Eye of the needle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter: If one word can be mistranslated, then why not others ... ?

---

Many have not been translated at all but are merely transliterated. Indeed many things cannot be translated from one language to another. Thus it is up to the all knowing clergy, of the church of your choice, to tell you what they "really" mean.

quote:

---

and if the bible is the word of God and all translators are
touched by him to reveal the true word of God, how can it even
happen?

---

There are a few places in the Bible where a prophet will say, "The word of the Lord came to me, and he said ..." But there is no place in the Bible where it says, "This Book is the Word of God." Whether one can believe that the Bible is The Word of God depends on at least two things: How you define Word and how you define God.As to how there can be conflicting translations, the answer is simple. Translators which work for my church got it right. All the others are incompetent boobs!Don't you feel the same?

Hi doc,Glad to see you again.What is your take on the authorship of the New Testament? Several people lately have been claiming that the original was in aramaic and saw then translated to greek. They are using this to, imho, wiggle out of some uncomfortable scriptures.Myself? There seems to be some minimal evidence for the aramaic hypothesis, but not enough.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 11-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John: What is your take on the authorship of the New Testament? Several people lately have been claiming that the original was in Aramaic and was then translated to Greek. They are using this to, imho, wiggle out of some uncomfortable scriptures.

---

Hi John,There are plenty of English version to wriggle into. Who needs another foreign lanuage version?I believe the earliest known manuscripts are written in Greek, although that does not prove that Aramaic documents were not created earlier. They would have been less significant, however, for the following reason.The preponderance of early manuscripts were done in Greek because the number of Jews who spoke Greek was greater than the number which spoke Aramaic. [Jews living in the Mesopotamian region spoke Aramaic (which used Hebrew characters for writing)]. The majority of those who spoke Aramaic lived a long way from the real action. Jews in general lived all over the world and the Greeks had conquered the world. Greek manuscripts would reach the largest readership, period. Whether writing to Jews or to Gentiles, Greek was the language of choice. Many of the Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament come directly out of the Septuagint, a Greek language Bible made available to Jews circa 250 BC.This is all rather interesting but it's not much of an issue for me. There are other consideration which make moot this and most other quarrels about holy scripture. The whole point of Judaism and Christianity has to do with ones choice of government. Jews and Christians hold out for Monarchy, a theocratic form of government which is illegal in these United States. I participate in these debates in the hope that knowledge of the Bible will help others, as it did me, to see this truth.Our debate often seems an exercise in futility. The real question is this:Is our constitutional, democratic, republic a good form of government?
Or do we want God (whatever that means) to be our bloody dictator?Someone sent me this link which discusses the Miracle of Tongues. It's not preachy and is a rather scholarly discussion of the language demographic of the Jewish world in the first century. Enjoy.Page not found | Alliance of Confessing Evangelicalsdb

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
There are plenty of English version to wriggle into. Who needs another foreign lanuage version?

---

The argument is that an apparant contradiction in the greek text is due to a an error in translation from the (purported) original aramaic.Thanks for the info.Take care.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
The argument is that an apparant contradiction in the greek text is due to a an error in translation from the (purported) original aramaic.

---

Even if both genealogies worked for purposes of the argument, the case breaks down for other reasons. There are many messianic prophecies which Jesus did not fulfill.Jesus did not bring home the Jews dispersed among heathen nations.
He did not sit on the Throne of David (i.e. become king and rule Israel).
He did not save Israel from its enemies (i.e. the occupation army of Rome).
And he did not restore the sovereign State of Israel.Failure to accomplish these requisites disqualifies him from the title: "Messiah".db

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
The argument is that an apparant contradiction in the greek text is due to a an error in translation from the (purported) original aramaic.

---

​

Even if both genealogies worked for purposes of the argument, the case breaks down for other reasons. There are many messianic prophecies which Jesus did not fulfill.

​

Jesus did not bring home the Jews dispersed among heathen nations.
He did not sit on the Throne of David (i.e. become king and rule Israel).
He did not save Israel from its enemies (i.e. the occupation army of Rome).
And he did not restore the sovereign State of Israel.

​

Failure to accomplish these requisites disqualifies him from the title: "Messiah".

​

db

---

Yep. I am aware of these, and more. I'm just trying to take it one at a time.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Going to have to correct you again, Blitz (sorry!)

---

​

No problem. A rope or camel can't pass through the eye of a needle, so it doesn't make too much of a difference which it is

---

​

It does if you want to claim biblical inerrancy.

​

If one word can be mistranslated, then why not others ... and
if the bible is the word of God and all translators are
touched by him to reveal the true word of God, how can it even
happen?

​

---

I don't see how a mistranslated word that doesn't affect the meaning of the verse discredits the bible. It would be impossible to my knowledge to translate the bible into all languages and maintain an exact translation. If we take into account that some cultures have a great many words for a similiar thing. The Inuit have something like 20 words for snow. All of which we could translate only to snow.Words are only a vessel to contain a meaning. I do not see in this particular case where the new vessel has lost it's meaning. I think we all know that language is flawed, words over time, gain too broad a definition or multiple definitions. A word can imply quite a different thing, in contrast to it's intended definition. However this is not the case here the meaning is not lost.The idea that a man who loves his riches is not likely to enter into the kingdom of heaven, is very much still there.------------------
saved by grace

[quote]Even if both genealogies worked for purposes of the argument, the case breaks down for other reasons. There are many messianic prophecies which Jesus did not fulfill.Jesus did not bring home the Jews dispersed among heathen nations.
He did not sit on the Throne of David (i.e. become king and rule Israel).
He did not save Israel from its enemies (i.e. the occupation army of Rome).
And he did not restore the sovereign State of Israel.Failure to accomplish these requisites disqualifies him from the title: "Messiah".db[/B][/QUOTE]Jesus yet lives if you were to believe in him. This gives him some time on these prophesies. He may have gone to prepare a whole new Jerusalem in which he will fulfill these prophesies that you pointed out. To sit on the throne of David. The bible also talks of another enemy one that is greater than Rome. Ephesians 6 says this:10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.Maybe this is the enemy that Jesus was sent to free Israel from. Instead of the Romans. The kingdom of heaven Jesus speaks of may be this new Jerusalem. A kingdom that knows no earthly borders. I believe it was Napoleon though I'm not sure about this who once said that Jesus had built a greater empire without raising a sword than all of the great conquerors put together. From a man who knows about empires this gives some credibility to the kingdom of heaven.I'm sure that I have poorly worded this and left out detail I should have included. However I think that the Jews may have taken these prophesies to mean that he would do all these things in the manner they expected. Then he rebuilds Israel as an eternal nation, where he sits on the throne as an eternal king. An Israel that is freed from it's enemies and bondage eternally.Is it possible that you have misinterperted these prophesies to mean an earthly kingdom when God really meant to build a lasting kindom?------------------
saved by grace[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 12-04-2002]

. I can't believe this has sat here for so long without being destroyed.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
. I can't believe this has sat here for so long without being destroyed.

​

---

Oops! I'm apologize. I've been slacking.

quote:

---

Is it possible that you have misinterperted these prophesies to mean an earthly kingdom when God really meant to build a lasting kindom?

---

You've got one major problem with the logic. You've pushed large portions of the prophecies into the future. This means that you cannot use them to determine that Christ is the messiah. You claim that these will be fulfilled, but as yet they have not been and so we must wait and see. You must use prophecies that have already been fulfilled, and I think you'll find that the picking are slim.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I know that saying a prophesy is not finished is not taken well around here. The thing is I think alot of prophesy has been interperted incorrectly. The kingdom of heaven Jesus spoke of can be seen. He does sit on the throne, and he is gathering his people to him. He has delivered us from the enemy that matters. And i think it is also prophesied that his kingdom is to be an eternal one. Which gives weight to the new Jerusalem. I'm not sure about all the end times prophesy from eziekel and revelations, I personally think too many of us get caught up in trying to figure out what it all means instead of showing Jesus love. So to me these prophesies pertaining to the Messiah are not waiting to be fulfilled rather are fulfilled but we have taken them to mean something we can comprehend. "As the heavens are above the earth, so are my thoughts above your thoughts" (quote from God ) I guess this seems shaky and it could be wrong though it doesn't seem so to me. This is how I understand it anyway. ------------------
saved by grace

Not like me to agree with the FunkMaster, but I'm going to, in a qualified way.I don't think the purpose of the "prophecies" is to enable Messiah identification. The OT Messianic tradition is an expression of the national religious and social aspirations and dreams of ancient Israel. Other traditions have similar lists of hopes and aspirations "when the gods return", or "on arrival at paradise". It is perfectly coherent to argue that Jesus will fulfil those aspirations when He brings in the "Kingdom of God", which He was quite clear is only currently present "within" His followers. He told Pilate that His kingdom was "not of this world". It is internally coherent, if you've already accepted a priori that Jesus is the Messiah.But the "proof" of Jesus' Messiahship is not to be found here - it is to be found in the experience that He is alive today. His claims are vindicated by His resurrection. This, of course, moves the whole business onto the realms of faith, and John is quite correct that we can't "prove it".Don't imagine the early church wasn't aware of this:1 Corinthians22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, I'll let this serve as my final post on the "Genealogies" thread as well. I know I've not convinced anyone, but that was not my intention. Merely to explain what I think is going on. I don't think I really have much more to say on the topic.

Amen peter
what you said is correct ether way rope or camel can't get through the eye of a needle. and god has a purpose for all things the same goes for this

quote:

---

1 Corinthians

​

22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

---

I wanted to post this verse when I ran across it last week. However I was not sure what context to use it in. It made perfect sense to me and I took some comfort in this. The funny thing is that the Jews got miraculous signs when Jesus was alive, and they like critics today tried to explain it away. The teachings of Jesus cannot be called foolish by any stretch of the imagination. Yet still the gospel message is considered foolish.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Going to have to correct you again, Blitz (sorry!)

---

​

No problem. A rope or camel can't pass through the eye of a needle, so it doesn't make too much of a difference which it is

---

​

It does if you want to claim biblical inerrancy.

​

If one word can be mistranslated, then why not others ... and
if the bible is the word of God and all translators are
touched by him to reveal the true word of God, how can it even
happen?

​

---

​

I don't see how a mistranslated word that doesn't affect the meaning of the verse discredits the bible. It would be impossible to my knowledge to translate the bible into all languages and maintain an exact translation. If we take into account that some cultures have a great many words for a similiar thing. The Inuit have something like 20 words for snow. All of which we could translate only to snow.

​

Words are only a vessel to contain a meaning. I do not see in this particular case where the new vessel has lost it's meaning. I think we all know that language is flawed, words over time, gain too broad a definition or multiple definitions. A word can imply quite a different thing, in contrast to it's intended definition. However this is not the case here the meaning is not lost.

​

The idea that a man who loves his riches is not likely to enter into the kingdom of heaven, is very much still there.

---

You cannot claim inerrancy if you accept that translation errors
can have occurred.If you have an original to refer back to, you can assess the meaning
acsribed by the translator and see if you agree ... translation
can change the meaning (take the famous 'Ich bin ein Berliner!'
JFK quote as an example).We cannot know what interpretations have been made, nor what
mis-translations have been applied in taking the original
from one language to another to another.Without that knowledge we have insufficient grounds to claim
inerrancy.That's not to say that the message might not be intact ... we
just do not know whether it is or not, so cannot make the claim
either way. There is doubt.