The bodies of satan, demons, and angels

[2besee]

Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 05 2013,00:48)

2Bessee I am showing that there are a lot of new versions that don't acknowledge that we have to believe in CHRIST to have eternal life.  These are popular bibles.  Don't you find it disturbing? Am I of the KJV only cult? Do you know who invented this stereotype and encouraged this kind of talk? Now can you answer me this please? Psalms 12:6   The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Does this sound like to you that his Word is something pretty light?  that would be lost to the gentiles for four generations? Quote So, no, Journey. Cover your ears, and shake your head, but truth is – there is no perfect translation, the spirit leads us into truth, and what you are doing is (as above). Sorry I can't accept that.  The truth is in his words, and he preserved that for us from GENERATION to GENERATION for all Jews and Gentiles included.   I happen to know what the NWO has been up to, and they have subtly watered down the Words of God, and used “their own hand picked experts” to provide false, misleading information and facts.

Journey,
Yes a few new versions but not the majority.
The RSV/JB/NJB/etc etc etc are all Fine… actually, more accurate (IMO) than the KJV, because, the KJV has REPLACED God's name with LORD (which some even claim means Baal), and also the KJV has BIG errors. So it's not 100% perfect, as you seem to claim.

[2besee]

The JB (Jerusalem Bible) for example keeps the name, Yahweh (YHWH), and was translated word for word from the original Hebrew/Greek, and Aramaic.

[terraricca]

Quote (2besee @ Nov. 05 2013,01:54)

The JB (Jerusalem Bible) for example keeps the name, Yahweh (YHWH), and was translated word for word from the original Hebrew/Greek, and Aramaic.

2BEE

how could someone translate a book WORD FOR WORD from two other books ?

this is puzzles me ,how is that done

either one book is ok but two and word for word

[kerwin]

Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 04 2013,07:13)

Kerwin, If that was the case, then why didn't the new age translators re-translate John 1:1 to say from eternal?

journey42,

I have no idea since Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Word in John 1:1 and that he has been around since eternity.  

The Koine Greak word is rosh and it's short definition is head and there is no context of time so I am not sure where the AKJV translators were cumming from.  The NIV clearly believe the head of God's Word is all of it.

[2besee]

Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 05 2013,09:27)

Quote (2besee @ Nov. 05 2013,01:54) The JB (Jerusalem Bible) for example keeps the name, Yahweh (YHWH), and was translated word for word from the original Hebrew/Greek, and Aramaic. 2BEE how could someone translate a book WORD FOR WORD  from two other books ? this is puzzles me ,how is that done either one book is ok but two and word for word

Terraricca, yes you're right, I misread something.

Anyway this was what I was getting at – quote Wikipedia:

“In1943 Pope Pius XII issued a letter that the scriptures be translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts,
rather than from Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

As a result, a number of Dominicans and other scholars at the École Biblique in Jerusalem translated the scriptures into French .

The product of these efforts was published as La Bible de Jérusalem in 1956.

This French translation served as the impetus for an English translation in 1966, the Jerusalem Bible .

For the majority of the books, the English translation was a translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts; in passages with more than one interpretation, the French is generally followed. For a small number of Old Testament books, the first draft of the English translation was made directly from the French, and then the General Editor produced a revised draft by comparing this word-for-word to the Hebrew or Aramaic.

The translation itself uses a literal approach that has been admired for its literary qualities, perhaps in part due to its most famous contributor, J.R.R. Tolkien (his primary contribution was the translation of Jonah).
The introductions, footnotes, and even the translation itself reflect a modern scholarly approach and the conclusions of scholars who use historical-critical method.

In the pursuit of compliance with modernity and evidence, the Jerusalem Bible returns to the use of the historical name Yahweh as the
name of God in the Old Testament.”

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 31 2013,22:30)

My problem is the body is composed of spirit which is immaterial. There is nothing in spirit to make a body of. I am not even sure how a ghost has a form.

I don't know anything about “ghosts”, Kerwin. I suppose they are thought by many to be the spirits of dead people. Sometimes they hang around and haunt folks, and sometimes they “go to the light” or whatever.

But since YOU think “ghosts” are “DISEMBODIED” spirits, explain to us how they have BODIES that people can see on occasion.

You say there is nothing in “spirit” to make a body of, but “ghosts” are spirits, right? And they seem to have bodies, right? Could it be that their bodies are also made of spirit – as in “spirit bodies”?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Devolution @ Nov. 01 2013,07:25)

Hi Mike, Quote (mikeboll @ 64) I see this particular spirit as one of God's beloved angel sons, who had a good idea that God accepted, and then was given permission from God Himself to act on that idea. Would it really be 'a good idea' for a good angel to have an evil idea?

Hi Devo,

Didn't God approve the idea? Would God approve of “evil”?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 01 2013,13:19)

Devolution, Mike does not seem to understand that becoming a false prophecy in the mouth of 400 prophets in order to deceive someone God wants to deceive is evil. He does not seem to perceive that God uses the actions of evil doers to accomplish good

So God condoned an “evil” act, but God isn't “evil” Himself?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 01 2013,21:33)

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 02 2013,14:26) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 02 2013,03:57) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 02 2013,05:59) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 01 2013,12:37) Kerwin. God is a spirit. Has he got a body? wakeup. Wakeup, God created all things that are physical.  Bodies are physical constructs. Kerwin. Is God also physical? wakeup. Wakeup, God did not create himself. kerwin. Is that answer? NO? But he is spirit. wakeup.

You are right that Kerwin is NOT giving you a DIRECT and HONEST answer to your DIRECT and HONEST question.

I'm way behind in this thread, and addressing posts as I read through them.  But if he hasn't DIRECTLY answered your question by the time I get to the end, I will do something about it.

This kind of crap gets old for all of us.  Let your YES mean yes, and your NO mean no.  (But first you must actually SAY “Yes” or “No” before it can mean anything at all.  The diversion tactics many here use really piss me off.  Either ANSWER the questions, or don't get involved in the discussion in the first place.)

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 02 2013,05:32)

Compare these; KJV Hebrews 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. NIV Hebrews 9:10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings–external regulations applying until the time of the new order. NET BIBLE [Hebrews 9:10 They served only for matters of food and drink and various washings; they are external regulations imposed until the new order came.

The Greek words are, “until the time of setting things right” – for what it's worth.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 02 2013,06:07)

J42. They will just ignore that,it only causing discomfort. Their nests are nice and warm,not to be disturbed. wakeup

You say that about us because we aren't blinded by ONE group's interpretation of Hebrew and Greek scriptures?

We search many translations, and many lexicons and dictionaries to find what the authors REALLY intended to write down for us.

You guys should not put such blind faith in one translation……… especially one that has many known and proven flaws.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 02 2013,10:25)

To All……….God is Not EVIL Himself, but to think for one moment He did not Create everything that exists is pure foolishness……..

So God created rape? And child molestation? And bestiality? And homosexual desires?

What God did was to endow His creatures with FREE WILL. Some choose to obey God and His laws, and others choose not to.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 02 2013,17:27)

Wakeup, It is an answer. God created all that is physical. God did not create himself. Therefore God is not physical.

It's a round about way of playing games instead of just saying, “YES, God does have a body”, or “No, God doesn't have a body”.

You play too many word games, Kerwin.  Let your yes be yes and your no be no from now on, okay?

As for your point, what you call “ghosts” aren't physical, right?  But people often think they SEE ghosts, right?  What are they SEEING – if not the form of a body?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 02 2013,17:44)

Journey42, The AKJV was translated by a state controlled religion whose “pope” was King James I. It seems strange to advocate it against what you choose to call the NWO. The NWO would prefer a more socialist translation than any of the modern versions you so easily condemn.

Good words, Kerwin.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 02 2013,20:16)

So men have “IMPROVED” his word in the last 40 years or so.  and God had no power to deliver it pure?

Well, the first language into which the NT was translated that uses an indefinite article was the Coptic language of Egypt.  

And they translated John 1:1 as, “and the Word was a god”.  That was about the 2nd century A.D.

Does the KJV say, “and the Word was a god”?  If not, then I guess God didn't keep his written word “pure”.

Why do you suppose it took so many CENTURIES after the NT was written for the KJV to come along and be the “pure” translation?

journey, I'm not trying to slam the KJV.  I believe it is a fine translation produced by fine men who were doing the very best they could with the knowledge and mss they had at that time.

But we've since uncovered much older and better mss.  And we've uncovered much “lost” knowledge from other sources.  I'll give you a little example:

Proverbs 8:22 NET ©
The Lord created 1  me as the beginning 2  of his works, 3  before his deeds of long ago.

Footnote #1 says:
There are two roots קָנָה (qanah) in Hebrew, one meaning “to possess,” and the other meaning “to create.” The earlier English versions did not know of the second root, but suspected in certain places that a meaning like that was necessary (e.g., Gen 4:1; 14:19; Deut 32:6). Ugaritic confirmed that it was indeed another root. The older versions have the translation “possess” because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the beginning. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal.

Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (“appointed,” and “given birth”) argue for the translation of “create”………

So it has since been PROVEN that there are TWO roots to the Hebrew word “qanah”.  But even though the KJV translators SUSPECTED there must be such a root, due to the verses listed above, they did not have PROOF of such a thing, and so translated as “possessed” instead of as “created”.

But if you read verses 23, 24, and 25, you'll see that this “wisdom” was “given birth”, “born”, and “established”.  All those things in the context argue for a translation of “created” in verse 22.

This is just one example of the things we do know now that we didn't know when the KJV scholars set out to translate the KJV.  There are many more examples such as this one.

“New” doesn't necessarily mean “wrong” or “false” or “worse”, etc. Sometimes “new” is much better, like when the NEW Testament sheds much light on the OLD Testament.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 02 2013,20:46)

THEY SAY LEARN TO READ THEM ALL.  PUT THEM ALL IN FRONT OF YOU AND SPREAD THEM OUT IN FRONT OF YOU……… AND YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HEAR THE VOICE OF GOD IN ALL THIS?   SOUNDS NOISY TO ME.

I'm currently in Nehemiah in my fifth translation.  Each time through, I learn the scriptures better……. but I'm also learning a lot just from the different ways many verses are translated.

I've read the NWT, NIV, CEV, NASB, and am currently reading the NET.  The JWs just released a modern English version.  I have it on my phone, and have read a few scriptures.  I really like it so far.  So I will probably read that one after I finish Young's Literal Translation – with is next on my list.

I probably won't ever read the KJV – simply because I don't speak Shakespearian English, and can't understand what they're even saying half the time. (Young's Literal is similar, so we'll see how far I get in it before I bang my head against a wall.)

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 03 2013,05:07)

Can you spot the difference? And then tell me why I think it's my right to question. KJV HOSEA 11:12 Ephraim compasseth me about with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit: but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints. NIV HOSEA 11:12 Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, Israel with deceit. And Judah is unruly against God, even against the faithful Holy One.

Hosea 11:12 NET ©
Ephraim has surrounded me with lies; the house of Israel has surrounded me 2 with deceit. But Judah still roams about with 3 God; he remains faithful to the Holy One.

Footnote #3 says:
The verb רוּד (rud, “to roam about freely”) is used in a concrete sense to refer to someone wandering restlessly and roaming back and forth (Judg 11:37).

Here, it is used figuratively, possibly with positive connotations, as indicated by the preposition עִם (’im, “with”), to indicate accompaniment: “but Judah still goes about with God”.

Some English versions render it positively: “Judah still walks with God” (RSV, NRSV); “Judah is restive under God” (REB); “but Judah stands firm with God” (NJPS); “but Judah yet ruleth with God” (KJV, ASV).

Other English versions adopt the negative connotation “to wander restlessly” and nuance עִם in an adversative sense (“against”): “Judah is still rebellious against God” (NAB), “Judah is unruly against God” (NIV), and “the people of Judah are still rebelling against me” (TEV).

It's hard for me to tell from the context which one is the correct understanding. It's apparently hard for all the scholars who translated all those various versions mentioned above too.

Is Hosea speaking about BEFORE Judah also angered God to the point of exile? Or AFTER that happened? Because that would be the thing that tells us which way to understand the words.

I don't have time right now to research into when Hosea was written, or into what time frame he was speaking about in the above verse.

How do YOU know the KJV scholars got it right? And even if they did, can't you see all those other NEWER translations that understand it the same as the KJV?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 03 2013,18:57)

The translators of the KJV were so corrupt, they implied that whoever believed in Jesus has everlasting life. But man who studies the bible in a college knows better.  Yes the same men who make profit from publishing new bibles did not think it was necessary to state exactly who you have to believe in to have everlasting life.  Just believe, and you will have everlasting life. Believe in who? KJV John 6:47   Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. NIV John 6:47   Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. NLV John 6:47   I tell you the truth, anyone who believes has eternal life. ESV John 6:47   Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. NASB John 6:47   Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. HCSB John 6:47   I assure you: Anyone who believes has eternal life. Net Bible John 6:47  I tell you the solemn truth, the one who believes has eternal life. Gods Word Bible John 6:47   I can guarantee this truth: Every believer has eternal life. ASB John 6:47   Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth hath eternal life. ERV John 6:47   Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth hath eternal life. That was very wicked of the KJV translators to imply that we have to believe IN CHRIST to have everlasting life, for they have offended Muslems, Budists, Krishna's, and the NWO who want us to believe in ….their leader who is soon to show his face – The False Prophet.

From NETNotes:

Most witnesses (A C2 D Ψ Ë1,13 33 Ï lat and other versions) have “in me” (εἰς ἐμέ, eis eme) here, while the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac versions read “in God.”

These clarifying readings are predictable variants, being motivated by the scribal tendency toward greater explicitness.

That the earliest and best witnesses (Ì66,75vid א B C* L T W Θ 892 pc) lack any object is solid testimony to the shorter text’s authenticity.

The KJV was made from OLDER Greek mss – ones that had years of scribal alterations done to them.

The older Greek mss are the better ones. And the older and best mss in this case don't have the words “in me”.

[journey42]

Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 05 2013,04:35)

Pierre

Don't waste my time again in asking me to provide scriptures for you. I was up till late and tired knowing you would not understand those scriptures. I'm sorry I can't help you, if you can not see nor discern.

You are on your own. Time out. Believe what you want and continue with your insults. Stay as you are.

[journey42]

Hi Mike

Thanks for all your replies and taking the time to answer.  I read all your answers. I'm just stuck for time right now to answer in detail.  Keep in mind I'm no scholar.

Did you watch the video I put on last night?  It's obvious God hand was on it right from the start.

[Author]

Posts