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.

 

The new Bible, words taken out...

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


It's not a "new Bible", it's a new translation of the existing Bible.

Sheesh, talk about getting in an uproar over nothing. If you're not reading the Bible in Hebrew and Koine Greek, you are reading a translation!




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You are absolutely correct. My point as well. Thanks. We share that opinion.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by LightCraft
 


I love how you say so much has been lost in translation? Did you translate these things to know this to be true?

Do you know what is lost? How do you know it's lost then?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I know the NIV omits verses and footnotes them and at the end of Mark they have a note saying the last portion is omitted in some manuscripts.

Islam has it easier, they believe the Quran is only the Quran in Arabic, translations are just interpretations of it. Seems to help avoid a lot of problems with translations like the Christians have with the Bible.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


No, fundamentally, Hebrew cannot be adequately put into ANY language because Hebrew words have more than one connotation and many nuanced shades of meaning. To translate it is to limit the breadth of knowledge that each verse contains.

As another note, the text of the bible as was passed down through the ages didnt contain vowel signs, but only the letters(hebrew letters are onl consonants). This means that without the 'code', the vowel points, one cannot figure out which word or meaning is being suggested.

The Torah is a code. What people have today is a pitiful reflection of a reflection of what the Hebrew Bible truly is.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
well it did not take long for the so what group show up i think i should have titled this non believers get there own version of the bible, it might be easier to read. for it will not have these nasty words

will offer substitutes for words such as "booty" and "holocaust" to better reflect modern understanding, a Catholic group said on Wednesday.
from the threads link. some can not see the word booty or holocaust so for a 159 times they are reediting one word as seen here bible.cc...

so does it change the word of god? or just how we read the word of god? for as it is stayed no man shall add nor take way, does this apply to the church that credited the bible? from Greek not Hebrew, as talked about here www.av1611.org... yes the bible is full of miss interpretations not by design but because man is not perfect, this is on purpose, by ones command, that is the difference, let the debating
begin. if for, or by some reason you wish to debate the word, for simplicity please use the link provided or the Version your using so we can be on the same page word for word.
edit on 4-3-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 
yes this is true but when king James issued his command that a bible be written they the makers used a geek version.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by BodhiSeeker
 
ye s if Christians would have stayed with one bible, then again there would be no diversity.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Slipdig1
 
i have read on the how who and why does that answer your question? i am not a blind follower one should know what he is reading not just blindly read it.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 
it is a NEW bible the words are redone and left out for the Greek text, not just an interpretation.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 
if it was only that simple, no wars no prejudice no hate, then that in it self could be wishful thinking.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 
What you say is true but why change the text, if i say "the tax is a holocaust to me and mine" and replace it with "the tax is a burnt offing to me and mine" do you know see how this can be well confusing



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LightCraft
 

what you say is true but if you take a word out and replace with an other then you change the meaning and text.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Shystargazer
The only Bible that I trust as a Christian is the King James version.

AMEN !!!
I 2nd that emotion.

One day they're gonna release a Bible
without the name of Jesus in it.
Sad day indeed


It would seem that to some new agers,
that the King James version is just not
politically correct anymore.

That's strange ... didn't know God needed
our permission to be politically correct?

And I also bet that one day a Bible will be
released that says it's ok to be gay and
that Soddom and Gomorrah will be
eliminated from the pages.

It's sad really that mankind has allowed itself
to be infiltrated by Satan to the point it has.


I know what you have written is tongue in cheek so thanks for the chuckle.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
The Bible has been touched by man. Although I believe it's the best we have.

The Bible does not say "Written by God" with editing from Jesus.

It was touched by man. By definition, corrupted.

It's really not a secret......The Dead Sea Scrolls is a good place to start.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

The revisions more accurately reflect translations of ancient Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old Testament and the constant evolution of modern-day language, Sperry said.


Well after all the education they denied children across the world they're finally accepting evolution



In a change in a passage in Isaiah 7:14 that foretells the coming of Jesus and his birth to a virgin mother, the 1970 edition's reference to "the virgin" will become "the young woman," to better translate the Hebrew word "almah."

"The bishops and the Bible are not signaling any sort of change in the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus. None whatsoever," Sperry added.




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 





It's really not a secret......The Dead Sea Scrolls is a good place to start.


Why ? They were also written by men



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 

thanks, i for got that part, "so she i no longer a untouched but now could be touched so then the savor is not a son of god but of man" ok so where is it the word of god now? just one of the many naysayer responses that will have no argument for see were this is going



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


It's not a "new Bible", it's a new translation of the existing Bible.

Sheesh, talk about getting in an uproar over nothing. If you're not reading the Bible in Hebrew and Koine Greek, you are reading a translation!


Unless you're reading one written by Moroni in ancient Reformed Egyptian



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


To paraphrase the Hitch "Which is the most likely, that the laws of nature be suspended in your favour, or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie"?




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join