|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 24, 2014 14:14:02 GMT -8
The best way to know what is OK and what is a redaction is to match it to  . If it in any way contradicts or disagrees with , then it is false. The truth is still there, we just should not take what we read as it sounds, or especially not take someone’s word for what it says. Dan C Could you give me an example from Galations that you feel is in conflict with God's law/ ? I come from a KJV only back ground. I put a lot of stock in the ability of God being able to preserve his word in both the original and other languages. If God can direct men to write his word in Hebrew, he can direct men to translate it into another language. I see no conflicts. Jimmie |
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Feb 24, 2014 15:52:20 GMT -8
The best way to know what is OK and what is a redaction is to match it to . If it in any way contradicts or disagrees with , then it is false. The truth is still there, we just should not take what we read as it sounds, or especially not take someone’s word for what it says. Dan C Could you give me an example from Galations that you feel is in conflict with God's law/ ? I come from a KJV only back ground. I put a lot of stock in the ability of God being able to preserve his word in both the original and other languages. If God can direct men to write his word in Hebrew, he can direct men to translate it into another language. I see no conflicts. Jimmie Shalom! So let's place this logic to the test, are all translations perfect Jimmie? So every translation out there would be ok right? What about Martin Luther who wanted to remove the book of James would that have been God inspired because a man did something? What about Hitler changing the Ten Commandments? There are times in history when men have done horrible things if we use the logic above with all the wrong translations out there and proven additions including the KJV not one of them could be wrong in any way. We have to test everything to the or else we are (1) reading it wrong, or (2) it was tampered with to make a anti- comment (3) lost in translation There are flat out additions that were never in the original text that you will find in KJV among many others does that make these additions God inspired? Just some thoughts, Yedidyah |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 24, 2014 16:55:07 GMT -8
Could you give me an example from Galations that you feel is in conflict with God's law/ ? I come from a KJV only back ground. I put a lot of stock in the ability of God being able to preserve his word in both the original and other languages. If God can direct men to write his word in Hebrew, he can direct men to translate it into another language. I see no conflicts. Jimmie You know, I get where you are coming from. I was raised the same way. My dad never preached from anything other than the KJV, and all other translations were looked down on. I'd point out that while some inaccuracies might be peculiar to the KJV, most are in all translations as it is the source documents and prejudiced attitudes of translators steeped in Catholic ideology that are the biggest problems. I've talked about this one in its own thread- in Galatians 1:15-16 “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:” The word heathen is here deliberately mistranslated. Paul was called to preach to the Jews 1st, then to the Gentiles. theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3331/rav-shaul-preach-jews?page=1&scrollTo=15938Also I've spoken about how the introduction/salutation is an obvious redaction to read like a Greek salutation rather than Hebrew. That it is given to us in Greek at all is a travesty and in error; something that has been spoken of many times on this forum. Gal 1:3 "Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ," An observant Jew such as Paul would have said " our Father," never " the Father." The difference is that "our" portrays God as part of the community; it implies relationship. The is impersonal, distant. And these are just some of the problems in the salutation- the part we'd say "howdy!" Dan C |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 4:00:48 GMT -8
"Gal 1:3 "Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ," An observant Jew such as Paul would have said "our Father," never "the Father." The difference is that "our" portrays God as part of the community; it implies relationship. The is impersonal, distant."
Ok Alon, I admit, you woke me up on this one. I can see why they would say OUR Father. Because in my thinking He is not just for one person on the planet, He is for all mankind. And yes, I understand the community as being a whole and not individually.
Is it possible Alon, you could explain further on this? I see it and understand it only partially, but I need to see it fully. If you know what I mean?
So was the NT written in Greek at the times of the Jews then, or was it written in Hebrew first only to be switched or translated to Greek, with the Greek mindset?
I am still trying to understand this, so please be patient with me.
I do thank you for revealing the Our Father, with The Father. I do find that interesting. Yet most of the newer translation say the Father and not our Father. Or they say THE Christ.
Which brings to mind with regards to the worship during the services. When they sing songs, most of the songs are in first person, meaning I, me, etc. And not as the whole group. Do you know what I am trying to say? Instead of singing words like US, OUR, We, etc. So instead of singing my Lord, should we not be singing OUR Lord? That was just an example.
I hope you understand what I am trying to ask.
Moriah Ruth
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 25, 2014 7:31:22 GMT -8
Yedidyah, I can’t speak to all translations being perfect. I do think that the KJV is though. Because I haven’t found an error in it. I don’t know much Hebrew and even less Greek. Only once has the study of a Hebrew word enhanced my understanding of scripture. And that was only because I didn’t understand the English word either. That word is name/shem. Well that is not quite accurate, if you include the untranslated names of people and places. How can I test anything with God’s law/ when it is subject to the same flat out additions, tampering and mistranslations as Galations. I need two witnesses to be one before I can test anything against either. alon, Did you notice that the translators used “our” in the same sentence that “the” was used to reference God. I.e. “God the Father” and “our Lord Jesus Christ”. Pretty lame for someone who is trying to make God impersonal and distant. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 25, 2014 8:17:23 GMT -8
"Gal 1:3 "Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ," An observant Jew such as Paul would have said "our Father," never "the Father." The difference is that "our" portrays God as part of the community; it implies relationship. The is impersonal, distant." Ok Alon, I admit, you woke me up on this one. I can see why they would say OUR Father. Because in my thinking He is not just for one person on the planet, He is for all mankind. And yes, I understand the community as being a whole and not individually. Is it possible Alon, you could explain further on this? I see it and understand it only partially, but I need to see it fully. If you know what I mean? So was the NT written in Greek at the times of the Jews then, or was it written in Hebrew first only to be switched or translated to Greek, with the Greek mindset? I am still trying to understand this, so please be patient with me. I do thank you for revealing the Our Father, with The Father. I do find that interesting. Yet most of the newer translation say the Father and not our Father. Or they say THE Christ. Which brings to mind with regards to the worship during the services. When they sing songs, most of the songs are in first person, meaning I, me, etc. And not as the whole group. Do you know what I am trying to say? Instead of singing words like US, OUR, We, etc. So instead of singing my Lord, should we not be singing OUR Lord? That was just an example. I hope you understand what I am trying to ask. Moriah Ruth Ruth, us Gentiles tend to think of salvation in strictly personal terms. Furthermore, our culture tends to see God as being distant and unconcerned with the affairs of men. Most Christians would say He is not distant, yet the effects of culture cannot be denied- we tend to see Him as at least somewhat distant. Jews, even today tend to think strictly in terms of a national salvation. HaShem is a member of their community, they are His people. This is why Yeshua said " Our Father who art in Heaven ... ." In the days of the TNK, both were thought to be true; salvation was both personal and national. Many individuals were saved on their own merits. Prophets and others were preserved each time the nation was destroyed for its sins. However the sin of one individual could contaminate the Temple to the point that the glory of Elohim could no longer inhabit the Holy of Holies. This would bring disaster on the nation. It is why some of the penalties were so harsh; for example stoning a man to death for picking up firewood on Shabbat. A Jewish writer in the 1st and 2nd cens. would still think in "Old Testament" terms. It is how they were raised and instructed. So they would always have spoken of God as "Our God," not "the God." Even if they had wrote in Greek, this would have remained true. But they didn't write in Greek, as many scholars and theologians are coming to believe. When back-translated to Hebrew, many things make more sense throughout the "New Testament." Hebrew idioms and word play come out, and even deeper meanings based on the letters within individual words are there. (Note: I take the word of scholarly works I've read for this information, since I don't read Hebrew or Greek.) To my knowledge, we do not have an "original" source document for any part of the Bible. Scrolls and letters were destroyed or just fell apart over time, and we are left with copies of copies of copies. In the case of the TNK, strict measures and checks were in place making it more difficult for errors to creep in when religious documents were copied. Not so in the case of our "New Testament" documents. Worse, from Constantine through the Roman Catholic era of domination there was an active, often brutal effort to erase any "taint" of Judaism from their new religion. Documents were copied in Greek, with any redactions they deemed appropriate, then destroyed. Books like Galatians were rewritten in Greek with an anti-Semitic slant, and the foundation was laid for 2000 yrs of murder, book burning and worse atrocities. And this all done in the name of "the Christ." " Our Christ," being right there with us might have shamed us into stopping. But "the Christ," was just another name to inflame and control the masses. We are also lied to about the oldest source documents available to us being Greek. I've heard that the Eastern Church claims to have some older documents written in Aramaic, which they believe was the language the New and most of the Old Testaments were written in. I'd believe this sooner than Greek, however I still believe it was Hebrew. Moot point anyhow, as what we have is Greek, and apparently corrupted Greek at that. However, Gods Word is powerful, and the truth is still there, obvious to anyone who prays for discernment and looks. We just need to learn, as much as possible, to look at these scriptures through the eyes and mind of the writers; we need to remember who the intended audience was; we need to understand the cultural and political climates in which they were written or things were said in. Mostly, we need to hold the "New Testament" up to the light of the TNK, and especially when we interpret what is said. That is when it ceases to be two Bibles separated by a 400 yr old page and becomes one book, consisting of , Nevi'im, Kethuvim. and B'rit Chadasha. That is all just my opinion. Hope it serves as an explanation. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Feb 25, 2014 8:34:19 GMT -8
Yedidyah, I can’t speak to all translations being perfect. I do think that the KJV is though. Because I haven’t found an error in it. I don’t know much Hebrew and even less Greek. Only once has the study of a Hebrew word enhanced my understanding of scripture. And that was only because I didn’t understand the English word either. That word is name/shem. Well that is not quite accurate, if you include the untranslated names of people and places. How can I test anything with God’s law/ when it is subject to the same flat out additions, tampering and mistranslations as Galations. I need two witnesses to be one before I can test anything against either. alon, Did you notice that the translators used “our” in the same sentence that “the” was used to reference God. I.e. “God the Father” and “our Lord Jesus Christ”. Pretty lame for someone who is trying to make God impersonal and distant. Jimmie have you ever looked into the King James to make such a claim? You have said it is perfect when indeed it is not. Anyone who looks into the King James can find the obvious errors so I am not going to spend a bunch of time on this. Here are just a few of your "Perfect" translation errors. "Lucifer" Isaiah 14:12 (Lucifer was a name that was added. It it not in scripture, it is not in the text) "Easter" Acts 12:4 (Again a added pagan day that was not in any of the texts) "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25 "May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used similar thought into their translation. "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18 (The word is Sweet Aroma, they can't even get the same senses right [Taste, Smell] ) We also have an obvious translation error when they translate raisin cakes as foundations in Isaiah 16:7 These are a few unrefutable translation errors that don't add up to the original text. I am only touching the surface here so when I hear someone say the King James is Perfect I have a problem with that. Especially since James is not the brother of Yeshua but rather Ya'akov (Jacob) What I see is someone who let their ego get in the way and made sure to have their own name added into the scriptures. If I did a translation and added my name would you be ok with that? Just some thoughts to ponder. Yedidyah |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 25, 2014 8:48:59 GMT -8
... alon, Did you notice that the translators used “our” in the same sentence that “the” was used to reference God. I.e. “God the Father” and “our Lord Jesus Christ”. Pretty lame for someone who is trying to make God impersonal and distant. Not lame at all if they were changing our idea of who Jesus was. They de-Judaized the Galilee so they could say He wasn't re-e-eally Jewish. They changed His words, made Him to speak Greek. He is depicted as a perfectly coifed, fair skinned blue eyed man looking wistfully off into the distance; or better yet eating leaven bread at the Last Supper, when all Jews had just spent a week cleaning all leaven from their homes. From their viewpoint, He was "their Jesus." He was their god who had turned on the Jews and blessed the RCC. He was their puppet, as they would change His appointed times, change His calendar, tell Him who went to heaven and who went to what level of Hell. They also changed redemption from what He accomplished with His blood into who had been bought out of Purgatory with money. Why not? If you can change His language, you can change the man Himself. If you want to believe that the KJV is the true inspired Word of God, that is fine with me. I'd rather see you hold onto that than fall into unbelief because some cherished belief was questioned. However I think you'll have trouble selling ideas based on this assumption to any group of true Messianics, or even Hebrew Roots. If, on the other hand, you wish to dig for the truth, and/or are interested in Messianism, you might want to consider that yes, men have tampered with the Word. But God is bigger than our petty attempts at tampering, and His truth is still abundantly and clearly there for us to find, if we approach prayerfully and with the correct mindset. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 25, 2014 9:42:59 GMT -8
Yedidyah,
Lucifer (a Latin word left untranslated in English) - H1966 heylel or hay-lale - morning star.
Easter the pagan Herod didn’t want to desecrate his pagan holiday of easter. Why christians honor easter is beyond me.
God is the giver of life. The object of a translation is to allow the reader to understand.
Taste is linked to smell. If you can’t smell you don’t have much taste.
Are you saying that Moad built earth works on top of raisins? I think Moab built the earth works on pressed down soil. You also press raisin cakes.
I thought Jimmie was the brother of Jesus/Yeshua. Jimmie/James/Iames/Jacob/Ya’akov/heel catcher.
King Iames’ real contribution is one he got out of the way and allow someone to translate it and two he demanded that no commentaries be included. He assumed that the common people were too stupid to understand it unless someone explained it to them. One should never make assumptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 25, 2014 9:54:20 GMT -8
alon,
I understand what you are saying about the RCC making Jesus in their own image. But the RCC do not get their doctrine from the KJV. Their teachings are in opposition to what is plainly stated in the KJV. The Baptist et.al also have doctrines that are in conflict with what is plainly stated in the KJV. They hide the truth in plain sight.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 25, 2014 11:51:30 GMT -8
alon, I understand what you are saying about the RCC making Jesus in their own image. But the RCC do not get their doctrine from the KJV. No, but the translators of the KJV were so steeped in Catholic doctrine that their translation was heavily influenced by the same. Actually no, they are not. Apart from the KJV not including the Apocrypha, and the Ten Commandments being translated to include the command against idolatry, I'm aware of nothing they'd object to. No argument there- I agree. And the KJV has for years made it easier for them to do so, with its "ye auld weird English" and blatant mistranslations. One of the good things about the newer translations done in contemporary English is a lot more people are seeing that something is wrong and looking for answers. It's one reason Messianism is growing. Dan C |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 17:12:36 GMT -8
Thank you Alon for further explaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Feb 25, 2014 20:14:55 GMT -8
Yedidyah, Lucifer (a Latin word left untranslated in English) - H1966 heylel or hay-lale - morning star. Easter the pagan Herod didn’t want to desecrate his pagan holiday of easter. Why christians honor easter is beyond me. Easter is not in the text it is added. I don't know of any Latin Copies of the NT so we just confirmed it's not perfect by any means. Common logic shows us that. Yedidyah |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 26, 2014 7:47:40 GMT -8
G3957 pascha, pas’-khah; easter, passover.
As is the case with most words they can have more than one meaning. How do you know which meaning? By context. Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) There you have the context. During the week of unleavened bread, Peter was arrested. The Jew’s pascha/passover was already completed. What is Herod waiting for? The Jew were happy with Peter’s arrest during unleavened bread. Herod was waiting for the passing of his pascha/easter to be completed. No alterations or additions. Just plain meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Feb 26, 2014 8:04:32 GMT -8
This word does not have more than one meaning you are giving credit to pagan alterations of scripture simple as that.
This is basic easy to find out knowledge.
Yedidyah
|
|
. If it in any way contradicts or disagrees with 
