Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?

Use this forum to discuss the May 2019 Book of the month, "Misreading Judas" by Robert Wahler
Sahansdal
Posts: 415
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?

Post by Sahansdal » 03 Jun 2019, 09:46

esp1975 wrote:
25 May 2019, 16:54
One of the important things to remember is that there have been over 450 different translations of the Bible put out in English. 450. Many Churches no longer use the King James versions because you have to remember, those versions were put out specifically as one of the ways to further separate the Anglican Church from the Catholic Church.
But I do wish Wahler has stuck with one single translation of the Bible for most of his points. Or, in many cases, it could have helped make his arguments stronger if he had shown the different interpretations of certain passages in multiple versions of the Bible. King James, New King James, NIV, English Standard, New Living Translation, New American, etc.
But most scholars use the New Revised Standard Version, and so, if he really was trying to make a point to Biblical Scholars, that is the version he should have used throughout.

I used to have a youth group pastor who was an actual Biblical scholar. One of the things I appreciated about him most was that he would often point out the different translations of particular Bible verses and talk about why each of those could be thought valid based on the original language the book was written in. And then he would talk us through the verse to think about it and determine which translation we thought was the most accurate.

But based on the original question, I don't know if there is a Bible verse presented that I would defend or challenge Wahler's interpretation of, because I am not a Biblical scholar and do not speak ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Coptic, or any of the other languages the original Bible books were written in. I would most challenge his assertion that further study of the New Testament cannot progress until HIS interpretation is accepted as true. As someone who works in academia (though not an academic myself), I can tell you, that is not how it works with things like this. There should always be room to challenge any translation/version. Because there can't be growth and new study without that freedom - freedom the author is taking advantage of by not accepted the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible as "true".
Any translation is a choice of word meaning. It isn't important for what I was doing here, for the most part. (Except when verses like John 9:4 are PROVABLY altered to suit the Church line IN ALL extant versions of the New Testament from the oldest, the Codex Sinaiticus, with "SENT US" to show that Jesus was not excluding himself from limitation to working only while living.) What I was doing was showing that the entire Betrayal narrative was derived and inverted as a way to hide something important: that James was the successor savior.

User avatar
Dragonsend
Posts: 403
Joined: 05 Mar 2019, 19:30
2019 Reading Goal: 12
2019 Reading Goal Completion: 416
Currently Reading: Hippocrates and The Hobgoblin
Bookshelf Size: 86
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-dragonsend.html
Latest Review: The Girl Who Knew Da Vinci by Belle Ami

Post by Dragonsend » 04 Jun 2019, 21:02

esp1975 wrote:
25 May 2019, 16:54
One of the important things to remember is that there have been over 450 different translations of the Bible put out in English. 450. Many Churches no longer use the King James versions because you have to remember, those versions were put out specifically as one of the ways to further separate the Anglican Church from the Catholic Church.
But I do wish Wahler has stuck with one single translation of the Bible for most of his points. Or, in many cases, it could have helped make his arguments stronger if he had shown the different interpretations of certain passages in multiple versions of the Bible. King James, New King James, NIV, English Standard, New Living Translation, New American, etc.
But most scholars use the New Revised Standard Version, and so, if he really was trying to make a point to Biblical Scholars, that is the version he should have used throughout.

I used to have a youth group pastor who was an actual Biblical scholar. One of the things I appreciated about him most was that he would often point out the different translations of particular Bible verses and talk about why each of those could be thought valid based on the original language the book was written in. And then he would talk us through the verse to think about it and determine which translation we thought was the most accurate.

But based on the original question, I don't know if there is a Bible verse presented that I would defend or challenge Wahler's interpretation of, because I am not a Biblical scholar and do not speak ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Coptic, or any of the other languages the original Bible books were written in. I would most challenge his assertion that further study of the New Testament cannot progress until HIS interpretation is accepted as true. As someone who works in academia (though not an academic myself), I can tell you, that is not how it works with things like this. There should always be room to challenge any translation/version. Because there can't be growth and new study without that freedom - freedom the author is taking advantage of by not accepted the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible as "true".
We can at least look between the different versions but they mostly say the same thing. I kinda miss the beauty of the Old King James version with all it's Thou's and flourishing :tiphat: language!
Some of these scholars parse words way to much and things are lost in translation!
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 2 Peter 3:9 :angelic-grayflying:

Kyoks
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Jan 2019, 06:48
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 53
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-kyoks.html
Latest Review: The Lost Identity Casualties by Kim Ekemar

Post by Kyoks » 05 Jun 2019, 01:55

This verse can only be meaningful if the context is still in it. Jesus Christ at some point felt this as burden that he thought he wouldn't do. But with prayer, he overcome that hindrance and said " but do what you want, not what I want.
That pharse meant the suffering he was going to face in the terrible events that were to come.

Sahansdal
Posts: 415
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 14 Jun 2019, 11:02

Kyoks wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 01:55
This verse can only be meaningful if the context is still in it. Jesus Christ at some point felt this as burden that he thought he wouldn't do. But with prayer, he overcome that hindrance and said " but do what you want, not what I want.
That pharse meant the suffering he was going to face in the terrible events that were to come.
Kyoks,

Regarding Matt. 26:39, I was showing parallels in words and phrasings as evidence of sourcing. All that was pertinent was "this cup." Just before it, in 26:36 and 37 are two more, "Sit here while I pray" and "sorrowful" which are both paralleled in the First Apocalypse of James from Nag Hammadi. Right after it, in 26:41 he says, "the flesh is weak" which is paralleled word-for-word in the Apocalypse. These are not small details! They are usually in order and often inverted (but not always as with "flesh is weak"). Their importance is to show that the New Testament authors USED the gnostic original by inverting it (the kiss is a decidedly good thing in the Apocalypse) and making a new story from it. Why? What was their purpose in doing this? It was to hide the important figure, James, who is covered by 'Judas.' That is what the book is about. The early Church was trying to hide that there was a succession of Masters.

Sahansdal
Posts: 415
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 14 Jun 2019, 11:12

Kyoks wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 01:55
This verse can only be meaningful if the context is still in it. Jesus Christ at some point felt this as burden that he thought he wouldn't do. But with prayer, he overcome that hindrance and said " but do what you want, not what I want.
That pharse meant the suffering he was going to face in the terrible events that were to come.
Another interesting thing about this passage is the mention of
'watch' and 'watching' in verses 38 and 40-41. This is meditation. They used the word "watch" in translation of 'gregoreo' for 'to remain awake.' It is "watch AND pray" so they are different, and have something to do with temptation. We call it now, "meditation." Notice that he came to the disciples three times, and Peter is 'denied' three times in his meditation in the Apocalypse of Peter, and "in this night" which is the time best for meditation. He was not concentrating sufficiently to see the inner vision of his Master and so was "denied" or 'reproved' (Apoc. Peter) three times, after he "came to them" three times, in their meditation, "in this night."

Masters of today (rssb.org) teach that salvation is not merely a gift, but of works. And that 'work' is meditation, so we must practice being focused on the Master in daily meditation. All scriptures are chock full of references to this. My first book covers much of it.

Kyoks
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Jan 2019, 06:48
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 53
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-kyoks.html
Latest Review: The Lost Identity Casualties by Kim Ekemar

Post by Kyoks » 18 Jun 2019, 03:05

Sahansdal wrote:
14 Jun 2019, 11:12
Kyoks wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 01:55
This verse can only be meaningful if the context is still in it. Jesus Christ at some point felt this as burden that he thought he wouldn't do. But with prayer, he overcome that hindrance and said " but do what you want, not what I want.
That pharse meant the suffering he was going to face in the terrible events that were to come.
Another interesting thing about this passage is the mention of
'watch' and 'watching' in verses 38 and 40-41. This is meditation. They used the word "watch" in translation of 'gregoreo' for 'to remain awake.' It is "watch AND pray" so they are different, and have something to do with temptation. We call it now, "meditation." Notice that he came to the disciples three times, and Peter is 'denied' three times in his meditation in the Apocalypse of Peter, and "in this night" which is the time best for meditation. He was not concentrating sufficiently to see the inner vision of his Master and so was "denied" or 'reproved' (Apoc. Peter) three times, after he "came to them" three times, in their meditation, "in this night."

Masters of today (rssb.org) teach that salvation is not merely a gift, but of works. And that 'work' is meditation, so we must practice being focused on the Master in daily meditation. All scriptures are chock full of references to this. My first book covers much of it.
You are right and thanks for the reply because it is very informative.

Sahansdal
Posts: 415
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 18 Jun 2019, 21:14

Kyoks wrote:
18 Jun 2019, 03:05
Sahansdal wrote:
14 Jun 2019, 11:12
Kyoks wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 01:55
This verse can only be meaningful if the context is still in it. Jesus Christ at some point felt this as burden that he thought he wouldn't do. But with prayer, he overcome that hindrance and said " but do what you want, not what I want.
That pharse meant the suffering he was going to face in the terrible events that were to come.
Another interesting thing about this passage is the mention of
'watch' and 'watching' in verses 38 and 40-41. This is meditation. They used the word "watch" in translation of 'gregoreo' for 'to remain awake.' It is "watch AND pray" so they are different, and have something to do with temptation. We call it now, "meditation." Notice that he came to the disciples three times, and Peter is 'denied' three times in his meditation in the Apocalypse of Peter, and "in this night" which is the time best for meditation. He was not concentrating sufficiently to see the inner vision of his Master and so was "denied" or 'reproved' (Apoc. Peter) three times, after he "came to them" three times, in their meditation, "in this night."

Masters of today (rssb.org) teach that salvation is not merely a gift, but of works. And that 'work' is meditation, so we must practice being focused on the Master in daily meditation. All scriptures are chock full of references to this. My first book covers much of it.
You are right and thanks for the reply because it is very informative.
Cool! I am finally making sense, I guess. It is difficult. Maybe you agree. Writing well is harder than it looks!

Kyoks
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Jan 2019, 06:48
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 53
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-kyoks.html
Latest Review: The Lost Identity Casualties by Kim Ekemar

Post by Kyoks » 19 Jun 2019, 03:43

Sahansdal wrote:
18 Jun 2019, 21:14
Kyoks wrote:
18 Jun 2019, 03:05
Sahansdal wrote:
14 Jun 2019, 11:12


Another interesting thing about this passage is the mention of
'watch' and 'watching' in verses 38 and 40-41. This is meditation. They used the word "watch" in translation of 'gregoreo' for 'to remain awake.' It is "watch AND pray" so they are different, and have something to do with temptation. We call it now, "meditation." Notice that he came to the disciples three times, and Peter is 'denied' three times in his meditation in the Apocalypse of Peter, and "in this night" which is the time best for meditation. He was not concentrating sufficiently to see the inner vision of his Master and so was "denied" or 'reproved' (Apoc. Peter) three times, after he "came to them" three times, in their meditation, "in this night."

Masters of today (rssb.org) teach that salvation is not merely a gift, but of works. And that 'work' is meditation, so we must practice being focused on the Master in daily meditation. All scriptures are chock full of references to this. My first book covers much of it.
You are right and thanks for the reply because it is very informative.
Cool! I am finally making sense, I guess. It is difficult. Maybe you agree. Writing well is harder than it looks!
Well it is thanks to you that I finally see the reality and the perspective you based on to write the book.

Sahansdal
Posts: 415
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 19 Jun 2019, 08:32

diana lowery wrote:
13 May 2019, 06:29
I have not yet read the book, but I appreciate the fact that your past teachings were challenged and that you are willing to give this new interpretation consideration. Based on the verse that you mentioned, I would have to say it looks like taking away the context changes the meaning entirely.
This is the author, Diana. Not at all. It is only to show parallel storylines, verse-by-verse, usually, but not always, inverted in sense or meaning. This one is the same, cup is cup. It is mentioned because it identifies a similar verse in both sources. Please, read the book and come back to us. I would then love to hear what you think.

User avatar
diana lowery
Posts: 281
Joined: 11 Feb 2019, 07:39
2019 Reading Goal: 40
2019 Reading Goal Completion: 47
Currently Reading: My grandmother asked me to tell you she's sorry
Bookshelf Size: 150
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-diana-lowery.html
Latest Review: The Cult Next Door by Elizabeth R. Burchard, Judith L. Carlone
Reading Device: B00IKPYKWG

Post by diana lowery » 19 Jun 2019, 16:59

Thank you so much for responding to me in such a kind message.

Sahansdal
Posts: 415
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 19 Jun 2019, 22:05

VernaVi wrote:
17 May 2019, 17:29
You make a very good point with this example. Misreading Judas does take fragments of biblical verses rather than the whole of the verse, to use as substantiation. It doesn't work when the whole of a verse is read (the way it should be). Great observation!
This is a perfect example of why Gnostic writings were not permitted to be included in the Bible. They don't align with the texts that DO align together. That alignment is a way of proof all by itself. When it comes to historic documentation, science and archeology likes to gather as many examples as possible of first hand accounts, verifiable, before comparing them with one another to again verify their authenticity.
Misreading Judas doesn't do that, it simply twists fragments of scripture and applies them then to the ideas that the author is trying to put over.
This is only a fair observation if you specifically point out where you think I do this, Verna. I saw your critical Amazon review, too. I think you owe it to me to have the opportunity to explain what it is you think I "twist." If i was consciously "twisting" things to make my points, I would never have bothered to write the book!

If you know anything about the Gnostic/orthodox battle for dominance, you know that the Gnostics lost out on grounds that they were not supporters of the Pauline way of thinking that the proto-orthodox Church demanded, not that there was anything wrong with their writings.

Sahansdal
Posts: 415
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 19 Jun 2019, 22:24

Dragonsend wrote:
14 May 2019, 16:34
"He has raised his heel against me." His version would literally say He has raised Jacob against me. He then says no that meant James, then goes on to say no that's Judas. So the discrepancies in translation here are truly a stretch!! That was truly a head scratcher for me. And many places where it says that Jesus was talking about James. Or Judas. When it clearly says he Jesus. Just for clarity heel and Jacob have similar meanings.
Some others here are agreeing with you on this, so I must set the record straight. I don't literally translate this verse! The Douay Rheims version is the best. It is an idiom. Only then can one see the real intent of the passage. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me." It is a replacement dynamic, which only the Catholic Douay Rheims got right. The author may have known what he was doing with this double meaning, but it surely isn't meant to be a negative in the final analysis. This is a positive passage overall, about mastership succession. Judas covers the successor, who would naturally in the real world be the subject at this juncture, with 'Jesus' about to leave the scene. Masters always have successors.
See John 9:4-5 in the original C. Sinaiticus version with "sent US" in 9:4. 'When NO ONE can work' means even the Master!

User avatar
VernaVi
Posts: 293
Joined: 30 Sep 2018, 00:36
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 69
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-vernavi.html
Latest Review: The Wild Mountian Thyme by Kathryn Scarborough

Post by VernaVi » 20 Jun 2019, 00:36

Sahansdal wrote:
19 Jun 2019, 22:05
VernaVi wrote:
17 May 2019, 17:29
You make a very good point with this example. Misreading Judas does take fragments of biblical verses rather than the whole of the verse, to use as substantiation. It doesn't work when the whole of a verse is read (the way it should be). Great observation!
This is a perfect example of why Gnostic writings were not permitted to be included in the Bible. They don't align with the texts that DO align together. That alignment is a way of proof all by itself. When it comes to historic documentation, science and archeology likes to gather as many examples as possible of first hand accounts, verifiable, before comparing them with one another to again verify their authenticity.
Misreading Judas doesn't do that, it simply twists fragments of scripture and applies them then to the ideas that the author is trying to put over.
This is only a fair observation if you specifically point out where you think I do this, Verna. I saw your critical Amazon review, too. I think you owe it to me to have the opportunity to explain what it is you think I "twist." If i was consciously "twisting" things to make my points, I would never have bothered to write the book!

If you know anything about the Gnostic/orthodox battle for dominance, you know that the Gnostics lost out on grounds that they were not supporters of the Pauline way of thinking that the proto-orthodox Church demanded, not that there was anything wrong with their writings.
Certainly, that's no problem at all. This twisting of the true meaning of the quoted Bible verses occurs every time the author of Misreading Judas takes a fragment of scripture and isolates it away from the rest of the scripture that it was part of originally. This allows the meaning to changed, morphed, manipulated, and reinvented according to the wishes of the person doing the creative writing in that instance. It is not an approved practice. There is no way to justify it. This is one possible reason for it not being well-received. I have more than delivered my share of feedback for this work and will leave room for other reviewers to share their opinions. My official review may be read here:viewtopic.php?f=24&t=106604 Good day :tiphat:

Sahansdal
Posts: 415
Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Sahansdal » 20 Jun 2019, 05:48

duplicate post
Last edited by Sahansdal on 20 Jun 2019, 07:03, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Dragonsend
Posts: 403
Joined: 05 Mar 2019, 19:30
2019 Reading Goal: 12
2019 Reading Goal Completion: 416
Currently Reading: Hippocrates and The Hobgoblin
Bookshelf Size: 86
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-dragonsend.html
Latest Review: The Girl Who Knew Da Vinci by Belle Ami

Post by Dragonsend » 20 Jun 2019, 15:38

Kyoks wrote:
18 Jun 2019, 03:05
Sahansdal wrote:
14 Jun 2019, 11:12
Kyoks wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 01:55
This verse can only be meaningful if the context is still in it. Jesus Christ at some point felt this as burden that he thought he wouldn't do. But with prayer, he overcome that hindrance and said " but do what you want, not what I want.
That pharse meant the suffering he was going to face in the terrible events that were to come.
Another interesting thing about this passage is the mention of
'watch' and 'watching' in verses 38 and 40-41. This is meditation. They used the word "watch" in translation of 'gregoreo' for 'to remain awake.' It is "watch AND pray" so they are different, and have something to do with temptation. We call it now, "meditation." Notice that he came to the disciples three times, and Peter is 'denied' three times in his meditation in the Apocalypse of Peter, and "in this night" which is the time best for meditation. He was not concentrating sufficiently to see the inner vision of his Master and so was "denied" or 'reproved' (Apoc. Peter) three times, after he "came to them" three times, in their meditation, "in this night."

Masters of today (rssb.org) teach that salvation is not merely a gift, but of works. And that 'work' is meditation, so we must practice being focused on the Master in daily meditation. All scriptures are chock full of references to this. My first book covers much of it.
You are right and thanks for the reply because it is very informative.
How do you know that to " remain awake" means meditation? Doesn't it just mean to remain awake???
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 2 Peter 3:9 :angelic-grayflying:

Post Reply

Return to “Discuss "Misreading Judas" by Robert Wahler”