/EDIT
The reason (and solution) to mentioned contradictions is explained in the thread started by Pierac
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=3320.0
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
Sure many of you stumbled on such sites.
I'm sure there are answers for all of them. Even I figured out a few. It would be nice if we together could explain every contradiction in the list...
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
2KI 8:26 22
2CH 22:2 42
Years of famine -> different translations different number of years.
2Sa 24:13
(ASV) 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 thy foes while they pursue thee? or shall there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise thee, and consider what answer I shall return to him that sent me.
(BBE) So Gad came to David, and gave him word of this and said to him, Are there to be three years when there is not enough food in your land? or will you go in flight from your haters for three months, while they go after you? or will you have three days of violent disease in your land? take thought and say what answer I am to give to him who sent me.
(CLV) And Gad comes in unto David, and declares to him, and said to him, `Do seven years of famine come in to you in your land? or three months are you fleeing before your adversary--and he pursuing you? or are three days' pestilence in your land? now, know and see what word I take back to Him sending me..
(Darby) And Gad came to David, and told him, and said to him, Shall seven years of famine come to thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine adversaries while they pursue thee? or shall there be three days' pestilence in thy land? Now be aware and consider what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.
(DRB) And when Gad was come to David, he told him, saying: Either seven years of famine shall come to thee in thy land: or thou shalt flee three months before thy adversaries, and they shall pursue thee: or for three days there shall be a pestilence in thy land. Now therefore deliberate, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.
(ESV) So Gad came to David and told him, and said to him, "Shall three years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days' pestilence in your land? Now consider, and decide what answer I shall return to him who sent me."
(Geneva) So Gad came to Dauid, and shewed him, and said vnto him, Wilt thou that seuen yeeres famine come vpon thee in thy lande, or wilt thou flee three moneths before thine enemies, they following thee, or that there bee three dayes pestilence in thy land? nowe aduise thee, and see, what answere I shal giue to him that sent me.
(GNB) Gad went to him, told him what the LORD had said, and asked, "Which is it to be? Three years of famine in your land or three months of running away from your enemies or three days of an epidemic in your land? Now think it over, and tell me what answer to take back to the LORD."
(GW) When Gad came to David, he told David this and asked, "Should seven years of famine come to you and your land, or three months during which you flee from your enemies as they pursue you, or should there be a three-day plague in your land? Think it over, and decide what answer I should give the one who sent me."
(JPS) 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 thy foes while they pursue thee? or shall there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise thee, and consider what answer I shall return to Him that sent Me.'
(KJV) 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.
(KJV-1611) So Gad came to Dauid, and told him, and said vnto him, Shall seuen yeeres of famine come vnto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three moneths before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three dayes pestilence in thy land? Now aduise, and see what answere I shall returne to him that sent me.
(KJVA) 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.
(KJVR) 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.
(LITV) And Gad came in to David and told him, and said to him, Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? Or shall you flee before your adversary three months, and they pursue you? Or shall three days' plague come into your land? Now consider, and see what I shall take back to Him who sent word to me.
(MKJV) And Gad came to David, and told him, and said to him, Shall seven years of famine come upon you and on your land? Or will you flee three months before your enemies while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days' plague in your land? And advise, and see what answer I shall return to Him who sent me.
(Rotherham) So Gad came in unto David, and told him,—and said to him: Shall there come unto thee seven years of famine in thy land? Or, for three months, wilt thou flee before thine enemies while, they, pursue thee? Or shall there be, for three days, pestilence in thy land? Now, consider and see, what, answer, I shall return to him that sent me.
(RV) 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 thy foes while they pursue thee? or shall there be three days pestilence in thy land? now advise thee, and consider what answer I shall return to him that sent me.
(Webster) So Gad came to David, and told him, and said to him, Shall seven years of famine come upon thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thy enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? Now consider, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.
(YLT) And Gad cometh in unto David, and declareth to him, and saith to him, `Do seven years of famine come in to thee in thy land? or three months art thou fleeing before thine adversary--and he pursuing thee? or are three days' pestilence in thy land? now, know and see what word I take back to Him sending me.'
How many stalls and horsemen?
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Only the BBE translation seems to be ok with 4000 stalls in both Kings and Chronicles
Personally I am not of the religious sort that maintains that the "written" word of God is inerrant. This is a belief that is easily proven to be ridiculous.
For me the inerrancy is that Gods spirit and what he teaches us will not contradict the concepts in the bible.
I have yet to see anyone provide a foolproof contradiction in the concepts of Gods unfailing love to reconcile all men.
There are a few possibly foolproof contradictions when the bible is intepreted in the light of never ending punishment.
What you show here to me are differences in what the writers wrote, rather than contradictions that cause me to question the scriptures.
Paul,
I was never implying God/Jesus made mistakes while dictating the Bible.
Unless the translators are guided by HS most/all of the translations will contain errors.
But such translation errors are very loved by those who want to ridicule the Bible/God/Jesus/religion.
Most of the contradictions are not of real value. Who cares if it where 4000 or 40000 boxes.
But just saying it's not about the Book but about God Himself is a bit of a "weak" answer.
Just place yourself in my position for a while. Zero Bible knowledge. No contact/voices/visions etc.
I just start asking questions. And if things get though I can't understand because I think carnally and not spiritually.
I won't deny that.
When I ask about translation problems I shouldn't bother but look at it spiritually.
So basically 'everyone' advices to learn about love of God.
But how should I do that? I can't carnally learn translations that are corrupted. And even if they where correct the carnal knowledge is useless because only spiritual knowledge is of value.
Paul this is NOT some sort assault on you! Let that be clear.
Hi White Wings,
I was not thinking you were making this a personal thing. I understand your position entirely and I agree for the most part.
Most people that ask how to seek Gods love have a preconception of God based on what they hear about him. Yes, this is a confusing time for someone, because why should you even believe me when I tell you something. Perfectly understandable.
One thing I do believe is that because God has the power to bring all to him means that He can do it without the use of the bible.
My advise to you, for whatever it is worth is that only God can reveal himself to you, and he may do that through a variety of ways. With that said, what I know is that everyone understands Love to a certain degree, everyone. If you conclude in your present state of mind and what you have come to believe, that Love should be unconditional, that Love is possible to give even to your worst enemy, then indeed, you have seen God.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on September 03, 2008, 07:34:15 PM
If you conclude in your present state of mind and what you have come to believe, that Love should be unconditional, that Love is possible to give even to your worst enemy, then indeed, you have seen God.
If you are doing a crossword puzzle and the need to enter something in 6 vertical for "doubt" try "WhiteWings"
The chances are high it will fit :laughing7:
Must be one of my most clear posts ever
Signed,
Tony aka WhiteWings aka :icon_king: of :icon_joker:
Almost all of the O.T. contradictions can be removed by simply using the Septuagint! Even Jesus and his disciples quoted from the Septuagint well over 98% of the time. Unfortunately, we have the Masoretic texts in our bibles today. (Not really a big problem except for apologetics.)
Also note:
Common Sense, A New Approach to understanding Scripture by David Bercot
Manuscript/Bible time line:
TORAH: Dated to the time of Moses
Samaritan Pentateuch : 300 B.C.
Septuagint (LXX) OT: 250 B.C.
JESUS :
Aramaic Pecrapta : 100-150 A.D.
Diatesseron: 170-200 A.D. (4 Gospels) / Tatiain
Chester Beaty Papyrus (200 AD)
Vatican NT : 250 A.D.
Sinai NT: 250 A.D.
Codex Bezae (300 AD)
Alexandrian NT: 350 A.D.
Masoretic Text O.T. 900 -1000 A.D.
Latin Vulgate OT / NT 350 A.D.
King James Version 1611 A.D.
MASORETIC TEXT O.T. 900 A.D.
The oldest translations of the ENTIRE Masoret Tanakh tend to come from the Leningrad Codex of 1008 AD. There's another from 925 AD, but nothing
before that date has all the books of the Tanakh. So our oldest Masoret texts are from a rather recent date. There are a few Torahs from further back than that. There are partial scrolls from further back than that. But often the translation we generally get is from a text that is only about 1000 years old.
Paul
What Bible translation is based mostly on those Septuagint?
Common Sense, A New Approach to understanding Scripture by David Bercot
I try to use that but as a newbie I have to start literally. Altough there are contractions I always believed they where manmade.
I wrote this several times I think; but I somehow just can't read the Bible. My mind wanders away after 2 verses.
But things like this, 'scientific' and 'linguistic' threads somehow wake me up and I start reading verses, Google, boards, books, etc.
You know I doubted starting this thread because Martin stated that Gary forbids threads that discredit the Bible.
I guess this thread and many of my other posts seem attacks on the Bible.
I want the crew including Gary take note of the following: My 'attacks' are either just sarcasm or planned 'attacks' that I know will be rebuked with 1000 verses. Great learning points for me.
Personally, God is bringing me to a different place in this than where I've been in the past. I don't discredit the Bible, but I do believe the true benefit of Scripture is what lies beneath rather than what's literally on the surface of the written words. I have stated, and it's actually one of the things that got me in trouble with the denomination I'm affiliated with . . .I've said "that book laying on your lap is not the inspired word of God . . .it's merely a translation of the inspired word of God."
I believe there are pictures in Scripture where we're to lay down the Word until we learn how to apply it effectively.
I believe the Word that's written was meant to be literally applied to those who it was written to then . .but not to us now.
I believe that we're to apply it to ourselves (not to each other) "morally" (not literally) and pursue what it is really saying "spiritually."
I believe it's a book of seeds for the purpose of planting, not warfare.
I believe that it "was" at one point used as a weapon . .it's a sword to those who lived in the days of labor . .but the days of labor have come to a close and we're now seeing the dawning of the 7th day . .the day of rest, where now, the Word . .which is still just as important as before . . . is applied from a different perspective, one of rest rather than one of works.
So even though we find words that seem to clash with what the original Hebrew meant . .the definitions can "enhance" and point to the truth, but still, only when the Spirit "breathes" on what is there, will you then truly understand it's purpose. Jesus said his words are life and SPIRIT. And my mind is always at emnity with God . . .my NATURAL reasoning does not have the capacity to grasp the SPIRITUAL truth unless the SPIRIT of God reveals it to my SPIRIT first.
This, to me is why we're called to walk in the spirit and not after the flesh, and . .we're not to lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5)
I've heard some who are explaining UR believe that God didn't leave the decision for our eternal end up to us . .and with good reason . . .well, I also believe that God doesn't leave the truth of his word up to the limited understanding within our minds either. I don't depend on what I've been taught, by others or myself . . .I totally rely now, on what the Spirit shows me whether I fully understand it or not. In fact, if it doesn't make sense to me, chances are, it's God because my thoughts are not like his thoughts . . .
Just thinking out loud now.
Quote from: Nathan on September 10, 2008, 05:06:22 PM
Personally, God is bringing me to a different place in this than where I've been in the past. I don't discredit the Bible, but I do believe the true benefit of Scripture is what lies beneath rather than what's literally on the surface of the written words. I have stated, and it's actually one of the things that got me in trouble with the denomination I'm affiliated with . . .I've said "that book laying on your lap is not the inspired word of God . . .it's merely a translation of the inspired word of God."
I don't agree with that Nathan.
I believe that Book on your lap is 100% word of God (besides translation errors)
Jesus (God?) said we, humanity, won't have full understanding of it. Simply put we are to stupid to understand.
For me the Book has lets call it several layers of truth. All 100% true but all require more/different knowledge.
Reaching the next level means you add to your knowledge. Not replace former lies with the truth at this level.
I think all levels can be synced. But because you, and likely noone besides God/Jesus/HS, doesn't mean the layers are wrong. Just that we are to stupid.
The clash with your denomination is perhaps just that you are at a different layer....?
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2008, 08:18:19 AM
What Bible translation is based mostly on those Septuagint?
Not translations but quotes.
Occasions where The Septuagint Is Quoted in the New Testament against the sense of the Hebrew textEnoch was not, because God translated him
Gen 5.24 quoted in Heb 11.5
To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16
Jacob ... worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff
Gen 47.31 quoted in Heb 11.21
Wouldest thou kill me, as thou killest the Egyptian yesterday?
Ex 2.14 quoted in Ac 7.27-28
My name might be published abroad in all the earth
Ex 9.16 quoted in Ro 9.17
A royal priesthood
Ex 19.6 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9
The Lord knoweth them that are his
Nu 16.5 quoted in 2 Tm 2.19
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God
Dt 6.13 quoted in Mt 4.10 and Lk 4.8
Put away the wicked man from among yourselves
Dt 17.7 quoted in 1 Cor 5.13
Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree
Dt 21.23 quoted in Ga 3.13
Cursed is everyone who continueth not
Dt 27.26 quoted in Ga 3.10
Let all the angels of God worship him
Dt 32.43 quoted in He 1.6
Why did the Gentiles rage?
Ps 2.1-2 quoted in Ac 4.25-26
Their throat is an open sepulchre
Ps 5.9 quoted in Ro 3.13
Out of the mouth of babes
Ps 8.2 quoted in Mt 21.16
What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Ps 8.4-6 quoted in He 2.6-8
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness
Ps 10.7 quoted in Ro 3.14
They are together become unprofitable
Ps 14.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12
Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades
Ps 16.8-11 quoted in Ac 2.25-28
Their sound went out into all the earth
Ps 19.4 quoted in Ro 10.18
I will declare thy name unto my brethren
Ps 22.22 quoted in He 2.12
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not
Ps 40.6-8 quoted in He 10.5-6
That thou mightest be justified in thy words
Ps 51.4 quoted in Ro 3.4
They are together become unprofitable
Ps 53.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12
Let their table be made a snare
Ps 69.22-23 quoted in Ro 11.9-10
He gave them bread out of heaven to eat
Ps 78.24 quoted in Jn 6.31
Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-8 quoted in He 3.15 and He 4.7
Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-11 quoted in He 3.7-11
And they all shall wax old as doth a garment
Ps 102.25-27 quoted in He 1.10-12
I believed, and therefore did I speak
Ps 116.10 quoted in 2 Cor 4.13
The Lord is my helper
Ps 118.6 quoted in He 13.6
The poison of asps in under their lips
Ps 140.3 quoted in Ro 3.13
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth
Pr 3.11-12 quoted in He 12.5-6
God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble
Pr 3.34 quoted in James 4.6 and 1 Pe 5.5
And if the righteous is scarcely saved,
where shall the ungodly and sinner appear
Pr 11.31 quoted in 1 Pe 4.18
If thine enemy hunger, feed him
Pr 25.21-22 quoted in Ro 12.20
Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,
we should have been as Sodom
Is 1.9 quoted in Ro 9.29
By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Mt 13.14-15 and Mk 4.12
By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Ac 28.26-27
Lest they should see with their eyes ... and I should heal them
Is 6.9-10 quoted in John 12.40
Behold, the virgin shall be with child
Is 7.14 quoted in Mt. 1.23
I will put my trust in him
Is 8.17 quoted in He 2.13
It is the remnant that shall be saved
Is 10.22-23 quoted in Ro 9.27-28
On him shall the Gentiles hope
Is 11.10 quoted in Ro 15.12
When I shall take away their sins
Is 27.9 quoted in Ro 11.27
He that believeth on him shall not be put to shame
Is 28.16 quoted in Ro 9.33, 10.11 and 1 Pe 2.6
Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men
Is 29.13 quoted in Mt 15.8-9 and Mk 7.6-7
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
Is 29.14 quoted in 1 Cor 1.19
All flesh shall see the salvation of God
Is 40.3-5 quoted in Lk 3.4-6
The voice of one crying in the wilderness
Is 40.3 quoted in Mt 3.3, Mk 1.3 and Jn 1.23
All flesh is as grass
Is 40.6-8 quoted in 1 Pt 1.24-25
Who hath known the mind of the Lord?
Is 40.13 quoted in Ro 11.34 and 1 Cor 2.16
And in his name shall the Gentiles hope
Is 42.4 quoted in Mt 12.21
A people for God's own possession
Is 43.21 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9
To me every knee shall bow
Is 45.23 quoted in Ro 14.11
At an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee
Is 49.8 quoted in 2 Cor 6.2
For the name of God is blasphemed
among the Gentiles because of you
Is 52.5 quoted in Ro 2.24
They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came
Is 52.15 quoted in Ro 15.21
Who has believed our report?
Is 53.1 quoted in Jn 12.38 and Ro 10.16
He was led as a sheep to the slaughter
Is 53.7-8 quoted in Ac 8.32-33
Neither was guile found in his mouth
Is 53.9 quoted in 1 Pt 2.22
Rejoice thou barren that bearest not
Is 54.1 quoted in Ga 4.27
The holy and sure blessings of David
Is 55.3 quoted in Ac 13.34
To set at liberty them that are bruised
Is 58.6 in Luke 4.18
He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Is 59.20-21 quoted in Ro 11.26-27
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
Is 61.1-2 quoted in Lk 4.18-19
I was found of them that sought me not
Is 65.1 quoted in Ro 10.20
A disobedient and gainsaying people
Is 65.2 quoted in Ro 10.21
Behold, the days come
Jer 31.31-34 quoted in He 8.8-12
I will put my laws on their heart
Jer 31.33-34 quoted in He 10.16-17
I will call that my people, which was not my people
Ho 2.23 quoted in Ro 9.25
I desire mercy, and not sacrifice
Ho 6.6 quoted in Mt 9.13 and 12.7
O death, where is thy sting?
Ho 13.14 quoted in 1 Cor 15.55
I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh
Jl 2.28-32 quoted in Ac 2.17-21
Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch
Am 5.25-27 quoted in Ac 7.42-43
I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen
Am 9.11-12 quoted in Ac 15.16-17
For I work a work in your days,
which ye shall in no wise believe
Hab 1.5 quoted in Ac 13.41
But my righteous one shall live by faith
Hab 2.3-4 quoted in He 10.37-38
Occasions where a Masoretic Reading Is Quoted in the New Testament against the sense of the Septuagint He that taketh the wise in their craftiness
Job 5.13 quoted in 1 Cor 3.19
Who hath first given to him
Job 41.11 quoted in Ro 11.35
A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence
Is 8.14 quoted in Ro 9.33 and 1 Pe 2.8
Out of Egypt did I call my son
Ho 11.1 quoted in Mt 2.15
They shall look on him whom they pierced
Zch 12.10 quoted in Jn 19.37
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face
Mal 3.1 quoted in Mt 11.10, Mk 1.2, and Lk 7.27
:thumbsup:
Paul
Quote from: Pierac on September 11, 2008, 02:04:47 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2008, 08:18:19 AM
What Bible translation is based mostly on those Septuagint?
Not translations but quotes.
For me quotes are also translations :grin:
But lets not nitpick over that. I'll rephrase my question.
What translation/version of the Bible has the least wrong quotes.
Today I have been playing a lot with e-Sword. Bit of configuration. Searching for add-ons.
Cool all those downloads. But is it really useful to have 30 different Bibles loaded.
My first aim is to cut that list down to 10.
A good start, and my most important reason, is to remove translations that contain lots of errors. Or just translations that are about the same.
For example I see many modern translations. They are all equally good readable for me. Of course the wording is slightly different but they look all the same. But 'look' isn't always 'saying' if you understand what I'm saying :laughing7:
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 11, 2008, 08:08:41 PM
Quote from: Pierac on September 11, 2008, 02:04:47 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2008, 08:18:19 AM
What Bible translation is based mostly on those Septuagint?
Not translations but quotes.
For me quotes are also translations :grin:
But lets not nitpick over that. I'll rephrase my question.
What translation/version of the Bible has the least wrong quotes.
Today I have been playing a lot with e-Sword. Bit of configuration. Searching for add-ons.
Cool all those downloads. But is it really useful to have 30 different Bibles loaded.
My first aim is to cut that list down to 10.
A good start, and my most important reason, is to remove translations that contain lots of errors. Or just translations that are about the same.
For example I see many modern translations. They are all equally good readable for me. Of course the wording is slightly different but they look all the same. But 'look' isn't always 'saying' if you understand what I'm saying :laughing7:
Go to my Septuagint Thread and download as many e-sword bibles as your Computer can hold using the links I provided. It is very useful to have many different bibles!
Personally for me, I always start with the NASB and then head to the KJV. These two bibles hold most of the varient readings. I always compare these two. We know the NASB uses the most up todate 'superior Greek text'. But does this always make this translation the best? No, not always, as every version has it's own bias. Let's Look!
NASB John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only
begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
KJV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
So which is it? Begotten God or Son?
KJV Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
NASB Isa 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and
creating Calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.
Calamity or Evil?
KJV Ecc 3:10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it. 11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the
world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
NASB Ecc 3:10 I have seen the task which God has given the sons of men with which to occupy themselves. 11 He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set
eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.
Well, both suck as translations here! This is why you need more.... And the best so far is...
CLV Ecc 3:10 I see the experience that Elohim gives To the sons of humanity to humble them by it. 11 He has made everything fitting in its season; However, He has put
obscurity in their heart So that the man may not find out His work, That which the One, Elohim, does from the beginning to the terminus."
Don't believe me, then time for a word study of ‛ôlâm !
NASB Exo 21:6 then his master shall bring him
to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.
KJV Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto
the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.
Well who is it? God or judges? Hint it's judges. But research it your self!
KJV Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith
of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith
of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
NASB Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith
in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith
in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
So is it the faith
of Christ? Or
our faith
in Christ? My studies have lead to "of." But hey, do you own research! That's why you need all you can get!
NIV Act 21:40 Having received the commander's permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in
Aramaic:
NASB Act 21:40 When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the
Hebrew dialect, saying,
So WhiteWings, did Paul speak Aramaic or Hebrew? It's was Hebrew, but you need to look for your self! :thumbsup:
Paul
My first source for reading is the program at http://www.scripture4all.org
The main window of that program is the hebrew and greek and the literal translation. I starts with the (as far as I know) unbiased translation without being formed into english ruled sentences which can then is where the bias can be added.
So
NASB John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
KJV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
So which is it? Begotten God or Son?
The astericks are my addition to make it easier to see word division in my post, it is easy when viewing the program
Literal : God * not-yet-one * has-seen * as-when * only-generated * God * the * one-being *
into * the * bosom * of-the * father * that-one * unfolds
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on September 12, 2008, 06:25:15 AM
My first source for reading is the program at http://www.scripture4all.org
The main window of that program is the hebrew and greek and the literal translation. I starts with the (as far as I know) unbiased translation without being formed into english ruled sentences which can then is where the bias can be added.
So
NASB John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
KJV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
So which is it? Begotten God or Son?
The astericks are my addition to make it easier to see word division in my post, it is easy when viewing the program
Literal : God * not-yet-one * has-seen * as-when * only-generated * God * the * one-being *
into * the * bosom * of-the * father * that-one * unfolds
I use the
Intralineral Scripture Analyzer too! Just note, it's creators are the same as the CLV Bible. Not a bad thing, but something to just keep in mind when doing research. BTW, I really like the CLV Bible, but it has it's limits too.
Paul
Quote from: PieracSo which is it? Begotten God or Son?
Same thing.
Jesus is God in the flesh--the Word become flesh--the Son of God, carrying all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. --Titus 2
Quote from: PieracNASB Exo 21:6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.
KJV Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.
Well who is it? God or judges? Hint it's judges. But research it your self!
Same thing.
The word for 'gods' or 'judges' is 'ĕlôhîym.
"judges"H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhîymel-o-heem'
Plural of H433;
gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article)
of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
I have said, Ye are gods...but you will die like men...--Psalm 82
He's speaking to the judges and magistrates of Israel.
Paul,
I installed the program you advised.
I'm now trying to investigate the quotes Pierac mentioned.
For example:
Who hath known the mind of the Lord?
Is 40.13 quoted in Ro 11.34 and 1 Cor 2.16
Is it possible to view 2 or more verses side by side?
The whole concept of Masoretic and Septuagint text is completely knew for me. So another set of questions to get things more clear for me.
Both Masoretic and Septuagint translators have translated the oldest Hebrew texts to Greek. Most modern translations use the Greek Masoretic Bible as the source text.
The Septuagint or LXX was around before the birth of Jesus (250 BC). When Jesus preached He very often quoted from Septuagint and by doing so He automatically approved the (accuracy) of the translation.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm (a site you might find good reading)
Quote
Augustine went on to state his desire that Jerome would provide a fresh translation of the Old Testament into Latin from the Septuagint, since it "has no mean authority, seeing that it has obtained so wide circulation, and was the one which the apostles used, as is ... proved by looking to the text itself." In that statement, I think, it is clear that Augustine was correct. Yet Jerome was of a contrary opinion, stating "Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. [Jerome's Apology, Book II.]" But that claim is manifestly false - unless Jerome's Hebrew text was radically different from what we possess today.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm
I have some doubts on how I generated those stats; but if they are right.
For example Masoretic-Leveticus is 100% correct but Masoretic-Proverbs only 17%
If the errors are so easily spotted as the site appears to claim; and quite frequently new modern English translations are released I wonder why the mistakes aren't fixed.
http://books.google.nl/books?as_q=Quotations+in+the+New+Testament&num=100&btnG=Google+zoeken&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=1&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 12, 2008, 08:42:31 AM
Paul,
I installed the program you advised.
I'm now trying to investigate the quotes Pierac mentioned.
For example:
Who hath known the mind of the Lord?
Is 40.13 quoted in Ro 11.34 and 1 Cor 2.16
Is it possible to view 2 or more verses side by side?
I have the clv and youngs literal module that is on that site installed. By default it has the Autherized Version (who authorized it i do not know LOL)
Up at the top click the (trn) button you will see 4 columns appear below the default window that contains the hebrew or greek text, right click over any column of text and you can select which version is displayed.
Not sure if you can display more than 4, but you can at least view 4 side by side.
Paul,
I found that button and have 4 different versions side by side. The fourth being SVV the Dutch translation.
SVV is the only translation besides the KJV that has support for Strong. I wonder if that was also to by the author of this program (one of them is Dutch)
Anyway I found that trn button before I wrote my question. I was meaning to ask 2 translations in the 'interlinear' window.
The reason for asking may be based on wrong understanding of the Septuagint/Masoretic 'debate'
Basicly I would like to see the Septuagint and Masoretic side by side.
I'm aware that would often mean comparing OT and NT verses.
But if you read my second post in this thread "years of famine" 2Sa 24:13 you see that some translations state 3 and others 7 years. So some translations do have the OT and NT aligned.
But I don't know what caused that. Did they just spot the inconsitancies and changed the number. Or did they use another source text?
It's not of great importance for me because I don't read any Hebrew; but still I find it nice to see that intermediate translation step of very litteral translation.
Yes, about the interlinear window.
Up at the top right of the interlinear window you will see a "+" and "-" and "L" buttons
Click the "+" button and you will see an additional line of scripture appear, right click that line of text and you can change the translation.
Use the "+" and "-" to add or subtract as needed.
But those settings only show the different English translations. CLV the default.
Take Gen 1:1 for example.
The words directly under the Hebrew are those of CLV
How can I for example show AV under the Hebrew?
The clearest difference between those translation of this verse is the use of God and Elohim
Of lesser importance is that I can't get SVV to show up in the interlinear window.
Works fine in the translation window.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 13, 2008, 05:50:23 AM
But those settings only show the different English translations. CLV the default.
Take Gen 1:1 for example.
The words directly under the Hebrew are those of CLV
How can I for example show AV under the Hebrew?
The clearest difference between those translation of this verse is the use of God and Elohim
Of lesser importance is that I can't get SVV to show up in the interlinear window.
Works fine in the translation window.
I am not sure that the program does that. The translations are structured different, the english words in the window with the hebrew or greek text are just the literal word for word and doesn't adhere to english grammar, it is just word for word.
A translation such as the CLV's sentence structure would not align with the hebrew and greek.
If that made sense.
It did made sense Paul. :laughing7:
But I think we are meaning different things. Especially when reading your last remark about sentence structure.
I have yet to see a program that can translate between two (closely related) modern languages.
So I'm just looking for word to word translations. In fact I don't even want other translations because I have 30 of them already.
Look again at Gen 1:1
All translations use teh same key words in their final translation.
Beginning, created, heaven, earth
Then they moulded that into what we read in the translations window.
The only keyword that's translated differently is aleim = God/Elohim
So id I could CLV the green word would read God instead of Elohim.
The use?
Firstly just out of interest. Secondly I read quite a lot about different interpretations of verses. To strick with the one at hand Gen 1:1
CLV "A beginning" others "THE beginning"
Some use that as basis of teh theory that the 6 creation days where in fact repair days of the damage satan has done.
So that's one of my main uses for the program.
I'm not going to read the complete Bible as "the green words"
How do you use this program?
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 13, 2008, 11:06:04 AM
But I think we are meaning different things. Especially when reading your last remark about sentence structure.
I have yet to see a program that can translate between two (closely related) modern languages.
So I'm just looking for word to word translations. In fact I don't even want other translations because I have 30 of them already.
Maybe I am not understanding what you want. The green words is word for word.
Quote
How do you use this program?
I use the program to make it quicker to read the green words in different verses. I do not use it to just read, I use it to study from. I can't think of one right off hand, but even the CLV Youngs and Rotherham which are the 3 more literal ones, mess up a verse here and there (to me) when I compare it to the green words.
As far as I can tell, the green words are the words that haven't been religiously biased, they are the work of linguists that just want to translate languages the best they can. I could be wrong about that and would like to know, if anyone does know and I would love a source that was not.
The green words have allowed me to see a much greater picture of God in scripture because as you point out. The difference between A and The can make a small difference in thought. The green words just says in beginning. this allows one to form a conclusion based on the words, not someone elses addition, even if the conclusion is the same.
Considering that later in the bible that God is going to create a new heaven and new earth. "The beginning" may not be proper. "In beginning" makes no distinction.
With that in mind. It is very likely and biblically proper to say, that our world was not the first beginning. So then I can see that "A" beginning is more proper. But, that conclusion was drawn from the study of the green words, rather than hoping a published translation got it right.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on September 13, 2008, 03:18:27 PM
So I'm just looking for word to word translations. In fact I don't even want other translations because I have 30 of them already.
One last try for this not so important issue.
Gen 1:1
The green word is Elohim.
YLT and AV changed that word into God in the translation window.
CLV just uses Elohim in the translation window.
Gen 18:19
Yaweh is the green word.
Translated as Yaweh, Lord and Yehova
The above are just the obvious ones I quickly spotted.
So this is not about sentence structure; but about translating names differently.
So my question original was if each translation had their own green words.
Of course there is only one set of green words the corect set. But translators may have different opions.
Ok, I get ya now, lol.
No, the other translations do not have their own green words.
Paul,
Thanks for your patience and time taken.
Still a very nice proggy :thumbsup:
I'm a little confused about what the problem is here.
I don't really know much about the history of the Bible.
But, it seems to me that if the word is there, you can just look at the word definition and interpret it according to context and with the Holy Spirit as witness.
A phrase like--the Word was God--the Jehovah's witnesses like to say that really is 'the Word was a god.' Well, they are admitting there that they know Jesus is the Word. But, they think Jesus is an angel, so they don't want to call him Jehovah God so they put in the article 'a' and lower case 'g' for god. There is nothing to indicate that is how that should be read.
Just so, Pierac likes to quote that passage, 'God was the word.' I'm not sure where he gets that or how it changes the meaning. Jesus is still the Word and whether you say the Word was God or God was the Word, you are still saying Jesus is God. Not to even mention how an angel or a man could have created the world...
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
--John 1
Quote from: Molly on September 13, 2008, 09:54:35 PM
Just so, Pierac likes to quote that passage, 'God was the word.' I'm not sure where he gets that or how it changes the meaning. Jesus is still the Word and whether you say the Word was God or God was the Word, you are still saying Jesus is God. Not to even mention how an angel or a man could have created the world...
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
--John 1
Hi Molly, That's because I use
Logos as written in the origional Greek. Not "word" as in English. "God was the
Logos." I understand
Logos to mean the internal reasoning process, thoughts or plan.
10 He was in the world
and the world was made by ("dia") "on account of"
him, and the world knew him not.
Just Listen to Jesus...
Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the
beginning of the creation that God (my Father)
created until now, and never will be.
Quote from: Pierac on September 13, 2008, 10:21:34 PM
Quote from: Molly on September 13, 2008, 09:54:35 PM
Just so, Pierac likes to quote that passage, 'God was the word.' I'm not sure where he gets that or how it changes the meaning. Jesus is still the Word and whether you say the Word was God or God was the Word, you are still saying Jesus is God. Not to even mention how an angel or a man could have created the world...
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
--John 1
Hi Molly, That's because I use Logos as written in the origional Greek. Not "word" as in English. "God was the Logos." I understand Logos to mean the internal reasoning process, thoughts or plan.
10 He was in the world and the world was made by ("dia") "on account of" him, and the world knew him not.
Just Listen to Jesus...
Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God (my Father) created until now, and never will be.
So now you are saying that Jesus did not make the world but it was made 'on account of' of him?
How does that change anything? It was made by him and for him. On account of him and for him?
He must be pretty important. In fact, he has supremacy in everything and a name that is above every other name.-- "by him" in the passage below is not 'dia,' it's 'en.' They are saying it every which way to Sunday--could they make it any clearer?
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. --Col 1
By him, for him, in him, on account of him, and he is before all things. He is not just a man, and he's not an angel because what angel has God called 'Son'?
"by" [him were all things created]
G1722
ἐν
enen
A primary preposition
denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); "in", at, (up-) on,
by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.
[and]
"for" [him]
G1519
εἰς
eisice
A primary preposition;
to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases.: - [abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at, [back-] ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, + forth, in (among, at unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-) on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore (-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-) until (-to), . . . ward, [where-] fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literallyor figuratively.
[he is]
"before" [all things]
G4253
πρό
propro
A primary preposition;
"fore", that is, in front of, prior (figuratively superior) to. In compounds it retains the same significations: - above, ago, before, or ever. In compounds it retains the same significations.
He is the instrumentality of and the purpose of everything; he is before all things and superior to everything.
Did we leave anything out? Just this--
O, Lord Jesus! My God and my LORD!
Quote from: Molly on September 13, 2008, 09:54:35 PM
I'm a little confused about what the problem is here.
Without a quote, not sure who you are directing this at. I think white wings is tired of sifting through a bunch of translations to get some point to knowing what Gods word "really" says.
Thats pretty much why I stick with the literal and the CLV, I have not seen much advantage for myself to pour over umpteen translations.
I used to do that when I wanted to verify something I wanted the bible to say. :laughing7:
I was in the same boat. Why should I believe anyone concerning what the bible says? Why are the Christians right? why are the calvinists right, why are the universalists right? Maybe Fred Phelps is right? Cause they say so? They all say so, they all say, "just read and believe the word" How nice, yet, they all read the same word and come to different conclusions.
Quote from: Molly on September 13, 2008, 09:54:35 PM
I'm a little confused about what the problem is here.
The KJV is the only authorized version. Meaning the only correct Bible. The only true word of God.
It teaches eternal hell with real flames.
Thats a simple fact.
Or isn't it......?
Not according 99% of the users of this forum. Not according to Gary who has put a 1000+ pages on this subject on his site.
I'm just trying to do a little of my own research. The program Paul suggested is a good tool for that.
Actually read what Paul wrote just above this message. That's exacly describing my goal/problem.
But even with the King James, you can look up the word, 'Hell,' and come to your own conclusions.
Hebrew
"Hell"
H7585
שׁאל שׁאול
she'ôl she'ôl
sheh-ole', sheh-ole'
From H7592; hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranian retreat), including its accessories and inmates: - grave, hell, pit.
Greek
"Hell"
G86
ᾅδης
hadēs
hah'-dace
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492; properly unseen, that is, "Hades" or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.
Hi Molly,
Quote from: Molly on September 13, 2008, 10:41:32 PM
So now you are saying that Jesus did not make the world but it was made 'on account of' of him?
How does that change anything? It was made by him and for him. On account of him and for him?
He must be pretty important. In fact, he has supremacy in everything and a name that is above every other name.-- "by him" in the passage below is not 'dia,' it's 'en.' They are saying it every which way to Sunday--could they make it any clearer?
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
--Col 1
By him, for him, in him, on account of him, and he is before all things. He is not just a man, and he's not an angel because what angel has God called 'Son'?
"by" [him were all things created]
G1722
ἐν
en
en
A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); "in", at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.
[and] "for" [him]
G1519
εἰς
eis
ice
A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases.: - [abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at, [back-] ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, + forth, in (among, at unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-) on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore (-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-) until (-to), . . . ward, [where-] fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literallyor figuratively.
[he is] "before" [all things]
G4253
πρό
pro
pro
A primary preposition; "fore", that is, in front of, prior (figuratively superior) to. In compounds it retains the same significations: - above, ago, before, or ever. In compounds it retains the same significations.
He is the instrumentality of and the purpose of everything; he is before all things and superior to everything.
Did we leave anything out? Just this--
O, Lord Jesus! My God and my LORD!
First of all our conversation was regarding John 1:10. So, if you want to bring in the Greek word
"en" you really need to put it in context!
Your new verse now under discussion is:
Col 1:16 For by (
en) Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
So let's look at this verse in context.
Observe in Colossians 1 that "all things" created are not "the heavens and the earth" as per Genesis 1:1, but rather "all things in the heavens and [up]on the earth." These things are defined as "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Evidently, Jesus has been given authority to restructure the arrangements of angels as well as being the agent for the creation of the body of Christ on earth, the Church.
This is the thought as we soon shall see in Hebrews 1 where the Angels are told to worship the Son. It is also the thought that Peter mentions in 1 Peter 3:21-22 where, after "the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who he is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to him, " it is the new Messianic order that God has brought in through Christ the Son that is under discussion. Just before his ascension into heaven at the father's right hand of power, Jesus declares that "all authority in heaven and on earth
has been given to me" (Matt.28:18). His resurrection has Jesus a new status, "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come" (Eph.1:21).
All of this is to reiterate that this hymn of praise concerns the new order of things that now exist since the resurrection of the Son. An eschatological shift of the ages has begun with Christ's exaltation to the Father's right hand. God has "put all things in subjection under his [the resurrected Christ's] feet" (Eph. 1-22). Paul repeats this thought in the next chapter of Colossians: "and he is the head over [or of] all rule and authority" (Col 2:10). In the words we looked at in Philippians 2, God has rewarded Jesus' obedient death on the cross by highly exalting him, and bestowing on him "the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:8-10).
It is highly significant that in verse 18 Jesus attains to a supreme position, meaning that it he did not have it already. Thus he cannot have preexisted as God. If he did his final status would be more of a demotion than the promotion described by Paul.
If Jesus was God in the flesh then it is impossible to be a man. He would have been something entirely else. Not a man.
This is why Jesus has to learn wisdom, Luke 2:40, Luke 2:52. God is all knowing. He does not need to learn anything. Paul tells us Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and something else.
Heb 5:6 "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." 5 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8
Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.
It is an insult to say that God learned obedience! Jesus learned obedience
because he was a man, a man like you and me not a hybrid. Most fail to understand the concept of Agency. When you kiss the Agent of the one sent, you are actually kissing the one whom the Agent represents. When you worship Jesus you are actually worshiping the One who sent Him. Thus Jesus comments...
Joh 8:40 "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me,
a man who has told you the truth,
which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.
Jesus said he was a man. Yet you refuse to believe him.
Act 2:23
this Man, delivered over
by the predetermined plan (Logos) and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
Jesus was
a man that was predetermined in God's plan and foreknowledge.
Act 3:26 "For you first, God raised up
His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways."
This man Jesus was God's servant!
Luk 24:19 And He said to them, "What things?" And they said to Him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene,
who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,
1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and
God is the head of Christ.
Who is the Head of Jesus 'the' Christ?
1Co 15:21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
Yep,
dia "on account of" a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),
Who raised Jesus from the dead? Jesus himself or His God and Father?
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus,
Yes, the risen Lord is a man, our mediator also between God and men..
So saith the scriptures.
Quote from: mollyDid we leave anything out? Just this--
O, Lord Jesus! My God and my LORD!
No, you also left out verse 31...John 20:31 but
these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 14, 2008, 02:44:17 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 13, 2008, 09:54:35 PM
I'm a little confused about what the problem is here.
The KJV is the only authorized version. Meaning the only correct Bible. The only true word of God.
It teaches eternal hell with real flames.
Thats a simple fact.
Or isn't it......?
Not according 99% of the users of this forum. Not according to Gary who has put a 1000+ pages on this subject on his site.
I'm just trying to do a little of my own research. The program Paul suggested is a good tool for that.
Actually read what Paul wrote just above this message. That's exacly describing my goal/problem.
You have to look at the distinctions between "translations" and "Text." The KJV is nothing more than a translation of the
Textus Receptus.(Greek Text). It is only the translation that reads "Hell", as the actual
text itself does not.
Paul
Quote from: Molly on September 14, 2008, 04:41:33 AM
But even with the King James, you can look up the word, 'Hell,' and come to your own conclusions.
A word here or there is not all that there is concerning this.
For instance, some translations contain a phrase in Matthew 5:22 about being angry with your brother "without a cause".
This is not in the literal text at all. And whats worse is "Youngs Literal" translation includes that added phrase, so, who's supposed to believe what?
There is quite a few passages that have added text in some translations and some that omit words as well. I wish I could remember what verse, it was in the NIV; It was missing some words and completely changed how that verse would be taken and used. That don't matter? How do you look up words that are supposed to be there and are not?
I do not see the worthiness in presenting a case that it doesn't matter to seek out that truth.
The word for word literal wording of scripture is not that good for reading at first. Although, I have come to enjoy it more myself. That literal wording actually ends up having an elegance all its own. But, if you never quite get comfortable with the word for word, it is great for seeing what words can be there and what words cannot.
Quote from: PieracCol 1:16 For by (en) Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
This states that
all things ["pas"] in the heavens and the earth were created by ['en'] him. All things means all things to me--that would include visible things like suns and moons and stars and trees and birds and man, as well as invisible things like the seat of power--like the exousia that he gives to those who believe.
Jesus showed us his creative powers in the flesh of a man. His first miracle was changing water to wine. He fed 5000 people from five loaves and two fishes. He instantly repaired the bodies of those blind, crippled, and leperous. He raised people from the dead, even Lazarus who had been dead for days.
It is always critically important for Jesus to tell us where his power derives from--the Father--because the Father will be the source of any power that we are to have ourselves. He is showing us the Way. He's not come to earth to do a bunch of God-tricks. He has come to earth to show us a path. He IS the path.
31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.--John 20
17And he is before all things, and by ['en'] him all things consist. What does this mean? Nothing exists without Him? He is the glue that holds everything together? He is the direct cause--the instrumentality-- of everything existing.
Hebrews 1
But to the Son He says: "
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions"
10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
QuoteThere is quite a few passages that have added text in some translations and some that omit words as well.
Then the question is--how do you decide which translation is correct? It is not necessarily the oldest script or the newest script or the script translated by someone you trust. So how?
Some 50 scholars or so collaborated on the King James. Did they have an agenda other than to correctly translate the Bible into English? Were they trying to prove something, and therefore perverting the translation to their own ends? Did they translate from the wrong original? Says who? And, does that person have an agenda?
And, if we disagree, or something doesn't ring true, can't we look at the Greek and Hebrew ourselves?
Quote from: Molly on September 14, 2008, 08:27:16 AM
Some 50 scholars or so collaborated on the King James. Did they have an agenda other than to correctly translate the Bible into English? Were they trying to prove something, and therefore perverting the translation to their own ends? Did they translate from the wrong original? Says who? And, does that person have an agenda?
It is a published fact that, as brilliant as these men may have been, they were forced to conform to the prevailing doctrines of the church of England. Many of the more conscionable translators used marginal notes to overcome this handicap. But alas, the marginal notes are not to be found in the modern KJV. The KJV was but a revision of the Bishop's Bible, and the translators themselves noted in the preface that better translations would follow. But of course, the original preface has gone the way of the marginal notes. (Did you know that the foremost Hebrew scholar of the day, Hugh Broughton, when asked in 1611 to endorse the KJV, said, and I quote: "I would rather be rent to pieces by wild horses than have had my part in the urging of such a wretched version of the Bible on the poor people")?
Quote from: martincisneros on September 14, 2008, 08:37:05 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 14, 2008, 08:27:16 AM
Some 50 scholars or so collaborated on the King James. Did they have an agenda other than to correctly translate the Bible into English? Were they trying to prove something, and therefore perverting the translation to their own ends? Did they translate from the wrong original? Says who? And, does that person have an agenda?
It is a published fact that, as brilliant as these men may have been, they were forced to conform to the prevailing doctrines of the church of England. Many of the more conscionable translators used marginal notes to overcome this handicap. But alas, the marginal notes are not to be found in the modern KJV. The KJV was but a revision of the Bishop's Bible, and the translators themselves noted in the preface that better translations would follow. But of course, the original preface has gone the way of the marginal notes. (Did you know that the foremost Hebrew scholar of the day, Hugh Broughton, when asked in 1611 to endorse the KJV, said, and I quote: "I would rather be rent to pieces by wild horses than have had my part in the urging of such a wretched version of the Bible on the poor people")?
LOL! Then what Bible do you suggest?
If you read the King James with the aid of the Greek and Hebrew, how close could you get to the truth?
Quote from: Molly on September 14, 2008, 08:27:16 AM
QuoteThere is quite a few passages that have added text in some translations and some that omit words as well.
Then the question is--how do you decide which translation is correct? It is not necessarily the oldest script or the newest script or the script translated by someone you trust. So how?
Some 50 scholars or so collaborated on the King James. Did they have an agenda other than to correctly translate the Bible into English? Were they trying to prove something, and therefore perverting the translation to their own ends? Did they translate from the wrong original? Says who? And, does that person have an agenda?
First, I apologize, I have not been very good at conveying a distinct difference here. I am speaking of english here and you can change that to whatever language one might need to read the bible in. I cannot speak about this for other languages, but I am assuming it is the same.
There is a difference in seeing the greek and hebrew text as it is written on the manuscripts with the equivalent english word or series of words directly under each greek and hebrew word.
You will not read this in a manner of good sentence structure, although as I have said, I really rather read it that way now. But that has become my personal preference. It was not like that to begin with. I still compare to other translations to help in longer verses from time to time.
So that is not really a "translation" it is the greek and hebrew "translated" word for word. A "Translation" as I consider it is any publication that has rearranged the original word for word text into a proper sentence.
So as far as what to trust? Trust that the word for word as best we can know is not biased by any particular way of thinking. Study any translation you like with that word for word resource at hand and thats about the best anyone can do.
My personal preference for "translations" is the CLV and the Rotherham. I pick those, because I spend much less time determining the added or omitted words with them. But they still contain some I have to look closely at. But I do not recall which right now.
It's not the 20,000 contradictions of the Greek and Hebrew that the KJV has that bother me, as much as when I started finding out how many words that should have been italicized in it that weren't. In the KJV, italicized words mean that it's not in the original Hebrew and Greek, but is something that got put in there by the translators to help to either make the translation more readable or to help to give you a sense of the usage of the Hebrew and Greek since Hebrew and Greek written thoughts aren't exactly formed in the way that English thoughts are formed in writing. The Concordant Literal has a similar system, except the words aren't italicized. They're in light print, while the words that have Hebrew/Greek equivalents in their translation are in bold print. But the KJV adds the word "when" in Ezekiel 16 to the passage on the salvation of Sodom and Gomorrah to convey the theology of the Reformers of
"that'll be the day!!" when that's neither stated nor implied in the Hebrew text. If it was going to be added, that word "when" in that passage should have been put into italics to indicate that it was their attempt at helping the English rather than conveying anything from the Hebrew. They don't italicize it. I've yet to find an edition of the KJV that italicizes it. There's other passages like that, where something that wasn't in the Hebrew/Greek DIDN'T get italicized, but was published with the implication that this is from the Hebrew/Greek. Just the number of times that the KJV lies like that bothers me. A mistranslation is one thing 'cause there's a hundred reasons why it could have happened, but to add ideas that can't be verified with any Concordance/Lexicon or other study resource bothers me big time.
Quote from: Molly on September 14, 2008, 08:40:05 AM
LOL! Then what Bible do you suggest?
That's going to be a tricky question, because many translations are better in some areas than they are in others. For instance, I personally believe that the "NASB, Updated Edition" is pretty close to the best translation on the book of Philemon that I've seen thus far. But it's not a strict enough of a translation on other things for many people. NIV just makes up stuff in Galatians that I won't even dignify with a quote.
Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Genesis+1§ion=0&translation=reb&oq=) and the
Concordant Literal (http://concordant.org/version/html.html) are pretty good, though Rotherham's isn't liable to the accusation of being a "Universalist translation." And Rotherham's is easier to get the whole translation in one cover, instead of as multiple books.
Rotherham's (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Genesis+1§ion=0&translation=reb&oq=) and
Young's Literal (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=15) are good.
Quote from: Molly on September 14, 2008, 08:40:05 AM
If you read the King James with the aid of the Greek and Hebrew, how close could you get to the truth?
Pretty close. But there are so many traditions in each of our heads from the KJV that you sorta need the stricter translations just so that they'd be hard enough on the eyes to make you more conscious of what you're reading. Many UR folks do tend to predominantly use the KJV since study resources for it are the easiest to find, and many of the UR authors of the last several centuries base their comments and studies on the KJV. So, it winds up being easier for them. To me, this is coming down to a humility and relationship issue with the Lord, more than about anything that any of us can figure out with our own heads. Although I remember the day, I don't exactly know how I came into an understanding of this message of God's infinite grace, other than that I was sticking as close to Him as I could. I remember praying repeatedly during the 90s that I'd know everything that all believers would know and understand a thousand years from now/then. I just pray that it's not another 985 years before the others catch up!
10 For it became Him, because ["dia"] of Whom all is, and through ["dia"] Whom all is, in leading many sons into glory, to perfect the Inaugurator of their salvation through sufferings.
11 For both He Who is hallowing and those who are being hallowed are all of One, for which cause He is not ashamed to be calling them brethren,
12 saying, I shall be reporting Thy name to My brethren, In the midst of the ecclesia shall I be singing hymns to Thee.
--Hebrews 2 CLV
Verse 10 talks of Jesus as though he is two people. We know the 'Him' mentioned in verse 10 is Jesus, because he is the 'Him' because of Whom all is and through Whom all is. But, then it says this 'Him' has made the Captain of our salvation perfect through sufferings. And, we know the Captain (Inaugerator) of our salvation is also Jesus. Jesus here is both cause and effect (Father and Son).
And we also see here how the Son becomes the middleman, folding us into the One.
Here is an interesting bible tranlation. I picked it up coupel years ago, and very easy to read. But for some reason can't find it anymore.
http://www.christianbiblesociety.org/bible.shtml
QuoteSo that is not really a "translation" it is the greek and hebrew "translated" word for word. A "Translation" as I consider it is any publication that has rearranged the original word for word text into a proper sentence.
Is that the program that you gave to download on the first page? I took a look at it and couldn't figure out how to download but I'll go spend some more time on it.
Also, is the Greek the original language of the New Testament?
QuoteI just pray that it's not another 985 years before the others catch up!
hmmm...I'm praying I have another 985 years to catch up! :laughing7:
Quote from: laren on September 14, 2008, 09:28:53 AM
Here is an interesting bible tranlation. I picked it up coupel years ago, and very easy to read. But for some reason can't find it anymore.
http://www.christianbiblesociety.org/bible.shtml
Thanks!
"The Christian Bible affirms that our Savior was born to a virgin [Mat. 1:23], . . . that He existed with God the Father before time began [John 1:1-4; John 17:5], . . . that He was more than human, as He is the Son of God [John 3:16], . . . that He is one with God, and Himself called God [Rom. 9:5; John 1:18; Heb. 1:8; John 20:28; Mat. 1:23]. "
Molly:
QuoteBut even with the King James, you can look up the word, 'Hell,' and come to your own conclusions.
The remark that the KJV is the only true Bible was meant sarcasticly.
Yes, I can lookup Hell. I can lookup every word. But personally I like a translation that is as accurate as possible.
Pierac
QuoteYou have to look at the distinctions between "translations" and "Text." The KJV is nothing more than a translation of the Textus Receptus.(Greek Text). It is only the translation that reads "Hell", as the actual text itself does not.
The same answer as I gave to Molly. I prefer a starting point that has the highest percentage of 'correctness' That includes translation of words and promoting doctrines.
And that is what every post in this thread (and many other threads) is about for me personally. I may frequently mix up words and defenitions; I won't even start to argue against that; but my goal is finding the correct meaning of verses. No more no less.
Molly
QuoteLOL! Then what Bible do you suggest?
Rotherham 's Emphasized Version, Concordant Literal Version and Emphatic Diaglott are the only 3 e-Sword Bibles Gary has put on his site. For me that means those versions express the UR message the best. I'm no Bible scholar so it's just a matter of trust (+feeling + some study)
The program suggested by Paul Hazelwood is an extra tool for verification.
6 billion people, 6 billion preferances for Bible study tools...
Molly
QuoteBut, it seems to me that if the word is there, you can just look at the word definition and interpret it according to context and with the Holy Spirit as witness.
It's great for you to have help from the HS. I haven't. And every thing that seems wrong, like the contradictions this thread is about, is a real roadblock for me. If I would find a contradiction in Gen 1:1 and ignore it; it would keep distracting me from every other verse in the Bible. For me a main proof of the Bible inspired by God is that it's without flaws. When I find a flaw I have to debunk that before moving on. That's just 100% fact for me.
Quote from: martincisneros on September 14, 2008, 08:37:05 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 14, 2008, 08:27:16 AM
Some 50 scholars or so collaborated on the King James. Did they have an agenda other than to correctly translate the Bible into English? Were they trying to prove something, and therefore perverting the translation to their own ends? Did they translate from the wrong original? Says who? And, does that person have an agenda?
It is a published fact that, as brilliant as these men may have been, they were forced to conform to the prevailing doctrines of the church of England.
According to Garys "The Hell test" not much has changed since then
QuoteIf 150 Bible scholars swear to a statement of faith that there is a Hell of everlasting
punishment before that are allowed to work on a translation which they will be paid to produce,
what are the odds that the translation they produce will contain a Hell of everlasting
punishment? (That is the case with the NIV, and most other Bible translations produced by
committees.)
Quote from: Molly on September 14, 2008, 09:35:43 AM
Is that the program that you gave to download on the first page? I took a look at it and couldn't figure out how to download but I'll go spend some more time on it.
Also, is the Greek the original language of the New Testament?
Yes it has the original Greek of the NT
The latest version: http://www.scripture4all.org/download/download_ISA20.php
This is a (slighly) improved version but not yet fully tested for bugs.
A slighly older version without bugs: http://www.scripture4all.org/download/download_ISA20.php
Click the first green button to download the main program plus the AV translation. Install that one.
When clicking the green button another screen opens with a grey button. Click the grey button.
Then optionally download extra translations CLV and YLT (the 3rd one is in Dutch and likely of no use to you)
Exodus 31:13
Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
Leviticus 26:2
Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.
Luke 6:5
And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 14, 2008, 10:52:57 AM
Pierac
QuoteYou have to look at the distinctions between "translations" and "Text." The KJV is nothing more than a translation of the Textus Receptus.(Greek Text). It is only the translation that reads "Hell", as the actual text itself does not.
The same answer as I gave to Molly. I prefer a starting point that has the highest percentage of 'correctness' That includes translation of words and promoting doctrines.
And that is what every post in this thread (and many other threads) is about for me personally. I may frequently mix up words and defenitions; I won't even start to argue against that; but my goal is finding the correct meaning of verses. No more no less.
What you ask for requires serious research and study. Then at the end you will only find scholars with equal background disagreeing! This is the REALITY and it sucks! For example let me post this small study into Luke 3:21
Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
Mar 1:10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."
Luk 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."
I'd like to offer a little study in textual criticism on these verses. In Bart Ehrman's book
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christolological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. We begin on page 141.
"Here again one should not anticipate an abundance of corruptions: only three brief passages of the New Testament actually record the event. It is all the more striking to find that each of these passages has been modified in ways that appear amenable to the Orthodox cause.
Mark's account is the earliest, and because of its particular mode of expression, it proved to be the most susceptible to corruption. When Jesus comes up from the waters, the Spirit descends to him as a dove, and a voice from heaven proclaims, "You are my beloved son; and in you I am well pleased" (Mark 1:11). Marks narrative as a whole does little to discourage the Gnostic understanding of the event, that the dove represents the divine Christ who descended from the heavenly realm and entered into Jesus, empowering him for his Ministry. As I have repeatedly observed, Jesus is not said to have experienced a miraculous birth in this Gospel, nor to have done anything extraordinary before receiving the Spirit at his baptism. In fact, the gospel says nothing at all about his life prior to the appearance of the baptism in the wilderness. It is only after he is baptized and received the Spirit that Jesus begins to perform miracles and to convey his teachings. It comes then as no surprise that, as Irenaeus informs us, heretics "who separate Jesus from the Christ" used Mark's Gospel to the exclusion of all others (
Adv. Haer. III, 11,7).
In this circumstance makes the textual problem of Mark 1:11 all the more interesting. There is a virtual unanimity among textual scholars that Mark originally spoke of "the Spirit as a dove descending unto him" (το πνευμα ως περιστεραν καταβαινον εις αυτον). This is the text found in the earliest and best representatives of the Alexandrian and Western traditions, and it is nearly impossible to explain its provenance if the variant tradition found in the bulk of the Byzantine manuscripts is original. In these latter witnesses, the Spirit is said to descend as a dove "upon" (επί) Jesus rather than "unto" (εις) Him. The difficulty of this reading is fairly obvious. The preposition εις; Commonly means "into," so with that the text as Mark originally wrote is especially vulnerable to the Gnostic claim that Jesus' baptism a divine being entered into him. Whether Mark himself understood the event in this way is not the question I am concerned to address here. It is worth noting, however, that both Matthew and Luke changed the preposition to επί ("Upon").
The existence of this variant expression within the Synoptic tradition provide scribes of the second century with just the opportunity they needed to circumvent a possible "misuse" of the account and Mark. It would thus be a mistake to see the change reflected in the Byzantine tradition as a simple harmonization; as in all such cases, one must ask why scribes would have wanted to modify a reading particular to one of the Gospels. In this instant the reason is not at all difficult to locate. The text as originally written could be used by Gnostic Christians who, as Irenaeus informs us, appealed to this Gospel in particular to support their separationist Christologies.
Nor was Mark's the only accounts applicable to such changes. Not even the preposition επι; could escape a Gnostic construal, because the Spirit "coming upon" Jesus could well be taken to mean that it "empowered" him. And so it is not surprising to find that a number of the early witnesses change the preposition in Matthew 3:16 to the still less ambiguous προς. Now the spirit simply comes "to" Jesus.
One other change that Matthew made when redacting his Marcan source concerns the intriguing compared to article ωσεί; . Although the terms appear to have been interchangeable throughout the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, is difficult to maintain that there is absolutely no difference in nuance. Outside the writings of the New Testament, at least, ωσεί is generally to be construed as the less definite and more hypothetical of the two, and if the New Testament authors themselves saw the words as identical, it is somewhat difficult to explain why Matthew made a change in the first place. By using ωσεί, Matthew may be distancing himself from the possible understanding that the spirit actually assumed the form of a dove when he descended upon Jesus. Now the Spirit descends "if" it were a dove. This understanding of the change leads to an important question for the textual tradition: when later scribes changed the ως́ of Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22 to make it conformed with Matthew's ωσεί, were they motivated in part by a comparable interest, especially in light of a Gnostic construal will of the event.
There is some evidence to suggest that the actual manifestation of the Spirit "as a dove" provided amenable to certain groups of Gnostic's, who used to text to authorize their separationist construal of the event. We are best informed of the Marcosians, a group of Valentinian Gnostics attuned to the numerological significance of the divinity inspired words of the biblical text.
In a passage filled with invective and wit, Iraenaeus details the Marcosian exegesis of the descent of the dove. When the letters in the Greek word for dove ( π ε ρ ι σ τ ε ρ ά ) are given their numerical equivalents, they add up to 801. This, remarkably, is also the number of deity, which comprises the alpha and the Omega (α and ω, representing the Greek numerals one and eight hundred). Therefore, in the Marcosians? view, the descent of the dove shows that Jesus received into himself the fullness of deity at his baptism.
We have no way of knowing how many other Christians of the second and third centuries subscribe to this construal of the event. What is clear is that both Mark and Luke are susceptible to it. And so the change of the phrase ως́ περιστεραν to ωσει περιστεραν in numerous witnesses of both Gospels, may reflect something more than the linguistic predilection or harmonistic tendencies of the scribes. It may reflect the strategy detected to route Gnostic construals by means of slight literary modifications. Now rather than descending "as a dove" the Spirit descends "as if it were a dove."
In this connection, finally, we do well to observed that Luke's account of the baptism is the least ambiguous concerning the physical nature of the "Holy Spirit." For here the spirit is said to descend upon Jesus "in bodily form, as a dove." The changes in this description that are scattered throughout the textual tradition may have been accidental, but when they appear to serve theological ends as well, one is surely justified in harboring some doubt. Particularly striking is the complete inversion of the sense by the earliest manuscript P4, where the Spirit is said to descend upon Jesus in "spiritual" rather than "bodily" form. This early Alexandrian witness thus undercuts a potentially Gnostic construal of the texts because there is now no "real" or "bodily" descent of a divine being upon Jesus. A similar result obtains in the later Alexandrian witness, manuscript 579. Here the phrase is omitted altogether, making the text say that "something like a dove descended" upon Jesus. There is no mention of God's Spirit at all, obviating the interpretation that his Spirit was in fact of the divine Christ who entered into Jesus.
Once again we turn to Bart Ehrman's book
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christolological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Page 62. to continue our look at when Jesus was anointed
"A place to begin is with textual corruptions that appear to suppress adoptionistic understandings of Jesus baptism. One of the most intriguing occurs in early witnesses of Luke's account, in which the voice from heaven is said to proclaim "You are my Son, today I have begotten you" (Luke 3:22). This is the reading of codex Bezae and a number of ecclesiastical writers from the second century onward. I will argue that it is in fact the original text of Luke, and that Orthodox scribes who could not abide its adoptionistic overtones "corrected" it into conformity with the parallel and Mark, "You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased" (Mark 1:11). Because of this particular variant is so central to our discussion, and because most scholars have, in my opinion, wrongly evaluated the competing virtues of the two readings, I will devote a comparatively lengthy discussion to the problem.
External AttestationThe strongest support for the reading of codex Bezae derives from transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities, about which I will be speaking momentarily. But it's external attestation should not be discounted, as has frequently happened in earlier treatments. Granting that the reading does not occur extensively after the fifth century, they cannot be overlooked that in witnesses of the second and third centuries, centuries that to be sure have not provided us with any superfluity of Greek manuscripts, it is virtually the only reading that survives. Not only was it the reading of the ancestor of codex Bezae and the old Latin texts of Luke, it appears also to have been the text known to Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and the authors of the
Gospels according to the Hebrews and the
Diodascalia. It is certainly the text attested by the Gospel according to the Ebionites, Oregon, and Methodius. Somewhat later it is found in Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary, Tyconius, Augustine, and several of the later apocryphal Acts. Here I should stress that except for the third century manuscript P4, there is no certain attestation of the other reading, the reading of our later manuscripts, in this early period. The reading of codex Bezae, then, is not an error introduced by an unusually aberrant witness. This manuscript is, in fact, one of the last witnesses to preserve it. Nor is it a "Western" variant without adequate attestation. Among sources of the second and third centuries, is virtually only reading to be found; down to the six century it occurs in witnesses as far-flung as Asia minor, Palestine, Alexandria, North Africa, Rome, Gaul, and Spain.
How can we account for textual situation of this sort? The best attested reading of the early period, a reading known throughout the entire Christian world, virtually disappears from sight, displaced by a reading that he is, as we shall see, both harmonized to that of another Gospel and less offensive doctrinally. Given what we have seen so far concerning scribal proclivities-and, of course, I have just begun to amass the data-
there is every reason to suspect that here we are dealing with an original reading that has been displaced for theological reasons.Transcriptional probabilitiesThis preliminary judgment is rendered more plausible by several pieces of internal evidence the transcriptional issues are clear and straightforward. One of the two readings harmonize is with the text of Mark and is inoffensive; the other cannot be harmonized with Mark and his doctrinally suspicious. Even patristic witnesses that attest the reading sometimes reveal their embarrassment over it, explaining it away by interpretation that strike modern readers as particular in the extreme. If we asked which reading is more likely to have been changed by Christian scribes, how can there be any doubt?
There has been doubt, however, only because both readings can be construed it as scribal harmonizations: one to Mark's Gospel, the other two the LXX text of Psalms 2:7. This circumstance alone appears to have saved the more widely attested text from the scalpel of commentators and editors. According to the common view, the more difficult reading ("Today I have you gotten you") represents a harmonization to the second Psalms.
There are formidable problems with this view, however, as can be seen by probing the transcriptional probabilities through a series of difficult questions: (1) which is more likely, that a scribal harmonize a Gospel text to a parallel in another Gospel or to a passage in the Old Testament? Gospel harmonization is virtually ubiquitous in the manuscript tradition of the Syn-optics, occurring in nearly every periscope of the double or triple tradition. Furthermore, a scribal copies Luke will likely have Matthew and Mark on the brain, so to speak, in most cases having recently transcribed them. All things being equal, harmonization to the closest parallel is to be preferred, so that on this score the earliest attested reading appears to be original. (2) Which is more likely-that ascribe will create a reading that his doctrinally offensive, or that he will ameliorate a theological problem? To call the words of the Psalm text and Luke 3:22 the more difficult reading is, of course, and accurate kind of shorthand. But we must not lose sight of the compelling logic of the principal, simply because there is a convenient phrase to describe it. The variant reading preserved by the majority of earlier witnesses the one that has no parallel in the other Gospel accounts, also appears to support a christological view that became anathema in the early Christian centuries. Is it likely that ascribe would have created it? Although this argument might appear circular in the context of the present discussion (which is concerned with establishing the presence of theological oriented corruptions), the same cannot be said of the third question concerning transcriptional probabilities, a question that proves, to my mind at least, to be decisive: If Luke 3:22 was changed by scribes in order to conform its text to the wording of Psalms 2, how is it that the same motivation was never at work in the transmission of the text of the other Gospels? As common as this explanation of the textual situation might be, no one has ever been able to explain why this particular harmonization occurred in the transcription of Luke, but never and that of Matthew or Mark.
Part 1 of 2
Part 2
Intrinsic probabilities
These transcriptional probabilities become particularly compelling when we recognize how well the reading attested in codex Bezae coincides with the theological agenda of Luke himself, even though his agenda may not have been shared by later proto-Orthodox scribes. Here there is a powerful confluence of factors, for the reading that proved such an obvious embarrassment for Orthodox Christians of later times shows remarkable affinities with Luke's own view of Jesus' baptism.
This is not to say that the intrinsic suitability of the reading has been widely recognized. Just to the contrary, in the view of many scholars, it makes little sense for Luke's divine voice to declare that Jesus has become the son of God at his baptism when he had already been born the son of God (from a Virgin Mother) two chapters earlier. And so, given the angelic pronouncement of Luke's Annunciation seen ("the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you, so that the one who was born will be called the son of God," 1:35) it is virtually inconceivable in this view, that Jesus would later be told "Today I have begotten you."
Unfortunately, as happens so frequently with arguments of this kind, it is difficult to see which way the night is more likely to cut. For any perceived discrepancy between Luke chapter 1 and 3 could just as easily have lead earlier scribes to harmonize the text of Luke 3:22 to its parallel and Mark 1:11, thereby circumventing the problem. On this level, it would appear that arguments of intrinsic probabilities (which reading Luke was more likely to have written) and transcriptional probabilities (which reading scribes were more likely to have created) grind to a standstill.
This is not, however, and an inevitable outcome of weighing different kinds of probability. It results here only when intrinsic probabilities are evaluated according to the dubious premise that Luke has been (logically) consistent in his use of christological titles and conceptions. The arguments assumes, that is, that Luke would not predicate the same Christological title to Jesus on the basis of different critical moments, or junctures, of his existence. In fact, the assumption is demonstratably false. When one looks beyond the relationship of Luke 3:22 to 1:32-35 and takes more panoramic view of this two volume work, it becomes evident that the words of Psalm 2:7 at Jesus baptism do not so much create an inadmissible inconsistency as highlight tensions otherwise found-indeed, consistently found-throughout Luke's portrayal of Jesus.
An obvious example comes in Luke's depiction of Jesus as the Messiah. According to Luke's infancy narrative, Jesus was born to Christ (2:11). But in at least one of the speeches of Acts he is understood to have become the Christ at his baptism (10:37-38; possibly 4:27); whereas in another Luke explicitly states that he became the Christ at his resurrection (2:38). It may be that in yet another speech (3:20) Jesus is thought to be the Christ only in his parousia. Similarly "inconsistent" are Luke's predications of the titles Lord and Savior to Jesus. Thus, Jesus is born the Lord in Luke 2:11, and in Luke 10:1 he is designated Lord while living; but in Acts 2:38 he is said to have been become Lord at his resurrection. So too, and Luke 2:11 he is born Savior, and in Acts 13:23-24 he is designated Savior while living; but according to Acts 5:31 he is said to have been made Savior at the resurrection. Nor does the title Son of God, the title that is directly germane to our present deliberation, escape this seemingly erratic kind of treatment: Jesus is born the son of God in Luke 1:32-35, descended son of God according to the genealogy of 3: 23-38, and declared to be son of God while living (e.g., Luke 8:28; 9:35); but Acts 13:33 states that he became the son of God and his resurrection. This kind of titular ambiguity does not inspire confidence in claims that certain readings cannot be Lukan because they stand in tension with Luke's use of christological titles elsewhere.
This is not mean that the broad scope of Luke's narrative is irrelevant to the textual problem of 3:22. It is relevant, but not through an appeal to a consistent used of christological notions. More fruitful is an assessment of the other references to Jesus' baptism throughout Luke's work, "backward glances," as it were, that provide clues concerning what happened at that point of the narrative. What is striking is that these other references to Jesus' baptism do not appear to presuppose a simple "identification formula" by which Jesus is acknowledged to be the son of God ("You are my beloved Son"). They instead assume that God actually did something at that moment, that he actually conferred a special status upon Jesus ("Today I have begotten you").
A reasonable place to begin is with the second occurrence of a voice from heaven, that on the Mount of Transfiguration. It is commonly known that for Luke's source, the Gospel of Mark, the heavenly voices at the Transfiguration echoes the heavenly voices at the baptism. But whereas the first makes its pronouncement in the second person, apparently addressing only Jesus ("You are my beloved son," Mark 1:11), the latter occurs in the third person, confirming this to disclosure to the disciples ("This is my beloved son," Mark 9:7). Luke of course used marks account in creating his own, and no attempt to reconstruct the heavenly words of Luke's baptism scene can afford to overlook the voice at the Transfiguration. Here the textual situation is much clearer. Luke has changed marks heavenly voice in the second instance, so that now rather than confirming to the disciples that Jesus is the "beloved" Son, it confirms that Jesus is the "elect" Son: (This is my Son, My chosen one" (ï õéïò ìïõ ï åêëåëåãìåíïò; Luke 9:35). If the voice in Luke's Transfiguration scene refers back to the scene of Jesus baptism and confirms to the disciples what was there revealed to Jesus, that he "has been chosen" (perfect tense), one is hard-pressed to see how the more commonly attested text of Luke 3:22 could be original. For this reading ("You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased") constitutes a mere identification formula in which Jesus is recognized as the son of God. It is only in the variant reading, the one that is attested in virtually all the earliest witnesses, that God is actually said to confer a new status upon Jesus ("Today I have begotten you"). Only in the theologically difficult reading is God said to "elect" Jesus in a manner presupposed in 9:35, that is, through a quotation of the royal adoption formula drawn from the second Psalm.
In further support of this view is Luke's only other reference to Jesus as God's elect. Although Luke never again applies the verbal form åêëåëåãìåíïò to Jesus, he does use the synonymous adjective åêëåêôïò. In the crucifixion scene, in a verse unique to the third Gospel, the crucified Jesus is mocked by the rulers of Israel: "He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!" (ï ÷ñéóôïò ôïõ èåïõ ï åêëåêôïò, 23:35). Here, interesting, the title åêëåêôïò Is placed in apposition to ÷ñéóôïò; it is as God's "Christ" that Jesus is his "chosen" one. To this extent, Luke's use corresponds rather closely to the common application of these words to the King of Israel as God 's "chosen," his "anointed" throughout the Old Testament. It would not be at all surprising then, to find the clearest expression of an Old Testament "election formula for Kings"-namely, Psalm 2:7-applied to Jesus at the point at which he becomes God's elect.
Is this point his baptism? The other Lukan references looking back to the event suggest that it is. One of Luke's striking changes of Mark's narrative sequence occurs in his transference of the sermon and rejection at Nazareth to the very outset of Jesus Ministry (Mark 6:1-6; Luke 4:16-30). As is well known, Luke not only change the narrative context for the account, but he also made a considerable number of internal changes in order to present the scene as a kind of paradigmatic foreshadowing of what was to happen to Jesus in the Gospel and to his followers in Acts. In the preceding context, the Spirit of God comes upon Jesus at his baptism (3:22), then leads him in the wilderness for 40 days (4:1). When Jesus returns into Galilee, "in the power of the Spirit" (4:14), he preaches his first sermon. This sermon begins with Jesus' self-declaration in the words of Isaiah 61:1: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed (åêñéóåí) me...". Granting that these words are quoted from the Scriptures, one is still left to ask what would be the significance of this aorist (åêñéóåí) for Luke. That is to say, just when (prior to Luke 4) did God "anoint" Jesus? The reading that proved more difficult for later scribes provides a clear answer: it was in the preceding chapter when God declared, "today I have begotten you."
Luke's to other uses of the verb êñéù confirm the point. In Acts 4, Peter refers to Jesus as the one whom God had "anointed" (4:27; åêñéóáò, again aorist tense), after explicitly quoting Psalm 2 with references to Jesus, the "êñéóôïò" Against whom the rulers of the earth were gathered together (Psalm 2:1-2). Then in Acts 10 Peter states that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and power, and this time clearly links the event with "the baptism of John" (10:37-38).
Together, these text presuppose that at the baptism God actually did something to Jesus. This something is sometimes described as an act to of anointing, sometimes as an election. In either case, the action of God is taken to signify his "making" Jesus the Christ. These text, therefore, show that Luke did not conceive of the baptism as the point at which Jesus was simply "declared" or "identified" or "affirmed" to be the Son of God. The baptism was the point in which Jesus was anointed as the Christ, chosen to be the Son of God
This understanding of the significance of Jesus' baptism cannot, of course, be unrelated to the words pronounced by the voice in Luke's account. The more commonly attested reading, which happens to be harmonized with Mark's account, involves a declaration or recognition of Jesus' sonship ("You are my son"). This hardly squares with the significance that Luke attaches to Jesus' baptism elsewhere. The other reading, however, consist of an election formula, in which a King is actually chosen by God upon his anointing ("Today I have begotten you"). Given Luke's indignation elsewhere (Acts 4:25-26) that the text of Psalm 2 particularly applies to Jesus of anointing, it should now be clear that the voice in his account actually quoted these words as a proclamation of the momentous election of Jesus as the begotten Son of God at this, the beginning of his Ministry.
Orthodox Christians such as Justin recognize the use to which such a view could be made by later adoptionists who denied (now in opposition to Luke) that Jesus had been born of a virgin and claimed that he had been a "mere man." The options open to such Orthodox believers were to argue for a nonadoptionistic interpretation of Luke 3:22 or to modify it into conformity with its Synoptic parallel. The latter option seems to have been widely exercise by the anonymous scribes whose handiwork has survived down to the present day.
Let me add at this point that Bart Ehrman is not the only biblical scholar that believes the older witnesses widely current during the first three centuries have the correct reading. So due to this information, I too believe our Bibles today have the incorrect reading at Luke 3:22.
Is clear to me, from this study and several others that Luke 3:22 originally stated "Today I have begotten you" I believe it is at this time that Jesus was anointed and received his title "the Christ," from his God and Father.
2Co 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
Peace
Paul
Birds and insects with 4 legs.
And other errors in the Bible.
Or not??? (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/false.html)