Any questions about the Jehovah's witness faith?

[Love God]

True, we are saved by God's undeserved grace, but Jesus I find teaches us at what point we are ' saved ' as per Matthew 24:13.
We must endure to the end in order to be saved.
Even at 1 Corinthians 10:12 we are cautioned to take heed lest we should fall ( so one could fall away or loose out on salvation)

I would think any dictionary could give us the definition meaning of ' convert '.

it has been my experience that most all religions run to Matthew to prove their doctrine.

who wrote Matthew?
When was it written?
To whom was he writing?

What is a testament?
When does a ‘testament’ come into effect?

(“For where a testament is,
there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead:
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:16-17‬ ‭KJV‬‬)

Jesus was still alive in Matthew. The book of Matthew also reads:

“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying,
Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:5-6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

How do you reconcile that verse, if it exists in your scripture?

If my understanding is correct, Matthew was written by a Jew for the Jews still under the Jewish OT law.
As I understand it, Jesus was a Jew living under Jewish OT law.
I could not find one ‘Christian’ in Matthew. They were OT Jews...
The new doctrine of ‘saved by the blood of Christ and his grace’ doesn’t seem to take effect until after death...when the ‘new’ testament can then be read?

I do not know when Christian first appears in your version, but in my bible the disciples were first called ‘Christians’ in Antioch: Acts 11:26.

And it seems from Acts 12 on, Paul becomes the main character...
As the last half of the book of Acts then becomes focused on Paul and his journeys.
And then the next 13 books (Romans-Philemon) that follow are written by Paul.

Are the books written by Paul in your scriptures?

Joy

“How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery;
(as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read,
*ye may understand my knowledge*
in the mystery of Christ)

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,

as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body,
and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given,
that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery,

which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God,

who created all things by Jesus Christ:

To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places

*might be known by the church*

the manifold wisdom of God,
According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭3:3-11‬ ‭KJV‬‬

So how is Jesus being alive and living under Jewish OT law the same as the gospel being shown to Paul (New Testament) after Jesus died? According to scripture?

 

[paarsurrey]

It is quite possible that Jesus spoke Aramaic, there is a lot of debate on which language he spoke. As far as Jehovah's witnesses know, no part of the original writings exist. The Bible that existed in Jesus' day was the Greek Septuagint, and actually some pieces of copies dating to his time period still exist.

It is not correct about the 4 Gospels, these did not exist in Jesus times:

"Septuagint" is derived from the Latin phrase versio septuaginta interpretum ("translation of the seventy interpreters"), which was derived from the Ancient Greek: Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, romanized: hē metáphrasis tōn hebdomḗkonta, lit. 'The Translation of the Seventy'.[12] It was not until the time of Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) that the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures was called by the Latin term Septuaginta.[13] The Roman numeral LXX (seventy) is commonly used as an abbreviation, in addition to {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {G}}}

[14] or G.
Septuagint - Wikipedia
Kinldy correct yourself and request the JWs to correct their official records also, please. Right?

Regards

 

[Deeje]

Good questions...if I may volunteer a response...? @URAVIP2ME is part of my brotherhood so we enjoy the same faith and beliefs.

it has been my experience that most all religions run to Matthew to prove their doctrine.

who wrote Matthew?
When was it written?
To whom was he writing?

What is a testament?
When does a ‘testament’ come into effect?

(“For where a testament is,
there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead:
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:16-17‬ ‭KJV‬‬)

Jesus was still alive in Matthew. The book of Matthew also reads:

“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying,
Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:5-6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

How do you reconcile that verse, if it exists in your scripture?

If you only read the KJV, you will be stunted in your understanding.
The word "testimony" here is a little misleading IMO.

In Greek (yes, I must refer back to the Greek because it was the common language of the Christian scriptures) it is "diathēkē" which means a "covenant", not just a "testament".
Someone's "last will and testament" conveys that sort of meaning....that a will is only valid when the person has died. So, the old covenant which was inaugurated by Moses was done away with when Jesus introduced the "new covenant" on the night before his death.

If you read that portion of scripture in context, it says...
"That is why he is a mediator of a new covenant, in order that because a death has occurred for their release by ransom from the transgressions under the former covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance. 16 For where there is a covenant, the death of the human covenanter needs to be established, 17 because a covenant is valid at death, since it is not in force as long as the human covenanter is living."

When Paul wrote that Jesus had died. Do you see what a modern translation gives you? Context is everything.
Paul was converted after Jesus' death.

If my understanding is correct, Matthew was written by a Jew for the Jews still under the Jewish OT law.
As I understand it, Jesus was a Jew living under Jewish OT law.
I could not find one ‘Christian’ in Matthew. They were OT Jews...
The new doctrine of ‘saved by the blood of Christ and his grace’ doesn’t seem to take effect until after death...when the ‘new’ testament can then be read?

All of the first Christians were Jews....because God gave his people first option to become a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" as he promised.....but when they rejected his Christ, he rejected them. (Exodus 19:4-6; Matthew 23:37-39)
So in Acts 15:14 we see what God did next...
"Symʹe·on (Simon Peter) has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name."

Gentiles would now be added to that priesthood...and become part of that holy nation....taken into the "new covenant".

I do not know when Christian first appears in your version, but in my bible the disciples were first called ‘Christians’ in Antioch: Acts 11:26.

And it seems from Acts 12 on, Paul becomes the main character...
As the last half of the book of Acts then becomes focused on Paul and his journeys.
And then the next 13 books (Romans-Philemon) that follow are written by Paul.

Are the books written by Paul in your scriptures?

Definitely. What would the Christians scriptures be without Paul's contribution? Humans did not choose what is contained in the Bible...remember, it is "God's word" not men's. No man or church can take credit for the Bible, regardless of who was used to compile it.

So how is Jesus being alive and living under Jewish OT law the same as the gospel being shown to Paul (New Testament) after Jesus died? According to scripture?

Jesus, while he was alive on earth was 100% Jewish, sent only to the Jewish people (not to their wicked leaders whom he had already condemned to "gehenna" which is eternal death)...to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" were lost because their negligent shepherds had not bothered to search for those "lost sheep" like Jesus did. This showed that they were still worthy in God's eyes to hear the gospel and come into the "new covenant" arrangement that Jesus would institute just before his death.

There is so much you appear not to understand, but since you have sought no guidance, there appears to be no way to correct those misunderstandings. I am sad about that because Jesus told us to share our knowledge because, like his Father, he wants everyone to have the same opportunity to be saved. (2 Peter 3:9)

What is it that we are getting saved from according to your beliefs?

 

[Love God]

Good questions...if I may volunteer a response...? @URAVIP2ME is part of my brotherhood so we enjoy the same faith and beliefs.



If you only read the KJV, you will be stunted in your understanding.
The word "testimony" here is a little misleading IMO.

In Greek (yes, I must refer back to the Greek because it was the common language of the Christian scriptures) it is "diathēkē" which means a "covenant", not just a "testament".
Someone's "last will and testament" conveys that sort of meaning....that a will is only valid when the person has died. So, the old covenant which was inaugurated by Moses was done away with when Jesus introduced the "new covenant" on the night before his death.

If you read that portion of scripture in context, it says...
"That is why he is a mediator of a new covenant, in order that because a death has occurred for their release by ransom from the transgressions under the former covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance. 16 For where there is a covenant, the death of the human covenanter needs to be established, 17 because a covenant is valid at death, since it is not in force as long as the human covenanter is living."

When Paul wrote that Jesus had died. Do you see what a modern translation gives you? Context is everything.
Paul was converted after Jesus' death.



All of the first Christians were Jews....because God gave his people first option to become a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" as he promised.....but when they rejected his Christ, he rejected them. (Exodus 19:4-6; Matthew 23:37-39)
So in Acts 15:14 we see what God did next...
"Symʹe·on (Simon Peter) has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name."

Gentiles would now be added to that priesthood...and become part of that holy nation....taken into the "new covenant".



Definitely. What would the Christians scriptures be without Paul's contribution? Humans did not choose what is contained in the Bible...remember, it is "God's word" not men's. No man or church can take credit for the Bible, regardless of who was used to compile it.



Jesus, while he was alive on earth was 100% Jewish, sent only to the Jewish people (not to their wicked leaders whom he had already condemned to "gehenna" which is eternal death)...to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" were lost because their negligent shepherds had not bothered to search for those "lost sheep" like Jesus did. This showed that they were still worthy in God's eyes to hear the gospel and come into the "new covenant" arrangement that Jesus would institute just before his death.

There is so much you appear not to understand, but since you have sought no guidance, there appears to be no way to correct those misunderstandings. I am sad about that because Jesus told us to share our knowledge because, like his Father, he wants everyone to have the same opportunity to be saved. (2 Peter 3:9)

What is it that we are getting saved from according to your beliefs?

when I started my journey, I was under the misguided thinking that I would read all the ‘bibles’ and decide which bible ‘I like’.
What about the bible ‘God likes’?

there are over 300 versions of the ‘bible’ in the English language, all claiming to be better... better than what?!
(All of them compare themselves to one book... I wonder which book that could be...)

if I remember correctly, and I am not a copyright attorney (so any that are, feel free to correct me if I err!), in order to hold copyright on a book without it being plagiarized, it must be 25% different than ‘the original’.
If my numbers are correct, that is 300+ ‘bibles’. All holding copyright. Each one being 25% different from the original AND from each other!

(what manner of confusion is this?)

The only bible that any can quote freely, without having to write to the Author for permission to quote, turns out to be one book. No one has to write to any man for permission to quote any, or even all, of its verses.

the only thing my stunted brain can think of at this point is ‘God wants his word spread freely’.

that is some stunted thinking for real...

IMO it must be such a tiresome journey to have to continually run to a foreign language and correct a god that cannot get his story straight...

on the other hand, look at all the power and ego gratification one wields if they can ‘control’ God and claim to know ‘what he really meant to say’...

when I look at someone claiming that they can correct God, and only he knows what God meant, seems to me that it should be an huge red flag to get out of Dodge.

As in run.

I personally, am a fan of God that speaks to anyone. How he sees fit. On their level. In their language.

let me ask you this:

Does lying mean the ‘same thing’ in any
language? Or must I run to you so that you can tell me I must know the Greek to understand what God meant by ‘Thou shalt not lie’...?

I will answer your question again according to my uncopyrighted free version that stunts my brain:

“But now being made free from sin,
and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness,
and the end everlasting life.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭6:22‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Joy

“...but the word of God is not bound.”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2:9‬ ‭KJV‬‬ (what? God speaks freely and holds no copyright?)

“And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭18:11‬ ‭KJV‬‬ (word of God? God has words?)

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
it shall not return unto me void,
but it shall accomplish that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭55:11‬ ‭KJV‬‬ (Is God fooling with us? Words that accomplish something for him? Words that he makes prosper...? How can this be?)

It does seem that words are very important... but whose?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

it has been my experience that most all religions run to Matthew to prove their doctrine.

who wrote Matthew?
When was it written?
To whom was he writing?

What is a testament?
When does a ‘testament’ come into effect?

(“For where a testament is,
there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead:
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:16-17‬ ‭KJV‬‬)

Jesus was still alive in Matthew. The book of Matthew also reads:

“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying,
Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:5-6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

How do you reconcile that verse, if it exists in your scripture?

If my understanding is correct, Matthew was written by a Jew for the Jews still under the Jewish OT law.
As I understand it, Jesus was a Jew living under Jewish OT law.
I could not find one ‘Christian’ in Matthew. They were OT Jews...
The new doctrine of ‘saved by the blood of Christ and his grace’ doesn’t seem to take effect until after death...when the ‘new’ testament can then be read?

I do not know when Christian first appears in your version, but in my bible the disciples were first called ‘Christians’ in Antioch: Acts 11:26.

And it seems from Acts 12 on, Paul becomes the main character...
As the last half of the book of Acts then becomes focused on Paul and his journeys.
And then the next 13 books (Romans-Philemon) that follow are written by Paul.

Are the books written by Paul in your scriptures?

Joy

“How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery;
(as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read,
*ye may understand my knowledge*
in the mystery of Christ)

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,

as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body,
and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given,
that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery,

which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God,

who created all things by Jesus Christ:

To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places

*might be known by the church*

the manifold wisdom of God,
According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭3:3-11‬ ‭KJV‬‬

So how is Jesus being alive and living under Jewish OT law the same as the gospel being shown to Paul (New Testament) after Jesus died? According to scripture?

Information can be found at www.jw.org
Could we deal with just one question at time __________

 

[URAVIP2ME]

when I started my journey, I was under the misguided thinking that I would read all the ‘bibles’ and decide which bible ‘I like’.
What about the bible ‘God likes’?

there are over 300 versions of the ‘bible’ in the English language, all claiming to be better... better than what?!
(All of them compare themselves to one book... I wonder which book that could be...)

if I remember correctly, and I am not a copyright attorney (so any that are, feel free to correct me if I err!), in order to hold copyright on a book without it being plagiarized, it must be 25% different than ‘the original’.
If my numbers are correct, that is 300+ ‘bibles’. All holding copyright. Each one being 25% different from the original AND from each other!

(what manner of confusion is this?)

The only bible that any can quote freely, without having to write to the Author for permission to quote, turns out to be one book. No one has to write to any man for permission to quote any, or even all, of its verses.

the only thing my stunted brain can think of at this point is ‘God wants his word spread freely’.

that is some stunted thinking for real...

IMO it must be such a tiresome journey to have to continually run to a foreign language and correct a god that cannot get his story straight...

on the other hand, look at all the power and ego gratification one wields if they can ‘control’ God and claim to know ‘what he really meant to say’...

when I look at someone claiming that they can correct God, and only he knows what God meant, seems to me that it should be an huge red flag to get out of Dodge.

As in run.

I personally, am a fan of God that speaks to anyone. How he sees fit. On their level. In their language.

let me ask you this:

Does lying mean the ‘same thing’ in any
language? Or must I run to you so that you can tell me I must know the Greek to understand what God meant by ‘Thou shalt not lie’...?

I will answer your question again according to my uncopyrighted free version that stunts my brain:

“But now being made free from sin,
and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness,
and the end everlasting life.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭6:22‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Joy

“...but the word of God is not bound.”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2:9‬ ‭KJV‬‬ (what? God speaks freely and holds no copyright?)

“And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭18:11‬ ‭KJV‬‬ (word of God? God has words?)

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
it shall not return unto me void,
but it shall accomplish that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭55:11‬ ‭KJV‬‬ (Is God fooling with us? Words that accomplish something for him? Words that he makes prosper...? How can this be?)

It does seem that words are very important... but whose?

Whose words are very important (?) according to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is that the God of the Bible is its Author.
I find there can be a difference between what is called a version and a translation.
It is the ancient manuscripts that support Bible canon.
So, versions / translations can be compared to the ancient manuscripts.
Because of the internal harmony among the Bible writers (66 Bible books) is why the apocryphal books simply exclude themselves.

 

[paarsurrey]

when I started my journey, I was under the misguided thinking that I would read all the ‘bibles’ and decide which bible ‘I like’.
What about the bible ‘God likes’?

there are over 300 versions of the ‘bible’ in the English language, all claiming to be better... better than what?!
(All of them compare themselves to one book... I wonder which book that could be...)

if I remember correctly, and I am not a copyright attorney (so any that are, feel free to correct me if I err!), in order to hold copyright on a book without it being plagiarized, it must be 25% different than ‘the original’.
If my numbers are correct, that is 300+ ‘bibles’. All holding copyright. Each one being 25% different from the original AND from each other!

(what manner of confusion is this?)

The only bible that any can quote freely, without having to write to the Author for permission to quote, turns out to be one book. No one has to write to any man for permission to quote any, or even all, of its verses.

the only thing my stunted brain can think of at this point is ‘God wants his word spread freely’.

that is some stunted thinking for real...

IMO it must be such a tiresome journey to have to continually run to a foreign language and correct a god that cannot get his story straight...

on the other hand, look at all the power and ego gratification one wields if they can ‘control’ God and claim to know ‘what he really meant to say’...

when I look at someone claiming that they can correct God, and only he knows what God meant, seems to me that it should be an huge red flag to get out of Dodge.

As in run.

I personally, am a fan of God that speaks to anyone. How he sees fit. On their level. In their language.

let me ask you this:

Does lying mean the ‘same thing’ in any
language? Or must I run to you so that you can tell me I must know the Greek to understand what God meant by ‘Thou shalt not lie’...?

I will answer your question again according to my uncopyrighted free version that stunts my brain:

“But now being made free from sin,
and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness,
and the end everlasting life.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭6:22‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Joy

“...but the word of God is not bound.”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2:9‬ ‭KJV‬‬ (what? God speaks freely and holds no copyright?)

“And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭18:11‬ ‭KJV‬‬ (word of God? God has words?)

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
it shall not return unto me void,
but it shall accomplish that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭55:11‬ ‭KJV‬‬ (Is God fooling with us? Words that accomplish something for him? Words that he makes prosper...? How can this be?)

It does seem that words are very important... but whose?

Love God , " when I started my journey, I was under the misguided thinking that I would read all the ‘bibles’ and decide which bible ‘I like’.
What about the bible ‘God likes’?

there are over 300 versions of the ‘bible’ in the English language, all claiming to be better... better than what?!
(All of them compare themselves to one book... I wonder which book that could be...)"

There is not a single version of Christian 4 Gospels that Jesus read from and liked it and asked others to read from. Neither the old Pauline-Christian denominations (Catholics and Protestants), nor the new one's (JWs, LDS, Bahaism) who have the creed that "Jesus died a cursed death on the Cross" have even the original Aramaic 4 Gospels with them , the language Jesus and Mary spoke, I figure. Right? All the existent 4 Gospels and all versions of it are ,therefore, unreliable, I understand. Right?

Regards

 

[Deeje]

when I started my journey, I was under the misguided thinking that I would read all the ‘bibles’ and decide which bible ‘I like’.
What about the bible ‘God likes’?

Do you believe that there is an enemy standing in the wings plotting how to undo the faith we have in God? How do you think he plans his deceptions? Will they be obvious? Glaring? In your face lies? Or does he do better with subtlety? Is the one deceived, aware of it? How do you enlighten yourself? You do your homework.

When I first started studying the Bible, it was my little illustrated KJV given to me by my grandmother when I was 10 years old. It was the only Bible I trusted, and as my studies progressed, I dared to compare the renderings of my KJV with more modern English translations and found that the archaic English was a real impediment to my understanding, using phrases and words that no longer exist in today’s English.
But the one thing I did come to understand was that the message was not altered....it is God’s word and no matter the language, that never changed....he would not allow it.

if I remember correctly, and I am not a copyright attorney (so any that are, feel free to correct me if I err!), in order to hold copyright on a book without it being plagiarized, it must be 25% different than ‘the original’.
If my numbers are correct, that is 300+ ‘bibles’. All holding copyright. Each one being 25% different from the original AND from each other!

Has it occurred to you that “25% different” could well be changes in English phraseology? I’d be surprised if it was only 25% TBH.

But the one thing I noticed when I compared passages of scripture, was that the gist was the same. Because the original languages of the Bible were Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, it is enlightening to consult a concordance like Strongs to ascertain if the translation has been correctly rendered or has been been incorrectly translated to support a doctrine like the trinity. Just compare....what have you got to lose?

(what manner of confusion is this?)

Confusion is the devil’s playground. If he can cause confusion, he will. What better way to do that than have men fiddle with the translation of our only guidebook?

The only bible that any can quote freely, without having to write to the Author for permission to quote, turns out to be one book. No one has to write to any man for permission to quote any, or even all, of its verses.

the only thing my stunted brain can think of at this point is ‘God wants his word spread freely’.

that is some stunted thinking for real...

It’s difficult to climb over you acute defensiveness.....which sees any kind of correction or information as some kind of insult to your intelligence. I’m genuinely sorry for whatever is responsible for that because I am not your adversary.....I would like to be of help.

IMO it must be such a tiresome journey to have to continually run to a foreign language and correct a god that cannot get his story straight...

On the contrary, it is very satisfying to research these things with an open mind. Are you afraid to learn things that might argue with your own views? You have nothing to fear from the truth. Search for it, but don’t ever think that there is no room for adjustment in your thinking. A closed mind will result in a closed heart.

on the other hand, look at all the power and ego gratification one wields if they can ‘control’ God and claim to know ‘what he really meant to say’...

Our choice of translation will be personal, but God is not found in a translation....only God can reveal the true meaning of scripture, no matter what translation we use. But more modern English is an aid to greater understanding IMO.

when I look at someone claiming that they can correct God, and only he knows what God meant, seems to me that it should be an huge red flag to get out of Dodge.

As in run.

“Claiming to correct God”? You really believe that research into the original languages and phraseology is a bad thing when the whole purpose of translation is to make the Bible understandable in any language? As scholars become better acquainted with the original languages, more modern translations reflect that study and research. I believe that you are basing your conclusions on a flawed premise.

I personally, am a fan of God that speaks to anyone. How he sees fit. On their level. In their language.

Me too.

let me ask you this:

Does lying mean the ‘same thing’ in any
language? Or must I run to you so that you can tell me I must know the Greek to understand what God meant by ‘Thou shalt not lie’...?

Let me ask you.....are you shutting down reason to maintain your own views?

If for example I offer you Matthew 19:14 KJV....
“14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”....and if you ever find yourself in an old cemetery you will often see these words on children’s gravestones, early to mid last century. Did the children need to suffer to go to Jesus? Many apparently thought so.....is that what Jesus said?

I will answer your question again according to my uncopyrighted free version that stunts my brain:

Is that what I said? If that is what you heard, then no wonder you are defensive.

“But now being made free from sin,
and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness,
and the end everlasting life.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭6:22‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Or in more modern English.....
“However, now that you were set free from sin and became slaves to God, you are producing your fruit in the way of holiness, and the end is everlasting life.”

Does the modern English convey falsehood in some way? All I ask is that you compare. If the old English is misleading with phraseology and words that is no longer used, then what threat are they to your beliefs?

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you believe that there is an enemy standing in the wings plotting how to undo the faith we have in God? How do you think he plans his deceptions? Will they be obvious? Glaring? In your face lies? Or does he do better with subtlety? Is the one deceived, aware of it? How do you enlighten yourself? You do your homework.

When I first started studying the Bible, it was my little illustrated KJV given to me by my grandmother when I was 10 years old. It was the only Bible I trusted, and as my studies progressed, I dared to compare the renderings of my KJV with more modern English translations and found that the archaic English was a real impediment to my understanding, using phrases and words that no longer exist in today’s English.
But the one thing I did come to understand was that the message was not altered....it is God’s word and no matter the language, that never changed....he would not allow it.



Has it occurred to you that “25% different” could well be changes in English phraseology? I’d be surprised if it was only 25% TBH.

But the one thing I noticed when I compared passages of scripture, was that the gist was the same. Because the original languages of the Bible were Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, it is enlightening to consult a concordance like Strongs to ascertain if the translation has been correctly rendered or has been been incorrectly translated to support a doctrine like the trinity. Just compare....what have you got to lose?



Confusion is the devil’s playground. If he can cause confusion, he will. What better way to do that than have men fiddle with the translation of our only guidebook?



It’s difficult to climb over you acute defensiveness.....which sees any kind of correction or information as some kind of insult to your intelligence. I’m genuinely sorry for whatever is responsible for that because I am not your adversary.....I would like to be of help.



On the contrary, it is very satisfying to research these things with an open mind. Are you afraid to learn things that might argue with your own views? You have nothing to fear from the truth. Search for it, but don’t ever think that there is no room for adjustment in your thinking. A closed mind will result in a closed heart.



Our choice of translation will be personal, but God is not found in a translation....only God can reveal the true meaning of scripture, no matter what translation we use. But more modern English is an aid to greater understanding IMO.



“Claiming to correct God”? You really believe that research into the original languages and phraseology is a bad thing when the whole purpose of translation is to make the Bible understandable in any language? As scholars become better acquainted with the original languages, more modern translations reflect that study and research. I believe that you are basing your conclusions on a flawed premise.



Me too.


Let me ask you.....are you shutting down reason to maintain your own views?

If for example I offer you Matthew 19:14 KJV....
“14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”....and if you ever find yourself in an old cemetery you will often see these words on children’s gravestones, early to mid last century. Did the children need to suffer to go to Jesus? Many apparently thought so.....is that what Jesus said?


Is that what I said? If that is what you heard, then no wonder you are defensive.



Or in more modern English.....
“However, now that you were set free from sin and became slaves to God, you are producing your fruit in the way of holiness, and the end is everlasting life.”

Does the modern English convey falsehood in some way? All I ask is that you compare. If the old English is misleading with phraseology and words that is no longer used, then what threat are they to your beliefs?

Deeje wrote. Quote:" But the one thing I noticed when I compared passages of scripture, was that the gist was the same. Because the original languages of the Bible were Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, it is enlightening to consult a concordance like Strongs to ascertain if the translation has been correctly rendered or has been been incorrectly translated to support a doctrine like the trinity. Just compare....what have you got to lose?" Unquote

I get , as for the 4 Gospels there is no original "Hebrew, Aramaic and or Koine Greek" text of these that innocent Jesus and or innocent Mary ever used to read from, please . Right?

It is outright incorrect to say that there was any of these 4 Gospels in Jesus life time before the event of the Cross and or after it within 40 days of the event when hiding from the public innocent Jesus secretly migrated from Galilee out of Judea fearing the cruel hands of the Jews of that time and out the hands of the Roman Empire, lest Jesus is arrested again and tortured to death from which he had fortunately survived as Jesus had prayed for it in the garden and right on the Cross, please, I understand. Right?

Dissatisfied, as JWs were with KJV and the Roman Catholic versions of the 4 Gospels they ventured to bring out one of their own and which is now known as "New World Translation", I figure. Right?

I can't say with certainty as to what version of the 4 Gospels the LDs read from and whether JWs also follow Book of Mormon or not, please. Right?

Regards

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hey @paarsurrey ! How are you? Hope you and yours are doing well.

To answer your question, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not follow the Book of Mormon.
Of the many writings that are considered holy texts, we find the Bible alone, in context, answers all our questions!

 

[paarsurrey]

Hey @paarsurrey ! How are you? Hope you and yours are doing well.

To answer your question, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not follow the Book of Mormon.
Of the many writings that are considered holy texts, we find the Bible alone, in context, answers all our questions!

I am fine sir! How is one, please? May "God-the-Father" bless one. Right?
Is one a non-denominational Pauline-Christian or a yet another JW who read more, I understand, from the Watch-Tower Magazine than they read and understand the 4 Gospels, please? Right?
I am afraid, if the JWs won't read the Book of Mormon, the LDS my reciprocate it by not reading the Watch-Tower Magazine, please. Right?

Regards

 

[Love God]

The

Whose words are very important (?) according to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is that the God of the Bible is its Author.
I find there can be a difference between what is called a version and a translation.
It is the ancient manuscripts that support Bible canon.
So, versions / translations can be compared to the ancient manuscripts.
Because of the internal harmony among the Bible writers (66 Bible books) is why the apocryphal books simply exclude themselves.

My area of ‘expertise’ is not ancient manuscripts.
My life is such I am not in the position to ‘learn everything’.
I possess rudimentary knowledge of manuscript evidence, not in depth.

here is what I understand:

there are two lines of manuscripts:

1. Alexandrian. (Out of Egypt. *Out of Egypt have I called my son*.) this is the line of manuscripts of most all modern versions.

(Bibles translated since 1898 use the Nestle's Greek New Testament, collation of Alexandrian texts. This includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, etc.
www.billkochman.com › textused
Texts That Are Used in Bible Translations)

2. Antiocheian. (Hebrew *as in Jewish* line of manuscripts. Where the disciples were first called Christian.)

(In Biblical textual criticism, the Byzantine text-type (also called Majority Text, Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, or Syrian Text) is one of several text-types of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. It is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts.
en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Byzanti...
Byzantine text-type - Wikipedia)

when I first started to understand the ‘arguments’ about manuscripts and translations, I ran across an interesting statement: if a Jew cannot follow along with (agree with) the OT in the bible you have, then it must be corrupt.

what was meant by that? That it must pass Jewish scrutiny? As I researched that issue I came to understand: Because Jewish scriptures must be accurate.
As I understand it, the Jews were meticulous when it came to writing and copying of the scriptures.
I understand it took an experienced scribe around one and an half years to copy the scriptures.
If an error was made, it had to be destroyed. I think, if I remember, by burning. Any one of the Jewish faith could weigh in on this?

“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Much every way:
chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:1-2‬ ‭KJV‬‬

So i deduced that if most all bibles differ, but more specifically the OT, then which bible(s) would a Jew be able to follow?... (now that’s a question!)

And some other interesting things I thought about:

If God called his son out of Egypt and Joseph’s bones were taken out of Egypt and the Jews were at one time enslaved in Egypt, and in the bible Egypt is a type of the world, then the manuscripts out of Egypt must be problematic?
And if the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch, then maybe that the Antiocheian line of manuscripts might hold some weight?

Here is some food for thought:
Does God keep his word? Is God able to keep his word?

I think that is why God does not use religions and why he is now calling each one personally. That his words tend to get all bound up and obscured by ‘arguments’ that religions tend to engage in.
IMO religions tend to use all of the exact same obfuscations, wherein, however, I find God’s words to be plain.

For example:

“And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20:1-6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

From my personal experience, as I made reference to above, I am able to tie together the ‘Egypt’ references from the many verses outlined in the bible.

Also,
If one wanted to research the other ideas addressed in the above verses:

If God says to love only him or else things happen... have you gone through the bible to see if, indeed, any of those things happened to any not loving God?
Seriously?

What of the ‘third and fourth generation’ statement? Are there any examples in the bible on that? Do you know?

And then there seems to be the whole ‘graven image’ thing that needs looked into...?!
What a book!

I guess it really depends on how one approaches ‘faith’?
Does the bible stand on its own?

I know it was a shock for me to realize that the bible states that I am responsible for my own learning and understanding. That was news to me having come from a religious upbringing that taught otherwise. That has been my experience about ‘faith and the bible’.

Joy

“But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren,...”
‭‭1 Thessalonians‬ ‭4:13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Love God]

Love God , " when I started my journey, I was under the misguided thinking that I would read all the ‘bibles’ and decide which bible ‘I like’.
What about the bible ‘God likes’?

there are over 300 versions of the ‘bible’ in the English language, all claiming to be better... better than what?!
(All of them compare themselves to one book... I wonder which book that could be...)"

There is not a single version of Christian 4 Gospels that Jesus read from and liked it and asked others to read from. Neither the old Pauline-Christian denominations (Catholics and Protestants), nor the new one's (JWs, LDS, Bahaism) who have the creed that "Jesus died a cursed death on the Cross" have even the original Aramaic 4 Gospels with them , the language Jesus and Mary spoke, I figure. Right? All the existent 4 Gospels and all versions of it are ,therefore, unreliable, I understand. Right?

Regards

I get what you mean.

let me ask you something:

does the ‘original Quran’ exist? There is no ‘original’ bible.

For arguments sake, let’s say the ‘original writings’ exist. Let’s use Moses in our example. Or if you like, we can insert Mohammed’s writings here (although, as I understand it, he wrote nothing as he was illiterate?)
Anyway.

so the ‘originals’ exist and I am in possession of them. I own them.

but you want them. You really desire to have the originals for yourself...

HOW MUCH WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PAY TO OWN THE ORIGINAL WRITINGS?

Wouldn’t it be somewhat akin to owning an original Van Gogh or the first model A car or some Louis the XIII furniture or whatever item that’s desired and is the ‘original’.
Like an hotel claiming ‘Lincoln slept here’...

It seems mankind tends to emphasize:
A. Money/material things
B. Status/importance/power
C. Self/ego

How rich would you have to be (and powerful! Let’s not forget powerful!) to own the originals?
And how prestigious you would be to those around you if you had the originals?
How would you feel about yourself if you had the originals... blessed by God (Allah) among all the others!
Imagine!

Jesus in his day, had not one original scripture to read from. Not one.
The scriptures that Jesus referred to were all copies of copies of copies.
There is no value, according to man, of copies. Or ‘knock-offs’ if you will.
You wouldn’t pay ‘good money’ for a fake Van Gogh...

so now, there are nothing but murmurings and disputing and confusion about what is ‘real’ or not and why should anyone believe a ‘knock-off’...

you stated that you have read the bible?
What is the first question asked in the bible?
Do you know?

please and thanks!

all peace and much

Joy


“Come now, and let us reason together,
saith the Lord: ...”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭1:18‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Love God]

Information can be found at www.jw.org
Could we deal with just one question at time __________

Yes.
I like the issue of Matthew?

who wrote Matthew?

please and thanks.

Joy


“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22:37‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Love God]

Do you believe that there is an enemy standing in the wings plotting how to undo the faith we have in God? How do you think he plans his deceptions? Will they be obvious? Glaring? In your face lies? Or does he do better with subtlety? Is the one deceived, aware of it? How do you enlighten yourself? You do your homework.

When I first started studying the Bible, it was my little illustrated KJV given to me by my grandmother when I was 10 years old. It was the only Bible I trusted, and as my studies progressed, I dared to compare the renderings of my KJV with more modern English translations and found that the archaic English was a real impediment to my understanding, using phrases and words that no longer exist in today’s English.
But the one thing I did come to understand was that the message was not altered....it is God’s word and no matter the language, that never changed....he would not allow it.



Has it occurred to you that “25% different” could well be changes in English phraseology? I’d be surprised if it was only 25% TBH.

But the one thing I noticed when I compared passages of scripture, was that the gist was the same. Because the original languages of the Bible were Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, it is enlightening to consult a concordance like Strongs to ascertain if the translation has been correctly rendered or has been been incorrectly translated to support a doctrine like the trinity. Just compare....what have you got to lose?



Confusion is the devil’s playground. If he can cause confusion, he will. What better way to do that than have men fiddle with the translation of our only guidebook?



It’s difficult to climb over you acute defensiveness.....which sees any kind of correction or information as some kind of insult to your intelligence. I’m genuinely sorry for whatever is responsible for that because I am not your adversary.....I would like to be of help.



On the contrary, it is very satisfying to research these things with an open mind. Are you afraid to learn things that might argue with your own views? You have nothing to fear from the truth. Search for it, but don’t ever think that there is no room for adjustment in your thinking. A closed mind will result in a closed heart.



Our choice of translation will be personal, but God is not found in a translation....only God can reveal the true meaning of scripture, no matter what translation we use. But more modern English is an aid to greater understanding IMO.



“Claiming to correct God”? You really believe that research into the original languages and phraseology is a bad thing when the whole purpose of translation is to make the Bible understandable in any language? As scholars become better acquainted with the original languages, more modern translations reflect that study and research. I believe that you are basing your conclusions on a flawed premise.



Me too.


Let me ask you.....are you shutting down reason to maintain your own views?

If for example I offer you Matthew 19:14 KJV....
“14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”....and if you ever find yourself in an old cemetery you will often see these words on children’s gravestones, early to mid last century. Did the children need to suffer to go to Jesus? Many apparently thought so.....is that what Jesus said?


Is that what I said? If that is what you heard, then no wonder you are defensive.



Or in more modern English.....
“However, now that you were set free from sin and became slaves to God, you are producing your fruit in the way of holiness, and the end is everlasting life.”

Does the modern English convey falsehood in some way? All I ask is that you compare. If the old English is misleading with phraseology and words that is no longer used, then what threat are they to your beliefs?

can you give me an archaic word that is used in the KJV that kept you from being able to understand?

someone once gave a list of 100 so-called archaic words to his first year bible students on the first day of class and asked them to give the definition of each word by using only the bible.

of the 100 archaic words, by the end of the class, only 8 were not defined. I guess that is where a dictionary might be handy.

If one is in the business of changing doctrine by rewriting what is already written to make it say what they want it to say, that is a problem wouldn’t you say?
That’s where writing your own version comes in handy.
Because no one is authorized to re-write or change the words you wrote in your book.
If someone thinks it needs re-done, they have to write another, different book. Like all the bibles.
Some think they can write a ‘better’ bible...
Everyone is free to write what they want.
But if I came to re-write everything that you wrote, change it, and claim that I know what you really meant... I imagine you would be somewhat upset with me?

really, if you look at it, you have proved my point.
You insist that words must be changed? According to whom?
Is it wrong to have to look words up in a dictionary once in a while?

how do you know that I study only the KJV?
My old religion never used a KJV.
They mocked it. Criticized it. They hated it.
I used to think the NKJV was probably ‘better’ than most and the NKJV wasn’t used by my old religion either!

so yeah. You are making assumptions...

but if I am studying to understand possible idioms and phrases that had meaning to a certain culture or time period:

for example:
‘Step on the gas, will ya!’ Or ‘flip on the light’.

what exactly is meant? Do I pour gas on the ground and proceed to step on it?
How does one even ‘flip on the light’?!!

I don’t need to change the words in ‘step on the gas’ to look up its meaning.

The same applies to any writing. I don’t need to change what is written to get understanding. I can leave it as written...

Joy

suffer the little children does not mean putting them through hell to get to Jesus.
Obviously the context can be easily explained and can be understood, by simple explanation or looking up the definition.
Because suffer was used in a manner that is not familiar nor common does not mean the whole book must be bad...


suf·fer
1. experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant).
"he'd suffered intense pain"


ARCHAIC
2. tolerate

hope this helps clarify any confusion.

 

[Deeje]

can you give me an archaic word that is used in the KJV that kept you from being able to understand?

someone once gave a list of 100 so-called archaic words to his first year bible students on the first day of class and asked them to give the definition of each word by using only the bible.

of the 100 archaic words, by the end of the class, only 8 were not defined. I guess that is where a dictionary might be handy.

LOL...if you have a decent translation, you don't need a dictionary.....if you need to look something up, why not a concordance...it will tell you much more about the word in question....won't it?

The whole point of translation is to render the Bible in the common language, which in the KJV was the vernacular back then, but is no longer readily understood in today's world.

If one is in the business of changing doctrine by rewriting what is already written to make it say what they want it to say, that is a problem wouldn’t you say?
That’s where writing your own version comes in handy.
Because no one is authorized to re-write or change the words you wrote in your book.
If someone thinks it needs re-done, they have to write another, different book. Like all the bibles.
Some think they can write a ‘better’ bible...
Everyone is free to write what they want.
But if I came to re-write everything that you wrote, change it, and claim that I know what you really meant... I imagine you would be somewhat upset with me?

really, if you look at it, you have proved my point.
You insist that words must be changed? According to whom?
Is it wrong to have to look words up in a dictionary once in a while?

OK, let me give you one of the worst examples in the KJV....one that clearly demonstrates exactly what you think doesn’t happen with your preferred translation.

JOHN 1:1 is a verse well known to trinitarians, but verse 18, not so much for obvious reasons when you read both in the original language. Remember that a translation MUST convey exactly what was written in the original language....right?

John 1:1 reads...(KJV)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:18...
“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.”

Unless you consult the Greek, a glaring mistranslation will go unnoticed, which was deliberately done to support the trinity.

The Greek word for “god” is “theos” and it is a word that the polytheistic Greeks used for all their gods, all of whom had names to distinguish them from one another. It’s a word that simply means a “divine mighty one”. (“Theos” is not a word used exclusively for Jehovah.) But since the Jews had a God whose name was never uttered, they had no way to distinguish him from other gods except to use the definite article “ho” (the). So Jehovah was called “ho theos” (THE God) to distinguish him from any other “mighty one”. Satan for example is also called a “god”. (theos) Jesus said that Jehovah himself called the judges in Israel “gods” because of the divine authority they wielded over the nation.

Misunderstanding and mistranslating the meaning of “theos” led to this serious error, largely unnoticed by the KJV proponents.

In John 1:1 there are two “gods” mentioned, but only one is “THE God”. The Word is not “THE God” and it was he who “became flesh”.

Verse 18 states that “No man hath seen God at any time”.....if Jesus was God, then that is a lie. Then it says...”the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”

Where it says “only begotten Son” the Greek Word “theos” has been mistranslated as “son” to promote the trinity. If Jesus is “the only begotten god” as other translation more correctly render it, then Jesus is a god (a mighty one) but he is not THE God”...because "THE God" is not begotten. Then we have to address what "the bosom of the Father" means. You cannot get all that information just by reading a translation. It requires study. The original language leads to a whole new world of understanding....without a concordance, you would never pick that glaring error.

Just one word, but a whole world of mistranslation.

If “theos” is translated “son” in verse 18, the it must also be translated “son” in verse 1......
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the son”. Do you understand the importance of that?

how do you know that I study only the KJV?
My old religion never used a KJV.
They mocked it. Criticized it. They hated it.
I used to think the NKJV was probably ‘better’ than most and the NKJV wasn’t used by my old religion either!

so yeah. You are making assumptions...

Are you making assumptions too? On what do you base your preference for the KJV? It was also my preferred translation when I didn't know much about translation. I soon learned why there was a need to translate the Bible into modern English. You can no longer get away with inaccuracies.

but if I am studying to understand possible idioms and phrases that had meaning to a certain culture or time period:

for example:
‘Step on the gas, will ya!’ Or ‘flip on the light’.

what exactly is meant? Do I pour gas on the ground and proceed to step on it?
How does one even ‘flip on the light’?!!

I don’t need to change the words in ‘step on the gas’ to look up its meaning.

No, but you do need to trust that the idioms from another language have been translated correctly.....no?

The same applies to any writing. I don’t need to change what is written to get understanding. I can leave it as written...

Can you? Doesn’t anything undertaken by men need scrutiny?
I don’t believe that the KJV stands up to scrutiny when it comes to accuracy as I have demonstrated. I like to see verses in a variety of translations and I like to consult a concordance to check out the accuracy. That way I can see straight away if there are discrepancies.This is all part of Bible study.

suffer the little children does not mean putting them through hell to get to Jesus.
Obviously the context can be easily explained and can be understood, by simple explanation or looking up the definition.
Because suffer was used in a manner that is not familiar nor common does not mean the whole book must be bad...

suf·fer
1. experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant).
"he'd suffered intense pain"


ARCHAIC
2. tolerate

hope this helps clarify any confusion.

Here you have given a prime example of the problem. One word...but with a completely different meaning in the time it was written. A whole generation of people thought it meant that children needed to suffer to come to Jesus. No one corrected that misunderstanding until a better translation was offered.

Choice of a translation involves the realization that any translation is a product of the translator’s opinion of how a passage should be written in their language. The KJV is a translation, but it does not reflect the English language the way it is spoken in this 21st century.

Paul said...in 1 Corinthians 14:8-11.....
“8 For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air. 10 It may be that there are many kinds of speech in the world, and yet no kind is without meaning. 11 For if I do not understand the sense of the speech, I will be a foreigner to the one speaking, and the one speaking will be a foreigner to me.”

Or the KJV version....

“8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

Same general gist but what is a Barbarian to a modern reader? And how is someone who speaks modern English to understand an outdated language? Which of the two versions conveys the actual meaning of that passage in clear speech? Which one is 'speaking into the air'?

Now if I am a new Bible student, which of these is more easily understood? If they basically convey the same meaning, why would you choose to stick with the outdated language when you don’t have to? I do not understand the mindset that puts the KJV on a pedestal....one that it does not deserve IMO.

 

[Love God]

LOL...if you have a decent translation, you don't need a dictionary.....if you need to look something up, why not a concordance...it will tell you much more about the word in question....won't it?

The whole point of translation is to render the Bible in the common language, which in the KJV was the vernacular back then, but is no longer readily understood in today's world.


OK, let me give you one of the worst examples in the KJV....one that clearly demonstrates exactly what you think doesn’t happen with your preferred translation.

JOHN 1:1 is a verse well known to trinitarians, but verse 18, not so much for obvious reasons when you read both in the original language. Remember that a translation MUST convey exactly what was written in the original language....right?

John 1:1 reads...(KJV)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:18...
“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.”

Unless you consult the Greek, a glaring mistranslation will go unnoticed, which was deliberately done to support the trinity.

The Greek word for “god” is “theos” and it is a word that the polytheistic Greeks used for all their gods, all of whom had names to distinguish them from one another. It’s a word that simply means a “divine mighty one”. (“Theos” is not a word used exclusively for Jehovah.) But since the Jews had a God whose name was never uttered, they had no way to distinguish him from other gods except to use the definite article “ho” (the). So Jehovah was called “ho theos” (THE God) to distinguish him from any other “mighty one”. Satan for example is also called a “god”. (theos) Jesus said that Jehovah himself called the judges in Israel “gods” because of the divine authority they wielded over the nation.

Misunderstanding and mistranslating the meaning of “theos” led to this serious error, largely unnoticed by the KJV proponents.

In John 1:1 there are two “gods” mentioned, but only one is “THE God”. The Word is not “THE God” and it was he who “became flesh”.

Verse 18 states that “No man hath seen God at any time”.....if Jesus was God, then that is a lie. Then it says...”the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”

Where it says “only begotten Son” the Greek Word “theos” has been mistranslated as “son” to promote the trinity. If Jesus is “the only begotten god” as other translation more correctly render it, then Jesus is a god (a mighty one) but he is not THE God”...because "THE God" is not begotten. Then we have to address what "the bosom of the Father" means. You cannot get all that information just by reading a translation. It requires study. The original language leads to a whole new world of understanding....without a concordance, you would never pick that glaring error.

Just one word, but a whole world of mistranslation.

If “theos” is translated “son” in verse 18, the it must also be translated “son” in verse 1......
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the son”. Do you understand the importance of that?


Are you making assumptions too? On what do you base your preference for the KJV? It was also my preferred translation when I didn't know much about translation. I soon learned why there was a need to translate the Bible into modern English. You can no longer get away with inaccuracies.


No, but you do need to trust that the idioms from another language have been translated correctly.....no?



Can you? Doesn’t anything undertaken by men need scrutiny?
I don’t believe that the KJV stands up to scrutiny when it comes to accuracy as I have demonstrated. I like to see verses in a variety of translations and I like to consult a concordance to check out the accuracy. That way I can see straight away if there are discrepancies.This is all part of Bible study.


Here you have given a prime example of the problem. One word...but with a completely different meaning in the time it was written. A whole generation of people thought it meant that children needed to suffer to come to Jesus. No one corrected that misunderstanding until a better translation was offered.

Choice of a translation involves the realization that any translation is a product of the translator’s opinion of how a passage should be written in their language. The KJV is a translation, but it does not reflect the English language the way it is spoken in this 21st century.

Paul said...in 1 Corinthians 14:8-11.....
“8 For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air. 10 It may be that there are many kinds of speech in the world, and yet no kind is without meaning. 11 For if I do not understand the sense of the speech, I will be a foreigner to the one speaking, and the one speaking will be a foreigner to me.”

Or the KJV version....

“8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

Same general gist but what is a Barbarian to a modern reader? And how is someone who speaks modern English to understand an outdated language? Which of the two versions conveys the actual meaning of that passage in clear speech? Which one is 'speaking into the air'?

Now if I am a new Bible student, which of these is more easily understood? If they basically convey the same meaning, why would you choose to stick with the outdated language when you don’t have to? I do not understand the mindset that puts the KJV on a pedestal....one that it does not deserve IMO.

The impression that you seem to have of me is that I have not wrestled with all of the ‘problems’ that you think I do not ‘understand’.

let me ask one question:
When you look at a person, have you ‘seen’ them? All of them?
Have you considered that you may be looking at their outward appearance but you have not seen their ‘inside appearance’?

How can anyone really know ‘all’ of another?

how many times has a spouse or child or friend gone behind their loved one’s back and proceeded to betray, carry on, or stab them in their back?
For long periods of time even?

Serial cheats, grifters, rapists, paedophiles, murderers, all usually ply their trades undetected for long periods of time, while living amongst family, friends, loved ones...

Their closest loved ones may see them physically but they really haven’t seen them internally have they?

So while the disciples saw the outside Jesus did they see God inside?

If people just thought an hot minute before going off half-cocked...
why is the very idea of God repulsive to some?
Those that hate the idea of God, tend to think that people who actually believe in the God of the bible are either incredibly stupid or brainwashed, true?

“Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.”
‭‭Psalms‬ ‭44:21‬ ‭KJV‬‬
It seems that no one wants their ‘heart searched’...?

What one may have not have shown another and they keep hidden in their heart is something pretty profound in my thinking...
And I still didn’t have to run to the Greek to think about what it means to ‘search the heart’...

Joy

PS. I took a foreign language in school.
One lesson I seem to remember is that there is no such thing as ‘word for word’ translation. Is there?

Are you telling me that no one ever has to look up any definition of any word in the NWT...
New World Translation[1] (NWT): “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

Does the average person run around using the word ‘obeisance’...

 

[Love God]

LOL...if you have a decent translation, you don't need a dictionary.....if you need to look something up, why not a concordance...it will tell you much more about the word in question....won't it?

The whole point of translation is to render the Bible in the common language, which in the KJV was the vernacular back then, but is no longer readily understood in today's world.


OK, let me give you one of the worst examples in the KJV....one that clearly demonstrates exactly what you think doesn’t happen with your preferred translation.

JOHN 1:1 is a verse well known to trinitarians, but verse 18, not so much for obvious reasons when you read both in the original language. Remember that a translation MUST convey exactly what was written in the original language....right?

John 1:1 reads...(KJV)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:18...
“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.”

Unless you consult the Greek, a glaring mistranslation will go unnoticed, which was deliberately done to support the trinity.

The Greek word for “god” is “theos” and it is a word that the polytheistic Greeks used for all their gods, all of whom had names to distinguish them from one another. It’s a word that simply means a “divine mighty one”. (“Theos” is not a word used exclusively for Jehovah.) But since the Jews had a God whose name was never uttered, they had no way to distinguish him from other gods except to use the definite article “ho” (the). So Jehovah was called “ho theos” (THE God) to distinguish him from any other “mighty one”. Satan for example is also called a “god”. (theos) Jesus said that Jehovah himself called the judges in Israel “gods” because of the divine authority they wielded over the nation.

Misunderstanding and mistranslating the meaning of “theos” led to this serious error, largely unnoticed by the KJV proponents.

In John 1:1 there are two “gods” mentioned, but only one is “THE God”. The Word is not “THE God” and it was he who “became flesh”.

Verse 18 states that “No man hath seen God at any time”.....if Jesus was God, then that is a lie. Then it says...”the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”

Where it says “only begotten Son” the Greek Word “theos” has been mistranslated as “son” to promote the trinity. If Jesus is “the only begotten god” as other translation more correctly render it, then Jesus is a god (a mighty one) but he is not THE God”...because "THE God" is not begotten. Then we have to address what "the bosom of the Father" means. You cannot get all that information just by reading a translation. It requires study. The original language leads to a whole new world of understanding....without a concordance, you would never pick that glaring error.

Just one word, but a whole world of mistranslation.

If “theos” is translated “son” in verse 18, the it must also be translated “son” in verse 1......
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the son”. Do you understand the importance of that?


Are you making assumptions too? On what do you base your preference for the KJV? It was also my preferred translation when I didn't know much about translation. I soon learned why there was a need to translate the Bible into modern English. You can no longer get away with inaccuracies.


No, but you do need to trust that the idioms from another language have been translated correctly.....no?



Can you? Doesn’t anything undertaken by men need scrutiny?
I don’t believe that the KJV stands up to scrutiny when it comes to accuracy as I have demonstrated. I like to see verses in a variety of translations and I like to consult a concordance to check out the accuracy. That way I can see straight away if there are discrepancies.This is all part of Bible study.


Here you have given a prime example of the problem. One word...but with a completely different meaning in the time it was written. A whole generation of people thought it meant that children needed to suffer to come to Jesus. No one corrected that misunderstanding until a better translation was offered.

Choice of a translation involves the realization that any translation is a product of the translator’s opinion of how a passage should be written in their language. The KJV is a translation, but it does not reflect the English language the way it is spoken in this 21st century.

Paul said...in 1 Corinthians 14:8-11.....
“8 For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air. 10 It may be that there are many kinds of speech in the world, and yet no kind is without meaning. 11 For if I do not understand the sense of the speech, I will be a foreigner to the one speaking, and the one speaking will be a foreigner to me.”

Or the KJV version....

“8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

Same general gist but what is a Barbarian to a modern reader? And how is someone who speaks modern English to understand an outdated language? Which of the two versions conveys the actual meaning of that passage in clear speech? Which one is 'speaking into the air'?

Now if I am a new Bible student, which of these is more easily understood? If they basically convey the same meaning, why would you choose to stick with the outdated language when you don’t have to? I do not understand the mindset that puts the KJV on a pedestal....one that it does not deserve IMO.

Which concordance do you ‘like’?

I understand that there are many differing concordances?

In your opinion, which concordance is the ‘’best’ but more importantly, how do you know?
You stated that no dictionary should be needed when using the bible? What about a concordance? Isn’t that just like a dictionary?
Maybe one shouldn’t need a dictionary when learning any language? Idk...

It seems you have a problem with the trinity in the Greek?

What about the use of ‘us’, ‘we’, ‘our’ in the ‘Hebrew’ when speaking of God? Does the Hebrew need changed and updated? Did Moses ‘make a mistake’ when he wrote his words?

In your opinion, and from your studies, is the Hebrew archaic?

It would stand to reason that if the English KJV of the NT complements and dovetails with the English KJV of the OT, but the Greek translation of the KJV errs, then the Hebrew becomes a problem as well?
No more dovetailing or complementing due to changing the errors?
Because if you change one testament and it no longer lines up with the other testament... what does one do with that?

Is there ever an end in sight? When is the bible ‘finished’? Who gets to decide that? Who is the final authority?

Am I able to have the very words of God in my hands? Is anyone able to have the very words of God in their hands?

Joy

“Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read:
no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate:
for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭34:16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Have God’s words failed in your opinion? Are God’s words mismated?

 

[Deeje]

The impression that you seem to have of me is that I have not wrestled with all of the ‘problems’ that you think I do not ‘understand’.

let me ask one question:
When you look at a person, have you ‘seen’ them? All of them?
Have you considered that you may be looking at their outward appearance but you have not seen their ‘inside appearance’?

How can anyone really know ‘all’ of another?

how many times has a spouse or child or friend gone behind their loved one’s back and proceeded to betray, carry on, or stab them in their back?
For long periods of time even?

Serial cheats, grifters, rapists, paedophiles, murderers, all usually ply their trades undetected for long periods of time, while living amongst family, friends, loved ones...

Their closest loved ones may see them physically but they really haven’t seen them internally have they?

So while the disciples saw the outside Jesus did they see God inside?

If people just thought an hot minute before going off half-cocked...
why is the very idea of God repulsive to some?
Those that hate the idea of God, tend to think that people who actually believe in the God of the bible are either incredibly stupid or brainwashed, true?

“Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.”
‭‭Psalms‬ ‭44:21‬ ‭KJV‬‬
It seems that no one wants their ‘heart searched’...?

What one may have not have shown another and they keep hidden in their heart is something pretty profound in my thinking...
And I still didn’t have to run to the Greek to think about what it means to ‘search the heart’...

I am left wondering how any of that is a response to my post.
I am not here to psychoanalyse you.....I thought we were discussing Bible translation....? Anyhow....

PS. I took a foreign language in school.
One lesson I seem to remember is that there is no such thing as ‘word for word’ translation. Is there?

Some have tried but phraseology gets in the way. This is why interlinear Bibles come into their own. Translation is after all how we make sense of any foreign language by translating it into the vernacular.

Are you telling me that no one ever has to look up any definition of any word in the NWT...
New World Translation[1] (NWT): “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

Does the average person run around using the word ‘obeisance’...

I have researched this point quite extensively actually.
The Greek word pro·sky·neʹo corresponds closely to the Hebrew term hish·ta·chawahʹ in expressing the thought of obeisance and, at times, worship.
The term pro·sky·neʹo is used in connection with a slave’s doing obeisance to a king (Matthew 18:26) as well as the act satan stipulated when he offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. (Matthew 4:8-9) Had he done obeisance to the Devil, Jesus would thereby have made himself the Devil’s servant.

To translate “pro·sky·neʹo” as “worship” when it means “obeisance” is false. It also refers to an act of respect or honour for one considered a superior.

One example of this is in the legal system, where a judge is addressed as “Your Honor”....but in the British system a judge was addressed as “Your Worship” because of the dual meaning of that word in the Bible.

In the Bible, Israel’s ancient judges were called “gods” as Jesus said in John 10:31-36. This was because of their divine authority. Jesus also had divine authority so he could also be called “a god” in that sense, but he only ever called himself “God’s son”.

 

[Deeje]

Which concordance do you ‘like’?

I understand that there are many differing concordances?

In your opinion, which concordance is the ‘’best’ but more importantly, how do you know?

I like Strongs because it is widely accepted in scholarly circles. I have never been disappointed in its explanations especially when it demonstrates bias in translation.

You stated that no dictionary should be needed when using the bible? What about a concordance? Isn’t that just like a dictionary?
Maybe one shouldn’t need a dictionary when learning any language? Idk...

I didn’t say you needed no dictionary to understand the Bible....I said you shouldn’t need a dictionary to understand an English translation. Please don’t read into my words what I did not say.

The whole point of a translation is clear and understandable language.....not using outdated words or phraseology.

It seems you have a problem with the trinity in the Greek?

I have a problem with the trinity ...period.
It is not taught in the scriptures at all. The Greek proves it. Mistranslation promotes it as the example I gave you in John 1:18 clearly demonstrates. Jesus is "a god" but he is not "THE God".

What about the use of ‘us’, ‘we’, ‘our’ in the ‘Hebrew’ when speaking of God? Does the Hebrew need changed and updated? Did Moses ‘make a mistake’ when he wrote his words?

In your opinion, and from your studies, is the Hebrew archaic?

I’m assuming that you are referring to Genesis?
Since God’s son was the agency he used to produce creation, (Proverbs 8:30-31; Colossians 1:15-17) God is addressing his son in those verses.
Or do you have other examples in mind?

It would stand to reason that if the English KJV of the NT complements and dovetails with the English KJV of the OT, but the Greek translation of the KJV errs, then the Hebrew becomes a problem as well?

There is no problem in the original languages as far as I am aware. We have the Septuagint for reference in this. The Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek for the Greek speaking Jews in Bible times.

No more dovetailing or complementing due to changing the errors?
Because if you change one testament and it no longer lines up with the other testament... what does one do with that?

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Everything fits when you have the translation right. Mistranslation and misinterpretation are what causes confusion...the truth never did.

Is there ever an end in sight? When is the bible ‘finished’? Who gets to decide that? Who is the final authority?

Since the Bible cannon was finalized long ago, and Revelation takes us 1,000 years into the future, Jesus tells us that “new scrolls” will be opened in due time. He does not tell us exactly when, but when the current scriptures have been fulfilled, we will receive new instructions for the “new world” that is coming.....the one that will see the end of all wickedness and where all will serve the Creator as one people....no dissenters...no rebels. (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 20:11-12)

Am I able to have the very words of God in my hands? Is anyone able to have the very words of God in their hands?

Of course....but it is God who reveals his truth to those he finds with an open heart.....those who want to dictate their own truth to him, will come to disappointment, never quite being able to get a handle on the truth, constantly doubting if the Bible is correct or if their their religion was the right one.

Jesus said to look at their “fruits”...or what kind of people these religions produce.....are they up to their necks in the world? (James 4:4) Supporting political agendas and bloodshed? (Matthew 24:43-44) Greedy for money? (Matthew 6:24)
Accepting of this world’s immorality? (Hebrews13:4) Are they promoters of peace? (Matthew 5:9) Are they out there preaching the gospel? (Matthew 28:19-20; Matthew 24:14; Matthew 10:11-14)

“Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read:
no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate:
for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.”

‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭34:16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Or in plain English....
“Seek and read from the book of the Lord: Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without her mate. For the mouth of the Lord has commanded, and his Spirit has gathered them.”
(Isaiah 34:16 ESV)

Have God’s words failed in your opinion? Are God’s words mismated?

Never...only man’s misinterpretation of scripture will produce that situation. If any are ‘without a mate’, then that is the red flag....isn’t it?

The Bible has one author so it’s internal harmony is assured....it’s people putting their own spin on things that is the problem. Things will only harmonize when God has guided that interpretation.....their “fruitage” will then give them away. How closely are they following ALL of Jesus teachings?......not just the convenient ones? Are they hated by the world for doing that? (John 15:18-21) Who fits the criteria on what Jesus said would identify his disciples...and on a global scale.