What proof is there that the bible was edited?
Options
Comments
-
solid analysis wrote: »agreed, lol
the article only merely proves (asserts) the texts were translated into a bunch of different languages.
lol I hope think some one should make a thread explaining what exactly constitutes proof, evidence and a logical argument. Because thus far these responses have been pretty unimpressive. And supposedly us christians are supposed to be the stupid brainwashed ones. -
Care to cite them as saying that Jesus was an essene?
Nah. I showed you actual scripture that condoned chattel generational slavery and genocide. You rejected it.
I showed you how the mistranslated the text by misuse of the word ? with the actual Hebrew word which is verfiable with any Hebrew concordance.
You rejected it.
It would be a waste of time. Serious scholars who have dedicated their life to the serious study of the scriptures have admitted that the Bible, specifically the new Testament have shown the editing that was done sometimes as a slip of the pen, sometimes intentionally to harmonize certain scriptures and diminish inconsistencies.
What I will do is dedicate a thread to those inconsistencies and revisions documented by Christian Scholars. -
Nah. I showed you actual scripture that condoned chattel generational slavery and genocide. You rejected it.
I showed you how the mistranslated the text by misuse of the word ? with the actual Hebrew word which is verfiable with any Hebrew concordance.
You rejected it.
It would be a waste of time. Serious scholars who have dedicated their life to the serious study of the scriptures have admitted that the Bible, specifically the new Testament have shown the editing that was done sometimes as a slip of the pen, sometimes intentionally to harmonize certain scriptures and diminish inconsistencies.
What I will do is dedicate a thread to those inconsistencies and revisions documented by Christian Scholars.
1. I didn't reject it I said your understanding of it was highly obtuse. And it was, you still are clinging to your understanding of slavery vs what the bible allows for "slavery" to be.
2. If you are refering to the no you didn't. You tried to gloss over the fact that the septuigent translators used the word ? in their greek translation of the hebrew for expediency but you didn't substantiate it. And even in a concordance (and I've used them enough times) the word in hebrew can mean ? .
3. Scholars such as whom? -
1. I didn't reject it I said your understanding of it was highly obtuse. And it was, you still are clinging to your understanding of slavery vs what the bible allows for "slavery" to be.
2. If you are refering to the no you didn't. You tried to gloss over the fact that the septuigent translators used the word ? in their greek translation of the hebrew for expediency but you didn't substantiate it. And even in a concordance (and I've used them enough times) the word in hebrew can mean ? .
3. Scholars such as whom?
No, I didn't. I made the distinction between indentured servitude and chattel slavery. You chose to ignore. Passing slaves onto your children and selling your daughter is not indentured servitude and is disgraceful. This is one of the techniques used by slavemasters to justify selling children fathered by ? Black woman and passing their children of as heritage. Anybody that condones that is either evil or a brainwashed sucka.
And I did substantiate it. I gave the actual words that were interchanged and mistranslated. The Book of Isaiah 62:5 and 7:14, list the prophecy of Messiah being born to a ? . The word used in Hebrew is almah. This means young woman. A sexually chaste women in Hebrew is Bethulah. This was wrongly interpreted and gave credence to the ? Birth, which is scientifically contradictory and historically hogwash.
When you say that the word can mean ? I know you don't really know what your talking about. Anybody with a basic knowledge of Hebrew can tell you those words are not interchangeable. -
No, I didn't. I made the distinction between indentured servitude and chattel slavery. You chose to ignore. Passing slaves onto your children and selling your daughter is not indentured servitude and is disgraceful. This is one of the techniques used by slavemasters to justify selling children fathered by ? Black woman and passing their children of as heritage. Anybody that condones that is either evil or a brainwashed sucka.
And I did substantiate it. I gave the actual words that were interchanged and mistranslated. The Book of Isaiah 62:5 and 7:14, list the prophecy of Messiah being born to a ? . The word used in Hebrew is almah. This means young woman. A sexually chaste women in Hebrew is Bethulah. This was wrongly interpreted and gave credence to the ? Birth, which is scientifically contradictory and historically hogwash.
When you say that the word can mean ? I know you don't really know what your talking about. Anybody with a basic knowledge of Hebrew can tell you those words are not interchangeable.
1. Again I was not talking about the TERMS of the "slavery" but rather the CONDITIONS. You still seem to not want to understand what I was saying.
2. According to Strongs Hebrew Concordance
5959 `almah al-maw' feminine of 5958; a lass (as veiled or private):--damsel, maid,? .
And again the Septuagint renders it ? . So what exactly is your argument. And why would ? have to restrict Himself to laws of science that He created. If ? can do miracles which by definition go beyond the laws of science why would it be impossible to have a virign birth? Are you trying to limit ? to what makes sense to you?
3. But they are interchangeable and Strong's Concordance (you did earlier tell me to check a concordance) confirms that fact. -
-
I've seen this old chest nut rearing its ugly head yet again (along with the Jesus is horus bit) and I would like to see if anybody this time is able to prove or atleast provide a good argument that the bible was edited.
Jesus is not Heru. Heru is a war deity and Jesus clearly is not that... -
I think the fact that there are so many different versions with different books added to and taken from, proves such.
These people actually sat down and decided what they wanted to leave in and take out. Who gave them that authority? The King? Emperor?
Just a rudimentary knowledge of the Hebrew text and you can see the difference in meanings of the text. Certain things are purposely mistranslated to deceive people.
For instance all throughout the Bible, the word ? is used. Well in the Hebrew text, "Bethulah" corresponds with that word. However, in some cases "Almah" was used. This word does not mean ? , it means young woman. The Greeks with their limited language simply put a word there "parthenos" that means ? , but the hebrew text just denotes her as a young woman. This gave credence to the ? birth nonsense that is still believed today.
Some fools will argue the correctness of the Greek Septugaint and don't even know the Hebrew origin to make comparison. This is silly.
Semitic Languages are vastly different in expression than English or Greek. You can use the same word in a different arrangement and change the whole complexity and meaning of the word. Take the Arabic word Rabb, which has a common etymological origin with the Hebrew word Rabbee. In some instances it means Lord, In some instances it may Sustainer, Nourisher, Cherisher and even Master. Depending upon how you use it in the sentence and with what combination of words. English is not like that.
If you really believe in the Bible, any serious student would make every effort to study the Original tongue out of which it was translated, and no Biblical Hebrew is not significant different than what is spoken today. Don't fall for that one. Reggie White undertook a serious study of Hebrew and he admitted that he had been teaching things that were not true and that he was in some instances lied to intentionally by people who knew the truth. He exposed some of them and was made persona non grata in many church circles because he would not lie to the people.
There is more, but will save for later.
Thats what I said on one of my previous responses. They list the definition and then the word to summarize. They do this for the English speaker of course, however, this may cause some confusion because the english word "? " has multiple meaning.
? -1 a : an unmarried woman devoted to religion b capitalized : virgo
2 a : an absolutely chaste young woman b : an unmarried girl or woman
3 capitalized : ? mary
4 a : a person who has not had sexual intercourse b : a person who is inexperienced in a usually specified sphere of activity <a ? in politics>
5 : a female animal that has never copulated
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/?
Like I said they use it to summarize. They expect you to be able to comprehend what exactly being said. They tell you the defintion, and then for the ENGLISH SPEAKERthey give you the English equivalent. Then you go read the definition and make the parallels.
parthenos-of unknown origin; a maiden; by implication, an unmarried daughter:--?
bthuwlah-feminine passive participle of an unused root meaning to separate; a ? (from her privacy); sometimes (by continuation) a bride; also (figuratively) a city or state:--maid, ? .
maid-1 : an unmarried girl or woman especially when young : ?
2 a : maidservant b : a woman or girl employed to do domestic work
Now when you look at all three of these defintions they all deal with unmarried women, therefore thats they way it is being used. The English defintion is the only defintion thats defines the word as a women who hasnt had sex. The English language is a newer language, we cant try and take newer meaning and try and suggest that that old word meant the same thing. There is no proof of that other than the word itself. You're trying to use the fact that it says "? " as proof that it means to not have sex when I just showed you that the English word "? " has five different meanings, with the way you defined it listed as the fourth defintion. Its really quite simple, you look at the older words, make your parallels and whatever they all agree on is what it means. We cant try and get retroactive here. In comparison to the older defintions, a ? as a woman without sex is a newer meaning.
THIS WAS MY RESPONSE TO SOMEONE IN AN OLDER THREAD ABOUT THE VIRGINITY OF MARY. THE MODS HOWEVER BEGAN TO SET IT UP WHERE THEY HAD TO APPROVE THE POST BEFORE IT GOES UP. UNFORUNATELY THEY DENIED ME....HMMM WONDER WHY...LOL -
bless the child wrote: »Thats what I said on one of my previous responses. They list the definition and then the word to summarize. They do this for the English speaker of course, however, this may cause some confusion because the english word "? " has multiple meaning.
? -1 a : an unmarried woman devoted to religion b capitalized : virgo
2 a : an absolutely chaste young woman b : an unmarried girl or woman
3 capitalized : ? mary
4 a : a person who has not had sexual intercourse b : a person who is inexperienced in a usually specified sphere of activity <a ? in politics>
5 : a female animal that has never copulated
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/?
Like I said they use it to summarize. They expect you to be able to comprehend what exactly being said. They tell you the defintion, and then for the ENGLISH SPEAKERthey give you the English equivalent. Then you go read the definition and make the parallels.
parthenos-of unknown origin; a maiden; by implication, an unmarried daughter:--?
bthuwlah-feminine passive participle of an unused root meaning to separate; a ? (from her privacy); sometimes (by continuation) a bride; also (figuratively) a city or state:--maid, ? .
maid-1 : an unmarried girl or woman especially when young : ?
2 a : maidservant b : a woman or girl employed to do domestic work
Now when you look at all three of these defintions they all deal with unmarried women, therefore thats they way it is being used. The English defintion is the only defintion thats defines the word as a women who hasnt had sex. The English language is a newer language, we cant try and take newer meaning and try and suggest that that old word meant the same thing. There is no proof of that other than the word itself. You're trying to use the fact that it says "? " as proof that it means to not have sex when I just showed you that the English word "? " has five different meanings, with the way you defined it listed as the fourth defintion. Its really quite simple, you look at the older words, make your parallels and whatever they all agree on is what it means. We cant try and get retroactive here. In comparison to the older defintions, a ? as a woman without sex is a newer meaning.
THIS WAS MY RESPONSE TO SOMEONE IN AN OLDER THREAD ABOUT THE VIRGINITY OF MARY. THE MODS HOWEVER BEGAN TO SET IT UP WHERE THEY HAD TO APPROVE THE POST BEFORE IT GOES UP. UNFORUNATELY THEY DENIED ME....HMMM WONDER WHY...LOL
Are you trying to say that these words don't or can't mean ? when the definitions you have given 4 times uses the word ? as a possible definition? Also if the Mary wasn't a ? at the time of her conception then why did she tell the Michael the Arch Angel that she hadn't known a man
Luke 1:26-34 (King James Version)
26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from ? unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27To a ? espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the ? 's name was Mary.
28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with ? .
31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy ? , and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord ? shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man
Mary hadn't known a man and therefore was a ? . -
bless the child wrote: »LOL...thats exactly what I was about to say.
Like I said before translation doesn't prove edition, nor does it prove these fantastic conspiracy theories that people have put forth about the bibles supposed edition. -
1. Again I was not talking about the TERMS of the "slavery" but rather the CONDITIONS. You still seem to not want to understand what I was saying.
2. According to Strongs Hebrew Concordance
5959 `almah al-maw' feminine of 5958; a lass (as veiled or private):--damsel, maid,? .
And again the Septuagint renders it ? . So what exactly is your argument. And why would ? have to restrict Himself to laws of science that He created. If ? can do miracles which by definition go beyond the laws of science why would it be impossible to have a virign birth? Are you trying to limit ? to what makes sense to you?
3. But they are interchangeable and Strong's Concordance (you did earlier tell me to check a concordance) confirms that fact.
Now your straight up lying. When you brought up the quesrtion of slavery you asked " Where does the bible condone slavery or genocide". Myself and others gave you examples of both. Now your talking about condition. I will humor you. What condition would justify holding someone against their will like a newborn who hasn't done anything for the rest of their life? What condition could justify a man selling his own daughter, like the slavemaster did. Taking the child from his mother at birth? You are sick and being deceived by your European version of Christianity and their Bible which leaves you spiritually impotent and will forever make you a mental slave.
Bethulah and Almah are not interchangeable. ". The only thing connecting these two is the ah" on the end letting you know it is pertaining to a female. The fact that they are two distinct words should let you know that. Bethulah has a sexual connotation to it, not Alwah. ? in this Language means a woman who has not entered into sexual relations. Alwah does not mean that Bethulah does. They took Alwah and translated it panthenos in the Septugaint, which means ? . That's like saying you can replace housewife with ? because they are both females.
No I am not trying to limit ? . Your Bible says He is the lord ? and he Changes not. The lineage of Jesus starts with David and ends with Joseph. Joseph was his physical father. The idioms used back then are in no way congruent now. He was the seed of David according to the flesh. And he became spiritually the Servant of the Creator. You got ? twisted.
Here is another verse that had additions to it:
John Chapter 5 Verse 7-8.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The early Manuscripts that you quote read like this:
For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
WHy did they add that? So they could justify their phony claim of the Trinity. Go read the original manuscript in Hebrew and the plagarized Greek copy and you will see that what I am saying is true. There is no explaining that away.
I am going to list periodically some of the mistakes, errors, and innovations so you will not be able to say you didn't know. -
Are you trying to say that these words don't or can't mean ? when the definitions you have given 4 times uses the word ? as a possible definition? Also if the Mary wasn't a ? at the time of her conception then why did she tell the Michael the Arch Angel that she hadn't known a man
Luke 1:26-34 (King James Version)
26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from ? unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27To a ? espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the ? 's name was Mary.
28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with ? .
31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy ? , and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord ? shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man
Mary hadn't known a man and therefore was a ? .
You can't use an English translation to Prove the Hebrew correct. The Hebrew proceeded both the Greek, Latin and English. You would have to know the Hebrew first to prove your point. The Hebrew translation does not call her a ? .
Yeah she was a ? . Plenty of ? girls get pregnant. Just when they get pregnant they no longer are virgins. Your Book says the Seed of David according to the Flesh. David's lineage end with Joseph in Matthew. Cased CLOSED.
End of story.
Now I'm done. -
Now your straight up lying. When you brought up the quesrtion of slavery you asked " Where does the bible condone slavery or genocide". Myself and others gave you examples of both. Now your talking about condition. I will humor you. What condition would justify holding someone against their will like a newborn who hasn't done anything for the rest of their life? What condition could justify a man selling his own daughter, like the slavemaster did. Taking the child from his mother at birth? You are sick and being deceived by your European version of Christianity and their Bible which leaves you spiritually impotent and will forever make you a mental slave.
Bethulah and Almah are not interchangeable. ". The only thing connecting these two is the ah" on the end letting you know it is pertaining to a female. The fact that they are two distinct words should let you know that. Bethulah has a sexual connotation to it, not Alwah. ? in this Language means a woman who has not entered into sexual relations. Alwah does not mean that Bethulah does. They took Alwah and translated it panthenos in the Septugaint, which means ? . That's like saying you can replace housewife with ? because they are both females.
No I am not trying to limit ? . Your Bible says He is the lord ? and he Changes not. The lineage of Jesus starts with David and ends with Joseph. Joseph was his physical father. The idioms used back then are in no way congruent now. He was the seed of David according to the flesh. And he became spiritually the Servant of the Creator. You got ? twisted.
Here is another verse that had additions to it:
John Chapter 5 Verse 7-8.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The early Manuscripts that you quote read like this:
For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
WHy did they add that? So they could justify their phony claim of the Trinity. Go read the original manuscript in Hebrew and the plagarized Greek copy and you will see that what I am saying is true. There is no explaining that away.
I am going to list periodically some of the mistakes, errors, and innovations so you will not be able to say you didn't know.
Now I'm done.
1. I think we all know that slavery was being talked about in terms of "conditions" and not in terms of "terms". I know this because of the emotional pleas that came afterwards about the horrible treatment of slaves in america and europe. So lets not act brand new to this. Who says these people wanted to leave, in those cases being " a slave" was far more desirable to living on their own.
2. Nor did I say they were. I said (or if I was misconstrued meant) that Almah and ? are. No I'm not saying that both housewife and ? are interchangeable because they are both female, thats a ludicrous assetion. I'm saying that in Strongs Concordance one of the definitions of Almah is indeed ? . Now I've cited a source, show me a source that shows that almah CANNOT mean ? . Simply because a better word COULD have been used doesn't mean it HAD to be used.
3. If your not trying to limit ? why are you telling me that the ? birth is scientifically impossible, that is a completely irrelevant point in dealing with the supernatural.
Care to cite a source. Saying an original manuscript isn't very helpful, which one. -
2. Nor did I say they were. I said (or if I was misconstrued meant) that Almah and ? are. No I'm not saying that both housewife and ? are interchangeable because they are both female, thats a ludicrous assetion. I'm saying that in Strongs Concordance one of the definitions of Almah is indeed ? . Now I've cited a source, show me a source that shows that almah CANNOT mean ? . Simply because a better word COULD have been used doesn't mean it HAD to be used.
You said the Jews know better so I will let them speak.
3. Christian Translations: Category II
Category II comprises translations of Isaiah 7:14 from five Christian Bibles in which the renditions of the noun (almah) are generally inconsistent with Jewish versions. This collection of Christian translations, including respective footnotes, is shown in Table II.B.3-1.
Table II.B.3-1 – Isaiah 7:14 as rendered by Christian sources – Category II
Source Translation
American Standard Version (ASV)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a ? shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Darby
Therefore will the Lord himself give you a sign: Behold, the ? shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.
King James Version (KJV)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a ? shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
New International Version (NIV)*
Therefore the Lord himself will give you[1] a sign: The ? will be with child and will give birth to a son, and[2] will call him Immanuel[3].
Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the ? is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel,
* NIV footnotes:
4. Comparisons of the Treatment of Key Hebrew Vocabulary
a. Jewish Translations
The Jewish translations are consistent in correctly rendering the term (ha'almah) [where the definite article (ha-) is used with the noun (almah)] as the young woman or the maiden, preserving the definite article in their renditions. This indicates that the reference by Isaiah was to a specific young woman known to both him, the speaker, and to King Ahaz, the one being addressed.
The Jewish translations are generally consistent in their renditions of the tense of the conjugated verb (harah) in this verse, though four of the five sources quoted in Table II.B.1-1 render the conjugated verb in the present tense as is with child (already pregnant), the ArtScroll Tanach has it in the future tense as shall become pregnant. However, this is not a significant issue here, since a verb conjugated in the perfect tense, which is the case here with (harah), can also be understood as describing an imminent action, something that is about to occur, in the near future. Some Jewish Sages use this aspect of the perfect tense in their commentary (e.g., RASHI), and even the noted German grammarian and Christian theologian, H. W. F. Gesenius (1786-1842) makes note of such applications[1].
b. Christian Translations
The Christian translations are generally inconsistent in their renditions of the term (ha'almah) – some use the correct terminology for the noun itself, i.e., young woman or maiden, others use ? ; and some preserve the definite article, the, while others change it to the indefinite article, a. In general, most modern Christian translators (generally, represented by Category I) have rendered the noun (almah) correctly.
The Christian translations are generally inconsistent in their renditions of the tense of the conjugated verb (harah) in this verse – some use the proper tense, while others treat the conception as an event that will take place in the (distant) future.
c. Jewish Translations Compared with Christian Translations
Such comparison is not meaningful due to the diversity within each set of translations. In general, most modern Christian translations are closer to the correct Jewish translations, i.e., those that render the noun (ha'almah) as the young woman or the maiden, and (harah) as is with child. Older Christian translations generally use ? , a term that would have required the Hebrew term for a ? , (betulah), without the definite article, to be in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14.
http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html -
You said the Jews know better so I will let them speak.
3. Christian Translations: Category II
Category II comprises translations of Isaiah 7:14 from five Christian Bibles in which the renditions of the noun (almah) are generally inconsistent with Jewish versions. This collection of Christian translations, including respective footnotes, is shown in Table II.B.3-1.
Table II.B.3-1 – Isaiah 7:14 as rendered by Christian sources – Category II
Source Translation
American Standard Version (ASV)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a ? shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Darby
Therefore will the Lord himself give you a sign: Behold, the ? shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.
King James Version (KJV)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a ? shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
New International Version (NIV)*
Therefore the Lord himself will give you[1] a sign: The ? will be with child and will give birth to a son, and[2] will call him Immanuel[3].
Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the ? is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel,
* NIV footnotes:
4. Comparisons of the Treatment of Key Hebrew Vocabulary
a. Jewish Translations
The Jewish translations are consistent in correctly rendering the term (ha'almah) [where the definite article (ha-) is used with the noun (almah)] as the young woman or the maiden, preserving the definite article in their renditions. This indicates that the reference by Isaiah was to a specific young woman known to both him, the speaker, and to King Ahaz, the one being addressed.
The Jewish translations are generally consistent in their renditions of the tense of the conjugated verb (harah) in this verse, though four of the five sources quoted in Table II.B.1-1 render the conjugated verb in the present tense as is with child (already pregnant), the ArtScroll Tanach has it in the future tense as shall become pregnant. However, this is not a significant issue here, since a verb conjugated in the perfect tense, which is the case here with (harah), can also be understood as describing an imminent action, something that is about to occur, in the near future. Some Jewish Sages use this aspect of the perfect tense in their commentary (e.g., RASHI), and even the noted German grammarian and Christian theologian, H. W. F. Gesenius (1786-1842) makes note of such applications[1].
b. Christian Translations
The Christian translations are generally inconsistent in their renditions of the term (ha'almah) – some use the correct terminology for the noun itself, i.e., young woman or maiden, others use ? ; and some preserve the definite article, the, while others change it to the indefinite article, a. In general, most modern Christian translators (generally, represented by Category I) have rendered the noun (almah) correctly.
The Christian translations are generally inconsistent in their renditions of the tense of the conjugated verb (harah) in this verse – some use the proper tense, while others treat the conception as an event that will take place in the (distant) future.
c. Jewish Translations Compared with Christian Translations
Such comparison is not meaningful due to the diversity within each set of translations. In general, most modern Christian translations are closer to the correct Jewish translations, i.e., those that render the noun (ha'almah) as the young woman or the maiden, and (harah) as is with child. Older Christian translations generally use ? , a term that would have required the Hebrew term for a ? , (betulah), without the definite article, to be in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14.
http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html
The most this article says is that the use of the word almah isn't consistent in christian translation but is consistent in jewish translations. Which begs the question who says they have to be consistent. And still the fact remains that before the christian era the jewish translators of the greek Septuagint as ? .
Dr. Cyrus Gordon, provides additional insight on the matter:
The commonly held view that "? " is Christian, whereas "young woman" is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean "? " here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of almah as "? " for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet.6
http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah -
You said the Jews know better so I will let them speak.
He will negate nearly everything you present. He enjoys the mental battles back and forth. Through this he further strengthens his stance(what you learn you teach and what you teach you learn). Your energy would be better spent on other things. I've gone on for pages with him before, and you will remain on square one. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »He will negate nearly everything you present. He enjoys the mental battles back and forth. Through this he further strengthens his stance(what you learn you teach and what you teach you learn). Your energy would be better spent on other things. I've gone on for pages with him before, and you will remain on square one.
And that is mainly because you talk and reason in circles. He like you continuously make claims and arguments with no logical or factual basis, and when I point this out and debunk the logic (or lack thereof) you both fly into highly emotional fits of rage. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »He will negate nearly everything you present. He enjoys the mental battles back and forth. Through this he further strengthens his stance(what you learn you teach and what you teach you learn). Your energy would be better spent on other things. I've gone on for pages with him before, and you will remain on square one.
Duly noted. -
And that is mainly because you talk and reason in circles. He like you continuously make claims and arguments with no logical or factual basis, and when I point this out and debunk the logic (or lack thereof) you both fly into highly emotional fits of rage.
Emotional fits of rage?
I provided plenty facts, scriptural references, scholarly references, and even counter claims. You quote some doctor who big ups a greek translation and not the Hebrew. why? Because he is a liar. And you too by proxy.
You only convince yourself. -
Emotional fits of rage?
I provided plenty facts, scriptural references, scholarly references, and even counter claims. You quote some doctor who big ups a greek translation and not the Hebrew. why? Because he is a liar. And you too by proxy.
You only convince yourself.
1. Yes the "your an emotional coward, you ain't no christian your just a ? who is clinging to dogma, etc etc",
2. You gave arguments with very few "facts", no scholarly references (I actually asked u to cite an ancient scholar which said Jesus was an essene to which you said no), that is unless you mean MessiahTruth.com which really doesn't qualify as a scholarly source.
3. So because he "big ups" greek he is therefore a liar? This is what I'm talking about when I refer to your logical ineptitude. You need a reason other than your own prejudice to prove your claim that he is lying. I hope you don't debate this sloppily in real life. This is just embarrassing. -
Emotional fits of rage?
I provided plenty facts, scriptural references, scholarly references, and even counter claims. You quote some doctor who big ups a greek translation and not the Hebrew. why? Because he is a liar. And you too by proxy.
You only convince yourself.
Blue Falcon doesn't want questions answered. He just likes to argue.
He's been the same for as long as I can remember.
Too bad KTULU isn't here. -
Punisher__ wrote: »Blue Falcon doesn't want questions answered. He just likes to argue.
He's been the same for as long as I can remember.
Too bad KTULU isn't here.
Its not that I'm not interested in answers, its just that everybody's answers suck. I mean I'm still waiting on this proof that the bible was edited and the most common answers I'm recieveing is
1. its in english (translation doesn't prove edition).
2. the council of nicea (the council convened to confront Arianism, not decide the canon of scripture).
3. words have been changed (even though under further scholarly examination that is not the case).
4. And the usual the bible was used to promote slavery and all things bad that have happened to black people, victimologist emotional arguments (which are neither true nor does it prove the bible was edited).
So when someone gives a good reason, argument or piece of evidence that points to this supposed edition then yes I'm going to keep challenging these supposed answers and exposing them as the rhetorical nonsense that they are. -
I've seen this old chest nut rearing its ugly head yet again (along with the Jesus is horus bit) and I would like to see if anybody this time is able to prove or atleast provide a good argument that the bible was edited.
not sure what your definition of 'editing' is versus 'translating', but at the very least, the bible has been altered from its original state for purposes debatable by all. you cannot translate a collection of so many individual books and not lose or change the meaning of some text. there are words that exist in some languages that don't exist in others.
also, again, not sure what your definition of 'editing' is versus 'translating', but the current bible versus the catholic bible versus the vulgate containing the apocrypha all have a different set of books.
if i'm not mistaken, the bible says to "study to show yourself approved...", what many many biblical scholars and theologians and preachers have done (rather than choosing not to admit the obvious) is study all of these versions to glean out the best meaning they can find, recognizing that with each translation some subtle and not-so-subtle meanings and interpretations come to light. -
elliott_argon wrote: »not sure what your definition of 'editing' is versus 'translating', but at the very least, the bible has been altered from its original state for purposes debatable by all. you cannot translate a collection of so many individual books and not lose or change the meaning of some text. there are words that exist in some languages that don't exist in others.
also, again, not sure what your definition of 'editing' is versus 'translating', but the current bible versus the catholic bible versus the vulgate containing the apocrypha all have a different set of books.
if i'm not mistaken, the bible says to "study to show yourself approved...", what many many biblical scholars and theologians and preachers have done (rather than choosing not to admit the obvious) is study all of these versions to glean out the best meaning they can find, recognizing that with each translation some subtle and not-so-subtle meanings and interpretations come to light.
1. By editing I'm referring to the commonly held idea by many anti-christians, muslims and internet conspiracy theorist that the bible was deliberately changed to suit the needs of the powers that be. I think its only obvious that the bible was translated but I do not agree nor have I seen proof of this supposed nefarious editing job (that supposedly went down at the council of nicea).
2. Agreed some words probably don't translate well into other languages, however the bible (atleast the 1611 KJV) added italics in the parts had to be added in or taken away to retain their meaning in english. I don't have a problem with that, however the conspiratorial point of view that the evil white man took the bible (or as And Step likes to say, "they co-opted the bible to suit the needs of the europeans") and translated it so that he could use it to justify slavery, apartheid, stealing resources from africa etc.
3. The Vulgate is the Catholic bible, the only thing is that its written in latin. But the reason for the Catholic bible having different books is because they indeed added books at the council of trent not to mention have different underlying manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus/Sinaiticus) where as the KJV and other bibles in that family come from the textus receptus or majority text line of manuscripts. The catholic church added in books from the apocrypha to fit doctrine such as transsubstantiation (the bread actually becomes the body of christ and the wine actually his blood), purgatory, paying indulgences (you could sin as long as you paid your local church for a special piece of paper) etc. The main reason the KJV doesn't include the apocrypha (as well as the Luther bible) is because the apocrypha (OT and NT apocrypha's ) have never been considered canonical. King James is quoted as saying that he omits them because he is no papist (catholic). Martin Luther in his translation added a break between the OT and OT apocrypha saying that these scriptures are NOT inspired. So we do understand that there are bibles that have been corrupted but to say the bible itself is corrupted is rather short sighted on the part of those that would argue this.
4. What is the obvious? -
1. By editing I'm referring to the commonly held idea by many anti-christians, muslims and internet conspiracy theorist that the bible was deliberately changed to suit the needs of the powers that be. I think its only obvious that the bible was translated but I do not agree nor have I seen proof of this supposed nefarious editing job (that supposedly went down at the council of nicea).
2. Agreed some words probably don't translate well into other languages, however the bible (atleast the 1611 KJV) added italics in the parts had to be added in or taken away to retain their meaning in english. I don't have a problem with that, however the conspiratorial point of view that the evil white man took the bible (or as And Step likes to say, "they co-opted the bible to suit the needs of the europeans") and translated it so that he could use it to justify slavery, apartheid, stealing resources from africa etc.
3. The Vulgate is the Catholic bible, the only thing is that its written in latin. But the reason for the Catholic bible having different books is because they indeed added books at the council of trent not to mention have different underlying manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus/Sinaiticus) where as the KJV and other bibles in that family come from the textus receptus or majority text line of manuscripts. The catholic church added in books from the apocrypha to fit doctrine such as transsubstantiation (the bread actually becomes the body of christ and the wine actually his blood), purgatory, paying indulgences (you could sin as long as you paid your local church for a special piece of paper) etc. The main reason the KJV doesn't include the apocrypha (as well as the Luther bible) is because the apocrypha (OT and NT apocrypha's ) have never been considered canonical. King James is quoted as saying that he omits them because he is no papist (catholic). Martin Luther in his translation added a break between the OT and OT apocrypha saying that these scriptures are NOT inspired. So we do understand that there are bibles that have been corrupted but to say the bible itself is corrupted is rather short sighted on the part of those that would argue this.
4. What is the obvious?
vulgate, septuagint, watever, there's mad different versions at different junctures was my point. and, furthermore, who rules on what is canonical?
