The usual santimonious absolutism from Oliver

Submitted by zzazzeefrazee (United States), Apr 15, 2008 at 21:58

Sorry Oliver, but there is hardly much that is "usual" in our discourse, is your persistent need to justify your absolutist diatribes.

I do believe that if Kyrios sufficed for Adonai, which was substituted for YHVH due to Jewish taboos, then it does, then why didn't the practice survive inthe target languages? After all, the translators would have been more than welcome to transliterate the letters of YHVH as a transcription into the target language- but needless to say, they didn't. So it must be that the usage of Adonai (which in some instances, such as Psalm 8:1, is found next to YHVH) not was seen as entirely adequate. It would therefore appear that adherence to strict literalism, was obviously not as important to them as it is to you. Then again, isn't that in line with Paul's view?

Unless of course, you are implying that , somehow all along all Christians employed Hebrew texts and liturgies and perceived them to be the "true" version worthy of the highest reverence; but they obviously didn't.

Your need to espouse sanctimonious absolutism is the only thing that buttresses your refusal to comprehend such historical precedents.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".