|
Post by frienduff on Jul 26, 2018 9:05:13 GMT -5
But do be on guard . IF a new translation which they claim comes from original Aramaic is printed , WE BETTER TEST IT ALL OUT against the original bible . For many today in high places do things under a guise . And that is how they deceive many . So watch out and be on guard . The bible I have is PLENTY GOOD enough . And it will be what I test any other version against . Men like wycliff, Tyndale and others were persecuted or killed . Todays men , often grew stagnant and got caught up in high minded things and often change versions to both suit their needs and agendas . BE ON GARUD . BE ON GAURD . TEST this new version of the aramic . MEN can claim anything these days and often folks just buy it as truth . But their has been and is an agenda to changed THE IMAGE of GOD into an image that resembles man and not GOD .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2018 10:27:34 GMT -5
But do be on guard . IF a new translation which they claim comes from original Aramaic is printed , WE BETTER TEST IT ALL OUT against the original bible . For many today in high places do things under a guise . And that is how they deceive many . So watch out and be on guard . The bible I have is PLENTY GOOD enough . And it will be what I test any other version against . Men like wycliff, Tyndale and others were persecuted or killed . Todays men , often grew stagnant and got caught up in high minded things and often change versions to both suit their needs and agendas . BE ON GARUD . BE ON GAURD . TEST this new version of the aramic . MEN can claim anything these days and often folks just buy it as truth . But their has been and is an agenda to changed THE IMAGE of GOD into an image that resembles man and not GOD . Oh yes, test it of course.....I might not even think of it as a bible necessarily, but more as a resource, if I wanted to try and catch the sense of something that is written. I use other translations as resources like that sometimes if I'm not sure I'm understanding or catching the meaning of something. Sometimes they are helpful, sometimes not.....and I always test it against the whole counsel of God as well as other passages in the bible about the same subject....two or three witnesses are needed to establish a thing.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Jul 26, 2018 11:23:58 GMT -5
...two or three witnesses are needed to establish a thing. Does my own witness also count?
I mean, when I believe something...
and God confirms it somehow, is that a second witness?
|
|
Cletus
Senior Member
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by Cletus on Jul 26, 2018 14:06:25 GMT -5
2 cor 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
How i have seen this work in my life is usually two people tell me something and sometimes three. usually its mentioned in church on sunday too.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Jul 26, 2018 16:43:05 GMT -5
...two or three witnesses are needed to establish a thing. Does my own witness also count?
I mean, when I believe something...
and God confirms it somehow, is that a second witness?
Cletus watchful
OK, I will try to answer this... I believe yes. And I will explain why:
"Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”" - John 8:12
"The Pharisees therefore said to Him, “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true.”" - John 8:13
"Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true..." - John 8:14
"It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true." - John 8:17
"I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me." - John 8:18
If your witness is from you alone, then it is not enough to establish anything.
"If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true." - John 5:31
"There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true." - John 5:32
"The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me." - John 10:25
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also..." - John 14:12
We can say that your faith that Christ is in you is the first witness... You believe it somehow.
the works and fruits of the Spirit resulting of that faith is a second witness...
"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God..." - Romans 8:16
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also..." - John 14:12
As you can see just saying 'Lord, Lord' is not enough...
God must confirm it by giving you of His Spirit, through genuine faith in His word.
"So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us..." - Acts 15:8
"And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him." - Acts 5:32
But when it comes to spiritual signs one must be born again to see them, I believe.
"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14
Not only they must be born again, but God must allow them to see it somehow...
that is one of the reasons that I believe commenting spiritual signs with other people is not something we should do...
because other people must not have been given the faith to see it.
"...A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven." - John 3:27
But if you believe you must tell about it to others, then do so.
How much do you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Sister on Jul 26, 2018 19:18:45 GMT -5
...two or three witnesses are needed to establish a thing. Does my own witness also count?
I mean, when I believe something...
and God confirms it somehow, is that a second witness?
Romans 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Romans 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
|
|
|
Post by Sister on Jul 26, 2018 19:30:40 GMT -5
2f
The Word of God is our witness. Without it we have nothing to testify of. Our witness must always be backed up with the Word and cannot come out of the air. This is the witness that God gave to us, truth. We are chosen to be witnesses of the truth.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Jul 26, 2018 20:19:44 GMT -5
2f
Our witness must always be backed up with the Word and cannot come out of the air.
OK, that was exactly what I thought.
God bless you in Jesus' name!
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Jul 26, 2018 20:29:43 GMT -5
2f
The Word of God is our witness. Without it we have nothing to testify of. Our witness must always be backed up with the Word and cannot come out of the air. This is the witness that God gave to us, truth. We are chosen to be witnesses of the truth.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Sister I was just going to let you know , it don't matter what the pope says about ya , I LOVES YA . NOW if the pope said , MAN that sister is the perfect example of a Christian, OKAY then I would worry about ya , but you KNOW WHY right , cause if that pope says that about ya , IT MEANS something real bad , as in you fell from Christ . I mean the pope says who is HE to judge about gays , and atheists, BUT BOY HOWDY he is fast to judge those who preach the GOSPLE , as being like jihad. ABOUT the only one the pope does warn against , IS the true biblical christain . NOW that should say OH dear the pope DOES NOT KNOW JESUS at all.
|
|
Cletus
Senior Member
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by Cletus on Jul 26, 2018 23:12:58 GMT -5
Does my own witness also count?
I mean, when I believe something...
and God confirms it somehow, is that a second witness?
Cletus watchful
OK, I will try to answer this... I believe yes. And I will explain why:
"Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”" - John 8:12
"The Pharisees therefore said to Him, “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true.”" - John 8:13
"Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true..." - John 8:14
"It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true." - John 8:17
"I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me." - John 8:18
If your witness is from you alone, then it is not enough to establish anything.
"If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true." - John 5:31
"There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true." - John 5:32
"The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me." - John 10:25
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also..." - John 14:12
We can say that your faith that Christ is in you is the first witness... You believe it somehow.
the works and fruits of the Spirit resulting of that faith is a second witness...
"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God..." - Romans 8:16
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also..." - John 14:12
As you can see just saying 'Lord, Lord' is not enough...
God must confirm it by giving you of His Spirit, through genuine faith in His word.
"So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us..." - Acts 15:8
"And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him." - Acts 5:32
But when it comes to spiritual signs one must be born again to see them, I believe.
"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14
Not only they must be born again, but God must allow them to see it somehow...
that is one of the reasons that I believe commenting spiritual signs with other people is not something we should do...
because other people must not have been given the faith to see it.
"...A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven." - John 3:27
But if you believe you must tell about it to others, then do so.
How much do you agree?i dont agree or disagree. i think when i posted our train of thought were on adjacent tracks heading opposite directions. after reading this post i am not sure how to respond and it may take a minute for me to pick up what you are puttin down. some times when i read i dont understand because i am dyslexic. or i get something way off and its not till some time later it clicks. if a light bulb comes on for sure i'll get back with you on this.
|
|
|
Post by justinadams on Jul 27, 2018 2:43:09 GMT -5
I have posted under the Ezra topic the information about the absolute hatred of the Jews, Israelis and anything Semitic - including the Aramaic scriptures. Funny how they all favored the Greek because they thought that the Greeks gave us civilization.
Even today, the anti-Semitic fervor is apparent in all the early Roman (and later) doctrines that the church seems to have adopted. One cannot ever really get ones point across because the entrenched view is that anyone who tries to mention these distasteful things is called a Judaizer.
So even today there is much opposition to Aramaic and Semitic writings. Pity.
If one has the fortitude to discover how badly the establishment hated the Israelis and the Jews (Judah) then one is a VERY small minority. This is because when you DO discover these truths and how many of the so-called church fathers and 'great men of faith' that we base our many scriptural doctrines on, you will discover - they were ANTI-SEMITIC.
The history of anti-Semitism in the Christian church is a long, sad story. Ironically, this faith which began as a sect within Judaism has been responsible for many more atrocities against the Jewish people than any of their other enemies.
For centuries, Christian Europe reviled Jewish believers as Christ-killers, and Jews were accused of ludicrous crimes like “host nailing” (stealing consecrated communion wafers and driving nails through them, to crucify Jesus anew) or draining the blood of Christian children to bake in matzoh. Throughout the Middle Ages, thousands of Jews were tried and executed, or simply murdered by mobs, after wild accusations such as these incited Christian communities to frenzy.
One of the most notable Christian anti-Semites was Martin Luther, who wrote a book titled On the Jews and Their Lies which argued that Judaism should be outlawed, synagogues should be burned down and Jews should be enslaved for forced labor.
At the root of all this anti-Semitic hatred and bloodshed lies a matter of first-century politics. At the time of Christianity’s origin, there was a necessity to blame someone for Jesus’ death. But blaming the Romans would not have been wise – Christians existed at Rome’s sufferance in any case, and depicting their founder as a criminal executed by the Romans for treason would have been inviting far worse persecution. The natural alternative was to cast blame on the Jews, whom the gospels depict as conspiring to murder Jesus with, at worst, the reluctant cooperation of the Roman authorities.
As Christianity cast off its Jewish origins, this story was found useful to serve other purposes. Finding few converts among the Jews, Christianity’s evangelists began targeting Gentiles for conversion. The depiction of the Jews as a stubborn, hardhearted people, cursed by God with blindness and unbelief as punishment for their sins, was readily integrated with the Gospel story and used to explain why these people had so widely rejected the faith that was born among them.
Consider some specific examples of biblical anti-Semitism. While all the gospels record Jesus as engaging in debate with the scribes and Pharisees, only the Gospel of John elevates these disputes to an accusation of corporate guilt against “the Jews” in general: “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him” (5:16). The fourth gospel also says of Jesus: “He would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him” (7:1) and adds darkly that “no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews” (7:13). In the crowning accusation, John depicts Jesus as accusing “the Jews” as follows:
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
—John 8:44
When Jesus is tried before Pilate, John writes: “The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die” (19:7), and adds: “Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend” (19:12).
Ironically, the single most anti-Semitic verse of the gospels comes in the book that otherwise shows the most understanding and sympathy for the Jewish viewpoint, the Gospel of Matthew. In this bloodcurdling verse, the Jewish spectators demand that responsibility for Jesus’ death be placed on themselves and on all their descendants:
“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.”
—Matthew 27:24-25
The anti-Semitism continues in the Book of Acts, where the apostle Stephen is made to say what would become a common Christian refrain against the Jews – that they had always been a sinful and stubborn people with a history of killing prophets, culminating in the supreme atrocity of their killing God’s only son:
“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.”
—Acts 7:51-52
The epistle of Titus adds another pervasive element of anti-Semitic lore, the Jews’ supposed obsession with money, and adds threateningly that “[their] mouths must be stopped”.
“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.
—Titus 1:10-11
The first epistle of Thessalonians, in what may be a later interpolation, alludes to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem as a deserved punishment from God:
“For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.”
—1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
And the Book of Revelation repeats John’s accusation that the Jews were secret demon-worshipers:
“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”
—Revelation 3:9
Rivers of innocent Jewish blood have been spilled through the ages because of verses like these. Today, to their credit, the mainstream Protestant churches have gone a long way toward banishing anti-Semitism to the shadows – but it is far from dead. It still has some prominent backers, such as John Hagee (as well as Mr. “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world” himself), and the Catholic church is intently moving backward.
However, Christian anti-Semitism has taken on a more subtle form: the so-called “Christian Zionist” movement, which encourages militant Jewish settlers to further expand their settlements in the occupied territory of the West Bank. What few of these people mention explicitly is that they encourage the settlers because they believe it will more swiftly bring on the End Times, in which one-third of Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest will be slaughtered and then eternally condemned to Hell. This veiled wish for a new Holocaust, one condoned and directed by God, must be the most virulent manifestation of anti-Semitism to be found in all the dark history of Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 27, 2018 4:29:54 GMT -5
The scriptures accurately telling us what took place is not an example of anti-Semitism. What happened happened. What is tragic to me is that people do not simply trust that the KJV Bible is accurate and is the inerrant Word of God. We don't need more translations in English.
As far as Israel goes, my main reason for supporting the Jewish state is that God gave a certain area as an eternal inheritance for Abraham's children through his son Isaac. As such, every square inch God promised needs to remain with them. My position is that Israel needs to get back all of the land God gave them, and the nations around them are trespassing on what doesn't belong to them. It has absolutely nothing to do with wishing for judgment to come upon anyone. From a practical standpoint, it makes sense to support Israel as they are a friend to the United States of America.
I have warned about this before, and I feel the need to do so here. Satan is stirring up an all out assault on God's Word in these last days. He is doing everything he can to bring doubt about it's reliability, and is creating a multitude of new translations to cause confusion. Most leave out portions of the established text, and they don't read the same way. All that hold to the new translations will admit they all have some degree of translation errors. They have to say that because they know they don't all say the same thing. They claim only the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are without error, or in this case, Aramaic. If you call into question God's Word, you are opening yourself up to be deceived. You can believe that or reject it, but as for me, the matter is settled. I am happy to simply trust that my KJV Bible is perfect as is, and I believe I can trust it as the inerrant Word of God. I don't need new translations and I don't need to become fluent in Greek and Hebrew. I can just take the text as written. In addition to that, I don't need all of the so-called historical background of everything to understand how the Jews in Jesus' day would have understood this or that. This is yet another tactic of the enemy to distort the plain meaning of the text. While I do find some extra-Biblical books fascinating, I do not believe anything was left out of the Bible that was supposed to be there as a result of some conspiracy, nor do I accept the claims of supporters of modern translations that portions of the text in the Bible was there by mistake because of scribal notes or other such nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by justinadams on Jul 27, 2018 6:09:15 GMT -5
What translators say is interesting. Literally hundred of document have been discovered since the 1500's when a good deal of the texts were used in translations for the 1611 KJV. Since that time the Lord has deemed it was right to reveal some 52,000 additional scripts and of course the Dead Sea Scrolls. Currently, scholars are annotating and digitizing these fragments to a searchable database that will be available to all. Nothing can possibly threaten the Lord or His Words. Why would we be so concerned about this? There is so much obvious error around that can be proven by His Word, yet a few semantics do not a believer make!!
To set ourselves up as 'defenders of the faith' in this way is to gild the lily. Since to the unsaved it is nonsense anyway, we do not need to fervently do anything except bring the lost to Salvation by our Love. ______________________________________________ In the case of the New Testament, whereas the King James editors seemed to have consulted a single 1598 manuscript compilation, the NIV, which relies on the so-called "Critical Text", probably included some "older" manuscripts in its translation. But it is very difficult to judge whether the underlying text is older or newer from the age of the manuscript. A newer manuscript may actually hold a copy of a variant that had somehow been lost, for example. With regard to archaic English language, some prefer the King James Version because it preserves a difference between singular and plural forms which has now been lost to the English language, but present in the underlying Greek. In Mexican Spanish, for example, one uses the word "tu" for you if speaking to a single person, and "Ustedes" if one is speaking to a group. This distinction has been lost in modern English (except, perhaps, in Texas, where "y'all" is used), but it was present in Jacobian English (i.e. "thou" for you singular, "ye" for you plural. For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used throughout. The Masoretic Text tradition contains marginal notations that offer variant readings. These have sometimes been followed instead of the text itself. Because such instances involve variants within the Masoretic tradition, they have not been indicated in the textual notes. In a few cases, words in the basic consonantal text [the original Hebrew used no vowels] have been divided differently than in the Masoretic Text. Such cases are usually indicated in the textual footnotes. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain biblical texts that represent an earlier stage of the transmission of the Hebrew text. They have been consulted, as have been the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions concerning deliberate textual changes. The translators also consulted the more important early versions—the Greek Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms, the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the scribal traditions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. In rare cases, the committee has emended the Hebrew text where it appears to have become corrupted at an even earlier stage of its transmission. These departures from the Masoretic Text are also indicated in the textual footnotes. Sometimes the vowel indicators (which are later additions to the basic consonantal text) found in the Masoretic Text did not, in the judgment of the committee, represent the correct vowels for the original text. Accordingly, some words have been read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated in the footnotes. The NIV Old Testament omits the so-called Deuterocanonical books that were included in the King James Version, as well as in other versions based on the Latin Vulgate (i.e. Douay-Rheims) and Septuagint (e.g. the 1851 English translation by Sir L.C.L. Brenton). Both versions use distinct sets of manuscripts for the Old Testament and New Testament. One might say that the NIV uses an "older" Old Testament manuscript on occasion by deferring to the Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls (as explained below), but I am not sure this is significant. There are rumors that the King James translators may also have done likewise, even if forbidden by the translation rules the King had put in place (see, e.g., Adam Nicholson, The Making of the King James Bible). In the case of the New Testament, whereas the King James editors seemed to have consulted a single 1598 manuscript compilation, the NIV, which relies on the so-called "Critical Text", probably included some "older" manuscripts in its translation. But it is very difficult to judge whether the underlying text is older or newer from the age of the manuscript. A newer manuscript may actually hold a copy of a variant that had somehow been lost, for example. With regard to archaic English language, some prefer the King James Version because it preserves a difference between singular and plural forms which has now been lost to the English language, but present in the underlying Greek. In Mexican Spanish, for example, one uses the word "tu" for you if speaking to a single person, and "Ustedes" if one is speaking to a group. This distinction has been lost in modern English (except, perhaps, in Texas, where "y'all" is used), but it was present in Jacobian English (i.e. "thou" for you singular, "ye" for you plural. There is a discussion of this here. I try to set out the major differences between manuscripts below. Old Testament NIV The Introduction provided in the 2011 New International Version states: For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used throughout. The Masoretic Text tradition contains marginal notations that offer variant readings. These have sometimes been followed instead of the text itself. Because such instances involve variants within the Masoretic tradition, they have not been indicated in the textual notes. In a few cases, words in the basic consonantal text [the original Hebrew used no vowels] have been divided differently than in the Masoretic Text. Such cases are usually indicated in the textual footnotes. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain biblical texts that represent an earlier stage of the transmission of the Hebrew text. They have been consulted, as have been the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions concerning deliberate textual changes. The translators also consulted the more important early versions—the Greek Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms, the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the scribal traditions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. In rare cases, the committee has emended the Hebrew text where it appears to have become corrupted at an even earlier stage of its transmission. These departures from the Masoretic Text are also indicated in the textual footnotes. Sometimes the vowel indicators (which are later additions to the basic consonantal text) found in the Masoretic Text did not, in the judgment of the committee, represent the correct vowels for the original text. Accordingly, some words have been read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated in the footnotes. The NIV Old Testament omits the so-called Deuterocanonical books that were included in the King James Version, as well as in other versions based on the Latin Vulgate (i.e. Douay-Rheims) and Septuagint (e.g. the 1851 English translation by Sir L.C.L. Brenton). KJV The original 1611 King James Version and subsequent updates published by Oxford and Cambridge in the ensuing centuries included the Deuterocanonical books, which were written in Aramaic and Greek. I have never seen anything identifying which particular manuscripts the translators consulted for these. As far as I know, only Cambridge continues to publish a version of the King James Version with the Deuterocanonical books included. The underlying Hebrew text is supposed to be a version of the Masoretic Text compiled by the Tunisian Jew of Spanish origin and later Christian convert Jacob ben Hayyim ben Isaac Ibn Abonijah, published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice sometime around 1525 (Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, tr. Christian Ginsburg, p. 2-7). Dr. Maurice Robinson claims in the introduction to a modern edition of the 1550 Stephen's Textus Receptus that there are actually several extant Greek texts published around that time frame that are similarly named. He writes: The Stephens 1550 edition of the so-called “Textus Receptus” (Received Text) reflects a general agreement with other early printed Greek texts also (erroneously) called by that name. These include editions such as that of Erasmus 1516, Beza 1598, and (the only one actually termed “Textus Receptus”) Elzevir 1633. Berry correctly notes that “In the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus” (Berry, p.ii). All these early printed Greek New Testaments closely parallel the text of the English-language Authorized (or King James) Version of 1611, since that version was based closely upon Beza 1598, which differed little from its “Textus Receptus” predecessors. These early Greek “TR” editions generally reflect (but not completely) the “Byzantine Textform,” otherwise called the “Majority” or “Traditional” text, which predominated throughout the period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts. Dr. Robinson also explains the key differences between the Critical Text (e.g. NIV) and the Textus Receptus (KJV): The user should note that the Stephens 1550 TR edition does not agree with modern critical editions such as that published by the United Bible Societies or the various Nestle editions. These editions follow a predominantly “Alexandrian” Greek text, as opposed to the Byzantine Textform which generally underlies all TR editions. Note, however, that 85%+ of the text of ALL Greek New Testament editions is identical. He also points out that the New King James Version (NKJV), published by Thomas Nelson, footnotes verses where the CT and TR variants diverge. The NIV uses the Masoretic Text,(dates back to the tenth century AD) specifically Biblia Hebraica, which has been passed down from earlier texts that the Masoretes carefully copied. That was the guiding Hebrew text for the Old Testament They paid attention to both the kibbutz and the keres (kibbutz are marginal notes made by the Masoretes when there was a difference among texts.) In addition they also used the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Samaritan text, bot of which appear to be significantly older than our current massoretic texts.. As for the New Testament the NIV uses a conglomerate text, a text made from ancient sources that go back in times to the second century AD. The KJV uses Textus Receptus, the Greek text that was prevalent when Stephanos printed it in the early sixteenth century. That printing was the first time chapter and verse numbers appeared. The Old Testament text is taken exclusively from the Masoretic text that you can get as Biblia Hebraica. The King James Version, like the New King James Version, is a word by word translation. The NIV is not word for word. The 1983 preface to the NIV sates, "...thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure..." The current Revised Standard Version uses both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint (probably between 285-247 BC) for the Old Testament. For the New Testament it uses the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies and is based on literally hundreds of texts dating back to the early second century. The Revised Standard Version is a "Line by line" translation. This gets us to the all important point that how the translation is performed is just as important as which underlying texts of the Scriptures were translated. Taken from: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/52032/what-manuscripts-did-people-use-to-create-the-niv-and-kjv-are-the-manuscripts-u
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Jul 27, 2018 8:09:31 GMT -5
The scriptures accurately telling us what took place is not an example of anti-Semitism. What happened happened. What is tragic to me is that people do not simply trust that the KJV Bible is accurate and is the inerrant Word of God. We don't need more translations in English.
As far as Israel goes, my main reason for supporting the Jewish state is that God gave a certain area as an eternal inheritance for Abraham's children through his son Isaac. As such, every square inch God promised needs to remain with them. My position is that Israel needs to get back all of the land God gave them, and the nations around them are trespassing on what doesn't belong to them. It has absolutely nothing to do with wishing for judgment to come upon anyone. From a practical standpoint, it makes sense to support Israel as they are a friend to the United States of America.
I have warned about this before, and I feel the need to do so here. Satan is stirring up an all out assault on God's Word in these last days. He is doing everything he can to bring doubt about it's reliability, and is creating a multitude of new translations to cause confusion. Most leave out portions of the established text, and they don't read the same way. All that hold to the new translations will admit they all have some degree of translation errors. They have to say that because they know they don't all say the same thing. They claim only the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are without error, or in this case, Aramaic. If you call into question God's Word, you are opening yourself up to be deceived. You can believe that or reject it, but as for me, the matter is settled. I am happy to simply trust that my KJV Bible is perfect as is, and I believe I can trust it as the inerrant Word of God. I don't need new translations and I don't need to become fluent in Greek and Hebrew. I can just take the text as written. In addition to that, I don't need all of the so-called historical background of everything to understand how the Jews in Jesus' day would have understood this or that. This is yet another tactic of the enemy to distort the plain meaning of the text. While I do find some extra-Biblical books fascinating, I do not believe anything was left out of the Bible that was supposed to be there as a result of some conspiracy, nor do I accept the claims of supporters of modern translations that portions of the text in the Bible was there by mistake because of scribal notes or other such nonsense.
Butero , you just keep on a warning too . Who controls the printing presses of today . Who has long controlled them . Folks we in the upmost of deceptive times . So many are always so ready to hear a new translation . And yet , what groups have access over these institutions . Folks with agendas . Agendas that are all over leaders , over church leaders too . If we are always so ready to hear some new translation and something in the old just aint filling us , I truly worry about that mindset . WHY is the kjv not enough , when its always edified my soul so much . And by grace I got my peace , joy and happiness and seek no other NEW translation . No thoughts of needing a newer translation . Yet I look around and most folks are more and more ready to always hear some new interpretation from men . Its like they need some kind of FILLING and they think OH I will find it in a better translation . YET I am thoroughly edified by the KJV. How people can be given over to such tales from men of these days , has me very worried for folks . We don't need their newer translations . IF one is not feeling fulfilled or edified , my advice is examine YOUR WALK , something is probably lacking , some lust is probably choking the word . We don't need these newer translations , DUE TO , I keep noticing only change , change , change and it aint GOOD CHANGE . its bad . Their is an agenda at play . Its why we got more and more newer so called translations . PASSOIN BIBLES AND SO ON . And how it is so clear that what is in them is more and more the image of a sensual god , and less and less gravity and more and more inclusvism methods . We in dire straits . I say let all pick back up the KJV. Just re read it and keep praying . If modern men and major false ones , keep giving their approvals on these new bibles , THAT ALONE ought to scare the socks off folks . SOMETHIING IS ALL WRONG. When the worst of the worst are putting their OH we love this new version , ON those new versions , SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT . FALSE PROPHETS don't love TRUTH , THEY LOVE what tickles their ear . SOMETHING IS ALL WRONG . OH DEAR something is all off. WE must be very diligent in our walk and test all things .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 9:29:35 GMT -5
I have posted under the Ezra topic the information about the absolute hatred of the Jews, Israelis and anything Semitic - including the Aramaic scriptures. Funny how they all favored the Greek because they thought that the Greeks gave us civilization. Even today, the anti-Semitic fervor is apparent in all the early Roman (and later) doctrines that the church seems to have adopted. One cannot ever really get ones point across because the entrenched view is that anyone who tries to mention these distasteful things is called a Judaizer.So even today there is much opposition to Aramaic and Semitic writings. Pity. If one has the fortitude to discover how badly the establishment hated the Israelis and the Jews (Judah) then one is a VERY small minority. This is because when you DO discover these truths and how many of the so-called church fathers and 'great men of faith' that we base our many scriptural doctrines on, you will discover - they were ANTI-SEMITIC. The history of anti-Semitism in the Christian church is a long, sad story. Ironically, this faith which began as a sect within Judaism has been responsible for many more atrocities against the Jewish people than any of their other enemies. For centuries, Christian Europe reviled Jewish believers as Christ-killers, and Jews were accused of ludicrous crimes like “host nailing” (stealing consecrated communion wafers and driving nails through them, to crucify Jesus anew) or draining the blood of Christian children to bake in matzoh. Throughout the Middle Ages, thousands of Jews were tried and executed, or simply murdered by mobs, after wild accusations such as these incited Christian communities to frenzy. One of the most notable Christian anti-Semites was Martin Luther, who wrote a book titled On the Jews and Their Lies which argued that Judaism should be outlawed, synagogues should be burned down and Jews should be enslaved for forced labor. At the root of all this anti-Semitic hatred and bloodshed lies a matter of first-century politics. At the time of Christianity’s origin, there was a necessity to blame someone for Jesus’ death. But blaming the Romans would not have been wise – Christians existed at Rome’s sufferance in any case, and depicting their founder as a criminal executed by the Romans for treason would have been inviting far worse persecution. The natural alternative was to cast blame on the Jews, whom the gospels depict as conspiring to murder Jesus with, at worst, the reluctant cooperation of the Roman authorities. As Christianity cast off its Jewish origins, this story was found useful to serve other purposes. Finding few converts among the Jews, Christianity’s evangelists began targeting Gentiles for conversion. The depiction of the Jews as a stubborn, hardhearted people, cursed by God with blindness and unbelief as punishment for their sins, was readily integrated with the Gospel story and used to explain why these people had so widely rejected the faith that was born among them.
Consider some specific examples of biblical anti-Semitism. While all the gospels record Jesus as engaging in debate with the scribes and Pharisees, only the Gospel of John elevates these disputes to an accusation of corporate guilt against “the Jews” in general: “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him” (5:16). The fourth gospel also says of Jesus: “He would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him” (7:1) and adds darkly that “no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews” (7:13). In the crowning accusation, John depicts Jesus as accusing “the Jews” as follows: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” —John 8:44 When Jesus is tried before Pilate, John writes: “The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die” (19:7), and adds: “Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend” (19:12). Ironically, the single most anti-Semitic verse of the gospels comes in the book that otherwise shows the most understanding and sympathy for the Jewish viewpoint, the Gospel of Matthew. In this bloodcurdling verse, the Jewish spectators demand that responsibility for Jesus’ death be placed on themselves and on all their descendants: “When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.” —Matthew 27:24-25 The anti-Semitism continues in the Book of Acts, where the apostle Stephen is made to say what would become a common Christian refrain against the Jews – that they had always been a sinful and stubborn people with a history of killing prophets, culminating in the supreme atrocity of their killing God’s only son: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.” —Acts 7:51-52 The epistle of Titus adds another pervasive element of anti-Semitic lore, the Jews’ supposed obsession with money, and adds threateningly that “[their] mouths must be stopped”. “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. —Titus 1:10-11 The first epistle of Thessalonians, in what may be a later interpolation, alludes to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem as a deserved punishment from God: “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” —1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 And the Book of Revelation repeats John’s accusation that the Jews were secret demon-worshipers: “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.” —Revelation 3:9 Rivers of innocent Jewish blood have been spilled through the ages because of verses like these. Today, to their credit, the mainstream Protestant churches have gone a long way toward banishing anti-Semitism to the shadows – but it is far from dead. It still has some prominent backers, such as John Hagee (as well as Mr. “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world” himself), and the Catholic church is intently moving backward.However, Christian anti-Semitism has taken on a more subtle form: the so-called “Christian Zionist” movement, which encourages militant Jewish settlers to further expand their settlements in the occupied territory of the West Bank. What few of these people mention explicitly is that they encourage the settlers because they believe it will more swiftly bring on the End Times, in which one-third of Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest will be slaughtered and then eternally condemned to Hell. This veiled wish for a new Holocaust, one condoned and directed by God, must be the most virulent manifestation of anti-Semitism to be found in all the dark history of Christianity.Brother, am i to understand that the Aramaic bible you are talking about removes all those verses from it?....that some believe they were all added later? I agree there is and has been a lot of anti-Semitism and that it had a role to play in the 'Gentile-ization' (paganizing) of the faith, and of course in persecution of the Jews by those who called themselves Christians. But we also need to realize that God is on His throne and has written the bible in such a way as to TEST OUR HEARTS....in many ways and concerning many things. Verses that people use to excuse and justify anti-semitism and mistreatment of the Jews....is because it is EXPOSING that evil in their hearts. It is in our own hearts what we do with anything in His word, how we take it. Not everyone who reads those verses judges and condemns the Jews, on the contrary it can make us long for their salvation and reconciliation to God. And even the persecution the Jews have undergone under God's sovereign rule, has been in His wisdom, in similar ways that Christian persecution is allowed in His wisdom....whether we understand His wisdom in those things or not. God takes no pleasure in punishing just for the sake of punishing but always with redemption in mind. And He is no respecter of persons....the mostly Gentile church is also coming under judgment for falling away.....He did not single out Jews when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in 70 AD.....it is happening again sadly to the church and persecution is not far behind. I believe we need to apprehend heaven's point of view in all these things that God allows in His wisdom under heaven...His ways and thoughts are far above ours. For one thing He made an example/ensample of Israel so that the church would not make the same mistakes, in hopes that the church would fear Him. In a way Israel was His first-born son who He sacrificed for our sakes so that salvation could come to the Gentile nations, the whole world....she died in childbirth you could say....like Rachel. But the Lord will abundantly reward Israel in the end....He is not unjust, but she will be rewarded accordingly to how much she has suffered, in the end. And now it is starting to come full circle, the church is being sacrificed, dying in 'childbirth' as it were.....unnatural branches are being broken off to make room for natural branches to be grafted back in. And we must keep in mind that our faithful and just God also warns in His word what our attitude should not be towards those who are errring...for example Obadiah is a good read lest any become wise in their own conceits against the Jews and also today against the church that is falling away. We must never be tempted to take matters into our own hands....God knows exactly what He is doing: Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? Rom 11:32-33 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
|
|