For the English reader that is interested in indepth biblestudy I suggest a KJV AND a "Strong's Exhuastive Concordance" this allows you to revert any word back to its orginal term and context. There are many website links with this (look at the study tools section in the margin -->)
The english versions of the word are not free from mis-translations. Please share as many as you like at any rate you like. I will be coming here to study what is posted to see if I see any I haven't caught.
__________________________
EXAMPLE:
Lk.14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
We know this to be an obvious mistranslation. The orginal Greek word that was translated "hate" is in fact μισέω/ miseō/ mis-eh'-o - and means LOVE LESS in this context.
Not only is this a use of the term, but agrees here in context with all scripture unlike the mistranslation, which is evident within the comandments. Ex.20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. Ex.5:16 Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. Put God fisrt and give due respect to others - Mk.12:29-31,/ 1 Jn.2:9,11; 3:15; 4:20....
_________________________
Feel free to use any English source even though I'm mainly interested in the ****KJV****! Just List the source you use when doing so.
I will start it off with an obvious mis-translation.
Matthew 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
evil here would have been correctly translated Hardships. How the translators would have choosen Evil in this context is beyond me. ONE place such a translation would contridict the Word is Jas.4:7, when the correct translation agrees with all scripture.
For those without a Strong's or way to document such within the Greek here is a link of the term used in this area according to the Greek.
http://www.studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=4190
______.....*Turn the Other Cheek......______
Note the prior verse Matt.5:38 says its lawful to take an eye for an eye however this passage is directed to the Disciples of Christ in relation to ministry (Matt.4:19;5:2,13,16...) thus the more edifying context of Matt 5:39 (Lk.6:29). If you go forth sowing seed and the truth offends (Gal.4:16) someone and they react from the flesh and haul off and slap you, would it be proper to forget your fruits in the spirit and result to taking your own vengance by striking back or would it serve your purpose (in Christ) to be the bigger man and endure this hardship? (as Christ did Matt 26:67)
When you "turn the other cheek" it immediatly causes the heartless attacker to consider his actions and your message!
One More for now! (this is Not a mis-translation but rather a relation!)
Note Satan name as it is given in the Greek:
Revelation 9:11 (King James Version)
11And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
When we look at the term perdition in the greek see how it relates to Satan's name! http://www.studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=684
We also know what within the Word only one is condemned to perish by name and that one is Satan or "the son of perdition".
This name Apollyon in the Strongs relates back to the root which is the very Word that is translated perdition! # 622 &623 in the Greek!
When G_d asks us to do something his words should be heavy Kavod, that is important and first priority. There is a lack of liver, honor, and glory in our society. Can we have the glory of G_od and not honor and respect or fellow man? In the bible man cannot stand up on the glory (presence) of God our honor, glory, liver just don’t measure up to his so it knocks us down.
Physical problems can be the reflection of a deeper spiritual problem (but physical probelms arent always a sign of a spacific spiritual issue). We find that many sicknesses that effect the liver are results of dishonoring our bodies with such things as drugs. However we shouldnt be quick to condemn people because they have health issues.
***********
Symbolic Meanings of the Hebrew Alphabet
http://www.psyche.com/psyche/qbl/formative_numerics.html
***********
"Easter" is a Mis-translation. The one place it appears in Acts 12:4 . the term was Pasal (Pascha/ Pesach/ - PASSOVER), it can niether be tranlated or transliterated "Easter". When we look up easter in the websters dictionary it clearly says a Pagon Holiday and rightual.
This link shares contridictions within alternate versions of the bible. I support the KJV as the best English translation (however know it has its mistranslations and that there is an importance to consideration of manuscripts)
http://www.av1611.org/articles.html ..
http://www.av1611.org/articles.html ..
1 Jn.5:7
1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 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. 7For there are three that bear record /in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth/, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 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. 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.
* The area between /In Heaven, and In earth/ have crept into the text through translation starting in the 16th century and yet the book itself was written in the 1st century. However the Father, Son(Word), and Holy Spirit are all subjects within the area and I see this as a simplification and almost a side note added to the text in context through its translation rather than an out right perverted mistranslation.It agree with the context of the whole gospel, the same message remains (Jn.1:1/ Jn 1:31-34/ Jn.10:30 (Jn15:26) .
* The area between /In Heaven, and In earth/ have crept into the text through translation starting in the 16th century and yet the book itself was written in the 1st century. However the Father, Son(Word), and Holy Spirit are all subjects within the area and I see this as a simplification and almost a side note added to the text in context through its translation rather than an out right perverted mistranslation.It agree with the context of the whole gospel, the same message remains (Jn.1:1/ Jn 1:31-34/ Jn.10:30 (Jn15:26) .
I am a bit concerned about the growing support for this NEW source. I listened to a portion of a speech by one: "Andrew Gabriel Roth" who stated that there were mistranslations in the Greek manuscripts that could have "only" come from mis-translation of aramaic Texts. In this small clip there were No examples given and even through discussion with many who supported the source i was being left without any such example.
* The thing to stay mindful of is that this New bible and those who push it claim to have The Proper translation of a Source (manuscripts) they don't have (that dont exsist) while we do already have accepted greek manuscripts.
updated interests:
____Eunuch?_____
I have been taking note of some claims that have recently come to my attention. And while they seem to show how some mistranslations could have taken place by misunderstanding Aramaic when attempting to translate it this gives no one authority to claim they know better how to rewrite the N.T. without any proper manuscripts.
1) Acts.8:27 And he (Philip) arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship.
Anyone familure with the Torah and the culture of Israel would know it is forbiden 4 a eunuch to enter the gates of YHVH (Deut.23:1) to do anything including to worship.
Hebrew term for eunuch is saris (#5631) and is basically to mention one with injured stones (male privates) or a castrated one.
However the Aramaic term M'Haymna (M'HAIMNA/ pronounced: mahameanah) Can mean "eunuch" yet can also mean "Believer", "faithful one".
This seems to be the only correct context of the verse! This faithful one went to Jerusalem to worship.
This also makes Matt.19:12 come together in simplicity!
Matt.19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
While some may make themselves celibate in their personal walk with YHVH, eunuchs as in castrated or injured in the privates would cause them to be cast out of the kingdom rather than for the kingdom (in the times of Philip).
___Gamla?__
Matt.19:24/ Mk.10:25/ Lk.18:25
While I have recieved understanding on the verse before hearing the aramaic claims i will share the claims for individuals to do their own research!
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. "
While many of us clearly understand this verse as saying the rich man must not allow his personal material riches to cause him to stumble rather if his focuss is on The commands of YHVH then the LORD is 1st and also others which would lead the man to use these material riches to please God.
This has been revealed to many with the concept of the needle gate. It is said that before the (Golden/ eastern) gate was sealed that within the gate was a smaller gate (door) which would have been used at night and perhaps times of increased defense. This needle gate would only be big enough for a single file line entrance and a overloaded camel would first have to unload in order to enter.
Below is the relevant entry for "Gamla" (root fmg) in the Lexicon Syriacum (Bar-Bahlul, Bishop of the Church of the East, 963 AD)
Translation:
The term Gamla can mean "camel" or "Large/Thick Rope"
Khawla (Aramaic) Khevel (Hebrew).
According to this its harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom than a Large Rope to pass through the eye of a needle. I will leave it up to the individual to study the verse for themselves. A rich man's camel having to be unloaded and possibly still would probably have to stoop down to enter in a needle gate seems to relate more to a rich man entering in much more than a big rope and a sowing needle comparision. (please feel free to share on any of these points for i am not a exspert on Aramaic and am but sharing recent claims i have come across)
Matt.19:24-26 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
(iI was impossible with man, thus tends to be pointing to the literal camel passing through eye of needle.)
________
Seems to me these Aramaic "scholars" would do better to list the "mistranslations" they find rather then creating a New source (version) that they ask we put side by side with our already supported sources to see if we approve of their "New" translations (bible versions)
Parts of the bible were written in Aramaic in relation to our latest sources (manuscripts). Example: Daniel 2:4b-7:28 I know there are other areas so if anyone else cares to share those that would be nice but to create a whole bible in Aramaic based on how man thinks it would have ("originally") read in the Aramaic is silly and knocks the door down to allow leaven and traditions of man (perversion).
What to think of this? There are claims that the world's oldest Torah scroll found in Italy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22697098
Intro to 1611 KJV.
Message of the translators to the reader. They did they best they could and encourage you to study the most original texts when/if possible. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bibl...
Sorry if this subject isnt one of Great value but interested in how others may respond to those who like to point out small things in the texts as to attempt to belittle the written Word. I am currently looking at the color of the robe of Christ. I have crossed paths with one who is highlighting the fact that the KJV says it was purple and or scarlet. I have noticed the Greek uses two differ terms as well. The Documentations are: *Matt 27:28,31 (Scarlet/ G#2847) And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. Compared to *Jn.19:2,5 (Purple/ G#4210)And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! and *Mk.15:17,20 (Purple /G#4209)And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head, And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him./ So while two different terms are listed are we to consider them the same? Or was the robe both colors like the women in Rev.(17:4/18:16) who wore both colors?/ 1love
**** Scribal mistakes ?**** http://youtu.be/QbmLdss5uqQ *******
_________2 Sam.24:12-13 vs. 1 Chron.21:11-12 _____
seems to show a mistranslation. When listing out the different judgements one says 3 yrs and the other says 7yrs of famine. Bullinger hasn't much to say in relation to this other than "perhaps mistaken by an ancient scribe. Both may be right 7 or even 3". But did Bullinger miss the context?
Words of prophet Gad in GREEN Word of the LORD in RED
1 Chronicles 21:10-12 says:
"Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me."2 Samuel 24:12-13 says:
"Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me."The "three years" in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12 are the words of the LORD whereas the "seven years" in 2 Samuel 24:13 are the words of the prophet Gad. The two accounts can be harmonized as follows:
Harmony of 1 Chronicles 21:10-12 and 2 Samuel 24:12-13:
"Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me; and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me."The verbatim words of the LORD as recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12 must fit in 2 Samuel 24:13 in between "and told him" and "and said unto him". Otherwise, the phrase "and told him, and said unto him" is very redundant. Thus the prophet Gad first "told him [David]" the verbatim words of the LORD as recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12, and then "said unto him [David], Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?" Dynamic translations such as the NIV, NLT and CEV unfortunately remove the clause, “and told him". Translators of these translations apparently thought the words "and told him" were insignificant verbal surplusage. But this clause is the key to understanding the seeming discrepancy between the two accounts.
Why did Gad speak of “seven years” after delivering the LORD’s word concerning three years of famine? The figure “seven years” spoken by Gad is not the number of years that the LORD will be adding in the future. The seven years is the combination of the four prior years of famine and the possible future addition of three years. Prior to this incident, in 2 Samuel 21:1, the narrator says “Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year.” And from the time of 2 Samuel 21:1 to 2 Samuel 24:13 we understand that there was a lapse of one year. Thus by the time the LORD gave David this dilemma in 2 Samuel 24:13, there were four years of famine(already plus 3=?). Now, when Gad asked David, “Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?” Gad was basically saying, “Shall [a total of] seven years of famine (four previous years and three added years) come unto thee in thy land?” Seven years of famine would have been the ultimate result of receiving three more years of famine.
__________________1 Kings 7/ 2 Chron.4_______
1 Kings 7:26 ("it contained two thousand baths") compared to 2 Chron.4:5 ("and it received and held three thousand baths"). Bullinger says "But 1 Kings 7:26 speaks of what it did (Usually) contain; while 2 Chron. 4:5 speaks of what it Could "recieve and hold"." Thus this isn't a mistranslation however is often mis interpretated! :)
***** NIV issues***************************
Some Missing NIV Verses:
Matthew 12:47; Matthew 17:21; Matthew 18:11; Matthew 21:44; Matthew 23:14; Mark 7:16; Mark 9:44; Mark 9:46; Mark 11:26; Mark 15:28; Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses); Luke 17:36; Luke 22:44; Luke 22:43; Luke 23:17; John 5:4; John 7:53-8:11 (all 12 verses); Acts 8:37; Acts 15:34; Acts 24:7; Acts 28:29; Romans 16:24;*** 1 John 5:7
You can see these verses are subtracted inorder to justify certain teachings! WOE Not to mention the use moringstar instead of the name lucifer in one place even though lucifer means morning star The Word says Christ is THE Morning star!
NIV was originally published in the 1970'2 and most recently updated in 2011 (currently it is early 2012). This is a new age translation compared to the KJV. One of the publishers of the NIV (harper collins) is also the publisher of "the joy of gay sex" and " the satanic bible".
The NIV has no gendar lines which draws in to question agendas on gendar roles.
Renders:
"brother"- "brothers and sisters"
("man"- human beings)
Those uses of the terms can be seen as legit within contexts however,
*The term "sodomite" can't be found. (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7.)
*Dr. Virginia Mollenkott is a homosexual on the translation committee.
Why does NIV insist on using nice language in the context of sin?
Lev.18:22
NIV- Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable
KJV- Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
1 Cor.6:9-11
KJV- Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (homosexuals), nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
NIV (1984)- Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
(I do suggest the KJV when it comes to the English yet even the original KJV (1600) had a preface (intro) in which the translaters said they did the best they could and encouraged you to study for yourself (relating back to manuscripts/ original languages). Even the KJV has mistranslations, but it is easy to take it back with a strongs for those not fulent in Hebrew, Syraic, and Greek. Just wanted to share some points about NIV for anyone interested. I can't suggest a new age translation with agendas and still in the process of edits.
Keep in mind in order to create a "new" versions one has to make so many changes in order to do so. So the publishers are even encouraged to find new ways to communicate the message (very dangerous in my book) CURRUPT INTERPRETATIONS
A muslim attempt to attack brother Paul
First of all, its not even the same Word being used in both of these verses (neither is it the same context).
1 Cor.12:3 "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed (Greek #331): and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."/
Gal.3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse (G#2671) of the law, being made a curse (G#2671) for us: for it is written, Cursed (G#1944) is every one that hangeth on a tree:".
What did 1 Cor.12 say??? "no man speaking by the Spirit of God"..... "calleth Jesus accursed" - When you speak of the spiritual Authority (annointing) of Messiah or any messenger of God then you certainly are Not speaking about one being accursed, now what did Gal.3 say???
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse...... This "curse" is not speaking of the authority of Messiah as Lord as 1 Cor.12 was its to mention the wage of sin and when we are told "cursed is the *man that hangs on a tree" again we are not speaking about the spiritual authority of annointing we are speaking about PHYSICAL trials and tribulation of a "man", NOT Spiritual authority. Simple minds struggle with Paul cause he was a master teacher of Torah as well as relating it to the nations.
-----------------------
Common misinterpretation and asertion made by muslims.
Here is the muslim claim:
"The Holy Bible - Can it be Trusted ? Prophet Jeremiah says BIG NO"
My Responce to same muslim:
*%#$@ your post is a perversion of the texts and thus condemns you in context. You should seriously ask the people of the book before claiming to be able to interpret in your ignorance. Let me show you what the texts say- The verse is about people like you who pervert (corrupt) the scripture by means of interpretation (self justification)
Jer.8:8-9 "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?............
You simply took part of a verse and ran with it. Why is the written word vanity to these people? Why is the hand of the scribes in vain to people like yourself? Cause they proclaim the Lord is with them yet REJECT his Word and pervert it just as you do. I find it rather ironic that you use a verse that condemn you in your very act of perverting it!!!!!!!!! AMAZING is his word cause even the enemy of the LORD has no way of escape from the way it describes and exsposes them (you)! Praise be to YAH!
-----------------------
Yes its another failed muslim attempt to discredit the bible:
Muslims always use same play book, anyway...... Gen.32:30 Yakov saw G-d appearing as an ANGEL (Angel/messenger of the LORD/ The term used is ELOHIM wich means devine judgement (authority) and all instruments there of Jn.1:18 is the Greek Theos which can be used in multiple ways to mention the Almighty as well as members of his authority but in this spacific use its is speaking of Hashem (YHVH) the Almighty as documented HERE at I. i (THeos) http://www.biblestudysite.com/98.htm //// God doesnt keep his anger Jer 3 doesnt contradict Jer 17 actually it CONFIRMS it. I will simpley show Jer 17 in context. His anger is in relation to the transgression of Israel. He exspresses that he is redeeming Israel through tribulation and yet He will never respect the transgression made. The wrath is on the transgression but i wouldnt expect muslims to understand atonement. The wrath is taken out on the transgression but the person is spared. //// Note your next issue you list the later parsha first which shows your perversion.... Both man and animlas were created during the 6th day Gen.1 and animals listed first then man.... The parasha ends at Gen.2:3 which is a Hebrew paragraph which means the THEME changes. Creation is complete. The New them is that of HaAdam (the man) and everything in relation to him. Thats why you build the theme around him then you mention the animals (that were created) are brought to him for to be named Gen 1 basically said same thing without the detail of the new parsha Gen 1:24,26,30 when read in the Hebrew text and easy to see in English as well./// When one is justified in covenant then their relationship with G-d is counted unto them for righteousness. Its not the same claim as saying they have never transgressed. The Tanakh also confirms all fall short (sin) Is.64:6 /Ps.14:1-3/ Ecc.7:20 (thought you may have left such documentation out to attempt to claim this is new to Christian sources.) Abraham Gen.15:6/ And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.... Note it didnt say never transgressed Torah (sinned)/// Blind men... There are no discrepancies between the account of Matt 20 and mk 10 and Lk 18... They describe three miracles on four blind menone on approaching Jerichoone on leaving and two after he left... more documentation than we know the muslim that posted the OP will bother to embrace!!!Here http://www.biblestudysite.com/152.htm
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/nt_origins.html
No comments:
Post a Comment