Interpretation

[Bhaktajan II]

This verse, could you give as we say, book, chapter, and verse in the KJV Bible?

This is a single verse [Verse #32] of a Hindu Scripture.

Written four times:

1. Original Sanskrit Script +
2. phonetic rendering [for the English speaker] +
3. word-for-word translation +
4. English rendering

In-addition there follows the translator's commentary of the single verse.

 

[The reader]

Anyway, I'd like to direct requests for you to address my concerns about words in the Bible.

Please review the Greek & Hebrew terms, and kindly, verify or deny their veracity:

I'd like to cut and paste the whole Bible text, but ...

Here are Old Testament Chapter/Verse#s where NONE-FLESH EATING is mentioned:
gen 1:29 [vs. Gen 9:3 ~immediately after recovery from the flood].
gen 9:4-5
num 11:33
Isaiah 1:11,15
Isaiah 66.3
Leviticus 3:17

Regarding, "Thou shall not Kill":
The hebrew words are: 'Lo tirtzach' ---according to Dr Reuben Alcalay's 'Complete Hebrew/English Dictionary', 'tirtzach' refers to any kind of killing.

Christ was vegetarian ---there are 19 Gospel referneces to 'meat' all have been mis-translated from the original Greek Bible text:
Greek (3 references) - English meaning:
Broma (4) - 'food' Romans 14:15, 20-21; I Corinthians 8:8, 10:3
Brosis (4) - 'the act of eating' Romans 14:17
Brosimos (1) - 'that which may be eaten'
Phago (3) - 'to eat' Luke 8:55
Prosphagon (1) - 'anything to eat'
Trophe (6) - 'nourishment' John 4:8, Acts 9:19, Acts 27:33-36
and,
Trapesa (?) - 'table' "...They set a table before him ..." Acts 16:34

Thus, John 21:5 "Have ye any meat" ---is incorrect. it should have been translated:
"Have ye 'anything to eat'"

Regarding, "FISH" ---reference:
The secret & mystical symbol/Password for "Christian" in Roman Prosecution Times, derived from the Greek word for fish,
ICHTHUS ---forming the acronym: Iesous Christos Theou Uios Soter (Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour)

New Testament:
Matt 3:4 ~(the word 'locusts' used here means Locust beans, aka, carob, aka, St John's bread)
Luke 8:55 ~the word used here is 'phago' (to eat).
Isaiah 7:14,15 ~prophets predict Jesus's diet: "... Butter & Honey shall he eat ..."
Luke 24:41-43 ~Note the words used, Jesus was offered two things 'Fish and a honeycomb' "... and he took it . . ." indicates that he choose one of the two judging from Isaiah 7:15 [the word used here is 'brosimos' (eatable)].

Here the Offence for flesh eating:
Greek word for FLESH is: 'kreas' in I Corinthians 8:13


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
My ulterior motive is to get nations to turn swords to Plowshares ---this is done by ultimately having a "Change of Heart"
as to the reality of fostering Flesh eating ['Fleisch' in German]. Flesh eating begets violence and non-compassion
and the illogical fantasy of obtaining peace in an environment of butcher-based society.

Vegetarianism as a sublime means of eating, is borne of orthodox yoga disciplines ---therefore the higher goal of "a-himsa" (Non-violence) ergo, "shanti" (peace) can be achieved.

When words are symbolically used what meaning do they have other than what the writer has intended. He paints a picture with his words then it’s up to us to try to understand that picture. This is what I am trying to do. Like Revelation 21:1-3 can you tell me what it means? If that Great City the New Jerusalem is coming down why do we have to go up there to walk on streets of gold?

 

[The reader]

This is a single verse [Verse #32] of a Hindu Scripture.

Written four times:

1. Original Sanskrit Script +
2. phonetic rendering [for the English speaker] +
3. word-for-word translation +
4. English rendering

In-addition there follows the translator's commentary of the single verse.

Sorr, friend. I know nothing of the Hindu Relgion so I’ll have to trust in what you say is truth and let God judge it.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Good for you Reader that your name is not Arithmetic, and we sought to discuss math.

The proposed format of single verse of a Hebrew Scripture Translated four times [for the English reading market]:

1. Show the original Hebrew verse as written in the Hebrew Script +
2. Show the phonetic rendering of the Hebrew [for the English speaker] +
3. Show the word-for-word translation [Hebrew-to-English] +
4. Show the English rendering of the Hebrew verse.

In-addition, the translator may include his own commentary of the above single verse.

and then, as required:

The proposed format of single verse of a Greek Scripture Translated four times:

1. Show the original Greek verse as written in the Hebrew Script +
2. Show the phonetic rendering of the Greek [for the English speaker] +
3. Show the word-for-word translation [Greek -to-English] +
4. Show the English rendering of the Greek verse.

In-addition, the translator may include his own commentary of the above single verse.

and then, as required:

The proposed format of single verse of a Aramaic Scripture Translated four times:

1. Show the original Aramaic verse as written in the Hebrew Script +
2. Show the phonetic rendering of the Aramaic [for the English speaker] +
3. Show the word-for-word translation [Aramaic -to-English] +
4. Show the English rendering of the Aramaic verse.

In-addition, the translator may include his own commentary of the above single verse.

If I were a Publisher looking for a new publication to print, I'd ask my editor to draft a book as per the above format ---and that's how such a publication would be made.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
How about a the same format for the Swahili reading market?

The proposed format of single verse of a Hebrew Scripture Translated four times:

1. Show the original Hebrew verse as written in the Hebrew Script +
2. Show the phonetic rendering of the Hebrew [But this time, for the Swahili speaker] +
3. Show the word-for-word translation [Hebrew-to-Swahili] +
4. Show the Swahili rendering of the Hebrew verse.

In-addition, the translator may include his own Swahili commentary of the above single verse.

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

The above format will much less avoid getting into an argument with a Swahili Bible scholar.

 

[Thomas]

The beginning of The Creation of God. This lets us know Jesus was created first and the Jesus created everything else.

No it doesn't. It could also mean that Christ instituted the Creation — that Christ was there prior to creation. It does not say Christ was created.

The same was in the beginning with God. (as you can see in the beginning Jesus is with God)

Yes. Because all there is, is God. There is nothing other than God, hence the first verse, which might be paraphrased: In the beginning was Jesus (the Logos of God), and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.

John is introducing the first mystery of Christianity, the Incarnation.

 

[Thomas]

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (He (Jesus) created all things with the exception of Himself).

That 'exception' is your interpretation, not supported by the text, by scholars, or the traditions. You're reading what's not there.

 

[The reader]

No it doesn't. It could also mean that Christ instituted the Creation — that Christ was there prior to creation. It does not say Christ was created.


Yes. Because all there is, is God. There is nothing other than God, hence the first verse, which might be paraphrased: In the beginning was Jesus (the Logos of God), and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.

John is introducing the first mystery of Christianity, the Incarnation.

I beg to differ, Jesus is reffering to Himself as being the begging of all creation. Nice try though.

 

[Thomas]

I beg to differ ... Nice try though.

Still haven't made your point.

He is indeed the beginning, but nowhere does Scripture say He himself was begun, so you're jumping to an erroneous conclusion there.

I mean, if something begins with me — an act, my coming-to-be is not part of that act, I am prior to the act.

Same with Christ, as Scripture says:
"Who (He, Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature... "
To read 'firstborn' as 'first created' is understandable, but again, a mistake. You have to take into consideration the usage of the term. The author of Colossians saw the potential for that error, and headed it off with the subsequent explanation:
"... For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15-17).
'Firstborn of every creature' means the creature exists in Christ and is brought forth by Christ. Creation itself existed in the mind of God before He created, although 'before' in that sense is a bit of a metaphysical term, because prior to creation there was no space, no time.

 

[The reader]

Still haven't made your point.

He is indeed the beginning, but nowhere does Scripture say He himself was begun, so you're jumping to an erroneous conclusion there.

I mean, if something begins with me — an act, my coming-to-be is not part of that act, I am prior to the act.

Same with Christ, as Scripture says:
"Who (He, Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature... "
To read 'firstborn' as 'first created' is understandable, but again, a mistake. You have to take into consideration the usage of the term. The author of Colossians saw the potential for that error, and headed it off with the subsequent explanation:
"... For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15-17).
'Firstborn of every creature' means the creature exists in Christ and is brought forth by Christ. Creation itself existed in the mind of God before He created, although 'before' in that sense is a bit of a metaphysical term, because prior to creation there was no space, no time.

When I was young there was a man whose name was Churchill who in my estimation save England. Now you may disagree which me or not but He was a man that could as we say on this side of the pond, he knew how to connect the dots, something the younger generation seems to have lost. Like my train of thought, oh yes now I remember, Jesus was speaking to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 3:14 He called Himself The Amen, The True Wittness, The Beginning of Creation. Now, what does the beginning of creation there mean to you since Jesus said it?

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Good grief man, the same thing Thomas just told you. Rev: 3:14 is saying just that. Creation began with Christ, not with the creation of Christ. In other words, he was there prior.

@Thomas, sorry mate. Didn't mean to step on your deal. Just had to jump in.

 

[The reader]

Good grief man, the same thing Thomas just told you. Rev: 3:14 is saying just that. Creation began with Christ, not with the creation of Christ. In other words, he was there prior.

@Thomas, sorry mate. Didn't mean to step on your deal. Just had to jump in.

Aussie I understand but what I am saying is that God created His Son as a Spirit long before He became flesh. God is the Father and Jesus is a Pince but God turned the all power over to Jesus for a time. Is that the way you understand it?

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Is that the way you understand it?

My feeling is the same as Thomas already explained in #25. The spirit of God always was. No beginning no end. Likewise the Logos of God.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

Jesus for all intent and purpose was God in the flesh.

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us"

The same divine spirit that always was in human form.

 

[The reader]

Aussie if you have a Strong’s concordance, look up the God that is the Father and compare it to the last God in that verse and I think you find a difference. The God the Father is selfexisting where as second is not.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

If it wasn't for Henry VIII no one would call Christ's by the name "Jesus"!
Am I correct?

BTW, @Reader - If Jesus is Jewish, why does he have a Puerto-Rican name?

 

[Thomas]

Sorry mate. Didn't mean to step on your deal. Just had to jump in.

You're welcome, chum! I think we both have a pretty good idea where this one is going ...

 

[Thomas]

Aussie if you have a Strong’s concordance, look up the God that is the Father and compare it to the last God in that verse and I think you find a difference. The God the Father is selfexisting where as second is not.

This is utter nonsense.

The text: "kai logos ēn pros theos kai logos ēn theos / and the Word was with God and the Word was God"

Same word, both times.

 

[wil]

Two questions reader...

Not a trinitarian?

What church do you attend?

No judgement, just these.answers.will help us to understand where you are coming from, the basis for your posts.

 

[The reader]

Two questions reader...

Not a trinitarian?

What church do you attend?

No judgement, just these.answers.will help us to understand where you are coming from, the basis for your posts.

Wil, I am a chair bound veteran of the Korean War. I have a window to look out of and some Bibles to read. Going to Church is not on my calendar at any time. I pray at home and have my church at home. I can’t even drive any more. I get everything at home.

 

[The reader]

I wi

Two questions reader...

Not a trinitarian?

What church do you attend?

No judgement, just these.answers.will help us to understand where you are coming from, the basis for your posts.

ll add this also I also believe words mean something. So to me “with God” does not “is God”.

 

[wil]

Thank you for your service.

So if you were to select a label would it be nondenominational, non trinitarian Christian?

Mine is currently nontheistic panenetheist unitic.