Bad translations, Misinterpations add ons. What do we really know??

[juantoo3]

Hey, I have a question for you guys that goes beyond mistranslation.

All four Maccabbees, parts of Daniel and Esther, as well as numerous other books in the Catholic Apocrypha, were in the Septuagint, concidered the Law in Jesus Christ's time, and the Scriptures alluded to when you find the word within the New Testament, as well as the Scriptures which Jesus Christ quotes from. (For fairness, however, read this: What is the Septuagint?)

If most scholars, from my understanding, hold this belief, why are these books which were in the divinely inspired Septuagint NOT in most Bibles we find today, and also concidered Apocryphal but some?

Also, if Jude quotes the book of Enoch, why is THAT not canonized?

I'll go you one better...the Apocrypha you mention *is* included in the original printing of the KJV in 1611 (still available as a reprint), but is left out of later printings.

Bobx probably knows the history far better than I, but the question you ask is a long lesson in history. Even the little I know of would take too long and bore you to tears.

 

[bob x]

Indeed. My problem is with most popular bibles. Why is it not so in America? In the NIV version, the King James Version, the NAS version?

The book of Enoch isn't in the standard "apocrypha" (never considered canonical by the Catholics or anyone else in the West, not included in the King James etc.) because, to put it bluntly, it is full of very embarrassing crap. There's a whole chapter explaining how the sun comes from the outer heavens through the solid dome ("firmament") through twelve different windows in the east (the world is presumed flat), one window for each month, with corresponding windows in the west for the sun to exit again; and this explanation of why the length of the day changes seasonally is then followed by an explanation of why the moon changes shape which I cannot make heads or tails of. In a way I wish Enoch was still in the canon, because it would make arguments with creationists even more entertaining if this was all part of what fundies had to defend as literally infallible.

 

[Quahom1]

I dont understand, what did Bishadi say that was insulting? and to whom did he insult? Who here feels Bashadi insulted them with his comments?? Just wondering since I didn't understand what Bishadi said that was insulting.

Bishadi's expresses faith as a logical juxtaposition to the way things are to be (e.g. a2 + b2 + c2 = d2 = the square root of d, and if you don't follow it this way, your answer is wrong and you are foolish). In reality, faith has no logic to most. It is a leap beyond logic or sequential steps. Some call it intuition, others simply know in their souls/spirits/hearts/minds. Some have doubt, but choose to override that doubt, and believe.

Bishadi does not allow for anything but logical, sequential deduction.

That in and of itself is fine. But to scoff at others for not following as he does is, well, insulting.

 

[winner08]

Bishadi's expresses faith as a logical juxtaposition to the way things are to be (e.g. a2 + b2 + c2 = d2 = the square root of d, and if you don't follow it this way, your answer is wrong and you are foolish). In reality, faith has no logic to most. It is a leap beyond logic or sequential steps. Some call it intuition, others simply know in their souls/spirits/hearts/minds. Some have doubt, but choose to override that doubt, and believe.

Bishadi does not allow for anything but logical, sequential deduction.

That in and of itself is fine. But to scoff at others for not following as he does is, well, insulting.

Ok thanks for the explanation: I got it and yes I agree.

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi's expresses faith as a logical juxtaposition to the way things are to be (e.g. a2 + b2 + c2 = d2 = the square root of d, and if you don't follow it this way, your answer is wrong and you are foolish).

that is linear and of maintaining the 2nd law.

but they forgot how entanglement works. Entanglement is a property of light (EM) that is a rule breaker. (simply how prophecies/deja vu or consciousness can even exist) NO magic, just a combining of knowledge that revealed the understanding of that 'non-local' affect.

In reality, faith has no logic to most. It is a leap beyond logic or sequential steps. Some call it intuition, others simply know in their souls/spirits/hearts/minds. Some have doubt, but choose to override that doubt, and believe.

that is the error; to accept rather than KNOW how it works

that is why the seekers within most parts of the world, who truly contributed were not religiously bound to a belief over the truth.

Bishadi does not allow for anything but logical, sequential deduction.

try common sense.

sequential was given up a long time ago

That in and of itself is fine. But to scoff at others for not following as he does is, well, insulting.

name an item that i say to 'follow' other than honesty?

maybe 'the light'

maybe compassion, love and the nature of god

i must come across as a bad man, to xpect honesty and responsibiliy

but if you see the underlying theme then you would know, it means we are all equal and I EXPECT each to stand up

 

[Quahom1]

name an item that i say to 'follow' other than honesty?

maybe 'the light'

maybe compassion, love and the nature of god

i must come across as a bad man, to xpect honesty and responsibiliy

but if you see the underlying theme then you would know, it means we are all equal and I EXPECT each to stand up

No, you aren't a bad person, at all.

But try this...I "know" beyond the shadow of doubt, yet I can't explain it to anyone. I just have to live it...in order for others to see, what I see, by watching me...

v/r

Q

 

[Bishadi]

No, you aren't a bad person, at all.

But try this...I "know" beyond the shadow of doubt, yet I can't explain it to anyone. I just have to live it...in order for others to see, what I see, by watching me...

v/r

Q

that; no 'do' just walk mentality makes no good (life)

i do to live

and the reason you recognize that what is being shared is 'good' is the representations are correct

it is 'me' the 'attitude' you don't like and in a sense, that is good too because then you still think for yourself and not relying on anyone

Now don't be too surprised when you finally realize the who

just remember the arrogant fool

 

[Quahom1]

that; no 'do' just walk mentality makes no good (life)

i do to live

and the reason you recognize that what is being shared is 'good' is the representations are correct

it is 'me' the 'attitude' you don't like and in a sense, that is good too because then you still think for yourself and not relying on anyone

Now don't be too surprised when you finally realize the who

just remember the arrogant fool

Well, any relationship takes two...including one between man and God...otherwise "self" is a lonely position to be in, and not worth striving to better for...

 

[Bishadi]

Well, any relationship takes two...including one between man and God...otherwise "self" is a lonely position to be in, and not worth striving to better for...

The innert compassion for others is upon the tip of your tongue.

No one has the 'selfish' right to fib.

Nor continue a fib

nor promote a fib because their selfish complacency accepts it

all them selfs are why so many are alone and away from god



that is the key; consideration of others over the self

and if more were bound to equality, honesty, compassion, responsiblility and ultimately thereof GOD............. then Peace can exist!


So as you like the little circle of your little environment; a seed is being planted for the encircling TRUTH to live and begin that universal 'collective conscious' of the ever sought, 'heaven on earth'


again; some are doers and some don't

in the context of the future, the children and the life of mankind; them who 'don't' are the selfish because they like 'their' own little world and could give a hoot about anything else

so hate me for caring........

 

[Thomas]

The famous scripture of John 3:16 For God so lovED the world, The correct wording is For God lovES the world. If the word was lovED it would imply that He no longer loves the word.

Actually you have been misled — the tense of the verb cannot be accurately translated into English, it is neither past tense, present nor future, its called 'aorist' tense:

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time.

So the emphasis is upon God's love, without conditioning or determining that love as past, present or future.

Here's another famous passages Jesus said Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.

I found out to my suprise that Jesus never said this. This is an add on also.

Really? Who's been telling you this? It's too much of an over-simplification.
Many manuscripts do not contain this text, whilst others do. So, shall we assume that Jesus never said it? Is it inauthentic?

Well earlier Luke 6:27-31 says nothing different:
"But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away. Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you."
And Matthew says the same 5:44.

In Acts 7:59-60 (Luke again) it is repeated by Stephen at his execution:
"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep."

It's notable that even those who regard this verse to be 'inauthentic' in the sense of belonging to the Gospel, nevertheless regard it as 'authentic' in the sense of being something Christ would have said.

What else is added What else have we been taught that isn't true?? Things Jesus never said or taught. I have a few Ideas and most of you know what they are. I was wondering what yall think?

I think you need to be really, really sure of your facts before you start telling others what is or is not true.

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

"Forgive them Father for they know not what they do."

I think you need to be really, really sure of your facts before you start telling others what is or is not true.

Thomas

As it is told, then Jesus dies, they take him down, 3 days later, He rises;

hangs out for a bit, then is supposed to ascend into heaven as the christ to return.

Now i ask, does this make sense?

Why not 'rise' and go back as KING of the "people" to them whom killed him and shares HE is the KING?

Or perhaps, the man, passed out, (they thought HE was dead), 3 days later hungry, cold and practically naked He gets up, hangs out a bit, eats (why would a risen God eat)

then says 46and he said to them -- `Thus it hath been written, and thus it was behoving the Christ to suffer, and to rise out of the dead the third day, "

would someone show us all where that is written else-where than 'bible'

i heard of a story of a someone is supposed to be wounded in which they thought it was terminal and he lived..... that is in the torah but to 'rise out of the dead'...?

"I think you need to be really, really sure of your facts before you start telling others what is or is not true."

Having faith is not the same as representing truth.

 

[winner08]

Actually you have been misled — the tense of the verb cannot be accurately translated into English, it is neither past tense, present nor future, its called 'aorist' tense:

So the emphasis is upon God's love, without conditioning or determining that love as past, present or future.


Really? Who's been telling you this? It's too much of an over-simplification.
Many manuscripts do not contain this text, whilst others do. So, shall we assume that Jesus never said it? Is it inauthentic?

Well earlier Luke 6:27-31 says nothing different:
"But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away. Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you."
And Matthew says the same 5:44.

In Acts 7:59-60 (Luke again) it is repeated by Stephen at his execution:
"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep."

It's notable that even those who regard this verse to be 'inauthentic' in the sense of belonging to the Gospel, nevertheless regard it as 'authentic' in the sense of being something Christ would have said.


I think you need to be really, really sure of your facts before you start telling others what is or is not true.

Thomas

Just so you know Thomas I think real hard and i am sure about my facts before I tell others here. For your information Thomas Luke 23:34 was added to the text at a latter date. This is a fact. In my B

 

[winner08]

Thomas I know these fact are tue Jesus never said forgive them Father for they know not what they do. It never Happen. As far as my teacher. well I will tell you where this info. came from. It comes from The Great professor C. Tischendorf's notes on the readings of the two of the oldest greek manuscripts. The Sinaitic and the Vitican #1209. The following words found in our common version (KJV) are not found in the oldest manuscripts and are evidently no part of the Divine Word. Just so you know In my (NKJV) Bible on the bottom of the page 23:34 NU-text bracketts the first sentence as a later addition. Luke 23:34 Forgive them Father for they know not what they do, was a later addition. Got it. FYI I check and study and reasearch before I state something on this site. Because if I don;t and I am wrong I just know you and other will be there to rip me apart. Therefore I make sure it is correct before I post. You should try quoting scripture to show what you say is backed by God's word. I do. You should not take mans word on anything concerning God and His truths. One more thing You should not get caught up in the traditions of men they wil lead you astray.
There are many many more passages and words that are added later into the gospels for whatever the reasons are. Just do some reasearch and you will find them.

 

[Bishadi]

Bad translations, Misinterpations add ons. What do we really know??

 

[mee]

Enoch is not the writer of the "Book of Enoch." This is an uninspired, apocryphal book written many centuries later,

 

[Quahom1]

Enoch is not the writer of the "Book of Enoch." This is an uninspired, apocryphal book written many centuries later,

Actually it is part of the original scriptures of the OT. It just was't accepted as part of the biblia canon, as put together circa 352 AD/ACE. But then again, John's Revelation almost didn't make it into the bible either...(just by a couple of votes).

 

[Bishadi]

Bad translations, Misinterpations add ons. What do we really know??

Babilu; 'Gateway of the Gods' aka... the 'holy city'

but not since Genesis, it became Babylon.

anyone know why?

 

[winner08]

Hell is the most outrageous mistranslation of a word in the Bible. Christians believe that hell is a place where God will send non believers to be torture and tormented in a lake of fire for all enertity. Wrong here are the facts. the New Testament was written in Greek. In the Greek manuscripts Hell is not used but hades is and hades is the unseen in greek. so here are every chapter and verse that hell is used in the N.T. If you want to read the scripture then my all means go for it. but for the sake of time and space I will just give you the chapter and verse that the word hell is found in and in each and ever instance it should read hades. Not hell

Matt 11:23,luke 10:15, matt 16:18, luke 16:23, rev,1:18,acts 2:27&31, rev 6:8, rev20:13,&14 1cor15:55, and one 11 pet.2:4 the word hell is translated tartarous. meaning prison or abyss or restraint. but never, never is the word hell translated into meaning a place of fire and torment a place where my loving God would send any of His creation. Hell/hades/unseen

 

[Quahom1]

Hell is the most outrageous mistranslation of a word in the Bible. Christians believe that hell is a place where God will send non believers to be torture and tormented in a lake of fire for all enertity. Wrong here are the facts. the New Testament was written in Greek. In the Greek manuscripts Hell is not used but hades is and hades is the unseen in greek. so here are every chapter and verse that hell is used in the N.T. If you want to read the scripture then my all means go for it. but for the sake of time and space I will just give you the chapter that the word hell is found in and in each and ever instance it should read hades. Not hell

Matt 11:23,luke 10:15, matt 16:18, luke 16:23, rev,1:18,acts 2:27&31, rev 6:8, rev20:13,&14 1cor15:55, and one 11 pet.2:4 the word hell is translated tartarous. meaning prison or abyss or restraint. but never, never is the word hell translated into meaning a place of fire and torment a place where my loving God would send any of His creation. Hell/hades/unseen

Is it? What did Jesus specifically say about Hell?

Let's see:

In Luke 16, Jesus Christ gives a frightening picture of hell: 22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)

Again in Mark 9, And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:43-48

Seems to me the Lord was pretty specific...

 

[winner08]

Is it? What did Jesus specifically say about Hell?

Let's see:

In Luke 16, Jesus Christ gives a frightening picture of hell: 22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)

Again in Mark 9, And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:43-48

Seems to me the Lord was pretty specific...

yes Jesus said some frighting things about hell. But you are not useing the correct translations of the word hell. The New Testament was originaly written in the greek lanuage. the word hell wan not even in the the bible until in was translated into latin and english. i made this clear. Hell in the orginal greek manuscript of the N.T. is hades. each place where you see the word hell it would read hades in the original text. Hades is not a place of fire and brimstone where God will send if your a non believer. This is all part of the manmade doctrin. trying to scared people into believeing in God. Read it for your self. It dosen't take much time. Just go to any concordence and look up the word hell for what ever chapter and verse it is in and the cocodence will show you what the original word is and the meanning, in the original text. I believe you once told me to look stuff up for my self. try it you'll see i am telling you the truth. There is no such place is hell. There's hades and hades means unseen a state of the dead Bring one down to hades. the dead.