unworthyservant

BTW, please note you must have a valid library card from a participating library to even get on the search engines that I mentioned.

Sorry, I don't have any in particular but over the years I have found good info from places like the Cambridge University library but I believe that like most higher learning institutions these days they now allow access to online resources and databases to students and faculty. They may as some do offer a paid subscription for a certain period or amount of searches. I'm told this is due to the fact that the people like WordPress, et. al. are attempting to compile outside databases that link to these institutions and the Universities now get a license for only a certain number of hits themselves and for economic reasons only get enough to allow the students and faculty. You might try WordPress or Novelist (there's one other competitor whose name escapes me) but from my experience as of now searching isn't easy as you must have EXACT search terms or it will give you either nothing or crazy results. This is the same for American institutions, even the Ivy League schools (which also have expansive databases) allow very little public web access to the Library records and databases. There are sites such as privately run Bible translation sites and Biblical history sites but as I said earlier, always vet them well because as the old saying goes "Figures never lie but beware of liars who figure". You never know who is running the sites and if they don't give good references for their conclusions I shy away. I usually find that if I want to find a specific fact I can usually search long enough to get to the bottom of it but general info is a little harder due to the fact of how search engines work and to the fact that there's so many unreliable sources on the web these days. Good luck and God Bless

yeah, I said info not necessarily accurate. I agree that one must work harder to determine if the info is accurate

You are correct that more modern edited versions are more identical. I'm referring to the oldest texts where the controversy started. From about the 4th or 5th century on they have settled on the versions you mention and there's really not as much difference. The controversy was begun as they tried to figure this out from what I understand. That's the heart of the question, the meaning of the actual word, not the phrase. I agree that the phrase "Daily bread" is a fine translation but I just like to research where phrases that seem literal in English come from and how their translation affects whether what we read is literal definition or best guess as to the intended meaning and then compare. You also make a good point that where I referred to the allusion of a "made up" word and neglected to mention the reason that would be. You said it much more clearly when you say "someone in the early church coined a Greek work to translate an Aramaic word" because as much as I talked about the Greek, we must remember that the 1st translation which was from Aramaic and that was just problematic if not more so for those writers. You are correct about the Latin Vulgate and the word daily which as I said I'm personally good with but the entire post was more about literal meaning. I do like the idea of necessary, essential, or sufficient better and is why I like St. John Chrysostom's thoughts that it's just asking for sustenance or essential actual "bread" or food and not for a feast. I'm bad about always using literal meanings when possible.

I agree and as I stated I have no qualms about the conundrum as the Gospel of Luke does say "bread" in plain language so I have no question about the translation accuracy, I just thought it a good mystery. (that should have no bearing on anyone's faith)

Wow, I don't even know what happened but I just did the "quote" thing and I'm guessing somehow I did something that attributed it to the wrong person? Not sure what and not even sure how to know who I'm quoting other than the person whose profile shows.

You hit that on the head. Even during the first century there was much flux especially during the reign of Nero and subsequently right after.

There's tons of information on it all over the web but I'm curious, are you seeking something in particular for a specific reason?

I don't know who said it but whoever said it I was just agreeing.

They don't just believe, they know! And no they won't be "saved".

Exactly! I would only add that as a Christian we need to be wary of the pitfalls of following any religious denominational teachings unless we have studied the Scriptures well enough to recognize any false teachings from any denomination.

I agree but I'm just not comfortable with the confusion that could arise in a non believer or new believer with the term "Spiritual Jews" (which could be misinterpreted or understood to mean Jews who have converted)) and since it's irrelevant what one calls one's self as long as one is serving Christ ("for there is no respect of persons with God) I just shy away from such tags. I understand what Paul was saying I just don't see any benefit to using those terms in general and since they are unnecessary anyway, I personally usually don't even bother to bring them up unless the situation demands. Just as with the post to which I replied, too often they are made as statements without proper explanation and while the poster did reference the Bible passage, I'm erring on the side of caution for those who either don't go read the Scripture for understanding or who those who might not understand simply by reading them.

Romans 2: 5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that does evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. It has nothing to do with being a Jew and Paul didn't say that anyone who has put their faith in Christ is a Jew, he said "There is no respect of persons with God"! You are probably referring to verses 28- 29 of the same Chapter which says 28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Remember Paul was preaching to Gentiles but for perspective, in this passage he is doing comparisons and speaking of Jews and Gentiles. It is debated whether Paul meant this verse literally (a Gentile who serves Christ is a Jew), figuratively, or whether he is actually speaking to Jews or at least referencing Jews who are relying on the Law. Leading up to this verse was a discussion of circumcision and that is certainly a Jewish topic. So, all I'm saying is I'm not comfortable with a blanket statement that anyone who puts their faith in Christ is a "Jew" and certainly can't see that conclusion from that verse or the entirety of this text. May be semantics but a distinction I feel should be noted for anyone who is new to the Scriptures.

He was probably talking about Gentiles who convert to Judaism. This happens every day for various reasons but is most common for those who marry into a Jewish family. Ivanka Trump for instance. So, in that context it's not ethnic but rather an adoption of the religion.

Why?

And in between somewhere is Fear. Fear of what is behind those "paradigm changing events" and how they might negatively affect life as we know it. Perhaps the laughter is as much a Freudian way of dealing with the fear as it is true derision.

I'm not going to go that far out on the limb but you are correct that we seem to be turning further from God by the day. As for Mr. Dawkins and his foundation that's another story all together and could make a separate topic somewhere here (they have many areas that I haven't even had time to explore but I would imagine there's one that's suited for such a discussion) All I'll say on that is to Paraphrase Thomas Bacon who after getting himself in hot water with the church because of his famous "Knowledge alone is power" quote he said something to the effect of; A little knowledge of science would lead one to believe that there is no God, a little more however will lead him right back again.

I also believe that those mass numbers are greatly exaggerated!

That's exactly why I put it in quotations and said "guess" so as to denote it was what I read into it and not a quote. I believe that about the only real Godly principle that this country is based on is the freedom of religion. (There are a few more minor ones but that one is the biggest and the longest standing) All the other laws and principles are of men and while many of those men were God fearing that doesn't take away fro the fact that our principles are based on much more that Godly ones. Most scholars site three underlying principles. First is that of Inherent Rights. Those found in the Bill of Rights are the first example and then we have the subsequent amendments, so of which are Godly, some not so much. Second is the idea of government "By the people, for the people". Our version of Democracy is the result of that principle. Not necessarily Godly but in no way ungodly. The third is separation of Powers (between the 3 Branches of Government). Again neither Godly or ungodly. Our system of Popular Sovereignty on which the Constitution is based has been defined as "a doctrine in political theory that government is created by and subject to the will of the people". Again, neutral but not Godly. Technically we are a "Federal Republic" with Democracy as our way of allowing citizens to choose and hold accountable our leaders. The Government is actually a mix of Federalism and Republicanism (both secular theories that on their own in no way have any Godly inference) in which power is shared by the Federal Government and the States. Again, good principles but not necessarily Godly. You state that you believe we are the only country since Israel to be founded on Godly principles. I believe that no country is based strictly (or even mostly) on Godly principles and I imagine that there might be others who are a little closer than we are just because of Demographic reasons if for no other. What about the Holy Roman Empire where many countries were based on what they believed to be Godly principles handed down by the Pope? Is it Godly principles that have led to the mess we find our country in today? I think not! I don't know about other countries so much since I'm no expert on other Governments, but since so little of our Government is based on "Godly principles" it just stands to reason that the possibility exists that someone somewhere has more than we. That's all.

There's a little known (or at least rarely discussed) conundrum from the translation of the Lord's Prayer from the book of Matthew that's puzzled scholars for centuries and I thought I'd bring it up here as some might enjoy such deep dives into such things. I originally noted it in an answer to another post here and then noticed that post was a couple months old so I thought I'd make a new topic of it. It's the translation of the Greek word ἐπιούσιον or the transliterated epiousion at the end of the phrase that in the KJV reads "Give us this day our daily bread." It was translated "daily bread" but if you look back at ancient Greek texts, the actual word appears in NO other known Greek writings. It's only known use is in that very verse. (no where else in the NT either). Scholars as far back as the early Church writer Origen, have debated it's meaning and origin. Origen even went so far as to suggest it was just a word that the early church leaders or disciples (or even Matthew himself) made up. Some have surmised that it's a conglomeration of two Greek Words, transliterated epi and ousios. Then they jump through hoops to determine what the meaning of such an hereto unknown word conglomeration could possibly be. Although I'm not Catholic, I kinda like the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom the 4th century Archbishop of Constantinople who thought that the bread for which we pray is only “bread for today.” He said that "it is not for wastefulness or extravagant clothing that we pray, but only for bread and only for bread on a daily basis so as not to worry about tomorrow" This was at a time when many Catholic leaders insisted that it was about the Eucharist. This doesn't fly in my opinion since the word part "ousion" refers to substance of a thing or sustenance and so daily sustenance or daily bread wouldn't refer to the Eucharist as it's more general. This theory is derived from the fact that epi, when used alone actually is a comparative adverb that indicates excellence and so excellent sustenance or bread must be the Eucharist. Scholars to this day still can't find any empirical evidence of even the words existence much less it's meaning in any other ancient Greek writings and so still debate the word. With all that said, that's why it's good that we have Luke's version so as to gain a little insight. The early Greek versions of Luke's telling doesn't use epiousion but instead uses the Greek word ἄρτον or transliterated "arton" which is in the Greek actually a literal word for bread, which helps lead me to my conclusion to agree with St. John Chrysostom's commentary. That said, for those who enjoy looking at translation issues and the like there's a recent "re-translation" of the Lord's prayer from both Gospels on the web here: https://readicon.com/lords-prayer-retranslation/2/ Sorry, didn't mean to get off on such a tangent but since I'm not so much concerned by the Pope's French translation change controversy, I thought I'd throw out another bone just for discussion and BTW, while I don't know much about the author of the linked discussion (from my research it seems he's written extensively on European history and is quite learned on it but this is the only Bible translation writing I can find) I did double check his facts with known and trusted sources and his research seems sound in my opinion.

Just be careful what you learn and from whom. My opinion is VET everything by the Scripture and if necessary research every resource to get to the bottom of any teaching that you hear or see. Some of the false teachers can be pretty convincing until you peel back the layers.

You hit the nail on the head. I just want to point out that it's just a FEW in each case and each share equally in God's plan! To say that we as Americans are specially chosen and thus I guess (by implication) more important in God's plan just doesn't fit with anything I can find in the Scriptures.

I'm a chicken on Sunday, spirit filled, God fearing, love mom and apple pie American but I can't dare go so are as to claim that the USA is "chosen by God to represent Him to the rest of the world"! While I do acknowledge God's hand in our history (as with all other history) I feel it's quite arrogant to think that we know why He does or allows the things that happen, much less ascribe it to our as a nation having been "chosen by God" and singled out "to represent Him to the rest of the world like He did Israel many ages ago". On what Scriptural doctrine do you base this opinion? I don't even remember the USA being mentioned in the Scripture.

Just a couple of points. Deism, which started out in the 17th century as a belief that while God exists he is not active in the world or peoples lives has morphed over the years to a belief that we are each our own God. Eerily similar. You say that you judged the man in your narrative to be unsavable. I prefer to share the Gospel with everyone at every opportunity and let God decide who will and won't be saved.

And Christ told us exactly how to handle it. You have touched on a subject that really bears repeating, that is the fact that consumerism is a BIG problem in today's society. It has always been so, but with modern technology and marketing we have taken excess to new heights. I have often quoted consumer spending numbers to illustrate that point and none does it so well as the $750B that is spent by Christian consumers on Christmas. That number doesn't include charitable giving, it's only retail sales. Is that how Christ would have us celebrate His birth, by spending $750B on gifts and decorations and the like for ourselves and our friends and family while many are starving around the world? Just in the period from what's known as Black Friday until Christmas it's estimated that as many as 700,000 will die from hunger around the world. There are approximately 1 Billion who are underfed. I wonder what us "rich" Capitalistic Christians will say when God points out that while these folks were dying we were spending our money on material things for ourselves and our friends to celebrate Christ's birth.