CORRUPT BIBLES WHICH ARE SENDIND PEOPLE 2 HELL!!

[Grailhunter]

well prove it

PICJAG.

I did, no J's in the scriptures...no J's before 1400 AD

 

[Jim B]

thanks for the reply, including the King James which correct the mistake made by the lying pen of the scribes. Isaiah 52:6 "Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I."

if they already knew the name why did God say that "his" people SHALL, SHALL, know his name? because the name was not given as to "WHO" he is by name, vs as to "WHAT" he is in name... so that want fly.

so what about that John 1:3 and isaiah 44:24 is it the same person yes or no?

PICJAG.

No.

Don't you know that Jesus did the actual creation? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it." John 1:1-5

Colossians 1:15-16, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, for all things in heaven and on earth were created in him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him.

Hebrews 1:1-2, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

God is spirit. John 4:24, "God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

 

[101G]

I did, no J's in the scriptures...no J's before 1400 AD

you didn't read... lol.

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

No.

Don't you know that Jesus did the actual creation? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it." John 1:1-5

Colossians 1:15-16, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, for all things in heaven and on earth were created in him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him.

God is spirit. John 4:24, "God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

(smile), is that not Jesus in both verses? yes or no

PICJAG.

 

[Jim B]

If anyone wants a very good book about the KJV, I heartily recommend "Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible" by Mark Ward. It is an easy-to-read yet in-depth and informative treatise on the KJV by somebody who clearly knows what he is writing about.

C'mon KJVOs, get your heads out of the sand and learn something new.

 

[Grailhunter]

If anyone wants a very good book about the KJV, I heartily recommend "Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible" by Mark Ward. It is an easy-to-read yet in-depth and informative treatise on the KJV by somebody who clearly knows what he is writing about.

C'mon KJVOs, get your heads out of the sand and learn something new.

I tell one thing...keep your eyes open for the old ones....The misprints are worth money, so are the fancy illustrated table top bibles.

 

[bbyrd009]

how that language is understood by the readers. That is no easy task!

so again i say why not Lex and stop relying on ppl with an inevitable agenda? For who translates Bibles, anyway? Esau does, thats who

I prefer translations that lean toward functional equivalence.

ok well i prefer seeing the original root, and exploring the meanings myself. Doesnt often lead to any radical change--i mean the xlators all got No son of man may die for another's sins, No one has ever gone up to heaven, There is only One Immortal, etc pretty much spot on, but there are some obv exceptions, some glaring errors, "Easter," etc, that just will not pass a Lex test, ever? No extra work required or anything?

I want to understand as clearly as possible what the Bible means to my 21st Century brain, not how it sounded to people that lived centuries ago. For example, the King James rend

yeh, dont get me started on queenie ok. Perfect case in point imo

 

[Paul Christensen]

Yep! It was the Bible at the Salem witch trials!

That one scrapes the bottom of the barrel. Are you going to ban motor cars because criminals use them to commit crimes, and hit and run drivers use them to injure or kill innocent pedestrians? What about banning all firearms because criminals use them to commit crimes?

So, was it the Bible that was to blame, or the evil hypocrites who used it to murder innocent women?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Oy vey! It saddens me that you have no understanding of the art/science of Bible translation, nor understanding of how languages, including English, change over time.

Nobody anywhere thinks in or speaks 17th Century English. It is, for all intents and purposes, a dead language. Because of the changes in words and their meanings, KJV advocates can choose and distort the text to mean whatever they want it to mean. It makes them, in their own minds, some sort of Biblical authorities.

Biblical translation is both an art and a science. There is no such thing as a "word-for-word" translation, as words can have a variety of meanings depending on context, and verb tenses are often different. In addition, there are idioms that have no meaning in modern English. What would a person from the Biblical era think if I said, "it's hot as hell today but I hear that this afternoon it will be raining cats and dogs"? Modern translations to create in the reader's mind the same thought image that was in the minds of the original hearers/readers... as it should be!

Nobody today, including those who post on this forum -- including yourself -- writes/thinks/speaks in the dead language of the early 17th Century. The Bible should be as clearly understood as the translators can possibly make it.

Oh. I have only a M.A. in English Literature in which my thesis was to translate a 17th Century historical religious play into modern English. Possibly because you might have a PhD in the same area of 17th Century English literature translation into modern English, my qualifications may not be as good as yours.

Also, all translations of the Bible are imperfect, because the earliest manuscript that is available to us dates from the fourth century, and the original manuscript where all the copies originated from is lost.

The real problem is not in the text itself, but the interpretations of it by people who skew their interpretations according to their particular religious and theological views.

 

[Candidus]

That one scrapes the bottom of the barrel. Are you going to ban motor cars because criminals use them to commit crimes, and hit and run drivers use them to injure or kill innocent pedestrians? What about banning all firearms because criminals use them to commit crimes?

So, was it the Bible that was to blame, or the evil hypocrites who used it to murder innocent women?

If you tout the virtues of a specific Bible like a used car salesman, the criticisms are just as valid.
May I bring up the fact that most Cults like the King James?

 

[Jim B]

so again i say why not Lex and stop relying on ppl with an inevitable agenda? For who translates Bibles, anyway? Esau does, thats who

ok well i prefer seeing the original root, and exploring the meanings myself. Doesnt often lead to any radical change--i mean the xlators all got No son of man may die for another's sins, No one has ever gone up to heaven, There is only One Immortal, etc pretty much spot on, but there are some obv exceptions, some glaring errors, "Easter," etc, that just will not pass a Lex test, ever? No extra work required or anything?

yeh, dont get me started on queenie ok. Perfect case in point imo

And your qualifications as a translator are..?

 

[bbyrd009]

And your qualifications as a translator are..?

"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Acts 12:4 Lexicon: When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people.

so, patently superior to that first guy's right? My qualifications become irrelevant, seems to me, if i can stand on other's shoulders?

ok but i do prefer quaternions there i guess, as "4" has a symbolic signif imo

anyway, hopefully the point that a Lex relieves me of needing a degree or whatever in xlation--like that first bunch surely had--is made, or at least made arguable. I mean what do you got with an English translation, besides some scribes' word?

 

[Jim B]

"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Acts 12:4 Lexicon: When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people.

so, patently superior to that first guy's right? My qualifications become irrelevant, seems to me, if i can stand on other's shoulders?

ok but i do prefer quaternions there i guess, as "4" has a symbolic signif imo

anyway, hopefully the point that a Lex relieves me of needing a degree or whatever in xlation--like that first bunch surely had--is made, or at least made arguable. I mean what do you got with an English translation, besides some scribes' word?

You get the clearest and best meaning of the earliest texts by scholars who have devoted their lives to translating both the words and meaning of the ancient texts (plural), along with thousands of text fragments in the same language as well as a knowledge of the cultures of the time.

That beats an interlinear any time.

 

[Jim B]

Listen, I understand the KJVOs perfectly. In 1611, the King of England demanded that there be a translation authorized by him to be the "official" Bible of the English-speaking/reading people of the time. Of course, the doctrine had to be in line with what he said Christianity was, but that's off topic. Also it has nothing to do with the Puritans who, fleeing King James, brought with them their Geneva Bibles (an excellent translation IMHO).

So the KJV became the Bible of Christendom for centuries (excluding those in other languages of course). It's the Bible used by Christians for many, many years. Whenever anyone read the Bible or heard it preached in church for generations it was the KJV. If the KJV was used by one's forebears (and none other) it became the "one true Bible" in the minds of some. I am convinced that no matter what, they will not listen to reason.

An analogy: the shafted axe was the sole implement for cutting down trees for centuries. It was used by one's ancestors, so it was the only true tool to use. Then along came the chain saw. It became the tool of choice for felling and cutting trees because it was faster, safer, and more efficient than any axe. But undoubtedly some would say that an axe is the only tool to use because that's what had been used for centuries and it's in the Bible.

So there is no chance of KJVOs to think of another translation as a "real Bible" because it's not the one used by their forebears. They know somewhere deep inside that the KJV is the Bible and that everything else is the work of Satan. It saddens me that they must condemn other Christians who use a better "chain saw" Bible. The scholars who followed the King's orders to produce a translation that he authorized must have been infallible, even though they and others didn't think they were.

 

[bbyrd009]

Of course, the doctrine had to be in line with what he said Christianity was, but that's off topic.

it is?
The topic strikes me as moot anyway no offense to whomever

You get the clearest and best meaning of the earliest texts by scholars who have devoted their lives to translating both the words and meaning of the ancient texts (plural), along with thousands of text fragments in the same language as well as a knowledge of the cultures of the time.

ah, is that a fact? :)

I mean scholars cant have biases? Wouldn't KJ have chosen just such types to xlate?

what is the fruit of the tree of knowledge iyo, btw? ty
oh and ntmy, mark here

 

[Paul Christensen]

If you tout the virtues of a specific Bible like a used car salesman, the criticisms are just as valid.
May I bring up the fact that most Cults like the King James?

Similarly, many criminals like SUVs with tinted windows.

 

[Helen]

Who cares about “which translation” ...it is the Spirit of God that opens our spiritual eyes, He alone saves ...not some bible translation.

People ‘get saved ‘ by hearing a testimony about the love and glory of God.

NO bible can or does send anyone to Hell! That’s rubbish.

 

[Jim B]

it is?
The topic strikes me as moot anyway no offense to whomever
ah, is that a fact? :)

I mean scholars cant have biases? Wouldn't KJ have chosen just such types to xlate?

what is the fruit of the tree of knowledge iyo, btw? ty
oh and ntmy, mark here

Almost every single modern Bible translation is actually the work of several committees, all of which have a broad spectrum of ecumenical representation to insure that there is no doctrinal bias.

I really don't want to have a discussion that isn't productive. Bye.

 

[bbyrd009]

Almost every single modern Bible translation is actually the work of several committees, all of which have a broad spectrum of ecumenical representation to insure that there is no doctrinal bias.

ya dont say! well ill be

I really don't want to have a discussion that isn't productive. Bye.

oh, we arent having a discussion anyway i guess; you are here to give us a lecture, and to say what you know, and i guess i should be more tolerant of that tbh, that talking like a preacher, but i guess maybe i am just sensitized to it now, and havent really evolved a mutually beneficial way to deal with it in a forum yet. Irl i would just ignore you (like most ppl do irl, huh? ever wonder why? thats why, imo. If you were to ever say "i dont know" or even infer that to ppl irl, magic stuff will start happening) but imo in a forum ppl often bring things to be tested i guess, and while i understand that this is maybe not so comfortable for you, at the same time i dont know how else change might manifest; bc believe it or not i already knew you would not address my questions--like most ppl do in "discussions?" acknowledge questions, formulate responses to them, frame arguments against them, etc?--but it is only up to you to see why

So bam go with the committees and the ecumen, i dont blame you, but the "insurance against doctrinal bias" is strictly a farce, even though im sure they do their best, but see they are all beginning with certain unquestioned premises, starting points, that they are not in a position to even question, lest they lose their status, yeh? As "Easter" in our Bibles plainly portrays, does it not? Of course they could not print "Passover" in kjv Bibles, and any ecumen who dared suggest that they do would have been immediately excommunicated as effectively as the RCCs, and as yours here. And i guess leaving the camp was never on those types' agendas anyway lol

I know the wolves will rush in as soon as i leave, not sparing the flock

see we just all start with wolf-Bibles i guess lol, Yah portrayed as a "Lord," when Yah does not "lord" it over anyone, "lord" is an English title, right, and while im not here to cast stones at them, surely they were as conscientious as they knew how to be, and certainly the truths in Scripture are still findable, only just for those who are not wise in their own eyes i guess

have a nice evening, and best of luck in your quest ok

 

[bbyrd009]

I tell one thing...keep your eyes open for the old ones....The misprints are worth money, so are the fancy illustrated table top bibles.

nice work out-lawyering 101 lol
guess he didnt read huh

(just yankin your chain G narf)

 

[brionne]

He does have a name. It has been known for thousands of years and is still known today.
Yeshua has only been called Jesus from the 1600s AD. Iēsous...In the Latin Bibles from around 400 AD. Iēsous...Greek in the original New Testament texts and the first bound Bibles. But Christ's name was Hebrew, Yeshua is a name in the Old Testament and Yahweh appeared 6800 times in the Paleo-Hebrew Old Testament and then they removed His name and replaced it with the generic names Lord or God. It was quite an effort to rewrite the Old Testament texts and you should ask yourself why. All in all the "J" slam made around 36,000 modifications to the Holy Bible.....why?

I would say its simply the nature of translation

Languages are different and use different alphabets... i really dont think there is anything more to it then that.