NEW LIES ABOUT THE BIBLE

[Willie-T]

One honest question:

Do people here actually believe that the Lord God IS NOT powerful enough to PRESERVE the TRUTH of His WORD regardless of what language it is translated into? No, seriously, do people here actually believe that?

If this is true, then what God exactly are we placing our faith in?

With MY GOD: ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE!



(to clarify, I am not arguing Greek or Hebrew language .................. I'm stating that the Word of God transcends the imperfectness of man)

But man STILL keeps on fogging it up by not seeing the simple truth, looking for special and revelatory meanings.

 

[oldhermit]

Yes sir, not to mention a bulk of the world is not intellectual enough to go that deep.
They probably struggle with the NIV version? ......But they still seek.
The spirit of the message is what's important......always has been.....no matter the original language.
Mitspa, and certain others who debate this, never stop to realize that the world is in chaos, they are poor, uneducated, ....they need time with their Bibles.....not years of back study before they start really "understanding" scripture.

So please...... Mitspa, present any scripture that corrects me here....WHERE does it state any of this?
Where does it state that Greek, and us knowing/learning it-- is crucial to understanding "what the Bibles core and important messages, really say"?

I will apologize if you can present any.

I really do not think anyone is suggesting that it is incumbent upon every student of scripture to become acquainted with the original languages. Obviously this is neither practical nor necessary. Any language into which the Bible has been translated is going to have some translational difficulties but this does not suggest that these translations are not sufficient to produce faith and maturity. It is however indispensable that there always be those who are skilled in the original languages so that the integrity of all the translations of the world can be maintained.

 

[Reborn]

Um, er, hmmm:

John 5:39 .) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 .) And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.


Um, er, no, wait,............

In my version of the Bible it states (highlighted in red)

John 5:39 .) Search the scriptures; ( before I proceed... I need to add....study Greek and Hebrew, Aramaic and Japanese..... dissect every word of Mine written, ------also use a Websters Dictionary or Strong's, to clarify everything and all My words you read, also, if you don't like a word or phrase look into a bunch of man written books, until you can explain it away to your satisfaction....oh, yeah, side note: 'for ever' only means 'for ever' sometimes. So, Basically trust man, to explain to you what I am really trying to say.) for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.....


Like I've always said, if one wants to do any of these for their personal study-- fine.....but telling others to do/they have to do so, to get the "truth" or "understand" things?
......Sorry, ......it's rubbish.
If not, ....one of the worst lies going around the Christian community.
It's always been about the message.....the message!!!

 

[Reborn]

I really do not think anyone is suggesting that it is incumbent upon every student of scripture to become acquainted with the original languages.

Yes, sadly, a few here do think so.
Some base every one of their debates on this.

 

[oldhermit]

Yes, sadly, a few here do think so.
Some base every one of their debates on this.

Well, since I have had some formal education in Greek I certainly understand the importance of being able or use the original languages. On the other hand, since I have absolutely no understanding of Hebrew I still have sufficient confidence in the translations because of the level of trustworthy scholarship that has produced these translation.

 

[Reborn]

Well, since I have had some formal education in Greek I certainly understand the importance of being able or use the original languages. On the other hand, since I have absolutely no understanding of Hebrew I still have sufficient confidence in the translations because of the level of trustworthy scholarship that has produced these translation.

That's great, and very cool actually.
But what dictates "trustworthy" brother?
Unless you are/were standing in front of the people who were there to witness it all, ...and saw them write the epistles, etc....
then it really is just depending on history/scholars saying that it is "trustworthy".....?

Everything boils down to faith.....faith in man?....faith in God?
I have faith in God.....not scholars.

 

[Willie-T]

I really do not think anyone is suggesting that it is incumbent upon every student of scripture to become acquainted with the original languages. Obviously this is neither practical nor necessary. Any language into which the Bible has been translated is going to have some translational difficulties but this does not suggest that these translations are not sufficient to produce faith and maturity. It is however indispensable that there always be those who are skilled in the original languages so that the integrity of all the translations of the world can be maintained.

But, in reality we see that such integrity is not fully maintained. So, the haggling over the specific meaning (of sometimes dozens of possible choices of particular words) has to go, and the clear, simple message of Christ needs to be brought through all the intellectualism.

 

[oldhermit]

That's great, and very cool actually.
But what dictates "trustworthy" brother?
Unless you are/were standing in front of the people who were there to witness it all, ...and saw them write the epistles, etc....
then it really is just depending on history/scholars saying that it is "trustworthy".....?

Trustworthiness is measured against the body of scholarship as a whole. This does not mean of course that there are not areas where scholars may disagree but this usually presents a small matter. When it comes to translation, even among dead languages, it is not hard to determine accuracy. Most linguistic scholars try very hard to uphold the integrity of the original languages. Oddly enough, this is especially true of those scholars who are nonbelievers. The reason is because they have no religious agendas nor any thological ax to grind. They only thing they care about their reputation as a scholar. Therefore, they are more concerned about getting it right than about defending any particular religious doctrine.

 

[oldhermit]

But, in reality we see that such integrity is not fully maintained. So, the haggling over the specific meaning (of sometimes dozens of possible choices of particular words) has to go, and the clear, simple message of Christ needs to be brought through all the intellectualism.

I think the integrity is pretty well maintained and with each new discovery of ancient MSS our accuracy continues to be weighed in the balance. Yes, there is a great deal of haggling over words in translations and it has been my experience that while some of this is indeed necessary, most of it is rather pointless. The reason for the differences in translations is not always due to nefarious motive. Some of it is simply because any time any language is translated into another there will always be areas where exact translation is not possible because there is not translational equivalent. In such case all one can do is attempt to convey the idea the original word represents the best way we can.

 

[Willie-T]

I think the integrity is pretty well maintained and with each new discovery of ancient MSS our accuracy continues to be weighed in the balance. Yes, there is a great deal of haggling over words in translations and it has been my experience that while some of this is indeed necessary, most of it is rather pointless. The reason for the differences in translations is not always due to nefarious motive. Some of it is simply because any time any language is translated into another there will always be areas where exact translation is not possible because there is not translational equivalent. In such case all one can do is attempt to convey the idea the original word represents the best way we can.

Maybe I'm not being clear.

In Luke 2 where the census is being taken, what is the meaning of the word that describes who was being counted... what geographical area? Were they going to the orient? To the darkest parts of Africa? Or to any of those places Rome was not concerned with? No, they weren't.........

So......... why do you suppose the early scribes chose to make the same word apply to the ENTIRE world when they wrote about the gospel having to be preached to the whole world (or even, "inhabited" world) before the "end of the age" (another confused term) would come? I contend that they did not, But the "translators" wrote it that way.

And, today, as it has been for hundreds of years, it is espoused from thousands of pulpits, that just as soon as we get those missionaries out there, and get the Gospel to that one final, lost pygmy tribe, the end will come. Well, being faithful to the original Scriptures, this was never the intended meaning.

This is the kind of translational butchering I'm talking about.

 

[Reborn]

Trustworthiness is measured against the body of scholarship as a whole. This does not mean of course that there are not areas where scholars may disagree but this usually presents a small matter. When it comes to translation, even among dead languages, it is not hard to determine accuracy. Most linguistic scholars try very hard to uphold the integrity of the original languages. Oddly enough, this is especially true of those scholars who are nonbelievers. The reason is because they have no religious agendas nor any thological ax to grind. They only thing they care about their reputation as a scholar. Therefore, they are more concerned about getting it right than about defending any particular religious doctrine.

Still questionable though right?
This is why I wonder why we even give it special attention then?

To me-- personally?
Man lies to me. All men. Over and over.
Why should I trust anyone, and not trust just God for any answers?
Just my Bible? ...nothing else?

Example: I've been told not read or study Revelation...because I will never understand it, or it's not important.
A lie.
A huge lie.

I have poured over all versions of the Bible, and have found that certain KEY words are in every version.
That is how awesome God is.
Yes, there are some phrases here and there, that are a little different, but the spirit of the message is still always there.
YET, those KEY words, (to me), are ALWAYS in every version?
Why is that?...maybe because anyone trying to corrupt the Bible, or not purposely trying---can't---because they are not aware of their true significance?

The Bible in my hand, alone, is to be trusted...no need to dig further.
They, and Jesus spoke/wrote in a specific language, I get this, but what is 'original' is trivial...or Jesus would have covered it.

The devil is clever.....he does not need to flex his satanic guns to steer people off course.
No need to "Illuminati level it"
he simply is saying.....
"Psst.....hey....that Bible you have in your hand...don't trust it.....keep searching!!!"
It creates confusion and division, and that is all that is needed to throw us off.
Yes, ....no matter what anyone says.....it's clever.

God is all powerful, He created this complex universe....the human mind.
I'm pretty sure He would make sure the Bible in all of our hands would be preserved through the ages.
No matter the version.

Study original languages/text...that's great.....telling others they need to keep digging, or debating with this in mind, is where I think it's wrong.

 

[Angela53510]

In my version of the Bible it states (highlighted in red)

John 5:39 .) Search the scriptures; ( before I proceed... I need to add....study Greek and Hebrew, Aramaic and Japanese..... dissect every word of Mine written, ------also use a Websters Dictionary or Strong's, to clarify everything and all My words you read, also, if you don't like a word or phrase look into a bunch of man written books, until you can explain it away to your satisfaction....oh, yeah, side note: 'for ever' only means 'for ever' sometimes. So, Basically trust man, to explain to you what I am really trying to say.) for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.....


Like I've always said, if one wants to do any of these for their personal study-- fine.....but telling others to do/they have to do so, to get the "truth" or "understand" things?
......Sorry, ......it's rubbish.
If not, ....one of the worst lies going around the Christian community.
It's always been about the message.....the message!!!

I think OldHermit has pretty well covered this topic, but just to add my thoughts. Even a translation carries the message of the gospel in a clear and succinct way. That leaves sinners with no choice but to repent and believe or reject God.

However, when Christians start spouting false doctrines based on dubious translations, then the original languages (not Japanese) can be helpful in sorting through the debate. Of course, too often our personal viewpoints inform our theology, rather than the Bible informing our theology.

And then there are the debates, which no amount of juggling Greek and/or Hebrew can resolve. I guess that is when we just have to trust God that his perfect word will prevail. And gracefully allow those we disagree with to have their own viewpoints, even though it does not agree with us.


PS I do hope people don't think that I believe the gospel needs to be preached in Greek! On the contrary, it is best conveyed in the heart language or vernacular of the person.

 

[Willie-T]

Yep, the Holy Spirit would just be sent to the Pope, and Jerry Falwell, if it wasn't important that EACH OF US have Him inside us to lead us, individually, to all truth.

 

[oldhermit]

Still questionable though right?
This is why I wonder why we even give it special attention then?

To me-- personally?
Man lies to me. All men. Over and over.
Why should I trust anyone, and not trust just God for any answers?
Just my Bible? ...nothing else?

I do understand the fact of human deception and you are right, our trust is not to be in man, not even the scholars. One thing you may want to consider however, is that language is an extended property of God and God is not constrained by translational difficulties. God has chosen to convey his mind to us in the form of written language - the Bible. To suggest that God is unable to preserve his word through the passing of time and countless translations demonstrates a limited perception of God. We have what we have, not because of the profundity of scholarship but because of the grace and the will of God who has not only preserved it for us but has provided those within the body whom he has gifted with the ability to understand those languages and translate them for us. The fact that God has placed such skills within the body shows that the need for this work is both real and necessary. .

 

[Reborn]

I think OldHermit has pretty well covered this topic, but just to add my thoughts. Even a translation carries the message of the gospel in a clear and succinct way. That leaves sinners with no choice but to repent and believe or reject God.

However, when Christians start spouting false doctrines based on dubious translations, then the original languages (not Japanese) can be helpful in sorting through the debate. Of course, too often our personal viewpoints inform our theology, rather than the Bible informing our theology.

And then there are the debates, which no amount of juggling Greek and/or Hebrew can resolve. I guess that is when we just have to trust God that his perfect word will prevail. And gracefully allow those we disagree with to have their own viewpoints, even though it does not agree with us.


PS I do hope people don't think that I believe the gospel needs to be preached in Greek! On the contrary, it is best conveyed in the heart language or vernacular of the person.

Now that OldHermit has you on his side....I will bow out.
I like having a little bit of dignity when I leave a thread....you know too much Angela....thus, you're not fun to play with.
Just kidding..........well, sort of.

 

[Reborn]

Maybe I'm not being clear.

In Luke 2 where the census is being taken, what is the meaning of the word that describes who was being counted... what geographical area? Were they going to the orient? To the darkest parts of Africa? Or to any of those places Rome was not concerned with? No, they weren't.........

So......... why do you suppose the early scribes chose to make the same word apply to the ENTIRE world when they wrote about the gospel having to be preached to the whole world (or even, "inhabited" world) before the "end of the age" (another confused term) would come? I contend that they did not, But the "translators" wrote it that way.

And, today, as it has been for hundreds of years, it is espoused from thousands of pulpits, that just as soon as we get those missionaries out there, and get the Gospel to that one final, lost pygmy tribe, the end will come. Well, being faithful to the original Scriptures, this was never the intended meaning.

This is the kind of translational butchering I'm talking about.

This is interesting.
The first I've ever heard of this, or put this way.

 

[oldhermit]

Maybe I'm not being clear.

In Luke 2 where the census is being taken, what is the meaning of the word that describes who was being counted... what geographical area? Were they going to the orient? To the darkest parts of Africa? Or to any of those places Rome was not concerned with? No, they weren't.........

So......... why do you suppose the early scribes chose to make the same word apply to the ENTIRE world when they wrote about the gospel having to be preached to the whole world (or even, "inhabited" world) before the "end of the age" (another confused term) would come? I contend that they did not, But the "translators" wrote it that way.

And, today, as it has been for hundreds of years, it is espoused from thousands of pulpits, that just as soon as we get those missionaries out there, and get the Gospel to that one final, lost pygmy tribe, the end will come. Well, being faithful to the original Scriptures, this was never the intended meaning.

This is the kind of translational butchering I'm talking about.

First of all the word οἰκουμένη means literally the inhabited. The implication is that it refers to the inhabited land, earth, or world. οἰκουμένη really refers to a given population. Which population must be determined by its use in the context. Since Luke 2 is talking about a census for the purpose of taxation it is then limited to all the population that is subject to the power of the Roman government to tax.

As this far as this referring to the preaching of the gospel we have a number of texts that tell us that this was accomplished as early as 58 AD.

 

[Willie-T]

First of all the word οἰκουμένη means literally the inhabited. The implication is that it refers to the inhabited land, earth, or world. οἰκουμένη really refers to a given population. Which population must be determined by its use in the context. Since Luke 2 is talking about a census for the purpose of taxation it is then limited to all the population that is subject to the power of the Roman government to tax.

As this far as this referring to the preaching of the gospel we have a number of texts that tell us that this was accomplished as early as 58 AD.

I can see you and I may be in that same eschatological camp (And I suspect we had best just leave it at that... ), but my point is that none of those "implications" and assumed contextual applications were clearly conveyed in the woefully inadequately translated words, "whole world"...... leaving billions of people to think they are being told, "the whole world."

 

[oldhermit]

I can see you and I may be in that same eschatological camp (And I suspect we had best just leave it at that... ), but my point is that none of those "implications" and assumed contextual applications were clearly conveyed in the woefully inadequately translated words, "whole world"...... leaving billions of people to think they are being told, "the whole world."

This is what I was talking about earlier. There is no corresponding English word in Luke 2:1 for the word "world." The implication of οἰκουμένη to those of that period would have been understood and no explanation would have been necessary. This word only appears about a dozen times in scripture and is almost always rendered as either world or inhabited world and sometimes as earth. The context will always define the limitations of what οἰκουμένη refers to. Whenever we encounter absolute phrases in the Bible such as "all" or "every" the inclusiveness of these will always be defined by context. Sometimes these absolutes are limited in scope.

 

[Willie-T]

This is what I was talking about earlier. There is no corresponding English word in Luke 2:1 for the word "world." The implication of οἰκουμένη to those of that period would have been understood and no explanation would have been necessary. This word only appears about a dozen times in scripture and is almost always rendered as either world or inhabited world and sometimes as earth. The context will always define the limitations of what οἰκουμένη refers to. Whenever we encounter absolute phrases in the Bible such as "all" or "every" the inclusiveness of these will always be defined by context. Sometimes these absolutes are limited in scope.

Uh..... you seem to still be staying with the "original" languages, and I am faulting the translators for "assuming" that their readers would somehow know how people thought 1500 years before the translations were made.