Why Is The Apostle Jacob Called "james" In N.t.?

[Fortigurn]

True... but what if you needed to know what the mans name really was.

Do you mean how it sounded in the original language? You would transliterate it (which was not done in this instance, contrary to your claim). Or are you referring to the meaning of the word used for his name? You would write out the meaning instead of the English form of the name. So you wouldn't have 'Jonah' in the Bible, you would have 'Dove', and you wouldn't have 'David' in the Bible, you would have 'Beloved'.

Yeshua Misach vs Jesus Christ

What difference does this make? The only difference is that one is more intelligible to an English speaking audience.

[Zakuska]

Do you mean how it sounded in the original language? You would transliterate it (which was not done in this instance, contrary to your claim). Or are you referring to the meaning of the word used for his name? You would write out the meaning instead of the English form of the name. So you wouldn't have 'Jonah' in the Bible, you would have 'Dove', and you wouldn't have 'David' in the Bible, you would have 'Beloved'.

What difference does this make? The only difference is that one is more intelligible to an English speaking audience.

Yes... but to the angel with the flaming sword... you better know how to pernounce the name.

[Fortigurn]

Yes... but to the angel with the flaming sword... you better know how to pernounce the name.

Really? What name is that? And how do I 'pernounce' it?

[Zakuska]

The various keys and tokens of the priesthood silly.

[Doctor Steuss]

Really? What name is that? And how do I 'pernounce' it?

Vehu-Yeli-Sit-Aulem-Mahash-Lelah-Aka-Kahath-Hezi-Elad-Lav-Hahau-Yezel-Mebha-Heri-Haquem-Lau-Keli-Levo-Pahel-Nelak-Yiai-Melah-Chaho-Nethah-Haa-Yereth-Shaah-Riyi-Aum-Lekab-Vesher-Yecho-Lehach-Keveq-Menad-Ani-Chaum-Rehau-Yeiz-Hahah-Mik-Veval-Yelah-Sael-Auri-Aushal-Miah-Vaho-Doni-Hachash-Aumem-Nena-Neith-Mabeth-Poi-Nemem-Yeli-Harach-Metzer-Vamet-Yahah-Aunu-Machi-Dameb-Menak-Asau-Chebo-Raah-Yekem-Haiai-Moum

Or something along those lines.

Edit: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... yep... 72. Just had to double check (PS. I would trust my transliteration skills if I were you).

[structurecop]

Vehu-Yeli-Sit-Aulem-Mahash-Lelah-Aka-Kahath-Hezi-Elad-Lav-Hahau-Yezel-Mebha-Heri-Haquem-Lau-Keli-Levo-Pahel-Nelak-Yiai-Melah-Chaho-Nethah-Haa-Yereth-Shaah-Riyi-Aum-Lekab-Vesher-Yecho-Lehach-Keveq-Menad-Ani-Chaum-Rehau-Yeiz-Hahah-Mik-Veval-Yelah-Sael-Auri-Aushal-Miah-Vaho-Doni-Hachash-Aumem-Nena-Neith-Mabeth-Poi-Nemem-Yeli-Harach-Metzer-Vamet-Yahah-Aunu-Machi-Dameb-Menak-Asau-Chebo-Raah-Yekem-Haiai-Moum

Or something along those lines.

Goes by "it" for short.

[Zakuska]

Hey... I work in "IT".

[structurecop]

Hey... I work in "IT".

Ssshhhh... don't say that around here.

[Doctor Steuss]

Goes by "it" for short.

Actually, I think He goes by "I AM" for short.

[structurecop]

Actually, I think He goes by "I AM" for short.

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-04.htm

[Doctor Steuss]

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-04.htm

[Zemah]

You need to read more Elizabethan poetry. Half the stuff that's preserved was written by the poet in honor of the patron so that the checks would keep coming.

USU "Cui Bono, lads" 78

I'm sure Elizabethan poetry would be good for me. And I agree that money is to often the motivator. Itâ??s a good thing King James had all he needed; at least we can assume he did not translate for the money.

The LDS Church gives the Book of Mormon away for free. I hope they well soon have the same policy regarding the Doctrine & Covenants (although you can read it for free on the web). When the book Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie first came out in paperback I was in the mist of my conversion and bought one for $9.99 plus tax. I liked the index/glossary style of it so much that I wanted to make it a gift for others and went back to purchase more; it had gone up to $17.99 plus taxâ?¦I felt gouged. I guess the demand warranted it.

Muslims say that to fully appreciate the Qurâ??an you have to hear it sung in Arabic as poetry. I wonder what the Psalms sounded like sung by David. When I return to the land of the living and the courts on high Iâ??ll know.

[consiglieri]

To distinguish between Jacob and James. Just as NT 'Joshua' is translated 'Jesus', so we know it's talking about Christ, not OT Joshua.

I agree with you Fortigurn that your explanation makes sense. But it seems to be contradicted by Acts 7:45, in which the Old Testament figure of Joshua is written as Jesus:

Acts 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

So if the sole reason for the changes between OT names and NT corrolaries was to avoid confusion, why render OT Joshua as Jesus in the NT?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zemah]

Vehu-Yeli-Sit-Aulem-Mahash-Lelah-Aka-Kahath-Hezi-Elad-Lav-Hahau-Yezel-Mebha-Heri-Haquem-Lau-Keli-Levo-Pahel-Nelak-Yiai-Melah-Chaho-Nethah-Haa-Yereth-Shaah-Riyi-Aum-Lekab-Vesher-Yecho-Lehach-Keveq-Menad-Ani-Chaum-Rehau-Yeiz-Hahah-Mik-Veval-Yelah-Sael-Auri-Aushal-Miah-Vaho-Doni-Hachash-Aumem-Nena-Neith-Mabeth-Poi-Nemem-Yeli-Harach-Metzer-Vamet-Yahah-Aunu-Machi-Dameb-Menak-Asau-Chebo-Raah-Yekem-Haiai-Moum

Or something along those lines.

Edit: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... yep... 72. Just had to double check (PS. I would trust my transliteration skills if I were you).

I also checked; yep, 72...now for the Windex.

[Fortigurn]

I agree with you Fortigurn that your explanation makes sense. But it seems to be contradicted by Acts 7:45, in which the Old Testament figure of Joshua is written as Jesus:

Yes, they slipped up there. I was going to mention it (and of course the passage in Jude), but the exceptions only prove the rule so there wasn't any point.

So if the sole reason for the changes between OT names and NT corrolaries was to avoid confusion, why render OT Joshua as Jesus in the NT?

Because it's a mistake. Have you found any instances in which Jesus is called 'Joshua' in the New Testament? Is there a point you're getting to at some stage?

[consiglieri]

Yes, they slipped up there. I was going to mention it (and of course the passage in Jude), but the exceptions only prove the rule so there wasn't any point.

Because it's a mistake. Have you found any instances in which Jesus is called 'Joshua' in the New Testament? Is there a point you're getting to at some stage?

Geez, man! Even out the meds. All I'm trying to do is get to the bottom of the change from Jacob to James in the King James Version. Must everything have a point with you, Fortigurn? And must that point always be something that detracts from the LDS faith?

And since you are in such a testy mood, I will see if I can make it any better by pointing out that the old axiom, "the exception that proves the rule," is commonly misused as you misuse it in your post.

The word "proves" in this phrase means to "test" or to "challenge." (As in, "Prove me now herewith . . .") An exception to the rule does not "prove" the rule correct; rather an "exception" tests or challenges the correctness of the rule itself.

Which it does here.

Which is why I still have the same question.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Fortigurn]

Geez, man! Even out the meds. All I'm trying to do is get to the bottom of the change from Jacob to James in the King James Version.

And you've been told several times now. In detail.

Must everything have a point with you, Fortigurn?

Well you've been going on and on about this, and insinuating this or that motive, so I have to wonder if you have a point at all. If you don't, just say so.

And must that point always be something that detracts from the LDS faith?

What, precisely, have I said here which 'detracts from the LDS faih'?

The word "proves" in this phrase means to "test" or to "challenge." (As in, "Prove me now herewith . . .") An exception to the rule does not "prove" the rule correct; rather an "exception" tests or challenges the correctness of the rule itself.

Oh dear:

Dear Cecil:

I hate to have to correct Cecil Adams, but the business about "the exception proves the rule" in the latest Straight Dope seems way wide of the mark. The proverb's meaning must be expounded not in the context of natural or psychological law but of civil law. Alan Bliss, in A Dictionary of Words and Phrases in Current English, has the following to say about the origin of this phrase: "Exception probat regulam [Lat.], the exception proves the rule. A legal maxim of which the complete text is: exceptio probat [or (con)firmat] regulam in casibus non exceptis--`the fact that certain exceptions are made (in a legal document) confirms that the rule is valid in all other cases.'"

The application is this. Suppose a law is stated in such a way as to include an exception, e.g., "Parking is prohibited on this street from 7 AM to 7 PM, Sundays and holidays excepted." The explicit mention of the exception means that NO other exceptions are to be inferred. Thus we should take the Latin verb probare in the maxim to have the sense of "to increase the force of." --Hugh Miller, Chicago

Dear Hugh:

Hmm. It grieves me to say this, but you're right. While the interpretation I gave, namely that the exception tests the rule, has a long history (it dates back at least to 1893), I'll concede that your take on it is the original sense of the proverb.

And after all that, you concede the point.

[consiglieri]

And you've been told several times now. In detail.

Well you've been going on and on about this, and insinuating this or that motive, so I have to wonder if you have a point at all. If you don't, just say so.

What, precisely, have I said here which 'detracts from the LDS faih'?

Oh dear:

And after all that, you concede the point.

I see. It all makes sense now. The more exceptions a rule has, the more correct it is. Sounds like the law of gravity is in trouble, as it seems to have quite a number of exceptions that prove that particular rule.

If you really think that is what the expression means, you should be baptized immediately, since you have long been holding forth on all the "exceptions" that prove the Book of Mormon true.

Thanks for the clarification.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Fortigurn]

I see. It all makes sense now. The more exceptions a rule has, the more correct it is.

That is not what that article said. Please read it. That is not what I said either. Please read my posts.

[consiglieri]

I have read it. This is what it says, and indeed how the expression is generally used:

It's what you say to confound your enemies when your argument has been shot out from under you by some pesky counterexample. From the point of view of advancing the debate it's about one jump ahead of "yo mama," but it beats standing there with your mouth open.

And this is how you used it above. I shot your argument out from under you by the "pesky counter example" of the NT rendering of the OT Joshua as Jesus.

You responded by saying "that's the exception that proves the rule."

You misused the expression. I clarified it for you. Now you seek to say that I am wrong for properly clarifying it for you.

Whassup?

--Consiglieri

[Fortigurn]

I have read it. This is what it says, and indeed how the expression is generally used:

Please keep reading past the facetious comments.

You misused the expression. I clarified it for you. Now you seek to say that I am wrong for properly clarifying it for you.

I did not misuse the expression. I demonstrated to you that I used it correctly, and that your explanation of it was wrong. I even quoted for you the relevant part of the article. You have ignored all this, and represented both the article and myself as giving a meaning for the phrase which it does not have.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, you didn't provide any examples of Jesus being called 'Joshua' in the New Testament.

[consiglieri]

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, you didn't provide any examples of Jesus being called 'Joshua' in the New Testament.

You are correct. What I did provide was an example of Joshua being called Jesus in the New Testament. That is the exception which (dis)proves your rule. Not to mention the one in Jude to which you made reference.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri