Friday, May 06, 2011

O Ye of Little Faith!

This is in response to Ken’s reply to my article (which is responding to his!).  Since the response(s) are getting too long for the combox, I’m writing a new article to address Ken’s posts.  Ken objects to my use of "O ye of little faith," but I believe the objective reader here can see the point I have been making and how Ken's faith is lacking when it comes to accepting this direct teaching from our Lord and Savior.
Scott,
Your statement "O ye of little faith" makes no sense to me or Protestants like me. Nowhere in John 6 or the Upper Room texts in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or I Cor. 11 say what you and the RCC try to make them say.
Well, Ken, it says what it says.  Catholics don’t “make them say” anything, we read the words as they are written.  No, it would appear that those who have to rationalize and impute all sorts of interpretation and explanation to the plain text - it would be those who are trying “to make them say” something they are not.
Jesus did not say "by saying/commanding (?) "this is My body" and "this is My blood", that it will change the bread and wine into His body and blood.
No, He just held it up and declared it so.  No rationalizations here from the Catholic side, we accept Him at His word - it IS His body and blood - period.
Jesus held up the bread and cup, and said to His disciples, "this is My body" and "this is My blood" - He was in His real body at that time in space and time on earth, holding up the bread and cup; so since He could not be incarnated twice ( or more), and His death is "once for all" - He obviously meant "this bread represents or signifies my body, and this cup represents or signifies the blood of the new covenant", etc.
O ye of little faith!  You have said that the Eucharist could not BE His body and blood because “He was in His real body at that time in space and time on earth.”  You limit God’s power and omnipresence - Catholics do not!  If HE says it IS His body and blood - IT IS SO!  Consider that in John 6 the chapter opens with the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand from five loaves of bread and two small fish - yet SOMEHOW there was enough to feed the five thousand AND to have twelve basketfuls of left-overs!  How could five loaves of bread and two fishes be in so many places at once?!  You (I trust) accept the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, but somehow MISS the FACT that this prefigures the Eucharist - and in context is part of a eucharistic treatise!   I pray that God will grant you the FAITH necessary to accept Him and His Word.
Moving along to St. Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians...
To judge the body rightly or "discern the body rightly" does not mean "judge the bread as the literal body of Jesus that has been changed, but no one can see it, etc."; rather in context in I Cor. 11:17-34 - it means to "discern the body of Christ" rightly - that is, discern right by relationships with "one another" and confess your sins to one another before you partake in the supper - be patient with one another, love one another, don't be selfish (remember that thing called context - the context was that there was gluttony, impatience, selfishness, hoarding, and drunkeness at the Lord's supper and Paul was rebuking them for that.)
St. Paul rebukes them for these things - yes!  But WHY is he rebuking them?  Because they did not rightly discern the body of Christ!  Yes, he speaks of divisions among themselves and some feasting while others go hungry - but THE POINT IS when they do THAT while approaching the Eucharist - they are not rightly discerning the body of Christ!
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.
32 But when we are judged by the Lord,we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat [see back up at verses 17 and 18 - "when you come together as a church"], wait for one another—
34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
"discerning the body" in v. 29
is parallel with
Judging ourselves rightly in v. 31 = "examine yourself before you partake" - confess your sins - Matthew 5 and 18 also talk about this. Make things right with people first, then come and worship.
No matter how you try to spin it - “the judgment” comes upon them for not “discerning the body...”  All the rationalizations you want to throw at this passage doesn’t change the fact that the REASON they would be bringing judgment upon themselves was due to them not discerning His body!  Yes, they did wrong things - but the judgment came upon them for not discerning.
Now, back to St. Augustine...
Augustine got the Hebrew wrong, and from there went too far with the "footstool" and "earth" etc.
He was wrong on the Hebrew and application of the footstool to the Lord's human body and nature, but He was right in that we worship the Lord Jesus Christ as God, and that He has both a Divine and Human nature.
You claim he (St. Augustine) was wrong about the “footstool” and “the earth” - yet it has been demonstrated that God Himself calls the earth His footstool in Isaiah!  (Isaiah 66:1 and Acts 7:49).  So where, exactly is St. Augustine “wrong” here?
there is a lot more that could be said, especially that Stephen rebukes the Jews in Acts 7 (Quoting Isaiah 66:1-2) for the Jews not seeing the spiritual meaning behind the temple and that they placed too much emphasis on the physical temple, which is what RCC does by trying to take OT physical contexts and put them into the NT ( priests, infant baptism as the same as circumcision, and the cherubim and seraphim as justification for having images of saints and angels to pray to in churches today.
Ken, take a look at verses 52-53!  
52 "Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become;
53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."
Note, the criticism is due to the fact that they were given the law and did not keep it!  Amen!  You have been given the truth, and you do not believe it - O ye of little faith!  May God grant you the faith necessary to accept His truth.
I should add that the way you use "O Ye of little faith", makes no sense to Protestants because it is applying that Biblical phrase to the Eucharist/Lord's Supper, when Reformed and other Evangelical Protestants fully believe in Christ and His Deity and humanity and the Trinity and in His atonement for the forgiveness of sins, etc. We have faith in Christ.
I will say that you, (“Reformed and other Evangelical Protestants”) DO have faith in Christ, but it is an incomplete faith.  I speak as a former Protestant, I believe I too had faith prior to my conversion to the Catholic Faith, but it was lacking.  The fullness of faith comes in following the Lord through the Church He Himself built, as He promise He would do.  You don’t find this fullness in schisms of men which began some 1500 years after Jesus built His Church.  You will not find the fullness of faith in the rationalizations of men who seek to dilute the very words of our Lord into something LESS than what He said - and that’s EXACTLY what you’re doing here!  You’re watering down the plain reading of our Lord’s words to appease your lack of faith in Him to fulfill in us what He commanded we must do, and that is eat His flesh and drink His blood - or we have NO LIFE in us.  It is also in BELIEVING HIM when He declares, “This IS My body...”  To rationalize and reduce His statements to human/physical understanding is to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and His ability to miraculously BE the Eucharist.  Again I remind you, the opening of John 6 begins with our Lord and God taking five loaves and two fishes and feeding five thousand people, with twelve baskets left over!  Do not doubt your God’s ability to be miraculous!
We we celebrate the Lord's supper,
You (as did I) celebrate a memorial.  You do not believe Jesus can actually BE the Eucharist, even though He declares it IS His body and IS His blood.  No, you have to come up with rationalizations (excuses) for why Jesus could not BE the Eucharist because He is IN His body at the same time He’s declaring “this IS My body” - why?  Because you cannot accept that Jesus could miraculously BE in more than one place at a time, yet (and I repeat) He could make five loaves and two fishes BE in multiple places at the same time!  THIS is why I use the phrase, “O ye of little faith!”  You do not have the faith necessary to accept Jesus at His word without making excuses.
we are careful to look at the texts and follow them - examine yourselves - so, if we are worshiping God in spirit in truth; and Christ has ascended to the Father, then the bread and wine are symbols of the once for all death of Christ - "as often as you do this, you proclaim the Lord's death" ( I Cor. 11) - "Do this in remembrance of Me" - it is a memorial of looking back on His once for all atonement for sins.
Just because something is done in remembrance does not mean what is done is not REAL!  The Eucharist is not a mere memorial, as Protestants (most of them anyway) believe it is.  Remember again, from the context of 1 Corinthians 11 (you’re citing that chapter!) that those who fell into the judgment did so because they failed to discern His body!  How can one be guilty of His body if the Eucharist is merely a symbolic memorial?  
So, we have faith, and that phrase is never used in regard to the Eucharist or Lord's Supper.
Again, I agree you have faith - incomplete faith.  Whether or not Scripture uses that phrase in regard to the Eucharist is irrelevant to the FACT that you’re displaying a lack of faith in Him.
And a true believer in Christ, experiences a deep communion with Christ, by faith, spiritually, after examining oneself and confessing sin and making things right with others and worship and prayer. Yes, the spiritual presence of Christ is real by faith in the true believer with the Lord.
Ask yourself, and I ask the objective reader here to ask themselves as well, does Jesus say He is spiritually present in the bread and wine or “this IS My body” and “this IS My blood?”  Does He say “this bread represents My body” or that it IS His body?  Without coming up with all sorts of excuses and rationalizations - what does He plainly state?
The way you use the phrase, is more in line with Ignatius Loyola's statement, over 1500 years after Christ, "Whatever we say is white, is white, even if to your eyes it appears black." ( I am paraphrasing it) ( In his "Rules for Thinking with the Church") This is proof that the Roman Catholic Church is just authoritarian in an un-thinnking and dictator like style, and that is one of the key reasons why good Christians have objected to its self proclaimed authority and false doctrines. (Hus, Wycliff, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli and onward to today).
The way I use the phrase is the way JESUS uses the phrase!  I do not ADD to it so that it makes sense to the carnal mind.  I believe Jesus and don’t make rationalizations and non-spiritual explanations.
I also made one comment on your previous post critiquing my article on RC Wrong Use of Augustine.
Here is that other comment:
(Quoting Scott) Actually, it says: "Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore his footstool, for it is holy."
No, it says, "Exalt the Lord our God and worship at His footstool, for He is Holy."
You appear to have used the New American Standard Bible, I used the Douay-Rheims Bible.  The DRB is based upon the Latin Vulgate, which is what St. Augustine used.  You’re using a modern version which inserts “at” - which from what I gather from the Hebrew, does not exist in the Hebrew.  I stand by what I said - especially in light of the fact that we’re discussing what St. Augustine was commenting on and the version available to him.  (I also fixed your typo, so did not include your correction).
We know this when we study the entire Psalm 99 in its context, and the context of the temple, and the arc of the covenant.
2 The LORD is great in Zion;
he is exalted over all the peoples.
3 Let them praise your great and awesome name!
Holy is he!
The object of worship in verse 2 and 3 is the Lord Himself, not the furniture in the temple, nor the temple itself, even though the place for worship of Yahweh was at and in the temple.
I agree that the object is the Lord Himself in these verses.  There is no mention of temple furniture nor the temple.  You might say that the worship of the Lord is unlimited because He is holy!
5 Exalt the LORD our God;
worship at his footstool!
Holy is he!
Again, the word “at” is not in the Douay-Rheims, which is based upon the Latin Vulgate and the Latin Vulgate is the version St. Augustine would have been using.  Note as well the difference in the numbering; St. Augustine refers to this as Psalm 98, as does the Vulgate and the DRB, but in Protestant versions it is Psalm 99.  In looking at the Hebrew, we don’t find the word “at” in there either.  That word is assumed by modern translators.  Also, the DRB says at the end of this verse, “for it is holy” and the NASB says “Holy is he!”  Let us look at the text, I have provided the English (NASB) and the Hebrew below.  The blue words in English are the only ones which appear in the Hebrew:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=psalms%2099&t=nas
So, in the Hebrew all we have is: “Exalt Lord God worship footstool holy.”  So the DRB says: “Exalt (ye the) Lord (our) God, (and) adore (his) footstool, (for it is) holy,” is just as valid as the NASB.  I am not calling the NASB “wrong” - as Ken has so labeled St. Augustine’s use of the Catholic translation he had in the 4th century, I’m just saying St. Augustine isn’t “wrong,” nor would St. Jerome have been in the Vulgate.
Verse 9
Exalt the LORD our God,
and worship at his holy mountain;
for the LORD our God is holy!
verses 3, 5, and 9 are parallel, and verse 9 helps us interpret verses 3 and 5 rightly, if one tries to interpret 3 and 5 as meaning "it is holy" (the footstool)
So, Augustine was wrong to read the Eucharist back into Psalm 99. My case still stands.
Again, let us look at the English translation of the version St. Augustine was reading from, and not a modern translation which adds at least one word to this context:

Psalm 98 (DRB)

1 A psalm for David himself. The Lord hath reigned, let the people be angry: he that sitteth on the cherubims: let the earth be moved.
     2 The Lord is great in Sion, and high above all people.
     3 Let them give praise to thy great name: for it is terrible and holy:
4 and the king's honour loveth judgment. Thou hast prepared directions: thou hast done judgment and justice in Jacob.
     5 Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore his footstool, for it is holy.
6 Moses and Aaron among his priests: and Samuel among them that call upon his name. They called upon the Lord, and he heard them:
7 he spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud. They kept his testimonies, and the commandment which he gave them.
8 Thou didst hear them, O Lord our God: thou wast a merciful God to them, and taking vengeance on all their inventions.
     9 Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore at his holy mountain: for the Lord our God is holy.
If we look at the Eucharist in the terms of “coming from the earth” - then no, St. Augustine was not “wrong” here - he just took the interpretation down a different path than Ken has (and/or whomever Ken is getting his information from).
The Lord did not like it when the Israelites used the holy things wrongly (the bronze serpent, the arc, the temple) - That is why He had the bronze serpent destroyed later; and let the Philistines take the arc; and let the Babylonians (586 BC) and Romans (70 AD) destroy the temple.
Ken has gone off on a tangent here in his closing statement.  It sounds almost as if he’s “preaching” at us here - yet he has established none of these closing statements nor tied them to the entire thesis of this current discussion!  Even if we accept what he closes with here, that the Lord did not like it when the Israelites used these things wrongly (which he doesn’t delineate how they were used wrongly, but then again that would be MORE of a red herring to THIS discussion) - that has NOTHING to do with St. Augustine’s treatise on Psalm 98 and worshipping God’s Real Presence in the Eucharist.  I repeat, this is nothing more than a red herring to the rest of the discussion we’re having.  These might be interesting topics to discuss, but are nothing but distractions from the topic at hand.

I reiterate, I pray that the Holy Ghost comes upon Ken, and all who believe as he does, and is given the faith to see Almighty God in His Eucharist.

In the spirit of the Holy Family (JMJ),
Scott<<<



25 comments:

  1. "He just held it up and declared it so."

    Yes. I connect this in Sunday School to "fiat lux": God thinks it, and so it is. If you aren't getting bent out of shape about the details of creation, then you needn't sweat Transubstantiation either.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scott wrote:
    You appear to have used the New American Standard Bible, I used the Douay-Rheims Bible. The DRB is based upon the Latin Vulgate, which is what St. Augustine used. You’re using a modern version which inserts “at” - which from what I gather from the Hebrew, does not exist in the Hebrew.

    Scott,
    You cannot read Hebrew, can you?

    The “at” is there, by the ל (L) before the word for footstool, הדמ (hadem)

    the "at" is there in the Hebrew "L"

    if it was meant to signify worship literally given to the footstool, it would have used the direct object marker את , as I told you before.

    The Douay-Rheims is obviously an inferior translation, being based on the Latin.
    Sad.


    You wrote:
    It is also in BELIEVING HIM when He declares, “This IS My body...”

    Like when Jesus walked from the upper room (John 14:31 "come let us go from here) to the Garden (John 15:1 ff - 18) and apparently saw a grape vine, and said, "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vine-dresser".

    Amazing that you cannot see the metaphorical imagery and symbol.

    What is your rationalization as to why the statement, “this is My body”, “this is My blood” is a different kind of literary device/metaphor than “I am the true vine” ?

    I did not know you are a former Protestant; interesting. If you don’t mind answering, What kind of a Protestant were you; and did you have evangelical faith then?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scott wrote:
    The blue words in English are the only ones which appear in the Hebrew:

    This is wrong also. Sorry.

    I cannot cut and paste the English and Hebrew for some reason. (it won't let me)

    Obviously, you cannot read Hebrew,
    or you would not be making these kinds of statements.

    When you copied the Hebrew from some program or web-site, it messed up the word order. and furthermore, you are just wrong about only the English blue words are there in Hebrew, etc.

    All English versions that I have looked at (ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and others) have "at" except for the Douay-Rheims.

    Look at the King James - it is there.

    You argument crashed to the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (sigh) I had a response typed in and one of the few times I did not copy it to the clipboard before "publishing" - blogger responded, "I'm sorry, we cannot process your request at this time" and it disappeared. I'll retype later, I am in a rush now to be somewhere else.

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello Ken,
    My argument has not been "crashed to the ground." No disrespect intended, but you're going to have to provide a bit more source material than merely your word on this. I noticed I didn't cite my source for the interlinear Bible, I have corrected that now.

    As for that source getting the order wrong, maybe you're not reading the Hebrew from right to left? I'm just sayin'.

    My points stand:
    1) The version of Scripture St. Augustine would have been using did not include the "Hebrew at" so he would not be "wrong" in what he was commenting on here.
    2) The REAL point of my article deals with the lack of faith (not complete absence of, but a lacking faith) when it comes to accepting Jesus' Word and ability to declare something to be so - and it is so.

    When you refer to John 15:1ff, you must realize the whole section is metaphorical - whereas during the first Mass, Jesus is dealing with the physical bread, blesses it and then declares it to be His body. There's a huge difference between the situations and how He's speaking.

    As for the copying of the interlinear text - that's not a copy and paste - it's an image of the webpage, which I failed to cite initially but have since corrected. As for the Hebrew being out of order, try reading right to left, that's how Hebrew is read.

    As for the "at" being there in modern English translations, I've already acknowledged that - and that was part of my initial point! St. Augustine wasn't using a modern English translation! The version he used did not include the "at" and therefore his commentary IN THE CONTEXT OF TIME is not "wrong."

    So, BOTH of my points still stand.
    1) "O ye of little faith," is not a statement of "no faith" - but NOT ENOUGH FAITH to accept our Lord's word on what IS His body.

    2) St. Augustine was not "wrong" in commenting on Psalm 98, not only was that the numbering in his day, the translation used did not say "at His footstool."

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ken asks: I did not know you are a former Protestant; interesting. If you don’t mind answering, What kind of a Protestant were you; and did you have evangelical faith then?

    I was born/raised in the Lutheran Church, first Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and then Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). I also spent several years frequenting non-denominational fellowships (charismatic) mostly Foundation Fellowship and Sweetwater Church, though never really left Lutheranism behind at that time - I would continue to go both places on different weeks.

    Prior to my conversion I was quite into Protestant apologetics, especially contra-Catholicism. Just before I converted I had run into James White on the local BBS scene (Phoenix). After I converted I wanted to "test" this decision I made - so I confronted White with my conversion... I became somewhat of a project for him (at least his first two books on Catholicism were based in arguments he was having with me - although my side was scarcely shown). I always found, and I mean ALWAYS, that no matter what White put forth I either already had the answer - or could and did find it. My Catholic Faith was confirmed, repeatedly, through debates with James White. We did one live public debate/discussion based on John 6. Of course I prepared for a debate on the Eucharistic treatise of John 6, while White spent most of his time arguing Calvinistic predestination. STILL, even though I didn't "win" the live debate/discussion (it wasn't a formal debate) I DID have answers to everything he said. I believe I held my own against a much more experienced debater, which was a victory of sorts. THEN in the post-debate/discussion logs White's arguments were found to be sorrily lacking, counting at least 29 errors he made (some were rather minor, some were quite blatant).

    But I digress... I was VERY Protestant for 29 years, and I'm approaching 23 years as a Catholic. I cannot ever see myself leaving His Church, the ONLY place where the Eucharist is validly consecrated into His body and blood. What I had as a Lutheran was a similar belief, but the Lutheran pastors have no authority to consecrate - so in reality it was just bread and wine there - regardless of personal beliefs in what has been called (though typically NOT by Lutherans) Consubstantiation.

    I hope this helps.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  7. Scott wrote:
    As for that source getting the order wrong, maybe you're not reading the Hebrew from right to left? I'm just sayin'.


    Hi Scott,
    Thanks for your responses.

    The Hebrew of your article is still wrong - if that is what the interlinear reads, then it is wrong.

    I can read it and I do read it correctly from right to left.

    But for some reason that web-site you give does not give me the Hebrew (English letter code); but in your article the Hebrew is there, it is just out of order. the first word on the right in your article is "foot of yours”

    רגליו

    (the last two letters of this word make it possessive, “of yours”, so your blue code thing is just wrong. )

    then it says קדוש = holy

    then it says “he” = אוה

    then it says רוממו = “exalt” in command form, “lift up”. (which is actually supposed to be the first word to the right in the Hebrew text.)

    then it says – יהוה
    = “Yahveh” (Yaweh) or “The Lord” (maybe you can see that one)

    then it says

    אלוהינו


    which is “God of ours” or “our God” (the last two letters of “Elohim” here make it “Elohi-nu” which is “of ours” (nu) (again, the blue code thing of that interlinear web-site is wrong. I guess is too difficult to explain to folks who don't know Hebrew.)

    then it says
    והשתחוו
    which means “and worship” from “to worship, prostrate”

    then the last word in your article is
    להדם
    ל is a preposition, which includes, “to”, “at”, “for”, “towards”
    = “at the footstool” - then the first word (of your picture) – “of His feet” should be there, but the word order is wrong.

    Look at your first article on this (April 26)

    http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2011/04/wrong-use-of-st-augustine.html

    you wrote where you give a dictionary picture of the entry for footstool – הדם
    There you will see it without the ל “L”.

    Don’t you see it?

    I can type the Hebrew because I have it on my keyboard, but cannot put the vowel pointings in between the letters. (or sometimes on top, or most of the time on the bottom of Hebrews letters)

    I have tried to find one that will cut and paste but none of them work for me without having to correct them a lot; and when I do paste it onto my Word document, it messes up the word order.

    Do have a hard copy of the Hebrew Bible (a book, not a computer) ?

    If you look at there, you would see it.
    I even found another web-site that had the Hebrew, but there are mistakes in it – leaving out some letters. One needs to go the book form. (The standard Hebrew Bible – Hebraica Stuttgartensia)

    I noticed that when I was previewing it, some of the Hebrew words were changed (letter order was changed; I corrected them, but it may not come out right; oh well.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. My understand of the numbering of the Psalms is that the reason the numbering is different is because the Latin Vulgate had combined Psalm 42 and 43 together; and that is why what is really Psalm 99, is 98 in Latin and in Augustine (and other Latin writers in E. C.).

    He was wrong because he relied on the Latin rather than the Hebrew.

    I hope you are able to find the correct Hebrew verse and see the right word order and see what I am talking about.

    Do you know what it means when my computer does not show the Hebrew letters at the interlinear web-site you gave; only the English code letters ?

    As for Jesus in the Upper Room and in His incarnated body and holding up the bread and wine and saying "this is My body"; "this is My blood", etc.; we will just have to disagree on that.

    That is one of the main mistakes the early church made that later evolved into the false doctrines of transubstantiation and worshiping the host, etc.

    It is clearly symbolic and pointing ahead in the upper Room, they point ahead to the crucifixion and atonement; and for us they point back to the once for all death of Christ. eating is symbolic of faith and trust in John 6.

    My points stand and yours do not; especially the Hebrew.

    But I do believe in Christ's real presence, spiritual presence for believers who take the Lord's supper in a worthy manner. When there is examination and confession and repentance and faith, there is true and real communion of believers with Christ.

    Thanks for the other info on your background; I did not know. Your testimony was not in "Surprised by Truth" (volume 1) as some of the others who are famous for RC apologetics against Protestants were like Dave Armstrong and Tim Staples and Marcus Grodi and Robert Sungenis and James Akin.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ok, I went to the interlinear web-site again and I downloaded the Hebrew font; and low and behold - THEY GOT THE WORD ORDER WRONG.

    They need to be notified of this mistake. My post is right.

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2099&version=WLC

    This one gets the Hebrew right with the Westminster Leningrad Codex.

    Read from Right to Left, as you wrote. (smile)

    ReplyDelete
  11. רֹֽומְמ֡וּ יְה֘וָ֤ה אֱלֹהֵ֗ינוּ וְֽ֭הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַהֲדֹ֥ם רַגְלָ֗יו קָדֹ֥ושׁ הֽוּא׃

    this is the correct word order. and "our" (in our God) is there, as is "him" in "worship Him" and "at" and "his feet" - they are all indicated by the Hebrew endings and preposition connected to the words. The Blue code thing is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It appears that all of the interlinear Hebrew website has gotten the Hebrew words out of order.

    It looks like it divided each verse in the middle and the first words actually are the second half of the sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Scott,
    I wrote a comment a couple of days ago, and it too got lost in cyberspace. I have no time to rewrite the whole thing. But...

    Ken,
    You seemed to have missed the point again. You are obsessing over a mark in a Hebrew text (which you almost couldn't prove, by your own 'proof texts') instead of the real point--your lack of faith. You don't believe Jesus' word in Scripture. That is the point.

    When Jesus said to the blind, "Now your sight is restored," or said to Jarius, "Your daughter is healed" it was true. When He said, "This IS My Body...This IS the cup of My Blood", IT IS. It is that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sorry Laurann,
    You are wrong here. The Hebrew is clear - I challenge anyone to really check it out - find a RC priest who can read the Hebrew and ask him if: (and get him to show it to you in the book and also the Westminster Lenigrade Hebrew text at the link I gave you guys. (of he will disagree with my conclusions but I am right on the Hebrew.)

    1. the word order of the Hebrew interlinear is right or not.
    2. if The "L" ל in front of the word for "footstool" הדם is there or not. להדם
    (ל = "at" - The Psalmist did not mean worship the footstool, but rather "worship [the Lord] at the footstool of His feet. [the arc and mt. Zion as symbols of "God's footstool" - see parallel later in the Psalm.

    It is not a lack of faith at all. I have true trust and faith in Jesus Christ as God the Son/Son of God who became flesh, died for sin, and rose from dead, and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.

    In the upper room, at that last supper, the last passover, before His crucifixion, Jesus obviously meant "signifies", "Symbolizes", "represents", because at the time He spoke it, He was in His incarnated body on earth. The whole transubstantiation thing is superstitious and worshiping the bread and wine is idolatry.

    The earliest writings after the NT where they discuss this issue are combating Docetism and Gnosticism and rebuking them for "abstaining from the Eucharist (thanksgiving, nothing wrong with calling it that in itself); - because they denied that Jesus had a real body. We believe He had a real body and is 100% man and 100 % God. So, it is not a lack of faith.

    Later, from Radbertus in the 800s to Aquinas in 1215 was the false doctrine of transubstantiation developed even more.

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2099&version=WLC

    This one gets the Hebrew right with the Westminster Leningrad Codex.

    Read from Right to Left, as you wrote. (smile)



    רֹֽומְמ֡וּ יְה֘וָ֤ה אֱלֹהֵ֗ינוּ וְֽ֭הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַהֲדֹ֥ם רַגְלָ֗יו קָדֹ֥ושׁ הֽוּא׃

    see the LaHaDoM ? ( LHDM ) ???

    לַהֲדֹ֥ם

    (right to left)

    ReplyDelete
  16. רֹֽומְמ֡וּ יְה֘וָ֤ה אֱלֹהֵ֗ינוּ וְ֭הִֽשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְהַ֣ר קָדְשֹׁ֑ו כִּֽי־קָ֝דֹ֗ושׁ יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ׃

    Psalm 99:9

    Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at (ל) His holy hill ( הר_)

    להר

    at the hill - see it?

    להר קדשו

    = "at the hill of His holiness" or "at His holy hill" (Mt. Zion, Jerusalem, the temple, before the arc of the covenant) = symbols of God's presence in the OT.

    check it out for yourself.

    Any other way of interpreting Psalm 99 is not in keeping with the grammar, or context, nor theology of Israel as monotheistic and strongly against idolatry and against even the appearance of idolatry.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It looks like Blogger zapped all my recent comments and answers!

    oh well. no time for trying to reconstruct that now.

    Maybe later, Lord willing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ken said: It looks like Blogger zapped all my recent comments and answers!

    oh well. no time for trying to reconstruct that now.

    Maybe later, Lord willing.


    Hi Ken, I saved your comments from this thread as it was still open when I saw Blogger was having issues, I'll repost them later tonight.

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  19. (reposting Ken's comments...)
    Ken said...
    Sorry cathmom5,
    You are wrong here. The Hebrew is clear - I challenge anyone to really check it out - find a RC priest who can read the Hebrew and ask him if: (and get him to show it to you in the book and also the Westminster Lenigrade Hebrew text at the link I gave you guys. (of he will disagree with my conclusions but I am right on the Hebrew.)

    1. the word order of the Hebrew interlinear is right or not.
    2. if The "L" ל in front of the word for "footstool" הדם is there or not. להדם
    (ל = "at" - The Psalmist did not mean worship the footstool, but rather "worship [the Lord] at the footstool of His feet. [the arc and mt. Zion as symbols of "God's footstool" - see parallel later in the Psalm.

    It is not a lack of faith at all. I have true trust and faith in Jesus Christ as God the Son/Son of God who became flesh, died for sin, and rose from dead, and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.

    In the upper room, at that last supper, the last passover, before His crucifixion, Jesus obviously meant "signifies", "Symbolizes", "represents", because at the time He spoke it, He was in His incarnated body on earth. The whole transubstantiation thing is superstitious and worshiping the bread and wine is idolatry.

    The earliest writings after the NT where they discuss this issue are combating Docetism and Gnosticism and rebuking them for "abstaining from the Eucharist (thanksgiving, nothing wrong with calling it that in itself); - because they denied that Jesus had a real body. We believe He had a real body and is 100% man and 100 % God. So, it is not a lack of faith.

    Later, from Radbertus in the 800s to Aquinas in 1215 was the false doctrine of transubstantiation developed even more.
    Thursday, May 12, 2011 11:29:00 AM
    Ken said...
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2099&version=WLC

    This one gets the Hebrew right with the Westminster Leningrad Codex.

    Read from Right to Left, as you wrote. (smile)



    רֹֽומְמ֡וּ יְה֘וָ֤ה אֱלֹהֵ֗ינוּ וְֽ֭הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַהֲדֹ֥ם רַגְלָ֗יו קָדֹ֥ושׁ הֽוּא׃

    see the LaHaDoM ? ( LHDM ) ???

    לַהֲדֹ֥ם

    (right to left)
    Thursday, May 12, 2011 11:49:00 AM
    Ken said...
    רֹֽומְמ֡וּ יְה֘וָ֤ה אֱלֹהֵ֗ינוּ וְ֭הִֽשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְהַ֣ר קָדְשֹׁ֑ו כִּֽי־קָ֝דֹ֗ושׁ יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ׃

    Psalm 99:9

    Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at (ל) His holy hill ( הר_)

    להר

    at the hill - see it?

    להר קדשו

    = "at the hill of His holiness" or "at His holy hill" (Mt. Zion, Jerusalem, the temple, before the arc of the covenant) = symbols of God's presence in the OT.

    check it out for yourself.

    Any other way of interpreting Psalm 99 is not in keeping with the grammar, or context, nor theology of Israel as monotheistic and strongly against idolatry and against even the appearance of idolatry.

    ReplyDelete
  20. (Reposting Ken's comments...)
    Ken said...
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2099&version=WLC

    This one gets the Hebrew right with the Westminster Leningrad Codex.

    Read from Right to Left, as you wrote. (smile)

    רֹֽומְמ֡וּ יְה֘וָ֤ה אֱלֹהֵ֗ינוּ וְֽ֭הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַהֲדֹ֥ם רַגְלָ֗יו קָדֹ֥ושׁ הֽוּא׃

    see the LaHaDoM ? ( LHDM ) ???

    לַהֲדֹ֥ם

    (right to left)
    Thursday, May 12, 2011 11:49:00 AM

    ReplyDelete
  21. (Reposting Ken's comments...)
    Ken said...
    רֹֽומְמ֡וּ יְה֘וָ֤ה אֱלֹהֵ֗ינוּ וְ֭הִֽשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְהַ֣ר קָדְשֹׁ֑ו כִּֽי־קָ֝דֹ֗ושׁ יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ׃

    Psalm 99:9

    Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at (ל) His holy hill ( הר_)

    להר

    at the hill - see it?

    להר קדשו

    = "at the hill of His holiness" or "at His holy hill" (Mt. Zion, Jerusalem, the temple, before the arc of the covenant) = symbols of God's presence in the OT.

    check it out for yourself.

    Any other way of interpreting Psalm 99 is not in keeping with the grammar, or context, nor theology of Israel as monotheistic and strongly against idolatry and against even the appearance of idolatry.

    ReplyDelete
  22. OK, my response:
    Ken, it is you who continues to miss the point. I have acknowledged that MODERN translations have the “at” in them, or the “Hebrew L”, and I concur that MODERN renditions of the Hebrew have it there as well. THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The version which St. Augustine was using was the Latin Vulgate! You have already stated that St. Augustine was not well versed in Hebrew, so he would naturally have been using the Latin Vulgate, whom his contemporary, St. Jerome, translated from the Hebrew. So, IF anyone got this “wrong” - it would be St. Jerome, not St. Augustine! I am not wholly convinced that the texts which contain the “Hebrew L” in verse 5 are not MODERN renditions of an older text which in St. Jerome’s time may not have used the “Hebrew L” or “at.” AGAIN, the version St. Augustine was using reads as follows:

    5 exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum et adorate scabillum pedum eius quia sanctus est (Psalm 98:5 LV)

    Using Google Translate:
    Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore his footstool, because it is holy
    Douay-Rheims:
    5 Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore his footstool, for it is holy.

    Now, let us compare to verse 9:
    9 exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum et adorate in monte sancto eius quia sanctus Dominus Deus noster (Psalm 98:9 LV)

    ">Douay-Rheims:
    9 Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore at his holy mountain: for the Lord our God is holy.

    So, what is seen above is:
    1) The Latin version St. Augustine would have been using.
    2) A literal translation of the Latin using Google Translate.
    3) The Douay-Rheims version (an English translation of the Latin).

    Regarding verse 5: The word “at” is not found in the Latin, nor translations from the Latin.
    Regarding verse 9: The word “in” is used which Google translates to “upon” and the DRB says “at.”

    I reiterate - what you have shown us from MODERN translations cannot be applied to whether or not St. Augustine was “wrong,” and just because you can provide us with MODERN translations and renditions does not mean these MODERN versions are “right” and St. Jerome (not St. Augustine) was “wrong.”

    In short, you’ve done a lot of mountain building from this molehill! To the objective reader here, you’re doing a LOT of diverting from the REAL TOPIC, and that is - you lack faith to accept the Lord our God at His Word when it comes to what HE DECLARED at the First Mass on the Holy Thursday, the day before His Crucifixion on Good Friday.

    So, BOTH of my points still stand.
    1) "O ye of little faith," is not a statement of "no faith" - but NOT ENOUGH FAITH to accept our Lord's word on what IS His body.

    2) St. Augustine was not "wrong" in commenting on Psalm 98, not only was that the numbering in his day, the translation used did not say "at His footstool."

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks for re-posting my comments. At least people can go back and read them all and think for themselves.

    You are suggesting that Jerome's Hebrew text was different than what we have today for Psalm 99. (without the "L" in front of "footstool")

    Amazing!

    As I wrote before, Psalm 42 and 43 were together as one Psalm; that is why the numbers are different.

    I think the Reformation was right to emphasize getting back to the sources. "Ad Fontes" - back to the sources" (Erasmus, Luther)

    Relying on the Latin caused many problems in history.

    This one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  24. First off, Ken, I'm only suggesting that you have not demonstrated that the Hebrew text St. Jerome had is the same one used by Westminster Leningrad.

    Second, thank you for confirming that the numbering system of the Psalms changed (St. Augustine didn't have that "wrong"). You've de facto conceded my earlier point #2 (that you alleged St. Augustine was "wrong" to call it Chapter 98). Thank you.

    Thirdly, there is no theological "problem" with the Latin. Again, I would like some confirmation (aside from your sarcastic "amazing" comment) that the Hebrew text used by St. Jerome is the same text, verbatim, used by Westminster Leningrad.

    Fourthly, my point of "O ye of little faith" stands - for you do not accept the word of our Lord on the matter of the Eucharist.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  25. My point stands also. Ken is obsessing over one word in Hebrew that is NOT clearly in every extent Hebrew text--which he pointed out. Those that disagreed with him or the Westminster leningrad text were "wrong". Obsessing over this one point seems rather absurd at this point. Since he is still missing the main point--yours and the one I reiterated--that he does not have the fullness of faith; that Faith which takes Jesus Christ our Lord at His word.

    Jesus said, "This IS My Body." He did not say "this represents My Body." That is a lack of faith. When He told Jarius "At this hour your daughter IS healed." She was. Period. IF one believe Jesus is God the Son, one person of the Holy Trinity, eternal God, how can one NOT take Him at His word? (rhetorical, of course) I don't understand why protestants must explain away the plain words of Scripture, when they profess to use it as their 'rule of faith.' It makes no sense. Only what a protestant believes is proof texted--the rest of Scripture (iow, that which does not agree with his religious view) is ignored or attempts to explain away.

    This obsession with one Hebrew stroke is a prime example of using some minutia to explain away plain facts.

    ReplyDelete

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.