Originally Posted by FCoulter
Paul never taught that any of God's abiding laws could be broken. He taught, "It is the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath" (Hebrews 4:9; Lamsa translation). Those who want to REFUSE to keep God's spiritual law, including the weekly and annual Sabbaths, twist certain Scriptures and invent arguments to justify their sinful conduct. They do this, however, "to their own destruction" (compare 2 Peter 3:14-16).
I read your post with interest, and even some respect, until I hit the line from the 'Lamsa' translation. That couldn't be any farther in meaning from the historic translations -- which agree with each other except in insignificant, stylistic ways.
"So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God..." NASB
"There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;" NIV
"There remains therefore a rest to the people of God." NKJV
And the literal Greek:
"Then remains a sabbath rest to the people of God." (Nestle)
NONE of those translations, 'averaged' from historic manuscripts, have the force of "It is the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath." That's just embarrassingly
Heb 4:9 follows an argument about how the Jews could not enter God's rest, but that a 'Sabbath' rest was yet to come (the Sabbath law had been around quite a while -- why was this rest described as yet to come if it's the weekly Sabbath?) for those who put their trust in Christ and cease from their works
. The Sabbath was a type
, like everything else -- even the Sabbath God kept in Creation was about ceasing from His works
The NT flows like the Mississippi toward grace and rest from works, but you won't let them go. What's as disturbing as the Lamsa reference is the way you want to pile burdens of lawkeeping on people, under penalty of punishment based on our 'sinfulness' in daring to trust Christ for our salvation. We're always twisting the Bible (pot calling the kettle, huh?) and damned to hell if we don't agree with your position that the law is essential. If that's your thing, fine. Have at the law. But have at ALL of it, or none of it.
This Lamsa thing reminds me of the Watchtower Translation -- a rewrite of the Bible to de-emphasize the parts JWs don't like, like John 1:1 which, in their book, says Jesus was 'a' God.
I often wonder why people like Jehovah's Witnesses (Charles Taze Russell), Christian Scientists (Mary Baker Eddy's disciples), SDA (Ellen White), Mormons (Joseph Smith), and -- apparently -- whatever you are, can believe that the whole world has had it wrong for 4,000 years until their 'prophet' came along in the 19th/early 20th century with the true
message, hidden so long, and revealed only to their group. Lamsa's 'manuscripts' were like Smith's golden plates. No one ever saw them.
Here's some Internet scoop on Lamsa.
"There are four fossils of Aramaic language left in the Gospel of Mark. Four remnants in Aramaic. To the little girl, “Talitha cumi” [Mar 5:41]. To the blind man, “ephphatha” [Mar 7:34]. In his prayer in Gethsemene, “Abba, Father” [Mar 14:36]. And on the cross, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” [Mar 15:34]. Those four remnants are still preserved in Mark’s Gospel — of Aramaic, from the lips of Jesus.
We have no records in manuscript
form of the gospels in Aramaic. There are no Aramaic documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John left. All we have are Greek documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So — except for these four fossils ^ that are left embedded in the text of Mark — the answer is no! There are no Aramaic texts. And people today that sell books and say, “Oh, here, I have translated the Aramaic documents of the gospels” — they are frauds. They’re out for our money. Don’t be taken in."