Ezek 28:13-17
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
KJV

God created Satan…as a cherub…an angel…

Do you lean more to the left or the right or are you central? I’m going to assume that nobody is a big fan of Mr Bush or Mr Blair.

Please reply as I’d be interested in finding out about it.

Lots of love

He Who Shoots Mormons

PS. Hope there is no tension between us.

One of His greatest moments, that is, in terms of the amount of Divine wisdom he allowed us that day … and in terms of the shock that it put on the crowd?

Check Matthew 13. A few of the verses:

Mat 13:1 The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
Mat 13:2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
Mat 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow…

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
Mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. …

Mat 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Now, we have to keep in perspective, what the people of the day were hearing from the rabbis of the time. They heard things like, here is when you should give to the temple, and here is where you are exempted. They heard, Here is why you can give tax money to Caesar, or here is why you can’t. They heard, Here is what the Gentiles do, and here is why you must live better than the goyim do. They heard, here is what you must not eat, and here is when you should wash, and here is what Deuteronomy 8 means.

………..

Jesus of Nazareth came along and taught something of rather larger scope. He said, When the spiritual Kingdom comes… here are the concepts behind its design. Here is the intent in the mind of God for this great Environment, and here is how different men will react, and here is why God will respond.

You remember the physics teacher that couldn’t hold your attention. :- ) Blah blah speed equals distance divided by time, and if you have vector F at 15 degrees, you can find angular momentum by… blah blah.

Imagine Einstein breezing into the room and beginning a talk about why the universe works the way it does…

Jesus preached differently.

Mat 13:53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
Mat 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

The basic reaction of the people was not merely astonishment that Jesus should teach such stunning doctrines. It was also astonishment that -anybody- should tackle such subjects.

And notice in Matt. 13:19, this same chapter, Jesus tells us what is the essence of wisdom (in this case, at least):

Mat 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

The word of … what?

The word of the Kingdom. This was a doctrine that Jesus loved, and a doctrine that He wanted us to love too. Yet, how many times have you passed a church on the street and its sign read something like, “NOT CHURCH, BUT CHRIST!”

…………..

Jesus taught us that our environment would be important. A cow would rather be roaming a free range, protected by a rancher, than in a crate, being confined for future presentation as a veal cutlet. The setting in which you live matters.

He taught us that He would establish a Kingdom, and in this Kingdom, His sheep would have the setting that they needed for love, and blessings, and salvation, and Christian living.

That setting was the kingdom.

Any setting designed by men, any setting designed by anyone other than Christ, is not the setting that Christ designed. So, we don’t want any setting that men had anything to do with designing.

The day will never come when Joe Shlabotnik of Tracy, CA, figures out the magic improvement to Christ’s church, that makes it the right place to be. Christ’s kingdom was announced 2,000 years ago, and every change since has only made it worse.

The word of the Kingdom. Is it self-contained in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

Kind regards,

Jeff

……………..

image: http://www.breadonthewaters.com/add/0154_Heaven_christian_clipart.jpg

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly ; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” - Joseph Smith, 8th Article of Faith

The practical ramifications of this principle are obvious. If the Book of Mormon says one thing, and the NIV New Testament says something contradictory, then we can simply assume that the NIV translation is off track. Then we can maintain our belief that both books were given by God.

Language scholars, both believing and unbelieving, see translation as a much more “do-able” prospect than tends to be the case with Latter-Day Saints. Let’s take a look at the process of translation.

……………….

Different languages, same ideas

A language is nothing more than a system of symbolizing ideas and thoughts. If a person is fluent in a language, then he can express his ideas in that language.

Of course, he can also understand the expressed ideas of others. If this were not true, God’s gift of speech and writing would be useless.

The same basic ideas of “sleep,” of “love,” and of “open” or “closed” exist in the minds of virtually all people, regardless of their mother language.

Different languages symbolize these ideas in different ways, with their own vocabulary. However, the ideas are the same across languages.

Two languages will have different words for “sleep,” but they both will have words that mean “sleep.” The words will not look the same, but they will have equivalent meaning.

When a person in France spreads marmalade on toast, he will use a different “symbol” (or word) when thinking of his toast than someone in Peru will. But both persons will have the same thoughts in their minds.

The same things that make (effective) speech possible, make (effective) translation possible!

……………..

Expressing ideas: a mystery uncloaked

Proceeding from there, we can ask: if a bilingual scholar can express his thoughts in his “mother tongue,” why couldn’t he express the same thoughts in his second language, if he knew it as well as his first language? If he can understand Francois in one language, why can’t he understand Mario in another language?

If a bilingual person can express the thought, “Too much marmalade,” in French, why couldn’t he express the same thought in Spanish? The answer is that he can, as long as he knows both languages well.

Speech is the process of transferring ideas from one human mind to another. Translation is simply the process of transferring ideas from one system (language) to another. When we look at it this way, it loses a lot of its mystery.

………………………..

Theory and Practice

Consider John 11:35, “Jesus wept.” It contains three ideas: a specific person, the act of crying, and the past tense. Any method we successfully use, to convey these three ideas, will be effective speech. It won’t matter whether it’s pictures like in Charades, or English, or Koine Greek, or what. The question is whether those three ideas are transferred from one human mind into another.

Words are the wheelbarrows that carry those ideas between minds. They’re not mysterious. They’re simple tools.

Do you understand John 11:35? If you knew Spanish, could you express it in Spanish? Of course you could.

This is a simple example, but the point is the same for any passage. Thumb through your Bible and imagine translating different verses. You will gain a feel for the fact that the ideas in it can be expressed — accurately! — in ANY language.

Hypothetical arguments sound good in theory. However, in the harsh winds of specific, practical application, they collapse.

Translation isn’t mysterious, and unbelieving scholars don’t take issue with the accuracy of Bible translations. They take issue with other things.

Kind regards,

Jeff

……………….

Image source: http://aramaicdesigns.rogueleaf.com/quote/img/TranslationSplashBig.jpg

A proper translation conveys to the reader or hearer the information that the original conveyed to the reader of hearers…

(1) the translation makes a natural use of the linguistic structures of the receptor language and…

(2) the recipients of the translation understand the message with ease.

In other words, a translator must be able to do two things: first he must be able to accurately understand ideas expressed in a given language — as 5-year-olds born in that culture can — and second, he must be able to accurately express these ideas in another language.

Beekman also says,

The question of fidelity thus comes down to the two questions:

(1) Does the translation communicate the same meaning as the original?

(2) Does it communicate it as clearly and as idiomatically as the original did?

If the answer to these questions is “yes,” then it has every right to be called a faithful translation.

So we see that if a translator does these things, the translation itself is accurate.

When a skeptic claims that the Bible cannot be translated, he must claim either that the Bible can’t be understood, or that the Bible can’t be expressed in any language other than the original. Neither position is reasonable.

……………..

Understanding the Bible

There are those who will try to trivialize the argument by claiming that the Bible cannot be understood in its original languages, even by scholars in those languages.

The Bible itself disagrees. The Scriptures teach that God gave us an understandable Bible:

Eph 3:1  For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
Eph 3:2  If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 3:3  How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4  Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

2Ti 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

But also, we can simply think about it: why would God give us a Bible if He knew that we wouldn’t be able to understand it? If God intended to give His will to man, certainly He was capable of making it clear. He did!

…………..

Communicating Scripture

Once a translator understands the Bible, all that is left is to express it in the “receptor” language, the one it will be translated into.

Skeptics might again object, “but men can’t express themselves accurately.” This is not true. The ideas of the Bible were expressed accurately in Greek and in Hebrew! Greek and Hebrew were not “magic” languages. if they could accommodate the Bible, then so can other languages.

This type of critic is the same kind who will argue that they don’t know what you mean when you say, “It’s raining today,” or “look out behind you.”

He might argue with you all day, but when the right time comes, he will contradict himself … when he asks you to pass the butter. When he does, feel free to tell him you don’t know what he means. :- )

Regards,

Jeff

…………………..

*John Beekman (and John Callow), “Translating the Word of God,” p. 33. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Beekman and Callow are virtually unsurpassed in their experience in translating the Bible into various primitive languages among Indians in Mexico, and African tribes in Ghana. Their work “Translating the Word of God” is an authoritative work on translation.

This reference work gives you the New Testament in the original Greek. If you’re worried that 1 Tim. 3 might be translated wrong, when it says that to be an elder, one must have faithful children, then you can read it for yourself in the original Greek. (I did. That’s what it says.)

The New Testament is based on more than 35,000 ancient manuscripts and manuscript fragments, as well as thousands of letters written back-and-forth between 2nd- and 3rd-century Christians, as well as other sources. The spiderweb of ancient literature that confirms the original content of the New Testament is colossal.

It is interesting to meditate on the difference between the NT manuscript situation, and that of the Book of Mormon.

………….

In reviewing these 8 variants of Phillippians — those places in the book wherein the manuscripts aren’t quite agreed — you can get a feel for just how solidly the New Testament has been handed down over the years.

In every verse not mentioned below, the ancient manuscripts show NO significant variance from one MS to another.

As well, you can meditate on the difficulty of translating these simple NT words into English, or Spanish, or any language. There is nothing that is complicated about rendering these simple words in a second language.

………….

Variant 1

NT: Phi 1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.

Possible alternate from certain manuscripts: Phi 1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise *of Christ.*

Comment: this is the only variant in Phillippians which has any significant doctrinal interest. The likelihood of the variant is very low, according to the authors of “The Greek New Testament.” “of God” is the correct reading. Still, we can see how minor the variation is.

………………

Variant 2

NT: Phi 1:14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.

Possible alternate: Phi 1:14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word *of God* without fear.

Possible alternate 2: Phi 1:14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word *of the Lord* without fear.

Comment: it makes absolutely no difference which reading is correct. All are consistent with other NT passages.

………………

Variant 3

NT: Phi 2:2 Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, the one thing minding.

Possible alternate: Phi 2:2 Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, the *same* thing minding.

Comment: a trivial variation.

………………

Variant 4

NT: Phi 2:4 Let not each one (singular) consider his own things, but every man also the things of others.

Possible alternate: Phi 2:4 Let not each one (plural) consider his own things, but every man also the things of others.

Comment: a trivial variation.

………………

Variant 5

NT: Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Possible alternate: Phi 2:5 *Now* let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Comment: a trivial variation. “Now” would connect the idea slightly more strongly with the idea of 2:1-4 — that is, the motivations listed in 2:1-4 would lead into the example of Jesus in 2:5ff. This is true in any case.

………………

Variant 6

NT: Phi 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Possible alternate: Phi 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not *as* in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Comment: two letters’ difference. Either idea would be sound and consistent with the NT.

………………

Variant 7

NT: Phi 2:26 For he longed after you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had been sick.

Possible alternate: Phi 2:26 For he longed *to see* you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had been sick.

Comment: no material difference.

………………

Variant 8

NT: Phi 2:30 Because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service toward me.

Possible alternate: Phi 2:30 Because for the work of *the Lord* he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service toward me.

Comment: no material difference.

……………….

Discussing the transmission and the translation of the Bible in abstract terms leads nowhere. Actually viewing the nuts and bolts of the literary work is enlightening.

Kind regards,

Jeff

…………………

image source:  http://glennhager.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/neon-bible.jpg

Those who are not acquainted with the field of transmission might wonder, “Hey, did some of those old manuscripts have Phil. 4:13 reading something like, ‘And UFO’s will put crop circles in England’?”

Notice rather how negligible *all* these variants are in their impact on the meaning. Ancient copyists were very, very careful with scrolls that they believed to be sacred. Their accuracy in transmission, across 2,000 years, is simply incredible.

……………

Variant 9

NT: Phi 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship in the spirit of God, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Possible alternate: Phi 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship *God in the spirit*, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Comment: the text contains the idea “we worship via the Spirit’s help,” as in Rom. 8:5, 26; the alternate contains the idea of Jn. 4:4. Both are consistent with the rest of the NT.

………………

Variant 10

NT: Phi 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

Possible alternate: Phi 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either *had been approved* or were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

Comment: No material difference; the phrase “had been approved” is in few early MSS and the reading of the text is in little doubt, according to the UBS scholars.

……………….

Variant 11

NT: Phi 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

Possible alternate: Phi 3:13 Brethren, I count *in this way* myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

Comment: the phrase “in this way” appears in a number of early manuscripts and the final text is relatively ambiguous.

……………….

Variant 12

NT: Phi 3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule.

Possible alternate: Phi 3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, *let us mind the same thing.*

Comment: the phrase “let us mind the same thing” is in few early MSS and the reading of the text is in little doubt. “Let us mind the same thing” would be exactly the doctrine of Phil. 2:1-4 in any case.

……………….

Variant 13

NT: Phi 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Possible alternate: Phi 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto *himself.*

Comment: Some MSS have heautos instead of autos. Both mean “Himself,” though autos is a more versatile word.

……………….

Variant 14

NT: Phi 4:3 And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow laborers, whose names are in the book of life.

Possible alternate: Phi 4:3 And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with *my fellow laborers and the rest*, whose names are in the book of life.

Comment: No material difference and the alternate reading is unlikely in any case.

……………….

Variant 15

NT: Phi 4:16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto the need for me.

Possible alternate: Phi 4:16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again the need *of* me.

……………….

Variant 16

NT: Phi 4:23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

Possible alternate: Phi 4:23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. *Amen.*

Comment: No material difference.

…………………

Readers interested in further study can consult Beekman and Callow, op. cit.

Kind regards,

Jeff