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.

 

Holy Bible: The best English translation ever

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: chr0naut

The Masoretic is corrupt in one place in Deuteronomy changing Sons of God to sons of Israel, a fatal flaw that is unforgivable but all the English versions have fixed it except the Tanakh which has been downgraded in favour of the Talmud by most Jews.


That is an oversimplification based upon taking the single verse out of context. Remember that he verse divisions are artificial and were added later to assist study.

The whole of Deuteronomy 32 is a song, sung by Moses. As such, it is not literal but uses metaphor to transmit its message. The section starting with verse 8 is a metaphorical quotation of the ancient Hebrew ancestors who are describing the situation of Israel during their desert wanderings. This metaphorical speech does not end with the end of verse 8, it ends with the end of verse 43.

The whole speech, from 8 to 43, details how God provided lands and other good things sufficient for for the nation of Israel but despite that, the people continually turn away from all God offers. This speech, and the song, is prophetic about what Israel will do in the future, too (see Deuteronomy 31: 29 where Moses explains the reason for the song).

So verse 8 is ONLY talking about Israels relationship with God (YHWH), it is not some theological revelation of the structure of the spiritual realm.

Now, on to the details of the translational differences:

In Deuteronomy 32: 8, the Masoretic use of "bny yshr 'l" instead of the "bny 'l" used in the 4QDeut relates to the verse in context. Note the similaritiy between the two.

The LXX use of "aggleon theu" or angels of God is a translation of only one of the meanings of "bny 'l". It is interesting to note that this particular translation rule is used nowhere else in the LXX.

Hope that clarifies things for you, gnosisfaith.




posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

No, it was deliberate to hide Yahweh's subservience to El Elyon. You overcomplicate it and it's actually pretty simple.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: chr0naut

No, it was deliberate to hide Yahweh's subservience to El Elyon. You overcomplicate it and it's actually pretty simple.


If that was the case, surely it was better to completely omit the section?

... and why only a single verse among 33,000?

Do a bit of reasoning.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Caligula

I have read 14 different English versions cover to cover and have used up to 30 different versions in comparison studies. There are over 350 English versions available it would take 175 years reading two a year to read every English version with comprehension so obviously no one could read ALL versions.

Only One English version has all the verses, words and sections in it. All the others I have read completely and used in comparison studies don't have all the words, verses and sections in it. All of them are different in one aspect or another.

Gnosisisfaith/Areyousirius/Barzini/Gezus/Caligula and every other name you use we still know who you are.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

Yes sir re bob I see it too.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Caligula

Back when you were gnosisisfaith you already said you bought one.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: chr0naut

The Masoretic is corrupt in one place in Deuteronomy changing Sons of God to sons of Israel, a fatal flaw that is unforgivable but all the English versions have fixed it except the Tanakh which has been downgraded in favour of the Talmud by most Jews.
And the Authorized Version it didn't change it.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: chr0naut

The Masoretic is corrupt in one place in Deuteronomy changing Sons of God to sons of Israel, a fatal flaw that is unforgivable but all the English versions have fixed it except the Tanakh which has been downgraded in favour of the Talmud by most Jews.


The LXX's verse in question is an explanatory translation of the Masoretic's version.

Israel was supposed to replace the seats that were left vacant by the fallen angels (sons of God). This is why Abraham's seed are said to be numbered like the "grains of sand"....like the "stars of heaven". Adam (meaning man) was made from the elements of the earth. The angels are called stars. So the Israelites (you are Gods, Psalm 82:6) were to be adopted as 'sons of God' (upon faith) to replace the fallen 'sons of God' (fallen angels).



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

Only One English version has all the verses, words and sections in it.




Would you care to NAME that version?



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I already did reasonabley conclude there are reasons they would not omit a verse but changing one word that makes Israel take the place of Gods is beneficial to Israel.

Your reasoning is faulty. That's why you need so many words.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: chr0naut

The Masoretic is corrupt in one place in Deuteronomy changing Sons of God to sons of Israel, a fatal flaw that is unforgivable but all the English versions have fixed it except the Tanakh which has been downgraded in favour of the Talmud by most Jews.


The LXX's verse in question is an explanatory translation of the Masoretic's version.

Israel was supposed to replace the seats that were left vacant by the fallen angels (sons of God). This is why Abraham's seed are said to be numbered like the "grains of sand"....like the "stars of heaven". Adam (meaning man) was made from the elements of the earth. The angels are called stars. So the Israelites (you are Gods, Psalm 82:6) were to be adopted as 'sons of God' (upon faith) to replace the fallen 'sons of God' (fallen angels).



Biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caligula

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: chr0naut

The Masoretic is corrupt in one place in Deuteronomy changing Sons of God to sons of Israel, a fatal flaw that is unforgivable but all the English versions have fixed it except the Tanakh which has been downgraded in favour of the Talmud by most Jews.


The LXX's verse in question is an explanatory translation of the Masoretic's version.

Israel was supposed to replace the seats that were left vacant by the fallen angels (sons of God). This is why Abraham's seed are said to be numbered like the "grains of sand"....like the "stars of heaven". Adam (meaning man) was made from the elements of the earth. The angels are called stars. So the Israelites (you are Gods, Psalm 82:6) were to be adopted as 'sons of God' (upon faith) to replace the fallen 'sons of God' (fallen angels).



Biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.


I guess a troll would know. Why do you insist on creating new accounts? Its pretty sad.
edit on 4-3-2016 by BELIEVERpriest because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Caligula

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: chr0naut

The Masoretic is corrupt in one place in Deuteronomy changing Sons of God to sons of Israel, a fatal flaw that is unforgivable but all the English versions have fixed it except the Tanakh which has been downgraded in favour of the Talmud by most Jews.


The LXX's verse in question is an explanatory translation of the Masoretic's version.

Israel was supposed to replace the seats that were left vacant by the fallen angels (sons of God). This is why Abraham's seed are said to be numbered like the "grains of sand"....like the "stars of heaven". Adam (meaning man) was made from the elements of the earth. The angels are called stars. So the Israelites (you are Gods, Psalm 82:6) were to be adopted as 'sons of God' (upon faith) to replace the fallen 'sons of God' (fallen angels).



Biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.


I guess a troll would know. Why do you insist on creating new accounts? Its pretty sad.


Oh I'm sorry, I called you out on your attempt to explain away deception on behalf of the Masoretes. I prefer truth to lies. I guess that makes you mad so you make up stories. You must be a Christian.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caligula

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Caligula

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: chr0naut

The Masoretic is corrupt in one place in Deuteronomy changing Sons of God to sons of Israel, a fatal flaw that is unforgivable but all the English versions have fixed it except the Tanakh which has been downgraded in favour of the Talmud by most Jews.


The LXX's verse in question is an explanatory translation of the Masoretic's version.

Israel was supposed to replace the seats that were left vacant by the fallen angels (sons of God). This is why Abraham's seed are said to be numbered like the "grains of sand"....like the "stars of heaven". Adam (meaning man) was made from the elements of the earth. The angels are called stars. So the Israelites (you are Gods, Psalm 82:6) were to be adopted as 'sons of God' (upon faith) to replace the fallen 'sons of God' (fallen angels).



Biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.


I guess a troll would know. Why do you insist on creating new accounts? Its pretty sad.


Oh I'm sorry, I called you out on your attempt to explain away deception on behalf of the Masoretes. I prefer truth to lies. I guess that makes you mad so you make up stories. You must be a Christian.


One star from me for an even bigger load of crap than mine. Keep it up, you'll make someone proud some day.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short

the preserved word of God, the Authorized Holy Bible 1611



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Your insolence makes your frustration apparent, your weak insult makes your character flaws even more apparent.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

The authorized version must be good if they haven't changed it since 1611. Is it Catholic?



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: chr0naut

I already did reasonabley conclude there are reasons they would not omit a verse but changing one word that makes Israel take the place of Gods is beneficial to Israel.

Your reasoning is faulty. That's why you need so many words.


You may have "reasonabley" concluded so, but you never enlightened anyone else with the details of why or how you arrived at that conclusion.

Your method seems always to repeat your opinion without explanation and to begin calling everyone who disagrees (and many have proofs of their responses), liars.



edit on 4/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: ChesterJohn

The authorized version must be good if they haven't changed it since 1611. Is it Catholic?


They haven't actually changed any of the versions appreciably. That is why we can go back and compare the different translations.

The 1611 Authorised version of the King James translation is a protestant Bible, the work of the Church of England, and was banned from Catholic use for a considerable period of history.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: chr0naut

No, it was deliberate to hide Yahweh's subservience to El Elyon. You overcomplicate it and it's actually pretty simple.


The name YHWH, the Tetragrammaton, was the revealed name of God to Moses and was not used to refer to God previous to then.

This is explained in many places but none so clearly as in Exodus 6: 2-3, that states: Elohim also said to Moses: “I am YHWH. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai but I didn’t reveal myself to them by my name YHWH".

It is plain from this one verse that God Himself said that He was YHWH and was also known of as El Shaddai. Moses also refers to him as Elohim in the same passage!

Suggesting, as you do, that YHWH is a subservient god implies a pantheon of gods. In a monotheistic religion, such as Judaism or Christianity there IS NO pantheon. Why this distinction continues to elude you, I cannot understand.

God states that He (YHWH) is the one and only true God. That is the ultimate authority on the subject, you can appeal to no higher authority. End of argument.

edit on 4/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join