Posted on 06/18/2013 2:17:31 AM PDT by dr.proctor
Which occurred first (in chronology)........and the reason you believe that?
[Acts 10:14-28] ....or......[Galatians 2:12]?
According to Gal. 2:1 it appears that Paul confronted Peter some 14 years after the events in Acts which occurred soon after Saul became Paul.
The passage about Cornelius in Acts is given to show how the Jewish Christians began to realize that the Gospel was intended for Gentiles as well as Jews.
In the Galatian passage, the church in Antioch already had Gentile believers. Peter’s problem there was that he submitted to peer pressure from Jewish believers and stopped eating with Gentile believers. So, even though he was the first of the apostles to take the Gospel to Gentiles, he had human weaknesses. The Jews who came from James were probably very persuasive. Yes, they probably said to him, the Gentiles can be Christians, but that doesn’t mean that Jews should eat with them.
May I reccomend a good study bible?
A good study Bible will have an introduction for each book introduction that helps to put everything in context.
The ESV Study Bible is very good. As a Reformed Christian I like the Reformation Study Bible (ESV) and the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible(NIV).
Don’t look for a themed one, such as the “Men’s Study Bible” or the Addict’s Study Bible.” While I suppose such Study Bibles are useful to some folks, they dont bring the scope of Scripture into focus.
May God richly bless you on your journey.
Might I humbly suggest getting a Strong’s Concordance to help with the translation of words found in the Bible?
Some Bible translations are very different—”air” and “breath”, for instance; two totally different translations that can be very confusing. (I am trying to study, as well, so will say no more. May God bless us all in our studies.)
(1) SPECIFIC HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Including the events of which you write)
(2) PROGRESSIVE REVELATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF N. T. BOOKS
Important bookmark.
For anyone interested in in-depth Bible study, here’s an incredible treasure trove of free, verse-by-verse Bible study resources that may be of interest:
Notes:
http://www.divineviewpoint.com/sane/dbm/
Audio/video/slides:
http://deanbible.org/andromeda.php?q=f&f=%2FAudio+Files
Index:
http://deanbible.org/rldindex.doc
Live-stream free classes on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays:
http://deanbible.org/index.php
Under “Specific Highlights of the NT” it’s got these people:
Kohrnáyleeohs
Kaisáh-reheeah
Pohtéeohloi
Huh? Sounds like Swahili to me. Is this a foreign professor that compiles this list? Why is it he uses English elsewhere in his study, but not here?
Sounds like Swahili to me.
Nah, not Swahili. Koine Greek. Dr. Wittman is kind of a nut on correct pronunciation of proper nouns--names, places, religious divisions--and he likes to carry it into his writings. Most of these Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek names when Anglicized would sound strange to the ear tuned to studying these languages.
Personally (and I've been a student of his for many years) I've thought that often this is not particularly relevant to the issue or doctrine addressed, just a sort of idiosyncrasy. I've gotten over holding it against him, and have learned a lot of the flavor of the culture in Bible times.
Let me suggest that allowing this to develop into an adversarial block will not help us learn what we can from the details that were carefully and exhaustively researched and freely presented for our benefit.
But to give an example I find interesting, look at the OT name of the great prophet whose moniker the AV spells "Elijah." You and I would customarily pronounce that as "Eh- or Ee-lye-dzhyah." But that would not be the way a German (to whom J sounds like our Y) would say it, but as "Eh-lee-yah." And that IIRC would pretty much be the way a Hebrew-speaker would say it.
Similarly, if you read the Greek text about John the Baptizer, who was taken to be a herald of the Messiah, a first-century-revived Elijah--which is spelled in Greek in the nominative case--Ελιας; and pronounced, (beginning with a glottal stop) "Eh-lee-ah-ss." Not quite Hebrew, especially if the noun is declined into another case, eh?
So what Wittman insists is pretty much the Hellenized pronunciation of proper nouns. Definitely, a preference, not a requirement upon which one ought to insist (unless you want an A in the course, eh?).
However, if I was Κορνηλιος, and I was in Heaven, and an American from the 21st Century came there and net me, I'd expect to be introduced as "Kohr-NAY-lee-ohs," not "Kor-KNEEL-yuhs," wouldn't I? And, to be proper, the American would have to relearn my name and say it right, eh?
So, the underlying thought of this master teacher's use of these pronunciations is a thoughtful hint that if you and I learn them here under his tutelage, we won't have to relearn them in Heaven (making us think our earthly instructor was unlearned also), lest we appear to be rubes needing acculturation to the way things are done there.
Capisce?
You do know, don't you, that the languages of heaven will be Hebrew, Aramaic, and the precise Koine Greek (with a few borrowed words)? that we need to be able to communicate without having to learn a thousand languages, dialects, local nuances, and idioms? and that what we don't advantage ourselves of learning here about Bible doctrines will have to be learned there before we can progress? Hmmm?
Respectfully --
Thanks for explaining. As to languages, it was God who confounded speech at the tower of Babel, remember. If he hadn’t we would have the one world globalism the leftists want a long time ago. Better diversity with its problems than one world language, one world religion, etc., the way I see it.
As to a common language in heaven, don’t know about all that. I am Historic Premillennialist, which believes this earth is the destiny of the saints (Rev. 20), not heaven...floating around on clouds, playing harps, as some artists have pictured it.
Paul's confrontation with Peter seems to have happened much later in Antioch. Paul was based in Damascus early on after his conversion. No mention of Antioch. He was smuggled out in a basket from Damasus shortly after conversion, went to Arabia, back to Damascus , then to Jerusalam and then home to Tarsus.
He is not spoken of as going to Antioch until Barnabas goes to Tarsus and gets him later on. That is when he likely has the confrontation with Peter.
It's odd that Peter would revert to not wanting to eat with Gentiles after his vision, but remember the vision was more about the conversion of Gentiles than literally eating non-Kosher food.
I was checking out your links. Good information. You know... I always assumed The Book of James was written after Paul wrote his letter to the Romans?
The implicit question is, "What was that one language?"
I see no reason that it was anything different than the language which The God imparted to Adam for their precise, unambiguous exchange of information. I have every reason to believe that, for this discussion and without further qualification, that language was the pristine, original, uncorrupted Hebrew; and that it was recorded exactly as spoken, according to the command of The God to Moses.
Moreover, Jesus orally taught the Devil,"It stands written,'Not only upon bread shall mankind live, but (also?) upon every utterance issuing out of the God's mouth.'"
This is a very convincing instance of proper literal hermeneutic being applied to translate His Own Very Words, each one, from the original God-breathed Saying in Hebrew as written down, into Koine Greek--nothing added, nothing lost, and nothing changed from the original; and itself put into both Semitic and Greek records by Levi, guided exactly by the Holy Ghost.
To me, that is very, very impressive.
As to a common language in heaven, don’t know about all that.
I think you should know that. Though He is omniscient and could have rendered his thoughts clearly and exactly in any language He wished (and did) (God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spoke unto the fathers by the prophets), The Holy Ghost only caused His Words to be declared in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek through the mouth of His Anointed One, Jesus Lord (hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son); which was written down verbatim by Levi, Luke, Paul, John Mark, and Beloved John the Theologian, as well as doctrines imparted to his own brethren Jacob and Jude, being guided by the Spirit.
It is hard to imagine that His Will can be expressed as well or better in any other languages (with only a few borrowed words , names, and placenames) than those He chose and limited to exactly transmit His Will between the covers of The Holy Scriptures as set down and copied by human hand, for our complete instruction in this life and in the one to come.
Remember, this is an opinion, but a calculated one, based on Scripture as supported by the discermnment of other, very godly, Bible students and commentators.
Hello count-your-change,
Thank you. I’m not sure this definitively answers the question but it’s the obvious place to start.
This question was put to me, without context, and presented to you. Your reply suggests familiarity with the debate in which this question is relevant, yet does not begin to answer the question.
Thank you for the recommendation and blessings on your journey.
Thanks for the links.
Gee, thanks.
If it helps. Researching a question is always enjoyable so thanks to you.
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.