1. Hello Guest! You are browsing the forums as a guest; you will have limited permissions as a guest so we advise registering to enjoy the forums fully. Remember: we are a Christian ONLY site - any user who is not Christian will not be approved. Blessings, Christian Forum Site Staff
    Dismiss Notice

“understanding The Word”

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by netchaplain, Sep 26, 2012.

  1. What explains Scripture? It is the Spirit of God alone. His power can unfold any part of the Word of God. Do you ask if I mean to say that it is of no importance to know languages, understand history and so on? I am not raising a question about learning; it has its use. But I deny that history is the interpreter of Scripture.

    And if there are Christians who know the history of the world, or the original tongues of Scripture, it is the Lord Jesus Christ that has to with their spiritual intelligence and not their knowledge or leaning. Besides, even if men are believers, it does not necessarily follow that they understand Scripture.

    Real entrance into God’s mind, in Scripture, supposes that a person watches against the old man, desires the glory of God, has full confidence in His Word, and dependence upon the Holy Spirit. The mind is only the vessel – not the power. The power is the Holy Spirit, acting upon and through the vessel; but it must be the Spirit that gives one to know the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). “They shall be taught of God.”

    There is a great difference in the measure of the teaching, because there is much difference in the measure of dependence upon the Father. The important thing is to bear in mind that the understanding of the Word of God depends much upon what is moral than what is of the mind – upon a single eye to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit can never give us anything to save us from the necessity of dependence and waiting upon our Father – but that He does give us.

    We find Daniel expressing in humbleness of mind his unfitness for receiving such communications. First, one like the similitude of the sons of men touches his lips, and he is instructed to speak unto the Lord. He confesses his weakness – that there is no strength left in him. But “there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me, and said, O man, greatly beloved, fear not. Peace be unto the; be strong, yea, be strong.”

    Men, until they are thoroughly established in peace, until their hearts know the real source of strength, are not capable of profiting by the Word of God. Here we find Daniel set upon his feet, his mouth opened, his fears hushed, before the Lord can open out the Word to him. His heart must be in restful peace in the strength of the Lord, and in the presence of his Father.

    Anxiety of spirit, the want of settled peace, has more to do than people think with the little progress that they make in understanding much of God’s Word. It is not enough that a man have life and the Spirit of God; but there must be a breaking down of the flesh and simple, peaceful resting in the Lord Jesus – the knowing of who and where we are in Him. -- W.M. Kelly
    KingJ likes this.
  2. Thanks Chaplain,

    From what I read IN scripture, the Holy Spirit was sent for that purpose.

    John 14:15-17
    John 14:26
    John 15:26
    John 16:8

  3. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was written about 300 or so years before Jesus came. The Septuagint was not written for the Greeks as they were still a pagan nation. It was written for the Jews who knew Greek. It’s not as if there were a bunch of Christians 300 years before Jesus. Now can I show you an example of how important it is to study and seek out the bible and the meanings of the words from the original Hebrew, to the Greek then to the other languages such as our English. The reference’s are provided for your own studying.

    In the Septuagint, the Hebrew ‘edah’ was translated using the Greek word ‘sunagoge’. Both words were interchangeable in the Greek:

    5712 hde `edah, a stated assemblage a family or crowd:--assembly, company, congregation, multitude,
    #4864 sunagwgh sunagoge, soon-ag-o-gay' an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish "synagogue"

    Exodus 35:1 And Moses assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel, and said unto them, These are the words which Jehovah hath commanded, that ye should do them.

    35:1 και συνηθροισεν μωυσης πασαν συναγωγην(#4864) υιων ισραηλ και ειπεν προς αυτους ουτοι οι λογοι ους ειπεν κυριος ποιησαι αυτους

    Notice here in Acts the same root word, sunagoge.
    Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled (sunagogoe) together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.

    Acts 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: (sunagogue)
    The same Greek word they use in Acts, is the same root word they use in 300 BC. Now what do we see suddenly in James?

    James 2:1,2 For if there come unto your assembly (sunagogue) a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
    Did you notice that they changed the word from sunagoge, to assembly cause the translators didn’t want to think the early church was meeting in the synagogue? So now the translators are going to call it an assembly. When you read the word assembly you don’t even realize that it’s the same Greek root word they are translating as synagogue everywhere else, but the translators don’t want you to think synagogue, so they put in same ideas in assembly. Is it making sense? See the play on words? Let’s go to Revelations.

    Revelations 2:9 but are of the synagogue (sunagogue) of Satan.
    Now you have the translation saying synagogue. What’s the Greek word? Sunagogue. Why didn’t they put assembly of Satan there? The connotation is that synagogues are bad. Can you see the bias there through the bible? Onto the next idea:

    06950 lhq qahal, 'kaw-hal' assemble (selves) (together), which is translated into:

    In Septuagint translated as ekklesia –
    1577 ekklhsia ekklesia, ek-klay-see'-ah
    a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Israelite assembly)

    When you think of ekklesia you think of church. You don’t think of synagogue.
    Leviticus 8:3 And gather thou all the congregation together unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

    8:3 και πασαν την συναγωγην(4864)εκκλ(1577) ησιασον επι την θυραν της σκηνης του μαρτυριου

    300 years before Jesus came and they were translating the Hebrew into Greek, they are using the words the synagogue is holding an ekklesia. Were there any churches at that time the Septuagint was written? Were there any churches in Moses time in 1500 BC?

    Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church (#1577 ekklhsia) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
    If the word ekklesia that they are referring to when the Septuagint was written in 300 BC, and the word is now referring to Moses in 1500 BC, why in the world would you put the church in the wilderness? Was there a church in the wilderness during Moses time? This passage from Acts is referencing this passage from Deuteronomy:

    Deuteronomy 18:15-18 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb (another name for Sinai) in the day of the assembly (ihq #6950), saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

    And from the Septuagint:

    18:15 προφητην εκ των αδελφων σου ως εμε αναστησει σοι κυριος ο θεος σου αυτου ακουσεσθε
    18:16 κατα παντα οσα ητησω παρα κυριου του θεου σου εν χωρηβ τη ημερα της
    ησιας λεγοντες ου προσθησομεν ακουσαι την φωνην κυριου του θεου ημων και το πυρ το μεγα τουτο ουκ οψομεθα ετι ουδε μη αποθανωμεν
    18:17 και ειπεν κυριος προς με ορθως παντα οσα ελαλησαν

    Acts 19:35-41 And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter? Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly. For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another. But if ye enquire anything concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse. And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly. (ekklesia)

    Oops, they don’t want the readers to think it was the church worshipping the Goddess Diana. Even though ekklesia really means assembly, the translators have picked and choosen when they wanted to translate it into church or assembly. Can you see the bias right there? Ekklesia and sunagoge meant the same thing. It merely meant an assembly of people. Anywhere you have a group of people together, it is the same thing. From a football game, to being at the foot of Mt. Sinai. It meant the same thing.

    Now when you ask what explains scripture. I believe the Holy Spirit moves us and I believe the Bible is the living, breathing word of the Lord. I became saved reading Luke 23: 39-43. The NIV Student Version no less. However, after I became saved I had no direction and for a time was seriously studying Calvinism, yikes. I had to use some discernment skills, and evaluate what was being taught, did not correspond with the bible. I prayed to the Father vehemently that he would lead me down the correct path and teachings. That’s how I ended up where I am today. I don’t want you to take what I just wrote as the gospel, verify yourselves.

    The “church” is not a New Testament phenomenon! By using this word it makes us think of the church as being distinct from the Jewish people. So when we say, “when did the “church” begin everyone, says “in Acts”. That is replacement theology. Church comes from the word ekklesia which you saw was translated from the word assembly 300 years before the coming of Christ. There were no churches in the New Testament. There were only assemblies meeting in synagogues.

    The Assembly of called out ones began in Exodus not in Acts. Replacement theology implies the church was called out of Israel which is just the opposite of the truth, because all of the non-Jews are called to be grafted into the Olive Tree which is Israel. God has called Israel to be the ekklesia (called out ones) in that non Jews who have been called out of the world of paganism and idolatry are grafted in to Israel who were and are the called out ones! Replacement theology implies the church is called out of the church.

    Hebrews 11:32-40 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephtha; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
    It doesn’t say us without them! These are the faithful, patriarchal Jews we are grafted in with!

    Ecclesia used 70 times in the Old Testament. Church or churches appears 115 times in the New Testament. How would it sound if they put assembly as it was used throughout the Old? It would sure change people’s perspective.

    This is an example of poor translations, intentional or not, that has shaped poor doctrine and theology. Now more then ever, we need to get our thinking caps on and pray we are not led astray.
  4. Ryan,

    As there are no 'autographs' and the oldest manuscripts of the OT and NT are Greek, what exactly are you trying to assert or justify here?
  5. I am trying to assert that yes the Word of God is spiritual and there isn't one day that something "pops" out at me and speaks to me about my life. And yes, the Holy Spirit can reveal anything it wants to of us. Yes, pray that what we are learning is God breathed. But we also have a responsibility to seek out the truths ourselves and be a studier of the Bible, but also learn about the culture and language of the times then some things will make sense or bring clarity to a passage. An example would be the cock crowing thrice. Some translations have it interpreted as a rooster crowing. But that's not the case. Chicken's, let alone roosters were not allowed in Jerusalem at the time. Story has it because the little things were hard to catch, they could make its way into the Temple and defile it. The cock that crowed was a Hebrew idiom for a Rabbi that called out for prayer 3 times a day. There was no rooster.

    Another is the funeral procession where Jesus brought back to life the widow's son. When both "large" processions met at the city's gates, Jesus felt the widows pain and he went and performed the miracle. There is so much more going on then this. The city's gates are very narrow and both group's were very large. Meaning only one group could get past and the other had to stand aside to allow the other to pass. It was not uncommon at the time for strangers to join in a procession if they were to meet and the funeral procession to have the right of way so to speak. So the question that was argued who has the right of way if a funeral procession meets a wedding procession? It was argued the funeral has the priority and the wedding group allows the funeral to pass. But they both had to yield for the King of Israel. And who is the King of Israel. It is Jesus of course. So the funeral procession yielded for our Messiah.

    It is little nuances like this that we need to learn on our own and either accept it or reject it. My assertion is we have a resposibility to seek and discern all teachings, including what I have just posted. It will be a life long endeavor, but I'm prepared for that. The Lord may reveal things to me when I'm ready, but until that time comes, I will be a dligent student and studier of the bible with the understanding the culture and language of the times will assist with my learning. God bless and Shalom.
  6. Just another addendum item, how many of the more "mature" folks have ever used this line, "Ya know, back in the day we..." So in a way, just trying to find out what they did "back in the day" will shed some light on the bible.
  7. I completely understand trying to put context into what we read, but changing God's Word to say what it does NOT say, is tantamount to heresy. There is no basis for your assertion. It was late when Jesus was betrayed by Judas and He said before the rooster crows, NOT crows three times. The Greek word Jesus used is alektōr, and means a cock or male bird. Maybe it wasn't a rooster, but it it could be a Pea cock, or a Raven/Crow or any number of male birds that would crow just before sun rise. Another problem with your explanation is that their Rabbi's did make public calls to prayer and Rabbi is not an office found in the Hebrew Bible. The official time for morning prayer is AFTER sunrise, NOT before, and can be up to noon. In Matthew 27, it shows that all these Jewish leaders met EARLY in the morning. No mention of morning prayers here so it would have to be AFTER morning prayers, way after sunrise. There is just no basis to give your assertion and credulity.

    Your assertions seems to be to look for history to interpret the Bible. You are assuming God and the writers were not inspired enough to give clarity to ALL people. I see no reason to NOT accept scenarios as literal when they are depicted as such. We have the Holy Spirit to help us understand God's Word, NOT to reinvent it. He will never tell us something about the Word that is contrary to what it says, and vice-versa. Your explanations of the 'crowing' and the 'funeral' as examples of many stories that hold different meanings would not sit well with MOST Christians who trust God to be open and straight forward in His Word. Please do yourself a favour and TRUST GOD that His Word is what He says it is and wants it to be.
  8. Howdy Stan, a fellow Albertan. Just south of you in Lethbridge here.

    Mark 13:35
    Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:

    Jewish law absolutely forbid any chickens allowed in the city. One of the main reasons was sanitation, another was they didn’t want the Temple defiled. The Pharisees and Saducees had many laws already as it pertained to just washing their hands as shown when Jesus was arguing over them about that issue. The teachers at the time, including Josephus, made it clear that no chickens were allowed in Jerusalem. The hour of 3 AM was called cock crow. The sign of the changing of the guard at 3 AM was signaled by the blowing of a trumpet. The word for trumpet call in the Latin is gullicinium, which means cock-crow.

    Mark 14:30
    And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.

    The reason that there would have been two blowing of the trumpets, was the city was overly populated due to the Passover. One in one direction, and one in the other.

    For a far better and comprehensive answer to your question, you have to read the rest of the study here: http://www.downundertruenameministries.com/uploads/PDF/Rooster%20or%20Shofar.pdf

    As far as the funeral procession bit, I thought it was just more an interesting tid-bit then anything else. The writer's of the time couldn't imagine a world with phones, TV's, google, etc. They were writing in their terms and their language and customs. Understanding it in their context, allows for a deeper more thought provoking experience when searching out biblical truths. There is so much more about Jesus’s life that wasn’t put in Scripture that we will not know until we are in heaven with him. What about the stories he could tell from the time when he was a boy to when he started his ministry? He would have seen and done some pretty spectacular stuff. What about Noah or John the Baptist? Even though their whole life wasn’t put in the Bible, doesn’t mean they don’t have pretty good stories about how God worked in their lives? I’m not adding anything to the Scriptures that diminish his name, I’m just learning about the traditions of the time that glorify his name even more! Not changing anything, just understanding that at that time there were strong debates, and writings about who had the right of way in such a scenario. But everyone yielded to the King of Israel. It doesn't change the meaning of that particular text, it just puts the situation into the context of that time. Who among us wouldn't stand aside for the Messiah to walk by? Or because it doesn't say so in the bible, you wouldn't do it? So if that is hearsay, so be it.

    Now I guess when you asked me what my assertion was in your very first post. I would say the changing of the wording to church, contributed to the hearsay of replacement theology. Now that is changing the Word of God to fit man’s doctrine. God bless and take care as winter seems wanting to make its appearance here.

  9. Howdy!

    Was really warm here today but it's supposed to get cold and snow in the next day or so. Ya just gotta luv Calgary.

    As I said in my last post, this is in error. Please see the following link;

    This is where this kind of reasoning gets faulty. God inspired His Word. It wasn't up to the writers to come up with the thoughts or images they understood. They simply were obedient to God's will. Just as Jesus instructed His disciples NOT to worry about what they would say if they were arrested, but to trust the Holy Spirit to give them the words they needed, God did this with the writers of BOTH the OT and NT. John 21:25 shows clearly that ALL the books in the world, could not contain everything Jesus did or said. The point is what it does contain is what He did and said. These are NOT allegory, they are literal. By stating that scripture does NOT say what it clearly does is to depart from God's truth. Jesus wasn't speaking in parables when He made this statement to Peter, He was prophesying. You seem to feel this needs to have a context in Hebrew lifestyle, in order to be verifiable or true. I'm sorry but this is very thin ice you are skating on and I suggest you make sure this is real ice before you risk your spiritual walk on it.
    BTW, I didn't say hearsay, I said HERESY. What you have depicted to explain away these stories, is indeed hearsay.

    There was no changing of the wording based on the oldest manuscripts available. If some Jewish historians or rabbis have tried to make sense of these stories within their own understanding of historical Israel, then that is their problem and those who accept their interpretation. Let GOD be true and every man a liar.
  10. Why do people when they visit Israel state they had such an amazing experience? Think about it? Going back to the beginnings of our faith. Seeing all the different historical sites and topography of the land. It's because they can see and feel our faith from the stories in the bible. One's salvation does not hinge on making a mecca to Jerusalem or anything silly like that. I am asserting learning the Scriptures from the language, context of the time has been my spiritual awakening. If I can't be there, may as well learn more about what there is. That may mean using resources that aren't the Bible. Heaven forbid. If that's heresy to educate myself more about the Hebrew or Jewish mindset, so be it. I still stand by my original posting, ekklesia never had the original meaning of church. That I explained reasonably well. Anyways, God bless again and we will probably agree to disagree.
  11. Ryan I have no problem with what you are essentially saying. What I have a problem with is asserting the Bible doesn't SAY what it does. Whatever species of bird Jesus was referring to, it was a species of bird, and NOT a religious practice, especially when I can't find a consensus about it in other historical references. If the term "cockcrow" was consistent in all English translations and actually pointed to a colloquialism that meant a trumpet blowing or a call to prayer, I might agree with you. Even the Orthodox Jewish Bible uses the word tarnegol, which means cock as a male bird, NOT a religious act. You are right though, we will have to agree to disagree.
  12. Thank you for trying to appeal to me and quoting the Jewish Bible. I know and you know this translation and even the Complete Jewish Bible still are off the mark. They bring in the Jewishness words, and some passages concerning the law, clarify things a bit. But from my understanding, and I may be wrong, the NASB is the most literal of all the bibles. For the true meaning and the words used, we should reference back when possible to the original Hebrew or Greek.

    I looked up rooster for instance in the NASB and one passage in Proverbs 30:31 has the word rooster. But in other translations including the CJB and KJV has greyhound, and DARBY has a horse. When cross referenced to the Hebrew Interlinear Bible the word, is translated as greyhound. What is the deal with that? The translations we have are not that good. If we want to do some serious bible study, referencing and cross referencing is key.

    Mark 15:35 in different translations has either cock-crowing or the rooster crows. But the concordance is #G219 (alektorophonia) which means the third watch, cock-crowing. #G220 (alektoro) comes from this and the root meaning is to ward off which makes sense when you are talking about keeping watch over something. Know how can we be talking from the third watch in one passage, to now meaning an animal being inserted with the same root word. You think this sounds like a stretch, and I am not 1000% sure on this theory either, but I am more confident in this scenario then a random rooster crowing. Here is a link to Mark 15:35 in the Hebrew Interlinear Bible http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar13.pdf and a link to the concordance reference http://www.abibleconcordance.com/41G-0200.htm#g0220

    Just look and study it. It may make sense. And I have found in the Talmud where is says not to breed hens in Jerusalem. It’s in the last Mishnah at the bottom of the page. http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_79.html#79b_27

    If you go to the Jerusalem and the Temple here, you will see they were not allowed to raise chickens there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_in_Judaism

    Now the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs did this study on the environment. They presented that chickens, among other unclean things were not allowed, especially not allowed in the Holy City of Jerusalem. To skip to the statement go to 1. Jewish Environmental History and read there. http://www.jcpa.org/art/jep1.htm

    Knowing how fickle, and ridiculous the Jewish leaders were at the time with all their man made laws, I am sure it was strictly enforced. Anyways, not trying to beat a dead horse, this is what I could find, although I haven’t completely exhausted my search. Sorry, I’m a last word freak. If you want me to have the last word, so be it. But if anything, I hope I have perked your interest if nothing else. And it’s a wonder Christianity cannot evangelize amongst Orthodox Jews. You bring this passage up about a rooster in the Holy City during Passover around the Holy Temple, they will cry blasphemous!
  13. You can also reference this text. Look at the last 6 or 7 lines on this page http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1588-antiochus-iii-the-great

    As well you can find the answer in the first few paragraphs here. http://www.schechter.edu/insightisrael.aspx?id=43

    You have to keep in mind none of these sources I cited have any persuasion one way or another about our Messiah. The context of the study has nothing to do with the New Testament or the validity of whether Jesus was real or not. As far as I'm concerned, they are completely unbiased to my position, or the opposite position.
  14. I simply gave you the Jewish word to show what Orthodox Jews thought. I don't use that translation obviously.
    The ONLY time in ALL the Bible that this Greek word is used (alektorophōnia) is in Mark 15:35 so I grant you that this could be a reference to what you have asserted. However this is NOT the same scenario as depicted in Matthew 26:34 or Mark 14:30. I won't belabour the point.

    Again the Greek NT does not say rooster, it says cock and pea cocks were and are very much a part of Israel.
    As I have presented already, chickens were not allowed to run wild but they WERE allowed in gardens. Pigs were unclean too, but didn't Jesus drive demons into a heard of pigs? Commerce and religion don't always see eye to eye, even in theocratic societies.

    For now, inroads are being made to the Jewish people ALL the time. God also has plans to ensure all the Jews hears about Christ and are evangelized. Trust me, no Jewish person is going to reject Christ because of Matthew 26:34, as it is not one of those verses that ever comes up when I have witnessed to a Jew in Canada.
  15. Well I could continue this discussion, but doing so would be really nit-picking about a topic that doesn't even impact mine or yours salvation. So I am done. Thank you for challenging me on my thoughts as I had to work in order to assert my position. Since you have witnessed to Jews, I am wondering something. When you witness, is your intention to bring them to Jesus then convert to Christianity, or to accept Jesus as their Messiah and maintain their Jewishness? Or should I open another thread as it appears only you and I are in here, and allow others to converse on this?
  16. It is one and the same Ryan. Accepting their Messiah effectively makes them Christian, as those in the NT who were Jewish and believed, were called Christian. Their ethnic background of course will be effected, as is a Russian Orthodox who comes to be saved, but it doesn't mean they give up their Jewishness from a social perspective. One aspect that I noticed becomes very illuminating for Jews who accept their Messiah, is the Passover Sader. From a Christian perspective, it becomes complete and connects their OT/OC lives to their NT/NC lives.
    I'm not sure but a new thread may be in order to go in this direction.
    God Bless.
  17. [. Some translations have it interpreted as a rooster crowing. But that's not the case. Chicken's, let alone roosters were not allowed in Jerusalem at the time. Story has it because the little things were hard to catch, they could make its way into the Temple and defile it. The cock that crowed was a Hebrew idiom for a Rabbi that called out for prayer 3 times a day. There was no rooster.

    1 Kings 4:22 And Solomons provision for one day was thiery measures of fine flour, and threescore measures of meal,
    v 23 Ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and an hundred sheep, beside harts, and roebucks, and fallowdeer, and fatted fowl.

    Chickens prolly became common in Palestine territory only in Roman times, and could have been imported as a delicacy and served at Solomons table.

    Well that's my 2 cents.
  18. I will not argue all clean birds of various kind were eaten and prepared back then. But documents show it wasn't the practice to have them in the city during the Second Temple period. I believe I have provided enough resources if interested to pursue this further at your own leisure.
  19. I really do appreciate your input Ryan but this is an issue that I don't care to pursue. The scriptures say the cock will crow three times and I am content with that. If it is guards changing shift using the crow as a code sound or a goose that crows, I really don't care. I have found little word treasures also but when I told about them to others I usually got the same reaction as you have. Therefore, if I see no major significance, I leave it lay. Same goes with testimonials, telling someone that God saved my life when doctors gave up on me goes in one ear and out the other.
    Please don't think any of us are fighting you on this, because we are just being normal. Hugs.;)
  20. Hugs? You don't look like the huggy huggy type. No worries, I'm not defensive one little bit. My main point was, and still is, some of the translations we emphasize the biasness of the translators. I am not so much worried about roosters, but i was questioned on it and provided a reasonable explanation. The bigger point I made was about the "church" not meaning what it meant. Nobody has questioned me on this which was the far more pertinent point I was trying to make. If you knew me in person, you would know I'm not a hothead and don't get defensive. I give out hugs out too, and they are all free. Bro hug right back at ya. God bless.

Share This Page