The Bible

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

“Karado, I thought we already covered this stuff? You are far too preoccupied with these relatively insignificant issues.”

Only insignificant if the “Sons Of God” in Genesis 6 were NOT Fallen Angels…If they were, it’s
a pretty big deal, Why? Because Jesus said before he returns, it will be like the days
Noah, which must mean the same precursors that transpired before the deluge, will happen
again, including the return of the nephilim.

Most ancient cultures BTW had stories of “Gods” coming down, mixing with humanity, and causing big trouble,
Concurring with Gen 6…The Greeks, Aztecs, The Chinese, The East Indians, American Indians, etc.
All have very similar tales that relate fairy closely, and many of these cultures never even met each other crossed paths, and even concur there was a Great Flood as well!

Don’t you think I realize how strange the ‘Angel View’ sounds? I realize that.
But look what we believe ALREADY, We believe a man named Adam, whom we all are related to BTW,
sinned, and contaminated the world with Sin, then ‘plan B’ immediately was put into place, and God
himself in the flesh arrived sans a human to human sexual union, as the only way to save mankind
was that he had to be essentially God himself to sacrifice for us to atone for our sins.
While on Earth he humbly performs miracles like raising the dead, healing the sick, seeing
the future, etc.

He’s crucified, and a few days later comes BACK from the dead, walks through walls,
tells us he’s coming back then mysteriously ascends BACK to Heaven to take care of business, gifting us with a few neat superpowers for believers only, like casting out bad spirits, etc.
Yep, that’s what WE believe King Kai, and that’s STILL leaving out one hell of a lot other supernatural
things that happen in Scripture.

Regarding the Torah:

The Rabbinical Assembly, The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, and The Jewish Publication Society,
collaborators for the “Etz Hayim” Torah and commentary, has this in their commentary on Genesis 6.
Keep in mind this is the CONSERVATIVE translation of the Torah.

Genesis 6:1 Men: The Hebrew word ha-adam, literally, “the man,” is here a collective: humankind.

Genesis 6:2 - The Divine Beings: The definite article points to a familiar term. The context in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 indicates that the reference is to the angelic host, the celestial entourage of God, an image drawn from human kings surrounded by their courtiers.

The Hebrew for “divine beings” here is b’nei (which also can mean “sons of” or “children of”). The word b’nei often means “members of a category”, so that the Hebrew phrase here means “members of the category of divine beings” (elohim). Similarly, b’nei yisra-el does not mean “the children of Israel”, but Israelites.

Saw how beautiful: Driven by lust, their only criterion in the selection of mates was external beauty, not character.

Took wives - The Hebrew phrase is the regular term for the beginning of the marriage relationship. There is no hint of violent possession, nor is there any condemnation of the women involved.

Genesis 6:3 My breath: The “breath of life” (Genesis 2:7) that issues from God. Its presence or absence determines life and death.

In man: The reference her is not only to the offspring of these unnatural unions but also to all humankind, because disorder has been introduced into God?s creation.

Flesh: They are not divine, despite their non-human paternity. “Flesh” connotes human frailty.

Genesis 6:4 - The Nephilim appeared on earth: The offspring of the divine beings. These Nephilim, the etymology of the word is unknown, generated other Nephilim in the course of their married lives. Some suggest that the term means “fallen one”, a reference to the later myth of “the fallen angels.”

Heroes of old: Their heroic exploits were the subject of many popular tales.

322

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I guess my biggest problem with the RCC is the claim that the Church chooses who goes to heaven and who doesn’t.[/quote]

Where does the Church claim this?[/quote]

Then how does one go to heaven in the Catholic Church?[/quote]

Have to be saved, which means one has to be in a state of grace when one dies. This has nothing to do with if the Church chooses you to go to Heaven. If they could, I’m sure they’d choose everyone since that is the mission of Jesus…to save the world.[/quote]

When Jesus spoke to Peter about whatever he binds here will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose here will be loosed in heaven mean?[/quote]

Good question. I know very little about the full understanding of this passage. I know it deals with doctrine and sin.

Doctrine in proclaiming what should be believed by Christians (this is seemingly dangerous, but that is why Jesus gave the Church the Holy Ghost to guide the Church in matters of faith and morals) and forgiving sins in the rite of reconciliation that Paul speaks of in his Epistles… [/quote]

I have been horrendously sick the past couple of days, but would like to ask. What is the definition of the church? Who is the church?

323

[quote]Karado wrote:
“Karado, I thought we already covered this stuff? You are far too preoccupied with these relatively insignificant issues.”

Only insignificant if the “Sons Of God” in Genesis 6 were NOT Fallen Angels…If they were, it’s
a pretty big deal, Why? Because Jesus said before he returns, it will be like the days
Noah, which must mean the same precursors that transpired before the deluge, will happen
again, including the return of the nephilim.
[/quote]

You’re not reading Jesus’ words in the context. People who quote Matthew 24:37 in relation to some resurgence of the Nephilim fail to read Jesus’ explanation in verses 38-39 of what he means in 37. The FULL text (my translation from the Greek) reads, "As it was in the days of Noah, thus will the coming of the Son of man be. For as, in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, even up until the day Noah entered the ark, and not knowing anything until the flood came and took them all away - thus the coming of the Son of Man will be." The “for” at the beginning of verse 38 (gar in Greek) introduces an explanatory clause; it tells us that what comes next is Jesus’ explication of his claim in verse 37. Jesus’ point is NOT that everything will be the way it was in the pre-flood period, but rather that, just as the flood came unexpectedly, so Jesus will come unexpectedly. People will be going about their normal, everyday activities and planning for the future, but Jesus will disrupt all of that just like the flood did.

That this is the point of Christ’s comparison becomes even more clear when we read the verses that follow 37-39 - "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain; one will be taken and the other left. Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know what day your Lord is coming. But understand this: if the owner of the house had known what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and not let his house be broken into. So you must also be ready, because the Son of Man is coming at an hour your do not expect" (Matthew 24:40-44).

So you have to drop this “idle speculation.” Jesus actually warns in Matthew 24:45-51 (the end of the passage we just discussed) that the proper response to his statements about his return is diligence in service to the Lord.

325

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So try Ex 22:8
“For any sinful word, for a bull, for a donkey, for a lamb, for a garment, for any lost article, concerning which he will say that this is it, the plea[s] of both parties shall come to the judges, [and] whoever the judges declare guilty shall pay twofold to his neighbor.”
Elohim occurs twice here, once with the definite article and once without. Both in the plural, and both understood to mean “judges” or “dignitaries.”
[/quote]

I thought this might be the sort of text you were referring to. This example doesn’t actually prove your point at all, Doc - it is too highly debatable. First of all, though the pointing suggests a 3rd common plural subject, the letters of the yarshi’un do not. Indeed, without the paragogic nun, one would assume this was a Hiphil imperfect 3rd SINGULAR rather than plural. Indeed, the Septuagint (the original Greek translation of the pentateuch), which follows its source text closely, takes the verb as a singular. Consequently, many scholars maintain that the MT here is corrupt and should be emended. THe JPS translation actually follows this line of reasoning, as does the ESV and the 2011 NIV. More importantly, however, this same notion of “appearing before God” for judgment occurs earlier in Exodus (Ex. 18:15, 18:19 (note the same el-ha-elohim (to God) construction as in 22:7 in the same judicial context), as well as in other ancient Near Eastern texts. In such contexts, “coming to God” to resolve a dispute meant going to the judges or prophetic figures (i.e., Moses) and letting God decide the case (as, for example, in Ex. 22:10, where the outcome of an oath uttered before/ by Yahweh determines an individual’s guilt).

In this context, therefore, elohim does not DENOTE judges; it merely CONNOTES them, and ONLY in this context. Consequently, you cannot use this single example as proof that “judges” is within the semantic range of the word elohim, and there is thus no basis for including “judges” as a potential meaning of the word in Genesis 6. It is only in judicial contexts like this where elohim CONNOTES “judges,” but even in such contexts, it still means God (i.e., in Israelite religion, God is the ultimate arbiter of all disputes).

326

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Elohim hs the form of a plural but when it is used for a name of God it takes always the singular verb and constructions. Where the word takes the plural verb and constructions, it is understood to be the plural of eloah–important men, nobles, judges, magistrates, that sort of thing. And to KingKai, a very good grammarian himself, the definite article “ha” does indeed make a difference; the definite article is not used before the name of GOd, but it is used when speaking of a group of particular “nobles.” (i.e., ha=elohim never means The God; it means “the nobles.”)
[/quote]

[/quote]
You do notice that most–not all–the examples you cite use theat article when God assumes the objective case?
SO, I guess the interpretation is truly in the realm of context. Elohim means GOd when and where it makes sense; it means lords when and where it makes sense that way, too. (You will note that I was careful to say ha-elohim never means “The God.”)

[quote]

Oh I know we have broad areas of agreement. Thanks for the discussion.[/quote]

In light of the above, let us discuss the use of the words “us” and “our” in Gen 1:26.

Ready.

Set.

Go.[/quote]

Simple enough - a divine address before the heavenly council. It should also be noted that there is ample evidence in the Hebrew bible for the notion of an angelic representative of God who appeared in theophanies with a human-like form (thus accounting for much of the anthropomorphic language attributed to the invisible, spiritual God) and may thus be the referent for “our likeness/image.”

327

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

When was the New Testament Canonized? Who Canonized it?[/quote]

I do not deny that the Catholic Church cannonized the Bible. What I do question is when the Roman Catholic Church started using the Latin translation it took the word out of the hands of the common man, and it was distorted to concentrate the power in the Roman Catholic Church. Many nasty things have been done in the name of God by the Catholic Church. All of this happened during the time the people had no access to the Bible in their native language. Only the Priests could read and interpret the Bible.[/quote]

At the time they did it, it was the language of the common man, much more so that greek and hebrew. You can look at the original Vulgate as like a Rosetta Stone. Had the text been lost, it could have been recreated and translated using latin.

EDIT: Of course the fact that it didn’t matter what language it was in because the majority of the people were illiterate anyway is also a good point. Of course, not with standing the last 100 -200 years.
People do forget that literacy, historically was not common and we are very fortunate.

329

[quote]Karado wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Very Interesting.
Jude seemingly alludes to the sexual sins of the Angels anyway, comparing what they did
to the human sexual sins at Sodom…Jude sez the Bad Angels left their “first estate”, their original habitation, a big no-no…they broke the rules, also confirmed in the Book Of Enoch.

Compare “The Book Of The Watchers”, Enoch Chapter 7, to Genesis 6, It’s very similar…it seems to clear this up who the “Sons Of God” really were…they were Angels.
And yes, yes, I know it’s not Scripture, fine, but that doesn’t automatically mean it’s
false either…The Dead Sea Scrolls are the probably the most important find
of the 20th Century.

Enoch 7:1 It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.

Enoch 7:2 And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.

Enoch 7:3 Then their leader Samyaza said to them; I fear that you may perhaps be indisposed to the performance of this enterprise;

Enoch 7:4 And that I alone shall suffer for so grievous a crime.

Enoch 7:5 But they answered him and said; We all swear;

Enoch 7:6 And bind ourselves by mutual execrations, that we will not change our intention, but execute our projected undertaking.

And so it began…til the deluge, to wipe the resultant hybrids and nasty neandrathals out
of existence…allegedly.

[/quote]

Karado, I thought we already covered this stuff? You are far too preoccupied with these relatively insignificant issues.

There are only two legitimate possibilities; the whole “lines of Seth” theory is ahistorical nonsense. The distinction between the lines of Seth and Cain simply plays no significant role in the text. Either “sons of God” refers to angelic/semi-divine beings, which is far and away the dominant meaning of benai elohim in the Hebrew bible, or sons of God refers to kings, which is a common meaning of parallel phrases in other ANE languages. Either rendering is possible, and the Enochic literature, Jude, and 1-2 Peter are not independent attestations to the same event, but are rather interpretations of Genesis 6. Jude and 1-2 Peter reflect the same tradition of interpretation as the Enochic literature; all of these texts were written several centuries after Genesis.

Why does 1 Enoch 7 look so much like Genesis 6? Simple - 1 Enoch 7, written hundreds of years after Genesis, is rewriting the Genesis account in an attempt to provide an answer to some perplexing questions raised by Genesis 6, such as who the benai elohim were and why they are discussed in the same section as humanity’s evil state. The author of the Book of Watchers answers these questions by interpreting “the sons of God” as angels and interpreting their sin as the one that set the ball rolling with regard to the corruption of humanity. In other words, whereas Paul traces the clear sinfulness of humankind to Adam, the Book of Watchers presents the influence of fallen angels as the cause of humanity’s corruption. This sort of rewriting or expansion of sacred texts was done ALL THE TIME in Second Temple Judaism, and while such texts were not held as authoritative in the same way as the originals, they were highly influential in shaping the way Jews interpreted their sacred texts.

either option could be correct; the support of 1 Enoch or Jude or 1-2 Peter is irrelevant, because 1 Enoch is just one attempt to interpret Genesis 6, and Jude/1-2 Peter reflect that common interpretation. The author of Genesis certainly had a reason for including this anecdote about the Nephilim, but it is lost to us today, and there is NO reason to use it as the basis of your argument for the “death of Neanderthals.” That would never have even crossed the author’s mind.[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying a few things about Jude…interesting.
At least your ‘Angel theory’ Meter has moved toward the center
King Kai…The first time I brought it up, loosely paraphrasing, but I recall you
said I was ‘WAY out of line’ with that theory, now all of a sudden you give it some
possibility, when not long ago you gave that no quarter whatsoever.
Nobody’s perfect, I’m always learning as well, really not a big deal, but I
really appreciate you answering questions in detail.

I ask tough questions anyway, Pat for example believes 100% in the 1917 Fatima
sighting and subsequent “Miracle of the Sun” in Portugal…I believe it
was most likely a satanic deception, Jesus never said he was gonna send his
mother down here for extra-biblical messages.
So, simple question for you King Kai… A simple Yes or No, was the 1917 Sighting
possibly…possibly a satanic deception in your opinion?
I think it was.
I’ve ask pat why he thinks this was true, but has been completely avoiding
answering the question, so maybe you may shed some light, In case there’s
a grander, much more epic “Sighting” in the future that millions may fall for,
but may be satanic as well.[/quote]

Do not presume to know what I do and do not believe outside of what I said. I have not told you what I believe about that. You have no right to say I did, because it’s a lie.

Speak only for yourself, not for me. I do not speak for you. I do not presume to speak for anybody but myself. Is that hard to mind your own damn business or is mine more interesting?

I am not dialoging with you on any matters because everything you have presented thus far is completely full of shit and devoid of fact. I haven’t the will, desire or time to correct it all. If you spent as much time downing fact as much as fallacy you would be very knowledgeable.

330

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Elohim hs the form of a plural but when it is used for a name of God it takes always the singular verb and constructions. Where the word takes the plural verb and constructions, it is understood to be the plural of eloah–important men, nobles, judges, magistrates, that sort of thing. And to KingKai, a very good grammarian himself, the definite article “ha” does indeed make a difference; the definite article is not used before the name of GOd, but it is used when speaking of a group of particular “nobles.” (i.e., ha=elohim never means The God; it means “the nobles.”)
[/quote]

[/quote]
You do notice that most–not all–the examples you cite use theat article when God assumes the objective case?
SO, I guess the interpretation is truly in the realm of context. Elohim means GOd when and where it makes sense; it means lords when and where it makes sense that way, too. (You will note that I was careful to say ha-elohim never means “The God.”)

[quote]

Oh I know we have broad areas of agreement. Thanks for the discussion.[/quote]

In light of the above, let us discuss the use of the words “us” and “our” in Gen 1:26.

Ready.

Set.

Go.[/quote]

Well it is thought that this is the first reference to the Trinity. The argument against the a counsel of angels or a heavenly counsel would be that man was made in God’s image, not the angels or God and the angels. There could be of course the counter claim that the angels were also made in the image and likeness of God and therefore that could also apply, except we have no information on that.
So for me, the Trinity explanation makes the most sense and relieves the most tension. We don’t have any evidence of angels or any kind of heavenly counsel being involved. It’s also not the only place the Trinity pops up in Genesis. It reappears in chapter 18.

331

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
“Karado, I thought we already covered this stuff? You are far too preoccupied with these relatively insignificant issues.”

Only insignificant if the “Sons Of God” in Genesis 6 were NOT Fallen Angels…If they were, it’s
a pretty big deal, Why? Because Jesus said before he returns, it will be like the days
Noah, which must mean the same precursors that transpired before the deluge, will happen
again, including the return of the nephilim.
[/quote]

You’re not reading Jesus’ words in the context. People who quote Matthew 24:37 in relation to some resurgence of the Nephilim fail to read Jesus’ explanation in verses 38-39 of what he means in 37. The FULL text (my translation from the Greek) reads, "As it was in the days of Noah, thus will the coming of the Son of man be. For as, in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, even up until the day Noah entered the ark, and not knowing anything until the flood came and took them all away - thus the coming of the Son of Man will be." The “for” at the beginning of verse 38 (gar in Greek) introduces an explanatory clause; it tells us that what comes next is Jesus’ explication of his claim in verse 37. Jesus’ point is NOT that everything will be the way it was in the pre-flood period, but rather that, just as the flood came unexpectedly, so Jesus will come unexpectedly. People will be going about their normal, everyday activities and planning for the future, but Jesus will disrupt all of that just like the flood did.

That this is the point of Christ’s comparison becomes even more clear when we read the verses that follow 37-39 - "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain; one will be taken and the other left. Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know what day your Lord is coming. But understand this: if the owner of the house had known what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and not let his house be broken into. So you must also be ready, because the Son of Man is coming at an hour your do not expect" (Matthew 24:40-44).

So you have to drop this “idle speculation.” Jesus actually warns in Matthew 24:45-51 (the end of the passage we just discussed) that the proper response to his statements about his return is diligence in service to the Lord. [/quote]

Understood…I will give that the benefit of the doubt, I like how you carefully
avoided Matthew 37 being a reference to the popular “Rapture” theory as well.
Anyway Jesus’ words in how you understand them is very interesting…here’s why.
If Jesus comes back when everything is pretty much ‘normal’, people eating,
drinking, and being merry, if you will…That totally decimates any common
belief that there will be some strange 7 year tribulation, it decimates the so-called “Rapture”
theory itself because that WILL disrupt people eating, drinking, and being Merry, etc.

Even I can see that, most Christians don’t, because HOW can a world remain normal like
Jesus said it would be then before his TOTALLY UNEXPECTED coming, if there’s
a theoretical, chaotic causing Rapture event here beforehand? Impossible.
Things will be, for all intents and purposes…normal!
No “warning”, No “beast” of Revelation either disrupting the eating, drinking and being
Merry part of of life Jesus said would be INTACT…Nothing hugely out of the ordinary then huh?
Is that it? In other words…(sorry)…Jack Van Impe’s Chronological end time events
he’s been spewing for decades is full of utter shit?
Is that it? Is that what they’re teaching in the Higher Learning Christian Intitutions,
basically the polar opposite of what Christian Television/Internet/Shortwave Radio is spewing to the Planet?

332

So Christ had a body before he had a body? You should be able to see the problem with that. In any case, this answer solves nothing and was really just the Early Church Fathers’ way of making sense of things that already made perfect sense to Jews. And we are NEVER given a detailed description of the appearances of ALL angelic begins; we are only ever privy to the appearances of a handful, and in many cases, angelic beings appear human-like (Genesis 19:1; Daniel 7:13, 8:15-17, 9:21, 10:4-7, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, Acts 12:15). There is nothing in Scripture to support your notion that the angels just “temporarily metamorphosed” into human form; in fact, we have ample evidence that the Israelites, and especially the Jews of Jesus’ time, believed that many angels were human-like in appearance. A huge portion of my graduate research has been on this particular topic; I’ve read dozens of primary (Second Temple Jewish texts) and secondary (scholarly dissertations, monographs, and articles) on this subject.

The Jews and ancient Israelites alike believed that God had no body, no appearance, NADA, whereas angels did have such an appearance. God alone is truly Spirit in the sense that he has no form at all. Consequently, Old Testament theophanies were explained as appearances by “the Angel of the Lord” or “the Glory of the Lord”, an angelic being who functions as God’s representative, being identified with God though simultaneously being distinct from him. For a clear example, see Zechariah 3:1-2, which literally reads, "And he (an angel) showed me Joshua, the high priest, standing before the Angel of Yahweh and the Accuser standing at his right side accusing him. [/i] But Yahweh said, “Yahweh rebuke you, Satan! May Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!” [/i] Here, in verse 1, we have two figures discussing the legitimacy of Joshua to be high priest. Does Yahweh’s voice suddenly echo from the heavens in verse 2? Well, that can’t be, because the voice speaks of Yahweh as if he is someone other than the speaker; more, he asks for Yahweh to rebuke Satan himself! Moreover, if that was Yahweh’s voice from heaven, why is the angel of the Lord mentioned at all? It makes perfect sense, however, once you recognize that the relationship between the Angel of the Lord and the God he represents is so strong that what the Angel of the Lord says, God himself says.

[quote]
I would have to disagree with angels being the second party in the “us” of 1:26. As I said, angels are created beings and have no creative power. God and God alone creates. The verse indicates more than a heavenly council; it indicates “co-creating.” The making of man “by committee” in vs 26 - 27 is active not merely contemplative.[/quote]

The notion of a divine council occurs several other times in Scripture (2 Chron. 18:18-22; Ps. 82:1), and there is no reason why “let us make man in our image” necessarily denotes co-responsibility for creation. God told Moses “lift up your rod and hold your arm over the sea and split it, so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground” (Ex. 14:16); God even asks Moses," why do you cry out to me?’ (Ex. 14:15) Did Moses split the sea, or did God? Obviously it was God, despite God’s language.

333

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Very Interesting.
Jude seemingly alludes to the sexual sins of the Angels anyway, comparing what they did
to the human sexual sins at Sodom…Jude sez the Bad Angels left their “first estate”, their original habitation, a big no-no…they broke the rules, also confirmed in the Book Of Enoch.

Compare “The Book Of The Watchers”, Enoch Chapter 7, to Genesis 6, It’s very similar…it seems to clear this up who the “Sons Of God” really were…they were Angels.
And yes, yes, I know it’s not Scripture, fine, but that doesn’t automatically mean it’s
false either…The Dead Sea Scrolls are the probably the most important find
of the 20th Century.

Enoch 7:1 It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.

Enoch 7:2 And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.

Enoch 7:3 Then their leader Samyaza said to them; I fear that you may perhaps be indisposed to the performance of this enterprise;

Enoch 7:4 And that I alone shall suffer for so grievous a crime.

Enoch 7:5 But they answered him and said; We all swear;

Enoch 7:6 And bind ourselves by mutual execrations, that we will not change our intention, but execute our projected undertaking.

And so it began…til the deluge, to wipe the resultant hybrids and nasty neandrathals out
of existence…allegedly.

[/quote]

Karado, I thought we already covered this stuff? You are far too preoccupied with these relatively insignificant issues.

There are only two legitimate possibilities; the whole “lines of Seth” theory is ahistorical nonsense. The distinction between the lines of Seth and Cain simply plays no significant role in the text. Either “sons of God” refers to angelic/semi-divine beings, which is far and away the dominant meaning of benai elohim in the Hebrew bible, or sons of God refers to kings, which is a common meaning of parallel phrases in other ANE languages. Either rendering is possible, and the Enochic literature, Jude, and 1-2 Peter are not independent attestations to the same event, but are rather interpretations of Genesis 6. Jude and 1-2 Peter reflect the same tradition of interpretation as the Enochic literature; all of these texts were written several centuries after Genesis.

Why does 1 Enoch 7 look so much like Genesis 6? Simple - 1 Enoch 7, written hundreds of years after Genesis, is rewriting the Genesis account in an attempt to provide an answer to some perplexing questions raised by Genesis 6, such as who the benai elohim were and why they are discussed in the same section as humanity’s evil state. The author of the Book of Watchers answers these questions by interpreting “the sons of God” as angels and interpreting their sin as the one that set the ball rolling with regard to the corruption of humanity. In other words, whereas Paul traces the clear sinfulness of humankind to Adam, the Book of Watchers presents the influence of fallen angels as the cause of humanity’s corruption. This sort of rewriting or expansion of sacred texts was done ALL THE TIME in Second Temple Judaism, and while such texts were not held as authoritative in the same way as the originals, they were highly influential in shaping the way Jews interpreted their sacred texts.

either option could be correct; the support of 1 Enoch or Jude or 1-2 Peter is irrelevant, because 1 Enoch is just one attempt to interpret Genesis 6, and Jude/1-2 Peter reflect that common interpretation. The author of Genesis certainly had a reason for including this anecdote about the Nephilim, but it is lost to us today, and there is NO reason to use it as the basis of your argument for the “death of Neanderthals.” That would never have even crossed the author’s mind.[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying a few things about Jude…interesting.
At least your ‘Angel theory’ Meter has moved toward the center
King Kai…The first time I brought it up, loosely paraphrasing, but I recall you
said I was ‘WAY out of line’ with that theory, now all of a sudden you give it some
possibility, when not long ago you gave that no quarter whatsoever.
Nobody’s perfect, I’m always learning as well, really not a big deal, but I
really appreciate you answering questions in detail.

I ask tough questions anyway, Pat for example believes 100% in the 1917 Fatima
sighting and subsequent “Miracle of the Sun” in Portugal…I believe it
was most likely a satanic deception, Jesus never said he was gonna send his
mother down here for extra-biblical messages.
So, simple question for you King Kai… A simple Yes or No, was the 1917 Sighting
possibly…possibly a satanic deception in your opinion?
I think it was.
I’ve ask pat why he thinks this was true, but has been completely avoiding
answering the question, so maybe you may shed some light, In case there’s
a grander, much more epic “Sighting” in the future that millions may fall for,
but may be satanic as well.[/quote]

Do not presume to know what I do and do not believe outside of what I said. I have not told you what I believe about that. You have no right to say I did, because it’s a lie.

Speak only for yourself, not for me. I do not speak for you. I do not presume to speak for anybody but myself. Is that hard to mind your own damn business or is mine more interesting?

I am not dialoging with you on any matters because everything you have presented thus far is completely full of shit and devoid of fact. I haven’t the will, desire or time to correct it all. If you spent as much time downing fact as much as fallacy you would be very knowledgeable. [/quote]

Now now Pat, I must say when I simply asked you about it, you said you believed it,
but you failed to elaborate why you believed it several times. I am curious if there’s
something YOU know about The 1917 Fatima sighting NO ONE else knows about, but your lack
of elaboration about why you believe it after several attempts forced me to ask SOMEONE ELSE about it, at least an opinion about it to see if it any way lined up with Scripture
in any way because it reeks of a possible deception.
See how that works? I’m surprised you didn’t see that coming, seeing how you obviously
know I’m inquisitive about things even to the point of annoyance quite often.

You should have been upfront from the git-go about it, but you weren’t, I gave you
the chance to explain yourself so maybe we can all learn something, but you refused.
So there.

334

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So try Ex 22:8
“For any sinful word, for a bull, for a donkey, for a lamb, for a garment, for any lost article, concerning which he will say that this is it, the plea[s] of both parties shall come to the judges, [and] whoever the judges declare guilty shall pay twofold to his neighbor.”
Elohim occurs twice here, once with the definite article and once without. Both in the plural, and both understood to mean “judges” or “dignitaries.”
[/quote]

I thought this might be the sort of text you were referring to. This example doesn’t actually prove your point at all, Doc - it is too highly debatable. First of all, though the pointing suggests a 3rd common plural subject, the letters of the yarshi’un do not. Indeed, without the paragogic nun, one would assume this was a Hiphil imperfect 3rd SINGULAR rather than plural. Indeed, the Septuagint (the original Greek translation of the pentateuch), which follows its source text closely, takes the verb as a singular. Consequently, many scholars maintain that the MT here is corrupt and should be emended. THe JPS translation actually follows this line of reasoning, as does the ESV and the 2011 NIV. More importantly, however, this same notion of “appearing before God” for judgment occurs earlier in Exodus (Ex. 18:15, 18:19 (note the same el-ha-elohim (to God) construction as in 22:7 in the same judicial context), as well as in other ancient Near Eastern texts. In such contexts, “coming to God” to resolve a dispute meant going to the judges or prophetic figures (i.e., Moses) and letting God decide the case (as, for example, in Ex. 22:10, where the outcome of an oath uttered before/ by Yahweh determines an individual’s guilt).

In this context, therefore, elohim does not DENOTE judges; it merely CONNOTES them, and ONLY in this context. Consequently, you cannot use this single example as proof that “judges” is within the semantic range of the word elohim, and there is thus no basis for including “judges” as a potential meaning of the word in Genesis 6. It is only in judicial contexts like this where elohim CONNOTES “judges,” but even in such contexts, it still means God (i.e., in Israelite religion, God is the ultimate arbiter of all disputes).[/quote]

Now THAT is a cosiderable stretch or I am more clever than I thought.

Look at the context of the verse, Ex 22:." 6. If a man gives his neighbor money or articles for safekeeping, and it is stolen from the man’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay twofold. 7. If the thief is not found, the homeowner shall approach the judges, [to swear] that he has not laid his hand upon his neighbor’s property."

Do you really think, in this context, The Law is written to propel a homeowner (appointed custodian to another’s property) to appear before God, or before earthly judges? So follows verse 8, and so on. How many Israelites could appear directly before God? THe High Priest, on rare occasion, maybe.

No, the word here, in context, is judges. Elohim can mean judges in the right context. It can mean God in the right context.

Now then, did it occur to you that the Septuagint is in error?
Targum Onkelos is of similar vintage (a little younger, perhaps), and perhaps as close to the source texts, and definitely more in tune to the vocabulary than the Septuagint. I just so happen to have my Targum Onkelos, and although my Aramaic is a bit rusty, there is no question that Ex 22:8 is referring to courts and judges (din’) and not to God. None. Whatsoever.

335

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

So Christ had a body before he had a body? You should be able to see the problem with that. In any case, this answer solves nothing and was really just the Early Church Fathers’ way of making sense of things that already made perfect sense to Jews. And we are NEVER given a detailed description of the appearances of ALL angelic begins; we are only ever privy to the appearances of a handful, and in many cases, angelic beings appear human-like (Genesis 19:1; Daniel 7:13, 8:15-17, 9:21, 10:4-7, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, Acts 12:15). There is nothing in Scripture to support your notion that the angels just “temporarily metamorphosed” into human form; in fact, we have ample evidence that the Israelites, and especially the Jews of Jesus’ time, believed that many angels were human-like in appearance. A huge portion of my graduate research has been on this particular topic; I’ve read dozens of primary (Second Temple Jewish texts) and secondary (scholarly dissertations, monographs, and articles) on this subject.

The Jews and ancient Israelites alike believed that God had no body, no appearance, NADA, whereas angels did have such an appearance. God alone is truly Spirit in the sense that he has no form at all. Consequently, Old Testament theophanies were explained as appearances by “the Angel of the Lord” or “the Glory of the Lord”, an angelic being who functions as God’s representative, being identified with God though simultaneously being distinct from him. For a clear example, see Zechariah 3:1-2, which literally reads, "And he (an angel) showed me Joshua, the high priest, standing before the Angel of Yahweh and the Accuser standing at his right side accusing him. [/i] But Yahweh said, “Yahweh rebuke you, Satan! May Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!” [/i] Here, in verse 1, we have two figures discussing the legitimacy of Joshua to be high priest. Does Yahweh’s voice suddenly echo from the heavens in verse 2? Well, that can’t be, because the voice speaks of Yahweh as if he is someone other than the speaker; more, he asks for Yahweh to rebuke Satan himself! Moreover, if that was Yahweh’s voice from heaven, why is the angel of the Lord mentioned at all? It makes perfect sense, however, once you recognize that the relationship between the Angel of the Lord and the God he represents is so strong that what the Angel of the Lord says, God himself says.

Good one, KK!

The Trinity as a concept is not native here, it is imposed upon the text from without.
As much as you, KK, are a Rashi-skeptic, I will restrain myself to this commentary on the issue, and hope that it offends no one:

“Let us make man: Even though they [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel (to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies), Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one. Had it been written: â??I shall make man,â?? we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself. And the refutation to the heretics is written alongside it [i. e., in the following verse:]â??And God created (×?Ö·×?Ö´Ö¼×?ְרָ×?) ,â?? and it does not say,â??and they created ×?Ö·×?Ö´Ö¼×?ְרְ×?×?Ö¼.â?? - [from Gen. Rabbah 8:9]”

(Note: God alone, and not a committee, creates.)

I will not comment here on the distinction between the word for “image” and that for “form.”

But I would like to quote a remarkable observation from Sforno on v 27:

"In the image of God. The term Elohim used in a comparable sense can be applied to every intlelligent force separated from matter which is perfect and…everlasting. Therefore, this term is used regarding God, the Blessed One, and His angels. It is also applied to judges reflecting their power of reason which is suitable for them…Nonetheless, before man contemplates and thinks deeply, lacking the perfection and completeness prepared for him, he cannot be called Elohim, but can only be called ‘the image of Elohim.’…Now since man can choose to attain this perfection…if he restrains himself from this perfection, his intellectual powers will remain only potential…resulting in desolation and destruction. "Man is in his splendor but does not understand; he is like the beasts that perish.’ (Ps 49:21)
“All this, God, the Blessed One, taught us in these two words, saying ‘in the image of Elohim.’”

336

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I guess my biggest problem with the RCC is the claim that the Church chooses who goes to heaven and who doesn’t.[/quote]

Where does the Church claim this?[/quote]

Then how does one go to heaven in the Catholic Church?[/quote]

Have to be saved, which means one has to be in a state of grace when one dies. This has nothing to do with if the Church chooses you to go to Heaven. If they could, I’m sure they’d choose everyone since that is the mission of Jesus…to save the world.[/quote]

When Jesus spoke to Peter about whatever he binds here will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose here will be loosed in heaven mean?[/quote]

Good question. I know very little about the full understanding of this passage. I know it deals with doctrine and sin.

Doctrine in proclaiming what should be believed by Christians (this is seemingly dangerous, but that is why Jesus gave the Church the Holy Ghost to guide the Church in matters of faith and morals) and forgiving sins in the rite of reconciliation that Paul speaks of in his Epistles… [/quote]

I have been horrendously sick the past couple of days, but would like to ask. What is the definition of the church? Who is the church?[/quote]

There is a lot of definitions, however there are three that are found to be proper.

St. Gregory explained the Church as, “The saints before the Law, the saints under the Law, and the saints under grace – all these are constituted members of the Church” - CHURCH FATHERS: Registrum Epistolarum, Book V, Letter 18 (Gregory the Great)

That is the first, the second is the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant; or, the communion of saints.

The third, is the Church Militant of the New Testament. This is the most varied use of the word Church, it can denote a community of believers in a locality, a household, the leaders, the followers. “In all these cases the name belonging to the whole is applied to a part. The term, in its full meaning, denotes the whole body of the faithful, both rulers and ruled, throughout the world (Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:18).” - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Church

337

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

When was the New Testament Canonized? Who Canonized it?[/quote]

I do not deny that the Catholic Church cannonized the Bible. What I do question is when the Roman Catholic Church started using the Latin translation it took the word out of the hands of the common man, and it was distorted to concentrate the power in the Roman Catholic Church. Many nasty things have been done in the name of God by the Catholic Church. All of this happened during the time the people had no access to the Bible in their native language. Only the Priests could read and interpret the Bible.[/quote]

At the time they did it, it was the language of the common man, much more so that greek and hebrew. You can look at the original Vulgate as like a Rosetta Stone. Had the text been lost, it could have been recreated and translated using latin.

EDIT: Of course the fact that it didn’t matter what language it was in because the majority of the people were illiterate anyway is also a good point. Of course, not with standing the last 100 -200 years.
People do forget that literacy, historically was not common and we are very fortunate.[/quote]

Historically not common? Brother 68% of the world is still illiterate, been slacking on your Matthew Kelley? :wink:

338

[quote]Karado wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Very Interesting.
Jude seemingly alludes to the sexual sins of the Angels anyway, comparing what they did
to the human sexual sins at Sodom…Jude sez the Bad Angels left their “first estate”, their original habitation, a big no-no…they broke the rules, also confirmed in the Book Of Enoch.

Compare “The Book Of The Watchers”, Enoch Chapter 7, to Genesis 6, It’s very similar…it seems to clear this up who the “Sons Of God” really were…they were Angels.
And yes, yes, I know it’s not Scripture, fine, but that doesn’t automatically mean it’s
false either…The Dead Sea Scrolls are the probably the most important find
of the 20th Century.

Enoch 7:1 It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.

Enoch 7:2 And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.

Enoch 7:3 Then their leader Samyaza said to them; I fear that you may perhaps be indisposed to the performance of this enterprise;

Enoch 7:4 And that I alone shall suffer for so grievous a crime.

Enoch 7:5 But they answered him and said; We all swear;

Enoch 7:6 And bind ourselves by mutual execrations, that we will not change our intention, but execute our projected undertaking.

And so it began…til the deluge, to wipe the resultant hybrids and nasty neandrathals out
of existence…allegedly.

[/quote]

Karado, I thought we already covered this stuff? You are far too preoccupied with these relatively insignificant issues.

There are only two legitimate possibilities; the whole “lines of Seth” theory is ahistorical nonsense. The distinction between the lines of Seth and Cain simply plays no significant role in the text. Either “sons of God” refers to angelic/semi-divine beings, which is far and away the dominant meaning of benai elohim in the Hebrew bible, or sons of God refers to kings, which is a common meaning of parallel phrases in other ANE languages. Either rendering is possible, and the Enochic literature, Jude, and 1-2 Peter are not independent attestations to the same event, but are rather interpretations of Genesis 6. Jude and 1-2 Peter reflect the same tradition of interpretation as the Enochic literature; all of these texts were written several centuries after Genesis.

Why does 1 Enoch 7 look so much like Genesis 6? Simple - 1 Enoch 7, written hundreds of years after Genesis, is rewriting the Genesis account in an attempt to provide an answer to some perplexing questions raised by Genesis 6, such as who the benai elohim were and why they are discussed in the same section as humanity’s evil state. The author of the Book of Watchers answers these questions by interpreting “the sons of God” as angels and interpreting their sin as the one that set the ball rolling with regard to the corruption of humanity. In other words, whereas Paul traces the clear sinfulness of humankind to Adam, the Book of Watchers presents the influence of fallen angels as the cause of humanity’s corruption. This sort of rewriting or expansion of sacred texts was done ALL THE TIME in Second Temple Judaism, and while such texts were not held as authoritative in the same way as the originals, they were highly influential in shaping the way Jews interpreted their sacred texts.

either option could be correct; the support of 1 Enoch or Jude or 1-2 Peter is irrelevant, because 1 Enoch is just one attempt to interpret Genesis 6, and Jude/1-2 Peter reflect that common interpretation. The author of Genesis certainly had a reason for including this anecdote about the Nephilim, but it is lost to us today, and there is NO reason to use it as the basis of your argument for the “death of Neanderthals.” That would never have even crossed the author’s mind.[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying a few things about Jude…interesting.
At least your ‘Angel theory’ Meter has moved toward the center
King Kai…The first time I brought it up, loosely paraphrasing, but I recall you
said I was ‘WAY out of line’ with that theory, now all of a sudden you give it some
possibility, when not long ago you gave that no quarter whatsoever.
Nobody’s perfect, I’m always learning as well, really not a big deal, but I
really appreciate you answering questions in detail.

I ask tough questions anyway, Pat for example believes 100% in the 1917 Fatima
sighting and subsequent “Miracle of the Sun” in Portugal…I believe it
was most likely a satanic deception, Jesus never said he was gonna send his
mother down here for extra-biblical messages.
So, simple question for you King Kai… A simple Yes or No, was the 1917 Sighting
possibly…possibly a satanic deception in your opinion?
I think it was.
I’ve ask pat why he thinks this was true, but has been completely avoiding
answering the question, so maybe you may shed some light, In case there’s
a grander, much more epic “Sighting” in the future that millions may fall for,
but may be satanic as well.[/quote]

Do not presume to know what I do and do not believe outside of what I said. I have not told you what I believe about that. You have no right to say I did, because it’s a lie.

Speak only for yourself, not for me. I do not speak for you. I do not presume to speak for anybody but myself. Is that hard to mind your own damn business or is mine more interesting?

I am not dialoging with you on any matters because everything you have presented thus far is completely full of shit and devoid of fact. I haven’t the will, desire or time to correct it all. If you spent as much time downing fact as much as fallacy you would be very knowledgeable. [/quote]

Now now Pat, I must say when I simply asked you about it, you said you believed it,
but you failed to elaborate why you believed it several times. I am curious if there’s
something YOU know about The 1917 Fatima sighting NO ONE else knows about, but your lack
of elaboration about why you believe it after several attempts forced me to ask SOMEONE ELSE about it, at least an opinion about it to see if it any way lined up with Scripture
in any way because it reeks of a possible deception.
See how that works? I’m surprised you didn’t see that coming, seeing how you obviously
know I’m inquisitive about things even to the point of annoyance quite often.

You should have been upfront from the git-go about it, but you weren’t, I gave you
the chance to explain yourself so maybe we can all learn something, but you refused.
So there. [/quote]

I never said anything. Do not presume you can speak for me. I left all your questions unanswered.
I’d be happy to discuss it with somebody who is able to discern fact from fiction, which you are not. I will not be discussing it with you. Stick to your conspiracy theories and occultism.

339

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

So Christ had a body before he had a body? You should be able to see the problem with that. In any case, this answer solves nothing and was really just the Early Church Fathers’ way of making sense of things that already made perfect sense to Jews. And we are NEVER given a detailed description of the appearances of ALL angelic begins; we are only ever privy to the appearances of a handful, and in many cases, angelic beings appear human-like (Genesis 19:1; Daniel 7:13, 8:15-17, 9:21, 10:4-7, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, Acts 12:15). There is nothing in Scripture to support your notion that the angels just “temporarily metamorphosed” into human form; in fact, we have ample evidence that the Israelites, and especially the Jews of Jesus’ time, believed that many angels were human-like in appearance. A huge portion of my graduate research has been on this particular topic; I’ve read dozens of primary (Second Temple Jewish texts) and secondary (scholarly dissertations, monographs, and articles) on this subject.

The Jews and ancient Israelites alike believed that God had no body, no appearance, NADA, whereas angels did have such an appearance. God alone is truly Spirit in the sense that he has no form at all. Consequently, Old Testament theophanies were explained as appearances by “the Angel of the Lord” or “the Glory of the Lord”, an angelic being who functions as God’s representative, being identified with God though simultaneously being distinct from him. For a clear example, see Zechariah 3:1-2, which literally reads, "And he (an angel) showed me Joshua, the high priest, standing before the Angel of Yahweh and the Accuser standing at his right side accusing him. [/i] But Yahweh said, “Yahweh rebuke you, Satan! May Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!” [/i] Here, in verse 1, we have two figures discussing the legitimacy of Joshua to be high priest. Does Yahweh’s voice suddenly echo from the heavens in verse 2? Well, that can’t be, because the voice speaks of Yahweh as if he is someone other than the speaker; more, he asks for Yahweh to rebuke Satan himself! Moreover, if that was Yahweh’s voice from heaven, why is the angel of the Lord mentioned at all? It makes perfect sense, however, once you recognize that the relationship between the Angel of the Lord and the God he represents is so strong that what the Angel of the Lord says, God himself says.

Good one, KK!

The Trinity as a concept is not native here, it is imposed upon the text from without.
[/quote]
I don’t think that really matters. Much of our understand of Biblical texts are imposed from without. That doesn’t mean that the Trinity was not invoked.

[quote]
As much as you, KK, are a Rashi-skeptic, I will restrain myself to this commentary on the issue, and hope that it offends no one:

“Let us make man: Even though they [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel (to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies), Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one. Had it been written: Ã?¢??I shall make man,Ã?¢?? we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself. And the refutation to the heretics is written alongside it [i. e., in the following verse:]Ã?¢??And God created ,Ã?¢?? and it does not say,Ã?¢??and they created - [from Gen. Rabbah 8:9]”

(Note: God alone, and not a committee, creates.)

I will not comment here on the distinction between the word for “image” and that for “form.”

But I would like to quote a remarkable observation from Sforno on v 27:

"In the image of God. The term Elohim used in a comparable sense can be applied to every intlelligent force separated from matter which is perfect and…everlasting. Therefore, this term is used regarding God, the Blessed One, and His angels. It is also applied to judges reflecting their power of reason which is suitable for them…Nonetheless, before man contemplates and thinks deeply, lacking the perfection and completeness prepared for him, he cannot be called Elohim, but can only be called ‘the image of Elohim.’…Now since man can choose to attain this perfection…if he restrains himself from this perfection, his intellectual powers will remain only potential…resulting in desolation and destruction. "Man is in his splendor but does not understand; he is like the beasts that perish.’ (Ps 49:21)
“All this, God, the Blessed One, taught us in these two words, saying ‘in the image of Elohim.’”[/quote]

I would argue this observation is imposed from without as well. Nothing between 1:1 and 1:26 gives any indications of counsels, judges or angels.

340

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

When was the New Testament Canonized? Who Canonized it?[/quote]

I do not deny that the Catholic Church cannonized the Bible. What I do question is when the Roman Catholic Church started using the Latin translation it took the word out of the hands of the common man, and it was distorted to concentrate the power in the Roman Catholic Church. Many nasty things have been done in the name of God by the Catholic Church. All of this happened during the time the people had no access to the Bible in their native language. Only the Priests could read and interpret the Bible.[/quote]

At the time they did it, it was the language of the common man, much more so that greek and hebrew. You can look at the original Vulgate as like a Rosetta Stone. Had the text been lost, it could have been recreated and translated using latin.

EDIT: Of course the fact that it didn’t matter what language it was in because the majority of the people were illiterate anyway is also a good point. Of course, not with standing the last 100 -200 years.
People do forget that literacy, historically was not common and we are very fortunate.[/quote]

Historically not common? Brother 68% of the world is still illiterate, been slacking on your Matthew Kelley? ;)[/quote]

Good Point.