• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Really? Trinity?

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟103,630.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

THE special features of this New Testament may best be understood from a short statement of the design with which it was originally executed and is now again sent forth. The translator had been favoured to become acquainted with a class of Bible readers who were anxious above all things to get as near as possible to the simple, Apostolic (as distinguished from the mediaeval or modern) point of view from which to study the Christian Scriptures; and who were able, he believed, to use with thoughtfulness and care some more suitable means to this end than any public version, however excellent, could in the nature of things be. His purpose was to aid such readers as these.
It naturally grew out of this design, to translate from a purer Greek Text than the so-called Received; and further to adopt a style of Translation closer and less traditional than would otherwise have been proper. The fact that the now lamented Dr. S. P. Tregelles had devoted a life-time of faithful toil to the establishment of a Greek Text upon ancient authorities alone, led to the selection of his Text, in preference to that of Scholz, Tischendorf, or any other scholar, as being wholly congenial with the special object the translator had in view; and, having made this choice, it was the plainest dictate of respect for the judgment of this distinguished scholar to follow his guidance implicitly in all matters affecting the exact wording of the Sacred Original.
It is important, however, to bear well in mind the clear distinction between Greek readings and English renderings. It is one thing to determine what Greek ought to be preferred, and manifestly quite another to settle and apply the principles on which, when chosen, it shall for any given purpose be represented in English. This distinction precisely indicates where relative responsibility begins and ends. In the present case, the translator was glad to feel no responsibility whatever as to the Greek Text, beyond that of deciding what Editor to follow; but, on the other hand, the entire responsibility of conceiving and executing this version rests on the translator alone. It would be unjust to allow it to be supposed that either Dr. Tregelles or his friends were in any way concerned in the production of this work, especially seeing that, while extremely literal, it departs considerably from the beaten track. It is true that some of the most striking results discoverable in the following pages are directly owing to variations in the original; but, more often than not, it is the reverse, and the difference is due to the individual judgment of the translator in dealing with the text before him and resorting for the sake of exactness to unwonted forms of rendering.
This last statement reminds the translator of the weight of his own burden, from which, he now takes leave to say, he has seen no good cause to shrink. He intended from the first to go considerably beyond merely giving the results of what is commonly termed textual criticism. He sought to give distinct help to such as wished to come to the Apostolic Writings with as little conventionalism as possible. His conviction that there was such a class, sufficiently large to claim regard, has been happily confirmed by the acceptance given to this work. From the scholar, using it for comparison in his own reading of the original; from the missionary, giving it welcome as a help among the heathen; from the village preacher, telling of the flood of light thrown by it on the Good News of God as set forth in the great Epistle to the Romans; even from the humble countrywoman, begging to have it read to her again and again; from these and such as these have testimonies come, proving that the translator's labour has not been altogether in vain. It is simple gratitude to say this.
A suitable return has been attempted in the improvements introduced into this second edition. The entire text of the translation has been subjected to a careful revision; and the idiom has been cautiously softened, here and there, where it could be done without material loss of exactness.
In cases of importance, the readings of the Sinai MS. have been given, at the foot, throughout the Gospels ; as this part of the Greek Text had not, when printed, received the advantage of a comparison with this famous and venerable copy. A collation of the results previously arrived at with the Sinai readings will interest many.
As the Greek Editor had sometimes set down one reading in his text and another in his margin, in deference to nearly a balance of evidence, it was felt to be more scrupulously fair to him to give some indication of this fact in translation. Accordingly a selection of such "alternative readings" will here be found, although of course only in English. In no case has any attempt been made to show what the evidence is for or against text or margin. Results only have been dealt with: it appeared best to say precisely how.
Various minor improvements introduced into this Edition will be obvious at a glance; such as the greater neatness of the underscored lines, the addition of a series of select references, and the division of the Gospels and Acts into sections with headings and parallels. The Epistles have been left unbroken, inviting repeated perusal from end to end at a sitting. Finally, the Introduction has been wholly rewritten, to adapt it to wider and more practical usefulness. Containing now the pith of the scattered notes on Emphasis given in the First Edition, room has been made for the references and for some additional notes. The critical explanations attached to the new Introduction will make plain to the Scholar the exact principles on which this Translation has been emphasised, and the slight modifications which further study has induced.
LONDON, 1878.



Internet References

The New Testament, Newly Translated [from the Greek Text of Tregelles] and Critically Emphasised, with Introduction and Occasional Notes, by Joseph B. Rotherham. Twelfth Edition, Revised. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1893. Also here.
The Emphasized New Testament New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1897.
The Emphasised Bible. A New Translation designed to set forth the exact meaning, the proper terminology and the graphic style of the sacred originals; arranged to show at a glance narrative, speech, parallelism, and logical analysis, also to enable the student readily to distinguish the several divine names; and emphasised throughout after the idioms of the Hebrew and Greek tongues, with expository introduction, select references, and appendices of notes. By Joseph Bryant Rotherham. London: H.R. Allenson, 1902. “This version has been adjusted, in the Old Testament, to the newly revised 'Massoretico-critical' text (or assured emendations) of Dr. Ginsburg; and, in the New Testament, to the critical text ('formed exclusively on documentary evidence') of Drs. Westcott and Hort.”
Review of the Empasized Bible by Charles R. Erdman in Princeton Theological Review 4 (1906) p. 573-6.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,128
6,153
EST
✟1,151,696.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Trinitarians don't like Rotherham's version because Rotherham leaves medieval and modern concepts out of his translation. They prefer highly modified versions, like the KJV, that try and squeeze trinity and Jesus is God into the bible. although they don't succeed, they do succeed in making the word of God look like at times that God is suggesting that Jesus is god.


Rotherham Bible Download

People who want a Trinitarian modified bible will be appalled when reading Rotherham'sversion.
Trinitarians hate the Rotherham translation. people who know that Jesus is not God tend to find it the most accurate. I sometimes don't quote the Rotherham version because Trinitarians, instead of responding to the issue, will all get in a huff over Rotherham's translation falsely caliming that he knows nothing about greek. Instead of looking up other versions, what commentaries say, no they dismiss an argument cause you quoted Rotherham. So sometimes I go to other highly accurate ssources that will say the same thing.

dodge and weave. that SOP is used a whole lot.

Wonder if anyone can explain to me how someone who could not decline a Greek verb if their life depended on it and don't know the difference between an aorist and an aardvark could know if any English translation of the N.T. is the "most accurate?"
 
Upvote 0

ron4shua

" ... each in our own order " , Hallelu-YAH .
Aug 3, 2014
2,599
486
Sacramento valley
Visit site
✟27,507.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Here's three witnesses the ( YLT ) , ( MOUNCE ) & my choice , ( ISR ) . All of my wtness testify the same .
The Scriptures (ISR)

Here's your's , The Emphasized Bible

Now check yours against my three witness for pagan crud .

Words with Heathen Origins in the Scriptures

3 who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might -- through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest,
ttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=YLT&search=Hebrews 1


Hebrews 1:3 (MOUNCE) | In Context | Whole Chapter

3 This hos Son is eimi the radiance apaugasma of his ho glory doxa and kai the exact representation charaktēr of ho his autos nature hypostasis, and te although sustaining pherō · ho all there is pas by ho the word rhēma of ho his autos power dynamis, yet made poieō purification katharismos for ho sins hamartia, and then sat down kathizō at en the right hand dexios of the ho Majesty megalōsynē on en high hypsēlos,
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews 1:3

I'm sorry 2ducklow , your chosen version translation is the prize winner for the most corrucpt incorrect biosed I've ever abused my eyes with , out of the FIFTY PLUS I've studied cover to cover , bar none .

Good luck sieving any of our Elohim's truth from that masterpiece or fictitious error .
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟103,630.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Hi,
Do any of you know of an easy to read, but nearly totally accurate Bible? One of course that is not controversial?
LOVE and love,
...Kate.,

P.S. This will help someone here, to have a good source to learn from now, from now on. Remember solutions to problems are as important or more so, than finding problems some of the time.
LOVE and love,
...Katerina., .... .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
1 cor 14.12


1902 Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (EBR)

1 Corinthians 14





14:12 So, ye, also—since ye are, envious, of spirits, unto the upbuilding of the assembly, seek to be pre-eminent.

the greek word in question is pneuma. pneuma means spirit, it doesn't mean spiritual gifts. So guess how most all bibles translate 1 cor. 14.12? they translate pneuma to mean something it doesn't mean, spiritual gifts.

Rotherham is one of the few that get it right, but not the only one.

here's an old catholic bible that agrees with Rotherham.

1 cor. 14.12 So you also, forasmuch as you are zealous of spirits, seek to abound unto the edifying of the church. Douay-Rheims catholic.

heres what most bibles change it to.

1 cor 14.12 So also ye, since ye are zealous of spiritual [gifts], seek that ye may abound unto the edifying of the church. (ASV).

At least the ASV and the KJV put gifts in brackets and italics, there way of indicating it isn't in the bible, most don't even do that.

And this is the sort of thing I have run into over and over and over comparing Rotherham and other good translations with the Greek. All you guys can say it's bad cause it's from Rotherham. Is Rotherham bad when his translation agrees with your pet translation???? He agrees with them more than disagrees with them. So all this Rotherham is bad is just a smoke screen to evade examining why he is different when he is different. That way one doesn't have to face the facts. one doesn't have to face the fact that the word pneuma is in 1 cor. 14.12 and not chasimata. one just says hey Rotherham is bad translation.

So like what is so different about rotherhams
correct word order "So ye also," and Douay_rheims's incorrect word order, but more like how we would say it "So also ye," you guys are arguing that putting it in proper Greek word order changes the meaning. That's ridiculous. So ye also, and so also ye are equally understandable. And it's the same across the board where Rotherham is closer to Greek word order, It's understandable just as understandable as other translations, it's just not in our word order.

matter of fact YLT and Rotherham quite often agree. But not on 1 cor. 14.12. YLT blows it big time.

12 so also ye, since ye are earnestly desirous of spiritual gifts, for the building up of the assembly seek that ye may abound

so all you guys have to do to accept YLT is say Rotherham is a bad bad bad translation. that way you don't have to look up what word is being translated spirit by Rotherham and spiritual gifts by YLT. just say Rotherham is bad bad bad.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,028
431
65
Orlando, Florida
✟60,051.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wonder if anyone can explain to me how someone who could not decline a Greek verb if their life depended on it and don't know the difference between an aorist and an aardvark could know if any English translation of the N.T. is the "most accurate?"

I would offer that 47 scholars, (men with PHDs four hundred years ago when that probably MEANT something), many of them who not only SPOKE Greek, but were actually adept enough to DEBATE theology IN Greek, spent SEVEN years devoting themselves to the translation of the KJV.

And how about THIS concept.

Has English EVOLVED? Is it the SAME today as it was, let's say, five hundred years ago?

And we can apply the SAME concept to ANY language. Languages EVOLVE over TIME. New words are added. Old words take on NEW definitions. Slang and such.

So I would ask, "Is the Greek spoken TODAY the SAME as the Greek spoken, let's say, FOUR HUNDRED years ago? Would those who were fluent in Greek FOUR HUNDRED years ago have spoken a PURER form of the language than what is USED today?

And another IDEA to contemplate. Exactly WHEN did the 'changes' in languages begin to CHANGE rapidly? You know. Like literature began to FLOURISH when man invented the PRINTING press. But that increase was NOTHING compared to the time of the electronic printers of the 80's. Heck, I can still remember when anything that was printed was TYPED by hand or type SET by hand. Now I can print hundreds of copies from MY OWN personal printer and it prints type at a speed that didn't exist thirty years ago.

So, with this concept in mind, WHEN did languages such as Greek REALLY begin to CHANGE?

I would offer that the Greek of four hundred years ago would have been MUCH CLOSER to the Greek of two thousand years ago than that spoken TODAY.

That in and of itself would cause PROBLEMS with MODERN day translators of the language compared to those of four hundred years ago. The understanding would be DIFFERENT.

And in MY opinion, the DEGRADATION of the very 'spirit of man' in four hundred years makes me SUSPECT of just about ANYTHING to do with TRUE faith in a TRUE God NOW days. We already discussed my opinion that maybe we've ALL been DUPED. Maybe some or NONE of the 47 scholars that spent seven years, (without PAY), translating the KJV were DUPED yet EXCEPT for their belief in "trinity". But only allowed their BELIEFS to SLIGHTLY taint their translation. You know, an altered word here, a capital letter in the wrong place there.

And it is my PERSONAL experience that what I have gained from reading the KJV verses others is that there is MORE IN the KJV. With 'lighter' translations men introduce SPECIFIC ideas rather then offering the words as they originally existed. When I compare different versions MYSELF, it is OBVIOUS that the shear AMOUNT of understanding becomes LIMITED when men choose to make it EASIER to read, (as is so often offered a REASON to re-translate the Bible).

Yes, the KJV has gone through it's 'changes' as well. But I still BELIEVE that it's closer than any OTHER version I have read. And there are a NUMBER of 'reasons' that I BELIEVE this.

And when you start doing a LITTLE research about those that have created many of the more MODERN versions, you find pretty quickly that there have been some SERIOUSLY questionable individuals involved with the translations. Homosexuals, women, those of some seriously questionable BELIEFS. And there can be LITTLE doubt that what one BELIEVES will certainly have an influence on THEIR 'translation'. Heck we SEE that people READING the various Bibles rarely come to any MUTUAL understanding when people of various ideology are involved. In other words, someone GAY is certainly NOT going to come to the SAME understanding, reading the SAME Bible, as someone that is NOT. Heck, the fact that YOU SEE 'trinity' IN the Bible and I DO NOT just goes to prove my point.

And that adds a whole NEW dimension to the equation. Does it REALLY matter WHICH translation one reads if they are not willing or able to allow the Holy Spirit to be their GUIDE? But that is a whole other 'can of worms'.

Suffice is to say that I have done some homework about different translations and the one that I would choose from the evidence is the KJV. It is MY belief that those that translated the KJV did their BEST to translate it as accurately as possible from the documents they used to translate it.

Now, let others tell us WHY they believe OTHER translations are MORE accurate.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

TheBarrd

Teller of tales, writer of poems, singer of songs
Mar 1, 2015
4,955
1,746
Following a Jewish Carpenter
✟14,104.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
I would offer that 47 scholars, (men with PHDs four hundred years ago when that probably MEANT something), many of them who not only SPOKE Greek, but were actually adept enough to DEBATE theology IN Greek, spent SEVEN years devoting themselves to the translation of the KJV.

And how about THIS concept.

Has English EVOLVED? Is it the SAME today as it was, let's say, five hundred years ago?

And we can apply the SAME concept to ANY language. Languages EVOLVE over TIME. New words are added. Old words take on NEW definitions. Slang and such.

So I would ask, "Is the Greek spoken TODAY the SAME as the Greek spoken, let's say, FOUR HUNDRED years ago? Would those who were fluent in Greek FOUR HUNDRED years ago have spoken a PURER form of the language than what is USED today?

And another IDEA to contemplate. Exactly WHEN did the 'changes' in languages begin to CHANGE rapidly? You know. Like literature began to FLOURISH when man invented the PRINTING press. But that increase was NOTHING compared to the time of the electronic printers of the 80's. Heck, I can still remember when anything that was printed was TYPED by hand or type SET by hand. Now I can print hundreds of copies from MY OWN personal printer and it prints type at a speed that didn't exist thirty years ago.

So, with this concept in mind, WHEN did languages such as Greek REALLY begin to CHANGE?

I would offer that the Greek of four hundred years ago would have been MUCH CLOSER to the Greek of two thousand years ago than that spoken TODAY.

That in and of itself would cause PROBLEMS with MODERN day translators of the language compared to those of four hundred years ago. The understanding would be DIFFERENT.

And in MY opinion, the DEGRADATION of the very 'spirit of man' in four hundred years makes me SUSPECT of just about ANYTHING to do with TRUE faith in a TRUE God NOW days. We already discussed my opinion that maybe we've ALL been DUPED. Maybe some or NONE of the 47 scholars that spent seven years, (without PAY), translating the KJV were DUPED yet EXCEPT for their belief in "trinity". But only allowed their BELIEFS to SLIGHTLY taint their translation. You know, an altered word here, a capital letter in the wrong place there.

And it is my PERSONAL experience that what I have gained from reading the KJV verses others is that there is MORE IN the KJV. With 'lighter' translations men introduce SPECIFIC ideas rather then offering the words as they originally existed. When I compare different versions MYSELF, it is OBVIOUS that the shear AMOUNT of understanding becomes LIMITED when men choose to make it EASIER to read, (as is so often offered a REASON to re-translate the Bible).

Yes, the KJV has gone through it's 'changes' as well. But I still BELIEVE that it's closer than any OTHER version I have read. And there are a NUMBER of 'reasons' that I BELIEVE this.

And when you start doing a LITTLE research about those that have created many of the more MODERN versions, you find pretty quickly that there have been some SERIOUSLY questionable individuals involved with the translations. Homosexuals, women, those of some seriously questionable BELIEFS. And there can be LITTLE doubt that what one BELIEVES will certainly have an influence on THEIR 'translation'. Heck we SEE that people READING the various Bibles rarely come to any MUTUAL understanding when people of various ideology are involved. In other words, someone GAY is certainly NOT going to come to the SAME understanding, reading the SAME Bible, as someone that is NOT. Heck, the fact that YOU SEE 'trinity' IN the Bible and I DO NOT just goes to prove my point.

And that adds a whole NEW dimension to the equation. Does it REALLY matter WHICH translation one reads if they are not willing or able to allow the Holy Spirit to be their GUIDE? But that is a whole other 'can of worms'.

Suffice is to say that I have done some homework about different translations and the one that I would choose from the evidence is the KJV. It is MY belief that those that translated the KJV did their BEST to translate it as accurately as possible from the documents they used to translate it.

Now, let others tell us WHY they believe OTHER translations are MORE accurate.

Blessings,

MEC


What in God's Holy Name would someone's gender have to do with their ability to translate a language? Or their lack of said ability?
You know, I'm beginning to suspect that you might have issues with your own sexuality. Maybe you're a closet homosexual. Why else would you keep hammering on women and homosexuals?
We don't know you...all we know of you is the words you type. And there seems to be a lot of animosity toward women in those words, and against homosexuals too. That does indicate a problem.
A man who is secure in his own manhood doesn't have to prove himself by belittling others.
 
Upvote 0

TheBarrd

Teller of tales, writer of poems, singer of songs
Mar 1, 2015
4,955
1,746
Following a Jewish Carpenter
✟14,104.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
So, what of all the men who believe in that Christ is God in the flesh? You know, this isn't a purely feminine notion. Loads of very macho men believe in it and teach it.
Those 47 phds evidently believed in it.
Most of the guys on this board believe in it.
Plenty of very intelligent, well read men believe in it.
The "spirit of Adam" evidently has no problem with the concept.
Why do you, Magician? It certainly has nothing to do with your gender...since so many Christian men disagree with you.
 
Upvote 0

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,028
431
65
Orlando, Florida
✟60,051.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
TheBarrd,

I read your response. I appreciate your candor. I would like to respond in this manner:

Are you HONESTLY going to try to indicate that an 11 year old's understanding or ABILITY to understand is equal to that of an adult? And how MUCH of what YOU didn't REALLY understand at the age of 11 became a PART of your continual misunderstanding by being FORCED to THINK what an eleven year old would THINK about ideas and concepts that they were incapable of TRULY understanding.

In other words, is your understanding TODAY merely an evolution of what you began to understand when you were eleven? Or is your understanding TODAY completely DIFFERENT? I would offer if it is the LATER, then you beginning to read the Bible at such an early age would offer that it was a DETRIMENT rather than a benefit so far as TRUTH is concerned.

Yes, I AM depressed. When I read the words offered in the Bible, I feel the SAME depression as it's authors and the statements that they recorded of the prophets, Christ and the apostles. All I need to DO is OPEN my eyes and recognize the personal destruction throughout this world, and it is depressing.

Is my life a wreck? Compared to the past, my life has NEVER been better.

While I struggle MORE today with finance and matters pertaining to be forced to live IN 'this world', my peace of mind and my purpose are more stable NOW than ever before. My life for the first thirty years, when I thought I could completely CONTROL it, WAS a COMPLETE 'wreck'. While I THOUGHT I was 'on top of the world, ma', the truth was, I was nothing other than a pawn of the 'enemy'. Once recognized and once I was willing to LET IT GO, things changed and have continued to change for the better. But I'm STILL depressed when I come in contact with 'the world'. Every soul I witness living like I use to pains me in a manner incomprehensible previously. Back then I would REVEL in the misery of others for it allowed ME to place myself in a BETTER position. You know, the more people BELOW you the closer YOU are to the TOP. It IS a 'dog eat dog' world in which we live. If you choose to take part in it.

If I wrongly sensed your depression or if I misinterpreted that 'spirit of Eve' that I felt I detected, I apologize. Wasn't meant to be an INSULT, it was shear observation. Regardless of what you may THINK, I am a pretty astute listener and learner. The LAST thing that I have a desire to DO is 'make up' things. My most sincere desire in this world is the TRUTH. Even when it's painful. Your words indicated something that I have commonly encountered when discussing issues of faith with 'women', (of ANY age), and that being an inherent rebellion against ANY man telling them ANYTHING they don't WANT to hear. I DO understand whether you are willing to admit it or not is irrelevant.

Won't attempt to bore you with a description of my IQ or 'how SMART I am'. But I will offer this: My words ARE me. As close as I can MAKE them ME. I'm not here to PRETEND to be anything other than what I am: 'a simple man with simple needs and simple understanding', willing to share what I have learned and what has been revealed. I leave it up to YOU to determine how BRILLIANT you believe I am or how SMART you want me to be.

But you DO mistake my authority with pride. Obviously you're not going to SEE it any differently and that is the MAIN reason that I mentioned that 'spirit of Eve'. For if you WERE the loving and understanding person you attempt to project, you would be ABLE to see the LOVE in my offerings instead of 'false pride'. You would RECOGNIZE the authority and APPRECIATE it rather than rebel against it. Just a bit of 'food for thought'. But I'm sure your being older than myself makes it quite difficult to be TOLD 'anything'.

But I'll bet that throughout your life you WILLINGLY attended 'man made churches' and WILLINGLY supported the pastors. You were willing to LISTEN to them. Because they TOLD you what you WANTED to hear. I would much rather share the TRUTH and LOVE with you than 'be your friend' so that you'll 'give me some money'.

'Trinity' teaches that YOUR God is capable of DYING. It also teaches that Christ was NOT 'created' by God. Yet Christ openly stated that God IS His Father. So the God of your 'trinity' is a SLICKSTER with WORDS. While USING the terms Father and Son, according to 'trinity', they don't really MEAN what do in EVERY other usage by man. They don't really MEAN that the Son is a product OF the Father. 'Trinity' insists upon a man made concept of 'eternal generation'. A term that has NO actually validity as concerns God's Word.

In essence, 'trinity' is a 'god of men's design' and I find it difficult to believe that so few that follow it are willing to admit it, (believe it or NOT, the doctrine as outlined BY those that created it ADMIT that it is INCOMPREHENSIBLE. It CANNOT be understood by ANY 'created intellect'. That means that even when accepted, it doesn't make ANY SENSE. It MUST be accepted PURELY by FAITH through divine revelation. Yet YOU and MOST others that profess to believe in it, would deny the very words of definition by those that "CREATED IT". How is that? More than ONE 'trinity'?)

Each person receiving this 'understanding' through divine revelation is given a DIFFERENT understanding? It is MY opinion that DIFFERENT understanding of God can ONLY come from DIFFERENT gods. And the Word itself states that there ARE INDEED, 'gods MANY'. While only one TRUE God, there are a myriad number of gods that have been 'created by men' or revealed as God by 'the enemy'.

I wonder what many think when the read that the Hebrews/Jews worshiped a 'god' that required them to burn their children alive? Do you BELIEVE that they were NOT 'inspired' to DO SO? Or do you believe that they merely 'took the chance'? That they were GUESSING that burning their children alive may PLEASE some 'unknown god'? I assure you that the answer is: They KNEW that they were PLEASING and FOLLOWING the god that inspired them to DO IT. And these: the CHOSEN of God Himself. Those that He chose to reveal Himself to FIRST. Yet even these were capable of being LED to follow and worship FALSE gods.

I suppose you believe we live in a BETTER world today than then? The ONLY difference is that we sacrifice our children in a DIFFERENT manner than that of those passing their children through the fire. We now simply 'feed them to this WORLD. Encourage them to 'make something of their lives' so far as their CAREERS and the amount of MONEY than can earn. And as we watch them destroy any semblance of a 'good life', we wonder, "what did we DO WRONG?" And the answer is that we basically led the THROUGH the fire simply in a DIFFERENT manner. We taught them to burn themselves up.

And I can ASSURE you that if we had been following the TRUE God and Father of Christ, this wouldn't even be a possibility. That leads to the realization that maybe we HAVEN'T been following the TRUE God and Father of Christ. For if we WERE, then we couldn't be in the shape that we are in so far as UNDERSTANDING is concerned.

You SAY you've read the Bible EVERY year since age 11. What would your response be if I told YOU that through DIRECT revelation of The Holy Spirit, I KNEW what you have SAID was 'untrue'? That you have NOT read the Bible ONCE a year since you were 11 years old?

I'll await your response. I would advise that clarification would be in order. I'll bet you REALLY wish you could, "spank my bottom NOW". LOL.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟103,630.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
The most well-known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1. The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it as “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.

There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.

1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "the dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.

2. When a noun functions as a predicate nominative (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as "is"), its case ending must match the noun's case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1 transliterates to "kai theos en ho logos." Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.

3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").

Read more: Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

TheBarrd

Teller of tales, writer of poems, singer of songs
Mar 1, 2015
4,955
1,746
Following a Jewish Carpenter
✟14,104.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
TheBarrd,

I read your response. I appreciate your candor. I would like to respond in this manner:

Are you HONESTLY going to try to indicate that an 11 year old's understanding or ABILITY to understand is equal to that of an adult? And how MUCH of what YOU didn't REALLY understand at the age of 11 became a PART of your continual misunderstanding by being FORCED to THINK what an eleven year old would THINK about ideas and concepts that they were incapable of TRULY understanding.

And yet we send our children to school as early as age five. How foolish of us. We obviously ought to wait until they are more mature...

In other words, is your understanding TODAY merely an evolution of what you began to understand when you were eleven? Or is your understanding TODAY completely DIFFERENT? I would offer if it is the LATER, then you beginning to read the Bible at such an early age would offer that it was a DETRIMENT rather than a benefit so far as TRUTH is concerned.

Oh, fevvinsakes...Magician, my understanding deepened as I grew, of course.
Why in God's Holy Name do we send our children to Sunday School?
And why do you think prayer was banned from the classroom?

Yes, I AM depressed. When I read the words offered in the Bible, I feel the SAME depression as it's authors and the statements that they recorded of the prophets, Christ and the apostles. All I need to DO is OPEN my eyes and recognize the personal destruction throughout this world, and it is depressing.

Ahh, at last...something we can agree on.
Well, sort of.
Your words to me indicated that you thought I was depressed in my personal life, not whether I thought the state of the world was depressing.
Are you, Magician, depressed or unhappy in your PERSONAL life?
I think you are.

Is my life a wreck? Compared to the past, my life has NEVER been better.

Compared to the past? So the past was not so good then?
Well, at least it's better now.
But I'm thinking it could be better yet...

While I struggle MORE today with finance and matters pertaining to be forced to live IN 'this world', my peace of mind and my purpose are more stable NOW than ever before. My life for the first thirty years, when I thought I could completely CONTROL it, WAS a COMPLETE 'wreck'. While I THOUGHT I was 'on top of the world, ma', the truth was, I was nothing other than a pawn of the 'enemy'. Once recognized and once I was willing to LET IT GO, things changed and have continued to change for the better. But I'm STILL depressed when I come in contact with 'the world'. Every soul I witness living like I use to pains me in a manner incomprehensible previously. Back then I would REVEL in the misery of others for it allowed ME to place myself in a BETTER position. You know, the more people BELOW you the closer YOU are to the TOP. It IS a 'dog eat dog' world in which we live. If you choose to take part in it.

I have a kid brother who once asked me why I dropped out of the rat race. (He expected me to have a shining career as a lawyer, since that is what I trained for, however, I chose to be a stay at home wife and mother instead.)
My answer to him...and this was some 25 years ago...was that I did not wish to race with rats.
Now, my brother does have a very successful career with his own business as an electrician. He has made a great deal of money, he owns several lovely houses, and he has bunches of money in the bank.
All of this and he is an atheist, and very unhappy.
My own feeling is that, while we all go through ups and downs in this world, how we handle them...and especially the "downs"...has a great deal to do with our attitude.
I choose not to get involved in dog fights...
Anyway, I also struggle with finances etc...but I know that such things are trivial. In the end, whatever we possess in this world will go "poof" anyhow. To truly be happy, one must keep one's treasure in Heaven.

If I wrongly sensed your depression or if I misinterpreted that 'spirit of Eve' that I felt I detected, I apologize. Wasn't meant to be an INSULT, it was shear observation. Regardless of what you may THINK, I am a pretty astute listener and learner. The LAST thing that I have a desire to DO is 'make up' things. My most sincere desire in this world is the TRUTH. Even when it's painful. Your words indicated something that I have commonly encountered when discussing issues of faith with 'women', (of ANY age), and that being an inherent rebellion against ANY man telling them ANYTHING they don't WANT to hear. I DO understand whether you are willing to admit it or not is irrelevant.

So I'm not the first gal who has told you where you can put your "authority".
How bout that?

Won't attempt to bore you with a description of my IQ or 'how SMART I am'. But I will offer this: My words ARE me. As close as I can MAKE them ME. I'm not here to PRETEND to be anything other than what I am: 'a simple man with simple needs and simple understanding', willing to share what I have learned and what has been revealed. I leave it up to YOU to determine how BRILLIANT you believe I am or how SMART you want me to be.

I will return the favor and not bore you with details about my own IQ...except to say this: I am not lacking.

But you DO mistake my authority with pride. Obviously you're not going to SEE it any differently and that is the MAIN reason that I mentioned that 'spirit of Eve'. For if you WERE the loving and understanding person you attempt to project, you would be ABLE to see the LOVE in my offerings instead of 'false pride'. You would RECOGNIZE the authority and APPRECIATE it rather than rebel against it. Just a bit of 'food for thought'. But I'm sure your being older than myself makes it quite difficult to be TOLD 'anything'.

First of all, what authority? You are not my husband or my father. It is pride that makes you think you have this non-existent authority.
Your continued reference to "the spirit of Eve" makes me giggle. Yeah...just like a girl.
Oh, I think you are trying to offer me "love"...as best you can, anyhow...however, if YOU were the loving and understanding person that YOU attempt to project, you would be able to see how offensive your attitude toward me as a woman truly is.
Christ never treated women any differently than men. And this in an age when women truly were "chattel". No, He spoke with them openly, just as if they were men.
Did you know that He had a great many female followers?
Did you know that the first person He showed Himself to after His resurrection was a woman?
Did you know that it was women who supported His ministry with their own finances?
Did you know that Paul commends several women who held positions of authority within the early church, even calling Junia an apostle, and "of note among the apostles"?
Had you read, in the OT, about Deborah (for whom I was named, btw)? Did you know that the brave warrior, Barak, would not go into battle without her? Did you know that it was a woman named Jael who killed Sisera (the guy who led the opposing force)?

No, Darling, you have no authority for me to recognize. God did not place you above me. This "authority" you think you have is your own imagination.
There are plenty of guys I respect and trust, and who I listen to. But they earned that respect and that trust. You have not done so yet. Perhaps you need to be delivered from that spirit of Adam that I detect in you.
Come to think of it, there are also women I respect and admire, and listen to. Again, they earned that respect.

But I'll bet that throughout your life you WILLINGLY attended 'man made churches' and WILLINGLY supported the pastors. You were willing to LISTEN to them. Because they TOLD you what you WANTED to hear. I would much rather share the TRUTH and LOVE with you than 'be your friend' so that you'll 'give me some money'.

What would you say if I told you that I stood up and walked out of a Baptist church? It was a Wednesday night "business meeting" Someone suggested that we allocate some money to some new literature for the Sunday School classes. There was some discussion as to how much money and which other items we might cut a bit to afford it, when the pastor said "not my salary!"
I have long held that denominationalism is a shame to the church.

No, I don't give money to any church, nor have I since I was a little kid, and that was money I was given for the purpose. Even then I wondered why God needed a quarter, but since my Dad seemed to think He did, I was willing to give it to Him.

'Trinity' teaches that YOUR God is capable of DYING. It also teaches that Christ was NOT 'created' by God. Yet Christ openly stated that God IS His Father. So the God of your 'trinity' is a SLICKSTER with WORDS. While USING the terms Father and Son, according to 'trinity', they don't really MEAN what do in EVERY other usage by man. They don't really MEAN that the Son is a product OF the Father. 'Trinity' insists upon a man made concept of 'eternal generation'. A term that has NO actually validity as concerns God's Word.

I think you need to look into what the doctrine really does teach.
Why do you suppose that Christ cried out "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me" just before He died?
Or why did the thief ask Him to remember him when He came into His Kingdom, or for that matter, how was He able to promise the thief that he would be in Paradise with Him "today" when He would not rise till the wee hours of Sunday morning?
How could He say to a paralytic that "Your sins are forgiven you"? It is true, you know...only God can forgive sins.
And the prostitute who washed His feet with her tears and dried them with the hair of her head...she knew Who He was. (Another woman...imagine that.)
You think that because the Bible doesn't contain the word "Trinity" that it doesn't teach a Trinity? It's just a word, fagoshsakes.
Tell me, is the Holy Spirit not God? Or do you believe in a "Binity"?
To be accurate, perhaps we ought to call God a 'Septity"...since Revelation mentions that He has seven spirits...

In essence, 'trinity' is a 'god of men's design' and I find it difficult to believe that so few that follow it are willing to admit it, (believe it or NOT, the doctrine as outlined BY those that created it ADMIT that it is INCOMPREHENSIBLE. It CANNOT be understood by ANY 'created intellect'. That means that even when accepted, it doesn't make ANY SENSE. It MUST be accepted PURELY by FAITH through divine revelation. Yet YOU and MOST others that profess to believe in it, would deny the very words of definition by those that "CREATED IT". How is that? More than ONE 'trinity'?)

Who says I deny it?
I present, as evidence, a poem I wrote years ago:
(yes, there is a reason I am called "TheBarrd")


Trinity


Lo, here is a mystery
Our God, Who is Three in One
Behold, the Holy Trinity
The Father, The Spirit and The Son
More than we can understand
How can such a strange thing be
We cannot, with the mind of man
Comprehend infinity
We must simply trust His Word
Believe that He is One in Three
For we know "Thus saith the Lord"
That is enough for you and me


continued in next post...
 
Upvote 0

TheBarrd

Teller of tales, writer of poems, singer of songs
Mar 1, 2015
4,955
1,746
Following a Jewish Carpenter
✟14,104.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
quote=Imagican;67137353]Each person receiving this 'understanding' through divine revelation is given a DIFFERENT understanding? It is MY opinion that DIFFERENT understanding of God can ONLY come from DIFFERENT gods. And the Word itself states that there ARE INDEED, 'gods MANY'. While only one TRUE God, there are a myriad number of gods that have been 'created by men' or revealed as God by 'the enemy'. [/quote]

Your opinion? Darling I hope you know that your opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's opinion.
You know what they say about opinions I trust?
(hint: everyone has one and most of 'em stink)

You can't say that something is not true because different people have different understandings of it...especially when we are talking about God. We believe in the same God, yet our understanding of Him is different for each of us. I think it has to do with how we experience Him.
Have you ever had a personal encounter with God?

For instance, I KNOW that there are angels who look after us, because of an NDE I had many years ago. But that's another subject for another thread...


I wonder what many think when the read that the Hebrews/Jews worshiped a 'god' that required them to burn their children alive? Do you BELIEVE that they were NOT 'inspired' to DO SO? Or do you believe that they merely 'took the chance'? That they were GUESSING that burning their children alive may PLEASE some 'unknown god'? I assure you that the answer is: They KNEW that they were PLEASING and FOLLOWING the god that inspired them to DO IT. And these: the CHOSEN of God Himself. Those that He chose to reveal Himself to FIRST. Yet even these were capable of being LED to follow and worship FALSE gods.

What does this have to do with the subject we are discussing?
What do I think when I read about Moloch? For beginners, I am disgusted. And I think that those Jews should not have let the people around them who did not know God influence them.

Suppose I told you that it was this story that got me involved in the fight against abortion in the first place? We are slaughtering over a million unborn children every year. Do we think God has changed His mind since the days of Moloch?
And yet, I'm told this is a "women's issue". Oh, puh-leeeeeze. Don't these kids have Daddies? And how many of the babes who are murdered, do you suppose, are boy babies?
If you ask me, for every abortion done, we ought to sterilize both parents...that would definitely cut down on the number of unwanted babies, don't you think?

I suppose you believe we live in a BETTER world today than then? The ONLY difference is that we sacrifice our children in a DIFFERENT manner than that of those passing their children through the fire. We now simply 'feed them to this WORLD. Encourage them to 'make something of their lives' so far as their CAREERS and the amount of MONEY than can earn. And as we watch them destroy any semblance of a 'good life', we wonder, "what did we DO WRONG?" And the answer is that we basically led the THROUGH the fire simply in a DIFFERENT manner. We taught them to burn themselves up.

And once again, we find ourselves in agreement.
Imagine that!

And I can ASSURE you that if we had been following the TRUE God and Father of Christ, this wouldn't even be a possibility. That leads to the realization that maybe we HAVEN'T been following the TRUE God and Father of Christ. For if we WERE, then we couldn't be in the shape that we are in so far as UNDERSTANDING is concerned.

Oh well...there was a shining moment there.
To this, let me say that, there are a great many people who claim to follow Christ who don't know Him at all.
And again...the things you are decrying can not be laid upon the shoulders of the church. Remember, God has been asked to remove Himself from public office in our country, just as He was in the days of Samuel.
And look what happened after God vacated the throne of Israel, at their request.
I don't see how any Christian could be surprised that the world is in such a state....

You SAY you've read the Bible EVERY year since age 11. What would your response be if I told YOU that through DIRECT revelation of The Holy Spirit, I KNEW what you have SAID was 'untrue'? That you have NOT read the Bible ONCE a year since you were 11 years old?

Oh, Hun...are you quite sure you want to go there?
Are you really calling me a liar?
Do you really want me to respond in kind?

Once again, let me very gently say that you do not know me.
I think perhaps that you might be projecting your own ideas into some imagined "revelation of the spirit".

And again, let me very very gently suggest that, if you do not know Who Jesus is, then how are you communicating with the comforter that He sent?

I'll await your response. I would advise that clarification would be in order. I'll bet you REALLY wish you could, "spank my bottom NOW". LOL.

I'll leave that spanking to God.
I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you...life seems to be intervening this morning...



Blessings,

MEC [/quote]
 
Upvote 0