It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do peole think that Jesus was god?

page: 21
46
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtuQuoting from the bottom of page 4 of this thread.

There are those who say "you can't hold another god beside the One and expect to get to heaven, because He's gonna git you fer that!", and there are others just as equally adamant that if you deny the entire Godness of Jesus, you won't get to heaven, either! While they're fighting back and forth, they lose sight of the prize, the important bits. THAT is what may bar them from paradise - losing sight of the prize, more than whether their own personal theology and the divinity of the Christ was right or wrong.
I think it is important to see Jesus in heaven.
Just the fact that he is there, in itself, is really important, and maybe the most important thing to realize.




posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: mblahnikluver

I tried reading the bible back when I was curious but I found it hard to read, much like translating Shakespeare lol only harder and not as fun for me. I have asked my very religious friends if there is like an idiots guide and they tell me to just stick with the actual bible. So I just gave up.



I grew up in the Appalachians, and there are people - and entire congregations - back there that are SO "fundamntalist" that they make your average "fundamentalist" look like a blazing Univrsalist Unitarian. To give you an idea of the radical fundametalism found there, I come from an area not far from the "Snake Handlers" in Jolo, WV and environs, right on down through Tennessee and North Carolina. I've had run-ins with them. Scary people. Had to throw a bunch of them out of a radio station I worked at one time because they brought a box of rattlers in. Not on my watch - they can do what they want on their own time, in their own place.

This is the sort of people I cut my theological teeth arguing with.

I recall one preacher that tickled me, crowing about how the ONLY bible he ever read was the ORIGINAL bible - "the Authorized King James Version of 1611!" It broke his heart and make him mad enough to eat carpet tacks and crap railroad rails when I schooled him on the history of the Bible. I believe he might have spit on me and went to fisticuffs if he'd thought he could have gottten away with it. Folks get upset when you start barbecuing their sacred cows.

I mention this because you said that "reading the Bible was like translating Shakespeare", which sounds an awful lot like the King James Bible, which is like a pandemic disease back where I come from. I can't recommend the King James version for the faint-hearted, or people who can't speak 16th and 17th century English - it's a whole 'nuther world of language. There are dozens upon dozens of versions of the Bible, and the vast majority of them are far more amenable to people more familiar with 20th and 21st century English. You might try one or several of them, if you have an interest - or just skip it if you don't.




Thanks for that info




You're welcome! I stumbled across that information years ago when I read the precise date the world was created - 22 October 4004 BC at sundown, and thought, "Oh RILLY now? That precise, huh?". I tracked it down to the source, and set my mind at ease that God never said any such thing, nor did the Bible. It offended my sense of common sense. I was more than happy to pass it along.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I think its because they believe if they can pin point the beginning... They can also figure out the end...
According to the Wikipedia article on the Ussher chronology, they thought that the world was only good for 6000 years, which explains the urgency to make the calculation because they knew they must be getting pretty close to that time.
en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 19-7-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: nenothtuQuoting from the bottom of page 4 of this thread.

There are those who say "you can't hold another god beside the One and expect to get to heaven, because He's gonna git you fer that!", and there are others just as equally adamant that if you deny the entire Godness of Jesus, you won't get to heaven, either! While they're fighting back and forth, they lose sight of the prize, the important bits. THAT is what may bar them from paradise - losing sight of the prize, more than whether their own personal theology and the divinity of the Christ was right or wrong.
I think it is important to see Jesus in heaven.
Just the fact that he is there, in itself, is really important, and maybe the most important thing to realize.



Whatever floats their lifeboat, and allows them to see that is fine by me. If they have to make a god out of him to get that done, so be it. I can't preach any man into hell because of his views on the divinity of Jesus, because that isn't my judgement to make.

Likewise, I take umbrage at the opposition's attempts to preach ME into hell on account of my views, because again, that's not their call to make. it's between myself and my God, same as theirs is.

Now, personally, I don't have to deify Jesus to see him in heaven, since I have hopes of getting there myself, and God knows I'm far from a god! It would sort of defeat the purpose for me if deification were the qualification to get there, so I see Jesus in heaven without having to make a god out of him. Because he got it done as a mortal, there might be hope for myself as well - not because I could do it on my own, but because HE already got it done.

The path is already paved - if you can avoid stepping off of it, or going down the wrong fork because it looks like an easier walk.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Now, personally, I don't have to deify Jesus to see him in heaven, since I have hopes of getting there myself, and God knows I'm far from a god! It would sort of defeat the purpose for me if deification were the qualification to get there, so I see Jesus in heaven without having to make a god out of him.
Right, to me, Jesus was exactly like us physically, and that includes human foibles.
Jesus made it OK to be Human.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: nenothtu

Now, personally, I don't have to deify Jesus to see him in heaven, since I have hopes of getting there myself, and God knows I'm far from a god! It would sort of defeat the purpose for me if deification were the qualification to get there, so I see Jesus in heaven without having to make a god out of him.
Right, to me, Jesus was exactly like us physically, and that includes human foibles.
Jesus made it OK to be Human.



Exactly.

He displayed anger, violence, fear, anguish, indignation, and bemusement, among other decidedly human qualities. He was, after a manner of speaking, just like us. He got wet when he took a bath, he ate when he got hungry - and he GOT hungry. I'm guessing he may have even tripped when walking along at least once in 33 years.

He was human and yet overcame that, rose above it, to pave the way and point out the path for the rest of us. He made it to heaven, where he's gained the confidence of the Father through his steadfastness in the face of adversity, and when the day comes, he can speak up and say "well, yeah, I did that once, and here I am, I made it... this one here, he follows me, and how is he to follow me if his way is blocked by that? Let him in, huh?"

... or words to that effect.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
nvm
edit on 20-7-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I dont have any trouble reading the King James Version of 1611. Also what we have today is not the version which originally came out .

If you read the olde versions the letter F often looks like an S. To be is often spelled in the olde language...bee.

Todays version of the AV 1611 is very different from what came out on that date.


However..concerning the different translations..they do not read the same if you can read and interpret English.

There is a woman some years back named Gail Riplinger who wrote a book titled

"New Age Bible Versions"

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405874093&sr=1-1&keywords=new+age+bible+versi ons

In this book she shows in charts..verse by verse where the Bibles were changed over the years unto the perversions we have today. Many do not even say or state the same thing in the same passages as is the case with the AV 1611. Many of the passages in the modern translations are missing...such as John 5.4.

What she also does is show where and why the translations were change and what the new versions state verses the AV 1611. This caused Gail Riplinger a lot of flack in the educational community. However..she has more than held her own in debates and interviews.

Also ..the Bible is not written for the purpose of being something with which we agree..or like ..which pats and satisfactorily rubs our egos. The student of the Bible knows that it offends Believers in particular because tells us what we really are. This is a difficult hurdle to overcome in a PC world of entitlement beliefs.''

The Bible doctrine of which I know is that "All " of us deserve hell and damnation...no exceptions. Even Believers deserve this. That God chooses who are His and puts His way and understanding in their hearts to cull them out and separate from this world and the ways of this world. Not by their choice but by His Sovereign Choosing. God is the decider..not us.
Not by works lest any man boast.

This puts a decided change in what attempts to pass for church and churchism today. For most churches out here are teaching and preaching works. They are counterfeit...of the counterfeiter and are mostly filling their coffers.

A priest or minister do not save me...for they cannot. Only Blood can save me ..and not my blood or the blood of goats and bullocks.

For I know that I deserve hell and damnation...and that God would be perfectly right and justified in sending me there. For I am in my own natural state.... of the fallen.

It is a finished work.

Hope this helps,
Orangetom
edit on 20-7-2014 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: orangetom1999

Only Blood can save me ..and not my blood or the blood of goats and bullocks.
That was a reference to the High Priest who would on Yom Kippur had to have a special sacrificial blood that had the power to give off "holiness" in order to precede the priest by sprinkling it into the area of the presence of God, to be able to approach, before he could even do what he was there to do in the first place, which was to intercede on behalf of the people and to have wiped out the accumulated sin guilt of the temple itself, to be functional in a renewed state.

What the writer of Hebrews was doing was making an analogy between the ordered function of the Law of Moses and the temple practices, with what he saw as a higher order of priesthood, which Jesus belonged to.
The purpose of this analogy was not to point out the similarities but to point out the differences, and ultimately to show the superiority of Jesus' actions along these lines, over what was happening in the fulfillment of the old covenental rituals.

What the writer was really saying in a literal sense about Jesus was that his life was blameless in regards to actual sin, having lived a righteous life, so had admittance by that fact, into the presence of God. His own blood being the evidence of that complete obedience, his being "perfected", as the writer puts it.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60

Yes..indeed..and I understand that which you describe. For Hebrews describes the everlasting preiesthood..not the priesthood of Levi..but our High Priest...not the blood of goats and bullocks...and other sacrafices..but the sacrifice made once...the finished work.

Yes indeed.

Thanks for putting emphasis on that. For this tells one of understanding the nature of much of man made priesthood and tradition verses the everlasting priesthood of Melchizedek.



Orangetom


edit on 20-7-2014 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: orangetom1999

I dont have any trouble reading the King James Version of 1611.



That's fine for you, and more power to you for it, but what about the other 99% of the population who DON'T understand Elizabethan English? I've even heard preachers abuse Elizabethan English horrendously, which tells me that they aren't understanding what they are reading - how much more so the layperson with no concept of the language at all? When reading the Bible, would it be better, in your estimation, to understand what you read, or would it be better to just follow the lines of words with your finger, with no comprehension involved?

The KJV is not for everyone, any more than the Greek or Aramaic is for everyone. Ability to comprehend is paramount, or else it's just an exercise in making noises when speaking the words.




Also what we have today is not the version which originally came out .



No, it's not. It was revised for comprehension in 1769, over 200 years ago, because the original language was by then dated by almost 200 years of changes. Now we have accumulated 400 years of language change from the original. There is, of course, the "New King James Version" of more recent vintage, an attempt to revise it as was done in 1769, but it seems to have met with some resistance from the camp who only read "the original Bible, the King James", most of whom don't even realize that what they are reading isn't even the "original" of their claimed "original" - which is, itself, a translation of other translations, and no more "original" than Hardeee's fried chicken is the "original" KFC.




If you read the olde versions the letter F often looks like an S. To be is often spelled in the olde language...bee.

Todays version of the AV 1611 is very different from what came out on that date.



The "s" form of "f" is also found in the 1769 revision (the originals of it, before the typeset changed, creating second and third generation "originals"), where the spelling has become more standardized and modernized. What you present here is actually an argument against use of the KJV by speakers of modern English.




However..concerning the different translations..they do not read the same if you can read and interpret English.

There is a woman some years back named Gail Riplinger who wrote a book titled

"New Age Bible Versions"

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405874093&sr=1-1&keywords=new+age+bible+versi ons

In this book she shows in charts..verse by verse where the Bibles were changed over the years unto the perversions we have today. Many do not even say or state the same thing in the same passages as is the case with the AV 1611. Many of the passages in the modern translations are missing...such as John 5.4.

What she also does is show where and why the translations were change and what the new versions state verses the AV 1611. This caused Gail Riplinger a lot of flack in the educational community. However..she has more than held her own in debates and interviews.



Yup, there have been changes - mostly to reflect and correct changes that had crept into the King James Version. I personally don't find it a flaw to remove something that was not there from the beginning, but that's just me.

Translations vary with translators, and some of the more egregious translation errors were propagated on purpose - like, for instance, the Douay-Rheims version that was "translated" to promote Catholic doctrine and counter Reformation translations which tried to get back to the originals, rather than the Latin Vulgate, which was the "original" Catholic promoting version - but NOT "THE original". That's why it's important to know the history and translation methodology of whatever version one reads.

I personally prefer to compare the same verse among several translations, to gain a fuller understand of how the various translators rendered it, and sometimes the underlying "why" they translate it that way. That's just me, though, and I wouldn't expect everyone to go so far in-depth.




Also ..the Bible is not written for the purpose of being something with which we agree..or like ..which pats and satisfactorily rubs our egos. The student of the Bible knows that it offends Believers in particular because tells us what we really are. This is a difficult hurdle to overcome in a PC world of entitlement beliefs.''



True enough - but how is one to know whether he is being offended or not, how is one to KNOW and reach that "conviction", if he doesn't even understand what he is reading? That's the boat most modern English speakers find themselves in when trying to interpret the King James Version.

In most cases, the KJV has become a hindrance rather than a help.




The Bible doctrine of which I know is that "All " of us deserve hell and damnation...no exceptions. Even Believers deserve this. That God chooses who are His and puts His way and understanding in their hearts to cull them out and separate from this world and the ways of this world. Not by their choice but by His Sovereign Choosing. God is the decider..not us.
Not by works lest any man boast.

This puts a decided change in what attempts to pass for church and churchism today. For most churches out here are teaching and preaching works. They are counterfeit...of the counterfeiter and are mostly filling their coffers.

A priest or minister do not save me...for they cannot. Only Blood can save me ..and not my blood or the blood of goats and bullocks.

For I know that I deserve hell and damnation...and that God would be perfectly right and justified in sending me there. For I am in my own natural state.... of the fallen.

It is a finished work.

Hope this helps,
Orangetom


Most speakers of modern English will never be able to tease that knowledge out of the Elizabethan English, which is why I can no longer recommend the KJV for people who want to know. People who want to know need to understand, and they will never gain that understanding by trying to tease it out of an archaic tongue that they no longer speak. Comprehension is called for, rather than rote recitation.





edit on 2014/7/20 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
My apologies again. I seem so often want to make a double post. Perhaps I am not correctly posting when I hit the send button.

Orangetom







edit on 20-7-2014 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu


That's fine for you, and more power to you for it, but what about the other 99% of the population who DON'T understand Elizabethan English? I've even heard preachers abuse Elizabethan English horrendously, which tells me that they aren't understanding what they are reading - how much more so the layperson with no concept of the language at all?


Hey ..no problem. But I would like to elaborate a bit or expound on what you are declaring here. The average person today..has a vocabulary of some 1000 to 1200 words....and most of them four letter words. I am speaking here even of peoples who have attended college.

In times past ..those who were educated and could read..or had gone to college ..had a vocabulary of some 4000 to 4500 words and most of them more than four letter words.

I was dumbfounded to learn this from a college professor many many years ago. At first I recoiled at this new revelation but over the years have had it reinforced numerous times.

As to preachers..I will not speak for others...but I check up on them and watch/listen to them carefully ..for many are in fact ..wolves in sheep's clothing. You decide for yourself. I've already decided.


When reading the Bible, would it be better, in your estimation, to understand what you read, or would it be better to just follow the lines of words with your finger, with no comprehension involved?


Ahhhh..ok nenothtu...now we get deeper into the meat and potatoes. It is not just understanding in the human sense..but with the Spirit. As we are given the gifts of the Spirit...we are blessed to learn and know. And I can assure you this is also often not agreeable to the ego and thinking of the Believer. It is often a point of denial before the True understanding comes to us. Perhapsed I should phrase that True Understanding.

Often we are introduced to people or people cross our paths who have a better knowledge and understanding than do we.
And there ...our eyes are opened to an Understanding for which we did not see just a few minutes before. This has happened to me many times in my walk and since my conversion.

This is also the example of the Ethiopian Enuch...Philip was directed to go out and meet him..for God's purposes...and by Faith.




Ability to comprehend is paramount, or else it's just an exercise in making noises when speaking the words.


Very good nenothtu...excellent. And we come to this comprehension by Faith..or perhaps I should spell it Comprehension.
Another rendition would be Faith. All of these are names for Him.

I am very careful about Bible experts ..even people with PHDs from a seminary. We often call them bible cemetery's..where the Bible is buried. We are instructed to check up on our ministers to know if they are teaching the Whole Council of God or just the PC versions. What do you think most of them are doing today???


No, it's not. It was revised for comprehension in 1769, over 200 years ago, because the original language was by then dated by almost 200 years of changes.


I am aware of this..since 1611. Nonetheless..the Olde Testament is in Masoretic Hebrew...and the New Testament is in Koine Greek...common greek..not the Classical Greek from which many of todays translations originate. Nor is it from Latin..such as the Vulgate to the Douay Rheims.

Any scholar of the Bible can tell you that the King James... is a good and accurate translation when compared to what they are putting out today..particularly the variations coming out of the Wescott and Hort translations from the classical greek translations.

It is also a very scholarly work..having been done under the best of conditions with the best at the languages of the day.

I also know that there were in existence, at the time King James gave his blessings for the work to be done, the Tynsdale and Wycliffe Bibles as well as the Great English Bible as was used here at Jamestown some thirty miles north west of me here in Virginia.

The New King James version only "appears" to be a King James ..but everywhere there is a deviation from the King James...it uses the Douay Rheims pattern. It is a King James in "Appearance" only.


Yup, there have been changes - mostly to reflect and correct changes that had crept into the King James Version. I personally don't find it a flaw to remove something that was not there from the beginning, but that's just me.


I find it to be a great flaw. Hence I quoted John 5:4.

Gail Riplinger also shows in her work where many other versions have omitted whole words or even sentences/passages in these new translations. We are warned of this pattern of operation...the traditions of men.

In case you missed it..this is historically what got the Hebrews in trouble...they were interpreting Gods Word with other understandings..not written in the Word.

The example from the Book of John where they caught the woman in adultery..in the very act is textbook of this misunderstanding leading to the traditions of men and not the Word of God....and Jesus knew this.

They tried to entrap or snare Jesus in their traditions...but He already knew this as well as the god they worshipped.

They brought a woman caught in adultery..in the very act. They did not bring the man. You cannot possibly catch a woman in adultery without catching a man..in the very act.

The law the Hebrew leadership were keeping said that women get stoned for adultery and men do not. This is not how the Olde Testament reads. IT reads that they both shall be stoned.

The Hebrews had by their traditions switched gods to another god and another testament. They were in rebellion against God and His Word. This constantly changing the word and their rebellion Is what lost them the land and everything by 70ad.

And so too are todays Christians..by the traditions of men..by changing the Word of God. And many of them know it not.
And their preachers and ministers keep them this way..for lucre...another tradition of men.

By the way nenothtu..this kind of tradition of men ...rule changing..privily ..by stealth..without many knowing it has been done is what I call a ..Talmud.

A Talmud is a set of rules which allow you to get around the rules. You can break the rules ..but you must follow these new rules in order to break the rules. Governments do this all the time...by tradition and most are unawares of how it works.
The Hebrews are not the only ones who use Talmuds. Matthew Henrys commentaries are in some places an example of a Christian Talmud. Even Christians here need to be very careful about what they read.


I personally prefer to compare the same verse among several translations, to gain a fuller understand of how the various translators rendered it, and sometimes the underlying "why" they translate it that way. That's just me, though, and I wouldn't expect everyone to go so far in-depth.


This is exactly what Gail Riplinger does as well as a handful of ministers of whom I have met. Nonetheless..I check up even on Gail Riplinger and even on the ministers I know. I don't just take their word for it. The information is out there...particularly in the computer age.

I think I am running out of characters here. I am starting a new post.

Orangetom
edit on 20-7-2014 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
continued...


True enough - but how is one to know whether he is being offended or not, how is one to KNOW and reach that "conviction", if he doesn't even understand what he is reading? That's the boat most modern English speakers find themselves in when trying to interpret the King James Version.

In most cases, the KJV has become a hindrance rather than a help.


Goodness me. I am a bit taken back that you should needs ask this question. It is very telling to those who Know.

One knows by Faith..by Longsuffereing...by Peace...that it will be revealed to them by Truth..all of these are of His Name. They are all names for Him. We are Graced to know...an unmerited gift..blessing..something we do not deserve to know..yet we Know. Remember what I previously stated...we do not merit heaven...we are Blessed..Graced..an unmerited gift..Blessing. It is also Breathed into us by Spirit...Spiritus.

You are telling me nenothtu that for all your education and wisdom...you are still on milk and not on meat.

No problem ...we are each gifted or blessed to know or not know ..and not on the same time table. It is an Earnest..Hope..that you will be lead to know this difference in process of time. For these two and once again are also of His Names. Earnest and Hope

When this finally happens to you ..you will see with eyes and soul which you did not have moments before.

I can tell you it happened to me and I was taken back when it came to me what had happened. I was not prepared for this. And I am not a person easily emoted or stunned by such things.'

For I did not seek Conversion. I tried to avoid it many many ways. I kept running into different corners to deny and hide from what was the Truth. I finally ran out of corners in which to hide. It was time to get under the water.


Most speakers of modern English will never be able to tease that knowledge out of the Elizabethan English, which is why I can no longer recommend the KJV for people who want to know. People who want to know need to understand, and they will never gain that understanding by trying to tease it out of an archaic tongue that they no longer speak. Comprehension is called for, rather than rote recitation.


I did not get this entirely on my own. I have been Blessed to have good tutors over the years. I also checked up on what they were saying....teaching and preaching.

Out of this came the knowledge, though not planned and intended, of understanding counterfeits and counterfeit doctrine and dogma. Also as an extension of counterfeits is the knowledge of Occult Religions and how they survive today even into the highest offices in the land..under the traditions of men. This has not changed since Ancient times...it is still with us today and being taught and promoted in our center of higher education down into our public school systems.

If God has chosen you ...you cannot stop it..for chosen people do not choose..they are chosen. We do not save ourselves or anyone else. We cannot see, hear, or understand unless we are converted by Him..not by our will but by His will. None of the Apostles chose but were chosen. He called and they heard His voice..they came unto Him.

If you are His you will hear his voice and His call..His Word. This is what is meant in the proof text in John 5:24 and 25. That if you can see, hear, and understand..you already are already saved and have eternal Life. New versions say you "get" eternal life. The KJV states that you already have it. Not you get it..but already have it because you can see , hear, and understand. Not by your will..but by the will of the Father.

This is long but I hope it helps and clears up some of the confusion.

We are all caught up in "The Ever War"..but it needs not be so confusing.

In His Name,

Orangetom



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: orangetom1999

Any scholar of the Bible can tell you that the King James... is a good and accurate translation when compared to what they are putting out today..particularly the variations coming out of the Wescott and Hort translations from the classical greek translations.
Westcott and Hort were not translating Koine Greek biblical manuscripts into classical Greek.
Nor were they somehow discovering and using manuscripts that had been written in classical Greek.
Classical Greek was discontinued even before the Septuagint was made, so was not in current use when the New Testament was written.
What they were doing was using manuscripts other than what was in the family of ones used in the Greek Orthodox church (otherwise known as "Byzantine", which was what Erasmus used in what became known as Textus Receptus).
edit on 20-7-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: orangetom1999

If you are His you will hear his voice and His call..His Word. This is what is meant in the proof text in John 5:24 and 25.
You have used reverse logic to come up with something the text doesn't say, which is apparently your theory that you can understand scripture "by faith" rather than by actual study.

I've run into people like this in church, who about fall over if I even mention the word, "Greek", as if they are all supposed to have visions where God tells them what verses mean.
People who have taken this position on this forum have come up with interpretations that are demonstrably wrong, and they would have realized it easily if they had taken the trouble to even just look at the Greek


edit on 20-7-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: orangetom1999

Any scholar of the Bible can tell you that the King James... is a good and accurate translation when compared to what they are putting out today..particularly the variations coming out of the Wescott and Hort translations from the classical greek translations.
Westcott and Hort were not translating Koine Greek biblical manuscripts into classical Greek.
Nor were they somehow discovering and using manuscripts that had been written in classical Greek.
Classical Greek was discontinued even before the Septuagint was made, so was not in current use when the New Testament was written.
What they were doing was using manuscripts other than what was in the family of ones used in the Greek Orthodox church (otherwise known as "Byzantine", which was what Erasmus used in what became known as Textus Receptus).


You might want to find out what Wescott and Hort were up to in the long run ..their real goals concerning the Word.

As I recall ...they used The Classical Greek versions to wind up with their English translation which became the text used in the NIV and other translations. This was already done by people such as Origen out of Alexandria, Egypt..center for Hellenistic Phariseeism.

And yes..I am aware that they preferred to use manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus. This is still true today. I can tell when reading someone's quote because it does not ebb and flow as does the KJV.

Whenever I see or read someone quoting .."the Oldest and best manuscripts " I automatically know that they are quoting classical greek..or from Wescott and Hort..English translation from Classical Greek.

The KJV comes from other sources that Origen or other classical greek versioins or the Codex B. And there is an important historical reason for this which is hardly ever spoken about or taught for the history it is. Most simply do not know how it came about..what initiated it.

And this historical event was the taking of Constantinople by the Ottomans In 1453. What happened was that those who could fled Constantinople and took with them their religious texts. They could not flee into the Roman Catholic areas because of the long standing feud between these two religious groups. What they did with their documents was wind up in northern Germany and into the lowland countries and these documents eventually found their way into England.

Remember ...King James was a highly educated man and could read and speak several languages. Though they already had Bibles in English from Roman Catholic translations...when they compared these different documents with the ones they already had...they discovered that they did not read or say the same thing.

This is why King James commissioned for a new Bible to be translated based on these documents which found their way into England. They put the best scholars and linguists of those days on this job.

If you read Gail Riplinger's book on the KJV translation committee...verses what you have today with the NIV..it is quite a contrast.

Nonetheless..This is why the KJV came to be..because someone out there lost a war in 1453 and their documents found their way into England. This is so seldom ever taught to people for the history and significance that it is.

I can take it even further than that ..into the historical dogma of "Divine Right of Kings.." and on to what is happening around us here in America today but this will suffice for now. This too will never be taught to people for the historical significance that goes with it and our application of it today. They don't dare have people know this history.
It is far to dangerous to have a people know and understand this history today.

Much better that we know devoutly about the Redskins, NASCAR, who is dancing with whom etc etc..and the other gods and religion of the big screen.


Thanks for your post,
Orangetom




edit on 20-7-2014 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: orangetom1999

If you are His you will hear his voice and His call..His Word. This is what is meant in the proof text in John 5:24 and 25.
You have used reverse logic to come up with something the text doesn't say, which is apparently your theory that you can understand scripture "by faith" rather than by actual study.

I've run into people like this in church, who about fall over if I even mention the word, "Greek", as if they are all supposed to have visions where God tells them what verses mean.
People who have taken this position on this forum have come up with interpretations that are demonstrably wrong, and they would have realized it easily if they had taken the trouble to even just look at the Greek



Ahh..thanks for catching that for me. I could have worded it better. What I meant to say and is not clear to many in the new versions is that many churches teach that you have to believe in order to "Get " everlasting life.

The KJV states if you believe you ..."Hath"....meaning you already have it. Most churches teach some variation of works and it is easier to put across in the modern translations...verses the KJV.

For some time I had difficulty with verse 24 and also 25 as they are a type of proof text verses reference texts.

Thanks again for bringing it to my attention,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: orangetom1999

Whenever I see or read someone quoting .."the Oldest and best manuscripts " I automatically know that they are quoting classical greek..or from Wescott and Hort..English translation from Classical Greek.
Obviously you have internet access to be posting, so you could easily fix these ideas you have from learning mythology, by going to Wikipedia, starting by Googling "Textus Receptus".



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: orangetom1999

For some time I had difficulty with verse 24 and also 25 as they are a type of proof text verses reference texts.
My suggestion is to get away from the use of "proof texts" because what they are meant to "prove" are doctrines, which is usually things someone created, then want to support by using verses out of context.
My interpretation, which comes from reading the lexicon explanations of the Greek words in the text, is that we start our eternal lives now, where "eternal" means not just quantity of life, but also a quality.


edit on 20-7-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join