Daniel 3:25 who was the Fourth man in the fire?

[markie]

Listen markie i am not stupid as far as english is concerned.I was born and bred in Britain and was actually in the past teaching English to foreigners.The son of GOD and the son of GODs whether in old or modern English makes a big difference. For them to actually change this there must have a big discrepancy and I am sure die hard christians Like yourself will never admit to any discrepency even though the truth would be put in front of you.For so many years the verse contained the Son of GOD and people read it as the Son of GOD with the capital S which in Latin languages makes a difference.Then suddenly it is changed to a small s which undermine the word son and an s is added to GOD.This does make a difference a big Difference.The capital S as I remember,you, yourself in a previous post explained that it was to describe Jesus alone in translations.so now it has become small s and a s added to the word God. this is just one, I can name loads like this where a word has been changed in the new translations and it changes the whole meaning of the verse.The problem is that you people in christianity will not write or contact your scholars to ask for enlightment on this issue but rather, like the priest themselves, you will ask that person who raised the issue not to blaspheme.Unlike islam where we actually sit and question our scholars if we are not happy with issues we open up our books and check then go back to the scholars until the issue is cleared.
I have never been able to have a proper dialogue with an open minded christain who has taken the facts and analysed and although other christian scholars who have researched them, have found that there are some things not right there.yet the die hard Layman out of emotion is prepared to die to prove he is right.
anyway
peace

I don't remember saying that but whether I did or not it should be that way, at least the capital S should only signify the Christ blood line. I study the questions that you ask me, I look them up in the concordance to see if the verses were translated right. If I see something I don't agree with or don't understand I study it. I have found a lot of verses in the king James that I don't see any g/h words for. That doesn't mean I throw the whole book away. There are newer versions available and they may be more accurate. I have a lot of versions but you all seem to like to post in king James so that's what I use most of the time to post with. Maybe king jimmy was just trying to put Christ where he didn't belong, kind of like you do with Mohammed. I used to think the king James was one of the most accurate but since I've been looking in the concordance and comparing scripture I am not so sure it is. I can see why it can cause confusion but whether nebachanezzar said he has the appearance of the Son of God or of a son of the gods the man only had the appearance of.

 

[azri]

caller. There is NO corruption in the Bible! How would you like it if we were to say mohammed was visited by a demon angel?
It's a similar thing caller

Show your proof

You (O Muhammad) was not a reader of any Scripture before it, nor did you write (such a Scripture) with your right hand, for then those who follow falsehood might (have a right) to doubt it. (al-Ankabut, 29.48)

 

[caller_to_truth]

I don't remember saying that but whether I did or not it should be that way, at least the capital S should only signify the Christ blood line. I study the questions that you ask me, I look them up in the concordance to see if the verses were translated right. If I see something I don't agree with or don't understand I study it. I have found a lot of verses in the king James that I don't see any g/h words for. That doesn't mean I throw the whole book away. There are newer versions available and they may be more accurate. I have a lot of versions but you all seem to like to post in king James so that's what I use most of the time to post with. Maybe king jimmy was just trying to put Christ where he didn't belong, kind of like you do with Mohammed. I used to think the king James was one of the most accurate but since I've been looking in the concordance and comparing scripture I am not so sure it is. I can see why it can cause confusion but whether nebachanezzar said he has the appearance of the Son of God or of a son of the gods the man only had the appearance of.

Do you want to compare scripture version s for version, lets go there


Revelation 1:11 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (KJV)

Revelation 1:11 11 saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Per'gamum and to Thyati'ra and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to La-odice'a." (RSV)
Now you see it now you don't it was not in the original manuscripts the scholars say althogh crhistains have been using it for hundreds of years to prove didvinity of Christ


Revelation 1:8 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (KJV)
Revelation 1:8 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. (RSV)

KJV and RSV seem to disagree with each other on who said this.The word GOD is added in the RSV


1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."


this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says:


"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."



The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words:


"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."

"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.
Have a nice day
peace

 

[Bevlina]

This is starting to get a bit boring.

 

[jlujan69]

When all else fails, attack the venerable KJV because that's all there's left to do. The KJV "inconveniently" proves the Holy Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. This is what's tragic about the multiplicity of other Bible "translations". Those other Bible versions have made it easier for non-believers to "prove" their case. This became evident on a thread I posted proving Jesus' claim to deity. The challenge was to read what was written and simply comment on its possible meaning without making all sorts of outlandish claims (including attacking the KJV). Only one person ("muslimah") seemed up to the challenge and I commended her for it.

 

[caller_to_truth]

When all else fails, attack the venerable KJV because that's all there's left to do. The KJV "inconveniently" proves the Holy Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. This is what's tragic about the multiplicity of other Bible "translations". Those other Bible versions have made it easier for non-believers to "prove" their case. This became evident on a thread I posted proving Jesus' claim to deity. The challenge was to read what was written and simply comment on its possible meaning without making all sorts of outlandish claims (including attacking the KJV). Only one person ("muslimah") seemed up to the challenge and I commended her for it.

when all else fails blame the one who is sharing the information.I did not attack the KJV your own scholars inside the Bible did.The commiiee of transalators abot thrity of them .Do you not know the story so you have to blame others go and learn your own religion and you can come back and discuss.
Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf was one of the most eminent conservative biblical scholars of the nineteenth century. One of his greatest lifelong achievements was the discovery of the oldest known Biblical manuscript know to mankind, the "Codex Sinaiticus," from Saint Catherine's Monastery in Mount Sinai. This was one of the manuscripts which influenced the Christian recognition of the need to produce the RSV Bible. One of the most devastating discoveries made from the study of this fourth century manuscript was that the gospel of Mark originally ended at verses 16:8 and not at verse 16:20 as it does today. In other words, the last 12 verses (Mark 16:9 through Mark 16:20) were "injected" by the Church into the Bible sometime after the 4th century. This conclusion was supported by the fact that the early Church fathers of the second century C.E. such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen never quoted these verses. Later on, it was also discovered that the said 12 verses, wherein lies the account of "the resurrection of Jesus," do not appear in codices Syriacus, Vaticanus and Bobiensis. Originally, the "Gospel of Mark" contained no mention of the "resurrection of Jesus" (Mark 16:9-20). At least four hundred years (if not more) after the departure of Jesus, the Church, by way of father Ariston, received divine "inspiration" to add the story of the resurrection to the end of this Gospel and then allow Christianity to attribute these inserted verses to "Mark."

The author of "Codex Sinaiticus" had no doubt that the Gospel of Mark came to an end at Mark 16:8, to emphasize this point we find that immediately following this verse he brings the text to a close with a fine artistic squiggle and the words "The Gospel according to Mark." Tischendorf was a staunch conservative Christian and as such he managed to casually brush this discrepancy aside since in his estimation the fact that Mark was not an apostle nor an eye witness to the ministry of Jesus made his account secondary to those of the apostles such as Matthew and John. However, as seen elsewhere in this book, the majority of Christian scholars today recognize the writings of Paul to be the oldest of the writings of the Bible. These are closely followed by the "Gospel of Mark" and the "Gospels of Matthew and Luke" are almost universally recognized to have been based upon the "Gospel of Mark." This discovery was the result of centuries of detailed and painstaking studies by these Christian scholars and the details can not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that most reputable Christian scholars today recognize this as a basic indisputable fact.

Today, the translators and publishers of our modern Bibles are beginning to be a little more forthright and honest with their readers. As we have just seen, although they may not simply openly admit that these twelve verses were forgeries of the Church and not the word of God, still, at least they are beginning to draw the reader's attention to the fact that there are two "versions" of the "Gospel of Mark" and then leave the reader to decide what to make of these two "versions."

Now the question becomes "if the Church has tampered with the Gospel of Mark, then did they stop there or is there more to this story?. As it happens, Tischendorf also discovered that the "Gospel of John" has been heavily reworked by the Church over the ages.
This is your bible scholar the author of the Codex Sinaiticus who is saying this and there is loads more form others.Is he a lying scribe too.
Peace

 

[Bevlina]

This is getting monotonous.

 

[ChrisLockhart]

There is question among many scholars regarding the quality of the translation in the KJV of the bible as well as any translation after, and particularly after. There is also question regarding which source texts would be the most accurate. Scholars of various (similiar and different) spiritual convictions have various opinions on these issues.

As the KJV is the most widely trusted translation, and perhaps the most accurate and utilising some of the best source texts.. it is necessary for those who put together newer translations to explain those points at which they differ from the KJV. They have strong reason and justification.

The point that you are taking a lot of time to make is that there is strong evidence that some sections of the bible, particularly the KJV, are suspect in the eyes of modern bible scholars.

caller_to_truth, though through near-antagonistic delivery, has good reason for bringing up these points for the Quran states..

[2:79] Therefore, woe to those who distort the scripture with their own hands, then say, "This is what GOD has revealed," seeking a cheap material gain. Woe to them for such distortion, and woe to them for their illicit gains.

With the conflicting statements between those who produce these various translations and justify their changes, and the opinions of those who hold fast to the KJV, etc.. etc.. It is easy to see how Christians are lead astray by those "who distort the scripture"

How can we, as Christians, feel safe believing what we believe, when there are so many parts of the Holy Bible that are suspect? That's the real question here.

The answer is multi-faceted. but the main thing is the lack of real significance in these changes to begin with. None of these changes in translation affect the major messages, precepts and beliefs of Christianity. Furthermore, none of the changes that have affect on interpretation have the power to unravel the whole sweater, regardless.

 

[Bevlina]

Show your proof

Show proof of what?

 

[azri]

Show proof of what?

Of this

How would you like it if we were to say mohammed was visited by a demon angel?

 

[peaceful soul]

Show proof of what?

Of this

How would you like it if we were to say mohammed was visited by a demon angel?

It is obvious from Biblical accounts that no angel ever behaved in the manner that was mentioned with Mohammad. Angels do not squeeze or force people to do things. Angels are not spirits either.

So a simple conclusion has to be that Mohammad was not visited by an angel of God. It had to be the enemy then by default - satan. We can substantiate the behavior of angels by investigating the many occurences recorded in the Bible and see if there is a consistency in their behavior.

 

[xxdaggerxx]

can you guys please get back to the topic?

 

[azri]

It is obvious from Biblical accounts that no angel ever behaved in the manner that was mentioned with Mohammad. Angels do not squeeze or force people to do things. Angels are not spirits either.

So a simple conclusion has to be that Mohammad was not visited by an angel of God. It had to be the enemy then by default - satan. We can substantiate the behavior of angels by investigating the many occurences recorded in the Bible and see if there is a consistency in their behavior.

If he is satan, why then the message he brought to Muhammad (pbuh) (the Quran) told us to worship God.

 

[peaceful soul]

If he is satan, why then the message he braught to Muhammad (pbuh) (the Quran) told us to worship God.

Is that your basis of logic? That just proves that you do not know the ways that satan works. I, as a Christian understand the tactics a lot better than you. All it takes is one or two small changes in a statement to make it false. If you are not listening well, you may miss those key indicators. Even worse, if you do not know what to look for, you are doomed altogether.

The spiritual realm is a very tricky proposition. The Bible teaches us that not all things that appear to be good actually are. Furthermore, all things that are seen as good by man are not of God, but all things that are of God are in fact good. Now digest that.

Now hopefully your question makes a bit mores sense when you consider that satan fools you by getting you to focus on god but not telling you that the truth is that God can only be known by a certain means that he failed to tell you. That is deception. Yes, it sounds good that you are encouraged to seek and worship god but the downfall is that you were not directed to the correct god. So, you are all happy, while yet to discover the deception.

Had you known better, you would have avoided that pitfall; but since you did not, you just continued to think that you were OK and knew the truth. Honestly, the truth to you is what you had been told. If you had no way of proving that is truth, you may be eternally confined to what you see as truth.

The Bible gives us ways to test whether the scriptures are of God or not. It is a purely spiritual test. For us, there is some recourse to know truth of God. We just do not quote text. We actually test the scriptures to see their validity. And, it is astounding when we let faith loose and confirm the scriptures as we are guided by the Holy Spirit.

Just remember that satan is in the business of fooling us. All of us are vulneralbe to his deception. We have no defense against him except through the power of Holy Spirit, which is through Christ. It is Christ that opens our eyes to the knowledge and understanding of our enemy. I hope that gives you some insight.

 

[azri]

The key message of God is to worship God alone (monothiesm). Yes, we should focus our worship on God alone ( not The Son, not the spirit, not the statue, not the image or anything else).

Just remember that satan is in the business of fooling us. All of us are vulneralbe to his deception. We have no defense against him except through the power of Holy Spirit, which is through Christ. It is Christ that opens our eyes to the knowledge and understanding of our enemy. I hope that gives you some insight.

I'll remember that. Thanks. God alone can open our knowledge, no need for power of others since He is Almighty.

 

[Bevlina]

azri, may I ask how old you are?

 

[azri]

32

 

[Bevlina]

Thankyou azri. Sorry to go off topic here.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by azri

The key message of God is to worship God alone (monothiesm).

There is nothing special about that. Many religions have that same premise.

Yes, we should focus our worship on God alone ( not The Son, not the spirit, not the statue, not the image or anything else).

That depends upon how God really exists: not on how you want Him to or believe Him to exist. Images, statues: I do not worship them. I only worship God in spirit. I think that you know that by now.

I'll remember that. Thanks. God alone can open our knowledge, no need for power of others since He is Almighty.

One problem: You can not know how he functions if you do not have the eyes of Christ to show you. The quote is true, but is conditional upon you knowing God to begin with. That is the tricky part: having surety that you are not being decieved as I illustrated. Both of us claim to be following the true god. We both have our proofs. What gives?

 

[Ave Maria]

It was either an angel or Jesus.