Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Translation is not necessarily eroneous interpretation. As long as the intended message and principle are maintained, the authenticity of divine inspiration is retained. However, what your pastor shared with you imo, also esembles more opinion than fact.
Why do you say that. We all know that the original word was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. So, I saw what he was saying was fact in regard to which translation is God's inspired word.
"ALL scripture is given by Inspiration (breath) Of God.."
But Not ALL Scripture Is The Command Of God.
God Can Breath Without Speaking Anything.
God Breathed Into Adam And I Didn't Make Him Inerrant Nor Infallible.
"ALL scripture Is given By Inspiration of God And Is Profitable For Doctrine..."
But, Not All Scripture Is Doctrine.
Anyway, when Jesus' disciples spoke of Scripture?
They were referring to what The Prophets said.
Jesus disciples often quoted The Prophets as the scriptures believed for
what we know as The Prophecies for The New Testament Or New Covenant Jesus came to bring.
No where did Jesus Disciples ever refer to what they wrote as 'scriptures'
unless they were quoting or discussing The Prophecies of The Prophets that were 'promised'.
"ALL scripture is given by Inspiration (breath) Of God.."
But Not ALL Scripture Is The Command Of God.
God Can Breath Without Speaking Anything.
God Breathed Into Adam And I Didn't Make Him Inerrant Nor Infallible.
"ALL scripture Is given By Inspiration of God And Is Profitable For Doctrine..."
But, Not All Scripture Is Doctrine.
Anyway, when Jesus' disciples spoke of Scripture?
They were referring to what The Prophets said.
Jesus disciples often quoted The Prophets as the scriptures believed for
what we know as The Prophecies for The New Testament Or New Covenant Jesus came to bring.
No where did Jesus Disciples ever refer to what they wrote as 'scriptures'
unless they were quoting or discussing The Prophecies of The Prophets that were 'promised'.
Wow...Someone that actually understands the difference...
Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from itâ€
Proverbs 30:6 "Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar"
Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this Book".
Why?
Psalms 119: 160 “The entirety of Your word is truthâ€
Proverbs 30:5-6: “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.â€
In the Scriptures it speaking about the Law (Commands)...In Revelation it speaking solely of the Prophecy of Revelation...
"ALL scripture is given by Inspiration (breath) Of God.."
But Not ALL Scripture Is The Command Of God.
God Can Breath Without Speaking Anything.
God Breathed Into Adam And I Didn't Make Him Inerrant Nor Infallible.
"ALL scripture Is given By Inspiration of God And Is Profitable For Doctrine..."
But, Not All Scripture Is Doctrine.
Anyway, when Jesus' disciples spoke of Scripture?
They were referring to what The Prophets said.
Jesus disciples often quoted The Prophets as the scriptures believed for
what we know as The Prophecies for The New Testament Or New Covenant Jesus came to bring.
No where did Jesus Disciples ever refer to what they wrote as 'scriptures'
unless they were quoting or discussing The Prophecies of The Prophets that were 'promised'.
Good job. It's sad that people would rather believe a lie over the truth as spoon fed into them by their elders, pastors, religious publications (which are opinions too), and not investigate the bible for themselves.
Those who for instance stand by every last word of the Koran - believing that it is the ultimate word of God are off the mark...I am sure there are some very wise things in the Koran that are useful to humanity- and of course there are things that are destructive - out dated...and barbaric. As for the Christian bible--- the New Testament has some brilliant passages..most of it is cluttered up with letters from Saint Paul...who never met Jesus...so I look at those parts with some reservation. Also there are the ancient gnostic writings - such as the book of Judas..and the sayings of Christ to mention a couple...The "church" for political reasons did remove and edit the bible...to suit it's own agenda...This took place over a period of a thousand years...
So it is actually impossible to say that the Koran or the Bible is the ultimate and true word of God. There are bits that come close to what might be divine knowledge or "the word of God"...God does not use a human voice nor does God use writing to communicate......God is beyond those things. We all know what is good and what is of God and his goodness...that message is stamped on the human heart.
If God wrote a book of instruction - or a formula - or invented a type of glue that bound humanity together...that book might contain two words.....Truth (reality) - Love....and that would pretty much ensure a more heavenly existence for all of us on earth...on earth as it is in heaven.
So many of you want to claim the bible is not all God's word or some variation of it not being something we should follow. Please tell us what parts of the bible is not correct? Which part is wrong? Which part must we reject? Be specific and give book, chapter and verse of the parts of the bible you reject and why.
Lol, actually, Aramaic IS a combination of languages like spanglish but, ebonics (like jive) didn't exist at that time. It was a common language spoken by peoples of several areas so they could communicate.
I'd have to check to see what the peoples of spain spoke at that time. (not necessarily spanish, idk how old that language is.)
Spanish evolvex from the Vulgar Latin that was imposed on the indigenous tribes in that area, Aquitania I believe it was called by the Romans...Romance languages are relatively recent and include French, Portuguese, Romanian and I believe Sicilian...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
