Posted on 11/20/2009 12:00:11 PM PST by markomalley
So the KJV translators of the Masoretic and Received Texts didn't understand the limitations of what they were translating and were ignorant of the background of the texts...AND your Catholic translators of the Alexandrian Texts were guilty of the same failures to recognize the limitations, including good ole Jerome, eh???
But NOW, you guys got it right...Finally...
Well good...Make us up a first time ever completely accurate translation of the scriptures into English...You obviously have the means, and apparently have the knowledge...I can hardly wait...
What, you got tired of hanging around the belfry???
I’ve done extensive research and reading on the subject and I am not catholic...
I believe the shroud is the REAL THING
Praise God
Now where is that claim? Post a link to NYer making that claim.
...But yet, you can't reconcile your religion with the scriptures...
Actually, neither NYer nor anyone else cannot reconcile Catholicism with your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
And so what?
...your own Catholic translations...
Is it your understanding that Swordmaker is Catholic?
Bookmarked for later use.
Cheers!
Thank you for the ping to an excellent explanation. I would add that the Greek used to express the burial clothes seen in the tomb also indicate that the wrappings/bindings were not unwrapped for Jesus to leave them, and were seen still looking as if they were the sahpe of a man.
The poster works for his father ... tirelessly, apparently. Some scum are better ignored since they enjoy insulting and ridiculing you and your faith.
Other scum are fun to prove wrong again and again and again.
Read Barrie Schwortz’s account of this on this thread.
He was a scientist on the 1978 team to examine the Shroud and is a foremost expert on “all things Shroud”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2391848/posts
I'm not in the dark about it...God is the pillar and ground of the truth...NOT your religion...
You mean when it doesn't line up with scripture??? Yep, every time...
No, we don't, and no, I haven't, but the New Testement was certainly not written in English in 1611. It is also certain that the state of both archaeology and historical and Biblical scholarship is higher today than it was in 1611 and that Biblical exigesis takes a greater cogniscence of Jewish cultural and traditional practices than were known about or given consideration when the King James Bible was translated/written. We have Greek version of the Gospels from the third and fourth Centuries that are in agreement, many from the Eastern Orthodox churches as well as Gnostic sources, that use similar terms, that are far closer in time to the original source material than any English translation you want to rely on.
Scholars are much more aware today of the usage of words in common Greek because there is a large surviving pool of works in Greek of the period that can be used for comparison. Othonia and othonion are very seldom used to describe bandage type strips; it is not even a secondary definition for the words, so why, except for the prevalence of finding thousands of Egyptian mummies buried wrapped in such strips and mis-attributing Egyptian customs to Jewish customs, would one elect to assume the very rare Greek usage Othonia as strips of cloth rather than the much more common Greek usage of a large sheet? It's a confabulation by people who did not have as much information as we have today.
Unless of course it could refer to a single roll of strips sewn together...I am amazed at the length you guys will go to, to discredit the authority of the scriptures...
And I'm amazed at the lengths you will go to ignore the authority of the other three Gospels which refer to the Sindon, a word meaning a large, fine woven cloth which is reported to have been used in all three accounts. . . merely so you can selectively ignore a commonly used Greek word for Grave Clothes that was inclusive of all things used, including the common use of a shroud. Can you find any citation at all where othonia has ever referred to a "single roll of cloth strips sewn together?" I think you just made that one up.
One example??? And you know for certain it was from the first century??? That picture doesn't look lAnd it also mean a towel...And a handkerchief...And, a napkin...ike it ever had a couple of tons of rocks and dirt on top of the corpse...
Good grief! One is sufficient for our purpose here. This is just the best example of quite a few. However, most Jewish bodies were allowed to decompose and their bones were then collected by their family members and placed into the central ossuuary, the "bone pit," where they were joined with their ancestors. And, yes, it IS a 1st Century Jewish burial, it was Carbon dated. Just because it doesn't meet your prejudices doesn't make it wrong. As I stated. NOT ONE Jewish burial has ever been found that has presented a body wound up in strips or bandages of cloth. Such a procedure is time consuming and counter to the intent of long standing written tradition. Find even ONE body from Herodian or prior Palestine Jewish burials that was "wound" or "wrapped" in strips of cloth sewn together. They have never been found.
Obviously there are translators who disagree with you... And because you disagree with them, that makes you right???
Not too many modern ones. Even the translators of the New King James Version Bible have dropped the translation of "wound" for the more correct "bound" based on a much greater understanding of Greek word usage that found that Greek speakers and writers of the period never used that word in the other way the KJV translated it. Why do you think that because you agree with someone who chose a word in 1611 it makes you right??? Especially when modern translators are correcting the error in newer translations, and providing strong evidence, historically, culturally, linguistcally, and archaeologically for doing so?
And it also mean a towel...And a handkerchief...And, a napkin...
Actually, no, it doesn't, but there were no exact single word translations for soudarion in English so approximations were used to convey a meaning that would be understandable to English speakers who were familiar with handkerchiefs, napkins, and towels.
Here's your own Catholic bible. . .
My Catholic bible? Heh. I'm not Catholic.
So what did they do with the salves and spices??? They had a hundred pounds of this stuff...Did they put a 2" layer on Jesus' body and then roll him in the sheet??? And how then did blood stains appear thru the thick mass of salve to penetrate the shroud and make a 'negative'???
My, my, you do read a lot into a few lines of scripture, don't you. 2"? Thick mass? Talk about reading what you want to see there. Do you think they used English weight measures?
Well you tell us...The brand New Catholic NAB says a hundred lbs as well as uses the plural words 'cloths' for your shroud...The NIV says 75 lbs...That's still a heap a weight...
How much weight was it then???
It's one thing to change scripture to line up with your personal beliefs but your change has to line up with other scripture that you don't change...Or it gets revealed as phony...
If you have a shroud which is a single piece of cloth even when all the versions says it is cloths, and a hundred pounds of spices, wet and dry, which would be more than 10 gallons, how do you get blood beyond the salve to soak into the cloth to create a negative???
Even 10 pounds of salve would likely make it impossible...
Plus,,,the idea is that Jesus body was cleaned before the buriel...Dead bodies don't bleed...Plus,,,all the blood was drained out...Where do you get the blood for the shroud???
So explain that before you start correcting what others have learned over the past few hundred years...
Thanks for the ping
That's a strawman argument you are spouting, IsCool. Read what I and others have written. None of us have asserted that the Shroud was the ONLY cloth associated with the burial of Jesus. In fact, I can specify at least three other pieces of cloth in addition to the Shroud used in the burial of the Man on the Shroud. The cloth bindings at the ankles and wrists, to keep the limbs from flopping, and the binding around the face to keep the mouth closed. These are written of and required parts of the funeral preparations in the Mishnah, the written book of rules for Judaism... as is a shroud. Why would these observant Jews ignore these requirements of Jewish tradition to suddenly take up Egyptian swaddling mummy bandaging which is nowhere mentioned in the Mishnah?
As to what's in the scriptures, Iscool. exactly where is the "salve"??? Please show it to me in the scriptures. Where does it say "wet and dry"? How about finding "cloths" in the Synoptic Gospels? Exactly... Oh. they are not there.
The Synoptics all mention a singular σινδονι (sindoni), a fine, large cloth, that was used to wrap Jesus. John doesn't... instead John uses the more generic and inclusive οθονιοις (othoniois), plural, for Grave Clothes... as in "garments," meaning items to cover the body, not just the plural of the word "cloth."
How much weight was it then???
The Greek texts report that Nicodemus brought λιτρας εκατον (litras ekatov), litra hundred... libra 100= or 100 Roman pounds = 100 lb. (Although, I suspect that being a Jew, if Nicodemus bought the spices that day, he probably bartered for them in hebrew measurements... he may have already had them on hand... we just don't know.)
But a Litra (the word that is also the root of our modern liter) or Roman Libra was equal to ~327 grams, or ~.72 English pounds. So, what's this!!?? The inerrant King James Bible has made a mistake in translation?!... translating the Greek common usage λιτρας εκατον, denoting 100 Roman pounds (c. 33 AD), as being the English common usage 100 English (c. 1611) pounds... at least that is what was understood by the English speaking peoples of the world who read it. Yes, they did. That's why modern translators are now translating that amount into English as the more accurate common usage (c. 21st Century AD) of "about 75 pounds." Similarly, they are translating the KJV errant "wound (wind)" to the more accurate "bound (bind)." If you can't handle errata and the need to correct it, too bad.
Plus,,,the idea is that Jesus body was cleaned before the buriel...
I am now understanding that you really don't know what you are talking about. I suggest you might want to do some reading from the peer reviewed scientific articles that have been written by leading forensic scientists about the Shroud of Turin. You can find many of them at Shroud.com's repository of scientific and scholarly papers. You can also find a wealth of information and facts that may challenge your certainty about facts that happen to be untrue at fellow Freeper Shroudie's Shroud Forum and his Historical Jesus Quest site. At least then you would be spouting such whoppers as "Dead bodies don't bleed...Plus,,,all the blood was drained out...Where do you get the blood for the shroud???" Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D., Ph.D., Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology, Columbia University, College of Physicians & Surgeons, N.Y. Chief Medical Examiner, Rockland County, N.Y. (Retired), would disagree with your conclusion that "dead bodies don't bleed." There are lots of work on post mortem blood flows, the nature of the blood stains that flowed from the apparent wounds on the on the image on the Shroud... and even studies of the blood itself done by some of the world's foremost experts on blood, blood serums, its derivatives, and antecedents, such as papers by Dr. John Heller, Dr. Alan Adler, Dr. Bruce Cameron, all world renowned experts on blood and blood fractions... all of whom agree that it is blood... and it did indeed flow from a dead body. By the way, Dr. Zugibe would agree with you that Jesus' body was washed...
So explain that before you start correcting what others have learned over the past few hundred years...
My explanations of all of that are already on FreeRepublic for all to see... and have been here for years. Do a Google search for "Shroud of Turin +Swordmaker site:freerepublic.com" and you will find hundreds of annotated, linked to peer reviewed scientific articles, footnoted, and backup with up-to-date accurate data posts, that is based on hundreds of years of scholarship, historical, scientific, archaeological, and exegetical research of what has been learned about the Shroud of Turin. I follow the science and the research. You might want to review that before you dismiss what I have to say on this subject after the almost 40 years of study I have put into it.
To 33 - Google: ‘Tanakh’
Thank you; good, informative read.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.