[Pants-of-dog]

:roll:

As long as we agree that the logic is sound.

Now, if we add certain ethical parameters, this would mean that anyone limiting access to contraception would be an accessory to the crime of slavery.

[ingliz]

the truth [of] the Scriptures or the validity of its dogmas are not conditional.

God's Law:

You are not to make an image or picture of anything in heaven or on the earth or in the waters under the earth.

When you are judged Sola Scriptura, I must assume you, a righteous man, will be going straight to hell for taking the photograph of your family you posted in "Member's Pictures".

No?

A subordination of the Will of God to that of man in anything is to deny God's authority and sovereignty and the absolute authority of Holy Scripture.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

have you not answered your own question? If you prevent an endangered species from breeding you have guaranteed its extinction.

Yes, but if I had to argue against myself, I would say that both questions involve extreme cases which cannot be generalised.

That said, I think a case can be made that the second question actually isn't an extreme case but that the endangered species scenario just establishes that the life of the bird is important and worthy of protection and that under such a scenario we also regard eggs, or animals in other stages of development, as worthy of protection. Since it is uncontested (hopefully) that human life is important and worthy of protection, it's possible to reason by analogy in this case.

I think everyone would acknowledge that if you prevent an endangered species from replicating you would be responsible for making that species extinct. But do you think that is the same as contraception of personal choice? More importantly have you practiced contraception? Or do you actively try to produce as many children as possible? That is after all the topic.

See above please.

No, because they are in danger. Do I think we should ban chicken eggs from supermarkets so the hen can mate with the rooster and produce as many chickens as possible? No because they are not in danger.

Again, see above please. Logically it's either both, chicken and egg, or neither that should be protected. So since we routinely slaughter adult chicken, their eggs can obviously be destroyed or eaten too. On the other hand, if we decide that, say, a bird of prey should be protected we include its eggs because, obviously, they will develop into the bird eventually. I think the endangered species scenario makes it obvious that the distinction between unborn and born life is based on expediency.

That is your moral opinion. Do you believe in free choice? Do you accept the law?

The implication I have described is not an opinion but follows logically. Only my opposition to it is, as you say, an opinion.

I think most females don't go through an abortion even with an unwanted pregancy. I also believe most people don't believe in abortions. As it happens, neither do I. But I do believe in free choice and that everyone is different. I also believe that people should have all the rights the law allows. For that reason alone to me abortions should be up to the individual in practice to decide. I also don't consider anyone who undertakes an abortion as a murderer - the message of this thread.

The introduction of personhood, free choice or women's rights over their bodies are all distractions in my opinion. It's a fact that an abortion is equivalent to terminating human life; there is no way around this. As I said, the original argument for abortion was about reducing overall harm and this is still, in my view, the only valid argument out there.

[B0ycey]

@Kaiserschmarrn, I think you need to go right to the beginning of this thread and actually read the OP. This thread is about contraception, not abortion. Very few would defend abortion but some might defend peoples right to have one while the law allows it.

Yes, but if I had to argue against myself, I would say that both questions involve extreme cases which cannot be generalised.

That said, I think a case can be made that the second question actually isn't an extreme case but that the endangered species scenario just establishes that the life of the bird is important and worthy of protection and that under such a scenario we also regard eggs, or animals in other stages of development, as worthy of protection. Since it is uncontested (hopefully) that human life is important and worthy of protection, it's possible to reason by analogy in this case.


See above please.


Again, see above please. Logically it's either both, chicken and egg, or neither that should be protected. So since we routinely slaughter adult chicken, their eggs can obviously be destroyed or eaten too. On the other hand, if we decide that, say, a bird of prey should be protected we include its eggs because, obviously, they will develop into the bird eventually. I think the endangered species scenario makes it obvious that the distinction between unborn and born life is based on expediency.

I have grouped these replies together because you points are valid, but nobody has argued otherwise. This is important for you to understand. Nobody disagrees with you.

The only question I have is why do you give superiority of haven to a creature that is in danger over a creature that isn't? Life is life right? My point was because one is in danger and the other isn't. Your point is because we eat one and not another. Well that is fine, but are you aware of the reasons why the Dodo became extinct? Little hint. Apparently they were quite tasty.

The introduction of personhood, free choice or women's rights over their bodies are all distractions in my opinion. It's a fact that an abortion is equivalent to terminating human life; there is no way around this. As I said, the original argument for abortion was about reducing overall harm and this is still, in my view, the only valid argument out there.

This again is about abortion. Can we have your opinion on contraception please. Are you for or against it?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@B0ycey, as I said in my response to VS (to which I referred you) I don't think that the extinction scenario can be generalised, so no I don't agree that contraception is murder.

The case is different for my second question which I also tried to explain, but you are right that this is not about abortion, so I'll leave it at that.

[Hindsite]

Awareness of audience and dogma are two different things. The biblical authors wrote in their cultural context, but the truth the Scriptures or the validity of its dogmas are not conditional. If God commands adultery to be punished with death, that is absolute moral law, it is not conditional on circumstance, it is universal. If God states that women are to submit to their husbands, that is not culturally conditional, that is absolute. Moral law is absolute and universally binding, it is not culturally conditional. Moral law reflects the Holiness and nature of God and is therefore unchanging.

However, Jesus told the woman caught in the act of adultry to go and sin no more.
(John 8:3-11)

And when the Pharisees accused Jesus of violating the Sabbath:

He replied, "If one of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out?
(Matthew 12:11)

"You hypocrites!" the Lord replied, "Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it to water?
(Luke 13:15)

So it appears you are wrong and these laws are conditional after all.

We don’t hear too much about submission anymore. And if we do, it’s usually a command to the wife, to submit to her husband. Still, this is considered a bit archaic in today’s modern culture.

So should a husband submit to his wife? Yes. He submits to his wife’s need to feel loved. I take this position by combining God’s command in Ephesians 5:21 to mutually submit, with God’s command in Ephesians 5:25-31 to a husband to love his wife.

But let me also be clear about when not to submit. The Bible never instructs us to submit to sin. When there is sin and disobedience, a spouse must respectfully and lovingly confront the sin. To look the other way or to ignore the sin in the name of “submission” is wrong, and actually condones and enables the sin to continue. Ephesians5:11 says we are to have nothing to do with deeds of darkness, but must expose them.

Does God really call a husband to submit to his wife?

Yes. Peter says in 3:1, “In the same way, you wives, be submissive." Then, and this is the clincher, he writes in 3:7, “You husbands in the same way.”

I have a problem with Masturbation if it is used to prevent pregnancy. If conception is possible within the bounds of Christian marriage, to prevent such by the vain wasting of seed, is a grievous sin equivalent in magnitude to murder.

Masturbation is not the murder of imaginary humans as I have already pointed out. But What if it is used to relieve sexual tension instead of forcing sexual favors from your wife when she is not ready. Forcing one's wife to submit to sex is not love.

Not an opinion, Scripture is the ultimate authority. If you feel I am wrong (note, just your feelings), then lets go to the texts.

I challenge you to debate the Scriptures: Do you accept or yield?

Your arrogance and pride prevents you from accepting an alternate opinion. Therefore, I would be foolish to accept or yield.

Scripture makes the claim that God and His Word are the ultimate authority. Do you care to debate this point from Scripture as well? I'm game.

I do not consider it a game to debate the authority of scripture.

[Victoribus Spolia]

However, Jesus told the woman caught in the act of adultry to go and sin no more.
(John 8:3-11)

And when the Pharisees accused Jesus of violating the Sabbath:

He replied, "If one of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out?
(Matthew 12:11)

"You hypocrites!" the Lord replied, "Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it to water?
(Luke 13:15)

No, the pharisees misunderstood the Law and its prosecution and that is why they are condemned. Here is an example of the position of Christ on the matter:

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Matthew 15:1-6

In this text, Christ is refuting the Pharisaical tradition that an elder son is not obligated to care for his parents in their old age if he "dedicates himself" to God (financially). This is considered a violation of the Ten Commandments by Christ because honoring thy father and thy mother implied also in the Law of Moses that the caring for one's parents is subsumed in the double-portion of inheritance which is given to the eldest son (Deuteronomy 21:17). Oldest sons are obligated to care for the parents as their patriarchal obligation, the double-portion of inheritance is the security of this provision, one cannot dedicate this to God and dump one's parents in a nursing home and think they are being pious, they are actually violating God's law.

With the woman caught in adultery, the pharisees attempted to trap Christ, for if He ordered her executed by the Romans, the Jews would have viewed Christ as a traitor to the Roman occupiers, if Christ had ordered the Sanhedrin carry out the execution (against Roman Law), the pharisees would have turned him over to the Romans for sedition (as the Jews were forbidden by the Roman occupation to carry out an execution, which is why Pontius Pilate had to authorize the crucifixion), if He had said she was innocent of any crime and was not worthy of death, they would have charged Him with blasphemy and His ministry would have been discredited; Especially, since Christ upheld the Law ten chapters earlier in this same Gospel in chapter 5 as being "absolute and binding."

What Christ did here was brilliant, He placed the ball back in their court, Christ was not authorized to execute her anyway and He was aware of their trap against Him, so He turned it back to them for them to cast the first stone if they be blameless (the Greek here does not imply purity is required to punish with death, for the death penalty is upheld by Christ in Matthew 5:17-19, and by Paul in Romans 13);

Rather, what Christ did here was essentially this: "if the pharisees were blameless in the legal sense, and the sanhederin was supposed to execute adulterers, why bring her to him?

That is why they only walked away and made no condemnations. He was right according to the Law of Moses, and the pharisees, out of fear of the Romans and the masses, would not prosecute her either by themselves (because the Romans would arrest them), or by turning her over to the Romans to be executed (which would infuriate the Jewish Nationalists).

This is well analyzed by the 16th century puritan scholar, Matthew Poole in his commentary:

Their design was from his answer to take some colourable pretence to accuse, and either to discredit him with the people, or to expose him to the displeasure of the superior powers. If he had directed to send her to be punished by the Roman governors, who administered justice in capital causes, the people would be fired with indignation; for they looked upon them as invaders of the rights of government that belonged to the Israelites. If he had advised them to put her to death by their own power, they would have accused him of sedition, as an enemy of the Roman authority. If he had dismissed her as not worthy of death, they would have accused him to the sanhedrim, as an infringer of the law of Moses, as a favourer of dissoluteness, an enemy to civil society, and worthy of universal hatred. This malicious design, so craftily concerted, our Saviour easily discovered and defeated; whereas they thought it would require his most attentive consideration to extricate himself from the snare. He seemed not at all to attend to what they said, but, stooping down, wrote on the ground: what he wrote, or how he could write upon the floor of the temple, (which was of stone), are very idle questions; the first not possible to be resolved, the second impertinent; for it is not said, that he made any impression upon the ground, though it be said, he wrote upon it. It appeareth plainly to have been but a divertive action, by which our Saviour signified that he gave no ear to them.

Likewise, Christ did not oppose the Sabbath, only that which was not required by the Law of Moses regarding it, but instead added by the Pharisees in their legalism. Christ teaches that works of necessity on the Sabbath are not contrary to the Law of God or works of righteousness, like healing, or petty things like poverty-gleaning grain while walking on that day. Christ; however, followed the Law perfectly, including the Sabbath law, as scripture teaches.

We don’t hear too much about submission anymore. And if we do, it’s usually a command to the wife, to submit to her husband. Still, this is considered a bit archaic in today’s modern culture.

God's Word is absolute. Wives are to submit to the authority of their husbands. They are to be the head of their own households, women are to obey them, within the bounds of Scriptural law. Period.

Its funny that people on PoFo think you are the "fundamentalist," you are actually quite liberal when it comes to the True Faith. Far more liberal than I am.

But let me also be clear about when not to submit. The Bible never instructs us to submit to sin. When there is sin and disobedience, a spouse must respectfully and lovingly confront the sin. To look the other way or to ignore the sin in the name of “submission” is wrong, and actually condones and enables the sin to continue.

No one is contending this, just like obeying our rulers which we are likewise commanded to do (Romans 13), so too a wife may resist her husbands if he requires her to violate the Word of God; however, if his commands are within the bounds of biblical morality, she is obligated to obey, just as the church is obligated to obey Christ.

Yes. Peter says in 3:1, “In the same way, you wives, be submissive." Then, and this is the clincher, he writes in 3:7, “You husbands in the same way.”

Now time to deal with this piss-poor exegesis where you intentional omit relevant portions of the text. Lets take a look at 1 Peter 3:1 and v5-6together:

3 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.....

5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands...

6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

Now, lets examine your "clincher:"

7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

So, "in the same way" here is not referring to men "obeying women," what a bunch of liberal hogwash that ignores the text. No wonder you did not quote it, are you afraid of what it requires of you? The text is clear, "in the same way," is better rendered in english as "in like manner."

Thus, "in the same way" a wife is to OBEY her husband as her Lord, so too a man must be be considerate of his wife as the WEAKER vessel.

A husband is to be loving, and considerate, and sacrificial towards his wife, but a wife is to both submit and obey to His authority. This is indisputable textually.

Let us reexamine Ephesians 5:22-33

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Your cite verse 21 to say that submission is mutual and egalitarian; however, Paul unpacks his meaning in context. He starts with women. Women are to submit, but in what manner? As the church submits to Christ?

How does the church submit to Christ? By obedience to Christ as the Lord and Head and Savior of the Church. Thus, JUST AS the Church submits to Christ, in the same manner the wife is to submit to her husband's headship and authority in EVERYTHING.

Now, for you egalitarian interpretation to hold water, the manner of husbands "submitting to their wives," as you claim, should be in the same manner as the wife's submission above, lets see if it is? Lets see if husbands are required to submit to their wives in obedience to them as the church obeys Christ as LORD:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

NOPE. The husband is to love and sacrifice himself for his wife's good just as Christ did so for the church. Thus, Scripture does not teach that mutual submission is egalitarian. The roles are clearly delineated and are consistent with the patriarchal teachings of the whole Bible.

1. Wives are to obey their husbands and submit to their authority just as the church is to submit to the authority of Christ.

2. Husbands are to love, respect, and be considerate of their wives out of an acknowledgement of their being the weaker sex, and are to sacrifice themselves for their wives, just as Christ did so for the Church.

Masturbation is not the murder of imaginary humans as I have already pointed out. But What if it is used to relieve sexual tension instead of forcing sexual favors from your wife when she is not ready. Forcing one's wife to submit to sex is not love.

You pointed nothing out, you made an assertion that you cannot defend.

Genesis 38 is clear: Onan destroyed his offspring on the ground, so God killed him for it, because it was murder.

Likewise, you are wrong about the obligations of husband and wife in marriage. Husbands and wives are BOTH forbidden from denying each other their sexual rights in marriage:

But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 1 Corinthians 7:2-5

[Victoribus Spolia]

God's Law:

You are not to make an image or picture of anything in heaven or on the earth or in the waters under the earth.

When you are judged Sola Scriptura, I must assume you, a righteous man, will be going straight to hell for taking the photograph of your family you posted in "Member's Pictures".

No?

A subordination of the Will of God to that of man in anything is to deny God's authority and sovereignty and the absolute authority of Holy Scripture.

What are you talking about? That command is about worshiping false idols, not taking photos.

That does not prove that the commandments are conditional, nor do I understand how you are relating this to Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine implying that Scripture is in the nude, the only thing ever used, but that Scripture alone is the overriding or highest authority, and only by the Christ presented in Scripture can one be saved. This is why this sola is included in the five solas, and not by itself. Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria.

as I said in my response to VS (to which I referred you) I don't think that the extinction scenario can be generalised, so no I don't agree that contraception is murder.

Why can it not be generalized? Please explain.

[ingliz]

What are you talking about? That command is about worshiping false idols, not taking photos.

The Talmud comments on the second commandment, and takes a very strict stance against producing images of faces, ruling it forbidden.

In classical and Hellenistic Greek, εἴδωλον has a relatively wide semantic range: a phantom; an unsubstantial form; an image reflected in water or a mirror; an idea or an image in the mind, including the false phantoms of the mind described by Plato; or a likeness.

οὐ ποιήσεις σεαυτῷ εἴδωλον οὐδὲ παντὸς ὁμοίωμα ὅσα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τῇ γῇ κάτω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς

[Victoribus Spolia]

The Talmud comments on the second commandment, and takes a very strict stance against producing images of faces, ruling it forbidden.

Ah yes, because I am going to trust that pile of Jewish hogwash Such an elevation of the tradition and teachings of men over the plain reading of Scripture is exactly the sort of thing Christ rebukes in the Gospels as a corruptor of the true meaning of the Law and is exactly the same line of thought used by the Reformers in advancing the cause of Sola Scriptura against papist innovations in the area of religion.

The plain meaning of that text, and the way it is APPLIED in other texts when it is mentioned or implied, is referring to the worship of false idols rather than the One True God. The sting of it being best displayed in the golden calf incident and in the constant call for the kings of Israel and Judah to not only eliminate false religion, but to take down the idols "in the high places."

It was the pharisees that took this to the extent of opposing even military symbols (such as the Roman eagle), but this was not the doctrine of Christ.

Indeed, if this interpretation you are advocating was that serious in Jewish thought, they would not have traded in Roman coins when under occupation which not only depicted a person's face, but the face of Caesar who himself claimed to be god on earth and even had an imperial cult of his own.

That the greek word is broad does not aid your point, for all this means is that an idol can be made "from almost anything," which is true, it does not therefore mean that "everything is an idol," that would be a fallacious inference.

[B0ycey]

Ah yes, because I am going to trust that pile of Jewish hogwash

Funny you write this...

What was the Bible translated from again?

[ingliz]

the plain reading of Scripture

Plainly, the Scripture reads,

You are not to make an image or picture of anything in heaven or on the earth or in the waters under the earth.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You are not to make an image or picture of anything in heaven or on the earth or in the waters under the earth.

A text without a context is a pretext; the whole verse reads thus, and if read as a whole, supports my conclusion and not yours:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

The context of these images is their use, not images in general. Even the Temple was inlayed with pictures and the top of the Arc of the Covenant had cherubim and these were not violations of God's commandment. The commandment teaches that man is not to make images or statues and worship....not unlike many of the popish heretics do with their many idols and icons.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Funny you write this...

What was the Bible translated from again?

From the worshippers of the true faith, chosen of God. The Jews began to rebel against the Lord from the time of their captivity and went into full apostasy when they forsook, en masse, the Savior. They, on the whole, are thus cut off (Romans 11), though a remnant remains. God is now expanding His covenant and His salvation among the Gentiles until the fullness is brought in and the Jews are the enemies of Christians (for the Gospel's sake), even if they are brothers (for Election's sake). This is all clearly expounded upon by St. Paul in Romans 11. If you actually care and are not just interested in trolling, go check it out.

[noemon]

The "idol worship" conversation has always intrigued me.

not unlike many of the popish heretics do with their many idols and icons.

It is funny that the people who argue against illustrated art have no problem worshipping(sola scriptura) written art such as the Bible itself. When you think about this carefully, you come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no difference between casting an image with words or colours. That is why the sola scriptura argument falls on its face, while the philosophical argument wins, because it is all about the bottom line and the bottom line is that people should not worship anything other than the pure form of God/Good, they can however discuss, write, illustrate and comment on both the written and illustrated images while applying the Logos.

What was the Bible translated from again?

The New Testament was originally written in Greek. The OT was translated in Alexandria around 300 BC on the orders of Ptolemy, Alexander's General so that it can become accessible to the Library and because he did not trust them to translate it correctly, he commissioned 72 Hebrew translators and put them in separate guarded rooms to cross reference their translations. That translation which is called the Septuagint(lit. of the 70) and is currently being used only by the Orthodox remains the most correct OT as it has been cross-referenced with the Dead Sea Scrolls which is the oldest extant archeologically derived document. The Protestants and Jews use a different OT translation derived from a later-medieval Hebrew text called the Masoretic text, which was commissioned by the Protestants at some point in the Middle Ages in an attempt to differentiate themselves from the Church. The Catholics use the Vulgate which is a mix of Origen's Hexapla.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It is funny that the people who argue against illustrated art have no problem worshipping(sola scriptura) written art such as the Bible itself. When you think about this carefully, you come to the conlcusion that there is absolutely no difference between casting an image with words or colours. That is why the sola scriptura argument falls on its face, while the philosophical argument wins, because it is all about the bottom line and the bottom line is that people should not worship anything other than the pure form of God/Good, they can however discuss, write, illustrate and comment on both the written and illustrated images while applying the Logos.

The inscripurated tables of stone in which the commandments were written were kept at the heart of the temple and is where the presence of God presided. bowing before this WORD was not idolatry, but making a golden calf as a representation of God was, and was punishable. There is a difference. Christians ought to worship and reverence God through His Word, but not through depictions of their own device. The Word derives from God and is not the invention of man, but any image that man makes, being not instructed by the Word, is always of His own device.

Scripture makes the distinction between the Word and images itself, this is not some protestant propaganda, its the biblical norm. Scripture commands obedience and reverence to the Word, it makes no requirements for man-made images. quite the opposite.

EDIT (added): Also, note, I am not arguing against illustrated art, Ingliz is claiming that is my view, but it is not. My argument is against making images specifically for the purpose of worship.

The New Testament was originally written in Greek. The OT was translated in Alexandria around 300 BC on the orders of Ptolemy, Alexander's General so that it can become accessible to the Library and because he did not trust them to translate it correctly, he commissioned 72 Hebrew translators and put them in separate guarded rooms to cross reference their translations. That translation which is called the Septuagint(lit. of the 70) and is currently being used only by the Orthodox remains the most correct OT as it has been cross-referenced with the Dead Sea Scrolls which is the oldest extant archeologically derived document. The Protestants and Jews use a different OT translation derived from a later-medieval Hebrew text called the Masoretic text, which was commissioned by the Protestants at some point in the Middle Ages in an attempt to differentiate themselves from the Church. The Catholics use the Vulgate which is a mix of Origen's Hexapla.

All of this is true, but that the Masoretic text is less accurate than the Septuagint is a load of crap. The Masoretic text was also crossed referenced with the Dead Sea Scrolls and there were no major differences, this being beside the fact that just because the Dead Sea scrolls are possibly "older" does not mean they should necessarily be the "touchstone," textual criticism involves both the age of the text and the extantness of its reading. This is why I believe only the Byzantine text can be called the ecclesial text and I reject the minority text types outright.

[noemon]

The inscripurated tables of stone in which the commandments were written were kept at the heart of the temple and is where the presence of God presided. bowing before this WORD was not idolatry, but making a golden calf as a representation of God was, and was punishable. There is a difference. Christians ought to worship and reverence God through His Word, but not through depictions of their own device. The Word derives from God and is not the invention of man, but any image that man makes, being not instructed by the Word, is always of His own device.

Scripture makes the distinction between the Word and images itself, this is not some protestant propaganda, its the biblical norm. Scripture commands obedience and reverence to the Word, it makes no requirements for man-made images. quite the opposite.

Of course it was idolatry, and it still is idolatry worshipping text. Scripture does not make any such distinction, the word for "Word" is Logos, which is not "word" but Logic. What is the difference between an image painted with words vs an image painted with colours, or an image cast in iron, stone or film?

It is not the script that requires worship but the Meaning. The script is ephemeral, it can be translated and interpreted a million different ways depending on who's reading it and at what time. The bottom line however is another matter. It is absolute. And how do we reach the bottom line to anything? By applying Logos/Logic.

The Bible does not distinguish between word and image, it distinguishes between Logos and Idol. A far more important and substantive distinction. To make this even clearer "idol" includes any kind of reflection, written, illustrated and/or mental.

All of this is true, but that the Masoretic text is less accurate than the Septuagint is a load of crap. The Masoretic text was also crossed referenced with the Dead Sea Scrolls and there were no major differences, this being beside the fact that just because the Dead Sea scrolls are possibly "older" does not mean they should necessarily be the "touchstone," textual criticism involves both the age of the text and the extantness of its reading. This is why I believe only the Byzantine text can be called the ecclesial text and I reject the minority text types outright.

The Masoretic text is wrong where it matters as it is a later Hebrew text intent on removing all the parts that confirmed the prophecy of Jesus' arrival. The removal of the word "Virgin" from the OT prophecy in the Masoretic text being the most obvious of such examples. As early as the second AD, Christians were on the case:

In the 2nd century A.D., hundreds of years before the time of the Masoretes, Justin Martyr investigated a number of Old Testament texts in various Jewish synagogues.
He ultimately concluded that the Jews who had rejected Christ had also rejected the Septuagint, and were now tampering with the Hebrew Scriptures themselves:

“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the [Septuagint] translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying” (~150 A.D., Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter LXXI)

[Victoribus Spolia]

The Masoretic text is wrong where it matters as it is a later Hebrew text intent on removing all the parts that confirmed the prophecy of Jesus' arrival. The removal of the word "Virgin" from the OT prophecy in the Masoretic text being the most obvious of such examples. As early as the second AD, Christians were on the case:

Which text in particular are your referring to here?

Likewise, St. Jerome did not have such skepticism towards the Hebrew Text, in fact he had alot of questions regarding version of the LXX used at his time which he believed ought to have been examined in light of the Hebrew:

I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” […] Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.

Of course it was idolatry, and it still is idolatry worshipping text. Scripture does not make any such distinction, the word for "Word" is Logos, which is not "word" but Logic. What is the difference between an image painted with words an an image painted with colours?

Christ is the Logos, and we worship Him. Logos can mean logic, ratio, word, and that all depends on the context of its usage. In the context of John 1, where this phrase is specifically used, it is giving the account of Genesis wherein in discussing where all things were created by the Word, the Word is personified as the Second Person of the Trinity. Word was with God and the Word was God.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ [ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν 4ἐν] αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων 5καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν

The difference between an image painted with colors being worshipped and God being worshipped through the Word, is that the Word as the medium of faith and salvation is taught in Scripture. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" Romans 10:17

contrarily,

"'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 26:1

This is the difference. Salvation comes through the Word, the same Word of Power that brought the world into existence, Christ Himself and His power manifest. The Word comes by Grace and not of man, images are the inventions of the mind of men. God is worshipped directly through the Word, images are the mediums invented by men to worship God according to their own device.

The former is true worship, the latter is idolatry. Its that simple.

Art is not idolatry, only images and idols that are made to be worshipped are idols. I want to make sure I am equally clear on that point.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@noemon,

I will continue this debate with you in 2018. Good to have someone to talk texts with.

Godspeed.

[noemon]

Christ is the Logos, and we worship Him. Logos can mean logic, ratio, word, and that all depends on the context of its usage. In the context of John 1, where this phrase is specifically used, it is giving the account of Genesis wherein in discussing where all things were created by the Word, the Word is personified as the Second Person of the Trinity. Word was with God and the Word was God.

Sorry to say but that is a Word Salad with no discernible point.

The difference between an image painted with colors being worshipped and God being worshipped through the Word, is that the Word as the medium of faith and salvation is taught in Scripture. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" Romans 10:17
contrarily,
"'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 26:1

You did not answer the simple question:

What is the difference between an image painted with words and an image painted with colours, stone or film not just in the Bible but in general? Can you name a single difference between any of them? The issue here is that you are confused because you are not reading from the original. And the original does not distinguish between words(lexeis) and images(icons). It distinguishes between Logos and Idol, where your text reads "image" it actually reads Idol and where you read Word it actually reads Logos. And the difference between them is not that of written vs illustrated images as you erroneously believe. The most obvious proof of this is that Idol includes textual and mental images as well as illustrated and others.

This is the difference. Salvation comes through the Word, the same Word of Power that brought the world into existence, Christ Himself and His power manifest. The Word comes by Grace and not of man, images are the inventions of the mind of men. God is worshipped directly through the Word, images are the mediums invented by men to worship God according to their own device.
The former is true worship, the latter is idolatry. Its that simple.

Salvation comes from the Truth, and to reach to the truth you need to think with Logic because if salvation came from worshipping a script rather than the meaning of the script, then that would be ridiculous, as ridiculous as people praying to a piece of paper or a tablet or a phablet instead of the pure form of God/Good.

Art is not idolatry, only images and idols that are made to be worshipped are idols. I want to make sure I am equally clear on that point.

Do you actually believe that God cares on whether he is approached through written or illustrated art? Both ephemeral human mediums. You are elevating text into God's place at this moment like those who put a tablet at an altar. Worship is for God only, text and images are merely aids in our communication, the Church has realised that aeons ago and if a text can be annotated, commented, and translated it can also be illustrated, but neither the illustration nor the text are for worship. If a Bible can be placed in a church to aid in one's communication with God, then that Bible can also be illustrated for those who cannot hear or read letters. But neither the Bible nor its illustrations are there for worship, even if some people become emotional about them which is natural and it comes either through reading or watching.

---------

Likewise, St. Jerome did not have such skepticism towards the Hebrew Text, in fact he had alot of questions regarding version of the LXX used at his time which he believed ought to have been examined in light of the Hebrew:

None of those syllogisms follow from the text you quoted. First of all, what he calls "the original" is not the Masoretic text which came into existence 6 centuries later. By "original" he means the Hebrew text that was used to translate the Septuagint and which was included in the huge Greek work Hexapla(sixes) which compared side by side and word for word 4 Greek translations with 2 Hebrew versions. All the versions he mentions in your text are Greek translations, and of Aquila and of Symmachus and of Theodotion. He translated the OT into Latin and to do that he used Origen's Hexapla, from the Hexapla he used different versions for different sections of the OT. For one particular section, the Book of Daniel and the "Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible" he used Theodotion's Greek version instead of the Septuagint, for which he was accused. And he explains himself by saying that the Church prefers Theodotion's Book of Daniel instead of the Septuagint, so "why are you guys telling me off for using Theodotion's Greek for the other 2 sections, when you guys use it for the Book of Daniel anyway?" Theodotion's Greek translation for the Book of Daniel for some reason had become the preferred text and had replaced the Septuagint's Book of Daniel ever since then for the whole Church. None of that relates to the Jewish Masoretic text which came into existence 6 centuries later and which is used by the Protestant Churches authoritatively ever since the 18th century.

Which text in particular are your referring to here?

You can read the whole analysis on the link above and you can see some of the corruptions of the Masoretic text in the image in my previous post. You should read that link because it is very interesting and well-written.