Are You Saved?

[DojoGrant]

Not so fast on the HU argument.

1) There are no vowels in the original Hebrew. HU is "he" and HE is "she." How do you know which vowel was actually intended?

2) HU or HE can mean "it," since there wasn't a word for "it" in Hebrew. How do you know it's not "it" that was intended?

3) There are other arguments, which you should not ignore so rapidly. It would be terrible Hebrew poetry to have "he" as reference to "seed," because there is no mention of the sex of the seed; the pronoun would have no obvious anticendent.

4) Masculine pronouns would be used at times if the action being performed was a "manly" action.

All of these things have to be considered. I'm under the impression that you're just taking the opinion of modern scholars at face value.

Edited November 18, 2004 by DojoGrant

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='noncatholicname' date='Nov 17 2004, 11:29 PM'] She will crush your head...  Refers to the seed?  By no stretch of the imagination can one twist this to that point.  In hebrew, it says "he [will] crush your head".  In latin, it was changed to "she". 

This doesn't take an expert in linguistics to see this. 
[/quote]
In Latin, the literal is [i]she[/i], but as I pointed out, this doesn't change the meaning. It is refering to the offspring of Eve by refering to the gender of the name [i]Eve[/i], which is [i]Heva[/i] in Latin. This is a poetic device found very often in Latin. The text could have said [i]ipsum[/i] instead of [i]ipsa[/i] which would have referred back directly to the word [i]semen[/i] (seed), which is a neuter noun, however, since the same word ([i]semen[/i]) would be implied for the seed of the serpent, this would have caused a problem in the Latin. Latin has virtually no word order. If St. Jerome had done this, a reader would have wondered whether Eve's offspring would conquer or the serpent's. St. Jerome also could have used the word [i]ipsius[/i] to refer to the seed as "the woman's seed," but again, he would have used this word for both the woman's case and the serpent's, and we would have the same dilemma. There is only one more option. St. Jerome could have referred to Christ with a masculine, [i]ipse[/i], except that this could also be interpreted as refering to the serpent, which functions as both a masculine and a feminine noun (but never a neuter). The only safeguards St. Jerome had was to make sure he refered to Satan with a direct address, thus calling his seed "your seed," but even then, a person could be confused, possibly even thinking that there were two serpents and they would fight. The only other way was to refer to Christ (and, I think providentially, Mary), with [i]ipsa[/i] by a poetic devise using a reference to Eve to refer to her seed.

Perhaps it doesn't take an expert in linguistics to see your point, but perhaps that's because an expert in linguistics would know better.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Nov 17 2004, 10:10 PM'] Yes, I used Ecce Romani. I'm a sophomore in college in advanced Latin classes and I've taken a decent amount of Greek, too. Let me know if you ever need any help. [/quote]
Sure, thanx

[Luthien]

[quote name='jesussaves' date='Nov 16 2004, 08:00 PM']
When Jesus saves, he saves for good. All that other being saved but not eternally stuff is just nonsense. Again, you are playing with words.

I have a feeling that you realize what I mean when I ask are you saved, but you do not want to face the truth of your lie. I am asking are you eternally saved? [/quote]
So, once you accept Jesus Christ, you can do no wrong?

I accept Jesus everyday as my personal Savior. With as much fervor and desire as you.

I dont think you are one to be judging who is going to Hell or not. Leave that to God please.

[noncatholicname]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Nov 18 2004, 04:18 PM'] In Latin, the literal is [i]she[/i], but as I pointed out, this doesn't change the meaning. It is refering to the offspring of Eve by refering to the gender of the name [i]Eve[/i], which is [i]Heva[/i] in Latin. This is a poetic device found very often in Latin. The text could have said [i]ipsum[/i] instead of [i]ipsa[/i] which would have referred back directly to the word [i]semen[/i] (seed), which is a neuter noun, however, since the same word ([i]semen[/i]) would be implied for the seed of the serpent, this would have caused a problem in the Latin. Latin has virtually no word order. If St. Jerome had done this, a reader would have wondered whether Eve's offspring would conquer or the serpent's. St. Jerome also could have used the word [i]ipsius[/i] to refer to the seed as "the woman's seed," but again, he would have used this word for both the woman's case and the serpent's, and we would have the same dilemma. There is only one more option. St. Jerome could have referred to Christ with a masculine, [i]ipse[/i], except that this could also be interpreted as refering to the serpent, which functions as both a masculine and a feminine noun (but never a neuter). The only safeguards St. Jerome had was to make sure he refered to Satan with a direct address, thus calling his seed "your seed," but even then, a person could be confused, possibly even thinking that there were two serpents and they would fight. The only other way was to refer to Christ (and, I think providentially, Mary), with [i]ipsa[/i] by a poetic devise using a reference to Eve to refer to her seed.

Perhaps it doesn't take an expert in linguistics to see your point, but perhaps that's because an expert in linguistics would know better. [/quote]
I see what you are saying. However, it being a poetic device, how many people took it to mean literally She will crush your head?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='noncatholicname' date='Nov 18 2004, 08:22 PM'] I see what you are saying. However, it being a poetic device, how many people took it to mean literally She will crush your head? [/quote]
Many people. There are statues of Mary crushing the head of the serpent. That doesn't have anything against the meaning that it refers to Christ, however. One can say that it referred to the offspring, and that means all the offspring, which is made perfect in the Church (interestingly enough, also a feminine word in Latin, as is Mary). Christ, as the Head of the Church, is the primary object of the pronoun, but in a deep and mystical way, it can refer to all the Church, Christ first of all, Mary second, and the rest of us after her. That is why I say that I find it providential...I think that it was somewhat ambiguous because I think that perhaps there was a poetic meaning that allowed it to refer to Christ and to Mary and to the rest of us (but Christ primarily, of course, and He is the perfect recipient of the pronoun).

[noncatholicname]

[quote name='DojoGrant' date='Nov 18 2004, 03:52 PM'] Not so fast on the HU argument.

1) There are no vowels in the original Hebrew.  HU is "he" and HE is "she."  How do you know which vowel was actually intended?

2) HU or HE can mean "it," since there wasn't a word for "it" in Hebrew.  How do you know it's not "it" that was intended?

3)  There are other arguments, which you should not ignore so rapidly.  It would be terrible Hebrew poetry to have "he" as reference to "seed," because there is no mention of the sex of the seed; the pronoun would have no obvious anticendent.

4) Masculine pronouns would be used at times if the action being performed was a "manly" action.

All of these things have to be considered.  I'm under the impression that you're just taking the opinion of modern scholars at face value. [/quote]
I would like to point out that, if it were true that no one knows what vowels went where, Christianity would have no legs to stand on considering many variations of interpretation would come from the resulting confusion.

First of all, the Septuagint, which predates both the earliest know versions of the hebrew text, renders the line as "he will crush your head". The Masoretic text consists of four parts. The consanants in which Hebrew is traditionally written, the vowel markings, the accents, and the [i]te'amim[/i], which are cantilation markings. The vowels have been carefully recorded.

"Hu" can be used in various contexts as himself, he, this, they, who and whom, sometime directly referring to God himself, although many times read as "Hashem", meaning "the name" (depending on who you talk to). A scholar of the Torah will give you this translation: He will strike you on the head, and you will strike him on the heel.

So, unless one has anti-semetic tendencies, one should be more than willing to take a hebrew scholars word on this subject.

As to the subject of "terrible hebrew poetry"... Hebrew is an inflected language. Saying the hebrew word "hu" in different ways, in different contexts, change it's meaning. It is very proper "hebrew poetry", considering that the word for her in this case, "'ah" can, depending on how it's anunciated and placed in the sentence, mean her, hers, it, and the, and considering that it comes immediately before "hu"... It's perfect hebrew poetry.

Manly? Yes, it was a patriarchal society. But you still want to interpret this as God promising the seed, Jesus, will crush the serpents head where Adam failed, don't you? Or do you want to disassemble your own faith in the process of proving me, a mere protestant, wrong?

Edited November 19, 2004 by noncatholicname

[noncatholicname]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Nov 17 2004, 10:21 PM'] No it is not contradictory, you are just not willing to "see outside the box".

I have been saved: We have been born again into a new covenant. We have been liberated from the evil of orginal sin.

I am being saved: We are being liberated from evil in this world. We are "working out our salvation in fear and trembling".

I will be saved: We will be ultimately liberated from every evil and temptation if we persevere to the end.

It is your view that to be saved is to be gaurenteed heaven no matter what that is totally foriegn to the Bible and to the Jewish Christians of the first century. Salvation is not a contract as you like to think, it is not a trading of goods. It is a covenant relationship, a family ordeal.

It is indeed you, not us, who has the "chewing" to do. [/quote]
Ask your greek expert what a forensic declaration is. It is you who cannot see outside the box.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='noncatholicname' date='Nov 18 2004, 08:20 PM'] Ask your greek expert what a forensic declaration is. It is you who cannot see outside the box. [/quote]
I'm reporting you. There was no reason to call Raphael a geek, no one (as far as I know), has called you a name. They've been intelligently answering and charitably having a mature discussion on Biblical theology and on language translations. How would you react if someone just went all-out and called
[i]you[/i] a name? No one has any reason to call anyone out of their name here. The only legitimate excuse for doing that is if you don't know the name that's on their birth certificate and all you know is their username.

[Guest Aluigi]

GREEK!!!

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 18 2004, 09:55 PM'] GREEK!!! [/quote]
OMGOSH!!!!!!! I'm SOOOO sorry noncatholicname, I didn't see the r . I hope you could find it in your heart to forgive me. I guess I shouldn't be too quick to act . . . hey, a perfect example of concupiscience right here!

[iheartjp2]

Oh, by the way, moderator, could you ignore that report I made, please?

[Guest Aluigi]

i guess my PM warning was too late

lol... anyway, he was refering to Raph (i mentioned earlier he knows koine greek)

[noncatholicname]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='Nov 18 2004, 09:58 PM'] OMGOSH!!!!!!! I'm SOOOO sorry noncatholicname, I didn't see the r . I hope you could find it in your heart to forgive me. I guess I shouldn't be too quick to act . . . hey, a perfect example of concupiscience right here! [/quote]
Oh my!

Your forgiven... That's actually funny. We all need a laugh right now.

I wonder if I can change my name to GEEKEXPERT?

[cmotherofpirl]

You act like Geek is a bad word

[noncatholicname]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 18 2004, 10:25 PM'] You act like Geek is a bad word [/quote]
Well, it's a FOUR letter word... G-E-E-K...

Actually, I've been called an old testiment geek by a few people. I wear that mantle proudly.

[cmotherofpirl]

OT is my favorite

[ironmonk]

[quote name='noncatholicname' date='Nov 17 2004, 12:23 AM'] And if "sacrad tradition" has been corrupted, as it was revealed in the 1500s?  Then what?

[/quote]
It can never be corrupted, Jesus promised that the One Faith would be guided in all truth, by the Holy Spirit...

[b]St. Matt 16:18[/b] "[color=red]And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it[/color]."


[b]John 14:16[/b]
[color=red]And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to be with you always,[/color]
[b]17 [/b][color=red]the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. [/color]
[b]18 [/b][color=red]I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.[/color]
....
[b]26 [/b][color=red]The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you. [/color]



[b]1 Tim 3:15[/b]
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.



All who leave the Church will be wrong to do so:

[b]Acts 20:29[/b]
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
[b]30 [/b]And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

[b]2 Peter 3:15 [/b]
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
[b]16 [/b]speaking of these things 12 as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
[b]17 [/b]Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.



The word has been passed onto trustworthy men:

[b]2 Timoty 3:14 [/b]
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, [b]because you know from whom you learned it, [/b]


[b]2 Thess 2:15 [/b]
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours

[b]2 Tim 2:2 [/b]
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.



"Many witnesses" this keeps it a pure faith... they are only men, and sometimes men fail, but the Church never will be overcome or wrong in faith and morals. If the Church lost it's way that would mean that there is no God. There is a God, and His Son is Jesus... the Church will never loose it's way.


[quote]You cannot prove that the writings of the early church fathers are what they are.  The early church didn't deem them worthy of being included in the bible canon.  Why?  Indeed, how do we know?[/quote]

Why not find an answer to your question instead of coming to a conclusion from your question without an answer.

There were over 200 books and letters considered for Canon of the New Testament. Only 27 were picked by the Bishops in Council that were guided by the Holy Spirit to determine which were inspired.

Just because the letters and books of the Early Church Fathers are not in the bible does not make them any less true.

See, these letters and books had multiple copies of them. The copies were sent to all the main churches. These churches were all over the known world. It wasn't just one man keeping the only copies of these letters... all the major churches received copies.

That is how we know. We know because we see others writing about the writings for the last 1500 to 1900 years. Everything matches up. We know because the majority of people have been passing on the history ever since. That is the only way we know anything that has happened in the past. If you don't believe that the ECF writings are what they are, then why do you believe anything? Are you sure George Washington was ever president of the USA? Why believe the bible, because it was the ECF that put it together... St. Augustine was one of the Bishops involved with the Canon of the NT.

Secular historians back up the claim that they were the first Christians.


[quote]My biggest objection to what you are going to say next;  "It was handed down from generation to generation" is the fact that it has been shown that a forgery was passed off as the real deal in the donation of constantine.  Every time I bring this up, I do so sincerely, but catholics essentially blow me off.   It calls into question more than just the uninspired texts, but also the inspired ones.[/quote]


That is because history does not back your statement. You have been told a lie.

There were dozens of copies of almost all the letters and books.

There is a lot of money to be made in anti-Catholicism... greed is a very powerful factor of some. A lot of the things said by anti-Catholics about Constantine are lies.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited November 19, 2004 by ironmonk

[noncatholicname]

So much for the laugh...

With all due respect, I HAVE NEVER LEFT YOUR CHURCH!

Edited to add*

And furthermore, it was the catholic website, www.newadvent.com, that has a rather extensive article concering the donation of constantine. I'm assuming that you are now calling them a liar as well?

Tell you what. Just forget it.

Edited November 19, 2004 by noncatholicname

[God Conquers]

The Donation of Constantine is not a part of sacred tradition....

It was shown to be a fake (this particular document at any rate) by a Catholic Monk, and accepted by the Catholic Church immediately thereafter.

How could this be a corruption of tradition?