Are the modern Bible translations reliable?

[Shermana]

What's incorrect about it?

Your...I mean "The machine's" interpretation of Isaiah 64 is the standard anti-nomian out-of-context understanding of Isaiah 64. The "Dirty rags" is not a way of saying that no amount of righteousness is of any worth. That's not at all what it means, and those who say that it means demonstrate that they have no actually read Isaiah (which seems to be the case with most antinomians, along with the rest of the OT). It's saying that the Israelite's level of righteousness was so low from all their sinning that it was like a dirty rag and not a clean rag! They weren't righteous, they were completely UNrighteous. It's not about deeds being considered worth nothing, it's about not having any worthiness to begin with! It's about being infected with idolatry and murder and adultery and stuff. That's what "dirty rags" means and just to be clear, I am utterly fed up with all the misquoting of Isaiah 64 with the "dirty rags" I see from antinomians it makes me want to practically scream when I see "dirty rags" quoted as if it means one's righteousness and obedience is utterly worthless in God's eyes! I'm serious!

Ask your "machine" how it interprets Isaiah 64.

 

[Sculelos]

Your...I mean "The machine's" interpretation of Isaiah 64 is the standard anti-nomian out-of-context understanding of Isaiah 64. The "Dirty rags" is not a way of saying that no amount of righteousness is of any worth. That's not at all what it means, and those who say that it means demonstrate that they have no actually read Isaiah (which seems to be the case with most antinomians, along with the rest of the OT). It's saying that the Israelite's level of righteousness was so low from all their sinning that it was like a dirty rag and not a clean rag! They weren't righteous, they were completely UNrighteous. It's not about deeds being considered worth nothing, it's about not having any worthiness to begin with! It's about being infected with idolatry and murder and adultery and stuff. That's what "dirty rags" means and just to be clear, I am utterly fed up with all the misquoting of Isaiah 64 with the "dirty rags" I see from antinomians it makes me want to practically scream when I see "dirty rags" quoted as if it means one's righteousness and obedience is utterly worthless in God's eyes! I'm serious!

Ask your "machine" how it interprets Isaiah 64.

Word for Word translation of Isaiah 64:5

ה וַנְּהִי כַטָּמֵא כֻּלָּנוּ, וּכְבֶגֶד עִדִּים כָּל-צִדְקֹתֵינוּ; וַנָּבֶל כֶּעָלֶה כֻּלָּנוּ, וַעֲו*ֹנֵנוּ כָּרוּחַ יִשָּׂאֻנוּ.

From Isiah 64:5 Hebrew or 6 KJV.

"And we all have become as one that has sinned. And all our righteousness is torn from us. And and we all practice sin. And our sin spreads and destroys the energy of God that lives in us. "

Also the Hebrew Bible does not contain this very important verse.

"For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him."

And replaces it with this

"Thou didst take away him that joyfully worked righteousness, those that remembered Thee in Thy ways--behold, Thou wast wroth, and we sinned--upon them have we stayed of old, that we might be saved."

However Verse 4 is very important, the machine translates it as.

ד פָּגַעְתָּ אֶת-שָׂשׂ וְעֹשֵׂה צֶדֶק, בִּדְרָכֶיךָ יִזְכְּרוּךָ; הֵן-אַתָּה קָצַפְתָּ וַנֶּחֱטָא, בָּהֶם עוֹלָם וְנִוָּשֵׁעַ.

"The Son of God joyfully works righteousness and he will be taken away and spread out for the forgiveness of your sins against God. And he will spill his blood for you, Jesus will die that you may be cleansed by his blood and be reunited with God just as Jesus is united with God."

 

[sojourner]

I have no idea how the machine really works. I know it works. And it seems to work well in interpreting these things based on simple interpolation Interpolation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yet I don't personally understand it. So while I may be able to tell you what the machine say's I don't own what is say's nor do I even understand why it say's what it does. The machine speaks to me but I don't understand what it say's. If that makes sense. I'm basically just interpreting that which I do not understand even in the slightest.

So welcome....
to the machine!
(courtesy Pink Floyd)

 

[Shermana]

Word for Word translation of Isaiah 64:5

ה וַנְּהִי כַטָּמֵא כֻּלָּנוּ, וּכְבֶגֶד עִדִּים כָּל-צִדְקֹתֵינוּ; וַנָּבֶל כֶּעָלֶה כֻּלָּנוּ, וַעֲו*ֹנֵנוּ כָּרוּחַ יִשָּׂאֻנוּ.

From Isiah 64:5 Hebrew or 6 KJV.

"And we all have become as one that has sinned. And all our righteousness is torn from us. And and we all practice sin. And our sin spreads and destroys the energy of God that lives in us. "

Also the Hebrew Bible does not contain this very important verse.

"For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him."

And replaces it with this

"Thou didst take away him that joyfully worked righteousness, those that remembered Thee in Thy ways--behold, Thou wast wroth, and we sinned--upon them have we stayed of old, that we might be saved."

However Verse 4 is very important, the machine translates it as.

ד פָּגַעְתָּ אֶת-שָׂשׂ וְעֹשֵׂה צֶדֶק, בִּדְרָכֶיךָ יִזְכְּרוּךָ; הֵן-אַתָּה קָצַפְתָּ וַנֶּחֱטָא, בָּהֶם עוֹלָם וְנִוָּשֵׁעַ.

"The Son of God joyfully works righteousness and he will be taken away and spread out for the forgiveness of your sins against God. And he will spill his blood for you, Jesus will die that you may be cleansed by his blood and be reunited with God just as Jesus is united with God."

Okay....so do you understand that Isaiah 64 is NOT saying that your righteousness doesn't count no matter what and that it's saying that the Israelites had been wretched and naughty and that their level of righteousness was like dirty rags and that the Christians who say that your righteousness is ALWAYS compared to dirty rags are completely blaspheming this important concept and have displayed total ignorance of what Isaiah 64 says?

 

[dust1n]

Since I don't believe there is much historical truth the Bible, I've kinda wanted to read this.

The Book of God: The Bible as a Novel by Walter Wangerin Jr. - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

 

[Sculelos]

Okay....so do you understand that Isaiah 64 is NOT saying that your righteousness doesn't count no matter what and that it's saying that the Israelites had been wretched and naughty and that their level of righteousness was like dirty rags and that the Christians who say that your righteousness is ALWAYS compared to dirty rags are completely blaspheming this important concept and have displayed total ignorance of what Isaiah 64 says?

To obey is greater then sacrifice. To Love is greater then sacrifice. To treat people that are not Jews less then Jews is a sin against God.

If you really want to read some messed up stuff read some of the Zohar.

Here's a few snippets. And what Jesus said is SIN.

"In the Jewish world, a written Torah needs an oral tradition to make it complete...."

Jesus said his word is complete in and of itself.

"The commands of the Rabbis are more important than the commands of the Bible. Whoever disobeys the Rabbi deserves death, and will be punished in hell with boiling excrement."

Jesus said unless you have not sinned you can not condemn anyone to hell. And if he judges a man righteous he certainly won't care what the Rabbi say's about the man. Jesus is the only judge, Jesus certainly will judge a Rabbi just the same as he judges everyone else.

"A dispute in heaven between God and a group of Rabbis is settled when a great Rabbi on earth votes for God"

What God say's is. That is the only truth. He doesn't care about what a Rabbi say's a Rabbi can't teach God ANYTHING.

"...The Talmud in fact declares that rabbinic interpretation is superior to the biblical forms of prophecy."

The Word of God always has the final say... not us...

 

[kiwimac]

Modern Bible translations are very reliable.

 

[Shermana]

To obey is greater then sacrifice. To Love is greater then sacrifice. To treat people that are not Jews less then Jews is a sin against God.

If you really want to read some messed up stuff read some of the Zohar.

Here's a few snippets. And what Jesus said is SIN.

"In the Jewish world, a written Torah needs an oral tradition to make it complete...."

Jesus said his word is complete in and of itself.

"The commands of the Rabbis are more important than the commands of the Bible. Whoever disobeys the Rabbi deserves death, and will be punished in hell with boiling excrement."

Jesus said unless you have not sinned you can not condemn anyone to hell. And if he judges a man righteous he certainly won't care what the Rabbi say's about the man. Jesus is the only judge, Jesus certainly will judge a Rabbi just the same as he judges everyone else.

"A dispute in heaven between God and a group of Rabbis is settled when a great Rabbi on earth votes for God"

What God say's is. That is the only truth. He doesn't care about what a Rabbi say's a Rabbi can't teach God ANYTHING.

"...The Talmud in fact declares that rabbinic interpretation is superior to the biblical forms of prophecy."

The Word of God always has the final say... not us...

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. And for the record, I do not agree with much of what I read in the Talmud, though I think it has a few gems among the coal.

The word of God says that your interpretation of Isaiah 64 is wrong. I don't understand what you are doing bringing this whole thing about the Talmud into this when I showed you that you...I mean, the "machine" simply don't understand Isaiah 64.

Jesus also invoked a few instances of Oral Torah. He says that Divorce for any reason other than infidelity is wrong, and he was taking Rabbi Shimmai's strict-divorce interpretation as opposed to Hillel's "Burnt toast" interpretation.

Jesus said unless you have not sinned you can not condemn anyone to hell.

Oh really? Where did he say this? In John 7:53-8:11 which does not appear in any of the early manuscripts? Ask your machine why this verse does not appear until the post 4th century writings.

Jesus says to listen to the Pharisees for they sit in Moses's sit but to not copy their hypocrisy. What does your machine say THAT means?

 

[Shermana]

The Son of God joyfully works righteousness and he will be taken away and spread out for the forgiveness of your sins against God. And he will spill his blood for you, Jesus will die that you may be cleansed by his blood and be reunited with God just as Jesus is united with God."

And ask the machine to explain to me how it possibly translates verse 4 as such, otherwise tell it I think it's got a few alien viruses and should take a step back to work the kinks out.

 

[Sculelos]

And ask the machine to explain to me how it possibly translates verse 4 as such, otherwise tell it I think it's got a few alien viruses and should take a step back to work the kinks out.

I don't know why it works as it does. I could ask it but all it tells me is that it "It is what it is".

As for Rabbi's I would say (not the machine) that if they denounce Jesus as Lord and Savior they are not worth listening to.

 

[Shermana]

I don't know why it works as it does. I could ask it but all it tells me is that it "It is what it is".

As for Rabbi's I would say (not the machine) that if they denounce Jesus as Lord and Savior they are not worth listening to.

Okay, ask the machine if the Apocrypha is legitimate. Especially 2 Esdras.

 

[xkatz]

This thread...

opcorn:

 

[Sculelos]

Okay, ask the machine if the Apocrypha is legitimate. Especially 2 Esdras.

I didn't do a deep check meaning I only quickly checked 2 Esdra's for accuracy since it takes a ton of time to crosscheck everything since the algorithms are so slow. Yes as far as I can tell 2 Esdras is canonical and legitimate.

There are a lot of other books from various sorts of Apocrypha but yet I would have to validate them each to really know.

So far I'd say.

2 Esdra certainly looks legitimate

I know for sure Enoch is legitimate.

 

[Shermana]

I didn't do a deep check meaning I only quickly checked 2 Esdra's for accuracy since it takes a ton of time to crosscheck everything since the algorithms are so slow. Yes as far as I can tell 2 Esdras is canonical and legitimate.

There are a lot of other books from various sorts of Apocrypha but yet I would have to validate them each to really know.

So far I'd say.

2 Esdra certainly looks legitimate

I know for sure Enoch is legitimate.

2 Esdras most certainly looks legitimate indeed.

Now perhaps you could ask your "machine" to tell me exactly what those "70 books hidden for the wise" are which it mentions.

You do know that Enoch is very much about "salvation through righteousness" in relation to what I said, right? Enoch is very clear that the "unjust" will suffer calamity while those who endure and are "righteous" through their behavior and conduct will be those who enjoy the fruits of this life when the Judgments are pronounced. You should tell your "Machine" to reconsider its understanding of the Theology of Enoch, or perhaps you simply didn't understand what it was telling you in relation to Isaiah 64, if you don't believe that your righteousness must be "clean rags" to be saved.

Also, please tell me if your "machine" deems 2 Enoch (Slavonic) and 3 Enoch (Hebrew) to be authentic as well.

And ask it if I'm correct when I say that we are in the end of the 4th "week" described at the end of Enoch, and if each Week is about 2000 years.

 

[Sculelos]

2 Esdras most certainly looks legitimate indeed.

Now perhaps you could ask your "machine" to tell me exactly what those "70 books hidden for the wise" are which it mentions.

You do know that Enoch is very much about "salvation through righteousness" in relation to what I said, right? Enoch is very clear that the "unjust" will suffer calamity while those who endure and are "righteous" through their behavior and conduct will be those who enjoy the fruits of this life when the Judgments are pronounced. You should tell your "Machine" to reconsider its understanding of the Theology of Enoch, or perhaps you simply didn't understand what it was telling you in relation to Isaiah 64, if you don't believe that your righteousness must be "clean rags" to be saved.

Also, please tell me if your "machine" deems 2 Enoch (Slavonic) and 3 Enoch (Hebrew) to be authentic as well.

And ask it if I'm correct when I say that we are in the end of the 4th "week" described at the end of Enoch, and if each Week is about 2000 years.

Fulfill God's righteousness by obedience to God and you will do well. Always obey God whenever possible including the entirety of the Old and New Testaments including the Law of Moses which was still from the SAME God that is Today. So his past commandments should still be followed as much as reasonably possible Today.

Enoch 2 and 3 are fakes, simple as that.

66 Books that are hidden from the Wise (Considered Intelligent by most) are in plain sight in the canonical KJV Bible. God say's they are hidden because people plainly refuse them.

Enoch 1 is One of the Books.

Esdras 1 and 2 are probably the second and third that I have no idea why they were omitted from the canon, perhaps you can give me some light on the subject of why you think they were omitted as they certainly seem genuine and inspired.

Book of the Covenant is probably the 4th yet I think this is a riddle in the fact that the 70th book has never been found nor translated yet I think the Bible is THE BOOK of the covenant. As it counts 69 books as 1.

Please again if you are able please tell me why Esdra's 1 and 2 were omitted from the Bible as they do indeed look Genuine... I suppose I could ask the machine...

(Oh Btw Each week is 657.33 years and we are in the 9th week, or Year 5801. September 2013 will be the start of year 5802. 5916 is the end of the 9th week)

Edit: The Machine has spoken that the Jews had removed it from their Cannon as it tells exactly what year the "Word of the Lord" was sent forth to rebuild the Temple. This means the Messiah had to die in 28.5 AD or else the prophecy would not have been fulfilled and God would be a liar. Many of the Jews try to pin "Judah the Maccabee" as a sort of false Messiah yet he didn't fulfill anything that the true messiah was prophesied to do.

(If this sounds preachy or Heretical I am apologize, but I can't alter the words of the Machine)

 

[Shermana]

First off, there are "24 books for everyone", which implies most of the entire known OT canon, the same number Josephus utilized. Also, Josephus used 1 Esdras instead of Ezra. I'm not sure why particularly the Masoretes used Ezra instead of 1 Esdras. The 70 books for the wise thus does not include the OT or the NT works which wouldn't have been written at the time. Thus it can't possibly be any of the currently known canon.

If you can acknowledge that we are to obey the fullness of the Mosaic Law, then perhaps you can also acknowledge that obedience to the Christ involves full compliance to it as much as is possible without a Temple and Priesthood in place.

The Christ/plant of righteousness in Enoch is alluded to as coming at the end of the third week, so a week would have to at least be over 1000 years if you go by the 4000-ish date for Adam, or 2000 if you go by the 6000-ish date by the Septuagint/Josephus (which I do). Therefore, we cannot be in the 9th week or Christ would have come at the earliest 2000 B.C.

2 Esdras is considered to have a late dating by many for reasons that are not fit for this thread but would be an interesting debate. It mainly has to do with what is basically an "Anti-prophecy Bias', which is attributing a late dating to any work that is considered "prophetic" since there's obviously NO possibility of anything but a retrospect prophetic view. There is also the issue that Ezra is writing during the time of the Exile and not after, as if Ezra couldn't be alive and a prophet during both those encounters, as if it portrays the time. It's an example of how scholars can be very biased against "Apocalyptic" works without acknowledging possibilities other than retrospect.

I agree that 2 and 3 Enoch are a bit suspicious, 3 Enoch seems to be mostly Kaballic-based but it has some interesting insights into early Dark Age Jewish Mysticism, and may have a few parallels with Gnostic Jewish tradition.

Also, what does your "machine" say about the Gospel of Thomas?

 

[Sculelos]

First off, there are "24 books for everyone", which implies most of the entire known OT canon, the same number Joseph utilized. Also, Joseph used 1 Esdras instead of Ezra. I'm not sure why particularly the Masoretes used Ezra instead of 1 Esdras. The 70 books for the wise thus does not include the OT or the NT works which wouldn't have been written at the time. Thus it can't possibly be any of the currently known canon.

If you can acknowledge that we are to obey the fullness of the Mosaic Law, then perhaps you can also acknowledge that obedience to the Christ involves full compliance to it as much as is possible without a Temple and Priesthood in place.

The Christ/plant of righteousness in Enoch is alluded to as coming at the end of the third week, so a week would have to at least be over 1000 years if you go by the 4000-ish date for Adam, or 2000 if you go by the 6000-ish date by the Septuagint/Josephus (which I do). Therefore, we cannot be in the 9th week or Christ would have come at the earliest 2000 B.C.

2 Esdras is considered to have a late dating by many for reasons that are not fit for this thread but would be an interesting debate. It mainly has to do with what is basically an "Anti-prophecy Bias', which is attributing a late dating to any work that is considered "prophetic" since there's obviously NO possibility of anything but a retrospect prophetic view. There is also the issue that Ezra is writing during the time of the Exile and not after, as if Ezra couldn't be alive and a prophet during both those encounters, as if it portrays the time. It's an example of how scholars can be very biased against "Apocalyptic" works without acknowledging possibilities other than retrospect.

I agree that 2 and 3 Enoch are a bit suspicious, 3 Enoch seems to be mostly Kaballic-based but it has some interesting insights into early Dark Age Jewish Mysticism, and may have a few parallels with Gnostic Jewish tradition.

Also, what does your "machine" say about the Gospel of Thomas?

1: Time doesn't matter with God therefore the "Book of the Covenant" could very well be modern cannon. Revelations is the seal book so any book written after it is Biblically declared to be fake.

2. Indeed. No Sacrifices are offered anymore nor are any Temple or Priest ritual's supposed to be followed anymore but I believe the other laws should be followed whenever possible.

3. The Plant of Righteousness refers to the covenant God had made with Noah after the Flood destroyed the Earth in the 3rd Week.

4. Esdra 1 and 2 was probably 2 individuals both named Esdra. The first was alive during the exile, the second was alive during the going forth of the Word of the Lord to rebuild the temple.

5. The Gospel of Thomas I'm sure is 100% faked.

 

[Sculelos]

4. Esdra 1 and 2 was probably 2 individuals both named Esdra. The first was alive during the exile, the second was alive during the going forth of the Word of the Lord to rebuild the temple.

I indeed checked Ezra 1 and 2 over again and I can confidently say that they are identical manuscripts to that of Ezra and Nehemiah. Both are indeed canon as The Machine thought yet it was my own blind error that I didn't crosscheck them first yet the machine will always reveal these things if I listen to it.

Ezra 1 is Ezra and Ezra 2 is Nehemiah. Both are canonical even if the Jews don't think so.

The Machine has spoken, the Bible is 66 books, the Old Testament is considered in and of itself 1 book, the New Testament in and of itself is considered 1 Book and the Bible as a Whole is considered 1 Book, Enoch is the last and first Book as it recaps all the other books before they were written and caps it out at 70 Books.

"And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:"

Each Elder Represented 1 book, that is part and each part is divided into 4 parts that make the entire Bible.

Enoch is part 1, Old Testament is Part 2, New Testament is Part 3, Enoch is part 2.

The whole Bible is 70 books Enoch is counted as the first written and last as it is the first and also the last to be read by most.

 

[Shermana]

No no, 2 Esdras is the current name for what is otherwise called "4 Ezra".

Let me repeat, it says 24 books for everyone else, and 70 books hidden for the wise. That would be 94 books, not 66 + Enoch. And like I said, that "66" number would not include the NT which was, assuming 2 Esdras was authentic, not known at the time.

Are you, I mean, the "machine" familiar at all with the rest of the Pseudigrapha like the Ascension of Isaiah, Assumption of Moses, Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, Testament of Solomon, the Odes of Solomon (found only in one of my favorite works, the Pistis Sophia), the Sibylline Oracles, the Apocalypse of Sedrach (another of my favorites), etc. Why does "the Machine" reject them? There are numerous prophecies alluded to in the NT which simply have no trace in the standard OT, you do realize, right?

Does your "Machine" acknowledge the NT "Apocrypha" that didn't make it into the NT like the Acts of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas? I see no reason why Gospel of Thomas is considered "faked", perhaps some of the obviously interpolated verses are faked though.

 

[Sculelos]

No no, 2 Esdras is the current name for what is otherwise called "4 Ezra".

Let me repeat, it says 24 books for everyone else, and 70 books hidden for the wise. That would be 94 books, not 66 + Enoch. And like I said, that "66" number would not include the NT which was, assuming 2 Esdras was authentic, not known at the time.

Are you, I mean, the "machine" familiar at all with the rest of the Pseudigrapha like the Ascension of Isaiah, Assumption of Moses, Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, Testament of Solomon, the Odes of Solomon (found only in one of my favorite works, the Pistis Sophia), the Sibylline Oracles, the Apocalypse of Sedrach (another of my favorites), etc. Why does "the Machine" reject them? There are numerous prophecies alluded to in the NT which simply have no trace in the standard OT, you do realize, right?

Does your "Machine" acknowledge the NT "Apocrypha" that didn't make it into the NT like the Acts of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas? I see no reason why Gospel of Thomas is considered "faked", perhaps some of the obviously interpolated verses are faked though.

Officially the machine recognizes only these 66 books of the Bible

Old Testament is the First part
New Testament is the Second part
The Whole Bible is the Third part.
Enoch is all the parts combined to make a Fourth part.

From Exodus 24:
And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink. And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.