- This topic is empty.
- Posts
The above shows that newer translations are less fallible, and hence, the KJV is not infallible.
If anyone disagrees, could they please explain why?Just looking through the “worship” thread and came across this:
Quote MARK 15:19 (New King James Version)
“Then they struck Him on the head with a reed and spat on Him; and bowing the knee, they WORSHIPED Him.”
Many Bible's here have “paid homage to him,” or did “obeisance to him,” or something similar. Clearly, they were not spitting on him and at the same time worshiping him.Heiscoming, were these ones who were spitting on Jesus “worshipping” him as the KJ says? Or were they mockingly bowing down before him? The word that this Bible translates “worship” has a wider range of meanings than just that one word. Because the KJ is trinitarian, it renders all those instances with Jesus as “worship” as though we are to worship Jesus, and as though that is the only word that it could be. But that word is applied to humans in the Bible as well. It doesn't always mean worship. And clearly, at this verse, it definitley doesn't mean worship. It seems to be a mistake.
Case closed.Quote (david @ June 15 2006,08:07) Just looking through the “worship” thread and came across this: Quote MARK 15:19 (New King James Version)
“Then they struck Him on the head with a reed and spat on Him; and bowing the knee, they WORSHIPED Him.”
Many Bible's here have “paid homage to him,” or did “obeisance to him,” or something similar. Clearly, they were not spitting on him and at the same time worshiping him.Heiscoming, were these ones who were spitting on Jesus “worshipping” him as the KJ says? Or were they mockingly bowing down before him? The word that this Bible translates “worship” has a wider range of meanings than just that one word. Because the KJ is trinitarian, it renders all those instances with Jesus as “worship” as though we are to worship Jesus, and as though that is the only word that it could be. But that word is applied to humans in the Bible as well. It doesn't always mean worship. And clearly, at this verse, it definitley doesn't mean worship. It seems to be a mistake.
Case closed.
Hi David,Hold on there! Are they “paying homage to him,” or “ giving obeisance to him”.
Do they really adore him?This is not an argument and doesn’t have any weight.
They would have heard from the Jews, “who he claimed to be”, surely they knew the blasphemy they alleged against him! This is why they “worshiped” him but they done so with black hearts.
Our Lord never teaches that he should not be worshiped, there are many examples of him accepting worship. YET the disciples rebuke such worship.
Not only is the word PROSKUNEŌ used but the descriptions are clear. I would never fall at anyone’s feet as if dead or kiss and wash there feet with my tears and dry them with my hair.
What would it take for you to believe that Jesus is to be worshipped? There are many scriptures to show he is!
Does the Father not command ALL the Angels to worship him?Why did the Holy Spirit not use the following Greek words for our Lord to be praised or adored?
G4576σέβομαιsebomai
seb'-om-ahee
Middle voice of an apparently primary verb; to REVERE, THAT IS, ADORE: – DEVOUT, religious, worship.G1391δόξαdoxa
dox'-ah
From the base of G1380; glory (as very apparent), in a wide application (literally or figuratively, objectively or subjectively): – dignity, glory (-ious), honour, praise, worship.G133αἴνεσις ainesis
ah'ee-nes-is
From G134; A PRAISING (THE ACT), that is, (specifically) a thank (offering): – praise.G5091τιμάω timaō
tim-ah'-o
From G5093; TO PRIZE, that is, fix a valuation upon; BY IMPLICATION TO REVERE: – HONOUR, VALUE.The Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father and the Son choose to use the word proskuneō!
G4352προσκυνέω proskuneō
pros-koo-neh'-o
From G4314 and probably a derivative of G2965 (MEANING TO KISS, LIKE A DOG LICKING HIS MASTER’S HAND); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) PROSTRATE ONESELF IN HOMAGE (do reverence to, adore): – worship.When ever God says he is alone and there is no other Jesus is always revealed!
Why do you think there is a difference here? The word is truth and the real word is proskuneō WORSHIP!Jesus belongs to the first commandment of Love! He is more than just your neighbor! When we see him we see the Father.
This is because the Father has always been the Father of all goodness all rightness all power all glory, all love, he has always Fathered this, the Son has always been Fathered as this! This is why the same was with God in the beginning. Jesus is the Son of ALL POWER AND GLORY etc. The Father has always been the Father and the Son has always been the Son. Jesus was begotten and NOT made!How can he judge you for worshipping him when he has never rebuked such worship! My heart cry’s out to worship him.
Trust in him he will not let you down!Isa 43:10 YE ARE MY WITNESSES, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I AM HE: BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD formed, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME.
Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and BESIDE ME THERE IS NO SAVIOUR.
Isa 43:12 I HAVE DECLARED, AND HAVE SAVED, and I have shewed, when THERE WAS NO STRANGE GOD AMONG YOU: THEREFORE YE ARE MY WITNESSES, saith the LORD, that I am God.
Isa 43:13 Yea, BEFORE THE DAY WAS I AM HE; and THERE IS NONE THAT CAN DELIVER OUT OF MY HAND: I WILL WORK, AND WHO SHALL LET IT?
Isa 43:14 Thus saith the LORD, YOUR REDEEMER, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships.
Isa 43:15 I am the LORD, your HOLY ONE, THE CREATOR of Israel, YOUR KING.How many times was Jesus revealed just in Isa 43:10-15 there are many more examples to shows that the Son is also part of the Godship.
God Bless you.
Hi SS,
The trinity theory is untrue because Jesus is the Son of God and not God Himself.Jesus is a vessel for the Father though, in fact the fullness of deity dwelled in him.
Thus he told Philip if they saw him they saw the Father, and Thomas responded by acknowledging both the Father and the Lord he dwelled in.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 18 2006,10:00) Hi SS,
The trinity theory is untrue because Jesus is the Son of God and not God Himself.Jesus is a vessel for the Father though, in fact the fullness of deity dwelled in him.
Thus he told Philip if they saw him they saw the Father, and Thomas responded by acknowledging both the Father and the Lord he dwelled in.
Hi Nick,I understand where you are coming from!
But Jesus is also the Son of Man, that makes him a man!
Jesus is the Son of God, this makes him God, NOT the Father but the true and only Son of God. He has been fathered with ALL the Wonders that make God, “God” for ever.
There is not in time that the was not the Father or the Son was not the Son.
They have supreme unity and Love unlike anything we can comprehend, God is Love and this Love is shared from the Father to the Son.All the Father has the Son has, this is what makes the Father the Father and the Son the Son.
As scripture reveals it is not our job to try and separate them!
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, THAT THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME. I AM THE LORD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isa 45:8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
Isa 45:9 WOE UNTO HIM THAT STRIVETH WITH HIS MAKER! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. SHALL THE CLAY SAY TO HIM THAT FASHIONETH IT, WHAT MAKEST THOU? OR THY WORK, HE HATH NO HANDS?
Isa 45:10 WOE UNTO HIM THAT SAITH unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
Isa 45:11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.
Isa 45:12 I HAVE MADE THE EARTH, AND CREATED MAN UPON IT: I, EVEN MY HANDS, HAVE STRETCHED OUT THE HEAVENS, and all their host have I commanded.
Isa 45:15 VERILY THOU ART A GOD THAT HIDEST THYSELF, O GOD OF ISRAEL, THE SAVIOUR.
God Bless You
Quote Hi David, Hold on there! Are they “paying homage to him,” or “ giving obeisance to him”.
Do they really adore him?This is not an argument and doesn’t have any weight.
No, they weren't adoring him. They were spitting on him, hitting him on his head. Clearly, they weren't paying homage to him or worshipping him. They were bowing down to him, but in a mocking way.
Quote Our Lord never teaches that he should not be worshiped, there are many examples of him accepting worship.
If your Bible translates proskyneo as “worship” I could understand how you would think that.Anyway it's fantastically clear that if you are spitting on someone, and hitting them, then you are not worshipping them. Hence, this is a mistranslation and shows the obvious bias in this translation in translating it such.
david
Quote (Scripture Seeker @ June 18 2006,10:58) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 18 2006,10:00) Hi SS,
The trinity theory is untrue because Jesus is the Son of God and not God Himself.Jesus is a vessel for the Father though, in fact the fullness of deity dwelled in him.
Thus he told Philip if they saw him they saw the Father, and Thomas responded by acknowledging both the Father and the Lord he dwelled in.
Hi Nick,I understand where you are coming from!
But Jesus is also the Son of Man, that makes him a man!
Jesus is the Son of God, this makes him God, NOT the Father but the true and only Son of God. He has been fathered with ALL the Wonders that make God, “God” for ever.
There is not in time that the was not the Father or the Son was not the Son.
They have supreme unity and Love unlike anything we can comprehend, God is Love and this Love is shared from the Father to the Son.All the Father has the Son has, this is what makes the Father the Father and the Son the Son.
As scripture reveals it is not our job to try and separate them!
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, THAT THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME. I AM THE LORD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isa 45:8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
Isa 45:9 WOE UNTO HIM THAT STRIVETH WITH HIS MAKER! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. SHALL THE CLAY SAY TO HIM THAT FASHIONETH IT, WHAT MAKEST THOU? OR THY WORK, HE HATH NO HANDS?
Isa 45:10 WOE UNTO HIM THAT SAITH unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
Isa 45:11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.
Isa 45:12 I HAVE MADE THE EARTH, AND CREATED MAN UPON IT: I, EVEN MY HANDS, HAVE STRETCHED OUT THE HEAVENS, and all their host have I commanded.
Isa 45:15 VERILY THOU ART A GOD THAT HIDEST THYSELF, O GOD OF ISRAEL, THE SAVIOUR.
God Bless You
Hi SS,
Is Jesus the Son of God, really the Son of God?
Or is “son of God” just a title that refers to a part of a conjoint being with the Spirit.
If so then he is not a son but a person within God Himself as trinity theory proposes.
A son does not share being with his father but derives separate life from him.You suggest on the one hand that he is a son and on the other that because he derives directly from the Father he is not somehow a son??
Unfortunately in so doing such teaching denies the Master.
No amount of crying “mystery-we cannot understand God” covers over what is evil manmade confusion.
Jesus is Emmanuel, the vessel in which dwells the deity of God.
He is Son of Man because his flesh is of Mary, and even Adam sharing fully in our sinful estate but overcoming it and showing us the way in him.
Hi SS,
Does it confuse you that the Builder of all things has instruments to use in His creation?
Does He bring his own messages or do angels do that work?
Why then can the Son not be used by God in all creation?Jesus told us the Father was the only true God?
We agree with that, so why would you find it confusing?Quote (Scripture Seeker @ June 18 2006,15:58) Jesus is the Son of God, this makes him God, NOT the Father but the true and only Son of God. He has been fathered with ALL the Wonders that make God, “God” for ever.
There is not in time that the was not the Father or the Son was not the Son.
Hello SS:Speaking in the belief and hope that you too are born again of the very Holy Spirit of God by which Christ was conceived, doesn't that make you a son of God? And if God's son, then are you a God OR have you become the Most High God OR the Son of God himself?
Remember, you were not born again of a second rate or different spirit but the very same holy spirit. This therefore makes you a true son as Jesus is (though he has all preemminence obviously). At birth, were some of your children less or more of your children than the others? Yet, you have a firstborn and by necessity, one of the children probably has preemminence and leadership and can better take care of his/her siblings in your absence or whatever, given his/her qualities and way of being.
Quote
They have supreme unity and Love unlike anything we can comprehend, God is Love and this Love is shared from the Father to the Son.True about the unity, but SS, is that not the very same unity we are called to partake in? Was that not what Jesus prayed to the Father about and is it not the mind of Christ that which we are to have so that we too may be one with them? How would our union with them be second rate when our fellowship is with the very same people by the Spirit of God?
Quote All the Father has the Son has, this is what makes the Father the Father and the Son the Son. Have you not heard that Christ is HEIR of everything and that we are CO-HEIRS with Christ?
Quote
As scripture reveals it is not our job to try and separate them!No, it is not. They are one but they are not the same being.
The true church of is Christ's own body, but we are not Christ or each other, are we? For if we were Christ, then we are part of the Triune being and subsequently really GOD, which is preposterous we all agree. So you either have to say that the Church is NOT the body of Christ and that Christ is not its HEAD, OR you have to admit that the Church is Christ and being Christ, is part of the Trinity, SS. Which is it going to be?Quote
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, THAT THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME. I AM THE LORD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE.Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isa 45:8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
Isa 45:9 WOE UNTO HIM THAT STRIVETH WITH HIS MAKER! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. SHALL THE CLAY SAY TO HIM THAT FASHIONETH IT, WHAT MAKEST THOU? OR THY WORK, HE HATH NO HANDS?
Isa 45:10 WOE UNTO HIM THAT SAITH unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
Isa 45:11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.
Isa 45:12 I HAVE MADE THE EARTH, AND CREATED MAN UPON IT: I, EVEN MY HANDS, HAVE STRETCHED OUT THE HEAVENS, and all their host have I commanded.
Isa 45:15 VERILY THOU ART A GOD THAT HIDEST THYSELF, O GOD OF ISRAEL, THE SAVIOUR.
Do these scriptures not refer to YHWH, the Father who has a Son?
[/QUOTE]God Bless You
May God bless you and yours too.
Quote (david @ Sep. 12 2005,13:02) I've sometimes struggled with how far this can be taken. For example:
The days are based on gods.
The months are based on gods.
Even something as simple as a ring, wedding rings for example.
There are a lot of things that have pagan backgrounds.My question:
Where do we draw the line.david
Hi Dave:The earth is YHWH's and all the fullness thereof. Partake of that which belongs to your Father, is my way of going about it, or else you'd have to make a premature exit out of the world since satan has been given temporary rulership of things at the moment.
Quote The earth is YHWH's and all the fullness thereof. Partake of that which belongs to your Father
Yes, the earth is rightfully Yahweh's. Yet, he is allowing wickedness and suffering and letting Satan rule the world for a time as you say. Are we to “partake” of everything we see in the earth? Violence, evil, wickedness? The question was about paganism. Where do you draw the line? Eliyah was saying that the english word “god” has pagan backgrounds. Where is the line drawn? As I said, the days of the weeks are based on gods. Where is the line?
While we cannot exit out of the world, we are to be “no part of the world” and it's wicked ways. At least, that's what Jesus said.1 CORINTHIANS 5:9-11
“In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators, not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”So, we obviously can't “get out of the world.” But we can be separate from it. This is clear. This is commanded. (John chapters 15, 17)
Anyway, back to the King James Bible which is claimed to be infallible. Maybe I haven't posted this yet. I don't remember getting a responce from Heiscoming.
1. Many thousands of ancient written secular documents have been found in recent years. And these documents give a better understanding of the original languages— Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek—in which the Bible was written. Not so long ago it was thought that many words in the Greek Scriptures were special Bible words, so to speak. But now these same words have been found in ordinary correspondence of Bible times—in deeds, official documents, and even in receipts. Seeing how these words were used in secular documents of the time has been helpful understanding their meaning.
For example: Ancient papyrus writings have been found that showed the everyday use of certain words not well understood. Thus “Raca” was simply thought to mean “a vain fellow,” but that did not fit in with the severe condemnation of its use by Jesus. (Matt. 5:22, AV margin) Now, however, because of the discovery of a papyrus letter, scholar E. Goodspeed has said that “Raca” was a foul name “which one sometimes heard on the lips of foul-mouthed people but never saw in print.”
2. More and more ancient Bible manuscripts have been discovered. The significance of these finds is not that they are radically different from manuscripts already possessed, indicating need for basic changes in the Bible text. To the contrary, their differences are minor. Yet, if you are a Shakespeare enthusiast, even one word altered in Hamlet would be important to you, although it would really make no difference to the characters, the plot, or the result. Similarly, to a Bible student the change of one word can be important for the meaning of a Bible verse, yet not alter any doctrine or basic interpretation.
At the time of the translation of the King James Version only a few Greek manuscripts were available and these were of rather late origin. But since then many fine vellum manuscripts of the collected Scriptures have come to light, some going back as far as the fourth century of our Common Era. Also papyrus manuscripts and fragments have been uncovered that date back to the third and even the second centuries C.E. Usually, the older the copy, the less likely it is to have suffered changes from copying.3. The English language itself has changed over time. If it continues to change at the same rate, a person who speaks English may have great difficulty understanding anything in the KJV.
For example, to “let” used to mean to “hinder.” Today the meaning usually attached to the expression is just the opposite, to “permit.” (2 Thess. 2:7)
To “prevent” used to mean to “go before” or to “precede.” Today it means to “keep from happening.” (1 Thess. 4:15) “Conversation” used to mean “conduct.” Today it most often refers to talking with another. (Phil. 1:27) And for most persons today “shambles” does not refer to a “meat market,” as it used to, but to a “scene of destruction.”—1 Cor. 10:25.
The English word “coast” in former times did not refer just to a seacoast. It used to mean the side or border of a country. Thus the King James and Catholic Douay, both first published over 360 years ago, speak of the apostle Paul as traveling through the “upper coasts” to Ephesus. (Acts 19:1) However, the Bible record shows that Paul traveled to Ephesus from the “country of Galatia and Phrygia,” a journey that would take him nowhere near a seacoast! (Acts 18:23)
Another example is that of the verb apékho, translated “have” in older translations, but which means “to have in full,” being used “as a technical expression in drawing up a receipt,” as stated in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. So Jesus, in condemning those who hypocritically make a showing of their charity, said that they “are having their reward in full.” That is absolutely all they will ever get, the praise of men, which was just what they wanted.—Matt. 6:2.
There are many many such examples. The Bible is meant to be understood, not to be sung in latin because it sounds pretty. It’s meant to be understood.
4. The removal of God’s name and substitution of titles (GOD and LORD) in most places all except 3 or 4 doesn’t make sense. If it’s ok to use God’s name, why remove it? If it’s not ok, why have it in those few places?
5. And then there are the spurious verses. They have their own threads.
Quote (david @ June 20 2006,02:39) 1 CORINTHIANS 5:9-11
“In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators, not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”So, we obviously can't “get out of the world.” But we can be separate from it. This is clear. This is commanded. (John chapters 15, 17)
Hi david,
This verse says nothing about those of the world we are to avoid but only false brothers.
On the contrary we are to be the light upon the hill, and we are not to hide our light under a bushel.
Peter told us how to behave among those of the world so that they may see that light and be drawn to it's source.We do not judge the world but we are hated because the world lies exposed to the judgements of God because of the Spirit of God in us.
Quote Hi david,
Thios verse says nothing about those of the world we are to avoid but only false brothers.
Really? Doesn't verse 9 speak of fornicators of “this world,” or greedy persons, etc.
Then we're told we would actually have to get out of the world to be entirely separate from them–because they're everywhere. And obvioulsy, we are not to hide ourselves away, because Christians are to be like light, letting the truth be seen.
But then in verse 10 or 11, it speaks of brothers.Anyway, I'm not sure why you're telling me this. Cubes had said that we have to partake of that which belongs to YHWH or exit the world, as the world and everything in it is YHWH's. I pointed to a scripture that speaks of being separate from the bad things that do exist, but of course, not completely free of it, or we really would have to exit the world, as Cubes said.
Hi david,
It is always good to chat and turn over stones together.
The scripture seems to only command that we avoid the false brothers as it is impossible to avoid those in the world we are told to reach out to. False brothers who live in sin are far more of a problem to God and His church than ordinary sinners.Hi,
The KJV is convenient but does has it's bias.
Dan 3
25He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.There was no THE in the manuscript
It could have said A SON OF GOD but chose THE Son of God for certain reasons?“Sacred Namers are a group largely professing to be Torah Observant Gentiles, who believe that the only source of power and righteousness in creation is the use (and frequent use at that) of the Holy Name which the Creator gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. This group routinely pronounces anyone who does not use their terminology and their “correct” pronunciation of the name of G-d as Pagan. There is a deeply troubling quasi-psychotic hatred which can be easily found in these groups. Any word of term which is English or Greek is considered to be Pagan in origin. Even common words such as “Sacred”, “Holy”, or “G-d” will instantly brand you as a pagan idolater who has no hope of redemption.
The history of the Sacred Name Cults shows them to be derived of the Millerite sects, the Adventists and the Church of God, and thus from the false prophet William Miller who prophesied the return of Jesus in 1843 and made a subsequent false prophecy concerning 1845. Though his group self destructed by the mid 19th century the followers became the Adventists and later Church of God sects, preserving the strict legalism and false prophetic bents of the original group.
These groups are founded on hatred and bitterness and a private interpretation of the scriptures which does not bear up to close scrutiny by the Word of G-d. Though claiming to be Torah Observant Messianics they like the Pharisees use their personal interpretation of Torah as a weapon to condemn all others and so miss the heart of Torah completely choosing to judge and condemn instead of loving their neighbor as themselves.
Common Errors of the Sacred Name Movement
Jesus comes from ZeusUsing the fact that the English name of the Messiah, Jesus, ends in a US they insist that this name is actually derived from the name of the leader of the greek Pantheon. They have no etymology or historical references to support this supposition, only the similarity of the English name to a Greek name. The entimology of the name Jesus is well in history and linguistic studies. The hebrew name Y'shua, a variant of Yoshua, becane Iesous in the Greek of the Brit Chadashah (New Testament). This name in the Romance languages of Europe became Hesus or Iesus depending on where you were in Europe. In the Germanic tongues (from which English is derived) the I became hardened into a J and the proper English name for the Messiah became JESUS. There is no evidence whatsoever that the English translators of the bible were followers of the Greco-Roman Pantheon or that they would have used the Greek god Zeus to obtain the name of the Messiah.
The Brit Chadashah (New Testament) was written in Aramaic not in Greek.The testimony of the AnteNicean Fathers (written well before the foundations of the Roman Catholic Church) was that the majority of the New Testament was wrotten in Greek. Matthews Gospel as well as James and Hebrews may very probably have been written in Aramaic, but there is no reliable manuscript evidence that points to a preserved Aramaic text older than the forth century Peshitta (the Syriac version of the Bible). Furthermore, many of the concepts expressed in the New Testament could not have been presented in a concide language of commerce such as Hebrew or Aramaic and needed a philosophical language such as Greek to express the entirety of their thought. For instance: The passage at the end of John where the risen Messiah and Peter (Kefa) enter into a discussion where he is asked if he loves the Messiah.
John 21 15-17 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
The first two time Y'shua asked Kefa if he Agapao him and Kefa replied that he Phileo him. The last time the Messiah asked if Kefa could Phileo him and he wept. Agapao implies unconditional love whereas Phileo is a love that is conditional. In the Semitic tongues there is only one word for LOVE,,, Ahav. Not only would the meaning be lost to us, but if Kefa and Y'shua were speaking Hebrew or Aramaic the meaning would have been lost to Kefa and there would have been no reason for Kefa to be grieved.
The simple fact is that Koine Greek was the Lingua Franca of the Hellenized world much as English is today. People routinely spoke to one another in Koine (which means Common) Greek. To reach the world with the message of the Gospel it would have been necessary to use the common language of the world WHICH WAS GREEK.
Any Term not in Hebrew is Pagan in OriginThis includes words like God, Holy, Sacred… anything in any language which is not Hebrew in origin.
Bereshit (Genesis) 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
The author of the languages of man was the Most High G-d, who confused the languages at Babel. The assumption that languages in themselves are pagan in origin implies that G-d is the author of the pagan religions of man.
The Real Heart of the MatterSacred Namers want to stick the name Yahveh into every thing they write and everything they read. They have published their own versions of the bible with the sacred name pronounced into every name. Without a thorough understanding of Hebraic culture or idiom, these gentiles want to change the name of the Messiah from Y'shua (The Salvation of G-d) to Yahshua (phonetically the same as Yoshua – G-d is Salvation) simply to get the sacred name of YAH into the name of the Messiah. Y'shua is a Hebraic name, Yoshua is a different Hebraic name, but YAHshua is an invention of Gentiles looking for a magic formula and the not the name of the Redeemer.
This is worse than another gospel… this is the gospel of incantation. A form of salvation by reciting the appropriate magic formula. In other words, WITCHCRAFT. And to compund the error and make it into SIN which leads to DEATH… they pass judgment on all who will not repeat their magic name.
When Y'shua/Jesus came to judge between the sheep and the goats, not one sheep was found worthy from knowing the magic name of G-d. Not one goat was condemned for calling the Messiah Zeus. The sheep were welcomed into the sheep pan because they loved, which is righteous judgement, the goats rejected for not judging righteously and in love.
How to Respond to the Sacred NamerTurn their own doctrine back at them
1. “There is no other name given under heaven amongst men by which we must be saved”
2. Jesus is the name of the Messiah in English, this we know for certain. Y'shua is a Hebrew equivalent as is Yoshua… but YAHShua? Never heard if him… it is neither English nor Greek nor even Hebrew, it is an invention of Americans who came out of sect of the Christian Church… a sect that rejects the very religion it came from as being pagan.
3. Paul preached the unknown G-d and never once during that sermon mentioned the name of G-d, how was anyone saved?
4. You do not know the name of the redeemer so by your own doctrine you are condemned
5. You do not know the person of the redeemer because you practice unrighteous judgment based on your own false understanding of the name of G-d therefore according to the Living Torah as given by Y'shua himself, you are a stone white sepulcher full of dead men's bones. Repent of your sins and come to Messiah… learn of the person through his Word (Davar) and his Ruach (Spirit) and you shall receive the FREE GIFT of Salvation.
Do not
bow to their insults, do not be led astray by their foolishness. Proclaim the Word and then if rejected shake the dust off your feet.” (http://www.heartofisrael.net/mdl/SacredName.htm)blessings,
kenQuote (epistemaniac @ Dec. 10 2008,16:37)
“Sacred Namers are a group largely professing to be Torah Observant Gentiles, who believe that the only source of power and righteousness in creation is the use (and frequent use at that) of the Holy Name which the Creator gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. This group routinely pronounces anyone who does not use their terminology and their “correct” pronunciation of the name of G-d as Pagan. There is a deeply troubling quasi-psychotic hatred which can be easily found in these groups. Any word of term which is English or Greek is considered to be Pagan in origin. Even common words such as “Sacred”, “Holy”, or “G-d” will instantly brand you as a pagan idolater who has no hope of redemption.The history of the Sacred Name Cults shows them to be derived of the Millerite sects, the Adventists and the Church of God, and thus from the false prophet William Miller who prophesied the return of Jesus in 1843 and made a subsequent false prophecy concerning 1845. Though his group self destructed by the mid 19th century the followers became the Adventists and later Church of God sects, preserving the strict legalism and false prophetic bents of the original group.
These groups are founded on hatred and bitterness and a private interpretation of the scriptures which does not bear up to close scrutiny by the Word of G-d. Though claiming to be Torah Observant Messianics they like the Pharisees use their personal interpretation of Torah as a weapon to condemn all others and so miss the heart of Torah completely choosing to judge and condemn instead of loving their neighbor as themselves.
Common Errors of the Sacred Name Movement
Jesus comes from ZeusUsing the fact that the English name of the Messiah, Jesus, ends in a US they insist that this name is actually derived from the name of the leader of the greek Pantheon. They have no etymology or historical references to support this supposition, only the similarity of the English name to a Greek name. The entimology of the name Jesus is well in history and linguistic studies. The hebrew name Y'shua, a variant of Yoshua, becane Iesous in the Greek of the Brit Chadashah (New Testament). This name in the Romance languages of Europe became Hesus or Iesus depending on where you were in Europe. In the Germanic tongues (from which English is derived) the I became hardened into a J and the proper English name for the Messiah became JESUS. There is no evidence whatsoever that the English translators of the bible were followers of the Greco-Roman Pantheon or that they would have used the Greek god Zeus to obtain the name of the Messiah.
The Brit Chadashah (New Testament) was written in Aramaic not in Greek.The testimony of the AnteNicean Fathers (written well before the foundations of the Roman Catholic Church) was that the majority of the New Testament was wrotten in Greek. Matthews Gospel as well as James and Hebrews may very probably have been written in Aramaic, but there is no reliable manuscript evidence that points to a preserved Aramaic text older than the forth century Peshitta (the Syriac version of the Bible). Furthermore, many of the concepts expressed in the New Testament could not have been presented in a concide language of commerce such as Hebrew or Aramaic and needed a philosophical language such as Greek to express the entirety of their thought. For instance: The passage at the end of John where the risen Messiah and Peter (Kefa) enter into a discussion where he is asked if he loves the Messiah.
John 21 15-17 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
The first two time Y'shua asked Kefa if he Agapao him and Kefa replied that he Phileo him. The last time the Messiah asked if Kefa could Phileo him and he wept. Agapao implies unconditional love whereas Phileo is a love that is conditional. In the Semitic tongues there is only one word for LOVE,,, Ahav. Not only would the meaning be lost to us, but if Kefa and Y'shua were speaking Hebrew or Aramaic the meaning would have been lost to Kefa and there would have been no reason for Kefa to be grieved.
The simple fact is that Koine Greek was the Lingua Franca of the Hellenized world much as English is today. People routinely spoke to one another in Koine (which means Common) Greek. To reach the world with the message of the Gospel it would have been necessary to use the common language of the world WHICH WAS GREEK.
Any Term not in Hebrew is Pagan in OriginThis includes words like God, Holy, Sacred… anything in any language which is not Hebrew in origin.
Bereshit (Genesis) 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
The author of the languages of man was the Most High G-d, who confused the languages at Babel. The assumption that languages in themselves are pagan in origin implies that G-d is the author of the pagan religions of man.
The Real Heart of the MatterSacred Namers want to stick the name Yahveh into every thing they write and everything they read. They have published their own versions of the bible with the sacred name pronounced into every name. Without a thorough understanding of Hebraic culture or idiom, these gentiles want to change the name of the Messiah from Y'shua (The Salvation of G-d) to Yahshua (phonetically the same as Yoshua – G-d is Salvation) simply to get the sacred name of YAH into the name of the Messiah. Y'shua is a Hebraic name, Yoshua is a different Hebraic name, but YAHshua is an invention of Gentiles looking for a magic formula and the not the name of the Redeemer.
This is worse than another gospel… this is the gospel of incantation. A form of salvation by reciting the appropriate magic formula. In other words, WITCHCRAFT. And to compund the error and make it into SIN which leads to DEATH… they pass judgment on all who will not repeat their magic name.
When Y'shua/Jesus came to judge between the sheep and the goats, not one sheep was found worthy from knowing the magic name of G-d. Not one goat was condemned for calling the Messiah Zeus. The sheep were welcomed into the sheep pan because they loved, which is righteous judgement, the goats rejected for not judging righteously and in love.
How to Respond to the Sacred NamerTurn their own doctrine back at them
1. “There is no other name given under heaven amongst men by which we must be saved”
2. Jesus is the name of the Messiah in English, this we know for certain. Y'shua is a Hebrew equivalent as is Yoshua… but YAHShua? Never heard if him… it is neither English nor Greek nor even Hebrew, it is an invention of Americans who came out of sect of the Christian Church… a sect that rejects the very religion it came from as being pagan.
3. Paul preached the unknown G-d and never once during that sermon mentioned the name of G-d, how was anyone saved?
4. You do not know the name of the redeemer so by your own doctrine you are condemned
5. You do not know the person of the redeemer because you practice unrighteous judgment based on your own false understanding of the name of G-d therefore according to the Living Torah as given by Y'shua himself, yo
u are a stone white sepulcher full of dead men's bones. Repent of your sins and come to Messiah… learn of the person through his Word (Davar) and his Ruach (Spirit) and you shall receive the FREE GIFT of Salvation.Do not bow to their insults, do not be led astray by their foolishness. Proclaim the Word and then if rejected shake the dust off your feet.” (http://www.heartofisrael.net/mdl/SacredName.htm)
blessings,
kenHi Ken
Excellent post. I especially like this part…
Quote (epistemaniac @ Dec. 10 2008,16:37)
Turn their own doctrine back at them1. “There is no other name given under heaven amongst men by which we must be saved”
2. Jesus is the name of the Messiah in English, this we know for certain. Y'shua is a Hebrew equivalent as is Yoshua… but YAHShua? Never heard if him… it is neither English nor Greek nor even Hebrew, it is an invention of Americans who came out of sect of the Christian Church… a sect that rejects the very religion it came from as being pagan.
3. Paul preached the unknown G-d and never once during that sermon mentioned the name of G-d, how was anyone saved?
4. You do not know the name of the redeemer so by your own doctrine you are condemned
5. You do not know the person of the redeemer because you practice unrighteous judgment based on your own false understanding of the name of G-d therefore according to the Living Torah as given by Y'shua himself, you are a stone white sepulcher full of dead men's bones. Repent of your sins and come to Messiah… learn of the person through his Word (Davar) and his Ruach (Spirit) and you shall receive the FREE GIFT of Salvation.
Do not bow to their insults, do not be led astray by their foolishness. Proclaim the Word and then if rejected shake the dust off your feet.” (http://www.heartofisrael.net/mdl/SacredName.htm)
blessings,
kenAMEN!
Blessings! WJ
FUN WORDS IN THE KJ THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS:
almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, rabboni, raca, ring-staked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, brigandine, ambassage, occurent, purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, talitha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, sanctum sanctorum, let, wot, trow, sod and swaddling clothes.
For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I? Eccl.2:25
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing. Ps.5:6
Nevertheless even him [Solomon] did outlandish women cause to sin. Neh. 13:26
Solomon loved many strange women. 1Kings 11:1
Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof. Job 26:5
The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour. Job 36:33
Woe to them that…stay on horses. Is. 31:1; 10:20; 30:12; 50:12
The ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market. Ez. 27:25
I trow not. Luke 17:9
He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. John 15:2
We do you to wit of the grace of God. 2Cor. 8:1
I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified. 1Cor.4:4
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. 2Cor.6:12
Not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand. 2Cor.10:16
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. Eccl.12:11
For some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol. 2Cor.8:7I found this interesting, the revisions:
* 1612
* Early editions used either “he” or “she” at Ruth 3:15
* 1613
* 1616
* In fact, between 1611 and 1644 there were 182 editions
* 1629 edition omitted the Apocrypha
* 1638 edition by Goad, Ward, Boyse and Mead
* 1659 William Kilburne found 20,000 errors in 6 different editions made in the 1650's
* 1660 marginal references introduced
* 1683 Dr.Anthony Scargood added 7,250 references
* 1727 thousands of errors were amended by the King's Printer
* 1762 italics extended by Therold and Paris and modernized the language
* 1769 extensive revision by B.Blayney
* The 1795 edition(Murderers Bible) rendered Mark 7:27 as “Let the chidren first be killed” (instead of filled).
* Blayney's edition became standard until….
* 1873 the Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by ScrivenerThe 1611 edition had, “Then cometh Judas” at Matthew 26:36, today's KJV has “Then cometh Jesus”. Quite a remarkable difference!
In fact,
In 1851 the American Bible Society compared six different editions of the King James Bible and discovered over 24,000 variations between the editions of the same Bible translation! How could there be an inerrant King James Bible when even the different editions of the King James Bible had ten's of thousands of variant readings!?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
