| Author | Message | ||
     chezikah New member Username: chezikah Post Number: 24 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 24.63.101.137 |
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE ? Yoneq (Elbert Eugene Spriggs) Founder of Twelve Tribes - said: “Christianity has mistranslated the Scriptures. A spirit caused them to purposely distort the Bibles according to their beliefs. Every study Bible, every translation of the Bible has a different diversification behind it...” Ahavah, First Day Teaching, Sus, 4/23/89 The Mormon Church said: “Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness...because the plain and most precious parts of the Gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by the abominable church...” Book of Mormon, I Nephi 13:32 Charles Taze Russell (founder, Jehovah’s Witnesses) said: “The desire to compel all men to think alike on all subjects, culminated in the great apostasy...the one faith that Paul and the other apostles set forth, was lost – buried under the mass of uninspired decrees of popes and counsels.” _____________________ Yoneq (Elbert Eugene Spriggs) Founder of Twelve Tribes) said: “We are the light and hope of the world. We are the only ones who can reclaim this earth for its Maker. We are the only ones whose lives of love and pure devotion, like a bride for her groom, can bring heaven to earth. All other attempts to do so are not merely futile, they are evil.” Guidelines Mary Baker Eddy (founder, Christian Science) said: “Jesus taught the way of Life by demonstration. There is but one way to heaven; harmony and Christ in Divine Science shows us the way. Science and Health, with Keys to the Scripture.” Kip Mckean (founder, International Churches of Christ), said: “I have never believed or taught that anyone has to be baptized into the Boston Church of Christ to be saved...However, I do not know of any other church, group or movement that teaches and practices what we teach as Jesus taught.” Bruce R. McConkie (Apostle, Mormon Church) said: “If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” _______________________ Racham (Kevin Carlin, Apostolic Worker, Twelve Tribes) said: “Might it not be the devastation which occurs emotionally and spiritually in the lives of ex-members be a result of their own sin and guilt. We don’t know how anyone can leave the Communities with a sense of well being any more than anyone could leave a marriage with a sense of well being... Why would they have good feelings about the group if they left? Why would they leave if they were in agreement with the life and the teachings of the group?” Critique of NEIRR written analysis of Twelve Tribes Kip Mckean said: “Critics have noted that people who leave the church have a tendency to be very bitter. Once more, this should not surprise us. Divorce without bitterness is rare. Likewise, when one walks away from a total commitment to God, away from the most important relationship any human being can have, including marriage, then, there is bound to be confusion, hurt, and a tendency to be bitter and to blame the people in the church, thus justifying one’s leaving.” Revolution Through Restoration II: The twentieth Century Church, 1994. The Scriptures say: “....there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9 Jesus Christ said: “Watch out that no one deceives you. ...many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.” Matthew 24:4, 11. Know the TRUTH before you commit yourself to a lie. Study the Scripture Yourself!!! | ||
| anon_e_mus Advanced Member Username: anon_e_mus Post Number: 513 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 141.150.248.200 |
I consider this a significantly illuminating post. Thank you. | ||
| johncolo_springs Intermediate Member Username: johncolo_springs Post Number: 326 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.64.1.41 |
Something to be considered... Only the Authentic will win out. For that, time will be the teller... In the mean time, enjoy the presence of the Almighty... | ||
| anon_e_mus Advanced Member Username: anon_e_mus Post Number: 514 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 141.150.248.200 |
I don't quite agree with you, for the record, John... Authentic implies that true religion is about perfection, when it is about faith/trust and love for God and one's neighbor. FWIW. | ||
| nabashalam Advanced Member Username: nabashalam Post Number: 712 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 209.103.222.221 |
James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. | ||
| johncolo_springs Intermediate Member Username: johncolo_springs Post Number: 327 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.64.1.41 |
You have to be "open" to the "possibility" that Yoneq is right and all the others are wrong. Time will definately tell...it always does. Some just don't have the patience to wait, nor the character to suspend judgement. | ||
| kimberlyfredrick Member Username: kimberlyfredrick Post Number: 99 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 207.69.139.12 |
**sigh**....(smiling) | ||
| schmuel Advanced Member Username: schmuel Post Number: 753 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.193.219.212 |
“Christianity has mistranslated the Scriptures. A spirit caused them to purposely distort the Bibles according to their beliefs..." The first quote is very important. It allows Twelve Tribes to justify overruling the Bible as they do with changing the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to a mish-mosh fabricated non-name. Notice that TT does not affirm even any Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic underlying the English translations. Leaving their options open to 'correct' anything that does not fits their doctrines. This crafty method of placing their own fabrications and interpretation over the Bible, the word of God, is one reason you can know for sure that Yoneq and TT are false teachers. Earlier in the year I had discussions with their rep here on the internet, David Alexander (Derush), and similarly David would never give straightforward answers to questions about the purity and authority of the Bible. He did come up with some wild stuff though, fishing to divert. Shalom, Steven Avery | ||
| johncolo_springs Intermediate Member Username: johncolo_springs Post Number: 328 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.64.1.41 |
"It allows Twelve Tribes to justify overruling the Bible as they do with changing the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to a mish-mosh fabricated non-name." A "non-name"? That was His name, namely, Yah'shua. Or Joshua in English. Jesus is a Greek transliteration. Ask Daniel Botkin. He also goes back to the original name of the Messiah. You are a strange character. But I love you anyway... | ||
| johncolo_springs Intermediate Member Username: johncolo_springs Post Number: 329 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.64.1.41 |
Also, for the rest of your crap, check out this sight, http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/index.php which completely explains the mish-mosh, no-sense theology of the "trinity" and "deity" of the Messiah. A must read! | ||
| schmuel Advanced Member Username: schmuel Post Number: 754 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.193.219.212 |
John, I spoke to Daniel Botkin, remember ? Daniel has even written an article very carefully pointing out that Yahshua is not a Hebrew name. http://www.yashanet.com/library/Yeshua_or_Yahshua.htm The Messiah's Hebrew Name: "Yeshua" Or "Yahshua"? by Dr. Daniel Botkin "Yahshua" is a mistransliteration by Sacred Name advocates to fit an erroneous interpretation of John 5:43. At least if you prefer to use a Hebrew name for Messiah, use a real Hebrew name, not a false insulting mish-mosh, as if someone called me Stahven. While the NT text gives us the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. As for your bib-uni link, I have no idea how you are trying to defend Twelve Tribes by giving one non-Trinitarian viewpoint. The Twelve Tribes states they are Trinitarians. Are they deceiving about their beliefs ? Now all this (while quite interesting) was used as a diversion from the basic fact above .. Twelve Tribes will not affirm any Bible as the pure and inspired word of God .. it is all subject to their correction, that was the purpose of the statement above, Ahavah quoting Yoneq. Much like the mormans, any word or verse could be considered corrupt or mistranslated and then subject to the filter of their not-so-enlightened explanation. (btw, if anyone can find out when they say James was written, it would be much appreciated). Any Twelve Tribes defender is welcome to challenge or correct me on the above .. simply tell us what Bible text (eg. NT text in Greek or Aramaic or English or any language) they accept as the preserved and pure word of God. And If I am wrong in the above I will be most happy to be corrected. Shalom, Steven Avery http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic (Message edited by schmuel on September 26, 2006) | ||
| johncolo_springs Intermediate Member Username: johncolo_springs Post Number: 330 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.64.1.41 |
Perfect! At least you are admitting that Messiah's name is Ye'shua. And not Jesus. Joshua in English. So stop using the mish-mosh Greek transliteration name of Jesus and start using what Daniel Botkin uses, namely something closer to his original Hebrew name, Ye shuah (Joshua) etc. That's all. What's up with this Wonderful name of Jesus? As for the doctine of the trinity, the TT actually do not believe that Y'shua is the 2nd person of the trinity, even though their article "Unmasking the other Gospel" makes reference to that language. One of their leaders just a few days ago said that they need to revise that sentence. It is outdated. He said that Y'shua's spirit and body were both created at a particular time. He had to be on equal footing with the first Adam in order to give us salvation, etc. The link really, in my opinion, brings this out. http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/index.php Blessings! | ||
| johncolo_springs Intermediate Member Username: johncolo_springs Post Number: 331 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.64.1.41 |
Good starters: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=245 http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=227 | ||
| schmuel Advanced Member Username: schmuel Post Number: 757 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.193.219.212 |
John you are amazingly cornfused. First, I have always affirmed the equivalence of the name of Jesus Christ and Yeshua Messiah. Go back and read my posts. Be honest. From my Messianic background, fellowships in Israel and such .. there is nothing complicated in understanding the name equivalence. Whether Daniel uses the name of Messiah given in English is up to him, as I recall Daniel affirms the equivalence as well. And neither of us will use the abject error of the Twelve Tribes. That is where the scholarship of Daniel is especially excellent. Why don't you be a mentsch and finally clearly denounce that stupid head-in-the-sand error of the Twelve Tribes ? Why do they insist on arrogantly and deliberately mangling the name of the Messiah ? Why do you go silent about the TT error even when pointed out by your friend and reference Daniel Botkin ? Why not be honest here. ===== And the wonderful name of Jesus is given to us in the BIBLE .. where we began this discussion. Inspired apostolic writings, including the very beautiful .. Phillipians 2:9-10 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; John, do you have a Bible that you truly believe is the word of God ? Or perhaps you are like the Twelve Tribes above, ready to 'correct' what you think are the errors in the Bible. Filter it all through the authorities, deny whatever is uncomfortable, accuse the Bible of being corrupt. Now the other John, John_S, recognized the name of Jesus when he wrote.. "You make a completely artificial separation between Jesus the Christ and the Way of discipleship that he inaugurated...Just as there is only one name under heaven through which we must be saved, there is only one standard of obedience to that Name, as exemplified by that Name, through which we can rest in that Name." At the time I did not realize that there was a sharp John and a cornfused John. Now it is clear.  As for the Twelve Tribes and their stated support of the Trinity your statements above are virtually gobbley-gook. If you can ever get a real belief out of them, share away. Maybe they have been deceiving all these years ? I remember discussing this with them in some depth at Central Park, NYC some years ago.. they strongly affirmed that they are Trinitarians. Are you claiming that they are now biblical unitarians and anti-Trinitarian ? Do you or they have any consistency and clarity at all on this ? They are quick to accuse but who knows what they believe. Shifting sands, trying to look good. Appearance. So John, let us see a Twelve Tribes non-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian statement. Hmmm... Or else you are simply whistling in the wind. 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Shalom, Steven Avery http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic (Message edited by schmuel on September 27, 2006) | ||
| johncolo_springs Intermediate Member Username: johncolo_springs Post Number: 332 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.64.1.41 |
Steven, Thanks for your clarification. I guess the only area I was, and still may be, a little confused about is your beliefs and position about the NAME issue. And I am now seeming to pull some of it out of you. Are you a "Sacred Name" person yourself when it comes to the name JESUS? It seems so to me from looking at your past posts and frustrating so many folks here on this board. That's all. Why not go back to His original name? Yes the TT may not spell it correctly. And Daniel Botkin's article does "seem" to "get it right" He says he is open to being wrong if it can be demonstrated. Time will tell on that. But many folks and groups use the Yahshua form. You act like the name Yahshua is of the devil. Am I correct? I think a good way to solve it all is to use JOSHUA son of God. I use Jesus when I sing certain songs and pray, but golly, let's admit that Y'shua or Joshua is more acurate and may have been muffled by keeping the Greek transliteration. Ok, now to the trinity. I can only go by what I have heard and researched so far with TT. I personally would like to know from them or any others here what if any official doctrinal stance they have about the deity and trinity. But by reading the position of the Unitarians on that and other issues I believe they are very closely allied in that department. Have you read their articles which includes your scriptural reference above (1st Tim. 3:16)? If not I would challenge you to do so. You may re-think some of your dogmatic theological positions. Like I said before, here is a good place to start which, I believe, helps shed light on why the TT and other "un-orthodox" groups have challenged certain doctrines that were cemented so strongly at the Counsel of Nicea and so on... http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=227 | ||
| schmuel Advanced Member Username: schmuel Post Number: 761 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.193.219.212 |
Hi John, Ok, now we are chatting a little better . Let me give you some short answers to get a better fix. The name of Jesus is excellent and holy, given in the scriptures, the Greek NT and the English Bible. The Hebrew equivalent is Yeshua, also fully the name of the Messiah. Perfecto ! The Holy Spirit did not give us Joshua in the Bible text for His name, so I would not use that in place of Jesus. Yahshua is a bad corruption of the Hebrew. It is not so bad when done in ignorance, and as an adjunct, but Twelve Tribes not only insists on that error, they combine it with their various horrid attacks on the name of Jesus (attempting to equate with zeus and more that I prefer not to repeat). So it is that combination that makes Twelve Tribes irresponsible and yes, teaching doctrines of demons (in attacking the name of Jesus in various ways such as the zeus lie). The 'yahshua' form is not out of any Hebrew scholarship or any Messianic understanding. It was simply a qodesh-name error. After they embraced an error with the father's name (yahweh) they fabricated yahshua to match up. Error begets error. Then Twelve Tribes added their own slippery explanations on top. I use Jesus when I sing certain songs and pray, but golly, let's admit that Y'shua or Joshua is more acurate and may have been muffled by keeping the Greek transliteration. Excellent on the prayer and songs. Where we differ is that the Bible is elemental. The text we have is fundamental, we don't conjecture changing it. And the Greek NT text supports Iesous, Jesus in English. When you start with the Bible text, you don't puzzle about trying to correct it based on a non-existent tape recording of that time. The Bible text is directly the scriptures, the word of God. I personally would like to know from them or any others here what if any official doctrinal stance they have about the deity and trinity. I doubt that you will get any straight answers. They want to look like Trinitarians and I don't think they really know what they believe. I am very familiar with the Biblical Unitarian position .. Anthony Buzzard and Allon Maxwell and a book by Mark Mattison (the best one they put out, imho.. 'The Making of a Tradition'). On the Bible text I think they are totally wrong in their attempt to follow the Bart Ehrman type line, however that takes a little backdrop. We could discuss it maybe better on WhichVersion if you like. In general I have a lot of agreement with their view of the historical Trinity doctrine, however they are trapped in a "low Messiahology" .. one that has great difficulties in lifting up the name of Jesus (eg. Acts 4:12, the Phillipians verse, Colossians 2:9). There is a lot of interesting study when you compare the views of the 1st century from one like Richard Bauckham with the Bib-Unis. Both make good points, however I see the NT text as declaring the Deity of Messiah. As an example of the discussion, 1 Timothy 3:16 with "God was manifest in the flesh .." is incredibly well supported through the early church writers and manuscript evidence. It is a fine study. Shalom, Steven Avery http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic | ||
| johncolo_springs Intermediate Member Username: johncolo_springs Post Number: 333 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.64.1.41 |
Hi Steven, Just a couple of observations. 1.) Here is Daniel Botkin's statements directly from his web page ( http://www.gatesofeden.org/ ) concerning the Name issue: Q: Who is "Yahweh"? A: Yahweh is God’s proper name in Hebrew. (Ex. 3:15; 6:3) The name Yahweh appears about 7,000 times in the Hebrew Bible. Most English translations render it simply as "the LORD." People in Messianic congregations sometimes refer to God by His proper name Yahweh. This name is not to be taken in vain (Ex. 20:7); therefore it should not be spoken in a careless or casual manner. Q: Who is "Yeshua"? A: The name that Jesus actually went by when He lived as a man in the land of Israel was the Hebrew name Yeshua. Calling Him by His Hebrew name reminds us that He was a Hebrew and that His teachings should not be divorced from the Hebrew culture in which He lived. Interesting how they do not prefer to use what you call "the text that has come to us by the Holy Spirit" when it comes to the Messiah's name. They don't call the highest Name in the universe JESUS, but rather what He heard his mother call him, namely Yeshua. Quite interesting. | ||
| johncolo_springs Intermediate Member Username: johncolo_springs Post Number: 334 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.64.1.41 |
Ok, another observation. The following comes directly from the Unitarian sight concerning one of your pet verses about the deity and trinity: 1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. (NIV) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Although the above verse in the NIV does not support the Trinity, there are some Greek manuscripts that read, “God appeared in the flesh.” This reading of some Greek manuscripts has passed into some English versions, and the King James Version is one of them. Trinitarian scholars admit, however, that these Greek texts were altered by scribes in favor of the Trinitarian position. The reading of the earliest and best manuscripts is not “God” but rather “he who.” Almost all the modern versions have the verse as “the mystery of godliness is great, which was manifest in the flesh,” or some close equivalent. 2. In regard to the above verse, Bruce Metzger writes: [“He who”] is supported by the earliest and best uncials…no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports theos; all ancient versions presuppose hos or ho [“he who” or “he”]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading theos. The reading theos arose either (a) accidentally, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs [the six verbs that follow in the verse], or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision [i.e., to produce a verse that more clearly supports the Trinitarian position].” [35] 3. When properly translated, 1 Timothy 3:16 actually argues against the Trinity. “By common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Beheld by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory” (NASB). This section of Scripture beautifully portrays an overview of Christ’s life and accomplishments. It all fits with what we know of the man, Jesus Christ. If Jesus were God, this section of Scripture would have been the perfect place to say so. We should expect to see some phrases like, “God incarnate,” “God and Man united,” “very God and very man,” etc. But nothing like that occurs. Instead, the section testifies to what non-Trinitarians believe—that Christ was a man, begotten by the Father, and that he was taken up into glory. Buzzard, pp. 144 and 152 Dana, p. 137 Farley, pp. 69 and 70 Morgridge, pp. 82 and 115 Snedeker, p. 451 --------------------------- Ok, the text says, "Trinitarian scholars admit, however, that these Greek texts were altered by scribes in favor of the Trinitarian position." So, the question begs an answer. Was the text altered? If so, what other parts have been altered? What has been added? It is obvious that 1st John 5:7 was added by "well meaning" scribes to support their position, which says, I Jn 5:7 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (KJV) Of which, only the KJV has and all others have thrown it out, admitting that it was added to the text and NOT the text of the Holy Spirit. So, the question is, Is Yoneq partially, or altogether, correct in his declaration that the text has been corrupted and polluted etc.? It's obvious that he is at least partially right. | ||
| schmuel Advanced Member Username: schmuel Post Number: 762 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.193.219.212 |
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Hi John, There are so many errors, omissions and deceptions in that discussion of "God was manifest in the flesh .. " that it would take hours to unravel them all. I'll just give you a couple of basics. First "some Greek manuscripts" is 95%++. Hmmm.. why do they deceive in their writing ? Second.. there is extensive quoting of "God was manifest in the flesh" before those couple of early manuscripts. All through the 2nd through 4th centuries. Third 'early manuscripts' is a reference mainly to the ultra-corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, two manuscripts that should never be used for any significant textual evidence. eg. the scribe on Sinaiticus was simply horrendous and there are about 10 correctors of the manuscript. Similarly Vaticanus has a great 'fool and knave' note. Fourth, internal evidence strongly favors "God was manifest..." The various pronoun attempts are poor grammar and contradict each other. This is the standard type of textual confusion and slipperiness of those who reject the historic Bible. Incidentally the verse has nothing to do with the Trinity anyway, quite obviously that is a bogus claim. Sabellians would likely use that verse against Trinitarian doctrine. Here is one post I did with some of the data and references. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/message/9925 Shalom, Steven Avery | ||
| johncolo_springs Intermediate Member Username: johncolo_springs Post Number: 335 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 67.42.186.124 |
So, are you saying that the "Textus Receptus" is the superior one, the one the KJV is based upon? Because none of the modern versions have "God" including NIV, NASB, RVS, and so on. Why? Are you a King James only advocate? | ||
| schmuel Advanced Member Username: schmuel Post Number: 763 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.193.219.212 |
Hi John, Basically yes, but you have the reasoning a bit backward. I accept 'God is manifest in the flesh..' because it is in the historic Bible, not vica versa. Also it is a beautiful and sound scripture. The Textus Receptus, the historic Bible, is vastly superior to the modern versions that are based largely on the two oddball, disagreeing and corrupt alexandrian manuscripts. So there are many reasons involved for accepting the superior historic Bible. We can say that 1 Timothy 3:16 is one of dozens of examples where one can easily see the purity and accuracy of the historic Bible. On 1 Tim 3:16 the alexandrian method of choosing from conflicting cumbersome ungrammatical pronouns is simply trying to make due with an obvious scribal faux pas. Dean John Burgon wrote on this very nicely over a century ago. Other problems are simple logical errors made by the alexandandrian texts such as the synagogues of Judea, the pig marathon from Gerash and 'not' going to the feast. There are dozens of various types of errors and blunders. This makes real tangible Bible apologetics virtually impossible, since the versions have so many errors. Also the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultera are clearly scripture. They would have you believe that Mark ended with the women afraid. The list goes on and on. So I went from using the NIV to a 'TR' (Textus Receptus) position to affirming the King James Bible as pure and perfect. This is a natural progression, the last step came forth when I really looked closely at a number of issues, including God's promise to inspire and preserve His word. The first fundamental point is to get a sense of the underlying manuscript issue, why the historic TR text is accurate and what happenned that the modern versions went haywire. Shalom, Steven Avery | ||
| doug Senior Member Username: doug Post Number: 1167 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.127.207.75 |
Steven, Could you refresh me on which is the best KJV to get? | ||
| shammah Intermediate Member Username: shammah Post Number: 115 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 209.173.40.140 |
Schmuel wrote:>>Second.. there is extensive quoting of "God was manifest in the flesh" before those couple of early manuscripts. All through the 2nd through 4th centuries.<< Well, I didn't have time to go through everything for three centuries, but up through about AD 225, 1 Tim 3:16 is not quoted even once by anyone in either form. There is a possible reference in the Letter to Diognetus, but since he only quotes a couple of phrases (if he's even quoting), it doesn't address which version of 1 Tim 3:16 is original. In the end, 1 Tim 3:16 has exactly zero bearing on the whole subject of the Trinity, because Jesus is called God in many places throughout the New Testament, so adding or taking away one would not affect the argument. However, the 2nd through 4th century church did not believe in the Trinity the way, say, the Baptists or Catholics do. In their Trinity, the Father was greater than the Son, and Tertullian--who is credited (wrongly) with inventing the term Trinity--explained that Jesus was called God in the same way that a sunbeam might be called the sun (as in "the sun is shining in the window"). Once you talk about the sun and sunbeam together, though, you withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. In the same way, Jesus, the divine Son of God, is called God when he alone is spoken of, says Tertullian, but when he and God are spoken of, then the Father is God and Jesus is Lord, because there is only one God, the Father, says both Jesus and Paul (Jn 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6). That's what the church believed until the arguments that ensured after Nicea in 325 when Athanasius combined the modalist or "Jesus only" doctrine with the original doctrine of Nicea and invented our current Trinity doctrine, which had never even been heard of prior to about AD 330 or 340. | ||
| gm4thedeity New member Username: gm4thedeity Post Number: 1 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 64.136.26.227 |
Hi folks, I saw this topic on the internet while surfing,and I have to jump in and express my opinion: I have studied the many different bible versions for 8-1/2 months and I have found that the KJV ( 1611 Authorized King James Version ) is the True Word of Almighty God..... before anyone gets offended I want you to know that I love you and thats why I am showing you this information: If you take , O ... lets say : John 3:16. you will find in the other versions that the word, 'Begotten,' is taken out. and , 'One and only son,' is added. the word, 'Begotten' in the 1611 KJV , is a Very Special Word... its like saying , - that Almight God our FATHER gave his Blood Son.... His Most Dear and Precious Gift... - The other versions ... no offence , water the meaning down... 'One and Only Son.' According to Gods Holy Word, God ( Through Adoption) has More then 1 Son. You see what I am pointing at... Now I am in no wise Privately interpreting scripture, If you visit my website : maxpages.com/capitalturth. You will see that I have indeed took a lot of time to research and Study MUCH concerning Gods Word, Different Bible Version, and Many other Biblical Facts. I really Do Love you all in Christ and I know for myself that If I did Not Love you all in Christ, -I would not have dropped by to share this Most Valuable Information with you. Have a Blessed day in Christ. Under HIS MIGHTY WING. GM4THEDEITY. | ||
| nabashalam Intermediate Member Username: nabashalam Post Number: 115 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.130.19.196 |
So your an academic aye? Then watch this! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972 | ||
| soul1958 Junior Member Username: soul1958 Post Number: 38 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 75.100.10.252 |
The King James Version is not the (excuse the pun) one and only correctly translated version of the Bible. (Whether ANY of them is the “True Word of Almighty God” I will leave to the century-old, and still-unfinished, tiring debates.) Using your one example (Jn 3:16), the New American Standard [granted, based on the KJV (which itself is just another revision -- of the Bishops’ Bible 1568)] uses “only begotten,” as does my personal favorite George M. Lamsa translation from the ancient Eastern Text (based on Peshitta manuscripts). A good footnoted NIV will note the variant “only begotten.” A good footnoted NASV will footnote the variant “unique” (only one of his kind). My New American Catholic version uses “only” by itself, as does my Jerusalem Bible. NIV uses “one and only.” In all your studies, I am surprised that you did not compare Jn 3:16 with Jn 1:18, which uses the same Greek word in the phrase “the only begotten God” (NASV) or “God the One and Only” (NIV)? The Lamsa trans (Peshitta) reads “the first-born of God.” Before you take offense, I want you to know that I don’t care a hoot what you believe. The issue in all this is not totally about who is absolutely correctly translating the bible manuscripts – but it definitely does include not interpreting the Bible according to your prior beliefs. cont.... | ||
| soul1958 Junior Member Username: soul1958 Post Number: 39 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 75.100.10.252 |
Rather than picking and choosing who’s right or wrong – I would challenge you to understand why the same Greek word (monogenes)is interpreted in different ways... and whether they have any commonality. As you can see “only begotten” is a “compound” word in the Greek -- one-offspring. We would say “Only offspring” because “only” is an adjective...(one is used as a number or as a pronoun). Yes, gen is the same root word as is found in begat (v.) and born (adj.) and generation (n.).... a literal translation will yield “only born” and the word “begotten” is used of men who have children, more rarely of women. There is also the rare use with the meaning of “delivered.” You have a choice here – to translate the concept literally (as you seem to have done) in which case you have commingled blood literally with this meaning. (I understand why you would do that, in view of the shedding of (God’s?) blood at the crucifixion – and of there being “life in the blood” - believe me, it’s entirely unnecessary.) But then too you would have to incorporate sex? (Ouch... King James may have been Protestant, but com’on!, it WAS the roaring 1600s....but still... do you want to insinuate that?) Or to choose a metaphor usage. Because, unfortunately, (for you perhaps), if taken too literally - this would seem to be the “one and only” time John does NOT use an allegory or metaphor in this gospel! His whole essay is burdened with and about, for example, the names representing the Characteristics of Jesus (the many “I am,” Bread, Gate, Shepard, etc). One more thing...the Greek word SON is the offspring of a parent...but metaphorically it holds the offspring’s moral character... But this latest written gospel brings him closer to BEING GOD – the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD -- than to being FROM (or OF) GOD. (1:18) But now...here’s the interesting part.... within John 3:16, there is a pun on the use of the words “begotten” and “gave.” The Greek word, edoken, for “he gave” (strong’s 1325) does translate literally as “gave”...but it also holds within it the meaning of “to deliver” AND its root has the understanding of the “yielding fruit” (and as such, “birthing”) Edoken > diðdwmi (to give or yield fruit, deliver) Odino.... wÏdiðnw (to have birthing pangs – or to deliver) Note the root, “dio.” So, the Greek construction of the sentence translated reads = “... the son the only begotten he gave...” Putting the two words of the pun back-to-back: begotten-gave; birthed-delivered. (Just like John to make a point, I’m sure!) So, I agree, if one takes out begotten, you’ll water down the pun... But that does not make the KJV any more truthful. It’s just that when you put it in English... you aren’t going to catch the pun -- so what’s the point of translating it at all? You’d have to translate it as: God so loved the world that he delivered the seed of his moral characteristic...; Nothing bloody about that! | ||
| nabashalam Intermediate Member Username: nabashalam Post Number: 136 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.183.100.216 |
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ |
