Is Scripture Corrupt?

[dadof10]

This is a continuation from another thread. The first post is from Mysteryman:

Truth always , as you say, stirs the pot !

I know that you believe that the transaltions have no error's within them. Here is where we disagree.

There are many examples I could give you, but I am sure you would deny them. One simple example, is that punctuation is a more modern day addition. Even by the punctuation that was added, there are clear examples of influenced changes of the way in which scripture reads, just because of the punctuation.

Another simple example, is that the word "today" is not accurate, nor was it translated accurately. One of the first things we see, is that the translators wrote this word this way -> To Day. Notice the space ? Again, the word "today" is a modern day word. I am not exactly sure when this word was first used. Maybe around the 12th or 13th century.

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.

Now we have people believing that Jesus went to paradise and not to the grave. But worse than that, it has caused people to think with a double mindedness. We now have people believing that when you die and go to the grave, you end up in paradise, which is a lie !

So if you have eyes to see, you then would agree with me, that our translations can not be trusted . One must do their homework, and find out which verses or words, or phrases were altered , so as to cause not only confusion, but deception as well.

I know for a fact, that I gave to this board, more than once, the fact that the word "aner" in Matt. 1:16 is not translated properly. The KJV translates it as the "husband" of Mary, and it should have been translated the "man" of Mary. This man of Mary, was her father, not her husband ! Then and only then do you arrive at 42 generations from Abraham unto Christ.

IN Christ - MM

 

[dadof10]

Truth always , as you say, stirs the pot !

I know that you believe that the transaltions have no error's within them. Here is where we disagree.

That is correct. The Holy Spirit keeps the translators from error.

There are many examples I could give you, but I am sure you would deny them. One simple example, is that punctuation is a more modern day addition. Even by the punctuation that was added, there are clear examples of influenced changes of the way in which scripture reads, just because of the punctuation.

Try me. List a couple, if there are so "many".

Another simple example, is that the word "today" is not accurate, nor was it translated accurately. One of the first things we see, is that the translators wrote this word this way -> To Day. Notice the space ?

How does the space in between change the meaning in context? You have to give me the verse(s) in question. Did the author mean that someone or something was going toward "day" as opposed to away from it? Give me chapter and verse, please.

Again, the word "today" is a modern day word. I am not exactly sure when this word was first used. Maybe around the 12th or 13th century.

As long as the words used mean the day in between yesterday and tomorrow, what difference does it make if there is a space or not? Again, context.

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.

How so? I thought you said the word was accurately translated "To [space] day", which somehow changes the meaning from today.

Now we have people believing that Jesus went to paradise and not to the grave. But worse than that, it has caused people to think with a double mindedness. We now have people believing that when you die and go to the grave, you end up in paradise, which is a lie !

So SCRIPTURE IS WRONG??? Let me try to enlighten you, MM

The word used in Lk. 23:43 is "s?meron", which, according to Thayer's means ONLY:

1) this (very) day)
2) what has happened today

So, I either trust the Greek and Hebrew scholars at Thayer's, or....you

You need to change your thinking to conform to the plain words of Scripture not vice-versa.

So if you have eyes to see, you then would agree with me, that our translations can not be trusted .

Then the answer to my second UNANSWERED question from about a month ago ("who is the corrector of Scripture?"), is YOU? You are the center of Scripture interpretation and translation.

One must do their homework, and find out which verses or words, or phrases were altered , so as to cause not only confusion, but deception as well.

Deception? Thayer's is deceiving us? Please. Even you can't really think that.

I know for a fact, that I gave to this board, more than once, the fact that the word "aner" in Matt. 1:16 is not translated properly. The KJV translates it as the "husband" of Mary, and it should have been translated the "man" of Mary. This man of Mary, was her father, not her husband ! Then and only then do you arrive at 42 generations from Abraham unto Christ.

Joseph was Mary's FATHER? :help From Thayer's again:

Aner:

1) with reference to sex
a) of a male
b) of a husband
c) of a betrothed or future husband

2) with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy

3) any male

4) used generically of a group of both men and women

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".

WOW, MM. I really think you need to rethink this...

 

[Mike]

That's such an old, tired way of rejecting scripture. Much easier to make that claim than to stand on the Truth. I've seen cross-comparisons that show what we have today (regardless of the version) does NOT change the spirit of the purpose of any verse.

Your thread is revealing nothing new. ;) Make a claim, and never follow up to dispute arguments.

 

[westtexas]

So SCRIPTURE IS WRONG??? Let me try to enlighten you, MM

The word used in Lk. 23:43 is "s?meron", which, according to Thayer's means ONLY:

1) this (very) day)
2) what has happened today

So, I either trust the Greek and Hebrew scholars at Thayer's, or....you

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

 

[Hawkins]

Human knowledge is never more accurate than God's guidance. Humans eating too much from the Tree of Knowledge to think that they can judge the Word of God or even God HImself.

Piece of advice and warning from the very first chapter of the Bible, disregarding how you would treat my translated as inaccurate.

 

[Mysteryman]

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.

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.

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. 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 )

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Bless - MM

 

[Mysteryman]

So SCRIPTURE IS WRONG??? Let me try to enlighten you, MM

The word used in Lk. 23:43 is "s?meron", which, according to Thayer's means ONLY:

1) this (very) day)
2) what has happened today

So, I either trust the Greek and Hebrew scholars at Thayer's, or....you

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

Hi Westtexas

I noticed that you did a little research here. Good for you, it shows an effort at least. However, after your research, you fell into the same trap that everyone usually does. And that is, that it boils down to what you believe, when you used the phrase - "I believe".

Studying the scriptures has nothing to do with what "you believe". It has everything to do, with being a workman, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Why would you "expect" MM to have us asleep in the grave until the second coming ? This statement shows ignorance ( a lack of knowledge ). Your preconcieved beliefs are going to get in the way of being a workman, rightly dividing the word of truth. We can deal with you comment later if you wish. But for the most part, this is about how the translations were improperly translated. And the influence upon those whom read their translations.

 

[Mysteryman]

That's such an old, tired way of rejecting scripture. Much easier to make that claim than to stand on the Truth. I've seen cross-comparisons that show what we have today (regardless of the version) does NOT change the spirit of the purpose of any verse.

Your thread is revealing nothing new. ;) Make a claim, and never follow up to dispute arguments.

Hi Mike:

Stick around , you just may learn something. Then again, maybe not. We shall see in time.

You are correct about one thing. Trinitarians never follow up to dispute an argument. Nor do they defend what they comment upon. But thats another story.

When I make a comment, depending on the willingness of those who read what I have written. I will defend and explain in detail that which I have commented upon. So you just might have to swallow your words here Mike. It will also depend on your humility.

Bless - MM

 

[Mysteryman]

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 !

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.

 

[Drew]

You are correct about one thing. Trinitarians never follow up to dispute an argument. Nor do they defend what they comment upon. But thats another story.

This is an outrageous falsehood.

How dare you say such a thing, wheyn it is you, MM, who repeatedly ignore the arguments of Trinitarians?

I am stunned that you have the nerve to make this statement. Are you not even slightly concerned with the consequences of telling untruths?

 

[Drew]

When I make a comment, depending on the willingness of those who read what I have written. I will defend and explain in detail that which I have commented upon. So you just might have to swallow your words here Mike. It will also depend on your humility.

You need to tell the truth MM.

This is another complete falsehood. In another thread, I have repeatedly asked you to explain your position on the verses you post.

And you simply ignore such requests.

 

[Mysteryman]

When I make a comment, depending on the willingness of those who read what I have written. I will defend and explain in detail that which I have commented upon. So you just might have to swallow your words here Mike. It will also depend on your humility.

You need to tell the truth MM.

This is another complete falsehood. In another thread, I have repeatedly asked you to explain your position on the verses you post.

And you simply ignore such requests.

Hi Drew

Instead of falsely accusing me, would you please stick to the topic of this thread ! :yes

 

[francisdesales]

When I make a comment, depending on the willingness of those who read what I have written. I will defend and explain in detail that which I have commented upon. So you just might have to swallow your words here Mike. It will also depend on your humility.

You need to tell the truth MM.

This is another complete falsehood. In another thread, I have repeatedly asked you to explain your position on the verses you post.

And you simply ignore such requests.

Hi Drew

Instead of falsely accusing me, would you please stick to the topic of this thread ! :yes

Then don't spout off the false garbage about yourself and stick to the topic. Drew cited the garbage that is false. It is not necessary to attempt to set yourself up as an authority based upon your saintly image of yourself, we are all perfectly aware of the type of person you are.

Just present your "arguments" and leave the self-congratulatory comments at home.

 

[Pard]

No, the scripture is not corrupt. People who claim it is are seriously doubting our Lord, Elohim.

The Tanakh has been the same for as long as we can tell, and I have no reason to doubt. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the same as the Tanakh of today. They have found parts of Deut. and Exodus from a thousand or mores years earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls, they too are the exact same. This is a testament to our Lord Elohim's ability to keep His holy scripture pure, even though it is dictated by the hands of sinners.

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...

The Holy Bible is just that, holy. It is God's work and His work goes on unblemished.

I do find it interesting that some people find it necessary to claim the Bible is corrupt, in order to promote their own corrupt doctrine. People who are against the Trinity claim the Bible is corrupted by the Trinitarians. The Muslims claim the Bible is corrupt. The list goes on.

Perhaps if you are saying something to the effect of, "I'm calling the Bible corrupt in order to promote my own claims," you ought to stop for a moment and consider that you are demanding that the most Holy of books, a book that God Himself dictated and protects, is corrupt.

 

[Drew]

No, the scripture is not corrupt. People who claim it is are seriously doubting our Lord, Elohim.

I think we need to carefully nuances statements about the Bible being corrupt.

I have been in some discussions with MM where he claims knowledge of the original text and that the translations we have are "corrupt". When pressed for any kind of actual argument to support his remarkable assertions, we get, you guessed it, silence.

But, to be fair to MM, there are indeed cases where translation "errors" have arguably occurred. Here are some examples:

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.

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.

There are other examples as well. So there are indeed cases where error has slipped in. However, when any one makes such a claim, they should be prepared to support it.

And yes, if pressed, I can make the relevant arguments to support my assertion that translation "error" has occurred in the two examples I have listed.

 

[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

 

[Pard]

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

 

[seekandlisten]

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.

I was talking about corruption with the intent of changing a meaning.

What do you think in regards to 1 John 5:7 which was clearly modified/added to promote the trinity doctrine. Do note that I realize some modern versions have corrected this and I think your NASB95 is one of them. Some versions with the 'corrupted' passage include the following: KJV, Amplified, NKJV, 21st Century KJV, Young's Literal Translation, Wycliffe NT, Worldwide English NT, and many others make note of it in their footnotes. Look into Isaac Newtons Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture in regards to it as well as many other biblical scholars are in agreement with this passage being added/modified.

cheers

 

[francisdesales]

What do you think in regards to 1 John 5:7 which was clearly modified/added to promote the trinity doctrine.

Agreed, this is not in the earliest manuscripts and most believe this is a gloss.

The question, in this case, is whether the Church accepts this gloss and if it explains the teachings of the Church correctly. Is the Church guided by the Spirit or is the translator of the translation?

Regards

 

[Pard]

You and I have different opinions on 1 John 5:7, I guess.

The removal of 1 John 5:7 is in fact an act of corruption, and it is one thing I do not like about the NASB95. The idea that 1 John 5:7 is a later add-on to scripture is actually false. I am not claiming you are lying at all, so hear me out. The problem arrives when we consider where people look when they decided whether or not 1 John 5:7 was in the original Gospel. They looked to a set of Greek texts called the "Majority" test. It is the preferred Greek text of the Gospel, however it is fact the minority text. The "majority" text is made up of about 400 of the roughly 2000 Greek copies of the Gospel that we have today. The "Majority" text is used by the orthodox churches and they have had continued control over them since essentially the beginning of the written Gospel.

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.

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

EDIT

As I re-read my two posts it occurs to me that something is missing from my statements...

I do believe that some Bibles are corrupt by man, however I feel that they are in the vast minority. The most known of these corrupt Bibles is probably NWT. The uncorrupted Word of God is still upon us today, we just need to sift through the trash to find it sometimes. This is why having multiple translations is such a good idea.