php

Again, that wont help us on our day to day interactions, but... I love this stuff.

I just don't let it take up as much of my time as formerly.
BTW a good magazine, if you haven't seen it, is American Scientist, a scholarly journal from Amer. Inst. Phys., I think. I see it sometimes when I visit NM Tech in Socorro. I haven't subscribed for reason above. Don't need much math for the general articles.
Of course, they gonna burn!.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico