It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A lesson in Narrative Biblical Observation

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Good as a comedy.

Couldn't get past the foul language as I stopped speaking like that when I believed on Christ and He came into my heart.




posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Oh. I see.

Well, I respect that you watched it. How far did you get?

And - unrelated, but a question:

Why do you all use the phrase "believe on" rather than simply "believe" or "believe in"? "Believe on" just seems very pretentious. To me. And I don't "believe in" the risen from the dead story. What I "believe" is that Jesus (if he existed) tried to bring enlightened Eastern thought to the region.....

that his "lost" years were when he went to India and studied there - much like Prince Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) left his father's palace to explore the world.

It's a classic, formulaic "hero's journey" tale. Every few centuries new ones pop up that stick.
Luke Skywalker will be one of those guys one day...



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Why do you all use the phrase "believe on" rather than simply "believe" or "believe in"? "Believe on" just seems very pretentious. To me.

It's the phrase used in the Authorised Version.
Not pretentious, just Jacobean.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Right. Because we all speak like King James. In sooth, I say to thee 'tis pretentious. Prithee heed me.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
That's not King James. That's the Book of Mormon.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

LOL!!!




posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Really? Are you fluent in Renaissance and Carolingian and Jacobean speech patterns?
I am.

"Believe on" is nonsense



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It really is not nonsense


John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

John 9:36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

John 11:48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Philippians 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

1 Timothy 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn


It really is not nonsense

Chester,
I don't think you're a bad guy.

I wrote a 180,000 word novel in Jacobean English. I understand. But English in the 21st century is not like that.
Do you know what "in sooth" means? Or "prithee"? Or "having hard thoughts"?

Yeah - so - it's not the 16th/17th century anymore. Using that phrasing is pretentious.

I went to the Episcopal Church, all of the prayers were in the "King's English". I have no issue with the lyricism and the poetic composition - it is lovely. But when someone is trying to get others to be interested in your "Evangelical Bible" stuff, it is pretentious.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I can read it just fine it is not difficult for me.

I am pretty sure there is not one sentence I quoted that is pretentious or an improper use of the modern English.

So I am not sure what you are trying to say but the English is perfect in pronunciation and grammar.

Surely it is not about showing off or trying to impress anyone, that is what pretentious means.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It is not that hard to learn what certain words mean and to understand them today.

Dr James Knox worte a great work on the issue called "Those nasty thees and thous" lol.witnesstoday.org...

here are couple a snip-its from it

The religious advertisers do not differ at all from secular advertisers, in that both will sacrifice their consciences and lie as often as necessary to make a profit. Thus, religious television and magazines are filled with sales pitches alleging that the modern language translations are easier to understand. To convince the reader of this supposed truth, they need only to point to a "ye" or a "thine" in the A.V. text, and the unsuspecting public is convinced.


Where one sees the "t" an individual is being addressed. Where one sees a "y" two or more persons are being addressed.

The singular forms are:

nominative: "thou"

objective: "thee"

possessive adjective: "thy"

possessive pronoun: "thine"

The plural forms are:

nominative: "ye"

objective: "you"

possessive adjective: "your"

possessive pronoun: "yours"


So anyone can learn what these forms are in reading an Authorized Version of the Bible.

As far as any of those words you mentioned in your post They are not found in the AV. The toughest word anyone may have understanding fully is Eschew which is still in use today and was recently used in the power word section of many Newspapers around the US.

edit on 30-1-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Can you please refrain from trying to "teach me" the dialect? Thee and thou and thy and thine.....I know all of that. I learned it, and studied it....

The point of my question is, why do you 'use it' instead of the more common phrase "believe in"? Just to show your superiority? Or to be an Authorized Version snob?

I dunno, friend. I just don't see it as any different than an American walking into a bakery in, say, Toledo (no, too close to Canada for that example - so let's say...) Topeka, and asking for a "Quahgsante". Using general American to place her order, no 'accent' at all, but makes a huge deal about saying 'Croissant' just because she wants to show off her mastery of the French word.

Sure, I'm all for correct pronunciation, but it's just off-putting and pretentious to say "believe on" - unless you are going to stick to character and use ALL of the vernacular, AND speak in a general Jacobean accent all the time -
do you 'correct' your pupils in Sunday School if they say "believe in" rather than your preferred "believe on"?
Is it supposed to sound mysterious? Like a secret wink-wink code?

I grew up in the Episcopal Church, with the KJV being our "bible" and our "book of common prayer" written in the same archaic dialect.


As far as any of those words you mentioned in your post They are not found in the AV

So?
Does that mean you don't know what they mean? Do you bother with the entire vocabulary and syntax, or only know the phrases that are in your Book?


edit on 1/30/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs[/post]

[quote]do you 'correct' your pupils in Sunday School if they say "believe in" rather than your preferred "believe on"?
Is it supposed to sound mysterious?


Do you correct all your pupils if they say believe on instead of Believe in?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   

edit on 1/30/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: gah. never mind.


Don't be obtuse.

edit on 1/30/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

My preference to use believe on is not really a preference at all. I used believe in as well.

I am just a bit confused as to why it is such a big deal to you.

I guess you would have them re-write the Elizabethian English of William Shakespeare as well. Or do you prefer to call his writings Jacobian English?

Because after all no one could understand Shakespearian English because they don't speak it today.
edit on 30-1-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Now if anyone is being showy it is a person who uses words like Jacobian, obtuse or pretentious.




edit on 31-1-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

You don't know what those mean?

Wow.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Well if you can't tell by my post I know what those words mean then maybe you are the one being obtuse and pretentious.


the name James is a English translation from the Greek Iakobos, which some mistranslates as Iakob or if you need the English transliteration Jacob. There is a big difference between Koine Greek Iakobos and Iakob that the classical definition cannot define. But it is a transliteration of the Hebrew Ya`aqob.

Obtusity is a fools intelligence.


edit on 1-2-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join