Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    Patricia,
    
    Do you have an author or an ISBN number for that book?
    Sounds really interesting.
    
    Cindy

>    What authority do these apochyrphl books have for Christians?

IMHO, zero.  Esp. when based on such a position that is in contradiction to
Biblical truth, as in:

>    It defines Divine Wisdom as a woman who existed with God before the
>    beginning of time and is available to humanity.

If this is a literary tool (ala Proverbs 1:20) then there's more flexibility.
But if this is literal, as I think you implied with your observation/question:
>    It sounds like a female version of the Gospel of John.
>
>    Now how did widsom get converted to Logos by the time of John's Gospel?

then the book is off in the woods, so to speak.

My 2�

-Steve

    Contemporary does not = TRUTH
    
    Why do we think it does?

    It is part of the Bible!
    
    Deutoronic/acochryl literature sandwiched between the OT and NT.
    
    It is in both my NSRV bibles
    

    Your description of Song of Solomon was very bizarre to me... as I've
    never heard it described quite that way...
    
    Even Cindy asked for the ISBN number, which added to my er, uh
    conclusion.
    
    

    RE: .5 No not the Song of Solomon. This is a different book. For
    those of you with BOOKREADER on your workstations a copy may be found
    at:
    
	CVG""::WORK3:[DECW_BOOK.BIBLE]WISDOM.DECW$BOOK
    
    			Alfred

Nancy, the Wisdom of Solomon isn't the same as the Song of Solomon.  The
Wisdom of Solomon is part of the Apocrypha, which I think is accepted as
part of the Bible by Catholics but not by Protestants.

				-- Bob

    I have never read the Book of Wisdom.  I have read other parts of the
    Apocrypha and understand this is where some Catholic doctrines stem
    from, i.e. Purgatory, etc.  It is not an area I am familiar with.
    
    Beautiful and poetic, perhaps.  Written under the authoritative
    inspiration of God, that's the question.  It is not a book to be looked
    upon with disdain mind you.  I believe the writings of Josephus for
    example, as an accurate and well written historical exegesis of Rome/
    Israeli relations.  Is is the word of God.  No.
    
    -Jack

    
    Got it, Alfred - thanks.
    
    Looks very interesting.
    
    Cindy

    Well, then there you have it... I thunked I was losing it there for a
    moment... as a protestant I do not accept the apoc* as the Word of God.

    apocrypha,
    
    Thanks Bob for help with the spelling.
    
    Isn't the NSRV of the Bible  the Bible recommended by the Nat Council
    of Churches?  It is right there in the middle of my Bible.  Divine
    Wisdom as a women.  Preexisting daughter of God. She was there when God
    created the world.  I was surprised too! 
    Where has the patriarchal church been hiding this stuff!

    NSRV again is not a recognized authoritative version of the Bible in my
    faith.

NRSV = New Revised Standard Version

NSRV = ???

				-- Bob

RE:             <<< Note 899.11 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>
                             -< Daughter of God! >-

       
   > Isn't the NSRV of the Bible  the Bible recommended by the Nat Council
   > of Churches?  
    

      Probably..



 Jim


     

    .13
    
    !kool I timda ot gnieb yllaitrap cixelsyd
    
    Ycnan

    re: 13
    
    NRSV it is.

    RE: .12
    
    Sure is in mine. 
    
    By the way, Covert's assumption about the KJV being "unchanged" was 
    never backed up.
    
    Marc H.

    My TEV also contains the works called the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha.
    
    Richard
    

    So it looks like only *some* Bibles are the literal inerrant word of
    God. We seem to be right back to square one: who gets to decide what is
    biblical and what isn't?

    I am increasingly more confident that my view regarding the Bible's
    nature is correct.

    	Eric

    I don't know the details, Eric .19, but I think the deuterocanonicals
    were and are considered worthy and all that other stuff, but as
    a supplement to the canon.  Somebody'll catch it if I'm mistaken, but
    I think the word deuterocanonicals means something like "second canon."
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Also see related topic 258.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    From what I've read, the deuterocanonical book were included in the
    pre-reformation bible. So, for a thousand years these books were
    considered as biblical as any other.

    The bible I use the most is the NAB (Roman Catholic). This bible
    contains the deuterocanonical books dispersed among the other books of
    the old testament. From my perspective, therefore, they are of equal
    value.

    Eric

    RE: .19
    
    I also concur. Even my NRSV Bible is considered "not correct" by
    some folks, like Nancy M.
    
    Its really sad to think that we can't even agree on what version to
    use. I'm sure that Christ would not have a kind word to say. 
    
    It all seems like we are missing the main message of the Bible, by
    wondering what version is correct.
    
    By the way, as I've stated before. The KJV isn't the same as the
    original one. Corrections and spelling changes have occured over the
    years. If the fundamentalists want to use the KJV, then they should
    get a copy of the original. It is available through Book Stores.
    
    Marc H.

    > It all seems like we are missing the main message of the Bible, by
    > wondering what version is correct.

    Amen.

    We get hung up on the words instead of the message -- labels versus
    content. We become more concerned with rule-following than wisdom. Our
    conversations are filled more with pride than compassion. Our
    declarations of humility ring hollow in the light of our words. (except
    for Derek B., of course ^:)) 
    
    
    	Eric

    Eric,
    
    What is your view of the Bible?
    
    Do you have a note somewhere that states it.
    
    I am very interested in how different people find inspiration and/or
    authority from the Bible even with its issues and problems of
    interpretation and consistency.
    
    Patricia

    Patricia,

    Check out 18.406 and the discussion surrounding it.

    Essentially, I view the Bible as a collection of stories that capture
    the written and oral traditions of a people. I believe the writings are
    inspired works, but not supernatural; that they are true in that they
    were written with sincerity. I do not iconify the Bible, nor do I view
    the compilation of the individual writings into a single volume as
    mystical, divine or supernatural.

    Eric 

    ERic,
    
    We then are in agreement on how we view the Bible.
    
    Thanks
    
    Patricia

    I believe it is important and perfectly fine to question versions of
    the Bible.  Let me give you an example:
    
    "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word
    was God."   John 1:1.  KJV, NASB, NIV
    
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was a god, and the Word
    was god."  Approved Edition of the Watchtower Society.
    
    Yeah..like little prepositions and indefinite articles  don't mean a
    whole lot...right!
    
    -Jack  
    
    

    .28
    
    When I took a course in the History of the New Testament, it was
    explained that the passage to which you've referred (Jn 1.1) could
    accurately be translated either way.  The verse could be understood
    either way in the original language as well.
    
    It is one of the reasons that the Gospel of John was suspected of being
    Gnostic in origin and was the subject of dispute during the canonization
    process.
    
    Because the version used by Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't not match our
    paradigm (the doctrine we've been taught as good and true and right),
    it's easy to reject out of hand.
    
    I think it's important to ask ourselves, do we want to know the truth
    or do we want to know only that which passes the test of our doctrinal
    paradigm(s)?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    The Book of Wisdom was written about a hundred years before the coming
    of Christ. Its author, whose name is not known to us, was a member of
    the Jewish community at Alexandria, in Egypt. He wrote in Greek, in a
    style patterned on that of Hebrew verse. At times he speaks in the
    person of Solomon, placing his teachings on the lips of the wise king of
    Hebrew tradition in order to emphasize their value. His profound
    knowledge of the earlier Old Testament writings is reflected in almost
    every line of the book, and marks him. like Ben Sira, as an outstanding
    representative of religious devotion and learning among the sages of
    postexilic Judaism.

    The primary purpose of the sacred author was the edification of his
    co-religionists in a time when they had experienced suffering and
    oppression, in part at least at the hands of apostate fellow Jews. To
    convey his message he made use of the most popular religious themes of
    his time, namely the splendor and worth of divine wisdom, the glorious
    events of the Exodus, God's mercy, the folly of idolatry, and the
    manner in which God's justice is vindicated in rewarding or punishing
    the individual soul. The first ten chapters especially form a
    preparation for the fuller teachings of Christ and his church. Many
    passages from this section of the book, notably 3: 1-8, are used by the
    church in her liturgy.

    The principal divisions of the Book of Wisdom are:
    I. The Reward of Justice (1: 1-6, 21)
    II. Praise of Wisdom by Solomon (6:22-11)
    III. Special Providence of God during the Exodus (11:2-16; 12:23-27;
    	15:18-19,22) with digressions on God's mercy (11:17-12:22) and on
    	the folly and shame of idolatry (13:1-15, 17).


    From "The New American Bible for Catholics"

Note 899.0 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"

>    Now how did wisdom get converted to Logos by the time of John's Gospel?
    
Patricia,

	Straining at the old braincells here.  I think a man named Philo had
something to do with it.  Will try to research it.

Richard

    See new topic 900 for a little more about Philo.  I have a feeling
    you might like this guy, Patricia!
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    re: .24 Eric
    
    > (except for Derek B., of course ^:))
    
    Touch�, Eric. ;-)
    
    Greetings, Derek.

   .28  Jack

    
   >"In the beginning was the Word, and the word was a god, and the Word
   >was god."  Approved Edition of the Watchtower Society.

    
   This is an incorrect "quote".  Please, let me help you.

   "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the
    Word was a god."  New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

   There are several other translations in various languages that agree
   with this rendering of John 1:1.  


   Steve

    Maybe I should consult the 1612 Bible that my mother has. I have the
    Old and New Testaments. The Old is in Latin, and the new in Greek.
    
    The interesting part about these old Bibles, is that the paper is in
    real good shape ( i.e. the cheap acid paper had not been invented).
    
    Marc H.

    With interest piqued by this note, I've started reading the book of
    Wisdom. In my opinion, anyone who hasn't read this is depriving
    themselves of an inspired work. Even if you don't think it's any more
    "biblical" than Billy Grahm, I think you'll find it moving. 

    There are places where it sounds down right Pauline. (The wisdom of God
    over the folly of human understanding, etc.). I would think the right
    of center crowd would eat this stuff up... cautions against
    tree-huggers (well it calls it nature worshiping), disbelief in
    salvation, riddicule of the righteous and everything!
    
    
    	Eric

    Thanks for the correction on John 1:1.  I wasn't attempting to start a
    discussion on Watchtower doctrine.  Merely pointing out that different
    versions of the Word of God can polarize different peoples viewpoints
    of what is correct and what is not.
    
    Richard, regarding paradigms.  A paradigm is stopping at the impossible 
    when breaking a paradigm is going beyond the impossible.  The Swiss for
    example set a paradigm that a watch could never run other than being
    wound up.  Because of this paradigm, the Swiss lost billions to the
    Japanese in quartz technology.
    
    I have not set up a paradigm in regards to the deity of Christ.  I will
    say however, that my belief in John 1:1 falls into harmony with the Old
    Testament and the claims/actions of Jesus Christ.  I am always opened
    to changing my viewpoint and have in this conference on a few
    occasions.
    
    -Jack

The Wisdom of Solomon was in the King James Bible as published by
the translators of the King James Bible; it was later removed by the
current Protestant publishers.  Editions of the KJV containing the
Apocrypha were commonly available until the mid 1970s, when the RSV
and NEB (New English Bible) versions of the Apocrypha finally appeared.

The Bookreader version of the Wisdom of Solomon which Alfred mentioned
is the KJV version.

Nancy should know quite well that the Wisdom of Solomon is in the KJV;
a few weeks ago I mailed her electronic copies of all of the KJV books
which the KJV translators translated but which are not in her copy of
the KJV.

Patricia should be glad to see that orthodox Christianity has always
embraced Wisdom as being feminine.  But orthodox Christianity has seen
divine Wisdom as a feminine aspect of God, not as a feminine person,
and in no way separate from God the Father.

One of the most famous cathedrals of all Christianity, now lost to the
Moslems, is the (former) Cathedral of Saint Sophia (Holy Wisdom) in
Constantinople.

/john

    Thank you John.
    
    Patricia

    899.40-899.44 have been moved to 907.0-907.4.
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Co-moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE