Is Scripture Corrupt?

[seekandlisten]

They have found parts of Deut. and Exodus from a thousand or mores years earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls

Do you have a source for these claims? I have heard claims of manuscripts said to be dated 900 years BC which would put them at approx. 750 years earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls, but take a look below in the quotes I used.

they too are the exact same.

I don't think 'exact same' is used by any biblical scholars of ancient texts.

Here are some points taken from The Book of Deuteronomy by Peter C. Craigie.

"The Hebrew text of Deuteronomy has been preserved in remarkably good condition in contrast to the text of other OT books. Even though the principle textual evidence is as late as the tenth century AD."

"Moses Wilhelm Shapira, a Jerusalem dealer of antiquities and manuscripts, offered for sale an apparently ancient manuscript, which was said to be discovered in a cave in the region of the Dead Sea. The Hebrew script used in the manuscripts was very similar to that already known from the Moabite Stone. The manuscript contained quite extensive sections from Deuteronomy, and on the basis of a comparison with the Moabite Stone, it was thought that they might be as old as the ninth century B.C. The manuscript, however, was declared a forgery, largely through the influence of the French scholar Clermont-Ganneau."

"In recent years, the question of authenticity of the manuscripts has been reopened. There are several scholars who now think that it may indeed have been an ancient text. Although it may not have been as ancient as Shapira thought, the manuscript may at least have been contemporary with the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls, though written in more archaic script. Unfortunately the manuscript seems to have been lost, but there are a number of translations and transcriptions still in existence."

"The majority of variations between the MT and Dead Sea texts are minor in nature; the main differences to be found are in orthography. In one case (Deut.32:43), the Quamran text is longer than the MT and has certain similarities to the longer text preserved in the LXX at this point. This variation and other significant differences are discussed in the body of the commentary."

We can apply this same awesome power that God uses to make the same inference of the New Testament. They have original Greek scrolls of the Gospel... they are the ones they use to this day to make new translations of the Bible...

I would be interested in seeing the source for this information. Please show us.

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

The idea that 1 John 5:7 is a later add-on to scripture is actually false.

How so when it is not in the earlier Greek manuscripts but only in later Latin ones?

The "majority" text is made up of about 400 of the roughly 2000 Greek copies of the Gospel that we have today.

Please show me a reference to a Greek text that uses the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Here is a website that lays out the basic argument for 1 John 5:7. If you wish to pursue that topic farther, there are a few books that go into more detail about it. I think I can get the name of one I read. It was very well documented and was actually written by a team of secular and Biblical scholars who all agreed on the fact that the Bible is the same today as it was when man first put it to paper.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

I will take a look at your link when I have time. I've been pretty busy but this conversation interests me so post your sources for your claims and I will try and respond as time permits.

cheers

 

[Pard]

Seek,

I'm happy to direct you towards this information. You will have to do some sleuthing yourself, however, though I feel you may be interested enough to do just that!

The source is from a TV on the History Channel titled "The Naked Archeologist". Now I do not watch this show when it speaks on Christian matters, as the host is an orthodox Jew and as I have observed, he tends to cast doubt upon Christianity. However, when he speaks of matters on the Tanakh I find that he does very good work.

I believe the episode that I got this information from is episode 24 of season 1. It is titled "Who Wrote the Bible?" and it aired on February 13th, 2006. The host talks to the archeologist who found parts of the Torah, which predate the Dead Sea Scrolls by maybe 1000 years, in a hole. That is all I can tell you now, but I DVR the show everyday and if I see that episode come up I will record the information down for you.

Also, that website ought to stand as a source to my two other claims for now. I can try to find the book I read, but it's not mine and I do not recall the name.

 

[Mysteryman]

Drew,

I know of errors in various translations. An error or two is almost impossible to avoid when one is trying to translate from a language that has not been alive for thousand years into a modern language. More over, the vast vocabulary and inflections of Biblical Greek and Hebrew is far more complex than English will ever be. English is a language meant to be spoken daily, and it was designed for ease of use. It can adapt very well to serious and detailed uses as well, however it requires a college degree to really grasp.

I am well aware of the errors present in Bibles, even my trusted NASB95 has a few of them. The thing is, I was not remarking on error, but corruption. Corruption implies intent to heavily modify the text so that a new interpretation would come about. Errors are things we encounter on a daily basis. We all make errors. I make errors in my judgment and my comments, however I have never meant these errors and if I had known I was in error I'd have never made them in the first place.

I was talking about corruption with the intent of changing a meaning. These are the types of claims I have seen shad, MM, MA, and a few others make in an attempt to defend their own corrupt doctrines and I was making a remark in direction to these things.



-Ian

Hi pard

These are not errors in translations. These are out right subtle additions, subtractions, or changes, with the intent to alter.

As I pointed out in Matt. 1:16, this is not just a human error. The adversary of God is subtle , in order that his subtilty is not so easily recognized. For instance, the copiests and or the scriptists throughout history were influenced to change all so slightly that which was to be copied. Over a period of hundreds of years, the so called originals were far from original anymore. We trust the greek text to such a degree that one would not only have to read and write the greek language with the utmost of accuracy. But one would also have to be an expert on the history of christendom. This is because of all the influences that have occured throughout history.

Some trust their translations to the same degree. Which is a grave error on the person who does so. Why do you think that God has said - "Let God be true, and every man a liar" ? ?

Your bibles are good references, and that is all they are good for ! You must trust God in many ways when reading your bibles. If you put your trust in your paticular translation, you then by shear logic have not put your trust in God.

As the OT is least corrupt , it then is a better reference than the NT. However , it is God who opens up the eyes of our understanding. Not our bibles !

As you know, a bible has been available to the general public for about 500 years now. Prior to this, there were no such references available. There was material that was in written form that could be available for reading. However, these are man made hand me downs. Also, division within Christendom came about from many men, resources, and by many who were in power at any given time which dictated what some should believe. Also remember that interpretation of the scripture is just as critical as what some believe that their bibles are in some way protected by God himself. Private interpretation and falsely translated bibles are just a tip of the iceburg when it comes to the division that is within Christendom.

Let me ask you a question as an example of what I am trying to express. How do you interpret I Corinth. 11:20 ? Could this verse be a part of the corruption of the scriptures, or is this verse correct and just not followed to the letter by modern day Christendom ?

 

[seekandlisten]

Y
Here is a website that lays out the basic argument for 1 John 5:7.

I do hope everyone reads this article. It is very informative and actually provides a good deal of secular and Biblical evidence for 1 John 5:7 being part of the uncorrupted Gospel.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

Hmmmm......with misrepresentations and falsehoods promoted such as this one http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1041/1041_01.asp, amongst many other falsehoods promoted on that site, I wouldn't put to much faith in their 'version' of the story. A little more research on the subject would probably be of benefit.

As I pointed out earlier, check out Isaac Newton's Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. You may also consider looking into Bart D. Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Misquoting Jesus, and Jesus, Interrupted, as well as Allan Cronshaw's Has the Bible been Faithfully Preserved. All of these authors have the credentials and research to back them up, not saying personal bias can't come into play but well written and well researched points are brought up.

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

Here is a quote taken from Allan Cronshaw's Has the Bible been Faithfully Preserved.

When directly confronted with the overwhelming evidence and facts with respect to the wholesale corruption of the scriptures, the fundamentalist defensively responds with the rather absurd assertion that "God wrote the King James Version of the Bible". Thus, no amount of rationale will convince them that because we are the prodigal sons of our Heavenly Father, and the Kingdom is within us (Luke 17:21), that all those who truly live a consecrated life will be shown the undefiled Word of God that can be accessed by journeying along the narrow path that opens the "strait gate" that leads to the indwelling Temple (1 Cor 3:16). The great truth which the modern Christian fails to comprehend is that, even in its corrupted form, the Bible as it has been passed down to us is sufficient to manifest the Living Word of God in the life of the individual believer. One only has to open the New Testament to almost any page to find the message: If the believer consecrates their lives -- becomes teachable by releasing their minds from an adherence to the doctrines of men -- forgive and judge no one -- live a simple life that is unencumbered -- do no harm to any of God’s creatures -- and seek in solitude the companionship of the Lord in the inner Temple -- that the Holy Spirit will Anoint and Teach you all the Mysteries of God as the believer begins the journey home to the Kingdom. If the believer begins to live the consecrated Christian life -- free of the thinking and entanglements of this world -- then the indwelling Word will reveal all things to those who are sincere in their search for the Truth.

The complete article can be read here.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/biblical-corruption.htm

"Certain Christians, like men who are overcome by the fumes of wine and care not in the least what they say, alter the original text of the Gospels so that they admit of various and almost indefinite readings. And this, I suppose, they have done out of worldly policy, so that when we press an argument home, they might have the more scope for their pitiful evasions" - Celsus

"They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own" - St. Jerome (Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5)

" 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely? - Jeremiah 8:8 (NIV)

 

[Mysteryman]

Here is a quote taken from Allan Cronshaw's Has the Bible been Faithfully Preserved.

When directly confronted with the overwhelming evidence and facts with respect to the wholesale corruption of the scriptures, the fundamentalist defensively responds with the rather absurd assertion that "God wrote the King James Version of the Bible". Thus, no amount of rationale will convince them that because we are the prodigal sons of our Heavenly Father, and the Kingdom is within us (Luke 17:21), that all those who truly live a consecrated life will be shown the undefiled Word of God that can be accessed by journeying along the narrow path that opens the "strait gate" that leads to the indwelling Temple (1 Cor 3:16). The great truth which the modern Christian fails to comprehend is that, even in its corrupted form, the Bible as it has been passed down to us is sufficient to manifest the Living Word of God in the life of the individual believer. One only has to open the New Testament to almost any page to find the message: If the believer consecrates their lives -- becomes teachable by releasing their minds from an adherence to the doctrines of men -- forgive and judge no one -- live a simple life that is unencumbered -- do no harm to any of God’s creatures -- and seek in solitude the companionship of the Lord in the inner Temple -- that the Holy Spirit will Anoint and Teach you all the Mysteries of God as the believer begins the journey home to the Kingdom. If the believer begins to live the consecrated Christian life -- free of the thinking and entanglements of this world -- then the indwelling Word will reveal all things to those who are sincere in their search for the Truth.

The complete article can be read here.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/biblical-corruption.htm

"Certain Christians, like men who are overcome by the fumes of wine and care not in the least what they say, alter the original text of the Gospels so that they admit of various and almost indefinite readings. And this, I suppose, they have done out of worldly policy, so that when we press an argument home, they might have the more scope for their pitiful evasions" - Celsus

"They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own" - St. Jerome (Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5)

" 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely? - Jeremiah 8:8 (NIV)

Hi seekandlisten

Thanks for your input.

As far as we can research, I John 5:7 is not in the oldest manuscripts that we know about. But this is just the tip of the iceburg. And even with all the evidence that can be brought to the table. Many will still say that their bibles have only slight alterations that makes no differnce.

The orthodox corruption of Scripture by Bart. D. Ehrman is a great read. These are not just his opinion's, but he also references other material that can be documented.

And even though there is not anything written by man that is 100 % accurate. We still can not put a blind eye to the history that went on within the history of christendom . The knowledge and occurances of the second and third and fourth centuries has shown to have a tremendous impact on christendom today. Mostly from a negative POV. Once an untruth is laid into the framework of society, it is nearly impossible to prove to others the falsehoods.

 

[shad]

Once an untruth is laid into the framework of society, it is nearly impossible to prove to others the falsehoods.

This is true, especially if that's what people want to hear and believe.

However, Jesus' servants have responsibility to spread the whole truth no matter what. We should not ostracize other believers with vague understanding such as the trinity doctrine and other man-made doctrines.

We should not be stumbling block by using man-made doctrines. We should not build up any man-made doctrines.

The RCC started man-made doctrines and the rest of the protestants are following this disgraceful trait.

Most seemingly scholars study their own doctrines thoroughly, and ignoring the whole Bible context. That's how they make the Bible so complicated unnecessarily, hence chaos.

 

[mondar]

The comma (1John 5:7) has an interesting history. I have read (dont know where) that Irasmus originally did not put the comma into his greek text. Someone complained about this and Irasmus replied that if one greek text could be found with it in, he would put it in. Irasmus's antigonist came up with one 14th or 15 manuscript and Irasmus kept his word. Staphanus and later Scrivener followed the tradition and retained the reading.

When the KJV was translated in 1611, they used the TR. There are no "corruptions" of the translation of 1John 5:7 as the translators put the greek of the TR into english. One could accuse the TR of corrupting 1John 5:7, but it would be technically incorrect to accuse the KJV of a corruption. It has generally been recognized by trinitarians that 1John 5:7 has a dubious history, and for this reason the vast majority of trinitarians never use the verse to defend the trinity. In fact as a personal anecdote, I have yet to see the comma used in a trinity debate. There is a lot of really bad arguments and really bad theology on this board. If the comma were used anywhere, it would be right here. Can anyone show me a trinitarian that used the comma to support trinitarianism? It would therefore be a mere straw man attack to suggest that there is a some conspiracy to corrupt the text because of the reading of the comma in the TR.

But I digress into trinitarianism, the issue is the corruption of scripture. To suggest that a translation corrupts scripture seems to be very poor argumentation to me. While the NIV has interpretive and a rather free translation, that is different then a "corrupted" translation. The comma is too well known to really serve as a "corruption."

The most recent attack on the scripture comes from the pen of Bart Erhman. He suggests that the scriptures are hopelessly corrupt because of scribal copying errors. I think his suggestion is rather far fetched. If you look at the Siniaticus, and a later scribal copy of the Suniaticus, the scribes were highly accurate. Even if you compare the Byzantine with the Siniaticus, while there is some differences, the differences make no difference in theology.

I am not a manuscript scholar, but I often lean toward the readings of the older texts against the Byzantine. In essence, I think we have 102% of the Scripture. We have additions. John 5:4 looks like a note a scribe put in the column to explain events in John 5. Later a scribe put the note in the column into the text. I believe the NIV and NASB mention the reading, but somehow separate its reading. Yet if one thinks John 5:4 is an addition, how does it affect the doctrines of the text? In fact, it does not affect the theology of John 5:4.

I agree that the scribes were obviously not without error. The scribes made copying errors that later scribes and modern scholars have pointed out. However, this process does not lead to the substantiation of a "corrupted" text. Before I would agree the text is "corrupted," I would need the word corruption defined. I think of a "corruption" as changing the theology of the text, not a mere scribal mistake that is later recognized and corrected.

My guess is that I am again going to post and not stay to answer challenges. See ya all later.

 

[seekandlisten]

We can apply this same awesome power that God uses to make the same inference of the New Testament. They have original Greek scrolls of the Gospel... they are the ones they use to this day to make new translations of the Bible...

Here is an interesting lecture given by Bart D. Erhman you may find of interest. It is split up into 10 minute sections and there is a Q&A session at the end. Very interesting.

[youtube:2wkfh817]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo[/youtube:2wkfh817]

[youtube:2wkfh817]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUfSuninCn0&feature=related[/youtube:2wkfh817]

[youtube:2wkfh817]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6m07nmLe60&feature=related[/youtube:2wkfh817]

[youtube:2wkfh817]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkZnIJoY3ZY&feature=related[/youtube:2wkfh817]

[youtube:2wkfh817]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDjZK8SMBxE&feature=related[/youtube:2wkfh817]

 

[seekandlisten]

The rest of the lecture.

[youtube:3guidsrz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogG38VaSG3I&feature=related[/youtube:3guidsrz]

[youtube:3guidsrz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YKMsJvBLag&feature=related[/youtube:3guidsrz]

[youtube:3guidsrz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QSmdtgehQE&feature=related[/youtube:3guidsrz]

[youtube:3guidsrz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJdq7MysUk&feature=related[/youtube:3guidsrz]

[youtube:3guidsrz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TffAToyojg&feature=related[/youtube:3guidsrz]

 

[Elvispelvis]

Isa 66:4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose [that] in which I delighted not.

Yes the bible is corrupt every time you read the word God Or LORD !!

In the year 1611 King James gathered Christians to decide what the Hebrew words meant.

The Bible was not written in English.
Jesus does not speak English.

The writers in the Bible did not speak English.
All the writers of the new testament were Jews who did not speak English.

What is my point? When Jesus returns He will still be a Jew who does not speak English.
We must understand Hebrew and Greek to try to grasp what the writers were saying.
The language in the kingdom of God Is Hebrew says Zech 8. Jesus speaks Hebrew.

This takes a lifetime of study or use Strongs Exhaustive Concordance to look up the Hebrew and the Greek.
So looking at Genesis what do we find, but an error of immense importance, so that Christianity would be divided from this point on.The arguing and fighting over the years over the first line in the bible has led to many a death. My ancestors the Huguenots and the Waldenses were burned at the stake
because they fought the trinity out loud. They claimed that the first line in the bible is incorrect in English. The Hebrew does not say the same things as English.

Hebrew has a mathematical sequence to it that does not exist in English.

This is not a secret code that was just discovered but a scientific fact laid out by the work of Dr Ivan Panin a scientist who set out to prove the Bible
Soon Dr Panin found that in the Hebrew when he changed the letters to numbers that the first seven words add up to 49 or 7x7 = 49. Then he found 777,777 combinations of 7 and into the odds of trillions that this happened by chance. Google Dr Ivan Panin and be amazed at his findings.
Why does this matter? Because now we can go back and see if the translators understood the Hebrew properly. Why does this matter?
Back to Genesis 1 the word in Hebrew is Eloheim plural not singular.
The Christian translators with their preconceived English background of teaching decided to take a plural word that God intended to be understood as mighty ones and they made it a singular word God.
Before this the word God did not exist in the bible but was used because of custom and tradition
old wives tales, fables ,the name was passed down through the ages.
Now everyone says God.

In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance the word Eloheim has been mis-translated 2,380 times into the singular word God. So instead of reading the mighty ones were doing the work we incorrectly read God did the work in English .
Yes the Bible is corrupt every-time you read the word God and LORD.

I asked the question Why did the translators write his name so different all the time.

Have you never noticed in the old testament they spell God, sometimes GOD, sometimes Lord, sometimes LORD, sometimes Lord God, sometimes LORD God, sometimes LORD God of hosts, Lord GOD of Armies, etc etc,.

WHY THE DIFFERENT SPELLINGS AND USE OF CAPITALS IN HIS NAME ?

Only through the study of Hebrew Titles of Diety can we begin to understand God Manifestation in the old testament.
In the old testament the word for LORD all capitals is always the Hebrew word YHWH
or in English " He who shall be mighty ones"

So that is my beginning statement with much more to follow on the Pagan , Heathen, ideas that the translators added in their preconceived ideas when translating into English.

So please show me where I am wrong by proving Dr Ivan Panin comments wrong by keeping your comments to Genesis 1 the first line has it been translated properly into English?
Yes or no and why?
The false statement " The Holy Spirit made sure it was translated properly" is a fable and old wives tail handed down through the ages not one scripture is given as proof just a Big Fat Claim that people misqoute the scriptures all the time. Not one bible verse says the holy spirit guided the translators.
Yet churches take the verses that scripture is inspired and say see I told you so. You show your lack of old testament understanding to what this means. The Bible was inspired in Hebrew not English.
The apostles did not write in English. The English Bible has more than 20,000 words that are in question in their translation.

YES THE BIBLE IS CORRUPT !

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Actual scripture showing the delusion is from God so it is powerful delusion.

Matt 7 many Christians are rejected.

 

[dadof10]

Dad, I don't agree with MM's interpretation of this scripture but I do agree with his possible translation. According to Strong's "semeron #4594 is a presumed compound of #3588 and #2250"
#2250-hemera- day i.e. the time space between dawn and dark, or the whole 24 hours
#3588-ho, he, to---the, this, that, one, he, she, it
So you could have-on the day, on this day, or on that day
However, taken in context with the rest of scripture, I believe the translations we have are correct. "On this day (today) you will be with me in paradise". I'm expecting MM to have us asleep in the grave until the second coming, but we'll see.
Westtexas

Here is what MM said about Lk. 23:43

If properly translated, this word -> "To Day" would never have been translated this way.

It should have been translated - "This day" or "That day" or "In that day, or in this day".

When Jesus told the thief on the cross, that "In that day" thou shalt be with me in paradise. The translators translated this phrase as -- "To Day", which has caused all kinds of confusion amongst those who read their bibles thinking that their translated bible is infallible.

He is not saying the word could be translated either one way or the other, he definitively translates the word "semeron" as "In that day" in an attempt to bolster his own personal preconceived doctrine.

The looked up about a dozen or so verses with the word "today" in them, and in every one the author uses the word "semeron" when he means the day in between yesterday and tomorrow.

What's interesting is that when "semeron" is used it is rightly translated as "this day" or "today" and when "h?mera" is used it is translated as "the day" (as in the day of the Lord), "that day" or some other future generic "day".

2Thes. 1:10 says "...when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints..."

The Greek says: "en ekeinos h?mera"

Again, in 2Tim 1:12: "and therefore I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me."

Greek: "ein ekeinos h?mera"

And 2Tim 1:18: "may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day -- and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus."

Greek: "en ekeinos h?mera"

I haven't looked up every instance of the word "day" in the NT, so there may be exceptions, but the verses I checked seem to have this pattern. "Semeron" is used for today, "h?mera" is used for some future day, so, as far as I can tell, if Luke wanted to convey "in that day" he would have used the word "h?mera".

 

[ORwarriOR]

As far as the translation of the sinner on the cross goes. In the parable of lazerus in the rich man, was lazerus not in paradise as the rich man was being tormented in hades? This parable couldn't have possibly been in reference to after judgment day either since the rich man requested to return and warn others.

 

[dadof10]

Hi dad

If you are going to discuss this issue with me, you can not leave any stone unturned. Looking at this with one eye closed is not the proper way of looking at the issue of the translations that we have and how they were translated.

So, the well has been poisoned right off the bat? Those that disagree with you have "one eye closed" or are in some way "ignorant" of your superior intellect and insight? My past history with you has shown the opposite.

Next, the Word of God tells us, that the prophecy of the scriptures are of no private interpretation. Now this is very important and is seperate from the accuracy of the translation. However, if the translations were not properly translated, then people who read their translations as written, will then be influenced to the degree that interpretation will then be altered as well.

Of course. Also, if you come into Scripture with an EXTREME BIAS, you will translate and interpret to that end, and will ignore the PLAIN WORDS OF SCRIPTURE and the Greek scholars opinion if either contradicts your "Holy Spirit guided" position. Case in point...

So if you have an improper translation, you more than likely will have private interpretation along with it. Thus, the people who read this private interpreted word (aner - husband, instead of - man) would be influenced by their own ignorance.

Matt 1
and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband [aner] of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband [aner] Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly. (Matthew (RSV) 1)

The word "aner" in verse 19 is used for the man that MARY IS BETROTHED TO!! Certainly this man Joseph is the same man referenced in verse 16 because In both instances Matthew uses the word "ANER", which means "husband", unless you are going to attempt to make the case that Mary was betrothed to her FATHER.

If we don't see this ridiculous fantasy you have attempted to weave to get to the magic number 42, we are....what is the word...oh yeah, IGNORANT. WOW..

The Word tells us, that - My people are destroyed because of a lack of knowledge. The Word also tells us, that if those people want to remain ignorant ( which means a lack of knowledge) for us to leave them ignorant ( leave them in the state of a lack of knowledge )

You will be ignoring the above exegesis, then?

If you or anyone else is going to take this issue seriously. They then would have to look at every angle and leave no stone unturned.

Unturned stones is a good metaphor for this discussion. Your foolishness that Joseph is Mary's father should be left under the rock to rot.

For instance, I told you that the word "aner" was translated improperly in Matt. 1:16. I informed you that the word was translated "husband" instead of "Man". Then I informed you that if the word "aner" was translated "husband", that this would leave us with only 41 generations from Abraham unto Christ. But if translated "man" , which means her father ( I didn't say it should be translated to the word Father, I said that the word "man" means her father), then and only then would there be 42 generations from Abraham unto Christ. Which then would include Mary as one of the generations.

So if the numbers don't add up in your mind, you simply change the meanings of words and identities of people? If Joseph wasn't Mary's husband, who....on second thought, never mind. I'm scared of the answer.

For the most part, people who do not want to change their understanding, will provide excuses instead of hard evidence.

We'll see if you admit that I'm right about Joseph in your next post.

I prefer the Strong's, but there is nothing wrong with Thayer either.

They're the same.

Similarly people who private interpret scripture , will also private interpret a concordance. So that the person who does this will remain in their ignorance, and no one will be able to help this person, because they do not want enlightenment.

Ignorance begats ignorance, or as the scriptures tells us - a blind man leading the blind will fall into the ditch.

What does this have to do with Scripture corruption? Just another cheap shot...

Many Christians make their homes in the ditch. This is all a part of our free will. Now, there will be a few, a small remnant that will desire the truth and seek out the truth. They will become stewards of the scriptures , so that they no longer just drink the milk of the Word. For those who only drink the milk are unskilled in the scriptures and will remain there if they so desire.

...and your customary rant...

If you or anyone is going to discuss this subject with me, you must bring your willingness and desire. Otherwise, this is a waste of your time and my time as well.

Willingness and desire to do what? Ignore Greek scholars, the plain words of Scripture and common sense in favor of a fantasy? No thanks...

 

[dadof10]

Quote dadof10 : "What word is missing from the above definition? That's right...FATHER. This, then begs the question, is there another Greek word for "father" that could have been used if Matthew wanted to convey that thought and agree with you? The answer is YES, of course there is. If Joseph was Mary's father, Matthew could have simply continued with the "begats" which started at the beginning of the Chapter.

Even if he didn't want to use that word, he could have used the common word "pater". ""

-----------------------------------------------------

Hi dadof10

Wow, you leave me almost speechless after reading your comment here !

First of all, a translator is not suppose to change the greek word in order to convey a thought ! So if a translator used the greek word "pater" instead of "aner", then the translator would be guilty of interpreting scripture instead of translating scripture !

I didn't say a TRANSLATOR changed anything. Read it again. I said if MATTHEW wished to convey that Joseph was Mary's father, he (MATTHEW) could have used another word. Tell you what, MM. Go into your Bible program and type the word "husband". Go to Strongs and look up the Greek word for all the verses listed. Come back and tell me what GREEK WORD IS USED IN EVERY VERSE. Let me give you a hint. It starts with the letter "A", ends in "R" and in the middle is what Monte Python's Knights say.

Secondly, Matthew used the greek word "aner" for a purpose, and we must understand that purpose for using the word "aner" over the word "pater". When reading the first chapter of Matthew, we know it is talking about "generations" and not "geneologies". Yet, it is listed as if we are reading about "geneologies" because of the usage of the word "begat". In staying with the consistency of the scriptures, Matthew had 42 generations that he listed in this first chapter of Matthew. And because we never see a daughter as being one who was begotten of a father. We only see a son as one who was begotten. When it came to deal with Mary and her father Joseph, Matthew could not use the word "begotten" as pertaining to Mary. So Matthew used the word "aner" , which should have been translated the "man" of Mary, which indicates his offspring which was not begotten, but nonetheless an offspring of this man Joseph. Could Matthew have used "pater" instead ? We might think so, but to keep in the line with the thoughts that were being expressed, it was proper of Matthew to use the word "aner" instead of the word "pater".

Now here is what we can make no mistake about, and that is the fact that there were 42 "generations" from Abraham unto Christ. Not "geneologies" , but "generations ! Mary would have been the 41st "generation" and Christ would have been the 42nd "generation from Abraham unto Christ. In order for there to be 42 "generations", this man Joseph had to be her father !

This means, that there was some kind of influence upon the translators, that was brought about by the translators to translate this word "aner" as "father" instead of "man". What exactly was the influence, I am not exactly sure. However, I can make a very good educated guess. As you know, most people believe that the account in Luke 3, people have been taught that Heli was the father of Joseph, who was the step father (adoptive father) of Jesus Christ. And that this Joseph was the same Joseph that was in Matt. 1:16 who was the husband of Mary. I might add that I have seen conflicting beliefs pertaining to Luke 3's account. However, the lineage is different from these two accounts. At King David is where the seperation occurs. One from his son Nathan (Luke 3 account) and the other is from Solomon ( Matt. 1 account ). This shows us an obvious different lineage, and an obvious contradiction if the word "aner" is left as translated "husband" of Mary, instead of its proper translation "man" of Mary.

An exegesis of the word aner is in the previous post. You have to find another way to come to the magic number 42. You can't simply change meanings of words.

 

[dadof10]

1. John 18:36 is translated, in some versions, so that get Jesus saying "my kingdom is not of this world". This is almost certainly an error - the more correct rendering is "my kingdom is not from this world." Subtle, yet very importand difference.

The NIV, KJV, RSV, NASB and ESV all have the word "of". Which versions have the word "from", and why is the difference important? It seems that in both cases, the word means that Jesus' kingdom is not on the earth, it is somewhere else.

2. The NIV has this for Romans 10:16: But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.. If you do the research, you will discover that no manuscripts contain the word "Israelites" or anything like it - the translators have made an interpretive move, as they sometimes need to do. In this case, I think they made a mistake - Paul is not focused on Israel in this verse.

The NIV has "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.
The RSV, NASB, KJV, ESV and the Greek have some variation of "they have not all..."

i see your point here. There is a huge difference between the two translations. Do you know if the NIV is the only one that translates "Israelites"?

 

[dadof10]

Now here is what we can make no mistake about, and that is the fact that there were 42 "generations" from Abraham unto Christ. Not "geneologies" , but "generations ! Mary would have been the 41st "generation" and Christ would have been the 42nd "generation from Abraham unto Christ. In order for there to be 42 "generations", this man Joseph had to be her father !

The Scripture doesn't say "42" generations.

• Mat 1:17 - So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations.

David is counted twice, hence 41 generations.

I.E. the answer is not "42"! :eyebrow

That's one way of reconciling the difficulty. I sure beats MM's alternative.

 

[Sinthesis]

Now here is what we can make no mistake about, and that is the fact that there were 42 "generations" from Abraham unto Christ. Not "geneologies" , but "generations ! Mary would have been the 41st "generation" and Christ would have been the 42nd "generation from Abraham unto Christ. In order for there to be 42 "generations", this man Joseph had to be her father !

The Scripture doesn't say "42" generations.

• Mat 1:17 - So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations.

David is counted twice, hence 41 generations.

I.E. the answer is not "42"! :eyebrow

That's one way of reconciling the difficulty. I sure beats MM's alternative.

My point is there is no "difficulty" at all if you can read the Bible. One who can't read the Bible could invent a "difficulty" and correspondingly absurd solution as a vain attempt to prove to themselves some sort of elite prowess beyond the abilities of the unlearned. Hypothetically.

 

[seekandlisten]

The NIV, KJV, RSV, NASB and ESV all have the word "of". Which versions have the word "from", and why is the difference important?

I think whether 'of' or 'from' is used, it still means the same thing. Some do vary on their belief of what it means though.

It seems that in both cases, the word means that Jesus' kingdom is not on the earth, it is somewhere else.

It could be right where he says it is. Nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign of God is within you. (Luke 17:21)